Board index ‹ Bible

[Fodder]

Why should I believe that the various books in the Bible belong together and show a coherent message?

I’m a former believer, now agnostic, yet I remain open to being convinced on this issue, but cannot seem to find any good reasons for this position when I search online. So much of what I find talks about the content of the Bible, its spans of time over which it was written, its varied authors, but none of that seems to answer this question.

I am truly asking in good faith, and want to know what is a best answer Christianity has to offer on this question.

Just to show my cards a bit, I am not at all persuaded by appeals to authority, so any answer that smacks of “because the church has traditionally said so, and we believe God guided them in that decision” is not really going to move me. You can criticize me for that if you like, just being honest.

Is there any sort of “ground up” argument for this issue?

[jimwalton]

The Bible, over its 66 books and roughly 1300 years of authorship (over 40 probable authors) shows a consistency of theme and a coherent message. On almost every page one can find teaching about understanding God properly, the importance of God's presence, God's desire to covenant with humans in relationship, sin as a breach of that covenant, redemption as the solution to the breach of sin, and resurrection as both the result and the goal. All of these themes coalesce in the person of Jesus: He is the relation to help us understand God properly; He is Immanuel, God with us; His blood is the new covenant; He came to save us from our sin; His redeeming blood is the mechanism of salvation and forgiveness, covenant and life; and His resurrection is the power that broke the power of death and makes our resurrection possible.

The Bible also has consistent elements of life and death, light and darkness, sin and wholeness.

[Fodder]

It seems like the bulk of your answer is “because it has common themes” that “coalesce” into Jesus?

I don’t think common themes are enough of an argument for why these books belong together. For example if someone were to write a book today which contained all these themes, should it be considered for inclusion in the canon?

[jimwalton]

No, your perception doesn't seem to be accurate. You asked if there was any coherence. I showed you some examples of coherence, to which you respond that common themes don't show coherence. I said that all of the themes coalesce in the person of Jesus, which shows coherence, which apparently you reject as a coherent motif, literary unity, and focal point. What sort of coherence are you looking for, then, if not coherence of theme, purpose, literary direction, theological direction, and focal point?

> For example if someone were to write a book today which contained all these themes, should it be considered for inclusion in the canon?

No. New Testament books were included in the canon because they were written by eyewitnesses or by those with access to eyewitness accounts. It turns out that even though they write from different perspectives and different cultural backgrounds, they show consistency of theme and theology, of purpose and focal point.

Anyone writing today would not be considered an eyewitness to the accounts, and so would not be included in the canon, despite hitting on the themes that bring coherence to the Bible.

[Fodder]

> I showed you some examples of coherence, to which you respond that common themes don't show coherence.

Let me clarify, my response is that common themes are not enough to show coherence on their own, to which I think you agree?

> I said that all of the themes coalesce in the person of Jesus, which shows coherence, which apparently you reject as a coherent motif, literary unity, and focal point.

I don’t reject that the Bible CAN be taken as a coherent narrative. My problem is the NT authors came to believe that Jesus was the goal of the Hebrew Scriptures BEFORE they wrote their texts, so of course, if you get the privilege of writing the 2nd half and conclusion to the book, then you can craft a meta-narrative out of it.

So when someone says, “look at how amazingly coherent this story is, it must be inspired!” (Not that you are arguing that, but very common in my experience with Christian apologetics) it’s just not that persuasive to me.

> What sort of coherence are you looking for, then, if not coherence of theme, purpose, literary direction, theological direction, and focal point?

I am not looking for coherence, the point of my question is why would anyone expect there to be in the first place?

> No. New Testament books were included in the canon because they were written by eyewitnesses or by those with access to eyewitness accounts.

Suppose our author in this hypothetical claimed they “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” which included a vision of him? Would that make it eligible for the canon?

[jimwalton]

> common themes are not enough to show coherence on their own, to which I think you agree?

I think common themes do show a coherence. What I said was the common themes alone don't qualify a piece of writing as canonical. There were different criteria for canonicity.

> My problem is the NT authors came to believe that Jesus was the goal of the Hebrew Scriptures BEFORE they wrote their texts, so of course, if you get the privilege of writing the 2nd half and conclusion to the book, then you can craft a meta-narrative out of it.

It could be, but there are other options. Since they came to believe that Jesus was the goal of the Hebrew Scriptures, we could also surmise that they had both reason and evidence to conclude such, and were not concocting a meta-narrative to fit a joint conspiracy to do such.

> So when someone says, “look at how amazingly coherent this story is, it must be inspired!”

I don't find this convincing, either, nor would I argue it (as you noticed I did not). It's not that persuasive to me.

> I am not looking for coherence, the point of my question is why would anyone expect there to be in the first place?

It's not that I expect it, but rather that I observe it is there and am curious enough to pursue why that is the case.

> Suppose our author in this hypothetical claimed they “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” which included a vision of him? Would that make it eligible for the canon?

Great question. The answer is "absolutely not." In hermeneutics (the method of reliable Bible interpretation), we seek how to properly interpret and understand God's revelation. We believe that the Holy Spirt (HS) not only prompted the biblical authors, but also that He inspired the texts. But in our modern era, if someone claims to have the only right interpretation of a Scripture passage because the Holy Spirit gave it to them, or if they claim to have "received [a message] through a revelation of Jesus Christ," be suspicious.

How do we know the HS doesn't give people messages like that? The problem is, it’s impossible to tell. Even if the HS might do that, however, we can never claim that our message is inspired because "the HS gave it to me" or that a revelation is given "just to me". And why not? Because then our authority is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It is a conversation-ending claim. We are claiming inspiration, and none of the typical ways to understanding communication, writing, or evidence matter. Someone's self-claim doesn't entitle it to be regarded as canonical Scripture.

[Fodder]

> if they claim to have "received [a message] through a revelation of Jesus Christ," be suspicious.

The reason I put “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” in quotes is because this is precisely what Paul says in Gal. 1:12 (ESV) So, can you explain to me why Paul can do this, but not our hypothetical author?

> How do we know the HS doesn't give people messages like that? The problem is, it’s impossible to tell. Even if the HS might do that, however, we can never claim that our message is inspired because "the HS gave it to me" or that a revelation is given "just to me". And why not? Because then our authority is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It is a conversation-ending claim. We are claiming inspiration, and none of the typical ways to understanding communication, writing, or evidence matter. Someone's self-claim doesn't entitle it to be regarded as canonical Scripture.

I completely agree. This is why I can’t conclude Paul is inspired just because he makes that claim. The biblical authors don’t get a special pass from the valid criticism you’ve mentioned here.

[jimwalton]

From the time they were written, the books of the New Testament were recognized by the authors, the Apostolic Fathers, the Church leaders, and the believers to be of a different sort. They knew that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit in a specific way for this specific task. There were other writings from the same era by, as far as we can tell, noble and honest people, but those works were separated out from the writings that were canonized. Aside from a few disputed books, the New Testament canon was immediately and universally recognized. The action of the councils in the 4th century were not deciding on what would be included, but instead recognizing what had always been known about canonical works.

When the era of eyewitnesses and those who got their message from eyewitnesses passed (because time rolls on), it was universally recognized that the canon was closed. The message of the Holy Spirit in believers now was still important but no longer inspired. The Holy Spirit gives us help, and can motivate us to think and act in certain ways, but doesn't give us authority.

The only attempts to add to Scripture since that era are the cults that venture to replace the inspired word with their own version (which they claim supersedes the original): Islam/Qur'an, Jehovah's Witnesses/New World Translation, Mormons/Book of Mormon, etc. It's all twaddle.

And, of course, there is a never-ending stream of people who claim that the HS has given them (and only them) a unique and privileged message that gives them authority and power. We have no biblical reason to affirm or warrant the authority of those claims.

[Fodder]

> From the time they were written, the books of the New Testament were recognized by the authors, the Apostolic Fathers, the Church leaders, and the believers to be of a different sort. They knew that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit in a specific way for this specific task.

Do you have a source on the author’s belief that they were writing inspired works? What criteria did the authors and the church use to determine whether these works were inspired? Do you have a source on any of them conceiving of this “specific task” being limited to their time?

In our hypothetical scenario, our author has received a revelation of Jesus Christ, including a vision of Him. Why is his work disqualified from being considered for the canon?

> There were other writings from the same era by, as far as we can tell, noble and honest people, but those works were separated out from the writings that were canonized.

Are you aware of any other criteria they used than the following: 1)written by an apostle or someone in close association with an apostle 2) taught orthodox doctrine 3) were useful to the church 4) were widely used in the churches?

Our hypothetical meets all these except 4, but that is only because it came out later, which as far as I can tell there was no time component to the church’s criteria of inspiration, nor should there be. When something was written has nothing to do with whether it’s inspired.

> Aside from a few disputed books, the New Testament canon was immediately and universally recognized. The action of the councils in the 4th century were not deciding on what would be included, but instead recognizing what had always been known about canonical works.

I agree. But as these are human agents, is it possible in your view they could have made a mistake? If not, why?

> When the era of eyewitnesses and those who got their message from eyewitnesses passed (because time rolls on), it was universally recognized that the canon was closed.

“Universally”? Absolutely not, debates over the canonicity of certain books went on for generations after the eyewitnesses passed away. I would say “widely” accepted that the 27 we have was agreed were “in”. Why should anyone believe that the canon would ever close in the first place?

> The message of the Holy Spirit in believers now was still important but no longer inspired. The Holy Spirit gives us help, and can motivate us to think and act in certain ways, but doesn't give us authority.

How do know that?

> The only attempts to add to Scripture since that era are the cults that venture to replace the inspired word with their own version (which they claim supersedes the original): Islam/Qur'an, Jehovah's Witnesses/New World Translation, Mormons/Book of Mormon, etc. It's all twaddle.

I would want to include some significant scribal additions to the NT as “adding to scripture”. What is special about the NT that makes it NOT “twaddle”?

> And, of course, there is a never-ending stream of people who claim that the HS has given them (and only them) a unique and privileged message that gives them authority and power. We have no biblical reason to affirm or warrant the authority of those claims.

Agreed. I just don’t see anything special about the apostle Paul that makes him any different than these folks.

[jimwalton]

> Do you have a source on the author’s belief that they were writing inspired works?

The apostles write that they write as they do with the help of the HS just as the OT prophets did (1 Thes. 5.27; Col. 4.16). They considered the OT as inspired by God (2 Tim. 3.16). In 2 Peter 3.15-16, Peter (or the author, if you reject Peter as author) put Paul's epistles on the level of Scripture, i.e., inspired by God.

> What criteria did the authors and the church use to determine whether these works were inspired? Do you have a source on any of them conceiving of this “specific task” being limited to their time?

The criteria to be included in the canon is that (1) the author was an eyewitness of Jesus's life and teaching or that they had 2nd-hand knowledge of it by access to an eyewitness; (2) The words they wrote conformed to the truth about Jesus—his life and teachings; and (3) their writings were affirmed as 1 & 2 by the leaders and Christians who knew these people.

> In our hypothetical scenario, our author has received a revelation of Jesus Christ, including a vision of Him. Why is his work disqualified from being considered for the canon?

About whom are you speaking, historically? It's more productive and authentic to deal with the specifics rather than hypothetical generalities.

> Are you aware of any other criteria they used than the following

No.

> Our hypothetical meets all these except 4

About whom are you speaking, historically? You can't just make up authors who were eyewitnesses who wrote accounts that were rejected.

> But as these are human agents, is it possible in your view they could have made a mistake? If not, why?

No, they couldn't have made a mistake. It was widely and universally recognized that these authors had been with Jesus or knew the eyewitnesses. Is it possible, in our era, that anyone could be making a mistake that Joe Biden is the President of the US? No, it's universally known and recognized. A mistake is not possible.

> “Universally”? Absolutely not, debates over the canonicity of certain books went on for generations after the eyewitnesses passed away.

Absolutely universal. Historically proven. Can you name a single source that did not recognize the authority and canonicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? How about Acts? Romans? Let me see what you have.

Of course there were a few books that were debated, but on the evidence presented (which is no longer available to us), these debated books were stamped as authentic. They had much closer access to the sources than we do.

In those days manuscripts lasted for centuries. In the 4th century, there is reason to believe they still had access to the autographs (the original documents).

> How do know that?

John declared the canon as closed (Rev. 22.18-19). That assertion was never challenged by the early Church.

> I would want to include some significant scribal additions to the NT as “adding to scripture”.

Which "significant scribal additions"? We would need to discuss them rather than deal in generalities. If you're talking about John 8.1-11 or Mark 16.9-20, those are widely known as not being part of Scripture. If you're talking about something else, we need to discuss it.

> What is special about the NT that makes it NOT “twaddle”?

The evidence of its historicity, moral excellence, theological consistency, and spiritual benefit.

> I just don’t see anything special about the apostle Paul that makes him any different than these folks.

I have already dealt with this. He was recognized from the outset as being different.