A protestant friend of mine said that within the ark of the covenant, there were 66 stones(i think it is stones) of which he says represents the 66 books of the Bible. Has anyone heard of this notion before? What does the Church say they represent?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 31, 2005

Answers

bump

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 31, 2005.

Well that would be odd indeed, since the only Scripture that existed at the time consisted of 46 books, not 66. I'm sure the people would have been very puzzled about why they were required to lug around 66 stones, since the number 66 held no special significance for them whatsoever. And, when the Christian Bible was finally compiled hundreds of years later, it consisted of 73 books, not 66, as it still does. Ask your friend where he got his "information". As far as I know the number 66 doesn't appear anywhere in the entire Bible. Apparently it's just a legend intended to legitimize the trashing of seven books of Sacred Scripture in the 16'th Century.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2005.

I wont see my friend for another week so i'll ask him then. I'm kind of unclear if it were stones or not. It was a brief conversation i had with him. It was 66 of something anyways. I'll have to get back to you on this.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 31, 2005.

COUPLE of things Pail M doesnt mention.

1: The hebrew Bibel is NOT 46 books long. Its 39 Books Long. The additional Books he mentions, the 7 "deuterocanonical books" where written in the time after the lat prophet and not included int he Hebrew Cannon.

Pick up a Jewish Bible, see for yourself. it will have 39 books, not 46.

2: The only books available ot them at the time of the Ark of the Covenant where portions of the Torah. not en the compelte Torah. The ark was built before the records of the ark where written, so parts of the Bible that mention the ark of the Covrnant wherent even preasent yet, and all they had where the ten commandments and some basic laws.

The entire biok of deutoronomy was not yet penned, not even a jott was written of it.

At most they wodl have had only 5 books, and htats if they added the books after construction of the ark was finished.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.

The JPS 1917 Bible, online.

http://www.breslov.com/bible/

If you coun the New testaments 27 Books,you get to 66. Though I have no iea what the stoens are suppoe to be and never heard of them, the Hebrew Bible did not contain 46 books.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.

you also have to remember, however, that the hebrew cannon was compiled only after the christian bible was. the 7 books which appear in the catholic old testament were used as scriptures widely back then, Jesus even quotes them a couple of time (although similar quotes appear in a couple of other books, making this a minorly debateable point). at any rate, there certainly weren't 66 stones in the ark of the covenant, as that number has absolutely no significance for the people of the time.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

paul h, while I agree with you that not all of the Hebrew Bible was written at the time of the Ark of the Covenant, I have to disagree with your point when you say "hebrew cannon was compiled only after the christian bible was"

Why would you compare the entire Hebrew cannon to the single Christian Bible? I've done some searches online, so I'd appreciate if anyone else could fill in the details, but from what I've found:

• The first 5 books of the Hebrew Torah were cannonized sometime between the 10th to 6th century BC.
• The complete twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) corresponding in content to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament were canonized as early as 200 BC and as late as 200 AD
• The "Damasian list" from the early 6th century seems a reasonable 'final' cannonization of the Catholic Bible (but I'd appreciate more details on this one... It seems kid of late.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), January 31, 2005.

I found this page to be useful in counting the number of books included in various Bibles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

For the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh#Books_of_the_Tanakh

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), January 31, 2005.

Ok, i have to appologize cause i was way off on this. I bumped into my friend today and he was talking about the description in exodus of the temple in which the Ark was present, there were 66 buds on the candles or candle holders. He said they sometimes reference that to the 66 books later to be the number of "Inspired" books given to the Christians in the later era of the 16th Century.

I guess either way it is just a poor interpretation what the buds represented and their erronious thinking to suggest that the 7 extra books were a "mistake" by the Holy Spirit.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 31, 2005.

actually, Pat,

the catholic bible was compiled around 390 AD, and it is my understanding that the current koran was compiled after that fact. yes, there may have been other compilations before that, but the scriptures were not closed for the Judaic faith until after a definative catholic scripture existed.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

I htink you mean "The Tanahk". The Koran is from the 7th Century, and the Propeht Mohammad.

Ill fnd the date or the Tanahk tomororw oif I remmeber, I smtimes dotn keep obligatosn as I form too many.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.

Paul you mean “Torah” not “Koran”.

“The complete twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) corresponding in content to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament were canonized as early as 200 BC and as late as 200 AD.” (Pat)

Modern scholars of the history of Judaism reject this idea. ONE tradition of Judaism decided on that canon. But long after 200 AD, there were other major traditions within Judaism which had different canons. None of these canons had formal status, until the fifth century when the Jews agreed on a canon. They rejected some of the previously accepted books partly BECAUSE and as a reaction to the fact that the Catholics had included them in their canon. Later still they added other books written during the Christian era.

Interesting to note from that Wikipedia site:

- the wide variety of canons among different churches. Obviously the books are not self-evidently worthy of inclusion in the Bible as some protestants claim.

- that one of the books which Martin Luther wanted to exclude was St John’s Apocalypse (Revelation), that book so beloved of fundamentalist preachers because they claim it tells of God’s hatred of, and coming punishment of, the Catholic Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 31, 2005.

Paul you mean “Torah” not “Koran”.

um, yes... too much coffee, stress, and homework and too little sleep make paul a dull boy. just to be official i refer to the Torah above in case i confused anyone with my blunder. thank you zarove and steve.

None of these canons had formal status, until the fifth century when the Jews agreed on a canon. They rejected some of the previously accepted books partly BECAUSE and as a reaction to the fact that the Catholics had included them in their canon. Later still they added other books written during the Christian era.

this was my understanding, not until after 390 AD, when the catholic bible was compiled, was there any official establishment of a formal cannon of scripture accross the various branches of judaism.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 01, 2005.

Steve, thank you for your clarifications, this has helped me gain a better understanding of all of these texts and their relationships to one another. I'm sure I'll have even more questions from this.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 01, 2005.