Just as the Car Maintenance book is about, well, vehicles and camshafts and tyres…
…and just as the Himalayan Geography book is about, well, a mountain range and its environment…
…and just as the Harry Potter books are about, well, those fictional characters and their world…
so likewise is the Bible a collection of books from and about the ancient Jewish faith and (on adding the New Testament) its development into the faith of Christ. That what it is. That’s what it’s supposed to be. That what it is defined to be. That’s the very nature and the purpose of that collection.
What else would one expect it to be, if not that?
We take the Car Maintenance book on its own terms and in its own scope. We don’t try to force it to be Himalayan Geography or Potter-esque fiction.
We take the Himalayan Geography book on its own terms and in its own scope. We don’t try to maintain our car with it, or read it as fantasy Potter-esque fiction.
We take the Harry Potter story on its own terms and in its own scope. We don’t force it to be about car engines or high-altitude mountaineering.
And…
We take the Bible on its own terms and in its own scope. It is, by very definition almost, a faith-in-God book.
The Bible never claims to be the “word of God.” That is a claim often made but it is not something found in the scriptures.
It is better to think of the Bible as a compilation of individual writings.
For example, the resurrection of Jesus should not be believed because “the Bible tells us so.”
The resurrection of Jesus Christ should be believed because the eyewitnesses John and Peter wrote about it and dedicated their lives to that truth despite the risks and hardships.
And the resurrection should be believed because Luke and Mark interviewed eyewitnesses and recorded the event as described by many.
And it was the resurrection that formed the foundation of the church. The church is here because of the Bible; the Bible is here because the church preserved the documents written by humans that recorded the events.
The Bible is not, in its entirety, the word of God. And the Bible is not just another religious book with stories.
The current form of the Bible is actually multiple forms.
Some Bibles have more books. Other Bibles have fewer books.
The 1611 KJV had 80 books. That version is still available, but it is less common than the 66-book version.
I will check — I think Bruce Metzger used the word “haphazard” in his book on the New Testament canon, at a minimum recognizing the establishment of the canon could be seen that way.
At any rate, all the ancient canons tell the same story — of God’s love for people and our calling to follow Jesus.
That is extrapolating way beyond what I intended. Most native English speakers here will have the familiar 66 book version, and what is typically found in online Bible reference sites. Whatever particular version makes its way to whatever particular individual is also under the purview of God’s providence.
Another simple point is that we need to trust our Father’s provision without fear.
As I wrote, Metzger said it could be considered haphazard by some.
“At this point it is appropriate to consider another aspect of the development of the canon—its apparently fortuitous character.36 To some scholars the seemingly haphazard manner in which the canon was delimited is an offence. It is sometimes asked how the canon can be regarded as a special gift of God to the Church when its development from a ‘soft’ to a ‘hard’ canon progressed in what appears to be such a random and, indeed, haphazard manner. According to Willi Marxsen, ‘from the historical point of view the fixing of the Canon of the New Testament is accidental’.37”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
This material may be protected by copyright.
The 66-book canon that Protestants use, for example, is not consistent with any canon that I have seen published before the 1800s.
The 1611 KJV had 80 books.
So, if it wasn’t haphazard, the 66-book canon was very long in coming and is still not the canon used by most of Christendom.
Doesn’t it match the Council of Carthage from 397?
That is the earliest extant instance of a church council listing the 27-book NT.
The earliest list describing the 27-book NT canon was in the Festal Letter of Bishop Athanasius from 367 AD, but that was an individual bishop’s opinion and his Old Testament canon differed from most current Bibles.
Thought we were debating the canon of the OT and NT combined since you seem to favor the 1611 KJV with it’s inclusion of the Apocrypha which is the only substantial difference in RC and Protestant Bibles in terms of the books included. Metziger only mentions the Council of Carthage from 397 as it relates to the NT canon.
That’s right! The apocryphal books are not considered canonical by the Protestant church. They may be read in Anglican churches but are not considered to be Scripture.
I favor recognizing that there are multiple canons accepted by ancient churches, and I favor recognizing the 66-book Protestant canon dates from the 1800s.
I actually favor the 22-book NT canon of the Church of the East, but my preference is less relevant than the fact that there are multiple canons accepted by different parts of Christendom.
And I favor encouraging people to look at the options and the history, instead of just accepting the first list of books they are handed.
If you object to generalizations, you certainly ought to object to that one, because it may not be at all good advice and likely distinctly bad advice depending on where someone is in their spiritual journey and maturity.