We
know the Bible was inspired by God and written down over thousands of
years. It is His living and active Word to us and at the same time,
preserves the history, wisdom, prophecy, poetry, songs, stories and
prayers of His people from the creation of the world to visions of its
end.
But how did it get from ancient scrolls and hand-written letters
to the neatly organized books, chapters and verses we know today? Why do
some denominations’ Bibles have more books? Who decided what should be
in it and what should not? What reasons did they have for choosing what
they did to be included?
The following excerpt from “The Church from Age-to-Age,” a book
by Concordia Publishing House, helps us answer a few of these common
Church history questions.
------------
A precise and definitive delimitation of the canon of Scripture – the
determination of what belonged to it and what did not – did not occur
until the 16
th century, the time of the Reformation. The bulk
of the New Testament books had been agreed upon already by and around
AD 200, but uncertainty about a few of the epistles and about the Book
of Revelation remained for some time. By the 6
th century,
most Christian churches used the same New Testament as we do today. The
Old Testament in Greek was very naturally taken over from the Greek
synagogue at the start of the Church’s mission among the Greek-speaking
population. This version of the Old Testament, as well as the Latin
translations based on it, included books which were not in the Hebrew
(and later in the Protestant) canon: the apocryphal books. In the 16
th
century, the Protestant reformers ruled that only the books from the
Hebrew Scriptures belonged to the canonical Old Testament. The
Counter-Reformation Council of Trent ruled that the Apocrypha belong to
the canon and that they are binding for doctrine.
Three bases were used to determine
whether a book should be included in the New Testament: its
apostolicity, its orthodoxy and its universal acceptance by Christian
churches for use in public worship. Apostolicity meant that a book has
to have direct or indirect apostolic origin in order to qualify for the
New Testament. This was an important reason why the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the Revelation of John, among others, had a hard time
getting into the canon, for their apostolic origin was questioned by
many. However, also the orthodoxy of these books had been questioned
since Hebrews stated that there was no forgiveness for a voluntary
falling away from the faith (10:26-31) and yet the Church admitted
renegades to repentance. Revelation seemed to teach bewildering things
about the return of Christ to the earth (Revelation 20:1-10).
It is interesting to note that inspiration was not among the criteria
that decided the canonicity of a book. Of course, a book had to be
inspired by God to be included in the Bible. Yet there were many other
books that were considered inspired by God in a general sense but were
not in the canon. They were thought useful for private reading and
edification, but were not considered “canonical.” A book belonged to the
canon if it was used in public worship and for determining the Church’s
doctrine. The word canon means a yardstick, or a ruler, in Greek.
The canon of Scripture was to serve as a yardstick of the Church’s teaching. Thus,
Scripture had to have a delimited scope, while inspired literature
could be unlimited. A canonical book could not have a private character,
but it had to be universally known and recognized by all Christians.
Since Scripture served as an authoritative basis for distinguishing
between true and false teaching, its contents had to have a public
character.
The Bible could be interpreted by at least three different methods:
the literal, the typological and the allegorical. The last two were
especially used for the Old Testament, to show its abiding relevance.
Typology saw various Old Testament events and figures, such as the
liberation from Egypt, the Passover and Moses, as types or figures of
man’s deliverance and life in Christ, which they foreshadowed. Allegory
saw symbolic spiritual significance in the seemingly mundane or dated
details of biblical events and laws. The allegorical interpretation
flourished especially in the theological school of Alexandria, where it
had already been applied to the Old Testament and to Greek myths before
the Christian era. Both the typological and allegorical interpretations
were already occasionally present in the New Testament, as in 1
Corinthians 10:1-6 and 9:8-11. The literal, historical interpretation
was cultivated in the school of Antioch.
Since Scripture lends itself in many places to varied
interpretations, it was felt that the Church could not use only
Scripture. This is why the Church’s basic and universal creedal
tradition and its formation in the ecumenical councils served as a guide
to interpreting Scripture where it appeared obscure, ambiguous or as
containing contradictions. Thus the Church’s living tradition of faith
and worship was regarded as checking a possibly imbalanced, provincial,
arbitrary or subjective interpretation of the Church’s holy Scriptures.
By “tradition,” we mean the heritage of faith and worship passed on
from one generation to another, which creates the link binding all
generations into an organic, spiritual unity and giving the community
its identity. Such a tradition in the Ancient Church was never set over
and against Scripture, but was seen as identical with the faith of the
Scriptures themselves. As we have seen, it was also not set against
development. But growth in theology had to be harmonized with the
ancient heritage.
Excerpted from “The Church From Age to Age,” published by
Concordia Publishing House. Copyright 2011. Purchase the hard copy or
ebook versions here.
