What do you say when your teenager asks you, "Mom? Dad? Where did the Bible come from?"
"Umm...just ask Kyle on Wednesday!" does not have to be your only answer, nor do I want it to be your first answer.
Here's another great article from Morf Magazine. Sign-up for their newsletter here, it's worth it!
-----Direct Link to the article
Where Did the Bible Come From?
By: Excerpted from “The Church From Age to Age
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 16th 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 6th 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 16th 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.
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 16th 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 6th 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 16th 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.
