Anyone: What criteria determine which books are included in the Bible?

Question

I've always assumed it was pretty much determined by the Vatican or something, but as far as I can tell most Christians use the KJV. (Unscientific survey some time back.) Are the other gospels less inspired by God? Who determines which books are or aren't God's word?

Answer 1

To be included in the New Testament, a book or letter had to meet three conditions:

1) They must have Apostolic authority, in that they had been written by or for an Apostle.

2) They had to be consistent with the rule of faith practiced by the churches at that time.

3) They had to have been accepted and used by those churches.

Those that didn't make the cut, didn't meet the criteria. Some supposed "gospels" (Jude, Thomas, Mary, etc.) were written even centuries after the events, and the lives of those whose names are attached. These also go against some teachings that the true Gospels had in them.

One example of this is the "gospel" of Thomas, where it says "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." (114)

This passage is absurd, and goes against the high value Jesus placed on women.

For the Old Testament, the books were determined by the Hebrews centuries before Jesus arrived on the scene. The Apocrypha was not considered Scripture.

We can always look to Jesus as a reason that the Apocrypha is not included in the English Protestant Bible. In Luke 24:44, He says, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled."

Notice that Jesus discussed the law, the prophets, and the psalms. In the Hebrew Bible (which Jesus would have used), there are twenty-two books, which are broken into those three sections. Another ancient witness to this fact is the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. In his writings, he speaks of the Hebrew Scriptures as having twenty-two books with the same three divisions as well. If you compared the Hebrew Scriptures to our Protestant Old Testament, you would see that the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures are equivalent to the thirty-nine books in the Protestant Old Testament.

The difference is in the breakdown. For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, I and II Samuel are considered one book. As are I and II Kings. Joshua, Judges and Ruth are one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are also one book. Ezekiel and the minor prophets are one book. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah are one book. I and II Chronicles are one book.

Nine of these books are called writings, four are called the latter prophets, four are called the former prophets, and five are called the Law of Moses, for a total of twenty-two books. Therefore, none of the Apocryphal books are considered Scripture in the Hebrew Bible. Our Protestant Bible follows this same pattern.

And to sum it up, I'll go back to Jesus' words: "...from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who died between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation!" (Luke 11:51)

Jesus had been speaking to the religious leaders of His day, and called them into account for all of the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zechariah. Abel's blood was the first to be shed (in Genesis) and Zechariah's blood was shed in Chronicles (the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures).

Although Zechariah's blood is not the last to be shed chronologically, it is when you look at it in the order of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, Jesus was speaking of the first and the last blood being shed according to the order they appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. In effect, Jesus was calling the Old Testament complete (without the Apocrypha).

Answer 2

The Canon of Scripture (the official list of scriptural texts) was finalized once and for all time by the bishops of the Catholic Church gathered in Council at Carthage, North Africa, in 397 AD. There was no one specific criterion. Each of the more than 200 texts under consideration was studied and discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, before the final list of 73 inspired texts was determined, and bound into one book for the first time. These 73 texts, nothing more, nothing less, comprises the Christian Bible.

Incidentally, the original KJV, just like all Bibles that preceded it, included all 73 divinely inspired books. The 7 books currently missing from the Protestant Bible were removed later. If Luther had his way, Protestants would have only 63 books instead of the 66 they have, since he fully intended to remove 3 New Testament books along with the 7 Old Testament books. Fortunately his followers wouldn't hear of trashing the writings of the Apostles themselves, so the New Testament remained intact.

.

Answer 3

Even a heretic sometimes speaks certainty. It basically took one or 2 debatable fake issues to exclude a writing from the Bible. some completely positive writings have been excluded as a results of fact they have been written too late, in a hundred and fifty instead of 89. some scholars say that there are genuine saying of Jesus interior the Gospel of Thomas; some are additionally interior the canonical Gospels, yet some are no longer. The gnostic leanings of the writing have been sufficient to exclude it. Christian scriptures accumulated right into a e book became first proposed by ability of a heretic, Marcion. the ability of defining orthodoxy and the canonization of the Bible have been simultaneous and interdependent. there are a number of contemporary inspirational writings, yet they do no longer seem to be Biblical. there are a number of historic writings that checklist Christian ritual and ideology, they do no longer seem to be Biblical, the two. As all Christian truths no longer shield completely interior the Bible are supported by ability of teachings of Jesus and the Apostles that are maintained and taught by ability of the Church. No certainty is lost by ability of failing to canonize Enoch; lots fake effect is prevented besides. do no longer examine it so actually; that, too, isn't Catholic.

Answer 4

It was actually done pretty well, IMO. Those that were most learned and not of the Marcion and other 'false teachings' were gathered to gether at the Council of Nicea. They decided what was 'spurious' and what was scriptural.

These many years, and after much contemplation, the typical Christian church accepts what it is they decided so many years back. I accept it too, and I am not one to support tradition for traditions sake. So I concur with what they've collected for the most part. I would still have gathered the Book of Enoch at least to add to the cannon though.

Answer 5

It was determined back in the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

There are certain sects of Christianity which disregard certain books in the Bible, especially some out of the Old Testament.

Answer 6

The King James is a translation and a version it is not a Gospel, the Gospels are Mathew,Mark, Luke and John and are included in all translations of the Bible.

Answer 7

The books where chosen based on which books supported their views. Such as slavery, views that women should not talk in church, and that they should obey their men etc….They choose the books that would give them power over the people.