HOW DID WE GET THE BIBLE?
WHAT IS THE CANON?
The word “canon” means, “measuring rod”, and refers to the inspired
collection of books in both the Old and New Testaments regarded as scripture. It conveys the idea that certain books “measure
up” to the divine standards required of sacred scripture. The gradual process
of determining which books met the requirements unfolded over many centuries. However, it should be stressed that the
church did not create the canon or confer inspiration upon the various books of
the Bible. As one scholar noted, “The church no more gave us the New
Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us
gravity … and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the
individual books that make it up.”1 The church simply recognized and
received those books that were already inspired from their creation and bore
the distinctive marks of divine authority, authorship, and authenticity.
1. James J. Parker: God Speaks to Man, p. 81.
Specific rules have been developed
for determining which writings meet the requirements for sacred canon:
1. Does the
book possess a definite prophetic and inspirational quality? In short, does it manifest a “Thus saith the
Lord”?
2. Was the
book written by a reputable prophet, authored by an apostle, or someone
intimately associated with an apostle?
3. Was it
accepted, collected, distributed, and read by God’s people either in the Old Testament period or New
Testament period?
4. Does its
contents and message harmonize with the standards of sound, biblical teaching?
5. Does it
possess dynamic, life-transforming power?
6. Was it endorsed and accepted by future
generations of believers, such
as the early church fathers?
The 66 books comprising our present
Bible have met these standards.
THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
The Old Testament canon was completed with the
Book of Malachi and closed around the year 425 B.C.
The Jewish Talmud, which
contains ancient Jewish beliefs, confirms this fact: “After the later prophets Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from
The Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews and later by Christ and the
early church is exactly the same as the 39 books in our present Protestant
Bibles, even though the number
of books and sequential order differs (i.e., the Jews combine I and II Kings
and place Chronicles last instead of Malachi). The Jews unconditionally
accepted the Hebrew Old Testament books as sacred scripture because they met
the strict requirements demanded of canon.
1. Babylonian
Talmud Sanhedrin, VII – VIII, 24.
2. Josephus, F1avius: Contra Aplon I.
Because the Jews held such an intense reverence towards their sacred
scriptures, they strove to preserve the absolute accuracy of their scriptures
with an almost fanatical discipline. They followed an intricate system of safeguards, which governed the
copying, and transcribing of the sacred scrolls against “scribal slips”. Each
letter was checked and rechecked. If a single mistake was found, the entire
page was destroyed. So exacting and meticulous were the copyists that they
counted the exact number of verses, words, and individual letters. They even
measured the proscribed space between each letter and calculated the middle
word and letter in each book. They constantly compared and cross-checked new
copies with these calculations to make sure they agreed. If there was any
discrepancy or miscount, they searched until they located the error and
corrected it.
Because of God’s perserving power and the scribes’ reverent attention to
editing and detail, the accuracy of the Old Testament has been protected and
preserved. As one scholar noted,
“It may safely be said that no other
work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”1
1. Green, William H., General Introduction to the Old
Testament, p. 21.
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the oldest existing
manuscript copies of the Hebrew text were dated around 900 A.D. , making a substantial time gap of 1300 years
between them and the completion of the Old Testament canon in 400 B.C. Surprisingly enough, the very reason why we
do not possess the original, firsthand manuscripts (called “autographs”) or
more older manuscript copies than we do can be directly attributed to the
extreme care of the Jewish copyists to preserve the accuracy and purity of the
scriptures. Whenever a manuscript showed signs of age or was damaged or
accidentally defaced, it was promptly buried or burned.
Prior to the discovery of the
The discovery of the
The leather scrolls are dated
between 200 B.C. and 68 A.D. One of the scrolls is a complete copy of the Book
of Isaiah, making this manuscript 1000 years older than any previously
possessed copy. The similarities between it and the Massoretic copies of the
9th century A.D. are striking and overwhelmingly substantiate the accuracy of
the oldest manuscript copies of the Massoretic Texts in existence.
The
The word “apocrypha” means “hidden or concealed”. It refers to a set of books, which do not meet
the criteria of canon. These books include I and II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The
Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Song of the
Three Hebrew Children, The History of Susanna,
1. None of
the apocryphal writers claim divine inspiration, and some openly disclaim it (i.e., I Mac.
2. No
Hebrew canons include them, though the more liberal Greek Septuagint includes
them.
3. Jewish scholars at the Canonical Council of
Jamnia (90
A.D.) did not recognize them.
4. The Apocryphal books
contain numerous historical, factual, and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms, as well as blatant
myths and folklore.
5. They teach doctrines, which are false, and
foster practices which are inconsistent with the accepted standards of
biblically inspired teaching (i.e.,
they justify suicide and assassination, and teach praying for the dead).
6. Jesus and the New Testament writers never
quoted from the Apocrypha, even
though there are hundreds of quotes and references from almost all of the
canonical books of the Old Testament.
7. Many of the early church fathers spoke out
against the Apocrypha such as
Origen, Jerome, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. No canon or council of the Christian church
for the first four centuries recognized or endorsed them as Inspired.
9. Luther and the Reformers unanimously rejected
their canonicity.
10. Many
Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha
as well.
During the first century, the
various books comprising our New Testament were written, copied, and circulated
among Christians scattered throughout the
The gradual process of selection
began early in the history of the Christian church.
Though the 27 books now comprising
our New Testament canon were not finalized overnight, the general consensus and
near universal recognition increasingly leaned in favor of these 27 books.
Over the
next three centuries, reputable church fathers gradually endorsed the
inspiration of all of our New Testament canon, as well as accepting our present
Old Testament canon.
Towards the
end of the second century, the “Muratorian Canon” was published in
As early as
367 A.D., Athanasius of
By the fourth century, the canon was generally established. With the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and
The overall manuscript evidence supporting the Bible’s accuracy is overwhelming. There are over 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament, over 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and at least 9,300 other early
versions. A total of over 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New
Testament are in existence today.
Compared to other ancient writings
such as Homer’s Iliad or Caesar’s Gallic Wars, the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting its reliability and
accuracy of translation than any ten pieces of ancient literature combined!1
So conclusive is the evidence supporting this fact that one prominent scholar
noted, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to
allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as
well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”2
The exacting accuracy of manuscript
translation and transmission, as well as the massive amount of manuscript
material in existence gives strong support to its divine authorship, accuracy,
and preservation over the last 1900 years.
1. Josh
McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pp. 19, 39-46.
2. John W.
Contemporary translations of the New Testament are derived from specific
groupings of manuscripts, depending upon the version. These families consist of complete manuscripts
or fragments derived from a common source or geographical region. Some of these families date from an earlier
period and are marginally more reliable. However, extensive textual criticism
has shown that there is an amazing similarity between manuscript texts with
only the slightest differences which have not jeopardized or contradicted any
doctrinal point or rule of faith.
These families include the
“Byzantine Family of Manuscripts” (500 A.D. +) from which the “Textus Receptus”
(received text) is derived and which forms the basis of the King James Bible.
Other families are the older “Alexandrian Family” (200-400 A.D.), which
includes such important manuscripts as the Codex Vaticanus (325-50 A.D.), and
the Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.), and which forms the basis of nearly all
current Bible versions except the King James version; the “Western Family” from
the area of the
Until 670 A.D., virtually the only widely used translation of the Bible
was the Latin Vulgate version, translated in the fourth century by Jerome. After that date, portions of the Bible were
translated into old English until 1382 when a complete English translation of
the Latin Bible was published. It was called the “Wycliffe Bible” because of the instrumental efforts of John Wycliffe
to produce it. It had a wide influence even though it was written sixty years
before the invention of the printing press. Though Wycliffe was one of the
first Reformers, many English Reformers followed his example by translating,
publishing, and distributing the Bible for the benefit of the common man. Many
were executed for their efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of
England. Other English versions which followed in rapid succession were:
1. In
1525, William Tyndale published the ‘Tyndale Bible” which was an English version of the New Testament
translated from the Greek instead of Latin texts.
2. In
1535, Miles Coverdale published the “Coverdale Bible” which was a complete Bible.
3. In
1537, King Henry VIII issued a license for the publication of a New
English Bible called the “Matthew’s
Bible” edited by John Rogers, a friend of Tyndale.
4. In
1539, Miles Coverdale published the “Great Bible” which was a revision of the Matthew’s Bible. Also in
that year, Richard Taverner published a revision of the Matthew’s Bible called
the “Taverner’s Bible”. It was the
first English Bible printed in
5. In
1560, the “
6. In
1568, nine English bishops collaborated with Matthew Parker of
7. In 1582, an English translation
of the Latin Vulgate was published for Roman Catholics in
THE KING JAMES VERSION
To solve the intense bickering among English Christians concerning the
best Bible version, King James I authorized the translation of a new Bible in
1604, commonly referred to as the “King James Bible”. 54 scholars were divided into six groups (47
actually participated), and each was assigned a different section of the
scriptures to translate, with the whole group reviewing and refining each
section, followed by a final review committee. They had more manuscript
resources available than any other previous Bible version. They used the four
existing Massoretic texts for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus,
revised by Beza (an associate of Calvin), for the New Testament.
After six years of painstaking work
and attention to accuracy, the King James Version was published in 1611. Though
it has gone through several revisional improvements (1629, 1638, 1762, and
1769), it is still, after three centuries, the most widely read, circulated,
and quoted Bible in existence. Its majestic style and literary beauty has
endeared itself to countless millions, and ensures its continuing popularity
for decades to come.
THE KING JAMES BIBLE COMPARED WITH OTHER
MODERN VERSIONS
Only in recent times has the
popularity of the King James Bible begun to diminish in the face of newer
translations based upon older Greek manuscripts which were not available when
the King James Version was written. These manuscripts are primarily from the
“Alexandrian Family”, and include the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex
Vaticanus, which form the basis of such modern translations as the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Though the Textus Receptus includes a larger number of existing manuscript
texts (80-90%), most modern scholars prefer relying upon the older texts. However, good men are on both sides of the
fence concerning whether the older manuscript texts are more reliable than the
Textus Receptus.
Since textual scholars have found
so little difference between the existing manuscripts, and since the minor
discrepancies have never affected a single doctrinal issue or rule of faith,
the controversy over which current Bible translation is the best boils down to
a matter of personal preference.
EVALUATION OF CURRENT TRANSLATIONS
While there are many Bible versions
currently available, not all possess equal quality or value. We have
recommended four of the most popular, readable, and reliable versions in print.
1. The
Kings James Version (KJV, 1611) — The accuracy
of translation is good, and the text is extremely faithful to the Greek texts
available when it was translated. The beauty in language is excellent and
considered by many to be unsurpassed. Many prefer the time-tested style,
majestic expression, and cadence of this version. The major drawback is its
archaic vocabulary
which contains many words which are obsolete and now different
in meaning.
2. The
New King James Version (NKJV, 1982) — The
textual basis of this work still follows the Textus Receptus of the 1611 version.
However, it endeavors to update the clarity of language for the modern reader.
It still retains the beauty of style like the original King James Version, but
the combination of the old with the newer language improvements promises to
make this version a popular translation in the coming years.
3. New
American Standard Bible (NASB, 1971) — This
translation is based on the older manuscripts not available when the King James
Version was written. Its accuracy is excellent because it closely adheres to the
original texts. Its readability is also good. However, because it is an
exacting, literal translation, it doesn’t achieve the literary beauty and
naturalness in style that the King James Version possesses.
4. New International Version (NIV, 1978)
— The accuracy of this translation is good and
adheres more closely to the Greek than most former translations. It doesn’t
have the beauty of the King James Version, but it does have a
freshness in contemporary style and language. Its clarity in expression
is excellent.
NOTE: Those translations which have not been included may have redeeming
value, but were not recommended because of language limitations, biased
marginal notes, the inclusion of Apocryphal books, or liberal theological interpretations.
These include the New English Bible, the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the
TRANSLATIONS VERSUS
PARAPHRASES
Contemporary Christianity has the
advantage of having many Bible versions to select from. However, some versions
are translations of the ancient texts, while others are paraphrases. There is an important difference between a
translation and a paraphrase. A Bible translation is an attempt to communicate
in one language what another language, such as Greek or Hebrew, literally says,
while a paraphrase says something in different words from those which the
author originally used.
Christians should recognize this
important distinction and use paraphrases with a measure of caution. Because
paraphrases represent an interpretation of what the Bible actually says, it can
occasionally reflect the doctrinal bias of the interpreter.
Paraphrases should be used as a supplementary tool to sound
Bible study and not be relied upon as the primary source of personal
familiarity.
William R. Kimball
ã1985 CHRISTIAN EQUIPPERS INTERNATIONAL