Alexander R. Nicassio Mpa Foundations of the Bible

In the early Church, there was no 'Bible'. People studies the Hebrew Testament, and shared writings by the Apostles but there were many books of dubious value as well, so you can understand that there would be some confusion about the list of books to be read by Christians. The early way to deal with this was essentially allowing the Bishops to determine what should be read in their areas - and from this we got our earliest canon lists, which I have compiled in this collection. In general, the books included in the Septuagint were preferred, and much of the attention on orthodoxy related to the books of the New Testament. Many books were being considered but there were theological issues with some books which made them undesirable. To fight the rising tide of Heresy, some common standards had to be discovered and delivered to the people. What kind of variations do we see in the Canon as it is developed? The first attempts to define a canon came as the Christian Church struggled to define a list of rock-solid sources to read from so that the people could grow in understanding of their faith. Initially, the readings were from the Hebrew Testament as it was understood by the Pharisees, but quickly became essentially the list of books in the popular versions of the Septuagint. The list of books of the New Testament has enormous variations, as books become preferred by various groups and others become discredited. An example of a book that was accepted despite its uncertain origins was the letter to the Hebrews. Some wanted to exclude this book, as it was thought to be written by someone other than Paul, but because it had many important references in it, the book was eventually accepted as Scripture. On the other hand, the four Gospels were accepted from the earliest days. Most people today get the writings of scripture arranged and bound together in their Bibles as Holy Scripture simply because that is what they find on the shelves at the bookstore that is entitled "Holy Bible". Many Protestants are also aware of the fact that in choosing a Bible one must avoid the shelf labelled "Roman Catholic Bibles," because these are designed to promote Catholic beliefs and they also contain some books that some Protestant reformers did not accept as Scripture - the books that some refer to as belonging to the "Apocrypha." Many Catholics are also aware of the fact that when they pick a Bible they must avoid the shelf labelled "Protestant Bibles," because these are edited and designed to promote Protestant beliefs and they also exclude some books that have traditionally recognized as Scripture. But why do most people reject these versions of the Bible without the slightest understanding of why they exist? Very few of us have even read the entire Bible anyway. When you are asked how many books are in the Bible, few people know (either Catholic or Protestant). And so it is evident that most of us accept certain books and reject others not because we have personally evaluated them in any way, but because we trust that someone else has evaluated them and has made a good decision about this matter, so that all scripture (and nothing but scripture) is between the covers of our Bibles. This question does not even occur to most people, which is alarming when you take a book of such monumental importance and are completely ignorant of who selected the contents of that book Should a Bible have 66 or 73 books? Why are some books included or excluded? What counts as a book anyway, and why? Beyond that, the question then becomes, who has made this decision, and are they really competent to decide for all of us? How did we end up with that King James Version Bible that is carefully left for us in a hotel room drawer? Is that a 'good' Bible or a 'bad' one?