Why did it take 300 years or so for the canon to be collected into the Bible?

[patrick457]

And, despite their good-faith efforts, society is less religious and sicker than ever. Without a unifying authority, a bible in every hand serves only to divide rather than unite. There seems to be a demonstrable inverse proportion between the number of bibles in circulation and Christian unity.

The author Timothy Beal (The Rise and Fall of the Bible) actually pointed out something interesting: biblical literacy in modern society is very low, but Bible sales are on the rise. In his book he provides a few rather startling revelations based on recent polls and surveys and I quote:

• Less than half of all adult Americans can name the first book of the Bible (Genesis, in Hebrew Bereshit) or the four Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).
• More than 80 percent of born-again or evangelical Christians believe that “God helps those who help themselves” is a Bible verse. I suspect that many would also say that “The Serenity Prayer” and the “Footprints in the Sand” parable are in there somewhere.
• More than half of graduating high school seniors guess that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife, and one in ten adults believes that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. (Those two must’ve been multiple-choice questions.)
• Almost two-thirds of Americans can’t name at least five of the Ten Commandments. Some of these people, moreover, are outspoken promoters of them. Georgia representative Lynn Westmoreland, cosponsor of a bill to display the Ten Commandments in the chambers of the Houst of Representatives and Senate, could remember only three when Stephen Colbert asked him to recite them on The Colbert Report (Colbert, who I hear teaches Sunday school at his church, would have done considerably better).

Let me add another datum, albeit more or less anecdotal. Among the few hundred students I’ve taught in college-level introductions to biblical literature over the past couple of years, I estimate that more than half came to class on the first day with more ideas about the Bible derived from Dan Brown’s 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code than from actual biblical texts. In the old days, biblical studies professors talked about demythologizing the Bible in order to, for example, sort out the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.” Nowadays we might want to add demythologizing Da Vinci to the learning objectives.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 78 percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the “word of God,” with almost half of those adding that as such “it is to be taken literally, word for word.” The Barna Group poll indicate that nearly half of all Americans agree that “the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings” (88% of all “born-again” Christians believe the same), while the Gallup Poll finds that 65 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible “answers all or most of the basic questions in life.” Rather oddly, however, 28 percent have admitted to rarely or not reading it. Hence, there seems to be no correlation in reading the Bible and revering it.

While there are of course exceptions to this norm (there are of course folks and groups from different denominations who know the Bible like the back of their hand), quite ironically, Bible study or even Bible reading is a rare activity even among Christians who identify themselves strongly with it: in a 2005 study of religious values, practices and behaviors by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, more than half of those who identified themselves as “Bible-believing” said that they have not participated in any kind of Bible study or Sunday school program at all in the past month. As for Bible sales, Beal notes:

The biggest Bible publishers in this highly competitive business guard their sales data closely, but reliable industry sources estimate that 2007 saw about 25 million Bibles sold, generating revenues of about $770 million in the United States alone. That was an increase of more than 26 percent since 2005, which saw U.S. sales of about $609 million. In fact, the Bible-publishing business has been enjoying a healthy compounded growth rate of close to 10 percent per year for several years. Even during the high point of economic crisis in late 2008, when other book sales were hurting badly, Bible sales continued to boom, with an estimated $823.5 million that year. Indeed, Bible publishing tends to thrive during times of war and financial disaster. Although it’s too early to know for sure as I write, it may well turn out that the latest economic bust will be another boom time for Bible business.

 

[patrick457]

Beal theorizes that this phenomenon is attributable to a shift from ‘biblical literacy’ to ‘biblical consumerism’:

Could it be that biblical literacy is being replaced by biblical consumerism? In today’s consumer culture, we are what we buy, wear, and carry. We identify ourselves by our patterns of consumer choices, by the market niches we buy into. It’s gone beyond that post-Cartesian proof of existence, “I shop, therefore I am.” Today, it’s closer to “I shop for what I am.” The culture industry makes and markets identities. I want to be outdoorsy, so I buy a lot of Gore-Tex, some “Life is good” shirts, and a Yakima rack for my Subaru. High school and college students identify the cultures on different campuses by brands: this school is very Hollister; that one’s more American Apparel.
At the same time, we consumers are convinced that the shortest route to self-improvement is through new products. Products change lives, right? My big New Year’s resolution might be to become an organized person. So the first thing I do is go to the home store and buy a bunch of plastic boxes. Never mind the empty ones in my basement that I bought a year ago.
Or say that I want to strengthen my identity as a Christian and grow deeper in my faith. I want a more God-centered life. I want to be “in the Word.” I feel like I should be reading the Bible a lot more than I do. After all, like most people, I believe that the Bible is God’s Word, that it’s totally correct in all of its teachings, and that it holds the answers to all of life’s most basic questions. So what do I do? Buy a Bible. Or, more likely, buy another Bible. A marketing executive at a major evangelical publishing company told me that, according to their research, the average Christian household owns nine Bibles and purchases at least one new Bible every year.

This seeming oxymoron of high Bible sales and low biblical literacy can perhaps be explained by the fact that many readers don’t find what they expect when they actually read the Bible, which kind of puts them off. They expect something like God’s textbook explaining clearly what to believe and to do, and when they find that the real Bible is far away from this cultural image - far from being a book of ready-made, black and white answers, it is a library of endless questions and a fount of ambiguity and ostensive contradictions - they feel that they’re not getting what they imagine they’re supposed to get from it. They think that there’s one way to read the text, one ‘correct’ meaning, that somehow eludes their grasp: in fear that they might get it ‘wrong’, it discourages them from going any further. These readers feel that the problem must lie with themselves rather than with their expectations for Bible reading. They don’t feel that this Bible gives them what they expect - they go off and buy another one, rinse and repeat.

And this is really what the modern Bible publishing business gets into: it knows that there is a huge market of people who believe in this idea of the Bible and want to experience it for themselves. It is for this reason that we have countless Bibles of every size and shape: different translations, different editions, different media. Just take a look at various Bible catalogs: you have a variety of items all being marketed as “the Bible,” many equipped with different ‘aids’ that purport to speak for and supplement the Text but in most cases practically supplanting them. These ‘values-added’ Bibles help give the public a feel of ‘reading’ the Bible without being confronted by the actual text itself: these supplements are often designed to grab the reader’s attention, effectively becoming the Scripture while the actual text is pushed off to the background.

All this for me really shows how the extreme version of sola scriptura and its offspring ideas are really unworkable theories in practice. I’d warrant that many people who claim to follow Scripture alone without any ‘outside help’ are in reality receiving lots of it, only they don’t realize it.

 

[po18guy]

All this for me really shows how the extreme version of sola scriptura and its offspring ideas are really unworkable theories in practice. I’d warrant that many people who claim to follow Scripture alone without any ‘outside help’ are in reality receiving lots of it, only they don’t realize it.

A tree is known by its fruit. The fruits of sola scriptura are division.

 

[patrick457]

A tree is known by its fruit. The fruits of sola scriptura are division.

The theologian John Williamson Nevin, writing in 1851, expressed the objective of “[placing] the bible in every man’s hands, and to have him read, that he may then follow it in his own way.” He continues:

The idea seems to be, that the bible was published in the first place as a sort of divine formulary or text book for the world to follow … so that the dissemination of its printed text throughout the world, without note or comment, is the one thing specially needful and specially to be relied upon for the full victory of Christianity, from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth.

This idea was actually novel at the time: even the Reformers’ and historical Protestantism’s definition of sola scriptura did not go so far. Nevin’s reference to “without note or comment” is an allusion to the American Bible Society’s original objective: “to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment.”

Despite Nevin’s and the original ABS’ dream, there is today a huge proliferation of ‘notes and comments’, of commentaries, devotionals, concordances, study aids, biblezines, and sermons by experts and well-known clerics, which for many people provides them with their ‘felt needs’ - the cultural expectation, the iconic idea of the Bible as a textbook of definite answers - by giving them ready-made ways to read and interpret the text. It’s so effective that people feel they’re getting their daily dose of Scripture from these; these extra stuff is more “biblical” than the Bible itself. This is why I mentioned that many folks don’t realize how much ‘outside help’ they get when they read: all these aids meld with the Text, effectively becoming part of the Bible - in fact, dare I say a Scripture in place of Scripture.

I’d even dare say that these supplements and ready-made ‘personal’ interpretations are what keeps Protestantism more or less glued together into different denominations. If one actually begins to hold to the Puritanic biblicist ideal of a Bible with “no note or comment” IMHO it would signal the death of any notion of ‘church’. There wouldn’t be any denominations, just a bunch of individuals struggling (which is really what it would be) with a written Text, ‘every man for himself’. Division at its worst indeed.

 

[po18guy]

The theologian John Williamson Nevin, writing in 1851, expressed the objective of “[placing] the bible in every man’s hands, and to have him read, that he may then follow it in his own way.”…I’d even dare say that these supplements and ready-made ‘personal’ interpretations are what keeps Protestantism more or less glued together into different denominations. If one actually begins to hold to the Puritanic biblicist ideal of a Bible with “no note or comment” IMHO it would signal the death of any notion of ‘church’. There wouldn’t be any denominations, just a bunch of individuals struggling (which is really what it would be) with a written Text, ‘every man for himself’. Division at its worst indeed.

When the evil one seeks to divide, he is expert at enlisting those with the best of intentions - if not exactly those with the highest cognitive or prophetic capabilities.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Hi,

Why did it take 300 years or so for the Western Church to collect the Holy Spirit inspired books into the Bible? I understand that even the the Eastern and Western church didn’t agree based on any early ecumenical councils as to one collection, but that is a different topic.

It seems the early church was more based on tradition and the scriptures they used for liturgical practice? Or was there heresies that the early church started to deal with and decided there was a need for a collection of the books?

Thanks!
Brian

The simple answer is that the Christians were persecuted until Constantine. It’s a little difficult to hold a council when somebody is trying to lop off your head!

 

[buffalo]

It didn’t really. There is good evidence the canon was pretty much set well before that.

 

[stevekehl]

Submariner was right. I should note that 2 Peter, James, and Jude were all antilegomena, meaning that their authenticity or value were under dispute in some (but not all) circles before the canon was formally closed - and to an extent, even after that. Take for example the Peshitta, which eventually became the standard translation of choice for the Syriac-speaking churches: in its original did not include 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation (although other ancient Syriac translations apparently had them.) In fact, it would seem that the Syriac churches originally limited itself to the gospels, Acts and the Pauline epistles before finally accepting (a few of) the general epistles. In the West, the discussion centered itself more on Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude, while in the East the status of James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude and Revelation continued to be debated.

IMHO the status of NT books for the first three centuries of Christianity is quite similar to that of the OT in Second Temple period Judaism in that it would have been an open ‘canon’. In other words, Christians already had some pretty good guesses as to which books were authoritative, but that did not prevent them from considering other books (which eventually did not make it in) to be of some equal status or from questioning books which were within this yet-informal ‘canon’.

The NT canon seems to have developed in stages. It would seem that the very first works to be collected were the letters of St. Paul, since St. Ignatius of Antioch already makes reference in his letter to the Ephesians to “Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy…who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.” It would suggest that Paul’s epistles were already known to Ignatius not just as individual letters but as a collection. People who opine that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work written around the early 2nd century would also add its reference to Paul’s letters (3:15-16) as evidence that a collection of Paul’s letters existed pretty early, and that it was being treated as somehow authoritative comparable to “the other scriptures” (most likely in the sense of any book which were read in synagogue and in house-churches). St. Polycarp of Smyrna also makes a number of references to letters of Paul in his letter to the Philippians, suggesting that at least some of Paul’s letters were already in circulation (though it is unclear which ones or how many).

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom" of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, “is the mother of us all.” For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin.

The point of my post was not that there was an official "canon,"or that there was universal agreement among all Christians about the authority of every book in the NT. My point was that by the first decade of the second century all but two books of the NT were considered authoritative enough for early church fathers to quote from and the letters and Gospels were dispersed across a wide area. In addition, from the quotes from Scripture about sharing letters and letters intended for more than one congregation there is evidence of letter sharing between cities.
Scholars who want to argue over whether four or five letters were universally accepted or not less than a generation after Christ’s death ignore the other 22 books that were.

 

[inkaneer]

The point of my post was not that there was an official "canon,"or that there was universal agreement among all Christians about the authority of every book in the NT. My point was that by the first decade of the second century all but two books of the NT were considered authoritative enough for early church fathers to quote from and the letters and Gospels were dispersed across a wide area. In addition, from the quotes from Scripture about sharing letters and letters intended for more than one congregation there is evidence of letter sharing between cities.
Scholars who want to argue over whether four or five letters were universally accepted or not less than a generation after Christ’s death ignore the other 22 books that were.

But your post is deceptive. For instance, it does not directly address whether these 22 books were universally accepted. They were not. In addition there were other writings that were accepted in some communities that never made it into the canon. The Didache, Protoevangelium of James and The Shepherd to name a few. Then there were the Gnostic writings which were the main impetus for the codification of scripture. So to say the early church had 22 books is incorrect. Also those early church writiers had different lists of scripture that overlapped in some writings but their lists were not identical.

 

[inkaneer]

It didn’t really. There is good evidence the canon was pretty much set well before that.

Not so. Athanasius was the very first one to come up with a NT canon that matched that eventually decided. He did that in 348 AD.

 

[buffalo]

Not so. Athanasius was the very first one to come up with a NT canon that matched that eventually decided. He did that in 348 AD.

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)