HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE And WHY WE BELIEVE IT IS GOD'S WORD

OUR English version, and probably most of the translations of the Bible, consists of sixty-six Books, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New, and is regarded with special consideration by all Christians because it is held to be the record of the divine religion of Redemption.

The Old Testament shows how this religion was prepared through many centuries; the New tells how it was at length provided and proclaimed.

- The consequent manifestation of his grace in the redeemed, both individually in believers and corporately in the community of Christians, which we call the church.

Thus both Testaments together form a complete record of human sin and divine salvation, the former making the latter necessary.

The Books of the Old Testament are the product of at least thirty authors and cover a period of at least a thousand years.

The Jewish Old Testament, following the classification of the Hebrew text, is in three parts;

The law consists of the first five books of the Bible and on this account is called the Pentateuch (five rolls).

Note - It may be said in passing that there is no trace in the historical tradition of the Jews of a Hexateuch (six rolls, including Joshua).

The second division of the Hebrew Bible, called the prophets, includes the historical books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, and the prophetic books proper with the exception of Daniel, which because it is apocalyptic rather than, as the other prophetic books, strictly predictive, is in the third section.

The historical books are called "the former prophets" because they are written from a religious standpoint and are not mere historical annals. They were pretty certainly the work of prophets or prophetic men.

The third part of the Hebrew Bible is so called from the first book in it, and the rest of it consists of those Books which are not found in the other two parts. Our English Old Testament has a different order and comes from the Greek Version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint).

The New Testament numbers twenty-seven Books, and is the work of eight authors, covering only about fifty years. Of the eight authors, five were apostles of CHRIST and three were associates of the apostles.

These three provide respectively the commencement, the course, and the culmination of the Christian religion.

There is a striking connection between the Old Testament and the New beyond the general unity mentioned above. The Old Testament emphasizes the three aspects of the divine Saviour: the prophet, the priest, and the king. These answer to the three deepest necessities of man.

Each of these is emphasized in the Old Testament, and in general can be associated with sections of its Books.

The New Testament fitly shows how this threefold need is met in CHRIST as Prophet, Priest, and King; revealing, redeeming, and ruling. The full title "Jesus Christ our Lord" suggests this:

Such is the Bible as we have it today. But how did it come to be what it now is? There has been a gradual growth, and the steps of this we must note.

At first and for a long time the revelation of GOD was oral. "The word of the Lord came to Abram" (Genesis 15:1).

This was sufficient for ages. But the time came when it was necessary to put the divine revelation in a written form. It would seem as though a book were essential for the maintenance and continuance of religion, and it is at least interesting and perhaps also significant that all the great religious systems of the world have their sacred books.

Literature is the nearest possible approach to reliability. This is a point which will need fuller consideration at a later stage.

There are traces in the Old Testament of a gradual growth by accretion. The Jewish tradition associates Moses with the commencement of the Scripture, and there is no doubt of the essential truth of this position. Certainly there is no other tradition attaching to the books; and in view of the tenacity with which the Jews kept their national traditions, this belief about Moses calls for adequate explanation.

A careful study of passages found throughout the Old Testament shows this development, indications being found at almost every period, of growth and additions to the existing writings.

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exodus 17:14).

“And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these [are] their journeys according to their goings out” (Numbers 33:2).

“And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18).

“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success . . . And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the LORD” (Joshua 1:8; 24:26).

“Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house” (I Samuel 10:25).

“Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples . . . To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:16, 20).

“Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day” (Jeremiah 36:2).

“In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:2).

“And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel” (Nehemiah 8:1).

These references, taken from each period of the history, indicate a gradual growth of the Jewish Scriptures.

The complete volume is associated by tradition with Ezra, and there are no valid reasons for doubting this, especially as it harmonizes with the testimony of the wellinformed and representative Jew, Josephus, who, writing in the first century of the Christian Era, said that no book was added to the Jewish Scripture after the time of Malachi.

As to the preservation of the gradually growing volume through the ages from Moses to Ezra, it has been pointed out by that eminent Egyptologist, Professor Naville, that it was the custom among Eastern nations to deposit their books in their sanctuaries, and there is every likelihood that the Jews did the same. The copy found by Hilkiah was probably this temple copy (II Kings 22:8).

At first came the oral accounts of the life of CHRIST and the presentation of the Christian message.

Then followed the apostolic letters, confirming and elaborating their oral teaching.

These letters were read in the assemblies of the Christians (I Thessalonians 5:27; II Thessalonians 3:14).

The next stage was the interchange of these letters among the churches (Colossians 4:16).

Not long after the need of a record of the life of the founder was felt, and as a result came our Gospels (Luke 1:l-4; John 20:31). The story of the early church naturally followed (Acts), and the Apocalypse fitly crowned the whole with its outlook on the future.

As the primitive churches had the Old Testament volume in their hands, it was a constant reminder of the need of an analogous volume of the New Testament, though everything was so very gradual and natural that it is only when the process is complete that it is realized to have been also manifestly supernatural.

At this point the important question arises how we can be sure that our Bible today really represents the books which have been thus naturally and simply collected into a volume.

The answer is that it is quite easy to prove that our Bible is the same as the church has had through the centuries.

We start with the printed Bibles of today and it is obviously easy to show that they correspond with the printed Bibles of the sixteenth century, or the time when printing was invented.

From these we can go back through the English and Latin versions until we reach to the great manuscripts of the fourth century as represented by the three outstanding codices known as:

Then we can go back still farther and compare the use of Scripture in the writings of the Fathers of the third century, and from these work back to the second century when versions in several languages are found.

From this it is but a short step to the time of the apostles and the actual composition of the New Testament writings.

There is no reasonable doubt that we possess today what has always been regarded as the Scriptures of the Christian Church.

Our Old Testament is identical with the Bible of the Jews at the present time. This is the translation of Hebrew manuscripts dating from several centuries past, and the fact of the Jews always having used the same Bible as they do today is a proof that all through the ages the Christian Church has not been mistaken in its inclusion of the Old Testament in its Bible.

An additional evidence of great value is the fact that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek about two centuries before CHRIST, and this translation is essentially the same as the Hebrew text from which we get our Old Testament.

The additional books which are found in the Greek Old Testament, called the Apocrypha, were never part of the Jewish Scriptures, and were never regarded as Scripture by those who knew the Hebrew language. These books were not written in Hebrew, and were not included in Scripture by any body of Christians until the Church of Rome arbitrarily decided to include them at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. In addition to other points which could be mentioned, these books contain inaccuracies in history and doctrine, which make it impossible for them to be regarded as part of the Word of GOD for man.

These are some of the facts which are connected with our Bible as we now have it, and from them we can proceed to consider the various points which are involved in our belief that the Bible is for us the Word of GOD, and as such, the rule of our faith and practice

The Holy Spirit didn’t drop the ball or “go dark” for 400 years. The seven books written during this Deuterocanonical period were part of the whole great work the Holy Spirit was accomplishing, to prepare for the Messiah, to spread the truths of His Word beyond Eretz Israel, beyond even the Diaspora Jews in the Hellenistic/Roman world, and in fact ultimately to all the Gentile nations.

Except these books do not claim to BE from Almighty God, they have no recognized prophets (in fact, in I Maccabees 9:27, they acknowledged that there WERE no prophets in Israel in their time). If, as you say, God used this "intertestamental" period (interesting choice of word) to prepare the Jews for the imminent coming Messiah, why is there NO new prophecy about the Messiah in them? Also, some of these books were purportedly added to recognized Old Testament books that were written way before this period (c. 400-100 B.C.). For example, additions to the book of Esther and Daniel that were NOT there prior to the Septuagint. The books of the Apocrypha teach things not found in other Scriptures of the Old Testament such as (from http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm:

A good soul fell to Solomon’s lot. Wisdom 8:19, 20

The body weighs down the soul. Wisdom 9:15

Whoever honors his father atones for sins. Sirach 3:3

God is unaware the origin of some is evil. Wisd. 12:10
" That is why God gave them a chance to repent which they did not take.

To none has he [God] given power to proclaim his works;..." Sirach

Never use deceit (Sirach 25:26) vs. Deceive people for God (Judith)

Divorce if your wife does not obey you-Sirach 25:26

"for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman's wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace." Sirach 42:14

"Wine is like life to men, if you drink it in moderation. What is life to a man who is without wine? It has been created to make men glad." (Sirach 31:27) {Does A.A. quote this often?}

"Pamper a child, and he will frighten you; play with him, and he will give you grief." Sirach 30:9

"Speak, you who are older, for it is fitting that you should, but with accurate knowledge and do not interrupt the music." Sirach 32:3

"My son, do not lead the life of a beggar; it is better to die than to beg." (and it goes on) Sirach 40:28-30.

Jeremiah, though dead, prays for Jews 2 Mac5:12-16

We should pray for the dead 2 Macc 12:44 (just might be where Catholics got the idea since nowhere else is it found in Scripture)

Jeremiah took the tabernacle of the ark to a cave in the mountain Moses saw Canaan. 2 Macc 2:1-16

· Tobias used magic, the heart, liver, and gall of a fish, to drive away a demon. The Bible says we are not to use magic. An angel lies and claims to be Azarius son of Ananias

· Tobit 1:4-5 + 1:11-13 + 14:1-3 say Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes (997 BC.); he was deported to Ninevah with Naphtali (740 BC.) yet he only lived 102 years.

Judith: It is unclear where the Book was Judith was written. The at least fourteen errors in the book cover falsehoods of the people and geography of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and even gross errors on the geography of Israel. In short, · Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon; he did not rule from Ninevah, · he was not king of the Assyrians, and the Assyrians (or Babylonians) · never sacked Ecbatana or Ragae. · Assyrians and Babylonians did not rely predominately on their cavalry. · The Babylonian and Assyrian rulers wanted people to worship their gods, but not them-selves (unlike later Romans and Persians.) · The people had not returned from exile in the time of the Assyrians or Babylonians. · The Moabites and Ammonites were descendents of Lot; they were not Canaanites. · General Holofernes and his massive campaign in Palestine are unknown to history and archaeology. · a city with towers called Bethulia, on the plain of Esdraelon near Dothan, able to resist 132,000 soldiers, has not been found. · Balbaim and · Cyamon have not been found either.

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible even says in Intro "The book of Judith in particular shows a bland indifference to history and geography."

· Mordecai taken by Nebuchadnezzar (617 BC.)

2nd year of Artaxerxes court (~130 years later). Contradicts regular part of Esther: (additions to Esther)

· Haman was an Agagite, not Macedonian. -add Esth.

· Do not remember the dead (Sirach 38:21-23) vs. pray for the dead (2 Macc 12:44)

· Baruch not really in Babylon 1:1,2 vs. Jer.43:5-7

· Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve Babylon for 7 generations. Jeremiah 25:11 & 29:11 says 70 years; .

· The Babylonians did not worship and feed a living dinosaur-like creature. (additions to Daniel 14:23-27)

· In 2 Macc 8:10 Nicanor wanted to pay 2,000 talents to the Romans; the Seleucids were not under the Romans.

· In 2 Macc 8:20 8K Seleucids plus 4K Macedonians did not destroy 120,000 Galatians in Babylonia.

· Minor historical discrepancies between 1 & 2 Mac.

Writers of Sirach (prologue) and 2 Mac (2:24-43; 15:38-40) indicate they were not inspired.

The whole reason these books were rejected by the Jews, some early Christian Fathers as well as the Reformers is because they contain errors and that disqualifies them from being considered Divinely-inspired. It should be noted that, all along we have NOT be arguing that these contested books were not in some canons, nor that they were not present in the Septuagint and even the early KJV of the Bible in a separate section. What IS the argument is that these books were/are NOT inspired from God, not God-breathed Holy Scripture. That the Catholic Church officially accepts them as inspired, brings into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can err in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?

I don't see this issue as "short-sighted" at all. It is one of many other issues where the Catholic Church has moved away from what has "always and everywhere" been the truths of the Christian faith as expressed in the Holy Scriptures. If, as they claim, they get their teachings directly from the Apostles, where is the proof that the Apostles accepted these books, for example? There is no proof. My personal feelings for why these books are allowed by the Catholic Church is to take away the Bible's trustworthiness and authority and to make it subservient to the magesterium of the Catholic Church. Now, for many Catholics, that is completely acceptable. It isn't for me and that is why I will continue to defend God's word - which HE says will endure forever.

I appreciate your participation in the discussion, as well. With regard to a few of your conclusions, I say:

Every argument you have made against the Deuterocanonical books, if taken at the level of principle, would also decanonize the entire New Testament:

The HUGE exception, of course, is that the books of the New Testament are chock full of testimony to the effect that they ARE direct revelation from Jesus Christ. They even contain warnings that prohibit any changes to them and renew exhortations to observe and hold to the doctrines put forth as coming directly from God. The "extra-canonical" books NEVER do make such declarations. In fact, as the author of the link I provided earlier stated, there is admission that the writers are NOT speaking as from God but from their own thoughts about their experiences of the times. For example, in the prologue of Sirach it says:

1 The knowledge of many and great things hath been shewn us by the law, and the prophets, and others that have followed them: for which things Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom, because not only they that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both speaking and writing, may by their means become most learned.2 My grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books, that were delivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something himself, pertaining to doctrine and wisdom: that such as are desirous to learn, and are made knowing in these things, may be more and more attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the law.3 I entreat you therefore to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.4 For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Evergetes was king, and continuing there a long time, I found there books left, of no small nor contemptible learning.5 Therefore I thought it good, and necessary for me to bestow some diligence and labour to interpret this book; and with much watching and study in some space of time, I brought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them that are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to conduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the law of the Lord. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+1&version=DRA

In II Maccabees 15:38-39, as also noted in the link:

So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.

You can compare those with the words of GENUINE prophets of God such as Isaiah 1:1,2:

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

Can you point to any verse in the Apocryphal books that make claims of being revelation from God?

The fact remains that the Bible itself contains no written internal criteria for determining what books comprise the Bible. It simply does not. Therefore--- and this is inescapable --- one must rely on on some external criteria: some council (Jewish or Christian) or some scholarly hermeneutic, or some rough-consensus-over-time, or some authority.

Completely disagree. No, we don't find a Table of Contents nor a comprehensive list of what makes up the "Bible", but such a list was never needed and it does not determine what is the Word of God. The word of the Lord came to specific people that the Lord God hand selected and endowed with His Spirit, confirming His word with miracles and signs. If you recall, God said at the start that He would make His word known to the people. In Numbers 12:6, God told the Israelites:

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Also, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, God gave instructions to the people for how they could recognize who was a legitimate prophet from Him:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee

In Deuteronomy 18:18-22, God went further as told them:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This was recognized by the Jews for all their existence that what God had spoken to them by His prophets WAS the word of the Lord. There was a mutual acceptance and understanding that what came from God WAS Holy Scripture and the collection of mutually accepted scriptures grew until there was no longer a prophet in Israel. Jesus and the Apostles recognized the authority of the Old Testament by referring to it numerous times as "thus sayeth the Lord", "it is written" and "the Scripture sayeth". As the esteemed theologian B. B. Warfield noted:

But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant “; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were “of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible “; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (http://www.the-highway.com/ntcanon_Warfield.html)

These truths tell me that there was no "external" councils or other authority that was needed to make what came from God be "officially" called Holy Scripture. Again, from the B. B. Warfield link:

The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called “The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” (or “the Hagiographa”), or more briefly “The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still “The Law”; so the enlarged Bible was called “The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles” (so Clement of Alexandria, “Strom.” vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, “De Præs. Hær.” 36), or most briefly “The Law and the Gospel” (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenæus); while the new books apart were called “The Gospel and the Apostles,” or most briefly of all” The Gospel.” This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., “ad Philad.” 5; “ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (“ad Philad.” 6). “When I heard some saying,” he writes, “‘Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel,’ on my saying, ‘It is written,’ they answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] — by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better,” etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.

This is the testimony of all the early witnesses — even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, “The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs” (Benj. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the “work and word” of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles, “shall be written in the Holy Books,” i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a “bishop” of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by “sinking himself deeper” into the same “Book” which contained the Law of Moses (“Babl. Shabbath,” 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of “New Books” (Ignatius), called the “Gospel and Apostles” (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the “Oracles” of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or “Scriptures” (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the” Holy Books “or “Bible” (Testt. XII. Patt.).

The number of books included in this added body of New Books, at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily determined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it called the “Gospel” included Gospels written by “the apostles and their companions” (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were our four Gospels now received. The section called “the Apostles contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of Paul, John, Peter and James. The evidence from various quarters is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use contained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, II and III John and Philemon. And it is more natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their non-acceptance.

It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collection may have — and indeed is historically shown actually to have — varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in hand-copies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed Canon? (3) When did the completed canon — the complete Bible — obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Irenæus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the “canon” of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.” Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon” is “instrumentum”; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon” — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally “Scripture” with it in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book of as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of “The Gospel and the Apostles,” — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.” The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written.

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evidence of slowness of “canonization” of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself.

We also know what comes from God because there is a spiritual attestation and power that comes from hearing (and reading) the Word of God. It speaks to the heart of a believer. As the Apostle Paul said, the "natural" man receives not the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.

This is already way too long of a rebuttal, thank you again for the discussion.

No Christian (individual or group) ever insisted on a 66-book canon for the first millennium-and-a-half of Christian history

Not quite. In fact, that sort of statement is highly misleading unless perhaps we wish to delve into precise application of the word "insisted" when we are still conducting conversation here regarding the same disputed books, with "66" not always being the base count of the otherwise accepted.

In light of your above statement, when we look upon distinctions made concerning these books to say "no Christian" ever;
We are still forgetting Melito, whom in the 2nd century took it upon himself to travel to the place of the very origin of his own faith, seeking to find out for himself directly what had up until the time of Christ, been the composition of the "Old Testament", for which he coined that new term.

After him was Origen whom indicated that Esther and maybe Baruch belonged, but the books Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees did not merit mention in his own catalog.

Cyril of Jerusalem did much as Origin did, but classifying Esther and Baruch as Scripture, while openly mentioning the others as being inferior.

Anthanasius viewed Baruch as belonging, while regarding the rest inferior, including Esther.

For ease of seeing where I'm getting this information, I can refer us here to this chart which organizes the rankings and considerations.

One may click on the link to open in a new tab, for all throughout my endeavors here, I do try to include with provided links, after pasting in the "location" enclosed in quotation marks, the additional target"bodypage">. Linking to and opening pages in this manner can ease going back and forth from reference to discussion...

The charts refute to significant extent your own assertions, or now, the allusion to uniformity by characterizing it as

"east-and-west, north-and-south," "across 3 continents and many centuries"

Many centuries.
But only since Augustine, and before that, the ship was going the OTHER WAY. On an almost fully reverse heading in regards to these books here in dispute.

There was something of an East-West split or differentiation with little change in portions of the East, carrying forward through most of the 8th Century.

There goes that east-west thing, with some centuries slipping away...

By which I mean to say, whoa, slow down, not so fast, it's not that simple. I wish it were simpler, but eh, it's history, and wherever people are involved it'll be messy, and lines not always so straight as we'd like for them to be. The more we look, the more textured it becomes, finding as we often do life there, rather than precise geometry or mathematical equation.

There was (regarding these extra books again) not a big sea change among the Roman/Latin church, until Augustine.

That which did come before Augustine, was outlined quite early [A.D. 70] by Josephus in secular account, found to have long before Christ to have been that case amongst the Jews of Jerusalem, then found the same confirmed by Melito a hundred years later, upon his own personal thorough inspection.

All of that then was continually ratified nearly unchanged, for the larger extent uniformly for centuries (200-300 years being nothing to sneeze at, particularly those FIRST 3 hundred years).

Whatever happened to the plea for "the earliest Christians"?

They keep getting swept under the rug, along with Josephus, and the words of the Jews from who's own people first came forth the divinely inspired Word.

A three-fold cord is not quickly broken. In this instance, it still hasn't been broken, as much as it has been embroidered upon, even embroidered with some of the very threads the earlier cordage walkers (makers) had cast aside as being not ~quite~ kosher.

Yet the argument now seems to keep getting back to, boiling down to "it's kosher because we say it is, even though we used to say it wasn't".

I am lead to repeat what another graciously brought to this thread previous, in post #6, here only in part;

Cardinal Cajetan, prior to the decision of the Council of Trent;

"...Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.

There were some things which you had submitted in your next previous post to the one to which I am replying, concerning "new theological themes" as you put it "In what some call the Intertestamental period".

Though I will not here now delve deeply into thematic exegesis, I'll take a stab at what jumped out at me strongest first, that being judgment of the nations.

I'm afraid I cannot cover all reference to such a thing briefly; even if I knew of or could find them all, being how some series must be held together as examples, and being how nations were being judged left and right of Israel with reason given for their judgments all along, along with Israel itself falling into various forms of judgements for their own transgressions. There are many clues there. A recurring theme...

Looking for what Ed Sullivan may have introduced as 'the really Big Shoe' without much effort we can find;

Isaiah 24; 21-23

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

There can also be found numerous Apocalyptic discussion and mention, along with such important things as the resurrection of the body, eternal life, or if failing judgment, eternal damnation.

It does not appear to me that one can rightfully say "introduced new themes" for the three themes which were offered as being somehow new.

Those one can find threads for interwoven throughout much of the "Hebrew Old Testament" [if I may use that term] without needing rely upon other works or texts, prior to the New Testament.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.