Chapter Twelve - The Inerrancy, Canoncity and Interpretation of Scripture
When we accept that in the Bible we have the embodiment of a divine revelation, we forthwith wish to know whether the several books of the Bible are free from errors (i.e. inerrant), credible, genuine and canonical. This chapter is divided into ten major divisions, they are:
Inerrancy of Scripture;
Credibility of the books of the Old Testament;
Credibility of the books of the New Testament;
Genuineness of the books of the Old Testament;
Genuineness of the books of the New Testament;
Canoncity of the books of the Old Testament;
Canoncity of the books of the New Testament;
Illumination of the Bible;
Interpretation of the Bible; and
Animation of the Bible.
Two terms are used by theologians to describe the degree to which the Bible is inspired:
inerrant; and
infallible.
As synonyms, they both mean "incapable of error" or "without error."
1.1.1 Infallible
However, some theologians choose to define "infallible" as "dependable" or "reliable." When they do this, they deny that Scripture is inerrant (thoroughly free of error), and affirm that it is infallible (free of error in theological matters, capable of error in non-theological matters like history or science). This latter view is sometimes known as limited inerrancy. They would say that the Bible is religiously and spiritually inerrant, and merely "dependable," or possibly errant, in other areas.
1.1.2 Inerrancy
Inerrancy means that the Bible, in whole and in part, is without error in everything that it affirms as true.
At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives" (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.).
In summary, inerrancy means that the Bible is:
without error in all that it affirms, whether in historical, scientific, moral, or doctrinal matters;
without error in the record it gives of those things that are untruths (such as statements by Satan); and
without error in all its teaching, it extends to all of Scripture and is not limited to certain teachings of Scripture.
It is important to bear in mind that belief in inerrancy is in keeping with the character of God. If God is true and He is (Romans 3:4), and if God breathed out the Scripture, then the Scripture, being the product of God, must also be true. This is why the Psalmist affirms, "All your words are true" (Psalm 119:160a). The concept of the Bible's inerrancy is reasonable due to its verbal, plenary inspiration (discussed in chapter 11).
1.2 Clarifications Regarding Inerrancy
Inerrancy means that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms to be true. However, a number of different issues invariably come up when considering the doctrine of inerrancy. What about the variety of styles, or the varying ways certain events are described, or the different reports of events? How does this mesh with the concept of inerrancy? Paul Enns has done an excellent job in summarizing these fundamental issues (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989):
The Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts only;
The Bible is inerrant when accurately translated;
The Bible is inerrant when accurately interpreted;
The Bible is inerrant though our own knowledge of history and science is incomplete;
The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for figurative expressions;
The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for variety in style;
The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for variety in details in explaining the same event;
The Bible is inerrant when it does not demand verbatim reporting of events;
The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for departure from standard forms of grammar; and
The Bible is inerrant when it demands the account does not teach error or contradiction.
1.2.1 The Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts only
As far as we know, all the original manuscripts (autographs) of all the divinely chosen authors have been lost long ago. God in His wisdom has allowed this to happen, no doubt to avoid the worship of objects (cf. 2 Kings 18:4). There is no biblical guarantee that later copies made through the centuries are absolutely flawless reproductions of the originals. The history of the manuscripts demonstrates that minor copyist errors did creep in. Due to this reason, inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts only.
However, through the process of examining and comparing thousands of manuscripts (textual criticism), today we can be confident that the Hebrew and Greek text we have is virtually the same as the originals. Due to the differences between languages it is impossible to have a perfect translation. However, the translations we have are fully adequate for study and devotional reading.
1.2.2 The Bible is inerrant when accurately translated
The "whale" in Matthew 12:40, (King James Version), should be rendered "sea-monster." This stifles the criticism that a man could not survive in a "whale" for three days (a topic of debate today). A creature that God specially prepared, or one that no longer exists, may have been the "sea-monster" that carried Jonah to shore. (Or it may very well have been a whale!)
1.2.3 The Bible is inerrant when accurately interpreted
There appear to be some errors in the Bible when a given passage has not been properly interpreted. For example, Genesis 4:26 says that men "began to call upon the name of the Lord" during the days of Enosh, but Exodus 6:3 says that God did not make Himself "known" to them by the name "Lord" (Hebrews Yahweh) until Moses' time. The explanation is simply that the Hebrew for "known" means fully known. His name was used earlier but not understood until the Exodus.
Another matter of interpretation is that a Biblical statement must be understood in light of its immediate environment. Jesus called the mustard seed the tiniest of all seeds, which was true to His listeners' limited experience in the Middle East, not in light of our broader knowledge today.
1.2.4 The Bible is inerrant though our own knowledge of history and science is incomplete
So far, our increasing knowledge of our universe has confirmed the integrity of Scripture. Many imagined errors have been based on the incomplete or incorrect knowledge and scientific theories of man. Even with so vast a work as the Holy Scriptures it is impossible to provide solutions to all the problems. In some cases the solution awaits the findings of the archaeologist's spade; in another case it awaits the linguist's research; in other cases the solution may never be discovered for other reasons. The answer, however, is never to suggest there are contradictions or errors in Scripture. If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.
1.2.5 The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for figurative expressions
An example of this is in the expression, "the sun set." The sun does not actually "set," but instead the earth turns on its axis giving the impression that it sets. Nevertheless, the expression conveys the phenomenon in an intelligible way.
Another example is found in Psalm 91:4. Though Scripture declares that "He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you may seek refuge," it obviously does not imply that God has the physical features of a fowl!
1.2.6 The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for variety in style
The gospel of John was written in the simple style one might expect of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person; Paul's epistles reflect the logic of a philosopher. All of these variations are entirely compatible with inerrancy.
1.2.7 The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for variety in details in explaining the same event
This phenomenon is particularly observed in the synoptic gospels. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers of Scripture wrote their accounts in Greek, meaning they had to translate the original words into Greek. One writer would use slightly different words to describe the same incident, yet both would give the same meaning, albeit with different words. There is an additional reason for variety in details. One writer might have viewed the event from one standpoint while the other gospel writer viewed it from another standpoint. This would make the details appear different, yet both would be accurate.
1.2.8 The Bible is inerrant when it does not demand verbatim reporting of events
"In times of antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out" (E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 119). A verbatim quote could not be demanded for several reasons. First, as already mentioned, the writer had to translate from Aramaic to Greek in recording Jesus' words. Second, in making reference to Old Testament texts it would have been impossible to unroll the lengthy scrolls each time to produce a verbatim quote; furthermore, the scrolls were not readily available, hence, the freedom in Old Testament quotes (William R. Eichhorst, The Issue of Biblical Inerrancy: In Definition and Defence, Winnipeg, Man.: Winnipeg Bible College, n.d., p. 9).
1.2.9 The Bible is inerrant when allowance is made for departure from standard forms of grammar
Obviously it is wrong to force English rules of grammar upon the Scriptures. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, "I am the door," whereas in verse 11 He states, "I am the Good Shepherd." In English this is considered mixing metaphors, but this is not a problem to Greek grammar or Hebrew language. In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit (pneuma = neuter) and then refers to the Spirit as "He" (ekeinos = masculine). This may raise an English grammarian's eyebrows, but it is not a problem of Greek grammar.
1.2.10 The Bible is inerrant when it demands the account does not teach error or contradiction
In the statements of Scripture, whatever is written is in accord with things as they are. Details may vary but it may still reflect things as they are. For example, in Matthew 8:5-13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, "I am not qualified." In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1-10 it is noted that the elders came and said concerning the centurion, "He is worthy." It appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself came. Both accounts are in accord with things as they are.
1.2.11 Conclusion
Someone has said that perhaps 95% of the Bible has been verified by history, archaeology, and science, and that the trend is toward verification, not contradiction. Should not such a trend encourage us to give the Bible the "benefit of the doubt," so to speak, when verification is not immediately at hand?
1.3 The Logical Necessity of Inerrancy
There are two major lines of reasoning that support inerrancy as more than a possibility; it is a logical necessity, they are:
the perfection of God; and
the need for unquestioned Authority.
1.3.1 The perfection of God
The empirical evidence of Scripture is that all God does He does without error. Human beings introduce imperfection into the works of God. But when human beings are the instruments of the direct works of God, there are no imperfections in the products. For example, miracles of healing accomplished through the apostles in Scripture were never incomplete or marred; when Moses spoke and the Red Sea parted it was exactly what God wanted, without flaw.
Logic tells us to expect the same results in that direct act of God called inspiration; thus absolute accuracy in expressing the thoughts of God should characterize His final product, the Bible. Any imperfections entered at the point where these documents were copied at the point where these documents were copied by men. Though inspiration only guarantees that the original documents are free from error, we may say that God has compensated for human error by seeing to it that thousands of copies were made for textual scholars to compare and arrive at a "pure" text for us today.
Therefore, because God's works are perfect (inspiration being a work of God), the concept of the Bible's perfection, or inerrancy, is a logical necessity; it is consistent with our view of God.
1.3.2 The need for unquestioned authority
If we admit that there may be errors in Scripture - even merely errors of science and history - we are trusting our own judgment of the truth. We set ourselves, for all practical purposes, over the Bible, and thus become the final authorities ourselves (unreliable ones, in fact - Jeremiah 17:9). How can the fallible become the judge of the infallible? It is far more practical to assume that the Bible, not man, is totally trustworthy. Then, when we encounter apparent problems or errors we will reserve our judgment and seek for reasonable explanations. This allows the Bible to exert its authority over us in full measure.
Furthermore, it seems arbitrary and unreasonable to say that truth lies in the theological and moral teachings only. Consider an employer who will ask a prospective employee for a list of references. He wants to know if this person has a reputation for integrity in his school, church, previous places of employment, and community. If proven trustworthy in these areas, the job-hunter will most likely be trustworthy in all areas of his life. Though this is an inadequate analogy, we can see the logic of trusting the entire Bible as the authoritative recording of religious, moral, scientific, and historical truths.
Beyond the above reasoning from logic, I will provide Biblical, historical and archaeological evidences for the accuracy and authority of Scripture in the following sections.
1.4 What Happens If Inerrancy Is Denied?
How important is inerrancy? What happens when this doctrine is denied? There are those (and some are even evangelicals) who believe that inerrancy is not important. But how sound is this kind of thinking and how does it stack up with the teaching of the Bible and particularly with what Christ taught?
If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, Salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible.
For instance, is the history of Adam and Eve important? Absolutely, for Paul developed a theological analogy between Adam and Christ which essentially breaks down if it is historically not true. The Old Testament has dozens of prophecies of the coming Messiah that detail his lineage. If the genealogy of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are historically inaccurate, then this raises questions about whether Jesus is the one anticipated as well as about the rest of His life.
Even if the errors are supposedly in "minor" matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so "minor." If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too. If we can't trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of Salvation and Sanctification?
Some people questioned the story recorded in the gospels where Jesus delivered two demon possessed men and sent the demons into a herd of swine. Assuming that the owners of the pigs were Jews (which they were not), they doubted the historicity of the account because they could not imagine Jews raising pigs since it was contrary to the law for them to eat pork. A person believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, would know that the account was historical and accurate. Therefore, the apparent problem was not in the accuracy of the Scripture, but in their understanding of the event, which was precisely the case.
A denial of inerrancy is a serious matter and will lead to the following kinds of problems doctrinally and practically:
doctrinal matters; and
lifestyle errors (degradation of moral standard).
1.4.1 Doctrinal matters
Some doctrinal matters which may be affected by denying inerrancy include the following:
A denial of the historical fall of Adam.
A denial of the facts of the experiences of the Prophet Jonah.
An explaining away of some of the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments.
A denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
A belief in two or more authors of the Book of Isaiah.
A flirting with or embracing of liberation theology with its redefining of sin (as societal rather than individual) and Salvation (as political and temporal rather than spiritual and eternal).
1.4.1 Lifestyle errors (degradation of moral standard)
Some lifestyle errors (degradation of moral standard) that may follow a denial of inerrancy include the following:
A loose view of the seriousness of adultery.
A loose view of the seriousness of homosexuality.
A loose view of divorce and remarriage.
"Cultural" reinterpretation of some of the teachings of the Bible (e.g., teaching on women, teaching on civil obedience).
A tendency to view the Bible through a modern psychological grid.
1.5 Conclusion
Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is both Biblical and reasonable. If Scripture itself claims inerrancy, it is far safer to assume that it is, rather than carelessly exert our fallible judgment over what we think may or may not be true. Inerrancy is an important doctrine, the denial or even diluting of which may result in serious doctrinal and life errors.
2. CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
A book is credible if it relates truthfully the matters which it treats. It is said to be corrupt when its present text varies from the original. Credibility then embraces both the ideas of truthfulness of the records and purity of the text. The credibility of the books of the Old Testament is established by the following two great facts:
The Proof from Christ's Recognition of the Old Testament; and
The Proof Derived from History and Archaeology.
2.1 The Proof from Christ's Recognition of the Old Testament
A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Romans 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.
Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:
its entirety;
its historicity;
its reliability;
its sufficiency;
its indestructibility;
its unity;
its inerrancy; and
its infallibility.
2.1.1 Its entirety
The whole of the Bible is inspired (Matthew 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan's temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration).
Jesus said. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). It is clear that Jesus had the highest view possible of the authority of Scripture ("Law" here means the whole Old Testament), right down to the smallest letter or tiniest part of a letter. He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. This extends inerrancy to every part of the Bible, so that any attempt to distinguish between "theological" parts and "non-theological" parts, and ascribe inerrancy to only the theological parts, is unfounded. Jesus promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. His point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.
2.1.2 Its historicity
He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history:
the creation of the universe by God (Mark 13:19);
Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matthew 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8);
the personality of Satan and his malignant character (John 8:44);
the destruction of the world by a flood in Noah's day along with the ark (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27);
the destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matthew 10:15; Luke 17:28-30);
the revelation of God to Moses at the burning bush (Mark 12:26);
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Luke 24:27);
the giving of the manna in the wilderness (John 6:32);
the existence of the tabernacle (Luke 6:3f);
the experience of Jonah in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matthew 12:40); and
the unity of Isaiah (Matthew 8:17; Luke 4:17f).
2.1.3 Its reliability
Because it is God's word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matthew 26:54).
2.1.4 Its sufficiency
It is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His Salvation (Luke 16:31).
2.1.5 Its indestructibility
Heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matthew 5:17-18).
2.1.6 Its unity
The whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).
2.1.7 Its inerrancy
Men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matthew 22:29; John 17:17).
2.1.8 Its infallibility
The Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35). Jesus said that "the Scripture cannot be broken." In defense against His critics, Jesus points to an obscure statement in the Old Testament and says of the passage it "cannot be broken." That is, Scripture "cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous." In the Savior's view the indefectible authority of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses.
2.2 The Proof Derived from History and Archaeology
2.2.1 History confirms the correctness of Biblical events
History furnishes many proofs of the correctness of the Biblical representations of life in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and so forth. A number of the rulers of these countries are mentioned by name in Scripture, and none of them is represented in a manner contradictory to what is known of him in history. Shalmaneser IV is said to have besieged the city of Samaria, but the king of Assyria, whom we now know to have been Sargon II, is said to have carried the people away into Assyria (2 Kings 17:3-6). History shows that he reigned from 722 to 705 BC. He is mentioned by name only once in the Bible (Isaiah 20:1). Neither Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-30) nor Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:31-6:28) is any longer regarded as a fictitious character.
2.2.2 Archaeology confirms the correctness of Biblical events
Archaeology supplies many confirmations of the Biblical accounts. The Babylonian "Epic of Creation," while a confirmation of the Genesis account, shows that the idea of a special creation by the God was widespread in early times. The same can be said about the Babylonian legends of the fall. More important is a tablet that has been found in Babylon containing an account of the flood which has marked similarities to the biblical account. The so-called battle of the kings (Genesis 14) can no longer be regarded with suspicion, since the inscriptions in the Valley of the Euphrates show that the four kings mentioned in the Bible as joining in this expedition are historical persons.
The Nuzi tablets throw light on the action of Sarah and Rachel in giving their handmaids to their husbands. The Egyptian hieroglyphics indicate that writing was known more than a thousand years before Abraham.
Archaeology also confirms that Israel lived in Egypt, that the people were in bondage in that land, and that they finally left the country. The Hittites, whose very existence was questioned, have been shown to be a powerful people in Asia Minor and Palestine at the very time indicated in the Bible. The Tel el-Amarna tables give evidence of the trustworthiness of the book of Judges. As the science of archaeology progresses, no doubt more and more information will come to light confirming the accuracy of the biblical record.
For more information relating to the proof from Archaeology, please study the course, Apologetics, Chapters 3 and 4.
3. CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The credibility of the books of the New Testament is established by the following four great facts:
The writers of the New Testament were competent;
The writers of the New Testament were honest;
The writings harmonize with each others; and
Their accounts agree with history and experience.
3.1 The Writers of the New Testament Were Competent
They were qualified to bear testimony and to teach divine truth. Matthew, John, and Peter were disciples of Christ and eyewitnesses of His works and teachings (2 Peter 1:18; 1 John 1:1-3). Mark, according to Papias, was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately what he remembered of the teaching of Peter. Luke was a companion of Paul and, according to Irenaeus, recorded in a book the gospel (i.e. Luke) preached by him. Paul was definitely called and appointed by Christ and claimed that he received his gospel directly from God (Galatians 1:11-17). James and Jude were brothers of Christ, and their messages come to us with this background. All of them had received the enduement of the Holy Spirit and so wrote not merely from memory, the deliverances of oral and written testimony, and spiritual insight, but as qualified by the Spirit for their tasks.
3.2 The writers of the New Testament were honest
The moral tone of their writings, their evident regard for the truth, and the circumstantiality of their accounts indicate that they were not deliberate deceivers, but honest men. The same thing is also apparent from the fact that their testimony endangered all their worldly interests, such as their social standing, their material prosperity, and even their lives. What could be their motive in inventing a story that condemns all hypocrisy and is contrary to all their inherited beliefs, if they had to pay such a price for it?
3.3 Their Writings Harmonize with Each Other
The Synoptics do not contradict but supplement each other. The details in the Gospel of John can be fitted together with the first three Gospels into a harmonious whole. The Acts furnishes an historical background for ten of Paul's Epistles. The Pastoral Epistles do not have to be fitted into the Acts, for in none of them is it intimated that they belong to the period of the Acts. Hebrews and the General Epistles, as well as the Revelation, can without any violence to the contents be fitted into the first century. Doctrinally, also, the writngs of the New Testament harmonize. Christ is deity in the Synoptics as well as in John's Gospel. Paul and James do not contradict each other, but present faith and works from different viewpoints. There is a difference of emphasis, but not of fundamental conception. There is progress in the unfolding of doctrine from the Gospels to the Epistles, but not contradiction. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament present an harmonious picture of Jesus Christ and His work. This argues for the truthfulness of the record.
3.4 Their Accounts Agree with History and Experience
There are many references to contemporary history in the New Testament, such as the enrollment when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), the acts of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:16-18), of Herod Antipas (Matthew 14:1-12), of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1), of Gallio (Acts 18:12-17), of Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13-26:32), etc., but thus far no one has been able to show that the biblical account is contradicted by a single fact derived from other trustworthy sources.
And as for experience, we have already said that if we grant the existence of a personal, omnipotent, and loving God, miracles are not only possible but probable. Physical miracles do not occur often now because they are not needed in the sense in which they were needed then. They were intended to attest God's revelation when first made, but now that Christianity has been introduced they are no longer needed for this purpose. Spiritual miracles still occur in abundance. We may, therefore, say that there is nothing in experience or history that contradicts the narratives of the Gospels and the Epistles.
4. GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?)
By genuineness we mean that a book is written by the person to whom ancient tradition has assigned it. A book is said to be forged or spurious if it is not written at the time to which it has been assigned or by the author professed by it. A book is considered to be authentic when it relates facts as they really occurred. It is corrupt when the text has been in any manner changed. That the books of the Old Testament are authentic and genuine can be shown in the following manner. The Old Testament Scriptures will be approached in their threefold division (the order of the Hebrew Bible):
The Genuineness of the books of the Law;
The Genuineness of the books of the Prophets, and
The Genuineness of the books of the Kethubhim (or called Writings).
4.1 The Genuineness of the Books of the Law
Modern criticism denies the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The documentary hypothesis divides the authorship of these books up into the Jehovistic, Elohistic, Deuteronomistic, and Priestly codes, with many redactors. We can indicate the proofs of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy):
Moses' claims;
Lord Jesus Christ's testimony; and
Internal evidences.
4.1.1 Moses' claims
Moses is repeatedly represented as the author of that which is written. He was to write it (Exodus 17:14; 34:27), and it is said that he did write (Exodus 24:4; 34:28; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 24). What he wrote is described as "the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 28:58; 28:61; 29:20, 27; 29:21; 30:10; 31:26; 31:24). In addition, thirteen times outside the Pentateuch in the Old Testament Moses is represented as the author of a written work. It is called "the book of the law of Moses" (Joshua 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Chronicles 23:18; Daniel 9:11, Nehemiah 13:1).
4.1.2 Lord Jesus Christ's testimony
In the New Testament our Lord Jesus Christ frequently speaks of "Moses" as a written work (Luke 16:29; 24:27; cf. John 7:19). He also ascribes various teachings in the Pentateuch to Moses (Matthew 8:4; 19:7f; Mark 7:10; 12:26; John 7:22f). Various writers of the New Testament ascribe teachings found in the Pentateuch to Moses (Acts 3:22; 13:39; 15:21; Romans 9:15; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 8:5; 9:19; 10:28).
4.1.3 Internal evidences
Certain other internal evidence may also be mentioned which attests to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The author is obviously an eyewitness to the account of the exodus; he shows an acquaintance with the land of Egypt, its geography, flora and fauna; he uses several Egyptian words; and he makes reference to customs which go back to the second millennium BC.
The Pentateuch is a homogeneous composition of five volumes, and not an agglomeration of separate and perhaps only rather casually related works. It described, against an accredited historical background, the manner in which God revealed Himself to men and chose the Israelites for special service and witness in the world and in the course of human history. The role of Moses in the formulation of this literary corpus appears pre-eminent, and it is not without good reason that he should be accorded a place of high honor in the growth of the epic of Israelite nationhood, and be venerated by Jews and Christians alike as the great mediator of the ancient law.
4.2 The Genuineness of the Books of the Prophets
The Hebrew speaks of the former and the latter prophets. To the former prophets belong:
Joshua;
Judges;
1 and 2 Samuel; and
1 and 2 Kings.
To the latter prophets belong:
Isaiah;
Jeremiah;
Ezekiel; and
the so-called Minor Prophets.
4.2.1 Former prophets
First, looking at the former prophets, there is no reason for rejecting the traditional view that Joshua wrote the book that bears his name, nor that Samuel wrote Judges. Judges was written after the commencement of the monarchy (19:1; 21:25) and before the accession of David (1:21; cf. 2 Samuel 5:6-8). In 1 Chronicles 29:29 we read of the things "written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of Gad the seer." Tradition has, accordingly, felt justified in assigning 1 Samuel 1-24 to Samuel, and 1 Samuel 25 to 2 Samuel 24 to Nathan and Gad.
Jeremiah has been commonly considered the author of the books of Kings; at least the author was a contemporary of his. Kings speaks of the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19), and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29); and it has frequent insertions of the records of eyewitnesses in the portions about Elijah, Elisha, and Micaiah, in which older material is used.
4.2.2 Latter prophets
Second, the latter prophets are also genuine. The acts and deeds of Hezekiah are said to have been written "in the vision of Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chronicles 32:32); Isaiah is also said to have written "the acts of Uzziah" (2 Chronicles 26:22). The prophecy of Isaiah is assigned to him (1:1). Jesus and his apostles speak of the writing of Isaiah, assigning even the disputed parts to him (Matthew 8:17, cf. Isaiah 53:4; Luke 4:17f, cf. Isaiah 61:1; John 12:38-41, cf. Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10). Jeremiah was instructed, "write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book" (Jeremiah 30:2), and we are told that he "wrote in a single scroll all the calamity which would come upon Babylon" (Jeremiah 51:60).
Ezekiel also was asked to write (Ezekiel 24:2; 43:11), as was Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:2). It is commonly assumed by conservative scholars that the names which appear in the opening verses of a prophetic book are intended to give us faithfully the name of the author of that book. Even Malachi is probably intended as the name of the author as well as of the book, and not as a reference to 3:1.
4.3 The Genuineness of the Books of the Kethubhim (Writings)
The remaining books were divided into three groups:
The Poetic Books, which consists of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job;
The Megilloth, which consists of Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; and
The Non-Prophetical Historical Books, which include Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. (Note: You may think that Daniel is a prophetic book.)
4.3.1 The Poetic Books, which consists of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job
As for the Psalms and the works of Solomon, we read of "the writing of David" and "the writing of his son Solomon" (2 Chronicles 35:4). Although the inscriptions to the Psalms are not a part of the original text, they are generally accepted as accurate. Of the 150 Psalms, 100 are assigned to authors: 73 to David, 11 to the sons of Korah, 12 to Asaph, two to Solomon, and one each to Ethan and to Moses. The remainder are anonymous.
According to the headings in Proverbs, Solomon was the author of chapters 1 to 24. He was also the author of chapters 25 to 29, although these chapters were copied from his writings by the men of Hezekiah. Chapter 30 is ascribed to Agur the son of Jakeh, and chapter 31 to King Lemuel.
The Book of Job does not give us the name of the author, but it is likely that Job himself wrote the book. We regard the book as narrating faithfully the experiences of the man Job in the days of the patriarchs, and as not being mere poetic fiction. Who but Job himself could narrate faithfully his own experiences and sayings and also the speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu, and God?
4.3.2 The Megilloth, which consists of Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
The Song of Solomon is also inscribed to Solomon (1:1). Ruth has frequently been associated with Judges and was probably written by the same man who wrote the book of Judges, probably Samuel. That David's name is mentioned (Ruth 4:22) and not Solomon's is an argument favouring the dating of the book as not later than David.
Lamentations is ascribed to Jeremiah by the heading in our Bibles. In form of expression and in general argument it has much in common with the book of Jeremiah, and we may confidently ascribe the book to this writer.
Ecclesiastes is said to be by "the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (1:1), and this expression has been taken by conservatives to be Solomon. There is reference to the author's incomparable wisdom (1:16), and the great works which he made (2:4-11). Until the Reformation period, the book was assigned to Solomon by uniform consent of all Jewish and Christian scholars, and most conservative scholars still assign it to him, though there is some linguistic evidence that it may have been written by someone other than Solomon.
Esther may have been written by Mordecai the Jew, who best knew the facts related in the book. The author must have been a Jew who lived in Persia at the time of the events narrated and who had access to the official chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia (2:23; 9:20; 10:2). Critics tend to agree that it was written by a Persian Jew, because of the absence of marks of its being written in Palestine. The diction is admittedly late, being comparable to that of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles.
4.3.3 The Non-Prophetical Historical Books, which include Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles
Daniel, having the prophetic gift but not being a prophet in office, was classified as a non-prophetical book in the Hebrew Bible. Daniel was written by the statesman who bore that name. The author identifies himself as Daniel and writes in the first person (7:2; 8:1, 15; 9:2; 10:2). Further, Daniel was commanded to preserve the book (12:4). There is a noticeable unity in the book, with the name Daniel appearing throughout. Jesus attributed the book to Daniel (Matthew 24:15). Conservative scholarship dates the book to the 6th century BC, though because of their rejection of predictive prophecy, modern critics generally place the book into the Maccabean period and assign it to a date between 168-165 BC.
Ezra was written by Ezra the scribe. Since some of the book is written in the first person singular by a man identified as Ezra (7:28; cf. 7:1), and because the book bears the marks of unity, "it would seem to follow that the remainder is his also."
Nehemiah was written by Nehemiah, the Persian king's cup-bearer. This is made clear by the opening words, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah" (1:1), and the fact that the author speaks in the first person many times. It was written in the time of Malachi, somewhere between 424 to 395 BC.
The Chronicles are placed by the critics on a much lower plane than the books of Kings. The reason seems to be that while Kings deals with the prophetic aspects of the history, Chronicles deals more with the priestly aspects. Tradition has assigned these books to Ezra. The position of the books in the canon, the closing of the history at the very point where that of Ezra begins, and the style make this possible if not probable. They must have been written about 450 to 425 BC, before Ezra.
5. GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?)
There is reason for believing that the Synoptic Gospels (including Matthew, Luke, Mark) were written in the order: Matthew, Luke, and Mark, due to the following reasons.
Origen frequently cites them in that order.
Clement of Alexandria before him puts the Gospels that contain the genealogies first on the basis of the tradition from the elders before him.
Tradition declares that for fifteen years Matthew preached in Palestine, and that after that he went to minister to foreign nations.
On the basis of the famous statement in Papias that "Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrews (i.e. Aramaic) tongue," we must hold that it is most natural to suppose that when he left Palestine he left behind him this Aramaic Gospel, about AD 45, and that a little later he also wrote the Greek Gospel that has come down to us, for his new hearers, about AD 50.
There is also very general agreement that the second Gospel was written by John Mark. From the circumstances of the times and internal evidence, we assign it to the years AD 67 or 68.
There is also very general agreement that the third Gospel was written by Luke (Luke 1:1-4), the beloved physician. It was probably written about the year AD 58.
The Gospel of John is rejected by some because of its emphasis on the deity of Christ. It is said that the Synoptics do not reveal any such belief concerning him during the first century. But this is not true, for in the Synoptics he is no less deity than in John. The discovery of Papyrus 52, containing five verses of John 18 and dated in the first half of the second century, has done much to confirm the traditional date of the Gospel of John.
The book of Acts is today generally ascribed to Luke, the same man who wrote the third Gospel.
Ten of the so-called Pauline Epistles are today for the most part attributed to Paul, doubt being cast only upon the Pastoral Epistles, on the basis of style. But style changes can be due to change in subject matter and the age of the author.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous and no one knows who wrote it. It was undoubtedly written by a learned Christian somewhere between AD 67 and 69.
James and Jude were undoubtedly written by two of the brothers of Jesus.
1 and 2 Peter were written by the Apostle Peter. Some cast doubt upon 2 Peter on the ground of style. But Peter may have had Silvanus as his amanuensis in the first Epistle (1 Peter 5:12), and so have had some help with his diction, and may have written the second Epistle without his help.
The three Epistles of John and the Revelation were written by the Apostle John. The difference in style in the book of Revelation as compared with the Epistles may be accounted for in the same way as the differences in 1 and 2 Peter. That is, he may have had help in the writing of the Epistles, but have written the Revelation all by himself, and further, the subject matter would itself account for the difference of style. This does not affect the question of inspiration in the least, for we argue for the inspiration of the final result that was produced and not for the inspiration of the man as such.
6. THE CANONICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The fact of the inspiration of the Bible as God's special revelation to man naturally leads to the following questions:
Are any inspired books missing?
Are any books included that should not be in our Bible?
What books are inspired and should be recognized as a part of God's authoritative revelation?
Is our Old Testament Bible the same as the Lord's and is our New Testament the same as the Bible of the church fathers?
This is called the question of the "canon." These are obviously vital questions for the people of God to determine.
6.1 Meaning of "Canon" or "Canonicity"
The word "canon" comes from the Greek kanon and most likely from the Hebrew qaneh and Akkadian, qanu. Literally, it means:
a straight rod or bar;
a measuring rule as a ruler used by masons and carpenters; then
a rule or standard for testing straightness.
When it is applied to the books of the Bible, it means that they have met a certain standard which has segregated them from all other writings. In other words, it is used to describe those books recognized as inspired of God. This does not mean that the Bible was not God's Word before the individual books became part of the canon. It is important to note that church councils at no time had any power to cause books to be inspired. The process of canonization was simply an official recognition by church councils of what has always been God's Word. It concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred Scriptures.
Jews and conservative Christians alike have recognized the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament as inspired. Evangelical Protestants have recognized the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as inspired. Roman Catholics have a total of eighty books because they recognize the Apocrypha as semi-canonical (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989, p. 170).
That God would provide and preserve a canon of Scripture without addition or deletion is not only necessary, but it is logically credible. If we believe that God exists as an almighty God, then revelation and inspiration are clearly possible. If we believe in such a God, it is also probable that He would, out of love and for His own purposes and designs, reveal Himself to men. Because of man's obvious condition in sin and his obvious inability to meet his spiritual needs (regardless of all his learning and technological advances), special revelation revealed in a God-breathed book is not only possible, logical, and probable, but a necessity.
The evidence shows that the Bible is unique and that God is its author. The evidence declares that "all Scripture is God breathed and profitable ..." (2 Timothy 3:16) and that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21). In view of this, the logical question is:
"Would it not be unreasonable for God to fail to providentially care for these inspired documents to preserve them from destruction and so guide in their collection and arrangement that they would all be present with none missing and none added that were not inspired?"
The logical answer is:
"The God would definitely provide and preserve a canon of Scripture without addition or deletion."
There are four important considerations that must be kept in mind when considering how the books of the Bible came to be recognized and held to be a part of the Bible:
Self-authentication;
Decisions of men;
Debates over canonicity; and
Completion of canon.
6.3.1 Self-authentication
It is essential to remember that the Bible is self-authenticating since its books were breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, the books were canonical the moment they were written. It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council.
6.3.2 Decisions of men
Nevertheless, men and councils did have to consider which books should be recognized as part of the canon, for there were some candidates that were not inspired. Some decisions and choices had to be made, and God guided groups of people to make correct choices (with guidelines) and to collect the various writings into the canons of the Old and New Testaments.
6.3.3 Debates over canonicity
In the process of deciding and collecting, it would not be unexpected that some disputes would arise about some of the books. And such was the case. However, these debates in no way weaken the authenticity of the truly canonical books, nor do they give status to those which were not inspired by God.
6.3.4 Completion of canon
Since A.D. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible to be complete; if it is complete, then it must be closed. Therefore, we cannot expect any more books to be discovered or written that would open the canon again and add to its sixty-six books. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon. Not everything an apostle wrote was inspired, for it was not the writer who was inspired but his writings, and not necessarily all of them.
The more recent books of the cults which are placed alongside the Bible are not inspired and have no claim to be part of the canon of Scripture. Certainly so-called prophetic utterances or visions that some claim to be from God today cannot be inspired and considered as part of God's revelation or as having any kind of authority like that of the canonical books.
6.4 Brief History of the Old Testament Books
The original copies of the Old Testament were written on leather or papyrus from the time of Moses (1450 B.C.) to the time of Malachi (400 B.C.). Until the sensational discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we did not possess copies of the Old Testament earlier than A.D. 895. The reason for this is simply that the Jews had an almost superstitious veneration for the text which impelled them to bury copies that had become too old for use.
There are three families of the Old Testament texts:
the Masoretic;
the Septuagint; and
the Samaritans.
The above mentioned three main types of text existed in 200 BC. The question for us is, What is the original version of the Old Testament, in the light of these three "families" of texts to choose from?
6.4.1 The Masoretic
There are no complete copies of the Hebrew Old Testament earlier than around AD 900, but it seems evident that the text was preserved very carefully and faithfully since at least AD 100 or 200. A check is provided by comparing some translations from the Hebrew into Latin and Greek at about this time. This comparison reveals the careful copying of the Hebrew text during this period. The text dating from around AD 900 is called the "Masoretic Text" because it was the product of Jewish scribes known as the "Masoretes." All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement, attesting to the skill of the scribes in proof-reading.
Jews have always been a people of one book who have guarded it with extreme care and precision. From the time of Ezra and even before, there were priests (Deuteronomy 31:24-26) and later scribes called sopherim who were given the responsibility to copy and meticulously care for the sacred text so they could hand down the correct reading.
To ensure this accuracy, later scribes known as the Masoretes developed a number of strict measures to ensure that every fresh copy was an exact reproduction of the original. They established tedious procedures to protect the text against being changed. For instance:
When obvious errors were noted in the text, perhaps because a tired scribe nodded, the text was still not changed. Instead, a correction was placed in the margin called qere, "to be read," and that which was written in the text was called, kethibh, "to be written."
When a word was considered textually, grammatically, or exegetically questionable, dots were placed above that word.
Minute statistics were also kept as a further means of guarding against errors: in the Hebrew Bible at Leviticus 8:8, the margin has a reference that this verse is the middle verse of the Torah. According to the note at Leviticus 10:16 the word darash is the middle word in the Torah, and at 11:42 we are assured that the waw in a Hebrew word there is the middle letter. At the end of each book are statistics as: the total number of verses in Deuteronomy is 955, the total in the entire Torah is 5,845; the total number of words is 97, 856, and the total number of letters is 400,945 (Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools For Bible Study, Concorida Publishing House, St. Louis, 1960, p. 57).
In this we see something of the painstaking procedures the Jews went through to assure the accurate transmission of the text. God made the Jews the custodians of the Old Testament record. Though their eyes may be blind to its truth (Isaiah 6:10; John 12:40; Romans 10:1-3; 11:7), they have guarded its transmission with great accuracy.
But how could we know about the accuracy and authenticity of the text in pre-Masoretic times?
6.4.2 The Septuagint
Other ancient witnesses attest the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Masoretic text. One of these is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. It is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria. The best estimate of its date seems to be about the 3rd century BC (approx. 250-160 BC). In the New Testament times, Israel was under the sovereignty of the Roman Empire, Greek was the official language at that time. As a result, it was common for the Jewish people to use the Septuagint for general reading and worshipping of God.
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls there was a question, when the LXX was different from the Masoretic text, why the variations existed. It is now apparent that the Masoretic text has not changed significantly since around 200 BC. Other scrolls among those discovered show a type of Hebrew that is very similar to that from which the LXX was translated. The Samuel scroll especially resembles the reading of the LXX. The LXX appears to be a literal translation, and our manuscripts are pretty good copies of the original translation.
6.4.3 The Samaritans
Another ancient witness is the evidence for a third type of text similar to that which was preserved by the Samaritans. Copies of the old scrolls of the Pentateuch are extant today in Nablus (Shechem), Palestine.
6.4.4 The Dead Sea Scrolls - The Qumran Literature
In 1947 the world learned about what has been called the greatest archeologic discovery of the century. In caves in the valley of the Dead Sea, ancient jars were discovered containing the now-famous Dead Sea Scrolls. From these scrolls, it is evident that a group of Jews lived at a place called Qumran from about 150 BC to AD 70.
Just west of the Dead Sea, near its northern end, was a community at the site of Khirbet Qumran. It was occupied either by people called Essenes, or a particular group like the Essenes. Theirs was a communal society, operated very much like a monastery. In addition to tilling the fields, they spent their time studying and copying the Scriptures. When the impending fall of Jerusalem became certain (AD 70), they realized that the Romans would soon be at their site. They hid a number of the manuscripts in the caves of the western hills surrounding Qumran, and then fled to safety.
In the providence of God the scrolls survived undisturbed until discovered accidentally by a wandering Bedouin goat herdsman in February or March of 1947. The accidental discovery was followed by careful exploration, and then several other caves containing scrolls were found. The find included the earliest manuscript copy yet known of the complete Book of Isaiah, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The story of the discovery of the first manuscript can be found at the book (Geisler and Nix, From God to Us, op. cit., pp. 142-43). In the period between 1947-1956, eleven caves yielded manuscripts wrapped in leather scrolls and hidden in jars.
From the first cave came seven scrolls, some complete and others less so. Included in this find is the earliest known complete book of Isaiah. There was also a commentary on Habakkuk, another incomplete text of Isaiah, the War Scroll and the Manual of Discipline for the community, and some 30 thanksgiving hymns. In the fourth cave, thousands of fragments were discovered, including a fragment of Samuel, which is possibly the oldest known piece of biblical Hebrew of the 4th century BC. Cave eleven was also productive, providing a preserved copy of some of the Psalms, including Psalm 151, which appears only in the Septuagint. In addition, there was a scroll of a portion of Leviticus, as well as a Targum, or paraphrase of Job.
Altogether, some 600 manuscripts were collected from the eleven caves. The greatest contribution of the Qumran literature is the dating of the copies, about 200 BC to AD 100. Most scholars will settle for a date of about 100 BC, although some of the manuscripts are dated earlier.
The tremendous contribution of the scrolls of Qumran establishes the integrity of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. By comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic text, we would get a clear indication of the accuracy, or lack of it, of transmission over the period of nearly a millennium. At least two-thirds of the scrolls reflect the Masoretic text, thereby establishing it as the more authoritative text. What is more, it compares favorably with the Hebrew biblical text already existing from the 10th century AD. The evidence for the Old Testament is now pushed back 1,000 years to establish its integrity, and the Septuagint is no longer regarded as the more acceptable text.
For more information relating to the History of the Bible, please study the course, Apologetics, Chapter 3.
6.5 Accuracy of the Old Testament Testament Text
In comparing the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah 38-66 with the one we had, scholars found that the text is extremely close to our Masoretic text. A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only seventeen letters differ from the Masoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences of spelling, like our "honor" or "honour" and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of the conjunction, which is often a matter of style. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light" which is added after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the sense of the passage. This is typical of the whole manuscript.
However, some critics are still not satisfied. They believe that a text from 100 BC is very much removed from the original manuscripts of Isaiah, about 700 BC, David, about 1,000 BC, and others even prior to these dates.
Do we have the means to discover what the original texts were? We obviously do not have the original manuscripts, but we do have evidence today that can substantiate from archaeology the historicity, culture, life-style, and geography to which the Old Testament refers. Chapter 4 of the course, Apologetics, will provide us with these materials, and further establish the integrity of the Old Testament.
6.6 The Three-fold Division of the Old Testament Books
6.6.1 The twenty-four book division of the Hebrew Bible
The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament contains twenty-four books, beginning with Genesis and ending with 2 Chronicles. Though this arrangement of the Old Testament is in only twenty-four books, the subject matter is identical with the thirty-nine book division of our Protestant English Bible. The difference is in the order and division of the arrangement of the books. The reason for this is that the Protestant canon of the Old Testament has been influenced by the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX) made about 250-160 B.C.
The Septuagint divided the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah each into two, which makes eight instead of four. The Twelve Minor Prophets were divided into twelve, instead of being counted as one book as in the twenty-four book division. This adds fifteen making a total of the thirty-nine books as in the Protestant English Bible.
Since the year 1517, modern Hebrew Bibles divided the books into thirty-nine, but kept the three-fold division including the arrangement of the books (Genesis through 2 Chronicles) as in the ancient Hebrew Bible.
This twenty-four book division in its three-fold division which became the thirty-nine book division is as follows:
1. The Law known also as the Torah or the Pentateuch (5 books): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
2. The Prophets (originally 8 books, then 21)
The Former Prophets (originally 4 books, then 6): Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 & 2), Kings (1 & 2)
The Latter Prophets (originally 4 books, then 15): Major - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel (3 books) & Minor - The 12 (originally 1 book, then 12)
3. The Kethubhim or Writings (originally 11 books, then 13)
Poetical (3 books): Psalms, Proverbs, Job
The Rolls (5 books): Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
Historical (originally 3 books, then 5): Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (2), Chronicles (1 & 2)
By the time of the New Testament this three-fold division was recognized (Luke 24:44). Other designations such as "The Scripture" (John 10:35) and "The Sacred Writings" (2 Timothy 3:15) suggest a generally accepted Old Testament canon. This three-fold division was also attested to by Josephus (A.D. 37-95), Bishop Melito of Sardis (ca. A.D. 170), Tertullian (A.D. 160-250), and others. The Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 is generally considered the occasion whereby the Old Testament canon was publicly recognized (Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, 1964, pp. 62-65).
6.6.2 The apocryphal books
The Protestant church accepts identically the same Old Testament books as the Jews had, and as Jesus and the apostles accepted. Augustine (AD 400) included the books of the Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent in 1546, includes the books of the Apocrypha (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media).
The apocryphal books, it is important to note, were never received into the Jewish canon and were not considered as part of the inspired Scriptures by Jews or Christians in the early centuries of the Christian era. This is evident from a study of the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian, and of Augustine, the great North African Bishop of Hippo. It is interesting that the New Testament writers rarely quote the Apocrypha.
The apocryphal books do not claim to be the Word of God or the work of prophets. They vary greatly in content and value. Some, like 1 Maccabees, were probably written around 100 BC and are valuable as historical background. Others are more characterized by legend and are of little value. The books of apocryphal contain historical and geographical errors. They seem to justify falsehood, prayers for the dead, and Salvation by good works, all very unscriptural concepts. Though not included at first, these books were later added to the LXX. In this way they came to be included by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate. Even Jerome, however, accepted only the books in the Hebrew Canon. He viewed the others as having ecclesiastical value only. He was in conflict with the later action of the Council of Trent, in Reformation times, which elevated the Apocrypha to canonical status.
6.7 The Process of Recognition of the Old Testament Canon (Canonization)
Simply stated, canonization was the process by which the Holy Spirit impressed upon the minds of God's people which writings were actually inspired by Him.
6.7.1 Recognition by Jews in the Old Testament Times
The early Christians approved the books of the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, as Scripture, partly because Jesus and the apostles clearly treated them as such. A few verses in the Old Testament demonstrate how some of the thirty-nine books we have now were recognized as God's Word.
Deuteronomy 31:9-13 is particularly interesting. Here, Moses gave the "Law" to the priests with instructions to read it to the people every seven years at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 17:18-19). The priests and the people seem to have accepted it without question, both because of its own merits as well as Moses' authority. Verses 24-26 explain how they placed these books in a very sacred place - beside the ark of the covenant - for safekeeping. The laws issued by Moses and by the later prophets were intended to be respected as the decrees of God Himself. Jews were so regarded then and also by later generations. It was the recognition of this authority that shook the King Josiah when he realized how long the Law had been neglected (2 Kings 22:11).
When Joshua began leading Israel after the death of Moses, the Lord commanded him, saying, "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success" (Joshua 1:8).
2 Kings 22:8 implies that these sacred books were kept in the Temple when it was finally completed. Even during the Captivity, when the temple was destroyed, men like Daniel recognized and kept safe new additions to the Scriptures, like the prophecy of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2-3).
6.7.2 Recognition by Jewish Scholars and Church Councils in the New Testament Times
The canoncity of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon was not settled until the Council of Jamnia (AD 90), some maintain that the canon of the Old Testament was not closed until that time, or, since the discussion concerning them continued even after that date, not until about AD 200. With regard to the Old Testament as we have it today, we may accept the view of David Kimchi (1160-1232) and Elias Levita (1465-1549), two Jewish scholars, who held that the final collection of the Old Testament canon was completed by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue in the 5th century before Christ. Several things can be said which make this view possible. Josephus, who wrote near the end of the 1st century AD, included the same threefold division as did the Masoretic Canon. He further indicated that the canon was completed in the reign of Artaxerxes, which corresponds to the lifetime of Ezra. It seems likely that Ezra was the one who finally organized the sacred books of the Old Testament, since he is called "the scribe" (Nehemiah 8:1; 12:36), "a scribe skilled in the law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6), and "the scribe, learned in the words of the commandments of the Lord and His statutes to Israel" (Ezra 7:11). Further, no more canonical writings were composed since the days of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, until New Testament times. The Apocrypha, though included in the Septuagint, was never accepted into the Hebrew canon.
6.7.3 Continuity of Recognition
Laird Harris, traces the continuity of recognition: Moses was recognized as writing under the authority of God (Exodus 17:14; 34:27; cf. Joshua 8:31; 23:6). The criterion for acknowledging the Pentateuch was whether it was from God's servant, Moses. Following Moses, God raised up the institution of prophecy to continue revealing Himself to His people (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Jeremiah 26:8-15). The prophets to whom God spoke also recorded their revelation (cf. Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Isaiah 8:1; Ezekiel 43:11). The law was accorded the respect of the author, and he was known as God's messenger. Similarly, succeeding prophets were received upon due authentication, and their written works were received with the same respect, being received therefore as the Word of God. As far as the witness contained in the books themselves is concerned, this reception was immediate. (R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1969, pp. 62-65)
Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized:
Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?
Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?
Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?
Was the book quoted by the New Testament?
6.8.1 Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer?
God was speaking through the human author e.g. Exodus 20:1; Joshua 1:1; Isaiah 2:1; that the books were authoritative e.g. Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4. Note also Joshua 6:26 compared with 1 Kings 16:34; Joshua 24:29-33 compared with Judges 2:8-9; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 compared with Ezra 1:1-4; Daniel 9:2 compared with Jeremiah 25:11-12.
6.8.2 Was the human author was a prophet?
Compare Deuteronomy 18:18; 31:24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Nehemiah 8:3.
6.8.3 Was the book historically accurate?
There are a number of important historical evidences drawn from the ancient writings that give support to the Old Testament canon as we have it in our Protestant Bible:
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. This non-canonical book refers to a threefold division of books (namely, the Law, the Prophets, and hymns and precepts for human conduct) which was known by the writer's grandfather (which would be around 200 B.C.).
Philo. Philo (around AD 40) referred to the same threefold division.
Josephus. Josephus (AD 37-100) said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament).
Jamnia. Jamnia (AD 90), was a teaching house of rabbis who discussed canonicity. Some questioned whether it was right to accept (as was being done) Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. These discussions concerned an existing canon.
The church fathers. The church fathers accepted the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. The only exception was Augustine (AD 400) who included the books of the Apocrypha (those "extra" books that some Bibles include between the books of the Old and New Testaments). However, he did acknowledge that they were not fully authoritative. The books of the Apocrypha were not officially recognized as part of the canon until the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) and then only by the Roman Catholic church (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media).
6.8.4 Was the book quoted by the New Testament?
Most of the Old Testament books are quoted:
in the New Testament; and
by Jesus Christ.
6.8.4.1 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament
There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
6.8.4.2 Old Testament quotations by Jesus Christ
In Matthew 5:17-18, the Lord declared that the Law and the Prophets, a reference that includes all of the Old Testament, then summarized as "the Law" in verse 18, would be fulfilled. This declared it was therefore God's authoritative Word. Christ's statement in Matthew 23:35 about the blood (murder) of Abel to the blood of Zechariah clearly defined what Jesus viewed as the Old Testament canon. It consisted of the entire Old Testament as we know it in our Protestant English Bible. This is particularly significant in view of the fact there other murders of God's messengers recorded in the Apocrypha, but the Lord excludes them suggesting He did not consider the books of the Apocrypha to belong in the Canon as with the books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles.
The above evidence shows the books of the Old Testament, as we have them in our Protestant Bible, were God breathed and therefore authoritative and profitable the very moment they were written.
The authenticity of the New Testament books are established by the following sources:
the discovered New Testament manuscripts;
the testimony of the New Testament text by the early church fathers;
translation versions; and
dates of the New Testament documents.
7.1.1 The discovered New Testament manuscripts
The New Testament was written in Greek. These are on different materials. There are two major types of materials, they are:
Parchment; and
Papyrus.
Parchment was one of the materials of which Greek manuscripts were made. This was the skin of sheep or goats, polished with pumice. It was used until the late Middle Ages, when paper began to replace it.
Papyrus was the common materials used for writing purposes at the beginning of the Christian era. It was made from reeds and was highly durable. In the last 500 years many remains of documents written on papyrus have been discovered, including fragments of manuscripts of the New Testament.
More than 6,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, or parts of it, have survived to our time. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, Revised Edition, Here's Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, 1979, p. 39).
This contrast is startling and tremendously significant. The fact of the many documents plus the fact that many of the New Testament documents are very early (hundreds of parchment copies from the 4th and 5th centuries with some seventy-five papyri fragments dating from A.D. 135 to the 8th century) assures us we have a very accurate and reliable text in the New Testament.
7.1.2 The testimony of the New Testament text by the early church fathers
The church Fathers most helpful for our purposes are the apostolic Fathers (AD 70-150), and the ante-Nicene Fathers (AD 150-300). By the time of the Council of Nicea in AD 325, nearly every verse of the New Testament had been cited by the apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers over 36,000 times. These men either quoted directly, referred to a variant reading, provided a paraphrase, or perhaps even made an allusion. In spite of how the New Testament passage was handled, their testimony is the best evidence for the New Testament. The apostolic Fathers bring us so close to the New Testament writers that we are almost breathing down their necks!
From the chart in Geisler and Nix, How We Got Our Bible - From God to Us, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, p. 109, we note that:
By the end of the 1st century, 14 books of the New Testament were cited by pseudo-Barnabas (around AD 70-130) and Clement of Rome (about AD 95-97);
By AD 110, some 19 books were cited by Ignatius (about AD 110), and Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John (about AD 110-150);
By AD 150, some 24 New Testament books were used, Hermas (about AD 115-140), Didache (about AD 120-150), Papias (about AD 130-140), Iraneus (about AD 130-202), and the rest were Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian;
By AD 200, 26 books of the New Testament had been cited; and
Origen, shortly afterwards, mentioned the existence of 3 John.
These demonstrate a living history and testimony of the New Testament text.
7.1.3 Translation versions
There are other sources of data for establishing the authenticity of the New Testament books. The first source is the versions. Versions are those manuscripts which were translated from the Greek into other languages. Three groups of these are of the most significance:
the Syriac (Aramaic) versions appeared around AD 150-200;
the Egyptian or Coptic versions by about AD 150; and
the Latin versions.
By careful study of the versions, important clues have been uncovered as to the original Greek manuscripts from which they were translated.
7.1.4 Dates of the New Testament documents
The dates of the New Testament documents indicate that they were written the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. People were still alive who could remember the things he said and did. Many of the Pauline letters are even earlier than some of the Gospels.
7.1.5 Conclusion - the New Testament Text is Reliable
We can rest with the conclusion of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a world-renowned scholar of the ancient manuscripts. He said: "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.
7.2 Factors Leading to the Recognition of the New Testament Canon
What were the factors that led to the recognition of a New Testament canon as we have it today? For almost twenty years after the ascension of Christ none of the books of the New Testament were even written and about sixty-five years elapsed before the last New Testament book was written. James was undoubtedly the first, being written between 45-50 A.D., and Revelation was most surely the last, being written about 90 A.D. But several things began to happen that promoted the formation of the New Testament canon. Enns summarizes these:
Spurious writings as well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor.
The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical.
Apostolic writings were used in public worship, hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical.
Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.
Without a central place of worship like Israel had in the Old Testament, the early Christians were a bit slower in recognizing and collecting the letters and books of the New Testament. There writings had to be circulated (without the benefit of printing!) over the whole area of the Roman world. In his gospel, Luke mentions that there were other writings about Jesus which must have been circulating (Luke 1:1-4). In 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Paul commands his letter to be circulated "to all the brethren."
The process of recognition of the New Testament canon is divided into two eras:
the apostolic; and
the post-apostolic.
7.3.1 In the Apostolic Era
Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical and possessed authority as being a part of God's Word. The responsibility of the church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of God (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul's writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27).
7.3.2 In the Post-Apostolic Era
In the first century, Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter.
In the second century, Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. The problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.
Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170), which was a compilation of books recognized as canonical at that early date by the church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John.
In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Damasine Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the North African cities of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.
In the West, the question of canon was fixed by the decision of Carthage in A.D. 397. By the year A.D. 500, the whole Greek-speaking church seems also to have accepted all the books in our present New Testament. From that time on, the question was closed in the East also (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989, p. 172).
7.4 The Tests For Canonicity
The question naturally arises, what process and by what means did the early church recognize which books were canonical and which books were not? The following summarizes the tests used to discern which books were canonical:
Is it apostolic?
Is it truthful?
Was it written during a period of revelation?
Has it been universally recognized?
7.4.1 Is it apostolic?
If a book is "apostolic" or "prophetic" it probably is inspired. This means that a book must be written by a recognized prophet or man of God, or an apostle or close associate of an apostle. The apostolic gift and prophetic gift was something the Fathers looked for; Jesus had promised to His apostles that the Holy Spirit would bring things to their remembrance and guide them into the truth (John 14:26; 16:13-14). Paul constantly used his apostleship to confirm the authority of his messages in the midst of an era of much heresy and false prophesying (e.g. Galatians 1:1-24).
By "close associate of an apostle," we mean writers like Luke or Mark. Both of these men were traveling companions of apostles and would have been thoroughly instructed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and would had access to the first-hand accounts of the apostles.
7.4.2 Is it truthful?
Did the book give internal evidence of inspiration, of being God breathed? Was it of proper spiritual character? Did it edify the church? Was it doctrinally accurate? A book will have the internal quality of truth if it is inspired. It will express accurately the things of God and will not contradict previously accepted Scripture. The book should bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected as a result of not meeting this test.
The Bereans of Acts 17:11 were "examining the Scriptures daily" to see if Paul's preaching fell in line with what they already knew to be God's purposes and patterns. The apostle John commanded the same diligence to his readers in 1 John 4:1-6, where he tells them to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God."
7.4.3 Was it written during a period of revelation?
If a book was written during a period of divine revelation it becomes a candidate for canonization. Some early believers and Jews, including Josephus, believed that between the time of Moses and the time of Malachi such a period occurred. God was speaking to His people through prophets in "exact succession" during these centuries. After Malachi, there was no more word until New Testament times. It is believed that from the death of John the Baptist until the death of the apostle John another period occurred, in which the New Testament was written.
7.4.4 Has it been universally recognized?
The test of universal acceptance by God's people was perhaps the final test in determining whether a book is actually inspired. This criterion stands apart from the rest in that it is a confirmation, and serves the obvious purpose of making final the decision and availability of the books. From its acceptance as God's Word by its original hearers (see 1 Thessalonians 2:13), to the agreement of the church counsels centuries later, the Scriptures as we have them have gained this recognition.
The strongest evidence that nothing should be added to the Bible is the simple fact that believers universally have never recognized any other writings. There is a completeness to Scripture. Jesus put His stamp of approval upon the Old Testament as we have it, and He promised guidance into truth to His apostles who gave us the New Testament. We value many other fine writings, but the Bible has qualities that set it apart from all else.
God has revealed Himself to us in His inspired Word that it might give light to our innate blindness. However, for the Scripture to give us light, it must be understood properly, then believed and applied in faith. But for man to understand the Bible properly, he must have two things:
he needs the illuminating work of the Spirit of God; and
he needs the proper method of interpretation for without the right method of interpretation, one is left on a sea of uncertainty.
Though the Bible is a pure light that can direct our paths and bring us into an understanding of God and His Salvation in Christ, man needs special enablement from God due to the Bible's spiritual dimension that raises it above man's natural abilities. "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11). Furthermore, Adam's fall into sin and his consequent spiritual death rendered man incapable of comprehending the truth of Scripture. Simply put, the "natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Corinthians 2:14). This means a special work of God is needed to make the Scripture understandable to both the natural man (unsaved) and to the saved. As seen in the way Jesus opened the eyes of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the work of illumination is necessary to enable us to comprehend the Word of God (cf. Luke 24:44-45).
Illumination can be defined as "the special ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby He enlightens men so they can comprehend the written Word of God." Illumination begins with the pre-Salvation work of the Spirit to bring demonstrable proof of the claims of the gospel that people might trust in Christ (cf. John 1:9; 16:8-11; 2 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 6:4). Generally, illumination is used in reference to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to understand the Scripture (Ephesians 1:18; 3:9).
The doctrine of illumination must not be confused with revelation and inspiration. The following differences need to be understood (Dan Wallace, The Holy Spirit and Hermeneutics, Biblical Studies Foundation, 1998):
Revelation refers to the content of God's truth as it was revealed to the Old Testament and New Testament authors of Scripture.
Inspiration refers to the accurate transmission of that content to men, first verbally (as with the prophets) and then in written form.
Canonization refers to the recognition and collection of those inspired books into a canon, the Bible.
Illumination refers to understanding of the Bible's message to believers. Unbelievers can only experience this work as it pertains to His convicting ministry in relation to the gospel message (John 16:8-11).
As the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit is the believer's means of spiritual illumination. Four New Testament passages focus on this ministry of the Spirit; these are John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-3:3; Ephesians 3:16-19; and 1 John 2:20 and 27. The essence of these passages is as follows:
As the Spirit of truth and God's special anointing, He is our Teacher. This is not a privilege for a select few, but is available to all believers since He indwells all believers. The teaching ministry of the Spirit is thus guaranteed to all believers.
Since indwelling is limited to believers, unbelievers can only experience the illuminating ministry of the Spirit in the matter of convicting and convincing them of the truth of the gospel message (John 16:8-11). This does not mean they cannot achieve a high level of understanding of the Bible, but its truth remains foolishness and they do not welcome it.
As the extent of the Spirit's illumination, it encompasses the whole council of the Bible, Genesis to Revelation and Salvation to things to come.
Several things can hamper the Spirit's ministry of illumination. Carnality (1 Corinthians 2:1-3), indifference (cf. Hebrews 5:1f with 1 Peter 2:2), tradition and preconceived ideas (Mark 7:7-13), ignorance (Mark 12:24; Luke 24:25-32; "foolish" in vs. 25 is the Greek, anohtos, "not understanding"), and poor methods of Bible study or interpretation (cf. Paul's exhortation in 2 Timothy 3:15).
The purpose of the Spirit's ministry is not to focus on Himself, but to disclose to us the glories and sufficiency of Christ and, as a result, to glorify Him (Ephesians 3:16f; John 16:12-15).
The Spirit uses those whom He has gifted with the gift of teaching in His ministry of illuminating others (Romans 12:7; 1 John 2:27). 1 John 2:27 does not mean we do not need teachers. Otherwise, why would the Spirit give this gift? In the context, John was speaking of discerning truth from error.
Ryrie adds an important note about illumination and revelation:
The experience of illumination is not by "direct revelation." The canon is closed. The Spirit illumines the meaning of that closed canon, and He does so through study and meditation. Study employs all the proper tools for ascertaining the meaning of the text. Meditation thinks about the true facts of the text, putting them together into a harmonious whole and applying them to one's own life. The end result of the illumination ministry of the Spirit is to glorify Christ in the life, or to promote healthy doctrine—teaching that brings spiritual health and wholeness to the believer's life. Illumination is not concerned merely with understanding facts but with using those facts to promote Christlikeness (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media).
Historically, Protestant evangelicalism has affirmed that the Bible is the canon of Scripture, that it is our supreme authority in matters of faith and practice, and that the canon is now closed, but that God is still speaking today and that He does so by means of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit through this completed canon. But a new proposition is being promoted today which states that God also speaks to His people today apart from the Bible. Most within the evangelical community would also add that, though He speaks apart from the Bible, He never contradicts what is in the Scriptures. But doesn't this new position threaten the sufficiency and finality of the Scripture? Many conservative scholars believe that it does (Dan Wallace, Scripture Twisting, Biblical Studies Foundation, 1998).
Interpretation has been placed on the same level with illumination. This is because the illuminating work of the Spirit goes hand-in-hand with the interpretation of Scripture. Although illumination is assured for believers, it does not always guarantee accurate interpretation. And if the interpretation is wrong, so will be the understanding of the passage in question. Many people approach the Bible with a false mysticism. Their attitude is, "The Holy Spirit will show what this means." But then they proceed to butcher the text and come up with some off-the-wall idea that completely misses what the Spirit is saying based on solid principles of Bible study or exegesis. The word that comes to mind here is abuse. In a chapter entitled, "Handling the Scriptures Accurately," Swindoll writes:
Ours is a day of abuse; sexual abuse, emotional abuse, verbal abuse. But what about biblical abuse? By that I mean being deceived by the improper use of Scripture. Who of us has not witnessed someone twisting Scripture, forcing it to mean something it does not mean? Those who don't know better start believing it with all their heart, only to discover later on that both the interpretation and the application were fallacious ... perhaps dangerous to their spiritual health and growth (Charles R. Swindoll, Growing Deep In The Christian Life, Multnomah Press, Portland, 1986, p. 69).
It is because of this very problem that the Apostle Paul, in a section where he was warning Timothy against false teaching that can lead to the ruin of the hearers, said, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (emphasis mine). Paul had in mind the important principle that we must correctly handle the Word of God in both its analysis (exegesis) and in its presentation (exposition) since Timothy was faced with the foolish interpretations of false teachers (as we often are). But the main emphasis is on the study and interpretation of the Word of God. What's involved here? Is this a matter of sincerity or of theology?
Now this has nothing to do with sincerity. Many, perhaps most, people who mishandle the Word are very sincere. And it really has little to do with theology. Some who have their theology fairly well in place can still mishandle Scripture. It also has nothing to do with personality. There are gifted teachers dripping with charisma who can sway an audience and hold them in the palm of their hand, yet be guilty of mishandling Scripture.
Christians need to learn the basics of sound Bible study. Sound Bible study is that which is based on the fundamental principles of interpretation that will protect the student from Scripture abuse and that will provide a check on his or her own wild imagination. The following lists several important principles that are basic to the interpretation of Scripture.
The word literal is avoided here since it often leads to wrong ideas that must be later corrected. Rather, I am using the terms plain or normal to express the proper method of interpretation. By plain or normal we mean the words of Scripture are to be understood in their normal meaning just as we normally understand words in our normal, everyday communication. When we read the newspaper or a recipe in a cookbook, how do we read those words? We understand them according to their literal or normal meaning. If the recipe says two cups of flower, you don't symbolize that to mean, a great quantity to be chosen at your discretion. If, however, it calls for a pinch of salt, you understand it to be somewhat symbolical of a very small amount.
The justification for using the plain, normal method of interpretation includes:
the very purpose and nature of language supports this method;
the need of control and objectivity; and
the example of the Bible itself.
9.2.1 The very purpose and nature of language supports this method
This is how we communicate in everyday life. God gave us language for the purpose of communicating with each other and with Him. Two ramifications flow from this idea. First, if God originated language for the purpose of communication, and if God is all-wise, then we may believe that He saw to it that the means (language) was sufficient to sustain the purpose (communication). Second, it follows that God would Himself use and expect man to use language in its normal sense. The Scriptures do not call for some special use of language, implying that they communicate on some "deeper" or special level unknown to other avenues of communication.
9.2.2 The need of control and objectivity
Only the plain method of interpretation provides a check on the minds of men. The allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation leads to all kinds of abuse with one person seeing one kind of hidden meaning and another person seeing something entirely different. When interpreters disregard the normal meaning of words and look for supposedly hidden meanings, the true meaning of the Bible is lost; the Bible is abused; imagination and speculation go wild as the interpreter arbitrarily assigns this meaning and then that meaning to the text without any solid historical, grammatical, or lexical foundation for his interpretation.
9.2.3 The example of the Bible itself
A precedence for interpreting the Bible in this manner can be seen in the way Old Testament prophecies like Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14; 53:1-12; Micah 5:2 have all been fulfilled literally or according to their plain meaning. To this someone might argue, "Aren't some prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in a spiritual or typical sense in the New Testament?" To this question Ryrie says:
To be sure some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment, only seven are cited as examples of a non-literal hermeneutic. However, of the approximately twenty-four prophecies to which the New Testament gives a typical fulfillment, only seven are cited as examples of a non-literal hermeneutic (and, of course, not all agree that these seven prove this). The seven are Matthew 2:15, 18, 23; 11:10; Acts 2:17-21; Romans 9:24-26; and Galatians 4:21-31. Remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty-four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament. To be sure, the New Testament may use the Old Testament in ways other than fulfillment, but I am here speaking of prophecies and their fulfillments. This is a strong support for the literal hermeneutics (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media).
There are five important principles of the plain, normal method of interpretation:
We must interpret the Bible grammatically.
We must study the Bible historically.
We must study the Bible contextually.
We must interpret according to the analogy of Scripture.
We need to recognize the progressive nature of God's revelation.
9.3.1 We must interpret the Bible grammatically
This is in keeping with the fact of verbal (words) plenary (full) inspiration. Every word of the Bible is important and though some words will hold more importance than others, all the words and sentences are a part of God's communication to us. "Only grammatical interpretation fully honors the verbal inspiration of Scripture." Grammatical relationships are vital to sound interpretation because thoughts are expressed in words which stand in relationship to each other to express complete thoughts.
If we neglect the meanings of words and how they are used, we have no way of knowing whose interpretations are correct. The hallmark of the Reformation was a return to the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture. This was in direct opposition to the approach to the Bible that had been in vogue for hundreds of years - the view that ignored the normal meaning of words in their grammatical sense and let words and sentences mean whatever the readers wanted them to mean (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, Victor Books, Wheaton, 1991, p. 98-99).
So, what is grammatical interpretation? Grammatical interpretation is the process that studies the text of Scripture (exegesis, the critical analysis of the text) to determine four important things:
the meaning of words (lexicology);
the form of words (morphology);
the function of words (parts of speech); and
the relationship of words (syntax).
This means it is necessary to study the tenses of verbs, nouns and pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, and the ways these words are structured.
9.3.2 We must study the Bible historically
The historical context is important as a framework from which to interpret the Scriptures. Every book of Scripture was written in a historical context that should be understood in order to help interpret the book accurately.
9.3.3 We must study the Bible contextually
Every passage and all the words and sentences in that passage have a context. Take the passage out of the context, and you will miss its meaning and you may abuse the passage. Words and sentences do not stand in isolation; therefore, the context must be studied in order to see the relation that each verse sustains to that which precedes and to that which follows. Involved are the immediate context and the theme and scope of the whole book.
9.3.4 We must interpret according to the analogy of Scripture
This simply means, while always keeping in mind the context, etc., we also need to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. If an interpretation of a passage contradicts other plain passages of the Bible, then something is wrong with the interpretation. Included here is a recognition of the dual authorship of the Bible.
The dual authorship of the Bible makes it necessary not only to know the human author's meaning but also God's. God's meaning may not be fully revealed in the original human author's writing but is revealed when Scripture is compared with Scripture. We must allow for a sensus plenior which allows for a fuller (though directly related) meaning in the mind of the divine Author of Scripture. We cannot say that the human authors of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words. When we compare Scripture with Scripture, we can discover the fuller intention of the divine Author.
9.3.5 We need to recognize the progressive nature of God's revelation
God did not reveal Himself or His plan all at once. The promise of Salvation is revealed in seed form in Genesis 3:15, but it is expanded and developed throughout the Old Testament until we come to its fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ and its full explanation in the New Testament.
To be able to interpret plainly and consistently, it is imperative to recognize that revelation was given progressively. This means that in the process of revealing His message to man, God may add or even change in one era what He had given in another. Obviously the New Testament adds much that was not revealed in the Old. What God revealed as obligatory at one time may be rescinded at another (as the prohibition of eating pork, once binding on God's people, now rescinded, 1 Timothy 4:3).
To fail to recognize this progressiveness in revelation will raise unresolvable contradictions between passages if taken literally. Notice the following pairs of passages which will contradict if understood plainly unless one recognizes changes due to the progress of revelation: Matthew 10:5-7 and 28:18-20, Luke 9:3 and 22:36, Genesis 17:10 and Galatians 5:2; Exodus 20:8 and Acts 20:7. Notice too the crucial changes indicated in John 1:17; 16:24; 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. Those who will not consistently apply this principle of progressive revelation in interpretation are forced to resort to figurative interpretation or sometimes simply to ignore the evidence (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media).
Since the whole area of biblical interpretation is such an important subject and so determinative on properly understanding the Word of God, a short bibliography is attached to encourage further study in this area.
The original manuscripts of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew while the New Testament books were written in Greek. Due to the differences between languages it is impossible to have a perfect translation. However, the translations we have are fully adequate for study and devotional reading. The Authorized (King James) Version (KJV) is satisfactory for Scripture memorizing and public speaking. For a closer study the student could use the New American Standard Bible (NABS) or the New International Version (NIV) , both careful, scholarly, and faithful versions.
What we have discussed so far can be visualized like this:
Many theologies in discussing bibliology include a section called Animation. By animation we mean that quality of the Bible as it is expressed in passages like Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Another passage that speaks of the animating, life-giving, life-changing power of the Scripture is Psalm 19:7-9:
"The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether."
In addition, there is probably no passage that stresses the animating power and value of the Scripture like Psalm 119 which describes numerous attributes of God's Word as:
faithful (vs. 86);
exceedingly broad (vs. 96);
right (vs. 128);
wonderful (vs. 129);
pure (vs. 140);
truth (vs. 160);
verlasting (vs. 160); and
righteousness (vs. 172).
The doctrine of animation stresses the powerful and life-changing activity of the Scripture. Unlike any other book known to man, the Bible possesses a living quality that stems from its divine origin as the unique God-breathed book. This power is manifested in two primary ways.
First, the power of the Bible is seen in the way it reveals God and His glorious plan of Salvation in the person and work of Jesus Christ; it is the power of God unto Salvation (Romans 1:16). The stress here is on the power of the Bible on the unsaved. This truth is brought out for us in many ways, but the classic passage is 1 Peter 1:23, "for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God." The Word of God combined with the ministry of the Holy Spirit work together to bring people to faith in Christ and into the new birth so they become the children of God (John 3:5; 2 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1-4).
Second, the power of the Word is seen in the lives of the saved as God uses it along with the illuminating and empowering ministry of the Spirit to conform us into the image of the Lord Jesus. Our Lord had this in mind in His prayer in John 17:17 when He prayed, "Sanctify them through Your truth, Your Word is truth." God's Word is truly alive and powerful.
Another illustration of the animating power of the Word may be seen in the many pictures God gives us in the Bible of what His Word can do. It is pictured as a:
sword (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17);
critic or judge (Hebrews 4:12);
lamp or light (Psalm 19:8b; 119:105, 130; Prov. 6:23);
mirror (1 Corinthians 3:18; James 22-25);
rain, snow, or water (Isaiah 55:10-11; Jeremiah 17:5-8; Ephesians 5:26);
food or bread from heaven (Deuteronomy 8:3; Job 23:12; Psalm 19:10b); and
gold (Psalm 19:10; 119:72, 127; Proverbs 8:10, 11; Isaiah 55:1-3; 1 Peter 2:18).
As I sought to emphasize at the beginning of this study, nothing is more important to us than the Bible for all we believe basically hinges on its truth. The late Francis A. Schaeffer voiced concern over the growing tendency to elevate feelings - experience - to the throne of authority. In his book, The New Superspirituality, Schaeffer cautioned:
"Beware! Neither experience nor emotion is the basis of faith. The basis for our faith is that certain things are true. The whole man, including the intellect, is to act upon the fact that certain things are true. That of course will lead to an experiential relationship with God, but the basis is content not experience."
For many of the present generation, experience has become more important than truth, but experience without truth is the menace and misery of a mindless Christianity, and one of the issues we face is that God's truth is found for us in the Bible. So not only have we been faced with a battle for the inerrancy of the Bible, but for the need to return to the Bible as God's Holy Word as the foundation of our faith and experience. Let me conclude with these words from the Savior:
"Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8: 31-32)
In praying for the disciples and for those who would believe after them (the church) He was praying that they might be protected from the evil influences of the world, the Savior said these vital words:
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:16-17)
12. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY
Lectures in Systematic Theology, Chapter VI, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1992 Edition, by Henry C. Thiessen.
The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989, by Paul Enns.
Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media, by Charles C. Ryrie.
Basic Bible Interpretation, Victor Books, 1991, Wheaton, by Roy B. Zuck.
Methodical Bible Study, Bookroom, The Biblical Seminary, New York (this is a great classic), 1952, by Robert A. Traina.
William D. Hendricks, Living By The Book, Moody Press, Chicago, 1991, by Howard G. Hendricks.
Protestant Biblical Interpretation, erd ed., Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963, by Bernard Ramm.
The Joy of Discovery in Bible Study, rev. ed., Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1975, by Oletta Wald.