Who decided what books go in the bible, and when?

Answer 1

If you want a historical answer, research "council of Nicaea". There were more than one. The first council of Nicaea in 325 AD was the first real effort to attain a concensus or orthodoxy to the Christian Church. Depending on your outlook, you can believe that God moved the bishops or you can view it as a political event where the bishops voted on many of the questions of the day pertaining to Christianity. Over the many Councils of Nicaea bishops voted on questions like what books belonged in the new testament. Research "Apocrypha". These are a lot of the books that didn't make it into the new testament. The bishops felt that these books did not represent the correct dogma or orthodoxy that they believed in.

These bishops also voted on things like "Was Jesus the messiah?". They voted yes. They also voted that the Roman Emperor Constantine was the messiah. He wasn't persecuting them so it seemed a good political move. They voted on the question of whether you had to become a jew and undergo circumcision before you could become a christian. This argument revolved around the jews who were the first to follow Jesus and the gentiles who embraced the teachings of Christ at a later time. Again, this depends on your viewpoint but it seems now to be a political struggle between the two groups. The bishops also voted on which day should be the Christian sabbath.

The problem with answering your question is that the answers depends on your viewpoint and whose book you read. The religious people will tell you that the bishops were moved by God to manifest His will. The historians or cynics will tell you it was all politically motivated and there was no spiritual aspect to this at all. Certain bishops or factions within christianity wanted to be in power. The compromises made were politically motivated.

I am not religious but I am very spiritual. I say "Do your own research. Investigate the Council of Nicaea and the Apocrypha. Don't read just one account. Use multiple sources. Then, listen to your heart. It's not important who decided which books should go into the bible. It's the message that's important.

Answer 2

That of course depends greatly on which version of the Bible you are talking about. Any accepted Bible earns it's place among Biblical scholars and Christians by explaining how it came about. The least accepted is a paraphrase which is usually a smaller group or even one person that reads another Bible and then puts it into their own "modern" wording to try and help others understand. It's more a commentary though than the Bible. Different versions such as the King James, New American Standard, and New International Version choose a group of scholars, teachers, and people familiar with different text and sources. In turn they form committees that take certain parts of the Bible or even a book and research it then come together and agree on how it's worded.

To answer your question the books of the Bible were chosen in much the same way. Scholars formed a council whereby they took ancient text and scrolls and considered their content and through much prayer came to a consensus as to which books were authentic. In the case of the New Testament each book was judged against the historical record of the Old Testament which was essentially the Jewish scrolls and scriptures accepted by the Jewish faith. Only the New Testament of Jesus Christ was added. The protestants chose a few less books than the Catholic church due to the fact that they could not account for the content of those books based upon the Old Testament scriptures. I hope that helps

Answer 3

The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficult aspect of determining the Biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process, first by Jewish rabbis and scholars, and then later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the Biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers, and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha…with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Answer 4

Unknown to almost all of the over two billion people who claim the Bible as their spiritual foundation is that there are several books and two sections missing missing from all but a few versions of that Bible. Perhaps one of the best kept secrets of the modern Protestant church is that the Bible used by that body is not the original King James Bible. That translation, completed in 1611, and the Bibles published for the use of the clergy and the church members until late in the 19th Century, contained 80 books.

The "Apocrypha" was officially removed from the English printings of the KJV by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885 leaving only 66 books.

I remember my mother being able to borrow one of the Bibles with these books in it when I was a child. She read them to us, but we were not allowed to touch that Bible. That is why I knew what to look for when hunting for the answer.

Answer 5

Around the year 300 AD, there were several councils that decided which books should be in the Bible and which should not. The books of the Bible are the inerrant and inspired by God. The other books are not inspired by God and have numerous inconsistacies.

Answer 6

A group of men appointed by the roman emperor Constantine selected the books that eventually became the bible.

Constantine himself was a life long worshiper of the Roman sun god, Sol.

The Romans were well known for assimilating anything that they could not beat militarily. They recognized that Christianity had grown so large that they could not possibly stamp it out.

So they did the same thing that they always did when they found themselves in this position. They began to try to assimilate Christianity. It was decided that the best way to do this was to pretend that Constantine had himself converted to Christianity.

To create this illusion In 312AD, on the eve of a battle against Maxentius, his rival in Italy, Constantine is reported to have dreamed that Christ appeared to him and told him to inscribe the holy sign ΧΡ, the first two letters of the Greek word ΧΡΙSΤΟS (Christos), on the shields of his troops. The next day he is said to have seen a cross superimposed on the sun and the words “in this sign you will be the victor” (usually given in Latin, in hoc signo vinces). Constantine then defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, near Rome.

Even so Constantine oddly continued to worship roman gods in private right up to his death. In public of course he was a true Christian.

This is where the so-called bible had its origin. Please don’t take my word for it. There are a great many scholarly works available that tell this story far better than I ever could.

Love and blessings.
don

Answer 7

God decided that! most of the books in the Bible are in chronilongical order

Answer 8

the HOLY SPIRIT inspired the Catholic Church. the Bible canon was completed around 400 A.D. Many other "gospels" weren't included bcus they taught conflicting agenda such as salvation by "gnosis" aka secret knowledge instead of by the blood of Christ>thus they didn't fit w/ the old testament prophecies about the messiah> also the gnostic gospels had many historical and geographical errors and were written like 200 years after Jesus so the authors never met Jesus>>unlike like the 4 gospels of the bible which were written w/in 40 years of Jesus' departure by his apostles or close friends of the apostles who knew his real teachings.

Answer 9

the people who wrote the books of the bible were inspired by God himself. it's not like they had a contest and decided that one book was better than the other.

Answer 10

The canonical list of the Books of the Bible differs among Jews, and Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox Christians, even though there is a great deal of overlap.

Check out the lengthy article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

In brief:

The Jewish Canon: The Jews recognize the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible as the Tanakh. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization of the Tanakh occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set.

Early Christianity of the first three centuries:

The earliest Christian canon is found in the Bryennios manuscript, dated to around 100 AD, written in Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew; it is this 27-book Old Testament list: "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel" (2 of Esdras might include 1 Esdras; Esther, Jeremiah and Daniel might include their Septuagint additions; Jesus Nave is an early translation of Joshua son of Nun).

Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125 AD).

[...]

Era of the Seven Ecumenical Councils: Eusebius, around the year 300, recorded a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."

"3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books"

"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity.

[...]

Pope Damasus I: is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. The "Damasian Canon" was published by C.H. Turner in JTS, vol. 1, 1900, pp 554-560. In 405, Pope Innocent I in Letter #6 (to Exuperius) described a canon identical to Trent (without the distinction between protocanonicals and deuterocanonicals).

{...}

When St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books, but did not personally translate them anew. This period marks the beginning of a more widely recognized canon, although the inclusion of some books was still debated: Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Grounds for debate included the question of authorship of these books (note that the so-called Damasian "Council at Rome" had already rejected John the Apostle's authorship of 2 and 3 John, while retaining the books), their suitability for use (Revelation at that time was already being interpreted in a wide variety of heretical ways), and how widely they were actually being used (2 Peter being amongst the most weakly attested of all the books in the Christian canon).

[...]

List of the Sixty Books [23]: dated to the 7th century, has 34 OT books and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation) and 9 books "outside the sixty": Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1-4 Maccabees, Esther, Judith, Tobit and a 25 book apocrypha.

See also "Medieval developments," "Reformation Era," and "Modern Evangelicals"

Most Christian churches accept the 27-book NT, except the Syriac Orthodox Church, which uses the Peshitta, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which lists four books of Sinodos (church practices), two Books of Covenant, "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia" within a broader New Testament canon, although their narrow canon is the same as that of other churches), and the Armenian Orthodox church, which includes the Third Epistle to the Corinthians.

See also "Side-by-side comparison of books of the Bible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible