Apparently Amazon decided to delete my review of the book The Lost Books of the Bible by William Hone (ed). That’s unfortunate, because none of the reviews seem to mention the obvious: That having a “lost book of the Bible” is impossible.

Greg Koukl examines the idea of having lost books in his article “No Lost Books of the Bible“. In summary:

[T]here are two ways of looking at this: a supernatural or natural perspective. I would contend that there are no other ways of looking at this question; no other options. No matter who you are out there you either think of the Bible as being God’s inspired Word … or the Bible is merely the statement of beliefs of the early church, without any supernatural content.

Is it possible that in the first sense of the word Bible that the books could be lost? Wait a minute, if God is supernaturally overseeing it, then God is supernaturally involved in seeing that His book gets written down and preserved. So we have God’s supernatural protection if it has a supernatural quality to it. You may say that the supernatural element is bogus, but you can see that from this sense of the definition that it’s not really possible to think that God could lose His own book.

Maybe the Bible isn’t supernatural, it’s a statement of beliefs of the leaders of the church. Okay, if that’s the case then who has the final word on which books belong in the Bible? The leaders of the early church. Therefore, by very definition any books that they cast into outer darkness are not part of the Bible. It’s their decision to decide which books represent their beliefs.

Related reading:

• Is the New Testament Text Reliable? - “Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.”
• A Mountain of Manuscripts - Shows just how many ancient copies of the NT are in existence.
• Video: What Is the Story Behind the Gnostic Documents? - Why the “Gospel” of Philip and others don’t deserve serious consideration.

The so-called Blasphemy Challenge website is addressed quite succinctly in the video below. I learned about this clear and simple reply via Challenge Blasphemy, a direct reply to the “Rational Responders” site featuring videos of people declaring their faith. My story is posted there, but I don’t have a video up because I don’t have my webcam with me at the moment. For now, check this out:

DISCLAIMER: I do not endorse all of the biblical interpretations proposed Mr. Inns’ website.

The “Blasphemy Challenge” is an example of what I’ll choose to deem, somewhat obtusely, “know-nothing know-it-allism”. (Obscure Simpsons reference.) For a better discussion on what it really means to “blaspheme the Holy Spirit”, see Holding’s The “Unforgivable Sin” — and Who Can Be Forgiven.

For Christians, I encourage you to record your own video explaining the reasons why you believe to submit to the Challenge Blasphemy website. For those who aren’t, please consider my story of why I now believe (when I certainly didn’t before) and those of others who explain why they now believe.

It is sometimes suggested that the New Testament as we know it did not exist until centuries after Jesus, and that the books comprising the New Testament were not considered divine or authoritative until much later than the first century.

One problem with the theory that the books in our New Testament were not considered Scripture in the first century is that the authors of the New Testament books specifically refer to the other author’s books as being Scripture! Take a look at 2 Peter 3:15-16:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here Peter refers to the wisdom found in Paul’s letters. Note Peter’s wording: He says Paul’s letters contain things that are hard to understand just like the other Scriptures. Peter considered at least some of Paul’s letters to be Scripture, equal in authority to the Old Testament.

I came across another passage this week that seems to treat other New Testament books as Scripture, 1 Timothy 5:18:

For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

The first quote is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is not found in the Old Testament, but it is found in the New Testament. Albert Barnes notes in his commentary that “This expression is found substantially in Matt 10:10, and Luke 10:7. It does not occur in so many words in the Old Testament, and yet the apostle adduces it evidently as a quotation from the Scriptures, and as authority in the case. It would seem probable, therefore, that he had seen the Gospel by Matthew or by Luke, and that he quoted this as a part of Scripture, and regarded the Book from which he made the quotation as of the same authority as the Old Testament. If so, then this may be regarded as an attestation of the apostle to the inspiration of the “Gospel” in which it was found.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, via e-sword)

Kinda throws cold water on the whole “Constantine put together his own collection of scriptures” myth eh? (Sorry couldn’t help referencing The Da Vinci Code again!)

There’s an interesting book that I haven’t been able to finish reading yet called The First Edition of the New Testament by Dr David Trobisch, which posits the theory that the New Testament we know today was first compiled (in a form identical to or very similar to its present form) in the early 2nd century, not in the 4th century as it is often assumed. It’s an interesting but somewhat difficult read, probably in part because it’s been translated from its original German form. It’s also expensive ($45) considering it’s only 184 pages. I’ll finish reading it next semester when I’m back at the school library.

TruthMedia has started a new blog to discuss movies, Movies at TheLife.com. Currently the focus is on The Nativity Story, a film that “follows the life of the Virgin Mary and Joseph over the two-year period immediately prior to the birth of Jesus and several years afterward” (from the Wikipedia article). After watching the trailer, I’m excited to see this movie. While The Passion of the Christ was rather disappointing (for both style and theological reasons, although there were some great moments in it) The Nativity Story looks like it should be a great film, and early reports seem to confirm this. Search out this film when it opens in theaters December 1, or if it’s not playing in your country, find a way to see it!

Related links:

• Video: Watch the Nativity Story trailer!
• Is the slaughter of the children historical? - As depicted in the trailer
• Who is Jesus? - A full study of his entire life on Earth