the Bible Complete?
today may have many questions about where our Bible came from. How do
we know that the Canon of Scriptures is complete? How do we know that
all of those 66 books
constitute God's word? How do we know which books
should be included as Scripture? How do we know that there are not
other books which should have been included? How do we know which
writings were divinely inspired? To begin to answer these questions, we
will first examine the commonly accepted scholarly arguments for the
Canon of scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments.
The Old Testament
Our Old Testament has 39 books, but the Jewish arrangement of that same
Old Testament only has 22 books. Both Old Testaments are
exactly the same as far as the information they contain, but the books
are just arranged differently. For example the Jewish Bible combines
books such as 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, and some of the prophetic books.
They are also arranged in a different order. The Jewish Old Testament
begins with Genesis, but it ends with what we call 2 Chronicles. This
brings us to the first scholarly argument, found in Matthew 23:35.
Here, Jesus refers to a period of time from "the blood of righteous
Abel to the blood of Zechariah." The two events here seem to encompass
the Jewish Old Testament, because the first one is found in Genesis,
and the second one is found in our 2 Chronicles. Scholars frequently
use this as proof that the true Old Testament is the 22-book Jewish Old
Testament, which is our 39-book Old Testament.
The New Testament
History shows that it was certainly no easy task for the Church fathers
to discern which books constituted the New Testament. We will review
the criteria used, but as we do, we should remember that many of our 27
books were carefully questioned, and some of them had trouble making it
into our New Testament. These include
Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and
Revelation. In fact, it was not until 367 AD that our 27 books were
first generally received as canonical. Finally, this was verified at
the Council of Damascus in 383 AD, but the Council of Carthage still
felt necessary to state it again in 419 AD.
Through the years, there have been some groups, such as Roman
Catholics, who have believed that the Old Testament should include an
additional set of 13 books known as the Apocrypha. These books cover
the period of time between the last Old Testament Prophets to the time
of John the Baptist. In 1545, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic
Church officially included the Apocrypha as part of the Canon, although
history shows that this was part of a desperate attempt to save the
Catholic Church in the midst of the Reformation. In fact, some
reformers included the Apocrypha as a separate piece which was not
divinely inspired, but which was useful as history.
Now let's take a look at how scholars have dealt with the question of
whether or not to include the Apocrypha in the Bible:
- Quotations: A major argument for verifying the
authenticity of scripture through the years has involved
examining which books were quoted by the canonical
books. For example, some will argue that since none
of the books of the Apocrypha
are quoted in our Bible, then
that serves as proof that they do not belong in our Bible.
- Literature: Another closely related argument says
that we need to study what other non-canonical literature
claims about the Canon. For example, the famous
Jewish historian, Josephus, claims that the real Old Testament
is the 22-book Jewish Old Testament like our 39-book Old
Testament. This argument gains credibility because of
the testimony of men who lived so close to Old Testament times.
- Divine Inspiration: Some scholars believe
that no other books claim to be divinely inspired as they
believe the Old Testament does, by 2 Timothy 3:16.
- Prophets: Scripture can only be recorded
through the divine revelation from God. Since there were no
prophets during the period of the Apocrypha, how could it be
- Errors: Many scholars have rejected the
Apocrypha on the basis of the errors and contradictions found
within it. In some cases, scholars have reason to believe that
some of the moral and spiritual discrepancies are false
doctrine rather than translation errors. Some even
cite what they call absurdities, or passages that are
completely silly, and in no way could belong in the Bible.
- Style: Scholars also feel that they can
identify canonical books by their style.
- Apostolic Authority: The most important
criterion for the books of the New Testament was Apostolic
Authority. This meant that a canonical book had to have been
written by someone with the Gift of Apostle. This was
sometimes difficult to verify because some of the books did
not identify within themselves who the author was, and
others were believed to be forgeries.
- Read in the churches: Another important test
included verifying that each book had been read in the first
century churches. Obviously, this restriction also
makes it necessary that the books were completed before the
end of the first century.
- Quoted by leaders: The books had to have
been quoted by early church
leaders of the first century, in
their writings. This is closely associated with 2) under Old
- Rule of Faith: The New Testament books had
to be consistent with the Rule of Faith, or what the Apostles
had orally taught.
- The Holy Spirit: As proof of divine
revelation, the church fathers
had to be convinced that each
book was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
- Agreement: There had to be general agreement
of the church fathers
that each book was canonical.
- Quotations: The books were given credibility
when they were proven to have quoted other canonical books, as
well as when other books quoted them as being
scripture. This is again like 1) and 2) under Old
- Claim Divine Inspiration: Church fathers
said that each book had to claim divine inspiration, like 3)
under Old Testament.
- Edification: The books had to edify the church.
Now we will give the arguments refuting each of the above criteria for
canonization. The objective here is to expose the
subjectivity of the scholarly approach.
Literature and Leaders (Items 1, 2, 9, and 13)
One of the major criterion for canonization is to determine what books
were considered canonical at or near the time of their
writings. This is accomplished by learning all we can of all
quotations made of other writings during that era. There are
many permutations of this argument.
The first way to exercise this argument is to say that a book must be
referenced by other canonical books. This gives credibility to books
such as Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, which are quoted by Matthew,
Romans, and James. However, what about the books like Esther,
Ecclesiastes, and Nahum, which, among others, are not quoted in any of
our 66 books? This seems to be an inconsistent argument. Furthermore,
what about all these books which are referenced in the Bible, but are
not a part of our
Canon: Nathan and Gad in 1 Chronicles 29:29 and 2 Chronicles
9:29; Shemaiah and Iddo in 2 Chronicles 12:15; Hozai in 2 Chronicles
33:19; Jehu in 2 Chronicles 20:34; The Chronicles of the Kings of Media
and Persia in Esther 10:2; the acts of Solomon in 1 Kings 11:41; Jashar
in Joshua 10:13 and 1 Samuel 1:18; the Book of the Wars of the Lord in
Numbers 21:14; the Letter to Laodecia in Colossians 4:16; and, the Book
of Enoch in
Jude 14? Furthermore, what is Ephesians 5:14 quoting (it's not 1
Thessalonians 5:6)? Also, what is Jesus quoting in Luke 24:46?
Certainly this argument for canonicity is inconsistent, both in the
canonical books that are not named by other canonical books, and in the
non-canonical books which are named by canonical books.
The next permutation of this argument involves validating the
scriptures from non-canonical books. This is done when we prove the Old
Testament Canon from the testimony and writings of Josephus. This seems
a very weak argument, to prove that God's word is true, based on
writings that are clearly not God's inspired word. Suppose that
archeology finds writings of other, and perhaps more credible,
Jewish historians. Will we then be willing to discount what we
currently believe about the Canon. Certainly not! This argument can add
credibility to the Canon, but we must be careful not to rely too
heavily upon it.
Scholars have even used writings of heretics to prove canonicity. The
argument is that whatever the heretics attacked must be what was
considered in that day to be the Canon. This is truly a weak argument,
to rely upon the heretics to tell us what should be in our Bible.
We sometimes give credibility to what the early church
identified as canonical books. We can refute the 2nd and 3rd century church
leaders in the same way we refute Josephus. We need to learn all
we can from these men, but we must remember that they were capable of
and the Holy Spirit (Items 3, 11, and 14)
Exactly how do we proceed to prove that any book was written under the
divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all of
God's word is divinely inspired, but the whole issue here is to
determine what is meant by "all of God's word." Can we simply say it
means our 66 books since they are bound within the same cover? If this
is true, then the Roman Catholics have the same argument about the
Apocrypha. Furthermore, few of our 66 books explicitly claim divine
inspiration, and there are some non-canonical books that do claim
divine inspiration. Are we to accept the book of Mormon because it
claims to be from God? Also, how do we know which authors were guided
by the Holy Spirit? We can't even tell that about each other today, and
we're not even sure who some of the authors were. Clearly this is a
totally subjective argument.
Prophets (Item 4)
This is a strong argument against the Apocrypha. Other sources tell us
that there were no prophets during the period between the Old and New
Testaments. It is reasonable to think that God did not have prophets
during this time, and thus no divine revelation was revealed to man in
this era. However, unless the Bible explicitly says that there were no
prophets during this period, we can't be sure. Just because we do not
currently know about them, there still could have been some, and
archeology could tell us this in the future. We should be careful not
to put too much emphasis on this argument. If we should learn of
prophets during this time, then does that change our Canon?
Errors and the Rule
of Faith (Items 5 and 10)
This argument is weak from every angle. First of all,
modern-day liberals cite thousands of errors in our Bible, but we can
rightfully explain them all. Some are misinterpretations, and others
have been shown to be translation errors. Hundreds of years ago, one
might have said that Job 26:7 was in error by suggesting that the earth
suspended in space. Science
later proved this to be true, so what
appeared to be an error, was just ignorance on the part of the
accusers. We must be careful to distinguish between false doctrine and
translation errors. In our search for the true Canon, we must use the
same tests against non-canonical books as we do against the scriptures.
Perhaps what seems to be a contradiction in a non-canonical book is
just ignorance, or a misinterpretation, or a translation error.
Consider Exodus 33:11 which says that Moses spoke to God face to face,
and Exodus 33:20 which says that nobody can see God's face and
live. Shall we throw the book of Exodus out of the Canon
because of what seems to be an error or a contradiction? If we were to
throw out all books that seem to offer absurdities, we would have to
look closely at 2 Samuel where David, a man after God's own heart,
would butcher even the women and children of those he defeated in
battle, and he would lame their animals. Those actions don't seem to be
compatible with such a Godly man. What about the advice in Matthew to
cut off our body parts that offend us? Couldn't one who misunderstands
this passage call it an absurdity? What seems silly to us, could be
truth that we just don't yet understand.
As far as considering the Rule of Faith goes, we are to test all books
against what the apostles taught orally. The question here is, how do
we know what the apostles taught orally? The most we can have is a
Style (Item 6)
The question of style is a tricky one. If we throw out books that don't
satisfy our rules of style, then what happens when we compare the book
of Mark to the other gospels. Its short and choppy sentences and lack
of elaboration make it seem inconsistent with the others. Yet, this is
the beauty of having synoptic gospels. It paints the picture of Jesus
for us, through the various viewpoints and writing styles of different
men. Style remains as one of the most subjective criterion for
When we say that a New Testament book must have apostolic authority,
haven't we taken liberties with our interpretation of apostolic
authority? Clearly, apostolic authority should be that the author was
an apostle. Yet, we have broadened this definition to include those who
were close to the apostles. As far as we know, Mark, Luke, and James
were not apostles in the sense that they had neither been with Jesus
during His ministry on earth, nor seen the resurrected Christ. Yet we
allow their books in the Canon because they were
"close" to some of the great apostles. The obvious question then is,
"What about Barnabas?" Why is the Book of Barnabas not part of the
Canon? Who is to say whether Barnabas or Mark were "closer" to Paul? We
even have books in our Canon that we don't know for sure who their
author was, such as Hebrews. How can we be sure of apostolic authority
when we're not even sure of the author?
Read in the
Churches (Item 8)
How do we know what was read in the first century churches? All we have
are written records. Suppose we find out later that pagan rituals were
conducted in the churches. Does this say we should do the same? What if
the book of Barnabas was read in the churches? Should we then include
it in the Canon?
Agreement (Item 12)
By now it is easy to see the weakness of the argument that the
agreement of the early church
leaders somehow proves canonicity. What
if out of ignorance they agreed upon a lie? After all, they were only
men, making human decisions.
Edification seems to be a solid criterion for canonicity, since the
whole purpose of the church
is to edify believers. However, due to the
human decision-making involved, believers are not always in agreement
as to what is edifying. For example, the Book of Mormon is edifying to
4 million Mormons.
By this time, the reader is probably expecting to hear a refuting of
the 66-book Canon. Actually, the author believes that the completed
word of God is the 66-book Bible that was agreed upon in the 4th
century, i.e. our Bible of today. However, it is important to be able
to confidently believe in God's word for reasons other than the fifteen
All of the reasons explained above are offered by men, human scholars
who through intense study of ancient literature and archeology are to
be commended for the evidence that has been brought forward to give
credence to the 66-book Canon. However, this all simply a "best human
effort." To really know what constitutes the Bible is learned from the
Bible itself. God reveals His word to us in such a way that we each
have an individual and personal relationship with Him. This is the
beauty of Christianity, a personal God. God is the one who reveals His
sovereign word to us. He decided what to reveal to Moses, and He
decided what to reveal to us. Our job is to use the discernment He
gives us, and believe whatever He chooses to reveal to us.
We live in an age of grace when we are to simply have faith enough to
trust in His grace. In the same way we trust Him to take care of our sin
problem for salvation,
we must also trust Him to reveal His word to
us through His grace. We must simply
have faith that God has provided His word to us, in a form that is
complete for us, at least complete to the extent of what he has decided
to tell us. We believe that our 66-book
Bible is the completed Canon of Scriptures because we have faith in
God, and we can trust Him to provide both His word, and our
discernment. This Bible has stood the test of time, and I am satisfied
with it by my faith, but not by the scientific proof of human effort.
Faith is believing in things unseen. If there ever were scientific
"proof" of the Canon, then I would not be able to accept it, otherwise
my faith would no longer be faith. It would then be believing in what
we can see, and even an unbeliever can do that.
God went to great lengths to preserve His written word through the
ages. Although we have none of the original autographs, the manuscripts
we do possess have proven much more credible than most classical
(non-biblical) documents. We must believe by faith that our Bible is
the word of God. If we try to believe it by any other means, such as
the fifteen reasons given above, we are only fooling ourselves, because
each of these reasons are only subjective, superficial, and easily
refuted. Our faith is objective and real. "The just shall live by
faith." (Romans 1:17)
I would argue that the Holy Spirit did "command" the apostles to write
the books of the New Testament, just as He did the prophets to write
the books of the Old Testament. The apostles were compelled by the
Spirit (Acts 20:22, 1 Corinthians 9:16), and God is
omnipotent (Matthew 19:26), so He was able to use men to record His
word as He purposed.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." God
inspired the writing of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves
claim to be inspired. I believe that this claim of
inspiration in a faultless book is a very powerful argument.
In addition, I believe that it's quite amazing that the Bible
constitutes 66 book by 40 different authors, and yet it folds together
into one complete book. The odds are staggering that the 40 authors of
this large book agree with and complement each other even though most
of them didn't know each other, and some lived some 1300 years apart
from each other.
In addition to the arguments in the aforementioned article, I would
cite Revelation 22:18 here: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to
him the plagues described in this book." Although some argue that this
is only referring to the book of Revelation, I interpret it in light of
all the scripture which had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe
that God is omniscient (Psalms 147:4-5), and that he knew and
foreordained His plan of providing us with His Word (Exodus 5:16,
Romans 9:17ff, Philippians 2:12ff). He knew what would be scripture,
and when the last book was completed, He put this ominous warning at
the end of it.
Owen Weber 2009