The Bulletin
of the
Church of Christ at
New Georgia
Tim Johnson, editor
March 18, 2007
In
This Issue:
How
We Got the Bible
by
Rick Duggin
How We Got the Bible
(Reprinted from Biblical Insights, http://www.biblical-insights.org/)
Mr. Jones, an oceanographer, has studied a deep cavity in the Atlantic for forty years. He knows more about this hole than any other scientist, but he doesn't have a clue about what's happening on the surface. Mr. Smith, another oceanographer, has spent forty years studying the surface of the seven seas, but he knows almost nothing about the deep holes.
Though the names are fictitious and the illustration a gross oversimplification, Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith represent a universal truth: Every important subject has both depth and breadth, and the successful student learns to strike a balance between the two.
Some scholars possess an astounding depth of knowledge in biblical languages, but unfortunately they don't have a clue about the plan of salvation. Conversely, the only connection some men have with Greek is when they fly on Delta, but they know the Bible and its Author, and can guide the wayfaring man in the way of righteousness.
These introductory remarks lead to this observation: No one knows everything about any subject. If Mr. Jones were to spend forty years studying one biblical manuscript, he would not know it all. And if Mr. Smith were to spend forty years studying the general information on how we got the Bible, he would have to master every word and every verse of the Bible, including the original languages, every translation of every word and every verse, every manuscript, their preservation, their inclusion in the canon, etc. before he could learn it all. No one lives this long. Obviously, all we can hope to present in this article is a short summary of our subject.
Revelation. The Bible, God's written revelation, is the disclosure of his will to man. He revealed his word at different times and in a variety of ways (Heb 1:1), providing us with information that is vital to our salvation. We could not have deduced this information by our senses, our reason, or our instincts.
Inspiration. The men who wrote the Old Testament did not originate their message, but received it from the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). Jesus promised the same guidance to his apostles: "But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you" (Matt10:19-20).
Ancient Books. God once engraved his commandments in stone (Exodus 31:18). On one occasion, he instructed Ezekiel to engrave the siege of Jerusalem on a brick (Ezek 4:1). Book lovers must have had a difficult time traveling with stones, however, and readers did not relish the idea of curling up with a good brick. Leather, therefore, became the prominent material of books (2 Tim 4:13). God's providence has preserved some excellent leather manuscripts of the Bible. But the cost of leather prompted some creative souls to manufacture paper from the papyrus plant: the paper of 2 John12. Its texture resembles a brown paper bag. At one time, the scroll was the most common form of the ancient book, but its awkwardness finally led most to abandon it in favor of the codex (book).
The most ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament lack punctuation, spaces between words, and chapter divisions. A few sixth century manuscripts begin to show some of these modern tendencies, and eventually manuscripts contain punctuation marks, chapter divisions, chapter titles, introductions to books, and superscriptions and subscriptions. By A. D. 339, Eusebius of Caesarea had devised a table that lists parallel passages in the Greek text of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Modern editions of the Greek New Testament still include his ancient, but valuable, harmony of the gospels.
Languages. Most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and is arranged from Genesis to 2 Chronicles (see Luke 11:47-51). Most of the New Testament is written in Greek. Interestingly, Pilate displayed the charges against the Lord in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:19-20).
There were many different dialects of the Greek language. Many refer to the language of the New Testament as koine, from an adjective that means "common." The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the New Testament are forms of koine dialect, the language of the common people, as opposed to classical Greek, which includes the 8th century B.C. works of Homer down to the 4th century writings of Plato. Alexander the Great spoke a dialect known as Attic Greek; his soldiers spoke a variety of dialects. Since they had to communicate with each other, they simplified their grammar and sentence structure to form a common dialect that eventually spread throughout the world and became what we call Koine. This common language served the needs of preachers as they took the gospel to the world.
Rothe, a German scholar, observing the difference between the Greek of the New Testament and the classical Greek of secular authors, concluded that the difference in dialects was due to the influence of the Holy Spirit, calling it "a language of the Holy Ghost" (Moulton-Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, xi). Thanks to the work of Adolf Deissmann, James Hope Moulton, George Milligan, and other students of the papyri, we know better. The koine style more closely resembles the language and literature of the common people, while the classical style represents the more complex works of orators and writers.
Thayer's popular translation of Grimm's Lexicon lists 767 words that were found only in the New Testament (693ff.). [To be fair, Thayer's list reflects the opinions that were commonly held in his day; his own estimation would have reduced the number to about 549 or fewer.] Ironically, Thayer published his final edition in 1889, the very year that Professor Flinders Petrie began extracting an abundance of papyri from Egypt (ibid. ix). A few years later, other researchers found additional papyri consisting of letters, receipts, etc. of ordinary people who had no idea that scholars would one day scrutinize every mark they made. A careful examination of these writings prompted Adolf Deissmann to "estimate that in the whole New Testament vocabulary of nearly 5,000 words not many more than 50-fewer than that, more likely-will prove to be 'Christian' or 'Biblical' Greek words" (Light From The Ancient East, 78).
In the ancient world a "canon" was a reed, a tool used for measurement, much like our ruler, often translated by the English word "rule" as in Galatians 6:16: "And as many as walk according to this rule." To scholars, the canon is the list of books that compose the Bible. The standards for including Old Testament books were the following:
1. Was the book accepted in past Hebrew collections? The Talmud, a collection of ancient rabbinical writings, accepts the same thirty-nine books that we have.
2. Did Christ refer to the book?
3. Did the apostles (or other New Testament writers) refer to the book?
4. Does the book contain internal evidence of inspiration?
5. Is the book free of contradictions and absurdities?
The standards for including New Testament books were:
1. Apostolic approval. New Testament books are not authoritative because they made the canon list; they made the list because they are authoritative.
2. Genuineness. Is it the product of the one for whom it is claimed?
3. Authenticity. Is it a record of facts accurately recorded? Paul's concern for genuineness and authenticity explains why he signed his epistles (2 Thess. 3:17; Gal 6:11). Spurious epistles were already a problem in Paul's day (2 Thess. 2:2).
4. Testimony. What are the contents of the book itself, and what is the testimony of early writers regarding the book?
Churches collected these writings, viewing them as much a part of God's word as they did the Old Testament. "For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe" (1 Thess. 2:13). The quotations of New Testament writers themselves encouraged this attitude. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes part of Luke 10:7, "The laborer is worthy of his wages," and labels it "Scripture." Peter alludes to the epistles of Paul and ranks them with "the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Pet 3:16).
Origen (185-254) mentions most books of the New Testament by name, stating that a few were disputed by some. Eusebius (265-339) mentions all as approved except James, Jude, 2 Pet; 2-3 John. He wanted to reject Revelation because he wrongly thought it taught millenarianism. Bruce Metzger affirms: "though the fringes of the canon remained unsettled for a while, there was actually a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament within the first two centuries. And this was true among very diverse congregations scattered over a wide area" (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, 66, Zondervan; quoted by permission). William Barclay adds: "It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so (ibid. 67)."
New Testament epistles were intended for more than one congregation. For example, "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2). "Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea" (Col 4:16).
People often ask why our Old Testament does not include the Apocryphal books (1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Book of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, 1-4 Maccabees, Psalm 151). The reason for their omission:
1. Jesus never quoted them. [This alone would not exclude them from the canon.]
2. Most early writers regarded them as uninspired.
3. They did not appear in the ancient Hebrew canon.
4. They are inferior in quality. Generally, these books contain legendary nonsense and gross historical errors. [1 Maccabees is largely an exception.] Even Roman Catholics have rejected some of the Apocryphal books.
The Christian can rejoice that God has preserved his word through the centuries, and has supplied it to us in a language that we can understand. True gratitude compels us to study it both deeply and widely that we may be equipped to share it with others who need to know God's will.
-- Rick
Duggin