Saturday, October 17, 2015

How Did We Get the Bible?

The Bible. Most of us have multiple copies of it on our bookshelves. We have multiple translations to choose from. We read it at home on our own, with our loved ones, and hear it read and interpreted in church each week.

But did you ever stop to ask yourself where it came from? You may answer, “God, of course!” And that is true. But God did not send the completed book that we have now down to earth via a heavenly messenger and plop it in the lap of early Christians. It was a much more “earthy,” human process, inspired by God’s Spirit. And this is what we would expect, given that this is God’s usual mode of interacting in the world – through humanity – with the supreme example being Jesus, God in human flesh!

So, come along with me as we explore the “earthy” process of canonization – the fancy theological word describing which writings were to be received by the church as authoritative for its life and thought.

Why Bother?


Why was it important for the church to have a list of accepted writings? There are at least two compelling reasons. First, early followers of Jesus already had the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. The books of the law (the Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings, were fully recognized by Jewish authorities as God’s revealed word, and Jesus often referred to and quoted them. God had given God’s people guidance, nourishment, and promises of a king to come through the written word across centuries and it was expected God would continue to communicate this way after Jesus announced the coming of his kingdom.
Second, from early in the second century certain groups formed and made claims that contradicted the commonly accepted apostolic teachings. One of these groups was started by a man named Marcion. Marcion rejected the Old Testament. He believed the God of the Old Testament was vindictive and punishing, clearly different from the loving Father of Jesus. He claimed that the only writings that were suitable for Christians were the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke. This was the first time anyone had suggested a list of approved books. This caused the early church to begin examining more closely how they decided which writings were to be used by the church.

The Gospels and Acts


In the decades following Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension, those who had been with him and witnessed these things began writing them down. One of the “tests” that the early church used to discern which writings would be read in their public worship was that they had to be written by recognized apostles or witnesses, or someone associated with them. This is why the Gospels were the writings that gained the earliest acceptance by the church as inspired scripture. Acts, which was written by Luke as an extension to his Gospel, also received early recognition.
Justo Gonzalez, in his book, The Story of Christianity, points out that churches in various regions used particular Gospels associated with their tradition. “As contact among these churches developed, they began sharing their manuscripts and traditions, and thus the acceptance and use of a variety of Gospels came to be seen as a sign of the unity of the church” (p. 75). This was extremely important in the face of groups such as the Marcionites and Gnostics who claimed to have special revelation or who wanted to reject one or more of the recognized Gospels because it didn’t fit their theology. The convictions of the early church “were not based on the supposed witness of a single apostle or Gospel, but on the consensus of the entire apostolic tradition” (p. 76).

Paul’s Letters


The writings of Paul were also recognized very early in the life of the church as Spirit-inspired scripture. Paul wrote his letters to specific churches, usually to address questions they had about proper worship practices or to correct misunderstandings and even outright sin in the congregation. Copies of these letters were then circulated and read in surrounding churches. This practice met one of the other “tests” for canonicity: that of being widely accepted by the church and its leaders as inspired by God. The reason these letters made it into the Bible we have today is not because a few church leaders decided they contained the theology they wanted taught in the church. Instead, the theology of the church was formed by its use of these texts that had wide consensus among the people of God as being the standard for their life of faith.

The Other Letters and Revelation


By the end of the second century, within about 150 years of Jesus’ resurrection, the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters were firmly established as the core of the New Testament canon. The remaining books that we have in our New Testament today all had widespread usage throughout the church although there was no specific list agreed upon. In texts of the third and fourth centuries, leaders in the church wrote about and referred to the entire range of books we have now, though some had lists that left off one or two. It was in AD 367, that Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter that included the authoritative list of canonical books we have in our Bible today. There was little debate, however. Our New Testament came to us through the Spirit-inspired consensus and worship practice of the church at large, not through the decision of a select group of men.

2 comments:

  1. Canonization is a legal process of recognizing certain source material as the foundations for Church teaching. The process made it possible for Church leaders to legally qualify someone as a heretic and exclude them from the Church or otherwise punish them. It was one of the first attempts to define who and what constituted the definition of a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Canonization is a legal process of recognizing certain source material as the foundations for Church teaching. The process made it possible for Church leaders to legally qualify someone as a heretic and exclude them from the Church or otherwise punish them. It was one of the first attempts to define who and what constituted the definition of a Christian.

    ReplyDelete