Bible canon and history according to Protestants

[Prodigal_Son1]

Many discussions on these forums evolved around the authority of the Bible. The Bible does not give authority to itself, nor does it explain how it became one complete book.

I’d like to hear Protestants explanations of how the individual letters and epistles came to be one complete book. I know it was God inspired or breathed, what I’m looking for is what instruments (men or councils) on earth did God use to bring all those books together to become the canon of the Bible as we know it today?

Please provide who, when and where as best of your ability.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Many discussions on these forums evolved around the authority of the Bible. The Bible does not give authority to itself, nor does it explain how it became one complete book.

The Bible doesn’t have to give itself authority. It’s authoritative simply because it is the word of God. God doesn’t need anyone to confirm the authority of His words other than himself. Jesus, primarily, is where we can draw God’s authority on the scriptures from. I know what you’re trying to say, of course.

I’d like to hear Protestants explanations of how the individual letters and epistles came to be one complete book. I know it was God inspired or breathed, what I’m looking for is what instruments (men or councils) on earth did God use to bring all those books together to become the canon of the Bible as we know it today?

The church as a whole. The New Testament letters were circulated throughout the churches that were planted by the apostles and disciples. Over time, a list of the writings grew, were used in liturgy, for exhortation and preaching, etc. The issue of the canon going before official church councils began, largely, because of various heretics which were inserting abridged versions of the epistles, as well as non-apostolic writings, into the usage of churches in their area. As with most councils, they always arise in response to a teaching. Marcion, I believe, is one of the primary figures in this aside from the gnostics. The church councils met and stated that the writings used in the apostolic churches were the accepted norm of the canon.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**It’s authoritative simply because it is the word of God. **

And we know the Bible is the Word of God because…???

 

[TriuneUnity]

**It’s authoritative simply because it is the word of God. **

And we know the Bible is the Word of God because…???

God affirmed it. Specifically, Jesus.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In my readings for seminary, I did not find any difference between how the Catholic scholars and Protestants deal with this. What are you guys thinking the difference is?

 

[VWcrazy]

God affirmed it. Specifically, Jesus.

Please show which Book, Chapter, and Verse which specifically does this.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Please show which Book, Chapter, and Verse which specifically does this.

The historicity of the Old Testament canon: Matt. 19:4-5; Luke 11:51; Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27; John 8:56-58; Matt. 10:15; Matt. 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; Luke 17:28-32; Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28; John 6:31, 49, 58; John 3:14; Matt. 12:39-42; Matt. 24:15

Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matt. 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (‘Book of Moses’—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (‘Christ’s Canon’); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (‘The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.’) Isaiah wrote ‘both’ Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 Jonah wrote Jonah: Matt. 12:39–41 Daniel wrote Daniel: Matt. 24:15

He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20.

He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1–9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1–12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word will open the door today to a ‘new’ Tradition.)

He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

He made provision for the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men—guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles’ words had the same authority as Christ’s: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12–14.

Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about Himself. The passages are found all over the Old Testament: Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53–56; Mark 9:12, 13; Luke 4:17–21; 18:31–33; 22:37; 24:44–47.

 

[VWcrazy]

And which Book, Chapter, and Verse specially states which Books are to be included within the Bible?

 

[TriuneUnity]

And which Book, Chapter, and Verse specially states which Books are to be included within the Bible?

Do you know of any other books that are not in there now that could be included?

And why are you asking this, when it has nothing to do with the topic?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you know of any other books that are not in there now that could be included?

And why are you asking this, when it has nothing to do with the topic?

I can’t find the source now and have never seen a specific list, but it’s my understanding the Church fathers went through a couple hundred books (letters/epistles). There were many Gnostic writings as well as other writings that couldn’t be validated or did not fit what the rest of the canonized letters and epistles stated. If I remember correctly, the source stated some were written after the death of the Apostles or anyone that learned directly from the Apostles.

With that said, I read writings that were written from the same time period for my own personal edification. You might find them interesting.

These are some writings:

Pseudepigrapha
The Books of Adam and Eve – translation of the Latin version
Life of Adam and Eve – translation of the Slavonic version
Life of Adam and Eve – translation of the Greek version (a.ka. The Apocalypse of Moses)
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Book of Adam
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch)
1 Enoch Composit (inc. Charles, Lawrence & others)
2 Enoch (Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch)
Enoch (another version)
Melchizedek
The Book of Abraham
The Testament of Abraham
The Apocalypse of AbrahamNEW July 18, 2004
Joseph and Aseneth
Selections from The Book of Moses
Revelation of Moses
The Assumption of Moses (aka: The Testament of Moses)
The Martyrdom of Isaiah
The Ascension of Isaiah
The Revelation of Esdras
The Book of Jubilees
Tales of the Patriarchs
The Letter of Aristeas
The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 2 Baruch)
The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 3 Baruch)
Fragments of a Zadokite work (aka: The Damascus Document)

Old Testament Apocrypha
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah
Baruch
Prayer of Manassas
Bel and the Dragon
Wisdom of Sirach
Wisdom of Solomon
Additions to Esther
Tobit
Judith
Susanna
Psalm 151

New Testament Apocrypha
Dead Sea Scrolls
Community Rule
The ‘Zadokite’ Document
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
Epistle of the Apostles
Report of Pilate the Procurator
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Apocryphon of James (Another version)
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Book of John the Evangelist
Ptolemy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Prologue
Avenging of the Saviour
The Apocryphon of John (Long Version)
The Sentances of Sextus
Book of Thomas the Contender
Lost Books of the Bible
The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY
The PROTEVANGELION (Another version)
The first Gospel of the INFANCY of JESUS CHRIST
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Composit
Greek (A)
Greek (B)
Latin
Infancy Compilation (all)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
THE EPISTLES of JESUS CHRIST and ABGARUS KING of EDESSA (Another version)
The GOSPEL of NICODEMUS (or ACTS of PONTIUS PILATE) (Another Version)
Letters of HEROD and PILATE
The APOSTLES’ CREED
THE EPISTLE of PAUL the APOSTLE to the LAODICEANS
The EPISTLES of PAUL the APOSTLE to SENECA (w/SENECA’s to PAUL)
The ACTS of PAUL and THECLA
The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The SECOND EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS
The GENERAL EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the EPHESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the MAGNESIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the TRALLIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the ROMANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILADELPHIANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the SMYRNAEANS
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to POLYCARP
The EPISTLE of POLYCARP to the PHILIPPIANS
HERMAS
The First Book of HERMAS (or VISIONS)
The Second Book of HERMAS (or COMMANDS)
LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
THE LOST GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
THE GOSPEL of PETER - LAST
The EPISTLE of IGNATIUS to the PHILIPPIANS
The MARTYRDOM of IGNATIUS
The MARTYRDOM of POLYCARP
TERTULLIAN on SPECTICALS
TERTULLIAN on PRAYER
TERTULLIAN on PATIENCE
TERTULLIAN on MARTYRS
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Phillip
Secret Gospel of Mark
Book of Marcion
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
The Letter of Aristeas
The Didache

New Testament Discoveries
The Gospel of Judas Coptic Text

 

[VWcrazy]

[Do you know of any other books that are not in there now that could be included?

And why are you asking this, when it has nothing to do with the topic?/QUOTE]

It has everything to do with the topic. Are you avoiding answering the question?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In my readings for seminary, I did not find any difference between how the Catholic scholars and Protestants deal with this. What are you guys thinking the difference is?

I’ve seen Catholic and Protestant Scholars agree. Here on these forums I have run into Protestants that do not have an idea how the process actually worked. When I tried to direct them to historic writings from the early Church fathers or explained the canonization process, they would either say it wasn’t in scriptures or because the process involved “men” they could ignore it. If I pushed the issue, they would state that they didn’t want to read it because they’d rather read scriptures.

I find it hard to believe someone could love the Bible so much, yet not want to learn everything about it they could.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The reality of the situation is that Protestant and Catholic scholars all appeal to the same things. A classic internet invented problem that in reality is not one.

 

[TriuneUnity]

[Do you know of any other books that are not in there now that could be included?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ve seen Catholic and Protestant Scholars agree. Here on these forums I have run into Protestants that do not have an idea how the process actually worked. When I tried to direct them to historic writings from the early Church fathers or explained the canonization process, they would either say it wasn’t in scriptures or because the process involved “men” they could ignore it. If I pushed the issue, they would state that they didn’t want to read it because they’d rather read scriptures.

I find it hard to believe someone could love the Bible so much, yet not want to learn everything about it they could.

I’m reading F. F. Bruce’s the Canon of Scripture as we speak!

I will admit, however, that the canon is not my area of expertise.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I can’t find the source now and have never seen a specific list, but it’s my understanding the Church fathers went through a couple hundred books (letters/epistles). There were many Gnostic writings as well as other writings that couldn’t be validated or did not fit what the rest of the canonized letters and epistles stated. If I remember correctly, the source stated some were written after the death of the Apostles or anyone that learned directly from the Apostles.

With that said, I read writings that were written from the same time period for my own personal edification. You might find them interesting.

These are some writings:

But were these books considered, or just a hash of supposedly “holy” writings. That website doesn’t specify them as books considered for inclusion into a final canon.

 

[RobHom]

The reality of the situation is that Protestant and Catholic scholars all appeal to the same things. A classic internet invented problem that in reality is not one.

While I will agree in essence with what you are saying…I have one minor “caveat”, that being that some people just have to invent a problem that was already resolved ages ago… Go figure.

As to the “other books” of the Bible that were not included…I started to read not too long ago a book that supposedly contained about 12 or 13 “lost books” that were not in the Bible… Didn’t get very far…those “gospels”…were really strange and didn’t bear much semblance to the Bible…

I just went looking for the title, and stumbled over this…and this is odd, in that I had always known that there were 7 books in the “Apocrypha”…but this site doesn’t seem to see it that way, here’s what they say:

allaboutjesuschrist.org/lost-books-of-the-bible-faq.htm

*Before the Bible became the book we know of today, there was an official collection of books recognized by the church which were called scrolls (the form of binding used for all writings including books like the Gospels and less formal writings like letters and Epistles). They were very expensive to duplicate, and they were also produced by hand so the early churches shared resources with each other. Therefore, the scrolls were freely circulated among the churches, but concerns arose among the churches that letters and books containing less than Christian ideals were being circulated. So, in 397, the Council of Carthage adopted an official canon of books that were considered to be “in” and books that were to be considered “out.” **So, now, we have the official Bible of today with 66 books with an addition of the 14 books of the Apocrypha. ***

Uh, emmm, uh…did I miss something… ?

The site makes some other “strange” statements…as well.

 

[TLara]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the Holy Bible is not the word of God! The word of God is our Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible is is an inspired collection of accounts that men wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But were these books considered, or just a hash of supposedly “holy” writings. That website doesn’t specify them as books considered for inclusion into a final canon.

I cannot find the source where I got the canon information from in reference to a couple hundred letters and epistles were gone through. With that said, it did not list specific writings (or it would be saved somewhere). Like I said, some could not be validated as having a connection with the “supposed” author, some were not considered inspired, others were more Gnostic style, etc.etc.

In my search for specific writings I found those listed in my previous post. I found the Pseudepigrapha book, but it was expensive. That’s why I use the ones online. Some were written prior to or during the same time period, so one can only assume. And, I’m sure you know what you get when you assume.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the Holy Bible is not the word of God! The word of God is our Savior Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible is is an inspired collection of accounts that men wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

Thanks TLara, but we know that. We are discussing the canon and history of the Bible. It was my hope we might could educate some of the Protestants who do not understand how the Bible came to be one complete book.