|
Psalms 119:89 – "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
First of all – Let us look at inspiration. If only the original is inspired, we have no Bible today. Preservation has given us the Word of God we have today.
II Timothy 3:16,17 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." What is inspiration? The Greek word "theopneustic" or "breathed by God". Therefore the Bible is the breath of God, totally without error, as the breath or life of God is without error. Things we do not understand are not errors. The Bible does not just contain the Word of God; the Bible is the Word of God. II Peter 1:19-21 states, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Peter is stating that the New Testament proves the Old Testament is true. We do not interpret scripture according to our own thoughts, but we must interpret one scripture by referring to another scripture. Example: Gene Yockey asked me one time why I didn’t preach verse by verse, but "skipped around" in my preaching. Expository preaching is very good, but there are many verses that back up each other. Any doctrine we believe that is contradicted by another scripture is not God’s doctrine. Did men know what they were writing? Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn’t. Times they knew. Times they did not know.
How did the 66 books that make up the Bible today come together? Christ accepted the thirty-nine books of our Old Testament as constituting the written revelation that God had given up to that time. These books composed the "Scripture" (a term occurring twenty-three times in the New Testament) accepted by the Jews. It is believed they were collected and arranged by Ezra. They were translated from Hebrew into Greek some time before the advent of Christ. There can be no doubt that Christ accepted these books and no others as constituting the writings that God had inspired up to that time. He quoted from these books with the formula, "It is written." He referred to them as "Scripture." And He said, " . . . the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). On the other hand, neither Christ nor the apostles accepted the fourteen books and parts of books (known as the Apocrypha), most of which have been added to the Protestant Canon to make up the Old Testament in the Roman Catholic Bible (Douay Version). "And although there are in the New Testament about 263 direct quotations from and about 370 allusions to passages in the Old Testament, yet amongst all these there is not a single reference, either by Christ or His apostles, to the apocryphal writings" (Collett, All About the Bible, p. 50). Neither were these books received by the nation of Israel. On the other hand, God, in His own precious Word, tells us exactly what New Testament books (in addition to the four gospels) we should accept. Hebrews 1:1,2 reveals that God spoke in time past by his prophets, but in this time has spoken unto "us". Who are the "us"? II Peter 3:1-2 informs us we should accept only those New Testament books written by an apostle. Therefore we know that the "us" in Hebrews 1:1,2 is the apostles, and no other. **************************************** Canonicity All Christians will quickly agree that their faith is based on and grounded in the Bible. This statement makes sense since all Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. But how do we know what "the word of God" is? How do we distinguish this "word of God" from words of men? Who decided what will be scripture and what will not be scripture and how did they know? This is an important question. If we don't know where our Bible came from, then how can we know that it is the word of God? And even if we simply "accept by faith" that the Bible is the word of God, then how can we correctly interpret it if we know not from whence it came? This is also a very big question that I cannot answer fully. But I can provide an overview that I pray will be helpful. Helpful for aiding in an understanding of what God is saying, and helpful in knowing how God chose to forge his revelation to man. At the heart of this question (how do we know what is scripture?) is canonicity. That is, what books are canonical (scripture)? Our word canon comes from the hebrew word "kanon" meaning a measuring rod or that with which you measure. The books that are canonical then, are those books with which we measure our lives. When considering the question of canonicity, it is important to remember the concept of progressive revelation. That is, scripture was revealed a little bit at a time. Moses obviously knew nothing (specifically) of that part of truth revealed in say, Romans. Scripture did not come to us in the flash of a divine lightning bolt. Rather, it slowly grew into our modern Bible. It was a process, a becoming. The development of the Old Testament is significantly different than that of the New. So much so that it would be more coherent to consider each of them separately. The Old Testament. Often, it is easy to forget that the Old Testament came from a very different context than the New. How the scriptures were viewed, how they were used and applied, and even the understanding the Hebrews had of them differed significantly from our understanding today. Actually, how the Hebrews viewed and treated scripture was intertwined with the concept of determining what was scripture. Actually, the term "canon" is a Christian one. To a Jew, scripture was those books that "defiled the hands". After touching a scroll upon which scripture was written, a Jew was required to wash his hands (hence the term "defiling the hands"). The idea was that the handling of scripture (being sacred) caused your hands to become sacred. To touch a common (or worse yet, unclean) object with sacred hands was a degradation. This high view that the Jews took of scripture is (as we shall see later) important to the canonicity issue. In the eyes of the ancient Hebrew, scripture was divided into three parts. The Torah (the law), the Nebiim (the prophets), and the Ketubim (the writings). The Torah consisted of the first five books of the Bible (what we call the pentateuch). The Nebiim was subdivided into two parts, the former prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel (we divide Samuel into two parts), and Kings (which we divide)), and the latter prophets (Isaiah, Jeramiaha, Ezekiel, and the twelve (a single book containing the twelve books we call the minor prophets)). The Ketubim contained the following books of our modern day Bible : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiasties, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (combined in the Hebrew), and Chronicles (which we divide into two parts). The first portion of the Old Testament to be completed was the Torah (written by Moses). In this case, the books were immediately accepted as canonical. The fact that Moses served as God's spokesman could not be disputed. On several occasions God worked great miracles through him. The ten commandments were etched on stone tablets by God himself. Both God's healing and judgement for his people were executed at the hands of Moses. On occasions, Moses' face shone with the radiance of God (so that no man could look upon it). The Torah held special position in the eyes of the Hebrews (even above the rest of scripture). Of the Torah Max Margolis (a Jewish author) has said: "The Torah clearly possesses a higher degree of holiness than the other two parts (Nebiim and Ketubim) of the scriptures". This view was certainly held by the ancient Jews as well. It was legal, for example, to lay a scroll containing the Torah on top of a scroll containing the other two portions of scriptures. But it was not legal to lay a scroll containing either the Nebiim or the Ketubim on top of a scroll containing the Torah (this would have been a degradation). So prevalent were these views that the rabbis would not allow the Torah to be bound in a book with any other portion of scripture (since turning to a portion of scripture may cause a page containing either the Nebiim or Ketubim to rest on top of a page containing the Torah). The completion of the Torah formed the essential first step for the development of the Old Testament. By it, all other books were measured (agreement with the Torah was only one of the qualities a book had to possess to become scripture). For the other two sections of the Old Testament, the canonization process was different (the Nebiim was accepted as canonical by the fourth century BC, the Ketubim in the first century AD). To better understand the process a book went through to be canonized, we need to take a look at the different classes of ancient Hebrew books. The first class of books were those considered to be "heretical" (contradicted the Torah or other canonical book, promoted a doctrine or behavior at odds with the teachings of the Torah, etc). These books were burned outright. The next class of books were the "near-scriptural". These were the books that were not heretical, but did not "defile the hands". They were kept in a store room (the "genizah") in the temple, away from the public. Reading these books in public was forbidden, but it was however, legal to peruse them in private (these books constituted the "apocrypha" (meaning hidden, as they were hidden from the public in the ginizah)). Finally, the scriptures. These were the only books that were allowed to be stored in the temple chests (available for public reading). Allowing a book to be stored in the temple chests was equivalent to it's canonization. Moving a book from the temple chests back to the genizah constituted it's decanonization. The decision of where to store a book was a complex one. To be stored in the temple chests (and hence be canonical), it not only needed to be in agreement with the Torah (and other canonical books), it also must have possessed some sort of "divine stamp". Prophesies that were proven true, wisdom and insight beyond that capable of man alone, or something else along these lines. Also, things such as authorship were considered. To better understand this process of determining what was canonical, it may be helpful to consider the fourteen books known as "the apocrypha" (in Catholic Bibles). These books were (and are) rejected as canonical by the Hebrews for the following reasons (note: this list is not complete): First, they abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. Second, they teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired scripture. Third, they resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture. Finally, they lack the distinctive elements that give genuine scripture it's divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling. The rabbis have decided that the canon is closed. To them, there can be no more added to scripture. The decision to "draw the canonicity line" between the times of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Maccabean revolt was officially reached at the council of Jabne in AD 90. Unofficially, the line was drawn much earlier. It is significant to note that there has never been a serious dispute among the Jews of either the closure of the canon or the placing of the line. The New Testament. The process by which the New Testament canon was formed was quite different from that of the Old. In fact, the formation happened much faster and in a much clearer and definitive style. Actually, it would be possible to track the canonicity of the New Testament (much easier than tracking the Old) and then use the fact that the New Testament so frequently quotes the Old to demonstrate the canonicity of the Old Testament (I personally feel that would not produce as strong an argument as the one given above). Consider what happened as an apostle wrote a book. Immediately, it was read in the churches. Remembering that most first century Christians were Jews, an implication of canonicity already existed (since the books were read in public). As early as the end of the first century, the New Testament was already being used to settle disputes, address life, and address church needs (again, implying canonicity). Shortly after (by the beginning of the second century), the New Testament was being referred to as scripture by the early church and was given the same authority as the Old Testament. The first formal recognition of the New Testament was given by Irenaeus of Lyons in AD 180 (he was the first to use the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament"). Sometime between AD 180 and AD 200, the Muratorian canon was formed. This was an official list of books to be accepted as scripture. It consisted of the New Testament we know today minus I and II Peter and Hebrews with the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon tacked on. While these first and second century activities do serve to underscore the canonicity of the New Testament, they do not give a clear indication of how the canon was chosen. There were in fact, noncanonical books being used as if they were scripture (this was, I believe, more the exception than the rule). But God was not about to let this lack of definition continue for very long... A movement known as Montanism sprang up in the early days of the church. Montanists practiced "ecstatic prophesy". That is, prophesying while in a trance. Through this "prophesying", they produced several books and began to use them as though they were scripture. By rejecting these books in the latter second century, the orthodox church took it's first step towards the closure of the canon. The next major step in the formation of the canon was taken by Eusebius in AD 325. He established three categories for Christian books. The first category, comprised of twenty of our New Testament books, was to be to be accepted as scripture. The second category (James, II Peter, Jude, II and III John, possibly Hebrews and Revelation) was considered questionable. The third category, spurious, contained only books not in our New Testament (Gospel of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Paul, etc). By this time, the formation of the New Testament was almost complete. Only a few years later, in AD 367, Athanasius of Alexander listed as canonical the books we know today as the New Testament. The final step took place in AD 397 at Carthage (in North Africa). At a council held there, the New Testament we know today was officially canonized and closed. But how did the bishops decide what books were to be accepted as canonical? Fortunately, we do know several of the criteria that were used to arrive at this far-reaching decision. Apostolicity was the first factor considered (i.e. - did an apostle write it?). This proved to be a difficult fact to establish (there were several books floating around that claimed to be written by an apostle, but obviously were not). But if it was possible to establish, it guaranteed inclusion in the canon. The next criteria a book had to possess to be included was orthodoxy. Did it agree with the core of teaching passed down through the apostolic successors (bishops)? Failure to meet these criteria guaranteed exclusion. Another consideration was that of antiquity. That is, it needed to be written in the apostolic age. Another extremely important factor was usage. Was the book in question used in the churches? The decision to close the canon logically follows from the characteristics required of a canonical book. Obviously, all the books that the apostles will write have already been written. Also obvious is the fact that no more books will be written in antiquity. *************************************** The Establishment of the Canon of Scripture [Conference Paper] By Gerald. E. Geiger The topic assigned involves the Canon of Scripture. ‘Canon’ was originally a Greek word, which in turn was borrowed from a Semitic word. Its root meaning is ‘reed.’ A reed was used as a measuring rod and we find that the Greek word ‘canon’ has this meaning as well as the meaning of a ‘rule’ or ‘standard’ in the metaphorical sense. Origen used the word to denote what we call the ‘rule of faith’, the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate everything that may be offered to us as an article of faith. As we use the term ‘canon’ it simply means the books that belong to Scripture. Our concern is to ascertain as much as we can about the formation of the canon of Scripture. In seeking to answer the many questions that arise in connection with this subject, we would wish that we had an on-the-spot report. However, such a report is not extant. When the bits of information available are pieced together we still have a desire for more information. Even though details are lacking, I am convinced through the study of the subject assigned that what we call our Bible is indeed the revelation that God intended for man. (This is believed by faith – not by physical evidence. – WWR) Various questions concerning the canon of the Old Testament are removed when we realize that the Old Testament Scriptures as we know them were in existence at the time of Christ. He quoted from them during His ministry. He mentioned details from the first book, namely Genesis and from the last book, which was II Chronicles according to the Jewish order. These words of Christ are recorded in Luke 11:51: "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias." On other occasions, Jesus made a 3-fold reference to the Old Testament. For example, He said in Luke 24:44: " ... all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning me." As further evidence concerning the Old Testament canon, it might be added that Christ did not condemn the use of the Old Testament as it then existed whereas he condemned the traditions of the Jews. Certainly, if we follow Christ in this, as we should in all else, we are safe. From references such as we have made, we are certain that the Old Testament Canon existed already at the time of Christ. But we still have not stated how it came into existence. Schaller in his "Book of Books," states that Moses’ writings were delivered to the Levites and Joshua followed this example. Tradition, which is fairly credible, is the only source we have concerning the other books. It states that Ezra or some other prophet established the canon as we have it. These writings were widely distributed. The Psalms were copied and used extensively in temple worship. The first public recognition that the Hebrews gave the sacred document seems to have taken place in 621 B.C. when the ‘book of the law’, which Hilkiah found in the temple, was formally accepted by the pronouncement of King Josiah. The Pentateuch acquired recognition when the Torah was translated into Greek and became the Bible of Jerusalem. In 90 A.D., the Council of Mania formally accepted the Canon of the Old Testament but it was only approving what had long been accepted for they neither admitted nor expelled from the canon. This canon did not include the Apocrypha. Concerning the Apocrypha, which have been suggested for inclusion into the canon, we note that Jesus never made any reference to them. This alone is sufficient to convince me that they were not meant to be part of or equal to the Old Testament Canon. We also know that historians such as Philo or Josephus, who were contemporary or who lived shortly after Christ and the Apostles, did not accept the Apocrypha. Josephus was of the opinion that scriptural inspiration ceased shortly after the return from the Babylonian captivity. As we glance at the books, which Josephus included in the Old Testament, we find only 21 titles but he simply grouped different ones together. His canon included the same material as we have today in our Old Testament. So much information I was able to gather concerning the Canon of the Old Testament. The most reliable evidence concerning the Old Testament is that which Christ Himself said regarding it. The same is true of the New Testament. Jesus said to His disciples that He would send them the Holy Spirit adding: "He shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.... He will guide you into all truth ... and he will shew you things to come." John 14:26 and 16:13. Certainly an examination of the contents of the New Testament show us that what the Apostles wrote was merely an interpretation and application of what Jesus himself said. What they wrote was the same as what they spoke, both done under the prompting of the Holy Ghost. Thus Paul is able to say: "We speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." I Corinthians 2:13. What they wrote must remain the immoveable foundation of the New Testament Church. But the question in our minds as we consider the assigned subject is which books were actually meant as God’s revelation for all time. It is well that we remember that the New Testament Canon was not formed merely by chance. Even as God caused His men to write His Word, so also we might conclude that He directed the establishment of the New Testament Canon. If one only thinks of the variety of authors and the unity of thought, he must conclude that it could not have happened just by chance. Therefore, though we do not have more details concerning the establishment of the New Testament Canon, let us not forget that in this God had control and in love for mankind, He has preserved that which He intended man to have. As the New Testament Church had its beginning, there was no immediate need to have a collection of writings as a source book of doctrine. The church had the Old Testament and regarded it highly. But as various questions and problems were answered by writings of the Apostles, the church felt a need to save them for future reference. They were kept on their bookshelves and kept that they might be read and studied time and again. Polycarp of Smyrna wrote thus to the Philippian church: "Paul being absent wrote unto you epistles, by which, if you pore over them, you shall be able to be built up unto the faith which was given unto you." So we might conclude that letters were copied and traded. Paul even encouraged the Colossians and the Laodecians to exchange his letters. (Colossians 4:16) History doesn’t record for us the names or the places of residence of those Christians who were particularly zealous in the collection of the apostolic writings. But such work was done because St. Peter knew of a collection of Paul’s letters. He writes: "And also in all his epistles ... " II Peter 3:16. Professor Blume in his article: "The Formation of the New Testament Canon", (Wis. Luth. Quarterly, 1941) said that Paul’s letters did not just drift together but as a result of some individual or group of individuals at one of the leading apostolic congregations. As Professor Blume wrote in ‘41, he thought that Theodor Zahn’s idea was rather reliable. His opinion was that in the 80’s of the first century, the 13 letters of Paul accompanied by Hebrews were collected by the church at Corinth and made available to Christians everywhere. After further study, Professor Blume presented the following information to his class in the spring of ‘64. He stated that which he presented was merely a working hypothesis. He said that on a believing and confessional basis, we must use all our facts to make a believing hypothesis. He felt that the canon was gathered at the time of persecution and that it might have been John whom tradition tells us was in Ephesus at the end of the first century. Professor Blume felt that since God works through instruments, we need an individual and this work of gathering had to be in hands of a great individual active in the church. There had to be someone pushing it since opposition and persecution would have destroyed the works. There are many indications that in John we have such a man. He was a literary figure who worked with books and letters as such. He and the church had been reflecting on what the Gospels meant. He had met the word. He saw how the Word must be presented. He was an eyewitness to the events recorded in the Gospel. John’s style is that of one who is literary conscious. In his Gospel, he has a prologue and a conclusion in which he refers to what he writes. In writing Revelation 2:2 he speaks of ‘trying apostles.’ This could refer to their writings. It could have been that in the church at Ephesus there was a conscious effort to locate the letters in order to hold the apostles in the place they should hold. By example and leadership, John is a figure who could do this. It might be noted that Paul, Timothy and John served in Ephesus. There was no other spot in the world better equipped for gathering the canon. The Ephesus congregation was also a solid congregation. It is Professor Blume’s assumption that John was at Ephesus when he wrote his Gospel and in this community, favorable to him the canon was gathered. The question cannot be definitely answered, but I feel Professor Blume has a very good case in concluding that John might have been God’s instrument at Ephesus to gather the canon. Other hypotheses are offered but none seem to be any better than that presented by Professor Blume. We might add a few additional thoughts concerning the gathering of the various books. There was no rigid authoritarian church government that regulated the establishment of the canon. The process took place before any organization controlled the church. However, church leaders traveled freely and exchanged ideas by visits and letters. The canon was established before the last eyewitness to the Apostles died. But all this does not help us understand why we have only the 27 books we do in the New Testament. One of the general requirements for entrance into the canon was apostolic authorship. Luke’s book of Acts helped to convince many of the authority of Paul and his writings. But Apostolic authorship was not the only requirement. Two of the Gospels bear the names of men who were not apostles. Their books were accepted because they bore the convincing marks of real authority. The early Christians were not exceptionally intelligent people but they did have the capacity to recognize divine authority when they saw it. If we were to compare the canonical writings with other early Christian literature, we must conclude they judged wisely. In bringing our study to a conclusion, we turn to Professor Blume’s article in the "Quarterly" and pick out a few facts from the first centuries concerning the canon. He states that from a study of the writings of the earliest Christians outside of the apostolic circle, it is evident that they knew and used the New Testament as it is constituted today. They do not quote by chapter and verse but the subject matter is the same. Different men have favorite writings and may quote freely from them. Their writings indicate that certain letters were circulated together, e.g. those of John. In 1935, a Gospel was found which included words and phrases of all 4 canonical Gospels and it was dated before 150 AD. After these early Christians, there were more attacks made on the church and the Christians had to defend themselves against Jews and Romans and show they had a right to exist. The New Testament writings took on greater importance. At the same time, sects arose which denied truths taught by historical Christianity and referred to its own body of Scripture. Justin the Martyr wrote in 165 and refers to most of the New Testament books but doesn’t list them individually. Marcion, the heretic, was the first to list the books and so as a result the church too took steps to make clear just which books they included in the canon. We have seen that there is evidence that all the books of the New Testament were accepted as Scripture somewhere but not all were accepted everywhere. Rome refused to accept Hebrews and the East showed uneasiness about Revelation. But, about 200 A.D. there were those who said: "This is the canon." There is the Canon Muratori, though very difficult to read, it lists all New Testament books except James and possibly Hebrews. Then followed an age in which apostolic authority was supreme. Thus Hebrews, II Peter, II & III John, James, Jude and Revelation came to be classed as the "doubtful" books. There were also the "accepted" books as opposed to the "rejected" books. "Doubtful" did not necessarily mean it was rejected by all. It is Origen in 230, who gives us two lists, the one lists all the accepted books and is known as Omologoumena. The second list indicates the books some rejected although he accepted them. These were known as the antilegoumena. On the first list he included the four Gospels and 14 letters of Paul, including Hebrews, I Peter, I John and Revelation. On the second list were James, 11 Peter, 11 & III John, Jude, Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. This meant he accepted 29 books. Eusebius accepted the books of the New Testament as we have them today but said of Revelation: "if it seem proper." By 367, the canon was settled. Athanasius is the first to list the books of the New Testament as we know them. He was widely traveled and knew the Christian world as few men did. His list is without unfavorable remarks concerning Revelation. By this time the honest well-informed and devout Christians everywhere acknowledged those books as Scripture, which Apostolic Fathers early in the second century knew and used as such. The New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any church council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in 397 listed the 27 books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. There were differences of opinion but before the fourth century was out, Christians everywhere accepted precisely those books as infallible, apostolic word that the church’s first leaders were already accepting when the second century was just getting under way. |