Session 2 The Structure of the Bible

Q1 When was the new testament canon finally decided?

There is a lot of contradictory writing on this topic.

Evangelical literature seems to quote the Council of Carthage AD397 ¹ but Oesterley⁴ suggests that this council also approved the OT Apocryphal books, which I’m sure the Evangelicals would reject.

A synod at Rome was convened in the year 382 CE³ to discuss this matter but its outcome is lost - one possible outcome is the Decretum Gelasianum which omitsthe Revelation to John. Pope Innocent I, in 405 CE, reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse^3, but it was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon³

In response to Protestant expansion Rome convened Council of Trent in order to consider what, if any, moral and administrative reforms needed to be made within the Roman Catholic Church on April 8 1546³ And this confirmed the present NT canon.

Guthrie⁵ has studied available literature on the topic, and while in my book he does not enter specifically into canonicity he does touch on it in the discussion of each book, demonstrating that although theories casting doubt on the authorship and the acceptance of the books by the early church cannot be disproven, neither is the evidence strong enough to conclusively support the doubts and to exclude the traditional acceptance of these books as canonical and as written by the traditionally assumed authors. The doubts cannot be completely discounted, but there is no real reason to follow them.

Q2 How and why does the grouping of the OT differ from the Jewish Bible

Hebrew Canon² Law (Torah) The Pentateuch

The Prophets (Nebhiim) Former Joshua

Judges

Samuel

Kings

Latter Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezekiel

The Twelve

The writings Poetical Psalms

Proverbs

Job

Five scrolls Songs

Ruth

Lamentations

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Historical Daniel

Ezra/Nehemiah

Chronicles


Christian Canon² Same OT canon, but topical order, and subdivision of some books .

Oesterley⁴ distinguishes the Eastern Greek OT canon and the Western Hebrew canon, supporting the use of the apocrypha in the Greek versions which he says formed the original basis of the Christian canon, but says that Pharisaic and Rabbinic influences later discouraged the use of the apocrypha with its Sadducee tendencies. This was carried into the church, but later it became a source of contention between Rome wishing to keep it in as per the original and the reformers wanting to keep it out. Oesterley has two thrusts - one is that the books would not meet Rabbinic criteria or were written after the canon was fixed. The other is that the books were used by Christians to refute Jewish views and it was therefore convenient for the Jews to discount them. Oesterley’s intention in this debate is to substantiate the inclusion of the apocrypha in the Bible, on the basis that the original Christians used the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version. However, it seems likely to me that Jesus, an Aramaic speaker in Palestine with a mission firstly to the Jews, would have used and quoted from the Hebrew. And it is unlikely that the divine plan of Salvation would have had him using the duff version!

Q3 Origins of Chapters and Verses

Chapters Stephen Langton 1228¹

586BC - Pentateuch divided into 154 “Sedarim” to fit three year reading cycle²

536BC - further sectioning to 669 segments - one year cycle and to assist in locating refs²

250 AD - Greek divisions²

350 AD - Codex Vaticanus margins (first chapters)²

1227AD - Stephen Langton (Professor at University of Paris, later Archbishop of Canterbury)²

Verses Robert Stephanus 1560¹

First divisions were non standard spaces or numbers²

First standard verse divisions around 900AD²

Latin Vulgate first Bible to use both verse and chapter divisions in both OT and NT²

Q4 Does it matter which version we us

Theological perspective of translator. The NIV is very good, but does have an Evangelical bias. The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic bible, with their interpretations. Differences can be very important, for example the division of verses in the 10 commandments is different, such that the command about not making graven images is merged into part of the first commandment in the Catholic Bible, but is a commandment in its own right in the Protestant versions. This is also part of the Islamic justification for NOT translating the Koran, and only interpreting it into other languages. The original Arabic is considered to be the only true version. For Christians, it is the intent of the message that is important.

Manuscripts available to translator. The KJV was extremely good for its time, but more recently older manuscripts have been found, giving rise to more accurate translations.

Language changes with time. “Thee” and “Thou” are seen by modern readers as being a reverent, submissive form of address to a might God. In fact they are the English equivalent of ‘Tu’ in Spanish and French - the familiar form, and the English ‘You’ is equivalent to the Spanish formal “Usted” or “Vos” and the French “Vous”. English has made the formal form of address the normal one, unlike Spanish and French. Back in the 80s I think, there was a series on TV about an English sailor trapped in medieval Japan - I think it was called Shogun. Of course, he fell in love with a local woman, and said to her “I love thee”, illustrating that the word is familiar not formal.

In summary, most versions have value, but it is important to select the right version for the task in hand and to know about its background and how this influences its accuracy.

Q5 Is the Bible written by God

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.¹

2 Peter 1:20-21 You must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origins in the will for man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (cf Carried along by wind in Shipwreck Acts 27)¹

Compare with Islamic doctrines re Koran - eternal ‘word of God’ revealed by dictation to Mohamed

Having browsed through the various bits I found in my own books, I found that they were written from a fundamentalist Evangelical perspective, which usually suits me just fine but wasn’t independent enough for what I was looking for. I followed the links on the Readers website and found my way to ntcanon.org, which looks at historical evidence provided from the early church fathers. Many of these come from Roman Catholic sources, with which I would not normally be comfortable . However, it was notable that the documents are very, very old. (I hear that there is not such a volume of near original material for Homer’s Iliad or even for the works of Shakespeare). It was also notable that the books had been collected together by organised people at a very early stage, and also that while there were variations for example the Syrian Church having a slightly different list, on the whole there was broad agreement on the NT. The cross reference table on ntcanon.org is particular useful for showing that although not all the canonical NT books have definitive support from all the fathers, there are only James, II Peter and II and III John that have any reliable queries against them. In contrast the non-canonical NT books have virtually no support at all. It seems therefore that the bulk of the canon was already well established (even though not ‘officially’) at a very early stage.

I started the study expecting to find all manner of criticism of the canon, but this has not materialised and I come away more convinced than ever that the New Testament is an accurate record of God’s revealed will at the time.

Granted, the fact that some early Christians believed these things is not a guarantee of their truth, but this has been built upon by the experience of Christians down through the ages as they have felt the words come alive as they read them. Also, some of the ‘quotes’ used³ to show that So-and -so believed XYZ book was canonical because he quotes it in ABC letter seem very tenuous - sometimes just two words which could easily come together in the thinking of any Christian person. Also Oesterley⁴ suggests all the same church fathers supported the apocrypha in the same way. It seems to me that the Evangelical writers only look for stuff that supports their case, while Catholic writers are equally guilty in the same way. It becomes not so much a search for truth as a search for bits to prove “I am right”. And I am just as guilty!

We are also at risk of trying to prove an element of the faith, which is always bound to fail since in my experience God will not allow himself to be tied to proof.

I find the ‘proof texts’ often quoted to be a little unreliable on their own as they don‘t list which scriptures they consider to be scripture - yes its good to have internal verification, but to be truly acceptable external verification is required. Notwithstanding what I have just written in the previous paragraph, I feel that the testimony of the early fathers that A, B, and C are in but X, Y, and Z are out is sufficient for that external verification. On top of that, I find that when I apply the principles of the scriptures in my own life, miracles do happen.

In answer to the question, Yes I do believe that the Bible is written by God, as it is unique in its origination and transmission through the ages, and has a powerful positive effect on our lives. There is a tendency among Evangelicals to become so obsessed with the Bible that they make an idol out of it, believing things because ‘THE BIBLE SAYS’ rather than because God says. God’s real word is incarnated in the form of Jesus - an eternal revelation of God more similar to the Islamic concept of the Koran than the Bible. I have also been concerned that there is a circular reasoning in selecting books for canonicity - we choose the ones that reveal God’s plan of salvation, but then we say the Bible is remarkable because whatever book you look in it tells you about God’s plan for salvation. On the other hand, I would steer away from doubt of the received scriptures, because they have been substantiated by the changed lives of believers. And I find that much of the doubts sown have less to do with finding truth than with finding ways to re-interpret God’s words for our own convenience, following the example of the serpent in the garden of Eden - “Did God really say…?” And this is taken to extremes by scholars whose real intention is to debunk the whole thing.

If we start to imagine that there are flaws and inaccuracies (bar those that come about from imperfect translations) or that it was limited to the knowledge of the inspired authors, then it starts to become unreliable. And if it is unreliable in part, then it is unreliable. A bit like being a ‘mostly virgin’ - you either are virgin or not, and the Bible is either reliable, or not. My experience is that it is reliable. Those that find it slightly unreliable end up picking and choosing the bits that suit them, or else if they are more sincere reject it altogether. But if we are to have the Bible as reliable, that should not preclude us from admitting that our own interpretation of it is not reliable, and needs always to be re-examined. Neither should the Bible take the place of God.

Present an overview of the Bible using a simple chart.

Reference

1 Matthew, Stephen, Getting the Most from the Bible (School of the Word Series), Havestime Sevices Ltd, Leicester, LE6 0UT, 1990

2 McDowell, Josh, Evidence that demands a verdict, Campus Crusade for Christ, San Bernadino, California CA 92414, 1977

3 http://www.ntcanon.org/

4 W O E Oesterley D D Litt D,An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha, 1935. First published S.P.C.K. 1935. Prepared for Kata-Pi by Paul Ingram 2003 katapi bible resource pages

5 Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Introduction, 1970, IVP, Leicester, UK