Where did the bible come from?

[AnotherNightAtTheWarehous]

How did we get the bible we use today? (specifically the NT) where did it come from? I asked my youth leader this once, and she didn't really answer the question.

(P.S. please don't say 'from God', because that part I know)

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Ask this question here and I will answer you:

http://www.christianforums.com/f26

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

hot dog! just happened to have written a paper on this!

THE PROCESS OF NEW TESTAMENT CANONIZATION
​

Introduction
​

Today every Christian uses the Bible as the most basic building block of their faith. Among Protestants, it is the sole source of information on which all their doctrine and beliefs are based. It is hard for most modern Christians to imagine a time when this was not the case, yet the early church’s view on the Bible was very different from ours. For the vast majority of the history of Christianity, the Bible was not accessible to the common man. Christians relied on the oral teachings of their religious leaders, and their own memory for knowledge of Christ. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment, when the printing press and a soar in literacy rates made the Bible available to more than the aristocracy and church leaders. However, the origin of the Word of God goes even further back into history, to the first through third centuries. The first four hundred years of Christianity saw incredible growth and change in the young religion. The most long lasting of these changes was the development of the Canon of the New Testament. This paper will look at the historical process and the criteria that was used in deciding the canon of the New Testament.

Historical Development of the New Testament
​

As hard as it is for most modern Christians to believe, when our faith was founded it did not have the book that we proclaim it was founded upon. (Perhaps upon

realizing this, we should reconsider 1 Timothy 3:15) It wasn’t until around 95 c.e. that the last of the books in our New Testament was even written. It took even longer than this for the books to be passed around throughout the church, and evaluated. At the same time that the books that became our canon were being distributed, so were an equal number of books posing to be canonical. Sorting through these, and getting a catholic answer to which books were canonical was a huge task, one that took the church almost 400 years to complete and arrive at our modern canon.

It wasn’t until over one hundred years since the death of Christ, and fifty years since the last canonical book was written, that the first person thought to put together an authoritative list of writings. It is somewhat ironic that the first person to develop the concept of a canon for the New Testament was also one of the leading heretics of the early church. As can be seen on the attached table, Marcion held to an extremely narrow view of what was canon. He accepted only one Gospel, Luke, and the Pauline Epistles, and then only with his modifications. Marcion did all this to support his view of the Old Testament God and the God of Jesus and the New Testament as being so completely different in nature, that the Old Testament God was false. This lead him to reject any books that dealt heavily with the Jews. For this reason he chose the Gospel of Luke as the only one that portrayed the New Testament God. However, he removed the stories of John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ birth, as well as the lineage of Jesus. Since the other three Gospel writers relied heavily on the Old Testament he dismissed them outright. Of the remainder of the New Testament, Marcion only accepted ten of Paul’s epistles, again with the stipulation of his revisions.

Marcion had many strong critics among the early church leaders. Some of the most prominent were Irenaeus and Tertullian. It is interesting to note, that despite their vehement objection to Marcion’s canon, they did not spell out their own list of what was to be considered sacred scripture. Regardless, we can come to some conclusion on Irenaeus’ and Tertullian’s opinions of various books through their writings. These are summarized in the attached table.

The opinions on various writings of many other church fathers can be compiled, either from the lists they themselves compiled, or from inferences made by them about a given text. Rather than a long a dry list of each fathers’ opinion, this information has been summarized in the attached table. Unfortunately, modern scholars are not always in agreement on how a particular church father felt about a given work. In my studies, I have come across numerous discrepancies, which have been marked numerically on the table, and explained in the notes following it.

A major development in establishing the early church canon came in 1740 with the discovery of the Muratorian Fragment. This document is a seventh or eight century translation into Latin of an earlier (circa 200 c.e.) Greek manuscript. This fragment of a document lists gives a list of what was considered canon at this early date. It lists all the books of our modern New Testament, with the exception of Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and III John, as canonical, as well as the Apocalypse of Peter. This is the earliest written record of a canon that we have to date.

The first time that a list was assembled that exactly matched our New Testament was at the Council of Hippo in 393 c.e. This same list was later proposed and supported by the Council of Carthage.

Criteria for New Testament Canonization
​

What criteria did the ancient church fathers use to determine the canonicity of the various books? This of course varied from person to person, as did there views of individual books. Some, mainly heretics, tried to pick and choose (and sometimes manipulate) the books to fit their view of Christianity. The most noted person to do this was Marcion. Other early church fathers, most notably Clement of Alexandria, had exactly the opposite problem. Instead of having too narrow of a canon, Clement held many non-Biblical (at least in the modern sense of the word) books up as scripture, and apparently had very few criteria for what he thought of as canon. "If Clement of Alexandria had a closed canon of Christian Scripture, it is nowhere apparent."

So what then did the ancient church use as guides, either consciously or unconsciously, to select the books of the New Testament? Just as modern scholars have a hard time compiling definitive lists of how each early church father felt about a given book, they also disagree on exactly what the criteria were that the early church used, and how these criteria were applied. For example, in his textbook, The New Testament, It’s Background and Message, Thomas Lea lists only 3 criteria: orthodoxy, apostolicity and universality. In The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Lee MacDonald lists 5 criteria: antiquity, apostolicity, orthodoxy, inspiration, and use. T.C. Smith also advocates a 5 criteria test in How we got our Bible, but substitutes universality for MacDonald’s inspiration.

The most easily observable criteria that the early church used in identifying books was apostolicity. Having been written by an Apostle was a criteria that was supported by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Rome. Eventually this criteria was used to exclude the Shepherd of Hermas and I Clement. However, there are many problems with this being used as a fundamental criteria of establishing the New Testament canon. The most obvious problem with this requirement is that a majority of the New Testament (18 out of 27 books) were not written by Apostles. Mark, Luke, Acts, all of Paul’s epistles, James and Jude were all written by those that are not apostles in the strictest since of the word. Obviously this can not be what the early church had in mind when they made this a criteria. The definition used for apostolicity had been expanded, some say dangerously so, beyond the twelve apostles, to include other disciples. These included James and Jude and the followers of apostles such as Mark who got his information largely from Peter. However, this still leaves us with a problem with Paul. Some suggest that Jesus’ appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus made him a "psuedo-apostle". This is how Irenaeus and Tertullian were able to justify their acceptance of Paul’s epistles. As Smith explains

"They, by a devious method, were able to legitimize him. In their use of Acts, Tertullian and Irenaeus took advantage of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem to show that he was subservient to the apostles in Jerusalem. Not only that, but they changed the text of Galatians 2:5 to make Paul bend to the will of apostolic authority."

Once Paul was given this status, this opened the door for Luke and Acts, since Luke was a traveling companion and disciple of Paul. Hebrews seems to have slipped through the cracks on this criteria as well. Since the author is unknown, the early church clearly obviously didn’t hold it to this criteria. This criteria has been called into question recently with the spreadingof historical-critical evaluations of the Bible, which call into question the authorship of many New Testament writings. The canonical requirement of apostolicity is summed up well by MacDonald:

"If apostolicity was the ancient criterion that determined the recognition of the authority of a work….then it must be admitted that this criterion was not carefully and consistently applied. "

The next criteria that scholars agree was prominently used in the compilation of the New Testament was orthodoxy. This means that the beliefs and teachings of the book aligned themselves with the teachings handed down through the apostles, and other previously recognized canonical books. The problem that this criteria leads to is this: how much can a given book differ from others, and still be canon? Which differences don’t matter, and which will keep a book out? As can be easily seen today in the wide variety of beliefs and practices simply among Protestant, sola scriptura believing churches, the Bible is not perfectly consistent or clear on all matters that pertain to our faith. This inconsistency was also reflected in the ancient church. Although the ancient church is sometimes thought of as of being united and free from disputes, we are told time and again in scriptures of schism and differences of beliefs. The fact that the early church didn’t hold uniform beliefs can be seen the formation of the many creeds used in the church. MacDonald states this point nicely when he writes:

"If the NT literature alone was considered sufficient for faith, many of the subsequent creedal formulations hammered out in lengthy debates and often under great stress would probably not have been deemed necessary."

So, the problem with the orthodoxy criteria is what is orthodox? If there is not a hard and fast rule, then what issues of "non-orthodoxy" are enough to keep a writing out of the canon?

The time period in which writing was produced also had a bearing on the early church views of canonicity. Basically, only material that was written during the apostolic age would be considered canon. The most vivid example of the early church rejecting post-apostolic writings comes from the Muratorian fragment:

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite [recently] in our time…. And therefore it ought to indeed to be read, but it cannot be read publicly in the church."

Modern critical tools of today have allowed some scholars to propose that many books in the New Testament are in fact newer than other books that have not been included. This just re-emphasizes the fact that not one single criteria alone decided the fate of a writing, but rather the summation of all the criteria.

The final, and most widely utilized criteria for determining a writings canonicity was it’s use or universality. This seems to be the criteria that held more weight than the others. MacDonald sums this up when he says,

"The question of whether a book should be regarded as scripture and placed within a canon seems to have been determined ultimately by early Church use."

The terms use and universality mean did the writing have a strong tradition of acceptance across the vast spectrum of Christian churches, and did it address needs of the entire church, not just a particular body. Eusebius puts a great amount of stock in these criteria when he talks about the status of various books.

"But we have been nevertheless been obliged to make a list of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the church, are true, genuine, and recognized, and those which differ from them in that they are not canonical."

Having use and universality of a writing be a canonical criteria does lead to some problems. How do we deal with most of Paul’s writings? They were either written to the narrow audience of a local church, or, in the case of the pastorals, to the even smaller audience of an individual. Does this make this writings fail the criteria of universality? The answer to how the church fathers felt about his can be found in the Muratorian canon.

"The blessed apostle Paul himself… writes by name only to seven churches…it is yet clearly recognizable that over the whole earth one church is spread. For John also in the Revelation writes indeed to seven churches, yet speaks to all."

This show us that what is critical is not who the letter was addressed to, but who can benefit from it. While Paul was definitely writing to individual churches in his letters, the problems that they were facing were (and unfortunately still are) widespread, making the usage of the books universally beneficial for Christians. However, like all the other criteria that were used, there are problems with this one. In many instances there was more widespread support, and traditional use, of books that didn’t make the cuts then some that did. In particular, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were some of the most often quoted and widely used books, while many canonical books, especially 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John seem to have been rarely, if ever, used.

The final, most critical, and unfortunately hardest criteria to judge, is inspiration. Some scholars feel that this should be the only test for canonicity. Lasor, Hubbard and Bush state in their textbook,

"canonicity and inspiration cannot be separated. The ultimate basis for canonicity is simply this: if the writings is inspired [God-breathed] it is canonical".

While this is certainly a powerful statement, it falls short of being highly serviceable in determining a writings status. How can one tell if a writing is inspired? Certainly if it contradicts other scripture it should be kept out, (thus the exclusion of James from many canons, their interpretations of it contradicted existing scripture). But what about books that do not contradict other scripture, but introduce entirely knew subject matter not mentioned elsewhere i.e. Revelation? All of the church fathers claimed inspiration for all of the books in there list, therefore, all the other aforementioned criteria were established to check for inspiration.

If inspiration is impossible to prove, the church fathers all had differing opinions on what was canon, modern day scholars can’t even agree on what the feelings of the church fathers was, nowhere in the inspired writings does it tell us what else is inspired, and every other criteria for canon has large problems with it, how can we be sure that the book we have today is the correct canon? We must believe that just as God breathed his words to the authors of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit directed the hands and minds of men, and was sovereign over the process that brought us the New Testament.

 

[martinluther2003]

Some, mainly heretics, tried to pick and choose (and sometimes manipulate) the books to fit their view of Christianity. The most noted person to do this was Marcion.

oh my, some people might think this title to belong to Martin Luther!! Because they claim he didn't like some parts of the new testament like Revelation and James. Can you believe that?

 

[geocajun]

oh my, some people might think this title to belong to Martin Luther!! Because they claim he didn't like some parts of the new testament like Revelation and James. Can you believe that?

yep, I believe Luther called the book of James an "Epistle of straw" before he threw it out of Luthers Bible.
Apparently James epistle was hard to reconsile with Luthers personal doctrine.

 

[cindylou]

I found this in some of my documents. This might help someone else recognize how diligently and prayerfully the Church worked to develop our Canon. This is from the Council of Laodicea 343-381 A.D. Canon 60 states: "These are the books of the Old Testament which ought to be read: 1. Genesis of the World, 2. Exodus from Egypt, 3. Leviticus, 4. Numbers, 5, Deuteronomy, 6. Jesus of Nave, 7. Judges, Ruth, 8. Esther, 9. First and Second of Kingdoms; 10. Third and Fourth of Kingdoms, 11. First and Second of Paralipomenon, 12. First and Second Esdras, 13. Book of One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, 14. Proverbs of Solomon, 15. Ecclesiastes, 16. Song of Songs, 17. Job, 18. Twelve Prophets, 19. Isaias, 20. Jeremias and Baruch,, Lamentations and Letters (22), 21, Ezechial, 22. Daniel. These are the books of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, and according to John. The Acts of the Apostles. The seven Catholic Epistles, as follows: one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude. The fourteen Epistles of Paul: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon (23).

Cindy

 

[theseed]

I think the bible was cannonized in 303 AD. Many of the Romans were burning Christian books, so people need to know which ones to die for. A "canon" is a standard that the books had to meet inorder to be accepted as divinely inspired. I suggest you look on the library or the internet or even the encyclopedia, about this, its not hard to find.

 

[Filia Mariae]

I think the bible was cannonized in 303 AD.

The canon was established in 393 AD at the Council of Hippo. Henry G. Graham, a former Calvinist minister wrote a book called Where We Got the Bible about this subject.

Human beings wrote the various books of the Bible under the inspiration of God. Many books were written that some believed to be inspired but were not. At the Council of Hippo, the Church decided which books were a part of the inspired canon.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

***The following is a mix of quotes taken from the internet. I hope this helps answer your question. God bless.

The authorities that sought to acknowledge the canonical books used standards like the following:
"Was the book written by a prophet of God?"

"Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?"

"Did the message tell the truth about God?"

"Does it come with the power of God?"

"Was it accepted by the people of God (Inspired Scripture will be recognized by those who are spiritually prepared (John 8:47; 18:37; 1 Corinthians 14:37-38; 1 John 4:6). Thus, if a very long time passes before a candidate book is acknowledged as canonical, it cannot be canonical.)?"

Charles Ryrie, in his book Basic Theology, explains several things about the word canon:

1. Its derivation. The word comes from the Greek word kanon, which refers to a measuring instrument. It therefore came to mean a rule of action (this is the word rendered “rule” in Galatians 6:16 and Phil. 3:16, KJV).

2. Its history. In the early church the word canon was used to refer to the creeds. In the middle of the fourth century it came to be used of the Bible; i.e., of the list of accepted books that were acknowledged to make up the Bible.

3. It’s meaning. Actually the word canon has a twofold meaning. It refers to the list of books that met certain tests or rules and thus were considered authoritative and canonical. But it also means that the collection of canonical books becomes our rule of life. Preservation of the Canonical Books old testament. Before the Babylonian captivity, the OT books were apparently laid beside the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple (Deut. 31:24-26). During the Babylonian captivity, they were probably carried to Babylon. Daniel 9:2 indicates that Daniel had access to them. Daniel says he was reading Jeremiah and “the writings,” a reference, no doubt, to the other OT books written up to that time. After the Babylonian captivity, the books Daniel refers to may have been taken back to Jerusalem by Ezra and kept in the newly completed Temple (see Ezra 3:10-11; Ezra 6:15-18; Neh. 8:1-8). New testament While the OT books were kept in the Temple, the NT books, unwelcome in the Temple, were apparently cared for and circulated among the Christian community by various local churches (Col. 4:16; 1 Thes. 5:27). Tests of Canonicity: To determine whether or not they should be a part of the Bible, books were subjected to various tests: Authorship. Was the author respected and regarded as speaking with divine authority? Local church acceptance. Had it been read by the various churches? What was their opinion of it? Early church leaders’ recognition. Did the students of Christ’s apostles (such as Polycarp, a disciple of John) quote from the book? Content. What did the book teach? Did it contradict other recognized books? Personal edification. Did the book inspire, convict, and edify local congregations and individual believers?Bible Books Whose Canonicity Was Disputed The canonicity of about a dozen books now in the Bible was at first doubted:


Disputed Old Testament books: Esther, because it makes no overt mention of God Proverbs, because of seeming self-contradictions (e.g., Proverbs 26:4-5) Song of Songs, because it seemed merely a poem on human love Ecclesiastes, because some felt it taught atheism (e.g., Eccles. 9:5) Ezekiel, because it seems to contradict the Mosaic law Disputed New Testament books: Hebrews, because of uncertainty about its authorship James, because it seemed to contradict the teachings of Paul (compare James 2:20 with Ephes. 2:8-9)1, 2, 3 John, because they seemed to be purely personal letters

Jude, because it refers to the uncanonical book of Enoch

Revelation, because of uncertainty about the book’s authorship and because of its mysterious symbols The Apocrypha After the OT canon had been recognized by the Jews as officially closed, and prior to the NT period, there arose a body of literature which is today commonly referred to as the Apocrypha. Apocrypha literally means “that which is hidden.” The term refers to the 14 books which were included in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew OT. The Apocrypha is accepted by the Roman Catholic church and appears in Catholic and various other versions of the Bible. Here is a brief survey of the apocryphal books: 1 Esdras covers much of the material found in Ezra, Nehemiah, and 2 Chronicles, but also includes a fanciful story concerning three Jewish people working as servants while captive in Persia. King Darius asked each of them what was the greatest thing in the world. One said wine, another replied women, while the third said truth. When offered a reward, the man who had said “truth” suggested the king allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. l 2 Esdras tells of visions given to Ezra, dealing with God’s government of the world and the restoration of lost Scriptures. l Tobit is the story of a pious Jew who is blinded by sparrow dung and healed by an angel named Raphael, who applies a concoction of fish heart, liver, and gall to his eye. Judith tells of a beautiful and devout Jewish princess who saves Jerusalem from Nebuchadnezzar. She beguiles the enemy general through her beauty, then returns to Jerusalem with his head in her handbag!

Additions to the Book of Esther try to show the hand of God in the story of Queen Esther by inserting six additional passages in which the word God and the subject of prayer receive frequent mention. (The word God does not appear in the canonical Esther.) Wisdom of Solomon, often called the “Gem of the Apocrypha,” tries to teach a biblical view of righteousness in a way that would appeal to the Greek mind. Ecclesiasticus, also called “the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” resembles Proverbs and gives detailed rules for personal conduct in civil, religious, and domestic life. Letter of Jeremiah purports to be a letter, similar to the one mentioned in Jeremiah 29, from Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon. Baruch was supposedly written by Jeremiah’s secretary, Baruch. It contains prayers and confessions of the Jews in exile, along with promises of restoration. Song of the Three Young Men adds to the book of Daniel, taking up the story right after the fiery furnace episode (Daniel 3). It contains the eloquent prayer of one of the three Hebrew men thrown in the fire. (Some treat this prayer as a separate book.)

Susanna relates how the godly wife of a wealthy Jew in Babylon, falsely accused of adultery, was cleared by the wisdom of Daniel. Bel and the Dragon is also an addition to Daniel and relates the destruction of the idols Bel and the Dragon, two objects of Babylonian worship. It also tells of Daniel’s rescue from the lions. Prayer of Manasseh is supposedly the confessional prayer of wicked King Manasseh of Judah after he was taken captive to Babylon (2 Chron. 33:12-13). 1 Maccabees is the history of the Maccabean period (175-135 b.c.), telling of the Jews’ heroic struggle for liberty.1 and 2 Maccabees covers in part the same period as 1 Maccabees but is somewhat inferior in content. Reasons for rejecting the books of the Apocrypha include the following: The apocryphal books were never included in the OT canon by such recognized authorities as the Pharisees and Ezra. None of them were ever quoted by any NT writers. The great Jewish historian Josephus excluded them. The well-known Jewish philosopher Philo did not recognize them. The early church fathers excluded them. The Bible translator Jerome did not accept them, though the pope forced him to include them in the Latin Vulgate Bible. None of these 14 books claims divine inspiration; in fact, some actually disclaim it. Some of them teach false doctrines, such as praying for the dead. No apocryphal book can be found in any catalogue list of canonical books composed during the first four centuries a.d.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

James almost did not make canonization to begin with, and praise God that it did, but it was for the reasons that the works spoken of might be taken as a "works doctrine" and it was worried that it would not edify the Body of Christ were it taken improperly.

 

[thereselittleflower]

How did we get the bible we use today? (specifically the NT) where did it come from? I asked my youth leader this once, and she didn't really answer the question.

(P.S. please don't say 'from God', because that part I know)

The simple answer is several councils of the early Church in the 4th and early 5th centuries, in different locations, agreed upon which books would be recognized as sacred scriptured and be allowed to be read in Church as Sacred Scripture, and that no other writings would be read as such . . these were confirmed by Popes at the time.

Someone above listed the books from a declaration of one of the councils . .

Peace in Him!

 

[Svt4Him]

How did we get the bible we use today? (specifically the NT) where did it come from? I asked my youth leader this once, and she didn't really answer the question.

(P.S. please don't say 'from God', because that part I know)

I got mine from Costco.

 

[theseed]

James almost did not make canonization to begin with, and praise God that it did, but it was for the reasons that the works spoken of might be taken as a "works doctrine" and it was worried that it would not edify the Body of Christ were it taken improperly.

Other books almost did not make it either, like Revelation, and Peter's epistles (I think)

 

[cindylou]

Studying the history of the Bible can be a long arduous task. It can be hard to understand what is being said, especially if the terms are not familiar. The Canon of Scripturee that we have today was not "agreed upon" for sometime, mainly because there was really no need to "dictate" what should be read and what should not be read until some controversies began to arise over scripture. The first controversy seemed to be over the Septuagint, sometimes referred to as the Apogrypha. Some of the Apostles and many of the Early Church leaders had been taught from the Septuagint. In fact 300 of the 350 references in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint. The Septuagint refers to the 70 Jewish wise men and scholars who knew both Greek and Hebrew. They were sent to the Great Library in Alexandria to translate ancient Hebrew texts. They were prevented from communicating with each other during this process and all 70 agreed on every single word of the translation. For this reason, the Septuagint was considered "divinely inspired" and accepted by the Jews as written by divine authority. It is clear from New Testament scripture that most of the Apostles had been versed in the Septuagint. Apparantly however, during the time when no formal "Bible" existed, some scholars accepted the Septuagint and others did not. This is no surprise. When the Canon was established, it was "agreed" with much dissent from a few Jews (no surprise), that the Septuagint would be included in the official Canon of the Scripture and that nothing could ever be added or removed. Unfortunately, because of Martin Luther's dissent, a new Bible was printed. Originally the "Apogrypha" was included as a separate section in the Old Testament, labeled quite clearly the Apogrypha. (My grandmother had one of these Bibles that had been passed down in her family) For some reason modern printings of the Bible do not included the Apogrypha as even a separate text. Yes, it is true, Martin Luther did not agree with the Septuagint and had this removed from Scripture. He also omitted some passages from the NewTestament. Simply put, there existed much controversy over "Scripture" from the onset, it was discussed for centuries and finally agreed upon and Canonized. The Catholic Church uses that Canon today. The Protestant churces do not. They use the Modified Canon as set forth by one man, Martin Luther.