Tentpegs

The flow of questions at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com has nearly dribbled to a stop. We might need to consider doing something different here. That would be fine. I fully expected this question answering run to end around 50. Boy, was I surprised! Here is a question that comes in fairly regularly.

Can you explain how the canon of scripture came to be? How do we know that the books included are correct? Why is the Bible the Catholics use different with the addition of books? What about the other writings at the time? I have heard there is some doubt about the authorship of several nt books such as 2Peter and Revelation. If there is doubt, how did they get chosen?

How do we know that the Bible has been translated in a manner that gives us what was said in Greek, Hebrew? There seems to be controversy over the long ending of Mark 16. Many feel it is spurious and shouldn’t be included, what things point to it needing to be included? Many also feel the King James Version of the Bible to be the only version. I am wondering why this is so. Haven’t many discoveries been made in the dead sea since 1611?

There are a lot of questions in those two paragraphs. Let’s start the discussion. The myth that some like to circulate is that a group of men (women hating, homophobic, white, and power hungry) met in secret and banned a bunch of books. They then wrote, forged, or selected the 66 books that now make up our Bible and claimed that God made them do it.

Uh. No. To be fair, the other myth goes something like this: once upon a time, a large leather bound book dropped down from heaven with a note in it from the Holy Spirit that said “Good luck.” At the risk of repeating myself — uh, no.

The church did without a collection of 66 books for a few hundred years. That’s right. The apostles were dead and so were those who had received the laying on of hands from the apostles… and the Bible wasn’t around for a good long while. Individual books existed and those were passed around and copied when possible but I am not aware of any historical evidence that any one person or church had all 66 books — and only those books — in their possession before the year 300AD. Those who believe that the Bible is a legal text, a rule book, and a map that directs every single aspect of acceptable worship struggle to explain how the church functioned during that time. I believe it is because the Bible is a narrative with some commands, not a command book with some narrative. In other words, we have a LOT of grace and freedom in regards to how we organize and worship.

But that’s a different subject, isn’t it?

When the church was being persecuted, it was common for the death penalty to be demanded for anyone who had a copy of Christian scripture. That made it rather important to know what Christian scripture was! The churches had discussions from time to time to see what the consensus was about this or that book. Powerful church leaders had a lot to say about that and we have some of their correspondence, allowing us to see inside their heads and hearts. There is NO evidence that books were rejected because they would have taken control of the church away from these powerful men. That is a New Age myth.

Here are some of the things those church leaders and the people who read the books asked about the books they found (and this was important for, remember, Paul even warned that some books were already out there claiming to be from him when they weren’t).
1. Was this book written by a prophet of God? Remember that “prophet” didn’t mean someone who told the future, necessarily. It is a much broader word and means a preacher or public teacher of God’s Word. It can apply to women as well as men. If the book was written by a recognized spokesperson of God, it was accepted. (this didn’t mean that the book survived, though! Paul wrote four books to the Corinthians and yet we only have two. Not even fragments of the other two survived)

2. Was this spokesman confirmed as a spokesman of God by God Himself? Were there miracles to substantiate the message?

3. Does this book tell the truth about God? Does it fit with the picture of God given in other recognized scripture?

4. Does it have power? Is there something about this book that strengthens us, helps us grow in faith, repent of our sins, or change our lives in such a way as to show the presence of God in them?

5. What is the history of this book? This concerned its provenance as well as the history of its acceptance by the people of God. (if you remember my Three Arrows approach, the third arrow was how the church handled the issue throughout the centuries)

Some books are, indeed, questioned. Some Jews and Christians have questioned the inclusion of the Book of Esther because it doesn’t mention the name of God. Others were scandalized by the Song of Solomon. Some believed Ezekiel was absolutely given by a prophet of God but that its bizarre way of delivering that message was too dangerous to be read by the common people. Christians had a few more rules before a book was accepted (they accepted the Jewish canon as given, though we usually publish it in a different order and book count than they did. For example, they treat the books of Samuel and Kings as one book and the two Chronicles as one book).

1. Does the book help us preserve our faith?

2. Does it help address needs in the church?

They then decided that a general agreement about which books were scripture and which weren’t needed to be reached quickly because heretics were writing books, books were being translated into a large number of languages (and, therefore, which ones are worth the effort?), and books were showing up with the name of apostles or other holy people on them when it was obvious they didn’t write them. How could the Christians do as good a job as the Jews did with the Old Testament?

The earliest list of books that is exactly like our New Testament was given to us by Athanasius in 367AD. Surprised it is so late? I think most people would be. As early as 115 AD Polycarp referred to some books in our New Testament with the phrase “as it is said in these scriptures” so we know the books were revered as from the hand of God, but he didn’t quote all of them. Justin Martyr wrote around 155AD a description of a Christian worship service where “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.”

A gathering of religious leaders in 393AD confirmed that the 27 books we have in the New Testament were all in general use, revered in all the congregations. Since that time, there has been no serious questioning by Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, or Protestants about these books. At this council there was also a list of books that were useful, but not considered scripture. They included the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, both of which are available online today. Other books were considered spurious and worthless including the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Barnabas.

Because those books were considered spurious, they weren’t treasured or hidden from the authorities. Therefore, most rejected books have disappeared. That gives the conspiracy nuts a lot of ammo but those who know history aren’t troubled. From time to time, we find one of those spurious books such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas. There is great interest in them for they are windows into another time, but almost no one argues that they should be considered scripture.

As for versions and whether or not Second Peter should be included, we’ll have to wait for another blog.