Is there an inclusive Christian Bible?

[Shea Zellweger]

I was recently introduced to this chart (http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/interactive/canon/), which details the differences between the various Judeo-Christian Canons (Samaritan, Hebrew, Protestant, Catholic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox).
I was wondering if there was an all-inclusive version of the Bible which contained every book- or part of a book- that has been accepted as canon, or distributed along with the canon, by each and every one of these groups. Does anyone know of such a resource?

[Dennis Bratcher]

I was recently introduced to this chart (http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/interactive/canon/), which details the differences between the various Judeo-Christian Canons (Samaritan, Hebrew, Protestant, Catholic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox).

I was wondering if there was an all-inclusive version of the Bible which contained every book- or part of a book- that has been accepted as canon, or distributed along with the canon, by each and every one of these groups. Does anyone know of such a resource?

It comes as a quite to shock to some to find out that there never has been complete agreement among Christian groups about which books are to be included as "Scripture." That was true early in the Church and remains so. Many of the differences are minor; some are more significant (CRI/Voice has a similar chart for the Old Testament: Canons of the Hebrew Bible http://www.crivoice.org/canonot.html). Recall that even Martin Luther after 1500 years of tradition was still questioning some books. While it had been tradition for a long time, Roman Catholics did not officially finalize the canon until The Council of Trent in 1556 and then in response to the Reformers who were excluding the seven books of the Apocrypha.

Also, some do not realize that there is no master copy of Scripture in a vault somewhere. There are only hundreds of partial and complete manuscripts, most of which have minor differences. And even then, especially in the Old Testament there are problems in the existing manuscripts of some passages that require educated guesses to make sense of them, requiring a footnote in modern translations that say "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain" (as in NRSV)

These factors make some of the arguments about absolute inerrancy ridiculous.

To the point: Sorry, no, I know of no such resource (although there may well be).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Gina Stevenson]

Having finally run across the Apocrypha on-line, tho' I'd heard of it before, I began reading some of it ... rather interesting, historically. ;)

[Billie Goodson]

I was recently introduced to this chart (http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/interactive/canon/), which details the differences between the various Judeo-Christian Canons (Samaritan, Hebrew, Protestant, Catholic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Greek Orthodox).
I was wondering if there was an all-inclusive version of the Bible which contained every book- or part of a book- that has been accepted as canon, or distributed along with the canon, by each and every one of these groups. Does anyone know of such a resource?

The link does not resolve. (This may be a site issue, there is a cached version of the page from 8 Sept 2010).

http://www.amazon.com/UNIVERSAL-PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX-SAMARITAN/dp/1933580933 -- is that what you are looking for (or something like it?).

[John Kennedy]

It comes as a quite to shock to some to find out that there never has been complete agreement among Christian groups about which books are to be included as "Scripture." That was true early in the Church and remains so. Many of the differences are minor; some are more significant (CRI/Voice has a similar chart for the Old Testament: Canons of the Hebrew Bible http://www.crivoice.org/canonot.html). Recall that even Martin Luther after 1500 years of tradition was still questioning some books. While it had been tradition for a long time, Roman Catholics did not officially finalize the canon until The Council of Trent in 1556 and then in response to the Reformers who were excluding the seven books of the Apocrypha.

Dennis, this is extremely unsettling news. Many of us believed this had all been settled when Paul and Silas gave us the KJV.

Also, some do not realize that there is no master copy of Scripture in a vault somewhere. There are only hundreds of partial and complete manuscripts, most of which have minor differences. And even then, especially in the Old Testament there are problems in the existing manuscripts of some passages that require educated guesses to make sense of them, requiring a footnote in modern translations that say "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain" (as in NRSV)

These factors make some of the arguments about absolute inerrancy ridiculous.

To the point: Sorry, no, I know of no such resource (although there may well be).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis, you have no idea how unsettling this news is. Many of this believed this had all been settled when Paul and Silas gave us the KJV.

[Billie Goodson]

It comes as a quite to shock to some to find out that there never has been complete agreement among Christian groups about which books are to be included as "Scripture." That was true early in the Church and remains so. Many of the differences are minor; some are more significant (CRI/Voice has a similar chart for the Old Testament: Canons of the Hebrew Bible http://www.crivoice.org/canonot.html). Recall that even Martin Luther after 1500 years of tradition was still questioning some books. While it had been tradition for a long time, Roman Catholics did not officially finalize the canon until The Council of Trent in 1556 and then in response to the Reformers who were excluding the seven books of the Apocrypha.

Also, some do not realize that there is no master copy of Scripture in a vault somewhere. There are only hundreds of partial and complete manuscripts, most of which have minor differences. And even then, especially in the Old Testament there are problems in the existing manuscripts of some passages that require educated guesses to make sense of them, requiring a footnote in modern translations that say "Meaning of Hebrew uncertain" (as in NRSV)

These factors make some of the arguments about absolute inerrancy ridiculous.

To the point: Sorry, no, I know of no such resource (although there may well be).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis makes many excellent points, especially in regards to some of the inerrant debate positions.

However, I would also point out that from my understanding, the New Testament canon is not as wide open as some might suggest. People like Bart Ehrman would have us believe the bible that we have today is mainly a forgery and we have no idea what the original autographs contained. Others would claim that the church didn't decide the canon until the 4th century. Neither of those statements are wholly (and in the Ehrman case partially) accurate. There are writings from disciples of the disciples that can be dated to the turn of the first century that affirm/reference many of the books of today's canon (the 27 New Testament books).

This is really a dead topic, except for the best selling books that Ehrman writes and other pop-fiction authors such as Dan Brown. (By the way, I really do enjoy his movies and his books (Brown's)).

But, as Dennis very accurately points out, we don't have a complete manuscript from the bible that is anywhere close to the first century.

[Shea Zellweger]

It comes as a quite to shock to some to find out that there never has been complete agreement among Christian groups about which books are to be included as "Scripture."

I knew there was disagreement, but having it laid out like that was indeed a little surprising. My impression had been that there was sort of a spectrum of least inclusive (Hebrew/Samaritan) to all-inclusive (Greek Orthodox). The chart indicates that each of the Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Roman Bibles have at least one book unique to them.

[Shea Zellweger]

The link does not resolve. (This may be a site issue, there is a cached version of the page from 8 Sept 2010).

http://www.amazon.com/UNIVERSAL-PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX-SAMARITAN/dp/1933580933 -- is that what you are looking for (or something like it?).

it resolved for me, not sure what the issue is. That's a great start, but it's still missing some of the books.

[Billie Goodson]

it resolved for me, not sure what the issue is. That's a great start, but it's still missing some of the books.

It resolves for me now, I think it may have been a site issue (perhaps maintenance).

[Dennis Bratcher]

I knew there was disagreement, but having it laid out like that was indeed a little surprising. My impression had been that there was sort of a spectrum of least inclusive (Hebrew/Samaritan) to all-inclusive (Greek Orthodox). The chart indicates that each of the Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Roman Bibles have at least one book unique to them.

We should not despair that we have no accurate Scriptures because of these issues. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls demonstrated unequivocally that across 1,000 years (from the early medieval period to the first century BC) the text of the Old Testament had remained amazingly stable given the conditions in which it was preserved. On the other hand, we cannot wax too eloquent about inspired words and have theology hinge on verb tenses, singular or plural nouns forms, or even passages that do not appear in major manuscripts or text families.

That, along with other features of the text that we have understood better the past 200 years, calls us to look more holistically at Scripture in terms of overall message rather than parsing single words. It also calls us to develop a view of inspiration, and "infallibility," that takes the human dimension seriously (God's word in human words). Wesleyans, with our understanding of grace working with human beings (coworkers with God), are in a position to do that better than most, which is why the inerrancy debates, and fundamentalism in general, are really alien to our tradition.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Billie Goodson]

That, along with other features of the text that we have understood better the past 200 years, calls us to look more holistically at Scripture in terms of overall message rather than parsing single words. It also calls us to develop a view of inspiration, and "infallibility," that takes the human dimension seriously (God's word in human words). Wesleyans, with our understanding of grace working with human beings (coworkers with God), are in a position to do that better than most, which is why the inerrancy debates, and fundamentalism in general, are really alien to our tradition.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis, I love this last paragraph. I have spent some time reading and listening on the history of the canon. What I have realized is that I have an even greater appreciation for the bible now understanding how it has been transmitted to us. Yes, it would have been easy if God had written it all on stone tablets that could be buried then recovered and deciphered (oops, another communities story crept in there). But seriously, I believe that understanding the heritage of the bible really makes me stand in awe (or perhaps prostrate myself) at the witness we have through scripture.

We read the bible with our 21st century mindsets and we try to squeeze meaning out of things that are not in the original. We want the hows, we get the whys. We expect scripture to conform to our 21st century mindset, it invites us into the mind of God. We want scripture to tell us how to live, it tells us why we live.

All of that being said, when 'new findings' are made, they really never contradict the bible we already have. Even Ehrman has to admit that the only reason he can say something was introduced later into the scripture is because we have a fairly reliable context for what is the vast majority of scripture. But, I am going to stray into what would be heresy here.... Long ago I was asked what I thought of the Shroud of Turin, is it the burial cloth of Jesus? My belief is that the Shroud is not in fact the burial cloth. I also don't think we know exactly where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was, nor despite all of the 'historical relics' that supposedly were part of the Cross of Christ (which if all collected would have probably been more wood than the ark). I don't think God makes it that easy for us. We don't know/have those things because we would worship them. Too often we worship the bible, and not the God who is revealed to us through it. We want our little recipes, instead we are given the Bread of Life. I can't eat the bible.... (well, I could, but it would need a lot of BBQ sauce). As Thomas Flexner said in his biography of Washington, once all of the myths are dispelled, you will appreciate the real so much more. I find that true in the bible. Your statement about tenses and forms really is accurate (and theologies bolstered by one single verse or portion thereof). Let's let the bible speak about God in our hearts.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Of the English translations I have looked through the NRSV, The New Oxford Annotated and The Harper Collins Study Bible, have the largest number of these books. There are several which I would like to get and it would be nice if I could find them in a single book.

Interestingly, even though we Protestants claim only our canon it sure seems that many of the beliefs held were at least in part informed by apochryphal and pseudopigriphal writings.

[John Brickley]

That, along with other features of the text that we have understood better the past 200 years, calls us to look more holistically at Scripture in terms of overall message rather than parsing single words. It also calls us to develop a view of inspiration, and "infallibility," that takes the human dimension seriously (God's word in human words). Wesleyans, with our understanding of grace working with human beings (coworkers with God), are in a position to do that better than most, which is why the inerrancy debates, and fundamentalism in general, are really alien to our tradition.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I so appreciate the call to take the human dimension of scripture seriously. This I see is the fundamental difference between Christianity and all other word religions, the extent to which God takes our humanity seriously. The incarnation is not only the ultimate redemption of humanity but the ultimate affirmation of it as well. It speaks of a God that values our humanity to such an extent that He would unite Himself with it. It speaks of a Kingdom that comes in and through our humanity as we move in harmony with His divinity. It is the infusion of His being and grace in us to the extent that He is encountered in the flesh. That God in inspiring the writers of scripture would take seriously their history, their present story, and their contribution speaks of a God who tells His story in us and not apart from us. That human writers were active participants in the telling of the story of God is an amazing story of grace and in itself communicates the heart of the gospel, because here is a God who can take us warts and all, with our limited understanding, our limited contexts, even our prejudices, and through us is able to tell His story of redemption, why that is breathtaking in its gracefulness. To take seriously the cooperative human dimension of scripture, is to affirm the graceful ability of God to take these earthen vessels and reveal the beauty of His grace in and through them. What a story of redemption, that God would risk involving us in the unfolding of His story.

To deny the humanity of scripture, is to deny that God ultimately and fully embraces, redeems, and transforms said humanity. It is not coincidental that the major world faiths that are book based (thinking particularly of Islam, and Mormonism) both emphasize a dehumanizing transmission of scripture as their foundation for authority, but Christianity has always (except until recently with the rise of fundamentalism) emphasized a humanizing transmission of scripture. In my opinion we are never farther away from the heart of an incarnational faith when we insist upon a dehumanizing transmission of scripture, and we are never closer to the heart of the gospel when we affirm unequivocally that God and man cooperate together in a grace filled union each contributing to tell the story of what God is doing. It is the story of the incarnation and it is the ongoing dynamic story of scripture.

So aside from the prevailing tendency amongst those faiths that would dehumanize the transmission of scripture (particularly amongst Muslims and Christian fundamentalist) to divinize the scripture in question (a perfect example of this is the reaction of the Muslim community to the idea of burning the Quran) leading almost inevitably to bibolotry, it also is a not so subtle denial of the core message of Christianity; the full union of God with humanity. Significantly, this humanizing transmission of scripture, shifts the focus of authority from the words or the text itself (as is the case in fundamentalism, or Islam) to the God who is active in and through the people of faith, revealing Himself to them and through them and enabling them to faithfully live out and communicate His story.

[Tinker Boyd]

The book I'm reading for school, Discovering the New Testament Community and Faith edited by Alex Varughese, has a great line in it.

"It is often easy for a reader who believes the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God revealing God's will for people's salvation to assume that his or her theological reading of the text is as authoritative as the Scripture itself."

[Dennis Bratcher]

The book I'm reading for school, Discovering the New Testament Community and Faith edited by Alex Varughese, has a great line in it.

"It is often easy for a reader who believes the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God revealing God's will for people's salvation to assume that his or her theological reading of the text is as authoritative as the Scripture itself."

In which case personal interpretation often becomes more authoritative, since it is usually used as a lens through which to read (or exclude) other passages that say something different.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.