How did We Get the Bible

(Chuck is serving as the new Global Languages Editor of the Ethnologue, an online catalog of all the world’s languages used by missions organizations to strategize the effort for outreach, particularly through Bible translation. It is also shared with the secular academic community and government agencies and is a way to “let the light shine” among those groups of people. Carole’s work involves coaching and team development among Wycliffe staff to help them best know how to use their gifts and strengths for God’s glory and their service to Him.)

—and the opportunities we have to hear you. And then I can pray for you.

(sharing in the Sunday Schools)

and this Wednesday evening at 7pm - 8pm in the fellowship hall.

Should only be about 2 or 3 minutes.

Please open to the book of Jude...

Ever thought about how we got our Bible?

for instance, if you look in your table of contents...why are there 66 books of the Bible (39 in the OT) and (27 in the NT)? Why?

The Catholic Bible has 73. Why do they have different books than we do? Ever thought about that? These are called Apocryphal books by Protestants or Deutero-canonical books by Catholics.

or even the Eastern Orthodox Church which has at least 76 or a little more.

The reason I bring this is up is Jude. Jude is describing their false teachers.

Look at Jude 8-9

Jude 8–9 NIV

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Jude is quoting from a book called the Assumption of Moses or Testament of Moses, not part of the Bible. He is referring to a story where Michael the head angel in God’s service and the devil are arguing over who gets Moses’ body.

even though Scripture says the Lord buried Moses, it was debated where he was buried since no human observed it.

the devil and Michael are having some type of legal dispute over it—and the devil wanted to deprive Moses of an honorable burial claiming Moses was guilty, perhaps for how Moses killed an Egyptian in his past .

so why does Jude refer to this? Does this mean that this story, this book should be in Scripture?

look at Jude 14-15

Jude 14–15 NIV

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Jude is quoting from the book of 1 Enoch. Enoch is a real character in Genesis who never died but God took to heaven directly (that’s how I want to go)—

but neither Catholics nor us as Protestants include this in the Bible.

this book—it is considered a Pseudipigrapha work (word on screen) — like pseudonym—someone wrote it who falsely claimed Enoch wrote it.

why would you write a book back then and attach a different author’s name to it? well, it makes sense—if you wanted your book to gain some fame—you put a name like Enoch on it.

so did Jude believe 1 Enoch should be a part of our Bibles because he quoted it in Jude 14-15?

did he think the Testament of Moses or Assumption of Moses should be part of our Bibles?

before I answer that...

So why do we have the 66 books of the Bible that we do—39 in the OT, and 27 in the NT? Why?

ever thought about this?

I imagine there are a few responses:

I don’t care...let’s get on with studying something else. It doesn’t bother me. I understand. Some people just say “I trust that the Bible I have —the 66 books are right.”

some here thought might be shook “I never thought about it Rick until you said it now. THANKS A LOT.” “Now, it’s really going to bother me.”

and some of you here are conspiracy theorists, skeptics, so you think about this ALL THE TIME. “Maybe we did leave out a couple of books or add some that shouldn’t be there.

My goal is to help all of you—and honestly—my goal is to help you go away just in awe of our God who gave us this amazing book called the Bible that we can trust.

to answer this...let me back up and give some definitions:

So there are some important words that theologians use when it comes to the Bible:

Inspiration of Scripture- “God - breathed.” That God breathed or inspired both not only the concepts or ideas of Scriptures but even the words. not just part of Scripture. all of it.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 NIV

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This means the Bible is the very Word of God Himself—there is no other book like it!

When I read any other book, even if it is non-fiction, I don’t treat it as if it is God’s Word Himself.

In addition, it is inspired in such a way that God used men to write it, over 40 different authors but He didn’t override their style or personality.

2 Peter 1:20 NIV

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

2 Peter 1:21 NIV

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

because the Bible is inspired—another word we often use is

“Inerrant” - that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts of Scripture.

Infallible- “incapable of error” so the Bible is inerrant because it comes from God who is incapable of error.

now, if you look at that definition closely of inerrant, sometimes, this bothers people because do we have the original manuscripts today? Do we actually have the letters that Paul wrote himself? no—we only have copies. but we believe that God in his power and providence protected the copying and preservation of Scripture.

in fact, if you look at the NT today (let’s just focus on the NT)—how do we know that that is actually the text of the Bible if we don’t have the original manuscripts?

it’s because we have so many manuscripts...

Greek Manuscript total: 5,856 [2]

*Earliest manuscript: AD 130 [3] (John Rylands Papyrus: P52)

Non-Greek Manuscripts (Armenian, Latin, etc.): 18,130+

Total Manuscripts: 23,986

How do the New Testament documents compare with other ancient books? A stack of existing manuscripts from the average classical writer would measure about four feet high. Yet the New Testament manuscripts would stack to more than one-mile high.

As we document in the updated Evidence, New Testament documents far surpass other ancient writings—such the Histories of Herodotus, Plato’s Tetralogies, or the Annals by Tacitus—in terms of manuscript number and dating. This of course doesn’t settle the issue but gives us great confidence that we can get back to the original texts of Scriptures.

Now, finally—the word I am trying to get to is this word—and that’s the word canon.

no, not cannon like pirate ships shooting cannons—but canon.

the word - canon - “rule” or “standard”

canonization - the process of recognizing what books are in Scripture vs. not.

for a book or letter to be a part of Scripture, it had to meet a certain standard or rule.

so how did we get our 66 books?

2 approaches:

I get this from an evangelical scholar on the canon—Michael Kruger...

Narrative #1: Top - Down Approach

one popularized version of how we got our 66 books of the Bible—is that the apostles and Gospel writers circulated letters about Jesus, copies were made and circulated. As they did that, other texts arose, too, books of the Bible like the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Judas.

and so the church had to figure out—which books or letters would be in the Bible. and so they “decided or chose.”

an extreme version of this was popularized in a book and movie with Tom Hanks called the Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code basically said that the church under the leadership of Emperor Constantine chose which books they wanted in the Bible particularly in the NT, and they silenced others that hid key information about Jesus (such as Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married). The Da Vinci Code is an interesting, fictional story, but deals with secret societies, conspiracy theories, and portrays the church as corrupt and picking which books of the Bible would support their agenda and which wouldn’t.

it makes for fascinating reading—and Dan Brown the author didn’t help himself because he claimed the novel was based on real history, but I think over the last 20 years, his claims have been proven inaccurate.

but this top down approach suggests that some higher up authority like the church or councils basically chose which books and gave those books power and influence to make our canon.

instead a better argument for how we got our Scripture is a bottoms up approach:

Narrative #2: Bottoms Up Approach

In this approach, the church didn’t decide or choose, but recognized which books are part of the canon.

notice those words I used—they didn’t decide or choose or give books authority. They saw that these books/letters are God’s Word—and merely agreed with God.

now that may sound weird...

but in this view—it’s the idea that early church councils and leadership were simply agreeing with what the vast majority of the church was doing in those first few centuries. It arose bottom up. not forced down with a conspiracy to suppress people.

so think about the OT first.

Michael Kruger says this: One of the other ways to ascertain the state of the OT canon in the first century is to consider the way NT writers utilize OT books. Even though the OT is cited frequently by NT writers, there is no indication of any dispute over the boundaries of the OT canon. Indeed, there is not a single instance anywhere of a NT author citing a book as Scripture that is not in our current thirty-nine book canon. And while Jesus himself had many disagreements with the Jewish leadership of his day, there appears to be no indication that there was any disagreement over which books were Scripture—a reality that is hard to explain if the OT canon was still in flux.

that’s pretty amazing!

and so when you compare the Protestant Bible (66 books) to the Catholic Bible (73 books), one of the reasons we would say that those 7 extra books—the Apocrphal books, the Deutero-canonical books are not Scripture is that the NT writers never quote from any of those 7 books—books like 1 and 2 Maccabees.

(Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).)

so that’s why—now those books are useful and helpful for understanding the times, historically helpful, but we don’t consider them as God’s Word.

The Catholic Church would officially make them part of their canon at what’s called the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s.

now let’s go to the NT.

Let’s think about this in the NT and some key dates:

30 AD - Jesus died and rose again

by 95 AD - all the writings of the NT completed (including Revelation)

so in some ways if you really wanted to argue—when did we have our 66 books of the Bible—right then—about 95AD when the book of Revelation was completed regardless of what human kind thinks.

Those original manuscripts of the NT—were copied, and copied, and passed around.

interestingly, scholars agree by the middle of the 2nd century—so about 150AD:

Kruger: As for the NT canon, there appears to be a core collection of scriptural books—approximately 22 out of 27—functioning as Scripture by the middle of the second century. Generally speaking, this core would have included the four gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Books that were “disputed” tended to be the smaller books such as 2 Peter, Jude, James, and 2-3 John.

and even NT authors recognized that Scripture was being written and read well before that.

2 Peter 3:15–16 NIV

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter says that Paul’s letters are Scripture. there is a recognition already in the 1st century!

so by the middle of the 2nd century—a core canon of the NT was in place—22 of the 27.

and then some other key dates:

367 AD - Athanasius in his Easter letter - named all 27 books of the NT and there was no disagreement.

In sum, the early Christians coalesced around the NT books remarkably early. While it was not until the fourth century that the disputes over some of the peripheral books were resolved, the core of the NT canon was already in place long before.

Many scholars note that in the 4th century, as the final books were being figured out—like Jude, James—what were the qualities the church was wrestling with?

Authorship—did it have a connection to a prophet (OT) or apostle? so in the NT—all the letters have some connection to an apostle. Peter was an apostle and wrote some. Paul—directly saw Jesus and wrote his 13 letters. Mark who wasn’t an apostle relied on an apostle Peter for his. Luke who wasn’t relied on Paul. so did the authors have some time of authoritative role—like a prophet or an apostle.

Corporate reception — what books did the Early Church use? God doesn’t just speak at an individual level but a communal level. Kruger: Thus, there are good reasons to think that God’s collective, covenantal people would eventually recognize the books that are from him. If so, then we can look to the consensus of God’s people (in both old and new covenant times) as a reliable guide to which books are from him.

This does not mean that we should expect God’s people to have instantaneous and absolute unity over the canonical books. There will always be pockets of disagreement and dissension (just like there would be over any doctrine). But we can expect a predominant or general consensus through the ages—which is exactly what we find.

3. Divine Qualities -

Jesus said this:

John 10:27 NIV

27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

so as we read Scripture itself—it has a way of self-authenticating itself (which may not sound logical) but through the Holy Spirit we see who God is, and we see if Scripture is accurately speaking about God.

now, we can’t do this on our own strength. We need the Holy Spirit. and those who are not believers may not see this—but through the Spirit He opens our eyes to see Scripture and see it as accurately attesting to who God is.

so in the early Church, they could read these books and figure out is it accurately attesting to who God is.

so...if you are still a skeptic. I have found that our society does not take the word of a church or a pastor. Lots of skepticism around the church as an institution and pastors.

when I first meet people—I often don’t like to say I am a pastor...b/c it kind of changes the relationship:

People feel guilty or convicted “Oh I guess I can’t tell this joke around you or say those words.” I am a walking symbol of conviction in people’s lives. It’s weird.

pastors and churches get a bad rap. if I watch a movie and a pastor is portrayed—it’s not usually positive.

but if you are still a skeptic:

Fact #1 - another cool fact—if you are still a skeptic, the only Gospels we have of Jesus from the 1st century—are....ding ding ding...Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Other Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas and Peter come much later.

Do more research yourself. I recommend you YouTube Michael Kruger and some of his talks. I have one I can send you where he tackles misconceptions

09:21 Misconception 1: Early Christians Didn't Expect a New Canon 15:51 Misconception 2: New Testament Authors Didn't Think They Were Writing Scripture 23:44 Misconception 3: Early Christians Widely Disagreed on the New Testament Books 27:08 Early Christian Consensus on Core Books 27:41 The Spread and Recognition of Smaller Books 30:52 Misconception: No Canon Until the 4th Century 36:05 Misconception: Apocryphal Books' Validity 43:35 Misconception: Popularity of Apocryphal Books 47:37 Misconception: Church Picked the New Testament Books

Read our current Bible and compare it to other texts. Read those other books. look up the Catholic books. don’t look down on Catholics by the way—we can sometimes unfairly beat up on Catholics but read those. read the so called “lost gospels...like Gospel of Thomas or Philip or Peter.

the lost gospels are so interesting—-they can be bizarre and weird.

Gospel of Peter (not written by him) - has a live shot of Jesus coming out of the tomb. (none of our Gospels has that—the women found him a little later after he came out of the tomb). in GOP Jesus is 60 feet tall—his head touches the clouds. as giant Jesus comes out—following him is the cross itself. and eventually that cross, floating behind Jesus begins to talk.

Read the Bible like crazy. Read it. Savor it. Cherish it. I think doing this helps us the most.

Let’s go back to Jude—why did Jude mention these texts from Testament of Moses and 1 Enoch—we don’t fully know.

but I don’t think Jude thought these were books that should be included in the Bible. He doesn’t think 1 Enoch is inspired by God. he is simply citing them to convey a truth.

just like Paul would:

Acts 17:28 NIV

28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

or you and I might cite something from history or even fictional.

as I was thinking about all this—this work on the canon...I found this...

our statement of faith in the Missionary Church says this:

We believe that the Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the written Word of God, verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, true, reliable, and without error in all it addresses. We believe the Bible has been safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and transmitted to the present day without corruption of any essential doctrine. The Bible forever remains the unchanging and final authority for faith and living.

If that is true—if the Bible really is that special of a book, my closing question in all of this is this: are we taking time to read it, listen to it, and not master it, but be mastered by it—through the Holy Spirit encouraging us and changing us?

what priority does reading or listening to God’s Word have in your life? I believe this is something that should be done every single day.

If you don’t have one, we can help you get one.

If you don’t know where to start—read one of the 4 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. if you want to go deeper read Romans.

key qualities of it:

Kruger:

—divine qualities

—corporate reception

—authoritative authors

Why this matters:

Bible is an amazing document:

what’s at stake in all this

canon different for RC church for Protestants:

RC - the church established what is in fact the canon

Protestants - the church recognized what is in fact the canon

become popular - Gospel of Thomas - Gospel of Peter or Gospel of Judas.

—from questionable sources -

—content was bizarre -

we pretend it is a scandal

interesting facts of the Bible:

printed the most, sold the most, influential book of all time

so back to Jude:

1, 2 Peter, Jude (1) The Prophecy: Judgment on the Ungodly (14–15)

Citing a quotation from another source does not indicate that the entire work is inspired, even if the saying drawn upon is true. For instance, Paul quoted Aratus (Phaenomena 5) in

final application:

Related Media

Related Sermons

Earn an accredited degree from Redemption Seminary with Logos.