Christianity and the Bible: they belong together like Islam and the Quran. It seems so parallel: two religions, each with its own book. But Christians and Muslims find each other’s books very strange.

The Bible is Not A Book⤒🔗

And in part this is because they approach the others’ book as if it were the same sort of book as their own. And that is not the case. When we speak with Muslims, it is important that we are aware of these differences. In this article I will not discuss the Quran, but will focus on the Bible. I wish to demonstrate that the Bible is not a book that can be compared to another book, just like that; not even to a religious book like the Quran.

The Bible is a Collection←⤒🔗

In our time the Bible appears to be one book. A thick book, but with its thin paper pages one hand is nevertheless enough to hold it. And what do you hold then, in that one hand? Actually not a book, but a whole library! At present, the word “Bible” is a singular word. It is also known in the plural: Bible and Bible books, book and the books [of the Bible]. But originally it was a plural word. You can read that on the first page of the Authorized Version (Translation of 1637): “Bible: that includes all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.” And our Belgic Confession (1561), in Articles 2-7, never even uses the singular word “Bible”, but speaks about a multiplicity of “Scriptures” (“We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical,” Article 5). People often forget about this special quality of the “Bible-as-library”. Then “the Bible” is read as if it were one uniform document (a codex) with all sorts of equivalent statements and sentences. But the Bible is not a uniform document. In reality, we meet therein a multitude of prophets and evangelists in very different situations.

Our apostle Peter says: “I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2, NIV). Not one prophet or one apostle, but a multiplicity of prophets and apostles. The word of God resounds from several loudspeakers. It comes to us in a collection of scriptures. A collection spanning one and a half millennia.

Hence that is how we should approach the biblical Scriptures. After all, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways” (Heb. 1:1, NIV). Whoever forgets the historical character of the biblical revelation loses sight of God’s salvation history.

History of the Holy People of God←⤒🔗

To be precise, the authoritative revelations of the God of Abram, Isaac and Jacob are first of all concerned with persons, not with pen and paper.

It pleased God to choose some persons who became carriers of his Voice and Word. A very clear example is that of the great prophet Moses. Following an 80-year preparation, the LORD made him the center of an unimaginably great and wonderful deliverance from Egypt. The Israelites witnessed the mighty hand of the LORD and they “feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant” (Ex. 14:31, NIV) This is how you get to Moses: via the works of his God.

Moses, Intimate Friend←⤒🔗

The person who does not return again and again to the wonder of the exodus from Egypt will struggle with being impressed by the laws that followed. It is not for nothing that the Psalms frequently reiterate that history. The authority of the seminal books of Genesis up to and including Deuteronomy is the authority of Moses, the man of God. With no other person did God interact so intimately. And we may listen along. This is how the Pentateuch gains its authority for us: after all, therein speaks no one less than Moses, the intimate friend of the Creator and Redeemer!

Holy←⤒🔗

Not inspired paper, but inspired persons are at the root of the authority of the Scriptures. As Peter writes: “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Our fathers often spoke of “the holy apostle” or “the holy prophets,” and rightly so. The authority of the Bible is personal!

That also applies to the New Testament. John the Baptist and Jesus did not write anything down. Their actions and words have authority as such. And the narrators of their words and deeds were appointed by Jesus himself: these are the apostles who were made trustworthy by the Spirit. Hence the church is not built on paper, but on the foundation of apostles and prophets.

During the time when many believers were illiterate, the walls of the churches were lined with mosaics or statues of prophets and apostles. Those who entered the church came home to them all. People confessed and sang surrounded by these witnesses. Such images, as memorabilia, are gone from the Protestant churches, but the spiritual eye must want to see and remember them each Sunday. That is the community of saints. The Bible is not something you can do without! As long as we ourselves have not become isolated.

The Bible is Never Bound←⤒🔗

In those church buildings filled with mosaics or statues, there was usually also a lectern. Upon it would lay a chosen prophetic scroll, or later a chosen part of a codex (Gospel or letter of Revelation), and still later a thick book with even all the prophets and apostles tightly bound together.

This binding of the Bible is sensible to the extent that all these Scriptures are useful for our salvation: this is the pledge entrusted to us! The one binding also confirms that for us, all these books hold equal authority. But can this binding not be deemed illegal because it discriminates against other books? Some scriptures were taken up in it; others not. The result is what is referred to as a “‘canon”. But God never appointed a canonizer! Hence, did the churches later on make their own choice, thereby imposing their likes and dislikes on posterity? Was the canon only created in 325 by the Council of Nicaea, as is often asserted? This thought is popular amongst many within Islam and in recent centuries also within Christianity. Because of this the word canon has become suspect, putting the reality of the canon in a negative light.

Canon←⤒🔗

How then did that canon come about? In brief: the canon originated forwardly; it was not made retroactively. It was set, not made.  There are no identifiable councils that afterwards, through selection, would have compiled a canon.

1. The so-called Jewish synod of Jabne (first century AD) is often referred to as the decisive event in the delimitation of the Old Testament, but this is historically incorrect. As Bible reader, you can also check this yourself. Already in the time of Jesus there is no longer any discussion as to what belongs in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).
   That the Law of Moses had already long been delimited can be inferred from the fact that the Samaritans accepted this law. The Samaritans are the successors of the ten tribes. They did not honour the prophets of the Lord, but they did have the Torah of Moses. Thus it also passed to the Samaritans, though Judah really did not adopt it from them. In other words: the Torah was already delimited and accepted in the time of David or earlier. This validity of the Pentateuch amongst the Samaritans and hence also earlier amongst the ten tribes, is a persuasive argument against modern source criticism that considers the Pentateuch to have been completed only after the exile.
2. This also counts for the special impact of John the Baptist and of Jesus the Messiah. It is no wonder that people recorded and preserved that period. And that the letters of the miracle-working apostles were assembled and bundled already very early on. The canon originated forwardly: the driving force of God’s holy men produces the retention of the message in their writings.
3. Has everything then been preserved? No. How can it be that, for example, God allowed apostolic letters to be lost? That is not a good question. A better question is how it is possible that God has preserved so much for us despite the negligence of many and the enmity of others. And then the next question is, how can that which has been preserved not be enough for us, maybe even more than enough!
4. Is the canon exactly what we need? No, it contains much more. Because God’s words repeatedly overflowed. How often did he not want to call Israel back and gather Jerusalem’s children!
5. Did a delimiting moment then not occur? Yes, to the extent that people in the first three centuries increasingly began to protect that which had flourished and was inherited. People safeguarded it against the intrusion of later and sometimes dubious scriptures, keeping to the norm of apostolic origin. The authority of the Messiah authorized the apostles. That was the measure. That measure became the canon.

Not Something Put Together←⤒🔗

Thus is how it came to be. Thus it was already a done deal in the time of Marcion, who in the middle of the second century intervened in Paul’s letters. People recognized those interventions and immediately identified them as “cutting and ripping up”. But how could cutting and ripping up occur if there had not yet been agreement regarding the size and the content of the Pauline collection of letters?

In short: the canon is the result of the history of revelation; it is not a work that was later put together. Precisely the fact that the canon functioned already in the second century, proves that the Council of Nicaea in 325 did not determine the New Testament canon: it merely upheld it against heretics and falsifiers.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

The Bible is not a book that can be compared to another book, just like that; not even to a religious book like the Quran. Both the Bible and the Quran appear to be books, but they are so different in origin and purpose and design that it will contribute nothing to mutual understanding if one would consider each book in the light of the other. And we should not allow ourselves to be tempted to do so. It will be better for us to bear witness to our faith that is connected to all the prophets and apostles who preceded us. In following the Saviour, we should not be distracted by fruitless comparisons between an Islamic book and the biblical Scriptures.