Category Archives: Canon

Thoughts on the composition of the Bible

Leave a reply

OK, I’m realizing that my thoughts relative to inspiration, canon, our relationship with the text, et al., aren’t organized enough for me to lay these posts out in any logical order. So I’ll just keep laying out thoughts and getting reactions. Thanks to all who commented yesterday.

Some thoughts on the compilation of the text:

  • I think most of the biblical books were written and/or compiled with a specific audience in mind. Why was this story included and that one not? Why is this oracle recorded and that one not? Why were the sections of text arranged the way they were? I believe this was done intentionally with the intended readers in view.
  • I believe that this process of selection and organization of material was guided by the Holy Spirit. How? Ah, that’s above my pay grade. Still, I believe that the creation of the biblical writings was not a purely human effort.
  • While recognizing the role of context in the creation of biblical texts, I believe that the whole Bible has something to say to us. There is no “that was just then” when it comes to the text. As I recognized recently, it can be hard to identify the principles behind teachings in the Bible and that process is open to subjectivity; that doesn’t shake my faith in the value of each biblical text. (That faith does not mean that I see each text of equal value; there are “greatest commands” and “weightier matters”)
  • I also trust in the biblical canon as it stands. I believe that God worked with and through his people in the selection of the books and particular texts that make up our Bible today. I’m willing to use textual criticism to hone our understanding of what the original text was, but none of that shakes my faith in what makes up the Bible I use.

Maybe those are enough general thoughts for today. Help me sharpen my thinking on these items!

Why the ad hominem attack on Paul?

2 Replies

We’ve been discussing the concept of “Jesus vs Paul” or “the gospels vs the epistles.” There’s one other observation that I want to make, even though I doubt it will be a popular one. Who is trying to demote Paul’s theology to second class? That is, who wants the words of the epistles to carry less weight than they traditionally have?

In my experience, this view is promoted by basically two groups, who share a common argument (though they rarely admit it). In churches of Christ, it’s primarily those who hold to an egalitarian view. In Christianity at large, it’s also those who no longer see homosexual behavior as a sin.

I rarely hear people saying, “Jesus emphasized baptism more than Paul did; I take Jesus much more seriously.” Seldom is the argument: “Jesus taught a works-based justification while Paul emphasizes grace; I take Jesus much more seriously.” (And yes, those claims are debatable… like the idea that Jesus promoted egalitarianism more than Paul did.)

I’m very open to correction on this point. Feel free to point me to people who are de-emphasizing Paul for reasons other than the ones I’ve mentioned. My experience is naturally limited.

For now, I’m very uncomfortable with any attempt to not take a biblical writer seriously, especially one who wrote as much as Paul did. Yes, many have over-emphasized Paul in the past, many have stripped his words of all context, many have built ridiculous arguments based on proof texts. But none of that calls for us to demote apostolic teaching to a second tier.

Why the New Testament doesn’t have a Torah

Leave a reply

While the Jews had their canon within a canon, what about the early church? The Jews emphasized the Torah above the other scriptures? What about early Christians? Specifically, how did they see the New Testament writings?

I would argue that the stratifying of authority took place during the years when the canon was in flux. That is, writings seen to be of lesser authority were not included as part of the New Testament. There were highly respected books like the Didache or 1 Clement that were read regularly, but not seen as part of the authoritative scriptures of the church.

There was debate about some of the accepted books, like 2 Peter or Jude. But for the most part, the books we use today were seen as holy scriptures. (And yes, I’m greatly simplifying decades and decades of study and debate)

I don’t place the epistles over the gospels nor vice versa. I do read the varying literary sections in different ways, which helps explain why I don’t take Revelation literally (Jesus isn’t a slain lamb with seven horns and seven eyes)

I guess the huge difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament had books that were expected to be read as law; that’s why the Torah was/is seen differently. The New Testament lacks such legal code. There are commands and instructions throughout the New Testament writings, but there is nothing similar to what we find in the laws of the Torah.

That’s where I ended up on this mental side trip. How about you?

Conspiracy theories and the Bible

4 Replies

On Monday, I was talking about trusting and not trusting. Part of what got me to thinking about this was the whole idea of conspiracy theories. I have friends who see conspiracies everywhere, right down to the idea that there is a small, powerful group that pretty much controls all world affairs. I just can’t fit those sorts of views into my overall worldview. I know that there are conspiracies, large and small, but I’m not going to spend my life looking around every corner to try and find them.

In the same way, I typically reject conspiracy theories regarding the Bible. I don’t buy into any of the ancient conspiracy theories about the authorship of the biblical books. I don’t accept conspiracy theories about the canon. And I don’t think that the majority of Bible translators have conspired to hide truths from us.

Could any of these people along the way have acted to promote a certain agenda? Certainly. I think all of us are influenced in one way or another by the things that we believe. But I believe that the checks and balances of community, time and divine intervention have helped to keep the impact of those personal agendas to a minimum.

It’s my opinion that our job, as people of the covenant, is to study and seek to understand the Bible in the form that we have received it. I’m not willing to play the game of “Maybe this writer wasn’t inspired” or “maybe this book doesn’t belong” or “maybe this passage isn’t original.” That’s where I am right now.

What about you?

Canon and false teachers in the 1st century

4 Replies

We’re spending some time these days talking about how the canon of the Bible was identified. I want to talk a little about what went on during the first century. During the first century, more than being concerned about what writings were scriptural, the church was focused on what teachings were inspired. Through the apostles and prophets, God was communicating messages to His church. They didn’t have the New Testament in written form; there were certainly congregations that didn’t even have the Old Testament writings. They were receiving teachings orally.

For the most part, it came to be recognized that the apostles taught with authority. From what we see in the book of Acts, that was somewhat relative. The Jews in chapter 11 had no problem in challenging Peter. The meeting in Acts 15 showed respect to the apostles, but didn’t concede them the right to decree on the question at hand. Yet, we can tell that their teachings carried weight.

I’m convinced that God used miracles to confirm the teachings of the apostles. I’ve discussed that theory before and won’t go into it again. Let’s just say that one of the ways the church could tell that someone had been in the presence of the apostles was by the miracles that they did.

God used the church itself as a control on teachers and prophets. There are numerous commands to weigh teachings and examine prophecies. 1 Corinthians 14 describes the process in a bit more detail. False teachers and false prophets were common in the ancient world (unlike today… ha!), and the church was not exempt from their influence.

The writers of the New Testament didn’t write with an awareness that they were writing Scripture. They certainly wouldn’t have laid their teachings alongside the Torah, for example. Yet Paul could quote Luke and call it Scripture, and Peter could refer to Paul’s writings along with “the other scriptures.”

Their was a concern about counterfeit messages, writings sent in the name of the apostles that weren’t really from them. The concept of authorship was a bit different in the ancient world. People saw nothing wrong in someone writing the teachings of another person and ascribing that person’s name to it. If I admire Will Rogers, for example, I could write a book of what I see to be his views and put his name on it. That was accepted in the ancient world. Unfortunately, people sent out messages in the name of Paul, for example, that never came from him. He seemed to take some steps to prevent that, adding unique touches to his letters that were to give them a mark of authenticity. (2 Thessalonians 3:17)

The question of which writings of the apostles and church leaders were to be considered as scripture was principally a question for a later age. In the first century, the focus was on the authenticity of the teaching.

Again, this isn’t an area that I consider myself to have much expertise. I welcome any and all educated insights.