How to Study the Bible: What is the Bible?

With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.


In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.

This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.

In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).

The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.

Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.

First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.

Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.

However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:

1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.

Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.


1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."


From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."

Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:

What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.


The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.

Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.

Sources:

Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration

Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?