How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

[latin_rite]

How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?
My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn’t written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn’t so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek

 

[thistle]

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[latin_rite]

I don’t fully understand that link

 

[thistle]

I don’t fully understand that link

I just happen to have been looking at the table which is what the link opened at but have you started at “Home” and then worked your way through the entire website?

 

[JRKH]

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Thanks for the link Thistle. That site will take some time to go through.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?

My understanding is that there were 4 basic criteria for inclusion in the NT.
(From an earlier thread)
1.** Apostolic Origin** - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2. Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
Information from Catholic-resources& Dr . Felix Just

My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn’t written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn’t so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek

Yes you would be fundamentally correct, but since we do not have any of the original autographs, you will have no way of proving this conclusively to those who hold to later dating. We cannot be positive in many cases of precisely when a given piece was penned.
Also - yes it would be correct to say that most of the NT bible was written in Greek since at that time Greek was sort of the “universal” language in the Roman Empire. Even the OT was translated into Greek - The Septuagint - and was widely used by Jews living outside of Palestine. This occurred well before the birth of Christ.

Peace
James

 

[bknewto7]

The sciptures fround in the old testament were around before Christ and considered by the Jews to be the inspired word of God. The documents of the New testament were written between 70 and 150 AD. (This can vary depending on source). The 27 books that comprise the new testament were not declared untill 367 AD when Athanasius (A Catholic Bishop) promulgated a list of the 27 books that could be used in the liturgy. This list was latter approved for use by the universal Church by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD.

 

[pocohombre]

It took centuries of debate…and debate…and debate.
There were many, many books used by Christians in the first centuries that, once “rejected” for inclusion in the canon in the late 4th century, were then called heretical and destroyed.
Some of these books were hidden and have since been found (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels, for example…the forty books of the Apocryphal Gospels…the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, etc, etc).
Some included in the biblical canon now almost did not make it in…(the book of revelations, i think)

It was decided upon by the various councils?
And that one Catholic bishop already mentioned had listed in a letter the ones he thought were acceptable…and those became a template and guide.

Centuries, yes and no. I would say those we have now were considered immediately as scripture by those who receievd the actual letter. Paul and Peter seem to allude to their writings as “scripture”, and were quite aware, I believe, that they wetre “adding”’ to the tradition of scripture of old. For example, those in Corinth received letters from Paul, and they were careful to verify his authorship. Beyond that, there was full acceptance, from the beginning. They did not "wait " for approval from distant churches or for a council. They did not say, “Thanks Paul, we know this is from you but we have to wait a bit before we consider them to be inspired, maybe in a century we will declare them so”. What took time was universal acceptance, by those far and away from original recipients. I have heard there were three kinds of sacred writings from early church: those widely accepted as scripture, those only partially accepted, and those rejected, rejected from the beginning I might add. Finally, more and more “books” were being declared as “sacred scripture” from early fathers in second century, with many quotations. By the end of second century almost all books are quoted as sacred. In 325 it has been said that Constantine ordered 50 bibles to be made by Eusebius, who quickly came up with consent for the books (27). The rest has been written about future councils etc, not to mention as far away as Trent. It should be noted that the time it took to consider some of the 2nd group of books actually shows the seriousnees and carefullness that the churches took in considering just what is inspired and apart from other religious writings. And no other “ancient” writings has better, earlier copies to the original than the NT. Possesion of no other “ancient” writings could cost you your life also.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Centuries, yes and no. I would say those we have now were considered immediately as scripture by those who receievd the actual letter. Paul and Peter seem to allude to their writings as “scripture”, and were quite aware, I believe, that they wetre “adding”’ to the tradition of scripture of old. For example, those in Corinth received letters from Paul, and they were careful to verify his authorship. Beyond that, there was full acceptance, from the beginning. They did not "wait " for approval from distant churches or for a council. They did not say, “Thanks Paul, we know this is from you but we have to wait a bit before we consider them to be inspired, maybe in a century we will declare them so”. What took time was universal acceptance, by those far and away from original recipients. I have heard there were three kinds of sacred writings from early church: those widely accepted as scripture, those only partially accepted, and those rejected, rejected from the beginning I might add. Finally, more and more “books” were being declared as “sacred scripture” from early fathers in second century, with many quotations. By the end of second century almost all books are quoted as sacred. In 325 it has been said that Constantine ordered 50 bibles to be made by Eusebius, who quickly came up with consent for the books (27). The rest has been written about future councils etc, not to mention as far away as Trent. It should be noted that the time it took to consider some of the 2nd group of books actually shows the seriousnees and carefullness that the churches took in considering just what is inspired and apart from other religious writings. And no other “ancient” writings has better, earlier copies to the original than the NT. Possesion of no other “ancient” writings could cost you your life also.

Actually, it did take centuries. The Eastern Church had a problem with John’s Revelation, and many fathers had issues with Hebrews. Other works, such as Hermas (The Shepherd) and the Epistle of Barnabas, Peter’s Apocalypse, ect, were considered by many to be inspired. So, yes, it took many years for it to be codified and determined by the early Church, in councils and synods, and proliferated throughout the Church. Denying that it was a universal Church effort on behalf of those with authority (the bishops) is understandable because of your Protestant background, but it is not accurate.

 

[pocohombre]

Actually, it did take centuries. The Eastern Church had a problem with John’s Revelation, and many fathers had issues with Hebrews. Other works, such as Hermas (The Shepherd) and the Epistle of Barnabas, Peter’s Apocalypse, ect, were considered by many to be inspired. So, yes, it took many years for it to be codified and determined by the early Church, in councils and synods, and proliferated throughout the Church. Denying that it was a universal Church effort on behalf of those with authority (the bishops) is understandable because of your Protestant background, but it is not accurate.

Actually neither of us said anything “inaccurate”. Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand’ understandably.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Actually neither of us said anything “inaccurate”. Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand’ understandably.

I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Actually neither of us said anything “inaccurate”. Never denied councils or need for unuversalism-acceptance by all churches,regions, patriarchs.Even stated it goes all way to Trent. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and where you sit on a subject is where you stand (pre-conceptions/paradigms). So by all means, I must be wrong by your "stand’ understandably.

I’m sorry, I thought you were saying it was some kind of effort by individual local communities. I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.

Though at the time of Eusebius, they still weren’t certain on Revelations (it is placed as both spurious and canon, because of disagreement), and many are disputed, such as 2 & 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter. So it did indeed take centuries, as we have agreed upon.

ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

 

[Steveabrous]

How were the books of the NT chosen/ Were they chosen because the letters/books were known to be written by a certain person. For example. Was the book of John written by John himself?
My response at the moment is when chatting with Bible deniers when they say the bible wasn’t written until say 50-100 yrs after Jesus. I say it was earlier and the Bible (NT) Wasn’t so much written but complied. That the Church Got actual letters/writings from the apostles and put them in the Bible. Would i be correct in saying this?
Also would i be correct in saying that the earl bible was mostly written in ancient greek

first of all the NT was written between 50 and 150 A.D. not 50- 150 years after Christ, and some of Paul’s writings were 15 years after the resurrection.

Now, the argument is meant to make you think that The NT is not reliable since it wasn’t written at the time the events of Jesus took place. You have to understand that writing back then was not like it is today, it was a lot more difficult. Paper was scarce and didn’t last long, also the vast majority of people were illiterate anyway so whats the point? Oral tradition was the norm and considered more reliable because a person would study under a teacher for years memorizing word for word the story/ teaching/ etc.( It wasn’t like the class exercise of whispering a phrase into a persons ear and they whisper it to the next, and on down the line and by the time you got to the end it was all messed up. As these deniers will undoubtedly try to say), Only after years of oral tradition would something be found worthy of putting into writing. To have everything in our NT written within 100 years of the events is actually very early. And much earlier then historical events that these deniers don’t question as historically accurate like the illiad and the odyssey by homer, the writings of Plato and Sacrates, and the events of Julius Cesear and Cleopatra.

 

[pocohombre]

I am glad you acknowledge the historical necessity for the Church to teach universally and with the authority of councils and bishops.

Be glad in this also, that I believe also the Second Vatican stresses to focus on the fact that God gave the world the bible, God gave us the bible. This in the spirit of ecumenicalism with “other” brothers, and to avoid a narrower focal point of paraochialism. After all I could quite accurately say Zondervan gave me the bible.

 

[patrick457]

It took centuries of debate…and debate…and debate.
There were many, many books used by Christians in the first centuries that, once “rejected” for inclusion in the canon in the late 4th century, were then called heretical and destroyed.
Some of these books were hidden and have since been found (Nag Hammadi Scriptures and the Gnostic Gospels, for example…the forty books of the Apocryphal Gospels…the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, etc, etc).
Some included in the biblical canon now almost did not make it in…(the book of revelations, i think)

It was decided upon by the various councils?
And that one Catholic bishop already mentioned had listed in a letter the ones he thought were acceptable…and those became a template and guide.

You have to remember that most gnostic literature did not have a wide, universal circulation, unlike say, the canonical gospels: these works circulated mainly within the groups themselves, and weren’t necessarily known across the whole of Christendom. In fact, some weren’t even intended to be simply ‘read’, but were reserved for initiates. I mean, the surviving papyri of the four gospels outnumber these ‘gospels’, most of which are preserved in only one or two manuscripts.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think the bible became official when Pope Innocent wrote that letter in 405 to a bishop wanting to know which books were in the bible.

When Pope Innocent wrote to him the ordinary magisterium was exercised.

In my opinion that is when the canon was official.

 

[Abu]

Re: How were the books of the Bible (NT) chosen?

The “Bible” was given to the world by the Catholic Church. The New Testament was written by Catholics; the Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Already, just a few decades after the death of Christ, we can clearly see all of the essential structures of the Catholic Church are in place. This was not some amorphous Christian community, as if Jesus founded Protestantism, or any other ecclesial community. It was the Catholic Church in historical continuity with the Catholic Church of today.

There is no divinely inspired “table of contents” for the Bible, therefore, Christians need an authority, like the infallible Church established by Christ, to discern which books are the divinely inspired ones. (Indeed, even if there were such a “table of contents” list, we would need an authority to tell if the list itself were inspired.) Even many Evangelical Protestant Bible scholars admit this.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Be glad in this also, that I believe also the Second Vatican stresses to focus on the fact that God gave the world the bible, God gave us the bible. This in the spirit of ecumenicalism with “other” brothers, and to avoid a narrower focal point of paraochialism. After all I could quite accurately say Zondervan gave me the bible.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. So saying God gave us the bible and saying the Church gave us the bible are both true.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Be glad in this also, that I believe also the Second Vatican stresses to focus on the fact that God gave the world the bible, God gave us the bible. This in the spirit of ecumenicalism with “other” brothers, and to avoid a narrower focal point of paraochialism. After all I could quite accurately say Zondervan gave me the bible.

Yes, God give the world the bible, but I only believe that because the Church says so! God gave the bible to the Church, and the Church in turn gives it to the world.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, God give the world the bible, but I only believe that because the Church says so! God gave the bible to the Church, and the Church in turn gives it to the world.

Amen.(only because you didn’t put the adjective “catholic” capitalized as a noun in there)