Vitabu Sahihi: Agano Jipya na ApokrifaThe Right Books: New Testament & Apocrypha

Katika sehemu iliyopita shahidi wa kwanza alitupa Agano la Kale — Maandiko ya Kiebrania, yaliyotambuliwa kwa karne nyingi na yaliyokwisha kuthibitika wakati Yesu aliposoma kutoka kwayo. Sasa shahidi yule yule anamaliza ushuhuda wake. Maswali mawili yamebaki. Kwanza, Agano Jipya lilikujaje kutambuliwa kuwa Maandiko? Na pili, je, vipi kuhusu vitabu vya ziada ambavyo Biblia nyingine huvibeba kati ya Maagano au ndani yake — yaani Apokrifa? Kanuni ile ile tuliyojifunza bado inaongoza kila kitu hapa: kanuni ya Maandiko ilitambuliwa, haikupewa mamlaka. Hakuna baraza lililokifanya kitabu kuwa Maandiko; kanisa lilivipambanua vitabu vilivyokuwa tayari Neno lenye pumzi ya Mungu, kama mpimaji anavyothibitisha dhahabu ambayo hakuiumba. Tutauona upambanuzi huo ukifanya kazi katika Agano Jipya, ambapo vitabu vya kweli vinajitokeza waziwazi mbele ya bandia za baadaye. Kisha tutaishughulikia Apokrifa kwa uaminifu — si kwa kauli-mbiu, bali kwa kuweka hoja halisi za pande zote mbili na kusema kozi hii inasimama wapi na kwa nini. Hapa ni mahali ambapo Wakristo wa dhati wametofautiana kwa muda mrefu, nasi tutautendea utofauti huo kwa uwazi na heshima unayostahili. Nusu ya pili ya shahidi wa kwanza inaanza.In the last unit the first witness gave us the Old Testament — the Hebrew Scriptures, recognized over centuries and already settled when Jesus read from them. Now the same witness finishes its testimony. Two questions remain. First, how did the New Testament come to be recognized as Scripture? And second, what about the extra books some Bibles carry between or within the Testaments — the Apocrypha? The same principle we learned still governs everything here: the canon was recognized, not conferred. No council made a book Scripture; the church discerned the books that were already the breathed-out Word, as an assayer certifies gold he did not create. We will watch that discernment at work in the New Testament, where the true books stand out plainly against later counterfeits. Then we will take up the Apocrypha honestly — not with a slogan, but by laying the real case on both sides and saying where this course stands and why. This is a place where sincere Christians have long disagreed, and we will treat that disagreement with the candor and the respect it deserves. The second half of the first witness begins.

Vitabu vya Agano Jipya vilitambuliwa kwa alama, kama vile vitabu vya Agano la Kale. Alama ya kwanza ilikuwa asili ya kitume: kitabu kilikuwa na mamlaka ikiwa kilitoka kwa mtume au kwa mshirika wa karibu aliyeandika chini ya mamlaka ya kitume — Marko akisimama pamoja na Petro, Luka pamoja na Paulo. Ya pili ilikuwa ukale: kilikuwa cha enzi ya mitume, si cha karne ya baadaye. Ya tatu ilikuwa usahihi wa imani: kilikubaliana na kanuni ya imani na Maandiko yaliyokwisha kutolewa. Ya nne ilikuwa matumizi ya kila mahali: kilipokelewa na kusomwa katika makanisa yote, si katika pembe moja tu. Na chini ya hizo zote ilikuwa sauti ya Mungu inayojithibitisha yenyewe, ambayo watu wake walijifunza kuijua. Kiini hakikuwa na shaka kamwe — Injili nne, Matendo, na nyaraka za Paulo zilipokelewa tangu mwanzo. Vitabu vichache vilijadiliwa kwa muda — Waebrania, Yakobo, 2 Petro, 2 na 3 Yohana, Yuda, Ufunuo — vile ambavyo kanisa la mwanzo liliviita antilegomena, "vilivyonenewa kinyume." Lakini hivi pia vilipokelewa. Mapema kama takriban mwaka 170 B.K. Kipande cha Muratori kinaonyesha orodha inayofanya kazi, na mwaka 367 Athanasio anavitaja vyote ishirini na saba.The New Testament books were recognized by marks, much as the Old Testament books were. The first mark was apostolic origin: a book carried authority if it came from an apostle or from a close associate who wrote under apostolic authority — Mark standing with Peter, Luke with Paul. The second was antiquity: it belonged to the apostolic age, not to a later century. The third was orthodoxy: it agreed with the rule of faith and with the Scripture already given. The fourth was universal use: it was received and read across the churches, not in one corner only. And beneath them all was the self-authenticating voice of God, which His people learned to know. The core was never in doubt — the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters were received from the first. A handful of books were discussed for a time — Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation — the ones the early church called the antilegomena, the "spoken against." But these too were received. As early as about AD 170 the Muratorian Fragment shows a functioning list, and in 367 Athanasius names all twenty-seven.

Ushahidi wa Agano Jipya Ni wa Mapema Kiasi Gani?How Early Is the New Testament Evidence?

Wasomi wengine huweka tarehe za baadaye kiasi kwa vitabu kadhaa vya Agano Jipya, lakini ushahidi unastahili kupimwa badala ya kudhaniwa. Matendo yanamalizika Paulo akiwa hai huko Rumi na hayasimulii kifo chake, kifo cha Petro, mateso ya Nero dhidi ya Wakristo, vita vya Kiyahudi, wala kuharibiwa kwa Yerusalemu na Hekalu mwaka 70 B.K. Kwa kuwa Matendo ni juzuu la pili la kazi ya Luka, wasomi wengine wamehoji kwamba ukimya huu unapatana kwa kawaida na tarehe ya mapema kwa Matendo na hivyo kwa Luka. Ukimya peke yake hauwezi kuthibitisha tarehe; mwandishi anaweza kusimama pale kusudi lake linapokamilika. Lakini mambo hayo yasiyotajwa bado yanastahili kuangaliwa. Yanatukumbusha kwamba tarehe ya mapema kwa sehemu muhimu za Agano Jipya ni uwezekano mzito wa kihistoria, si upendeleo wa kiibada tu. Hitimisho salama zaidi ni la kujumlisha: tarehe zinapaswa kupimwa kutokana na ushahidi wote, na dhana za kutilia shaka hazipaswi kuruhusiwa kulimaliza swali kabla ushahidi haujasikilizwa.Some scholars date several New Testament books relatively late, but the evidence deserves to be weighed rather than assumed. Acts ends with Paul alive in Rome and does not tell of his death, Peter's death, Nero's persecution of Christians, the Jewish war, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Since Acts is the second volume of Luke's work, some scholars have argued that this silence fits naturally with an earlier date for Acts and therefore for Luke. Silence by itself cannot prove a date; an author may stop where his purpose is complete. But the omissions are still worth noticing. They remind us that an early date for important New Testament material is a serious historical possibility, not merely a devotional preference. The safest conclusion is cumulative: dates should be judged from all the evidence, and skeptical assumptions should not be allowed to settle the question before the evidence is heard.

Kwa Nini Majina Haya Manne ya Injili?Why These Four Gospel Names?

Injili nne hazianzi na kurasa za kichwa za kisasa zinazosema, "Mimi, Mathayo," au "Mimi, Yohana, niliandika kitabu hiki." Ukweli huo umewafanya wengine waziite zisizo na jina la mwandishi. Hata hivyo mapokeo ya kale ya Kikristo yanazihusisha mara kwa mara na Mathayo, Marko, Luka, na Yohana, na hatuna mapokeo ya mapema yanayoshindana ambamo vitabu hivyo vinne vile vile vilizunguka chini ya majina manne tofauti. Jambo hilo lina uzito. Kama Injili zingezunguka bila majina kwa vizazi vingi katika makanisa yaliyotengana kwa umbali mkubwa, tungetarajia kwa busara mkanganyiko fulani majina yalipohusishwa hatimaye. Badala yake, utambulisho wa kimapokeo ni thabiti kwa namna ya kushangaza. Hili halimalizi kila swali kuhusu uandishi, na Wakristo hawapaswi kudai zaidi ya kile ushahidi unachoruhusu. Hata hivyo, linaonyesha kwamba majina yanayojulikana si lebo tu za kubahatisha zilizobuniwa katika kizazi cha baadaye sana. Ni sehemu ya historia ya mapema ya jinsi vitabu hivi vilivyopokelewa na kurithishwa.The four Gospels do not begin with modern title pages saying, "I, Matthew," or "I, John, wrote this book." That fact has led some to call them anonymous. Yet the ancient Christian tradition consistently associates them with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and we do not possess an early competing tradition in which the same four books circulate under four different names. That matters. If the Gospels had circulated anonymously for generations across widely separated churches, we would reasonably expect some confusion when names were finally attached. Instead, the traditional identifications are remarkably stable. This does not settle every question about authorship, and Christians should not claim more than the evidence allows. It does show, however, that the familiar names are not simply arbitrary labels invented in a much later age. They belong to the early history of how these books were received and transmitted.

Mabaraza ya Hippo mwaka 393 na Karthago mwaka 397 yalipoorodhesha vitabu ishirini na saba, hayakuwa yakipiga kura kuviingiza vitabu katika uvuvio. Yalikuwa yakitambua kile ambacho makanisa yalikuwa tayari yakitumia kwa vizazi. Huu ni ukweli ule ule tuliokutana nao katika Agano la Kale: baraza haliwezi kukifanya kitabu kuwa Maandiko zaidi ya vile mpimaji anavyoweza kuigeuza madini kuwa dhahabu. Linathibitisha; haliumbi. Ni muhimu kusema hili waziwazi, kwa sababu watu wakati mwingine hudai kwamba "kanisa liliamua Biblia katika baraza la karne ya nne," kana kwamba vitabu havikuwa na mamlaka hadi wakati huo na huenda vingeenda njia nyingine. Vilikuwa na mamlaka tangu wakati Mungu alipovipulizia pumzi. Mabaraza yalikuwa ni kanisa likikiri, rasmi na kwa pamoja, kile ambacho Roho alikuwa amekwisha kukifanya wazi katika maisha ya makanisa — vitabu vilivyokuwa vimesomwa, kuhubiriwa, kunakiliwa, na kutiiwa tangu mitume. Muhuri ulikuja baadaye; dhahabu ilikuwa dhahabu siku zote.When the Councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 listed the twenty-seven books, they were not voting books into inspiration. They were recognizing what the churches had already been using for generations. This is the same truth we met with the Old Testament: a council can no more make a book Scripture than an assayer can make metal into gold. It certifies; it does not create. It is important to say this plainly, because people sometimes claim "the church decided the Bible at a council in the fourth century," as though the books had no authority until then and might have gone another way. They had authority from the moment God breathed them out. The councils were the church acknowledging, formally and together, what the Spirit had already made plain in the life of the churches — the books that had been read, preached, copied, and obeyed since the apostles. The stamp came late; the gold was always gold.

Hakuna kinachoonyesha nguvu ya kanuni ya kweli vizuri zaidi kuliko bandia zilizowekwa kando yake. Takriban mwaka 140 B.K. mtu mmoja aitwaye Marcion (Markioni) aliyakata Maandiko hadi kanuni iliyopunguzwa, akilitupa Agano la Kale na sehemu kubwa ya Agano Jipya, akibakiza Luka iliyohaririwa na nyaraka kumi za Paulo tu. Kanisa lilimkataa. Baadaye zikaja "injili" za Wagnostiki — Tomaso, Yuda, na nyinginezo — maandishi ya karne ya pili na baadaye, yaliyotolewa chini ya majina ya mitume yasiyokuwa yao, yakifundisha dini tofauti. Haya hayakupokelewa kwa upana kamwe; hayana tu mlio wa kitume. Weka Injili ya Tomaso kando ya Injili ya Yohana na tofauti si ndogo. Jambo hili lina uzito kwa imani yetu thabiti. Kanisa halikubuni kanuni ili kushinda mapambano ya madaraka, likichagua vitabu vya kuunga mkono mamlaka yake; lilitambua vitabu halisi vya kitume na kuwakataa wajifanyao. Bandia hizo ni halisi, nazo ziko wazi — na kuwepo kwake kwenyewe kunavifanya vitabu halisi vionekane waziwazi zaidi.Nothing shows the strength of the true canon better than the counterfeits set beside it. Around AD 140 a man named Marcion cut the Scriptures down to a truncated canon, throwing out the Old Testament and most of the New, keeping only an edited Luke and ten of Paul's letters. The church rejected him. Later came the Gnostic "gospels" — Thomas, Judas, and others — writings of the second century and after, put out under apostles' names they did not belong to, teaching a different religion. These were never widely received; they simply do not carry the apostolic ring. Set the Gospel of Thomas next to the Gospel of John and the difference is not subtle. This matters for our confidence. The church did not invent a canon to win a power struggle, choosing books to prop up its authority; it recognized the genuine apostolic books and declined the pretenders. The counterfeits are real, and they are obvious — and their very existence throws the authentic books into sharper relief.

Sasa tuje kwenye swali gumu zaidi. Apokrifa — vitabu ambavyo Wakatoliki na Waorthodoksi huviita deuterokanoni (kanuni ya pili) — ni kundi la maandishi kama Tobiti, Yudithi, Hekima, Yoshua bin Sira, Baruku, na Wamakabayo wa Kwanza na wa Pili, pamoja na nyongeza za Danieli na Esta. Vinaonekana katika Biblia za Kikatoliki na za Kiorthodoksi kama Maandiko. Vilionekana katika Biblia ya King James ya mwaka 1611, vikichapishwa kati ya Maagano. Na havimo katika Biblia nyingi za Kiprotestanti leo. Kwa hiyo swali ni halisi na mahususi: je, vitabu hivi vinastahili kuwemo katika kanuni ya Maandiko? Hapa ni lazima tuwe waangalifu kutaja ni swali la aina gani. Si kama ufufuo wa Kristo, ambao hakuna Mkristo wa kweli anayeutilia shaka, wala Uungu wa Bwana, ambao imani imeukiri siku zote. Ni utofauti wa kweli na wa zamani kati ya Wakristo wanaompenda Mwokozi yule yule. Kwa hiyo hatutaumaliza kwa kauli-mbiu wala kwa dharau. Tutaeleza hoja halisi ya kuvijumuisha vitabu hivi, kisha sababu za kozi hii kutovijumuisha, nasi tutafanya yote mawili kwa haki.Now to the harder question. The Apocrypha — the books Catholics and the Orthodox call the deuterocanon — is a group of writings such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees, along with additions to Daniel and Esther. They appear in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles as Scripture. They appeared in the King James Bible of 1611, printed between the Testaments. And they are absent from most Protestant Bibles today. So the question is real and specific: do these books belong in the canon? Here we must be careful to name what kind of question this is. It is not like the resurrection of Christ, which no true Christian doubts, or the deity of the Lord, which the faith has always confessed. It is a genuine and old disagreement among Christians who love the same Savior. So we will not settle it with a slogan or a sneer. We will lay out the real case for including these books, then the reasons this course does not, and we will do both fairly.

Upande mwingine uzungumze kwanza, na kwa nguvu zake zote. Wale wanaoipokea Apokrifa wanaonyesha kwamba Biblia ya kanisa la mwanzo ilikuwa Agano la Kale la Kigiriki, Septuaginta — na kwamba mitume wenyewe waliinukuu, si ile ya Kiebrania, mahali pengi. Septuaginta, kama ilivyonakiliwa na Wakristo, ilikuja kujumuisha deuterokanoni; nakala kuu za vitabu (codices) za karne ya nne zinavifunga vitabu hivi pamoja na sehemu nyingine ya Agano la Kale. Mababa wengi wa Kanisa waliviinukuu na kuchota kutoka kwavyo. Vitabu hivyo vilisomwa katika ibada kwa karne nyingi. Na mwaka 1546 Baraza la Trento liliviidhinisha rasmi kuwa Maandiko. Hoja hiyo, kwa kiini chake, ni ya mwendelezo: kanisa lilipokea vitabu hivi tangu mwanzo na kuvisoma kama sehemu ya Maandiko yake, basi Mwanamatengenezo wa baadaye ni nani hata aondoe kile ambacho kanisa la kale lilikitunza? Hiyo ni hoja nzito, inayotolewa na Wakristo wenye uzito, nayo inastahili kusikilizwa bila kuchorwa vibaya kabla hatujaijibu.Let the other side speak first, and at its strongest. Those who receive the Apocrypha point out that the early church's Bible was the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint — and that the apostles themselves quoted it, not the Hebrew, in many places. The Septuagint, as it was copied by Christians, came to include the deuterocanon; the great fourth-century codices bind these books right in with the rest of the Old Testament. Many of the Church Fathers quoted them and drew on them. The books were read in worship for centuries. And in 1546 the Council of Trent affirmed them formally as Scripture. The argument, at its heart, is one of continuity: the church received these books from the beginning and read them as part of her Scriptures, so who is the later Reformer to remove what the ancient church kept? That is a serious case, made by serious Christians, and it deserves to be heard without caricature before we answer it.

Sasa jibu letu — na angalia kwanza kile tusichokisema. Hatudai kwamba Yesu aliikanusha Apokrifa waziwazi; hakutoa orodha yoyote na hakuna ukanushaji kama huo, na kujifanya vinginevyo kungekuwa ni kuchuja mbu. Lakini mambo kadhaa kwa pamoja yanatuongoza kwenye kanuni ya Kiebrania. Pale Yesu anapoweka alama za mipaka ya Maandiko, anaweka alama ya Biblia ya Kiebrania: muundo wake wa sehemu tatu (Luka 24:44) na upana wake "tangu Habili hata Zakaria," Mwanzo hadi Mambo ya Nyakati. Kutumia Septuaginta hakulimalizi jambo, kwa maana kutumia tafsiri si kuidhinisha kila kitabu kilichofungwa nayo baadaye — nakala kuu zinazojumuisha vitabu hivi ni juzuu za Kikristo za karne ya nne, si kanuni iliyothibitika ya siku za Yesu, na Biblia ya King James nayo ilichapisha Apokrifa bila kuitendea kama kanuni; Filo, Myahudi wa Iskanderia, aliitumia Septuaginta kwa wingi lakini hakuwahi kuvinukuu vitabu hivi kama Maandiko. Kudokeza si kutangaza kuwa kanuni: Yuda anamdokeza Henoko na Paulo ananukuu washairi wa kipagani, lakini hakuna kati ya hawa aliye Maandiko. Na Jeromu, aliyetengeneza Vulgata, aliiita deuterokanoni "ya kikanisa" — nzuri kusomwa, lakini si kwa kuthibitisha mafundisho. Daraja hilo la chini lilidumu kwa miaka elfu moja, hadi Trento, likijibu Matengenezo, lilipolifanya kuwa fundisho rasmi la lazima mwaka 1546. Kwa hiyo tunashikilia vitabu thelathini na tisa vya Kiebrania — kwa uaminifu, bila kujifanya kwamba swali hili halijawahi kuwa wazi.Now our answer — and notice first what we do not say. We do not claim that Jesus explicitly refuted the Apocrypha; He gave no list and no such refutation exists, and to pretend otherwise would be straining a gnat. But several things together lead us to the Hebrew canon. Where Jesus marks the edges of Scripture, He marks the Hebrew Bible: its threefold shape (Luke 24:44) and its span "from Abel to Zechariah," Genesis to Chronicles. Using the Septuagint does not settle the matter, for using a translation is not endorsing every book later bound with it — the codices that include these books are fourth-century Christian volumes, not a fixed canon of Jesus' day, and the King James printed the Apocrypha too without treating it as canon; Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, used the Septuagint heavily yet never cited these books as Scripture. Allusion is not canonization: Jude alludes to Enoch and Paul quotes pagan poets, yet none of these is Scripture. And Jerome, who made the Vulgate, called the deuterocanon "ecclesiastical" — good to read, but not for establishing doctrine. That lower tier held for a thousand years, until Trent, reacting to the Reformation, made it dogma in 1546. So we hold the Hebrew thirty-nine — honestly, without pretending the question was never open.

Shahidi wa kwanza amemaliza. Ushuhuda wake ni kwamba Biblia uliyo nayo — vitabu sitini na sita, Mwanzo hadi Ufunuo — ndiyo kanuni ambayo kanisa liliitambua kuwa Neno la Mungu lenye pumzi yake. Agano la Kale ni Maandiko ya Kiebrania aliyoyapokea Yesu; Agano Jipya lilitambuliwa kwa alama zile zile na linasimama wazi mbele ya kila bandia. Apokrifa, vyovyote vile thamani yake kwa historia na ibada, ilishikiliwa kwa karne nyingi katika daraja la chini na haikupokelewa kama Neno linalothibitisha mafundisho — nasi tunasema hivyo kwa heshima kwa ndugu wanaoshikilia vinginevyo, kwa maana utofauti huu ni wa zamani na halisi, nao si sawa na kuitilia shaka injili. Unapofungua Biblia yako, umeshika vitabu sahihi. Sasa shahidi anabadilika. Ni jambo moja kuwa na vitabu sahihi; ni jambo jingine kuwa na maneno sahihi ndani yake, yaliyobebwa kwa uaminifu kupitia karne za unakili na utafsiri. Kwenye swali hilo — maandiko yenyewe na urithishaji wake — tunageukia baadaye.The first witness has finished. Its testimony is that the Bible you hold — sixty-six books, Genesis to Revelation — is the canon the church recognized as the breathed-out Word of God. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus received; the New Testament was recognized by the same marks and stands clear against every counterfeit. The Apocrypha, whatever its worth for history and devotion, was held for centuries in a lower tier and was not received as the doctrine-establishing Word — and we say so with respect to the brothers who hold otherwise, for this disagreement is old and real, and it is not the same thing as doubting the gospel. When you open your Bible, you are holding the right books. Now the witness changes. It is one thing to have the right books; it is another to have the right words within them, carried faithfully across the centuries of copying and translating. To that question — the text and its transmission — we turn next.