The Bible, where did it come from – a definitive answer.

[zeland2236]

In regards to the two previous questions that were posted in the General Theology forum: “Where did the Bible, in its present form, come from,” and “Is the Bible necessary for salvation”. I thought this forum might be the best place for this post, However if anyone has a suggestion for a better place to put it, please advise.

When talking about scripture, we should remember that Christ came to earth, not to write a bible, but to establish a teaching Church. With the exception of the few words He wrote in the sand concerning the woman charged with adultery, Christ never wrote anything.

The following summary is based on two sources: one Catholic, and one protestant. The Catholic source is a book called “Where We Got The Bible”, by Rev. Henry G. Graham, first published in 1911 and having gone through 22 printings the last being in 1987. (Tan Books)

The protestant source is titled “History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Nicene and Post- Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311 – 600, (page 609) by Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893).

Both of these works are available online. Search for "Where we got the bible" By Henry G. Graham, and History of the Christian church - Google Books. For the second source use the search term: ...memorial days.These two African councils, with Augustine,' give forty... This will bring you to the link for page 609.

In once sense, the existence of the Bible can be attributed to the Emperor Diocletian, for it was he who initiated the last and most violent persecution of the Christians. Diocletian issued an edict in 303 A.D. that all Christian churches should be destroyed and the Sacred Scriptures should be delivered up to be burned. Now If a Christian gave up an inspired writing to the Pagans to save his life, he thereby became an apostate by denying his faith. A few did this, but most preferred martyrdom, and refused to surrender the inspired writings.

Obviously, this was a difficult decision, a decision which was further complicated by the fact that there was no official statement from the Church as to which writings were inspired and which ones were not. Was a Christian bound to die for a questionable piece of scripture? And so it was the persecution by Diocletian that brought about the necessity of deciding once and for all what books were to be included in the New Testament.

The work of choosing the books of the New Testament, and of assembling the entire Bible, was begun at the Council of Hippo, in North Africa in 393 AD, under the influence of St. Augustine. The work of this council was then confirmed and approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

A second Council of Carthage, in 419 AD, over which St. Augustine presided, renewed the decrees of the former two councils. Those decrees were sent to Rome and were confirmed by Pope Boniface. From that date on, all doubt ceased as to what scriptures were inspired, and what ones were not. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had settled the matter. The collection of books approved by those councils is precisely that which is contained in all Catholic Bibles today: 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 books for the New. The Protestant theologian and historian Philip Schaff, whom I mentioned above, also confirms the work and dates of those councils.

The answer to the second question: “is the Bible necessary for salvation?” is no. It is obviously very useful (profitable) as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”), but it is not absolutely necessary or totally sufficient to get us to heaven. Lets look at one reason why this is so.

If the Bible were necessary for salvation, then how did the people, who liven in the first 400 years before the Bible came into existence, get to heaven? Also, consider these points: all bibles were hand written; were very few in number; most people couldn’t read; and the invention of the printing press didn’t happen until around 1440. As a practical matter, the average person, for the first 1,500 years after Christ rose from the Dead, had no bible to read, and few would have been able to read it anyway. So who taught all these people their faith. They were taught by the preaching’s of the Catholic Church.

Just before He ascended into Heaven, Christ commissioned the apostles (the first 12 bishops of the Catholic Church) to teach the faith, not write bibles. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20)

Having established how the Bible came into existence, we can now look two important questions of interest, namely sola scriptura, (the Bible only theory), and the authority of the Bible. I offer some thoughts on these points in another post.

 

[Epiphoskei]

When talking about scripture, we should remember that Christ came to earth, not to write a bible, but to establish a teaching Church. With the exception of the few words He wrote in the sand concerning the woman charged with adultery, Christ never wrote anything.

Of course Christ came to establish a Church, but did he intend for the final rule of order in the Church to be authority passed through certain men, or the oracles of God?

Also, don't get hung up on the medium of the scriptures, as if the fact that Christ never wrote anything should matter to anyone. It isn't the book-ness of the scripture that makes the scripture authoritative over the Church, it's the fact that all of the scripture was breathed out by the Spirit of God.

The work of choosing the books of the New Testament, and of assembling the entire Bible, was begun at the Council of Hippo, in North Africa in 393 AD, under the influence of St. Augustine. The work of this council was then confirmed and approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

This is a common error. The Muratorian Canon indicates that the books we recognize as scripture were more or less already recognized by 170.

From that date on, all doubt ceased as to what scriptures were inspired, and what ones were not. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had settled the matter. The collection of books approved by those councils is precisely that which is contained in all Catholic Bibles today: 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 books for the New. The Protestant theologian and historian Philip Schaff, whom I mentioned above, also confirms the work and dates of those councils.

There continued to be a rather significant school of scholars down through the middle ages who were impressed by the arguments of Jerome against the Deuterocanon, and accordingly doubted their veracity.

The answer to the second question: “is the Bible necessary for salvation?” is no. It is obviously very useful (profitable) as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”), but it is not absolutely necessary or totally sufficient to get us to heaven. Lets look at one reason why this is so.

If the Bible were necessary for salvation, then how did the people, who liven in the first 400 years before the Bible came into existence, get to heaven? Also, consider these points: all bibles were hand written; were very few in number; most people couldn’t read; and the invention of the printing press didn’t happen until around 1440. As a practical matter, the average person, for the first 1,500 years after Christ rose from the Dead, had no bible to read, and few would have been able to read it anyway. So who taught all these people their faith. They were taught by the preaching’s of the Catholic Church.

Well, in the first place, when you argue the scripture isn't sufficient for salvation, do you mean to imply it was lying when it explained how one becomes saved and promised if one did so, he shall be saved?

In the second place, the illiteracy of the masses isn't relevant. God commanded Israel to know and study and mediate upon the law, and they were as illiterate on average as anyone during the first 1500 years of the church. As it turns out, one doesn't need to be literate and own a book to be familiar with a work committed to writing - this is simply a peculiarity of our modern minds which have been spoiled by literacy and can't imagine that humans could ever remember any lengthy work without re-reading it from a book.

Beyond which, simply because the New Testament canon was in the process of being written does not mean the church was without a Bible. They had and used the Old Testament canon, and judging from the style of the epistles and the various sermons in acts, primarily preached by expositing from it.

Just before He ascended into Heaven, Christ commissioned the apostles (the first 12 bishops of the Catholic Church) to teach the faith, not write bibles. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20)

Again, you're getting caught up on the medium. You say "write bibles" as if Bibles are books that don't exist until penned. Bibles are oracles of God which certain men placed inside books. Had we gone another way and preserved them through an oral tradition, as many illiterate cultures preserve their works, they would still be the authoritative oracles of God. What the apostles preached were the teachings and oracles which now make up the scripture. It's seriously mistaken to argue the apostles were teaching independently from scripture simply because there exists no mention of pen and ink, as if Bibles are to be conceived of as primarily books.

 

[sensational]

In regards to the two previous questions that were posted in the General Theology forum: “Where did the Bible, in its present form, come from,” and “Is the Bible necessary for salvation”. I thought this forum might be the best place for this post, However if anyone has a suggestion for a better place to put it, please advise.

When talking about scripture, we should remember that Christ came to earth, not to write a bible, but to establish a teaching Church. With the exception of the few words He wrote in the sand concerning the woman charged with adultery, Christ never wrote anything.

The following summary is based on two sources: one Catholic, and one protestant. The Catholic source is a book called “Where We Got The Bible”, by Rev. Henry G. Graham, first published in 1911 and having gone through 22 printings the last being in 1987. (Tan Books)

The protestant source is titled “History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Nicene and Post- Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311 – 600, (page 609) by Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893).

Both of these works are available online. Search for "Where we got the bible" By Henry G. Graham, and History of the Christian church - Google Books. For the second source use the search term: ...memorial days.These two African councils, with Augustine,' give forty... This will bring you to the link for page 609.

In once sense, the existence of the Bible can be attributed to the Emperor Diocletian, for it was he who initiated the last and most violent persecution of the Christians. Diocletian issued an edict in 303 A.D. that all Christian churches should be destroyed and the Sacred Scriptures should be delivered up to be burned. Now If a Christian gave up an inspired writing to the Pagans to save his life, he thereby became an apostate by denying his faith. A few did this, but most preferred martyrdom, and refused to surrender the inspired writings.

Obviously, this was a difficult decision, a decision which was further complicated by the fact that there was no official statement from the Church as to which writings were inspired and which ones were not. Was a Christian bound to die for a questionable piece of scripture? And so it was the persecution by Diocletian that brought about the necessity of deciding once and for all what books were to be included in the New Testament.

The work of choosing the books of the New Testament, and of assembling the entire Bible, was begun at the Council of Hippo, in North Africa in 393 AD, under the influence of St. Augustine. The work of this council was then confirmed and approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

A second Council of Carthage, in 419 AD, over which St. Augustine presided, renewed the decrees of the former two councils. Those decrees were sent to Rome and were confirmed by Pope Boniface. From that date on, all doubt ceased as to what scriptures were inspired, and what ones were not. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had settled the matter. The collection of books approved by those councils is precisely that which is contained in all Catholic Bibles today: 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 books for the New. The Protestant theologian and historian Philip Schaff, whom I mentioned above, also confirms the work and dates of those councils.

The answer to the second question: “is the Bible necessary for salvation?” is no. It is obviously very useful (profitable) as 2 Timothy 3:16 states, (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”), but it is not absolutely necessary or totally sufficient to get us to heaven. Lets look at one reason why this is so.

If the Bible were necessary for salvation, then how did the people, who liven in the first 400 years before the Bible came into existence, get to heaven? Also, consider these points: all bibles were hand written; were very few in number; most people couldn’t read; and the invention of the printing press didn’t happen until around 1440. As a practical matter, the average person, for the first 1,500 years after Christ rose from the Dead, had no bible to read, and few would have been able to read it anyway. So who taught all these people their faith. They were taught by the preaching’s of the Catholic Church.

Just before He ascended into Heaven, Christ commissioned the apostles (the first 12 bishops of the Catholic Church) to teach the faith, not write bibles. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20)

Having established how the Bible came into existence, we can now look two important questions of interest, namely sola scriptura, (the Bible only theory), and the authority of the Bible. I offer some thoughts on these points in another post.

I agree with Campenhausen
"The Church is indeed the place in which the definitive verdict on the worth or worthlessness of individual writings is handed down; for the Church-- if one may complete the thought along Irenaean lines--has within her the living canon, the Spirit of truth which has been active from the beginning, and to which she remains faithful."

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, don't get hung up on the medium of the scriptures, as if the fact that Christ never wrote anything should matter to anyone. It isn't the book-ness of the scripture that makes the scripture authoritative over the Church, it's the fact that all of the scripture was breathed out by the Spirit of God.

I'm glad you spoke first. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Dmitry R.]

In regards to the two previous questions that
The following summary is based on two sources: one Catholic, and one protestant. The Catholic source is a book called “Where We Got The Bible”, by Rev. Henry G. Graham, first published in 1911 and having gone through 22 printings the last being in 1987. (Tan Books)

The protestant source is titled “History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Nicene and Post- Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311 – 600, (page 609) by Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893).

Your history of the canon is differs from what do I know. Not so much though. Please try:
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger

I can recommend this book as very serious and scentific. The canon was not so stable in Catholic church as you wrote. Certain versions may vary till 9th centuary. The story of development of the canon given in this book is far longer, than you have suggested.

What about your question: “is the Bible necessary for salvation?” I fully agree with your point.

Cristians did not have any Gospel till 50-60 A.D. when the first were written. The last Gospel of st. John was written around 90-100 A.D. Therefore for 20-30 years after Crucifixion of Jesus Christ there were no Gospel at all and for 60-70 years more no last Gospel. Moreover after all Gospels have been written it takes a long time to exchange all the books between the churches spread over Mediterranean.

But the first sample of the salvation witout a Book is the robber crucified with the Jesus Christ.

Thus slavation is possible without the Book. We have a firm samples from the first decades of church history.

One more interesting argument. It is not written anywhere in the Bible that information given in Bible is enough for salvation. Sola Scriptura principle is not given in the Bible so it is contrary to the Bible.

 

[Dmitry R.]

Of course Christ came to establish a Church,
This is a common error. The Muratorian Canon indicates that the books we recognize as scripture were more or less already recognized by 170.

"More or less" - that's the key. Muratorian Canon shows us the work which was finished centures later. It does not include four Epistles. But the Epistle to the Laodiceans was included in to some Latin texts in Catholic church up to the begiining of the second Millenium.

They had and used the Old Testament canon, and judging from the style of the epistles and the various sermons in acts, primarily preached by expositing from it.

Old Testament can not be used for the new Church. For example it just not allow Gentiles to come. The New Teastament is a new doctrine.

Again, you're getting caught up on the medium. You say "write bibles" as if Bibles are books that don't exist until penned. Bibles are oracles of God which certain men placed inside books. Had we gone another way and preserved them through an oral tradition, as many illiterate cultures preserve their works, they would still be the authoritative oracles of God. What the apostles preached were the teachings and oracles which now make up the scripture. It's seriously mistaken to argue the apostles were teaching independently from scripture simply because there exists no mention of pen and ink, as if Bibles are to be conceived of as primarily books.

Can you cite the quotation from the New Teastament that informs us that "books exist until penned"? Where from do you know it? What does "books exist until penned" practically means for early Church of 33-50 or 33-90 A.D.?
Saul, oncoming Paul the Apostle, persecuted Christians. About what kind of oral tradition of his further Epistles can we talk?

 

[sensational]

Also, don't get hung up on the medium of the scriptures, as if the fact that Christ never wrote anything should matter to anyone. It isn't the book-ness of the scripture that makes the scripture authoritative over the Church, it's the fact that all of the scripture was breathed out by the Spirit of God.

Can you elaborate.. r u saying that inspiration is the primary criteria that u believe makes Scriptures the final authority and superior to the church?? Dont forget that if that is your position then was it not the same Paraclete that guided the church especially regarding the canon process?? Most scholars Protestant and Catholic don't view the early church's broad view of inspiration as even one of the most influential criteria in the canon process. Catholicity, Orthodoxy and Apostolicity all come before inspiration in relation to exclusion/inclusion criteria by the early church based on the extant writings we have. Inspiration alone is hardly a convincing argument against the very body of believers who gave us those writings over a period of say approx 100 years 50-150.

This is a common error. The Muratorian Canon indicates that the books we recognize as scripture were more or less already recognized by 170.

Actually u r making a common error. There is a huge difference between a list of authoritative writings and an authoritative list of writings. I think it was Metzger that said this. Other writings were seen as authoritative and useful in the early church that were later never canonized into the NT. Again it is very anachronistic to view the Muratorian or any other list as "canon" when it was not until much later the NT canon came to be recognized by the church . Its important not to confuse "Scriptures" with "Canon". Sundberg i believe if u r interested is a good reference on this distinction.

Well, in the first place, when you argue the scripture isn't sufficient for salvation, do you mean to imply it was lying when it explained how one becomes saved and promised if one did so, he shall be saved?

Beyond which, simply because the New Testament canon was in the process of being written does not mean the church was without a Bible. They had and used the Old Testament canon, and judging from the style of the epistles and the various sermons in acts, primarily preached by expositing from it.

many would argue the OT canon was not closed yet. One thing is 4 sure we did not have a NT canon.. It was the early church that preached the gospel and delivered it, interpreted it and preserved it both in written and oral tradition. Therefore its hard to imagine those scriptures ever being viewed as superior to the church. this is a much much later development eg reformation.

 

[Clearly]

Epiphoskei claimed : This is a common error. The Muratorian Canon indicates that the books we recognize as scripture were more or less already recognized by 170.

​

Sensational replied : Actually u r making a common error. There is a huge difference between a list of authoritative writings and an authoritative list of writings. I think it was Metzger that said this. Other writings were seen as authoritative and useful in the early church that were later never canonized into the NT. Again it is very anachronistic to view the Muratorian or any other list as "canon" when it was not until much later the NT canon came to be recognized by the church. Its important not to confuse "Scriptures" with "Canon".

I believe sensational is quite correct regarding the specific historical principle concerning a "canon" during the early periods of the Christian movement.

In the earliest period, the new testament does not exist (e.g. none of the individuals mentioned IN the new testament ever lived to see a new testament). There are a GREAT deal of texts used by the early christians for doctrine and belief (including judao-christian texts such as esdras, the enochian literature, hermas, barnabas, etc). However, what is "canonical" is more arbitrary and provencial and time dependent than non-historians make it out to be. (If This IS meant to be a historical thread, rather than a philosophical thread and so historical principles need to have greater weight than personal feelings or philosophy.)

For example: Barnabas and hermas were in 4th century new testament Codex Sinaiticus though they did not make it into the later Western ("roman"-influenced") bibles.

Enoch was quoted by the writer of Jude and many quotes (at least 128 by the apocryphologist Charles) from Enoch are found in New Testament text anciently and Enoch and barnabas remain canonical in the Eastern (byzantine) canon (e.g. ethiopic orthodox).

What was considered "authoritative" is different than what is considered "canonical" in all ages as well. If I am a roman Catholic in 2011, enoch MAY OR MAY NOT be authoritative (depending on their historical background), but if I am an ethiopic orthodox in 2011, then enoch IS both canonical and authoritative (just as it was anciently).

This is apart from the more complicated issue of what HAS made it into the modern western canon that should not be in ANY Christian Canon. For example, the spurious Johannine Comma (1 jn 5:7) found in Textus Receptus Based Bibles (e.g. King James) which Luther and other scholars correctly left out of their New Testaments. The famous and spurious addition of the woman taken in adultery, etc. Though such things are later spurious emmendations, still, some bibles contain these texts which are NOT authentic, yet have been deemed "canonical" by non historians. This issue of what is "canonical" can become very complicated.

My point is that what IS and what IS NOT canonical in the historical sense is somewhat relative and arbitrary and to refer with historical accuracy to what is "canonical", one must say WHICH canon (eastern ethiopic? western roman?) and at What time period one is referring to (4th century Sinaiticus? 2nd century muratori?).

So, just as Sensational offered the wonderful principle that there is a difference "between a list of authoritative writings and an authoritative list of writings", there is a difference between what is considered authoritative and inspirational during different time periods, between different people, and between differing geographical regions.

Clearly

(twnenell)