PDA

View Full Version : Where did the Bible come from?


malcolan
06-11-2005, 04:50 AM
HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE

How did we get our Bible? Did it just magically appear one day? How did the books we have in the Bible get there? Did someone just decide one day which books were inspired by God and which ones weren’t?

To begin with, the question of which books belong in the bible is called the question of the canon. The word “canon” means rule or measuring rod, and in relation to the Bible it refers to the collection of books which passed a test of authenticity and authority; it also means those books are our rule of life. How was this collection made?

THE TESTS FOR CANONICITY.

First of all, it is important to remember that these books were canonical even before any tests were put to them. That’s like saying some students are intelligent before any tests are given to them. The tests only prove what is already true. In the same way, neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic, even though some people will tell you they did, nothing could be further from the truth. Either the book was authentic when it was written, or it isn’t, it wasn’t made so by some council. The church or its councils simply recognized certain books as the Word of God, and in time those so recognized were collected together in what we now call the Bible.

WHAT TESTS DID THE CHURCH APPLY?

1.) There was the test of the authority of the writer. As for the Old Testament, this meant the authority of the lawgiver or the prophet or the leader in Israel. As to the New Testament, the book had to be written or backed by an apostle in order to be recognized. In other words, it had to have apostolic signature or apostolic authorization. For example: Peter was the backer of Mark, and Paul was of Luke.

2.) The books themselves had to give some internal evidence of their unique character, as inspired and authoritative. The content had to commend itself to the reader as being different from an ordinary book in communicating the revelation of God.

3.) The verdict of the churches as to whether or not a book was canonical was important. Surprisingly, or maybe not, there was unanimity among the early churches as to which books belonged to the inspired number. Though it is true that a few books were temporarily doubted by a minority, no book whose authenticity was doubted by any large number of churches was later accepted and included in our Bible.

THE FORMATION OF THE CANON.

The canon of Scripture was, of course, being formed as each book was written, and it was complete when the last book was finished. When we talk about the formation of the canon, we actually mean the recognition of the books by the Church; and this did take some time. Many believe that all the books of the Old Testament canon were collected and recognized by Ezra in the fifth century B.C. References from later writers (90-100 A.D.) indicate this. The discussion at Jamnia (70-100 A.D.) seemed to assume that the 39 books we have in the Old Testament now were accepted as the cannon. Jesus, in effect, defined the canon of the Old Testament when He accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel from Abel to Zechariah. (Luke 11:51) The account of Abel’s death is, of course, found in Genesis; and that of Zechariah is in II Chron. 24:20-21, which is the last book of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible, not Malachi as it is in our English Bibles. And He didn’t include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at that time.

The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Of course individual books were acknowledged as Scripture before then, and most just after the era of the apostles. Some were debated for some time before being considered as canonical. It was a process that went on until each one proved its own worth by passing the tests of authenticity.

The twelve books of the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews or by Jesus, He never quoted from a single one of them. Though they were highly thought of they were never considered Scripture. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament done in the third century B.C.) included the Apocrypha along with the books of the Old Testament. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) in translating the Latin Vulgate made a difference between the Apocrypha and the canonical books, which gave it a secondary status. The Council of Trent (1548) recognized the Apocrypha as canonical, but the reformers rejected this. In our English Bibles the Apocrypha was set apart in the Coverdale, Geneva, and King James Versions. The first English Bible to exclude it entirely was an Amsterdam edition of the Geneva Bible published in 1640, and the first English Bible printed in America (the Aitken Bible, 1782) omitted it.

IS OUR PRESENT TEXT RELIABLE?

The original copies of the Old Testament were written on vellum (leather) or papyrus (an early type of paper) from the time of Moses (c. 1450 B.C.) to the time of Malachi (400 B.C.). Until the discovery of the Dead Seas Scrolls in 1947 we didn’t have any copies of the Old Testament earlier than 895 A.D. The reason for this is that the Jews were almost superstitious when it came to the text of Scripture and buried copies when they became too old for good use. The Masoretes (traditionalists), who between 600 and 950 A.D. added accents and vowel points and in general standardized the Hebrew text. They devised complicated safeguards for the making of copies. They checked each copy carefully by counting the middle letter of pages, books and sections. Someone has said that everything countable was counted.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they gave us a Hebrew text from the second to the first century B.C. of all but one book (Esther) of the Old Testament. This was a very important discovery because it gave a much earlier check on the accuracy of the Masoretic text, which has proved to be extremely accurate.

Other early checks on the Hebrew text are the Septuagint (Greek translation from the middle of the third century B.C.), the Aramaic Targums (paraphrases and quotes of the Old Testament), quotations in early Christian writings, and the Latin translation of Jerome (400 A.D.) which was made directly from the Hebrew text of his day. All of these assure us that we have an accurate text of the Old Testament.

There are more than 24,000 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament that exist today. All this makes the New Testament the best-attested document in all of the ancient writings. The contrast is absolutely startling. The next closest one is Homer’s “Iliad” with 643 copies.

Not only are there so many copies of the New Testament in existence, but many of them are early. The approximately seventy-five papyri fragments date from 125 A.D. to the eighth century and cover parts of twenty-five of the twenty-seven books and about 40 percent of the text. The many hundreds of parchment copies include the great Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), the codex Vaticanus (also 4th century), and the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century). There are over 2,000 lectionaries (church service books containing Scripture portions), more than 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the church Fathers, old Latin, Syriac and Egyptian translations dating from the third century. All of this, plus all of the scholarly work that has been done, assure us that we have today an accurate and reliable text of the New Testament, and it is supported by all the facts.

I trust that you found this of great interest. I do as our faith isn't based on conjecture and false hope, it is based on evidence.

leecappella
06-14-2005, 12:59 PM
I will suggest three books for one's search for the answer to the question posed in this thread:

1. The Good Book by Peter J. Gomes.

2. Lost Christianities: The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew by Bart D. Ehrman.

3. Lost Scripture: Books that did not make it into the new testament by Bart D. Ehrman.

I own the first two only.

malcolan
08-15-2005, 09:27 AM
...is the basis for Christianity.

Christianity: Simple Truth

Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others. That may sound terribly dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion.

Christianity: Why Believe It’s the Only Way

Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence. Obviously anyone could “claim” to be God. The difference with Jesus is that His life completely backed those claims. Check out the history, check out the claims – it’s an absolutely phenomenal study.

A primary focus for your study is that Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies written in the Old Testament scriptures. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, both of which have been proven to exist prior to the time Jesus walked on the earth, you can be assured that these prophecies were not “conspired” after-the-fact. They were truly fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Examine the probability of one man fulfilling just a handful of the most specific prophecies, and you’ll be amazed.

And He [Jesus] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. Luke 24:44

Another focus for your study is to understand what Jesus said and did as a historical figure. No legitimate scholars today will deny that Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago, was a great teacher and doer of good works, and that he was crucified on a Roman cross for the crime of blasphemy among the Jews. The only dispute is whether Jesus rose from the dead three days after his crucifixion and that He was, in fact, God incarnate. This is where everyone must test the evidence for the resurrection, examine their hearts, and make a decision about who Jesus really was.

Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John 14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).

Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because they are arrogant, stupid or judgmental.

They do so because, based on the evidence, they believe what Jesus said.

Christians believe in Jesus, who claimed to be God (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14), who forgave sins (Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48), and who rose from the dead (Luke 24:24-29; John 2:19). Jesus said that He was the only way.

Jesus is unique.

He was either telling the truth, He was crazy, or He was a liar.

But since everyone agrees that Jesus was a “good man,” how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? He must have been telling the truth. He is the only way.

Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't raise the dead or heal the sick. And although there is far less reliable information written about these “religious” leaders, they are believed in and followed by millions.

Christianity: A Relationship

Christianity is not really a religion; it is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross for you (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Christianity is not about ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rituals.

Christianity is about truly accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

leecappella
08-17-2005, 06:11 AM
malcolan-....the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion.

Religion or relationship? Possibly a religion that teaches about having a relationship with God and/or Jesus? The bible teaches that a religion that is pure and undefiled before God is basically to care for those in need. Now, although the bible is a christian book, to participate in such a religion that is pure and undefiled before God does not require one to be a christian in title. The belief to be a christian, I believe, developed in response to the Christ on earth by those who witnessed him and/or heard of him. As a result of this developed response to the Christ on earth and the belief that one has to believe in Jesus and/or become a christian to be accepted by God, the bible testifies to that belief of faith. The bible, however, in various places, also implies that neither of these two beliefs are requirements for acceptance by God. The two beliefs being believing in Jesus and becoming a christian. Both as defined by traditional christian definitions of the phrases. As you and I both know, God is no respector of persons. "He" would not call some righteous due to their faith relationship with "him" and/or their righteous acts as in the OT and then not consider anyone else righteous if they do not traditionally "believe in Jesus". Something which OT persons did not have to do.

Christianity is not based upon evidence...but it is backed by evidence.

This may be true. However, when it comes to what one believes, a typical need, so to speak, of some christians in the context of debate or a simple discussion with someone who disagrees with them is that they (the christian) seemingly only believe what they see (physical evidence) in the bible. This, to me, is not a necessary evidence when speaking of God or things of God. I don't believe one has to necessarily be able point to a text to prove something about one's faith. Faith does not require such proof. I do, however, understand about the backup evidence that you refer to.

Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John 14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).

Depending upon you interpretation of John 14:6, one would have to "believe in Jesus" in order to be saved. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat:) But, if the traditional "believe in Jesus" or "follow Jesus" gets you to live righteously, that's all that matters as far as I am concerned. And all that matters to God, as I have stated previously. Matthew 11:27, to me, speaks of things that are unknown that have not been revealed (v. 25). Things that only God and Jesus know. No one except to whom they reveal it to, that is. Luke 10:22 pretty much speaks of the same thing.

Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because they are arrogant, stupid or judgmental.

Unfortunately, some do. Not all, but some. Though I do get your point. Generally speaking, they do not. They do it because it is truly what they believe. Because their lives have improved for the better in their christian faith, there should be no reason why they would think it is not the way. I, personally, don't have a problem with that. I consider myself a christian. I do not, however, believe that christianity is the only way. Loving God and neighbor is the way and this can be done by christians and non-christians alike. "The way" is the way one lives (ie. as Christ lived and exampled on earth). Again, regardless of ones faith title (ie christian, etc.), this can be done in one's life.

They do so because, based on the evidence, they believe what Jesus said.

They do so because they have faith. Evidence or not. After all, faith is the evidence of things not seen. Or, dare I say, proven via sight? To me, that also means no bible texts required to point to in order to support one's faith.

Christians believe in Jesus, who claimed to be God (John 8:58; Exodus 3:14),

Despite my belief that Jesus and God are one and the same spirit, comparison of these two texts do not verify that they are indeed one and the same. At least, not in the context of, say for example, you being known by your screename and your actual real name. Different names for the same persons. It simply shows that they both said the same thing, implying that they both existed from the beginning. That they are both Alpha. This does not mean that they are one and the same spirit as opposed to two seperate spirits with the same goal. I, personally, believe they are one and the same spirit. Just saying this for argument's sake.

But since everyone agrees that Jesus was a “good man,” how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? He must have been telling the truth. He is the only way.

What does his being good have to do with whether or not he was telling the truth? Good people lie sometimes. Did not Abraham lie by saying his wife was his sister? Or, am I confusing biblical characters?

Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn't raise the dead or heal the sick. And although there is far less reliable information written about these “religious” leaders, they are believed in and followed by millions.

Well, personally, I don't know much about these persons you listed. I do believe, however, that living a righteous life is all that matters in the sight of God. Righteous as being defined as impartiality of one's character and one's actions. Righteous as described in OT times to those who did righteous acts and loved God (regardless of the "screenames" one might give God other than the name "God"):)

Christianity is not about ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rituals.

These things do exist in christianity, but I agree, it's not about them.

Christianity is about truly accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

That definition may be dependant upon one's personal definition of christianity.

Omaar
08-18-2005, 08:32 PM
I should have known when someone asked a question like that in their title.....they'd already have the answer laid out.

It always happens.


Well.........


You probably covered most of it already but the Bible is just a collection of different books by different authors over centuries.

Infact, there are several different Bibles around the world.


The first five books of the modern Bible is called the Pentatuech and is also commonly called the Torah, but it's not the real Torah. The Torah is only one book given to Moses and it's not in circulation any more.

The Pentatuech is really a set of books devised in Babylon by Jews and Persians who used the Torah and other ancient manuscripts for sources.


The other books of the Old Testament commonly known as "Prophets" are only the writtings of the prophets who were in captivity in BABYLON with the other Jews.

We know nothing about books by the other prophets of the Children of Israel who escapted bondage by heading down into Egypt.

Wallis
08-27-2005, 05:29 AM
Omaar, you might want to look at how the Koran came into being.

What I think that Malcalon is trying to say in his long posts is that people felt the need to write down their witness to God acting in history. Yes, part of this writing was to protect the faith while within captivity as well as to continue its existence. Christianity has the NT to preserve its existence.

I'm going to get into some trouble when I write this, but then I can stand the heat in the kitchen.

I do not believe that any scripture, whether it is the Bible, the Koran, or the scriptures of the Hindus and Buddhists were written by God. Or given to a human being by an angel or any other messenger of God. They were written by human beings who were witnessing the acts of God in history and wanted to let future generations know that God Is.

I know I'm new here on this forum, but one of my pet peeves when discussing religion is proselytizing. It has its place, but when a thread is entitled such-and-such, then posts should pertain to that thread title. Proselytizing should have a thread of its own.

Aside from leecappella, I haven't seen any reference yet as to answering the question the thread topic poses. If you do a Google search for "where did the Bible come from," you will find 5,850,000 sites.