For protestants. When were the books of the Bible decided to be scripture?

Question

For protestants. When were the books of the Bible decided to be scripture, who made the decision, and how many books did they declare to be the word of God?

Too heavy? LOL more like you either don't know, or you refuse to answer. I know the answers because I have studied history!

cheir, so what your saying is if a group of christians decides they don't like what certain books of the Bible say, its ok for them to remove them?

Jen, I'll give you some help, there were 46 books in the Old Testament when the Bible was declared to be the Word of God. 7 were removed later during the reformation. Doesn't it seem wrong to take books out of the Bible?

I recognise the Canon was decided over a period of time. However what I am after here is when was the Canon declared complete. Hint: It was at a council....

BC If you do some study you will find that until the canon was officially declared (much later than the 1st century) Many books which are not scripture were being used as scruipture by local groups of Christians. Also they relied on... wait for it... oral teachings (or traditions...) as there was no defined canon of scripture yet for Christians.

Bonsai : They were definitely considered scripture before Trent.

Council of Rome

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Pope Innocent I

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

Answer 1

It was a process that began in the 1st Century. There is much evidence that the Pauline Corpus being circulated even prior to books such as 2Peter (Peter references Paul's writings in 2Peter) and in the writings of the Early Fathers. Further the Gospels were recognized as Canon in the early 2nd Century with the others added in shortly there after.

edit-- Paul quotes Luke in 2Timothy according to context these were already considered scripture.

edit-- the Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone until the council of Trent declared it to be so. This by the way was simply done out of reaction to Luther. It was only considered beneficial reading which is what it still is.

edit-- if you think that is what Nicaea was about you are mistaken. This council was chiefly to address the Arian Controversy. Athanasius was the main speaker and Arius was declared a heretic

Answer 2

Part of it is political agenda, an attempt to distance themselves from Catholicism. Part of it is based on which translation of the Hebrew Torah that they used, Hebrew or Greek. The Catholics used the Greek translation, which has what we now know as the Apocrypha. The Protestants used the Hebrew translation, which does not. For the record, even Jews never came to a full agreement on what was canon and what was not. Protestants have long clung to a beloved myth that Catholics added illegitimate books to the Bible and that the earliest Christians did not accept these deuterocanonical books. However, this is simply not true. The Catholic Church being the earliest Catholic Church and the ONLY church founded by Christ, Himself, it was the Protestant churches that later removed these books, and early Christians did, in fact, accept them. Many Protestants argue that the Jews excluded the Apocrypha at the Council of Jamnia, in 90 A.D. However, Jamnia was NOT an authoritative council, simply a gathering of scholars, at which the canonicity of books such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything.

Answer 3

Officially? It's kind of an ongoing process. Some people attribute that to the Council of Nicea (c. 325 A.D.), but there were previous councils for the Old Testament, and the New Testament canon is almost identical to the one that was espoused by Origen in the second century.

I don't remember who exactly made the decision. If I'm not mistaken, it was the people who attended the councils.

How many books? I just woke up, haven't even finished my first cup of coffee, and you expect me to remember that off the top of my head? Give me a sec and I'll go to wikipedia or something.

Answer 4

Though I am not a Protestant, I would like to answer.

Since Peter referred to the writings of Paul in the New Testament as Scripture, it is evident that he had a pretty good idea at that time what writings were to be included in the Word of God. And when John wrote that nothing was to be removed and nothing more was to be added (Rev. 22:18-19), he apparently had a very good idea what was to be included and what not.

Therefore, Scripture was complete and decided upon before the end of John's life, before the end of the first century. Don't let anyone deceive you into believing that the Catholic Church had anything to do with it -- they just put their rubber stamp on it to appear to have God's authority.

Answer 5

Now I think I have missed something. I know you said protestants, but I am a bible student, and of all the things studied, the chapters and verses being done, [ when ], slipped my attention. I am so glad they are done the way they are.
I know the 39 O.T. books in order that they go, but it is sure agreeable with me that they are placed the way they are, and that there is 39 O.T. books is enough for a life time, if anyone wants to know placement in order they can study it to find out.
I hope some one gives the correct answer, as I would love to know this area that I have neglected, but I am so grateful for what we have.

Answer 6

The point is not when or where and which books should be scripture but their use. The books not in the Protestant canon were not considered to support the truth about Christ and salvation but used to bolster man-made traditions - which often prevent people from understanding the truth about salvation.

Answer 7

I'm gonna have to go with the Council of Nicea (the first one).

Answer 8

your obviously confused.
about your facts,AND about what this forum is for.
look here..question..answer.not comment after comment.nobody cares about your opinion.

Answer 9

Much too heavy for YA. Try Google.

Answer 10

The bible is the scripture itself.
jtm