How and why were the books of the Bible chosen specifically?

Question

Of all the ancient writings, what was used to determine what should belong in the Bible? Since these determinations were made by men, and humans are fallable, how do we know we aren't missing something valuable that was left out?

Answer 1

Well, if you are referring to the Christian Bible, there was this pagan Roman Emperor who decided that his Christian people were fighting too much. So he got all the Testaments together, and decided which ones they would follow. He put various texts aside, and kept others. Then he said that any Christians who didn't accept the new Christian bible as truth, would be put to death. And he had many killed who didn't accept.

So the Christian Bible was determined by a Pagan. Who didn't believe in Christianity He just wanted to stop the fights over what should be believed.

This Emperor was Constantine. Who was said to have converted to Christianity on his death bed. However, his manservant and his eldest and youngest sons, said that he didn't convert. But others, all Christians, said that he did. So guess what Christians believe?

Answer 2

The Bible's accuracy and reliability have been proved and verified over and over again by archaeological finds produced by both believing and nonbelieving scholars and scientists. This included verification for numerous customs, places, names, and events mentioned in the Bible.
One among many examples is the fact that for many years the existence of the Hittites (a powerful people who lived during the time of Abraham) was questioned because no archaeological digs had uncovered anything about them. Critics claimed the Hittites were pure myth. But today the critics are silenced. Abundant archaeological evidence for the existence of the Hittites during the time of Abraham has been uncovered.
Bible scholar Donald J. Wiseman notes, "The geography of Bible lands and visible remains of antiquity were gradually recorded until today more than 23,000 sites within this region and dating to Old Testament times, in their broadest sense, have been located." Nelson Glueck, a specialist in ancient literature, did an exhaustive study and concluded: "It can be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Well-known scholar William F. Albright, following a comprehensive study, wrote: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of History."

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection NOW. there are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). In fact, there are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. Bottom line: The New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support fur such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 23:45-46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.
Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired.
Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers - notable OrigIn and Jerome - who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Aprocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Aprocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Aprocrypha (especially those relating to Tobit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Answer 3

The history of the canonisation of the Bible is somewhat windy and complicated even for a history student like me. I hope the following would be of some help to you.

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:
"...There exists no formal historical account of the formation of the Old Testament canon. The popular idea that this canon was closed by Ezra has no foundation in antiquity..."

"The Final Canon (4th century).--Early in the 4th century Eusebius, as a historian reviews the situation (H.E. iii. 25. I). He makes three classes; the first, including the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, is acknowledged; to these, if one likes, one may add the Apocalypse. The second class is questioned, but accepted by the majority; viz. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The third class, of works to be decidedly rejected, contains the Acts of Paul, Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Didache; to these some would add Apoc. of John, and others Ev. sec. Hebr. About the same time another line of tradition is represented by Lucian and the school of Antioch. The vernacular Church of Syria represented yet a third. In Egypt the uncertainty and laxity of usage was still greater. This state of things the great Athanasius set himself to correct, and he did so by laying down a list identical with our New Testament as we have it now. It was very largely the influence of Athanasius that finally turned the scale. He was peculiarly qualified for exercising this influence, as his long exile in the West made him familiar with Western usage, while he was also able to bring to the West the usage that he was trying to establish in the East. His efforts would be helped by Westerns, like Hilary and Lucifer, who were exiled to the East. The triumph of the Athanasian Canon, indeed, went along with the triumph of Nicene Christianity. And while the movement received its impulse from Athanasius, the power by which it was carried through and established was largely that of his powerful ally, the Church of Rome..."

More at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/EB1911:Bible

Dr. Adel Elsaie of Cairo's al-Azhar University writes:

"...The Gospels started to appear at a time of fierce struggle and political upheaval, when Pauline Christianity won the battle of the Gentiles, and created its own collection of documents. These texts constituted the "Canon" which condemned and excluded as heretical any other documents that were not following Paul’s version of Christianity..." (Dr. Adel Elsaie, author of "History of Truth, The Truth about God and Religions")

More at: http://www.usislam.org/66paul.htm

God knows best

Peace and Love

Answer 4

In the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.It was convoked By Constantine.They decided the nature of Jesus in relationship to the father,the date of the Easter,another things and the books of the Bible.I think that they decided the books according to what they needed at that point,and that Ur right.
Constantine realised that monotheism was the best way to handle a big empire.

Answer 5

try reading "the history of god"
a good history about Constantine
a good history about the history of Christianity
Pagels has a couple of good books

for much of the "things" left out, try...
the "dead sea scrolls", the "nag hammadi" , the "apocrapha"
add the "mishnah" for OT reference

read the "avesta" to get a sense of historcal perspective
as well as the "gilgamesh" epic and the "enuma elish"


then, after reading these [a good start, but only a start]
ask yourself whether the words themselves are the point....or the overall message????

for some Jewish sects, early Christianity, as well as early Islam...the message is the meaning...

Answer 6

mostly political and psychological reasons . mass deceit didn't come easy even in ignorant times. don't forget the book burnings as well. I call it delusions of grandeur for those who haven't the heart to use their good intelligent educations rather than emotionalism, fanatical egotism in religious fervor for blood letting or the character to humble themselves to reality . Jesus was smart enough to profess a positive approach of love they say but only his crucifiers the Christians make him a god of hatred and self interest. and the first Christians were of course the Jews that crucified him in corroboration with the Romans so the first Christians were the combinations of pagans and Jews in the new christian conspiracy .this was at play during the confluent structuring of govt and religion working together .join for success in your career or refuse and be condemned by the powers that be .poor times for free thinking or truth and education.Can anyone blame people for survival.

Answer 7

When Constantine became a christian, he decided that some books should not be included! If you wanna know what books they were just look for the Apocrypha and the Gnostic Gospels!

Answer 8

a good question. try doing an online search for the history of the 1612 king james bible.

it was a thoughtful and prayful process by a group of men.

Answer 9

well, the new testament was basically set as official by a few major "councils", which was groups of the fathers of the christian church. who knows EXACTLY what they took in to consideration when deciding what was canon or what was not, but i can assure you it was not divine inspiration.

edit-pleasantflower: it is not as simple as you say, you are generalizing. constanine did not set the gnostics as gnostics, the early church did. but i argue for the prinicipal of the matter, i am a nonbeliever

Answer 10

The Languages Of The Bible


1. Were all the books of the Bible originally written in one language?
No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.

2. What books were written in Hebrew?
Almost all the books of the Old Testament.

3. What books were written in Greek?
In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St. Matthew.

4. What books were written in Aramaic?
The Gospel of St. Matthew.

5. When were the books of the Old Testament, that were originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek?
About 220 years before Christ.

6. Why was the translation from Hebrew into Greek made?
Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countries where the Greek tongue predominated, and so it gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking only Greek. Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek tongue.

The Septuagint Version

1. Who were the translators of the Old Testament?
The translators of the Old Testament were Jewish scholars well acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek languages.

2. By what name is this translation known?
It is known as the Septuagint Version.

3. Why is it called by that name?
It is called by that name because it was commonly supposed that seventy scholars were employed in the work of translating.

4. Was it known by any other name besides that of the Septuagint?
It was known as the Alexandrian Version to distinguish it from the Hebrew or Palestinian Version.

5. Why was it known as the "Alexandrian Bible?"
Because this translation was made in Alexandria, Egypt, which had the biggest and most vibrant Jewish community outside of Israel.

6. Is there any other difference between the Septuagint and the Palestinian version, besides their language?
Several; The Septuagint contains more books than the Palestinian version and is about three hundred years older. The Palestinian Version originated approximately around 106 A.D. and is different from the Hebrew texts that were the basis for the Septuagint translation.

7. Why does the Septuagint have more books than the Palestinian version?
The translators had a well-founded belief that these books were inspired.

8. Were these added books accepted by the Hebrews?
Yes, but only up until 106 A.D., when the Palestinian, known also as the pharisaic version, became the norm.

9. Was the Septuagint Version much in use in Our Lord's time?
It was used not only by the Greek-speaking Jews but also by the Palestinian Jews; Our Lord and the Apostles frequently quoted it.

10. Did this Greek translation of the Bible help to spread Christianity?
It helped very much, because Gentiles, particularly the Greek philosophers, had read it, and had knowledge of the prophecies referring to the Messiah, with the result that when St. Paul preached to them, many converts were made.


The Vulgate

1. Name again the languages of the Old Testament before the time of Christ.
Hebrew and Greek.

2. In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?
They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

3. How did translations in languages other than Hebrew and Greek come into existence?
As Catholicism spread among peoples of different languages, the demand for the Bible in their various languages grew.

4. Name some of the earlier languages into which the Bible was translated.
Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopian.

5. Was the Bible translated into Latin?
Many translations into Latin were made during the early Catholic centuries.

6. Were these Latin translations satisfactory?
No; many inaccuracies existed, due to errors of the copyists, or errors of translation caused by a poor understanding of the original language.

7. Which of the Latin translations was the best known?
The best known Latin translation was either the "Old African" or the "Old Italian" (Vetus Itala).

8. What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?
Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St. Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.

9. How did St Jerome go about this work?
He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and from these made his new translation.

10. By what name is the Latin translation of St. Jerome known?
It is known as the Vulgate Version. Vulgate means common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so because Latin was the common tongue of the Western Roman Empire.

11. Does the Vulgate have the Church's special approval?
The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: " The same Sacred and Holy Synod ... hereby declares and enacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate edition ... is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations,sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever." (DZ. 785). It is still the official Catholic Bible today.


The Douay Bible

1. Is there a Catholic translation of the Bible in English?
Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-Rheims Version. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

2. Why is it called "Douay-Rheims"?
Because it was begun at Rheims and finished at Douay in 1582-1609 by a group of English priests exiled in France.

3. What happened in the sixteenth century to cause the publication of a reliable and accurate translation?
During the Protestant "Deformation" in England many false translations had been made, hence there was great necessity of placing in the hands of Catholics a reliable and accurate translation.

4. Is it true that the Bible was never translated into vernacular languages before the Protestant Deformation?
It is not true; the first translation known in England was the translation into Anglo-Saxon made by Venerable Bede in the eighth century. There is a Gothic translation, made by a certain bishop Ulfilas around 380. The first German translation predates Luther by a good fifty years.

5. Why do Protestants assert that the Bible was never translated before the Deformation?
Through a mixture of ignorance and bad faith.

6. What is the most well known of the false English Protestant translations?
It is the version called the "King James," named after the King who commissioned it in 1604. It was finished in 1611. It is still the most popular of the Protestant Bibles in the English speaking world.

7. What is wrong with the "King James" version?
Like all the Protestant Bibles, it is incomplete and poorly translated. It is a "Pick and choose" version. Such is the real lack of respect of the "Reformers" for the word of God!

Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions

1. Does the Catholic version of the Bible differ from Protestant versions?
Yes, in many ways.

2. What is the most noticeable difference?
The most noticeable difference is the absence of seven whole books and parts of two others from the Protestant versions.

3. What books are not contained in the Protestant version?
The Deutero-Canonical Books (See lesson 6).

4. Why are the Deutero-Canonical Books Omitted by Protestants?
Because the Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books (See lesson 8).

5. Name another difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions.
Many important arbitrary changes are found in the texts of the Protestant Bible. According to some scholars, the most popular Protestant Bibles have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.

6. To what do such changes of text lead?
They lead to an entirely different interpretation from the one intended by the Sacred Writer.

7. Give an example of this change of text.
St Paul says, "... Being therefore justified by Faith ..." (Rom. V, 1), and Luther inserted the word "alone" so that the text reads, "Being therefore justified by faith alone."

8. Why were the Reformers so anxious to change texts?
They were anxious to change texts to give force to the particular doctrine of their choice.

9. Should that behavior of the Reformers raise some questions in our mind?
Yes, what did they believe exactly concerning the Bible? Either they did not believe it was the Word of God, and therefore felt free to change it any which way; or if they did believe it was the Word of God, it took a lot of pride and presumption to correct God's word. In either case, they should be called "Deformers" rather than Reformers.

10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.
The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.

Source(s):
Latin Vulgate
Douay-Rheims Bible
A Catechism Of The Bible