66 Books in 1 Canon

 How many times have you heard something similar to the following:

The Bible is composed of 66 books written over the span of 1500+ years across three continents in three languages by 40+ authors from various backgrounds/education levels/socio-economic standing---and yet, it contains no errors, inconsistencies, but has one unifying theme. (And whoever's speaking can word the theme however they want, whether "Jesus" or "God's redemption of the world" etc)

This is not a post about inerrancy. I'll save that for another day. (Yes, I believe the Bible is true, but there are so many nuances to this discussion that, well, it requires discussion. Too often we are set in our interpretations, where there are errors and contradictions, and we put all that pressure on the Bible itself. But again, another day).

As it stands, I have no real problem with the above statement. I've said it and probably will say something like it again in the future. The purpose is to show the Bible's uniqueness from all other books. To prove (or give evidence) for the divine character and influence behind its composition. I see the intention. I understand the truth here.

Yet, even in the statement, we air out some dirty laundry (which I am all about), and at the same time try to shove everything back under the rug. I don't think anyone considers time span, the number of authors, the languages, or various geographical locations to be a negative to the Bible's composition. But as soon as we recognize it, we shift focus immediately to the "one book."

I would rather focus on the 66. Yes, of course, each book was recognized as inspired pretty close to its time of writing. The Hebrew Bible was recognized as canonical with its Torah, Writings, and Prophets not too long after Malachi was complete (there were some stragglers). The same process occurred with the NT, and five or six books were not accepted into the canon until the third or fourth century. This does not mean they weren't inspired. There was simply debate according to the church's criteria for canonicity (apostolicity, catholicity [widespread use], orthodoxy). I have absolute confidence that we have all the inspired books. None were excluded that were inspired, and none were accepted that aren't.

So yes, one canon. Complete. And there is a unified theme of Jesus or restoration of creation. 

But without a balanced view of that opening statement, we can fall into missing the human element of the Bible. Focusing on the divine, the miracle of Scripture, lends to an attitude that borders on worship of the revelation and not the One who revealed it. I've seen it. I've experienced it. There is no fourth member of the Trinity.

I like to at least have an equal emphasis on the diversity among the books. I can't study Hosea the same as Luke. Or Revelation the same as Ruth. They are not just different genres, but the backgrounds of the authors, grammar, time periods/history, that we listed above. These are individual books written for specific audiences with a particular purpose at that time. 

I've talked to many people where you think they assume the leather-bound copy of any English version just fell from the sky in one neat volume (even including study notes for us). Individual books on scrolls written to unique audiences at various times for specific purposes. And our goal when studying must be to uncover as much of that original setting as possible. Our 21st century milieu means nothing when we first approach the text.

I let individual authors speak for themselves. I want the situation of the original readers to surface. I don't want to lump everything together or level everything out to all be read the same way. 

1 Canon. But 66 books. Humans writing to humans. Spirit leading the entire way. 

And we get to eavesdrop on their initial communication. It's pretty incredible.