When Was the Final Form of the Bible Completed
Oral traditions within the Church formed the substance of the Gospels, the oldest of which is Mark, written around 70 AD, 40 years after Jesus` death. 3. I find that the people I know who have the strongest relationships with God, the most faith to see Him at work and who have the most fruit in evangelization, are not the ones who care most about theology and doctrine. They strive to know their Almighty Savior intimately and trust the Spirit to open His Word to them. This seems to lead them to humiliation that allows them to teach and preach, to do work in themselves, and to humility for the Spirit to make a correction when needed. Internal evidence in the texts suggests that the individual books of the 27-book canon of the New Testament were dated to the 1st century AD. The first book written was probably 1 Thessalonian, written around 50 AD [3] The last book (in canon order), the Book of Revelation, is generally accepted by traditional science as it was written during the reign of Domitian (81-96). [4] [5] The dating of the composition of texts is mainly based on internal evidence, including direct references to historical events – textual criticism and philological and linguistic evidence provide more subjective clues. This edition of the Bible, first printed in 1611, was commissioned by King James I in 1604 after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists calling for church reform and a complete restructuring of the Church hierarchy. The evidence available to scholars—in the form of theological treatises, letters, and Church histories that have survived for millennia—indicates a much longer process of canonization. From the first to the fourth century and beyond, various Church leaders and theologians argued over which books belonged to the canon, often portraying their opponents as heretics. I share these last thoughts in this comment and hope that we can move on. We have much in common as brethren in Christ, as well as our desire to maintain the Scriptures as God`s breath, authoritative, and as a place where we teach and build up the Body of Christ.
We both have different approaches, maybe mine is not as conservative as yours, nor as perfectly developed as yours. I hope you can respect that and we can move on. Otherwise, well, I can only let you continue as you should. The “ancient prophets” are Joshua, the Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings. They are history books, but what also makes them “prophets” is that they not only record information, but interpret it and explain its significance in relation to other events in the history of Israel and the world in general of their time. I think we also need to be aware that just as a text expresses something of the author`s worldview, etc., we, as readers, also bring our own prerequisites and ideas when we read it. We are also naïve to pretend that this does not happen! I don`t even think it`s a bad thing unless we try to hide our own perspective and pretend that ours is the only fair, true, and “objective” way to read the text. We are naïve when we think that it is simply a matter of “reading what is there”. But when I`m aware that I see things from my limited perspective, I hope I can be open to what your perspective might help me see what I`ve missed—in this way, we can help each other expand our understanding of the scriptures. The books of the “Last Prophets” preserve statements and stories of religious and political activists (“prophets”) who, throughout their history, have served as the spiritual conscience of the nation and reminded people of social values that would reflect the character of God. Some books are voluminous (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), others are much shorter (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). Sometimes prophets could be pantomimes and playwrights who accompanied their actions with short spoken messages, often recited in poetic form.
It was the sound clips of their time that made it easy for others to remember and write them down. The word “apocrypha” comes from the Greek for “hidden” or “secret”. This is a bit confusing because the word Apocrypha is used in various ways when it comes to books outside of the standard biblical canon. This is clear from short statements such as “to date”, i.e. in Jud 19:30 and 2 Kgs 17:23. This indicates a subsequent written development of the text, beyond the period of time it records. Or when Moses is recorded as the sweetest man in the context of the “books of Moses” (Number 12:3). Of course, it is possible that Moses recorded this about himself. But it is more likely that it was a supplement in its final form. ScottL, Sailhamer looks at the form of OT in “The Meaning of The Pentateuch.” He too sees an exile/post-exile perspective that shaped the final form. It makes sense to me.
You see, they were convinced that they were not completing God`s Word. On the contrary, they simply made the Word of God relevant to the midst of people in exile. Remember that the Word of God is alive and effective (Hebrews 4:12). It is not static. It must be as real today as it was when the first words were written, when and how it happened. Yet even for evangelicals who are attached to the authoritarian and God-breathed nature of Scripture, there are things I believe we must be willing to recognize through the text. One of those I`m starting to see more and more is that much of the Old Testament that we have in our canon today did not come to us until some time after the exile in its more definitively assembled and organized form. .
