who decided

[Oats]

who decided what books to put in the Bible

 

[farouk]

As far as the New Testament is concerned, it was generally the Apostles whose authority was upon the New Testament books, apart from Acts, which is 'the Acts of the Apostles' in any case. There was generally much consensus about the inherent authority of the New Testament books. And despite the Jews' rejection of the New Testament, there was great consensus among Jews and Christians as to the Old Testament books.

 

[Oats]

As far as the New Testament is concerned, it was generally the Apostles whose authority was upon the New Testament books, apart from Acts, which is 'the Acts of the Apostles' in any case. There was generally much consensus about the inherent authority of the New Testament books. And despite the Jews' rejection of the New Testament, there was great consensus among Jews and Christians as to the Old Testament books.

ok
thanks

 

[farouk]

ok
thanks

O:

YW.

PS: If you can find somewhere the works of B B Warfield on this subject, they are helpful.

 

[farouk]

Last time I checked, Hermas wasn't an apostle.

 

[Oats]

Last time I checked, Hermas wasn't an apostle.

he means who took out that book



I believe the scriptures are true...

but I think there are books that we haven't see or have seen that have truth in them


Christian books


MJA-- don't flame this thread or get flagged

 

[Mike]

I may be misinterpreting the thought made here, but the apostles did not decide what books would be in the Bible. The books of the Bible, or the Canon, was ultimately determined by the Lord. The decision was made by a council with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the same way that the Word was written. The books (or scrolls) in the NT were circulating individually during the time Peter, Paul, James and John were alive. They did not intend that they would be collected into what now makes up our NT. They were just letters. While certain authors agreed that other authors were inspired by God to write what they did, I don't believe there was the intent to have their letters bound together in one Book.

Hebrews handed down the words of the OT orally that they agreed were given by known prophets. The Canon was determined centuries later by councils (Laodicea and Hippo) of scholars who were being led by the Holy Spirit to determine which books were inspired or not. They convened throughout the first several centuries in affirming Divine Writings and which books would be read in the church. The criteria revolved around the author being an apostle or having a close relationship to an apostle, was there consensus among those in the Church in general, was there any teachings that were contradictory to accepted scripture (demonstrating error), and were the books true to the character/love of the Holy Spirit.

I don't have an all-encompassing understanding of the specifics or the events leading to Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and protestant Canons, but this was not a decision made by the men who wrote them. Again, this is was a decision ultimately made by God in guiding the people who convened to establish the Canon.

This is my understanding, anyway.

 

[farouk]

Mike:

Actually, when ppl in the church recognized which books were in the canon, it was not a case of church leaders conferring their authority onto the Scriptures, but rather of them recognizing the inherent authority of the books comprising the Word of God.

B B Warfield wrote: "That the apostles ...imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" — can be denied by none. ... The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival "canon" of "new books" which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the "old books"; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally "Scripture" with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures." BB Warfield, 'The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament'.

 

[theLords]

Mike, I really enjoyed reading your post. It gave me a thought. When did the Jews canonize the Tanakh? So off to Wiki I went (yes, I know not exactly a reliable source) which is why I figured I'd post it here for discussion:

Criteria for inclusion in the Jewish canon

According to Gerald Larue,[16] the criteria used in the selection of sacred books to be included in the Jewish canon have not been set forth in any "clear-cut delineation" but appear to have included the following:

The writing had to be composed in Hebrew. The only exceptions, which were written in Aramaic, were Daniel 2-7, writings attributed to Ezra (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26), who was recognized as the founding father of post-Exilic Judaism, and Jer. 10:11. Hebrew was the language of Sacred Scripture, Aramaic the language of common speech.

The writing had to be sanctioned by usage in the Jewish community. The use of Esther at Purim made it possible for it to be included in the canon. Judith, without such support, was not acceptable.

The writings had to contain one of the great religious themes of Judaism, such as election, or the covenant. By reclassifying the Song of Songs as an allegory, it was possible to see in this book an expression of covenantal love.
The writing had to be composed before the time of Ezra, for it was popularly believed that inspiration had ceased then. Jonah was accepted because it used the name of an early prophet and dealt with events before the destruction of Nineveh, which occurred in 612 BCE. Daniel, a pseudonymous writing, had its setting in the Exile and therefore was accepted as an Exilic document.

Michael Barber suggests that "the canonical status of the books were decided, at least in part, on the grounds of the date of their composition—no books believed to be written later than the period of Ezra were included. This was based in large part on the Pharisaic thesis that prophetic inspiration ended after Ezra and Nehemiah." Barber points out that this thesis is a "problematic criterion for Christians who affirm that the Spirit inspired the books of the New Testament". He also points out that it is also "problematic for some scholars who believe that several canonical books—e. g., Daniel, Esther, Song of Songs, Proverbs, the books of Chronicles—date to a much later period. According to some, Daniel is even later than some of the “apocrypha.”".[11]
Barber asserts that "one thing that is clear about the canonical process used by the rabbis is that it was motivated in part by an anti-Christian bias."
“Even the final closing of the Hebrew canon by the Pharisaic teachers, constituting themselves as rabbinate toward the end of the first century – a process that lasted into the middle of the second century with respect to individual books and that presupposes a long period of preparation reaching back into pre-Christian times – must be categorized as ‘anti-heretical’, indeed anti-Christian.”
According to Barber, the various discussions in the Mishnah regarding the exclusion of Sirach and the latter apocrypha indicate that these texts were rejected because they were being read among the Christians. He asserts that it is well-known[citation needed] that the stabilization of the Masoretic Text and canon was shaped by concerns about Christian influences.[11]

Development of the Jewish Bible canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barber asserts that "one thing that is clear about the canonical process used by the rabbis is that it was motivated in part by an anti-Christian bias."

Reading this gave me a chuckle as the article states that the Tanakh was put together anywhere from 200 BC to 200 AD (150/160 years before the NT was canonized) This Bible verse sprang into my head when I read it:

Genesis 50:20
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

 

[Sparkey]

I like Rotherham's Emphasized Bible because it is a translation designed to set forth the exact meaning, the proper terminology and the graphic style of the sacred original. It carries the "flavor" of the Hebrew and Greek into my language (English). Still, this translation is not the "inspired word of God" and the actual writings of the Apostles are lost. The question that arises would be, "Why, if it were critical to our understanding, would God allow this to happen?"

[John 14:26 HNV] - But the Counselor, the Ruach HaKodesh, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.

[1 John 2:27 HNV] - As for you, the anointing which you received from him remains in you, and you don't need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, you will remain in him.​

Now, just for fun, I've quoted the Hebrew Names version. The Holy Spirit is called the "Ruach HaKodesh". Did we miss the meaning? I think no.

 

[theLords]

Now, just for fun, I've quoted the Hebrew Names version. The Holy Spirit is called the "Ruach HaKodesh". Did we miss the meaning? I think no.[/FONT]

What does "Rauch HaKodesh" mean?

 

[Theofilus]

What does "Rauch HaKodesh" mean?

It's Hebrew for "Holy Spirit".

 

[Sparkey]

What does "Rauch HaKodesh" mean?

lol - don't get me started...
Rauch HoKadesh has a couple different meanings depending on how it is pronounced. ROO-akh hak-KOH-desh, with the accent on the first syllable means The Holy Spirit [of God]. If it were pronounced differently with the accent on the last syllable (ha-ka-DOSH) it would refer to the spirit of a holy one (as in a saint).

The point that I was trying to make though is that mankind needs the author of the sacred word to instruct and He is our Teacher. Nobody needs me to explain stuff.

 

[theLords]

Thanks Theo and Sparrowhawke!

I am really looking forward to one day learning both Hebrew and Greek. It was an option for me to take either one to meet my language requirement for my degree, but unfortunately it also meant taking 2 extra classes which I couldn't fit into my schedule because it means not graduating on time.

 

[Mike]

Thanks Theo and Sparrowhawke!

I am really looking forward to one day learning both Hebrew and Greek. It was an option for me to take either one to meet my language requirement for my degree, but unfortunately it also meant taking 2 extra classes which I couldn't fit into my schedule because it means not graduating on time.

Back in my crazy days of college adventure (my own BC) I learned some Greek. I learned to say the Greek alphabet 5 times before a match burnt down to my fingers. Alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon... :D

Farouk, can you include a link to the site you got your info from? I'm sure someone will come along and give a much more thorough answer to the question at hand, but I have always understood that there were a few times when councils convened to come to a consensus as to which books were Inspired and which weren't - and this deliberation was led by the Holy Spirit. Before that time, there was no "official" collection of books to make up the Bible with both the OT and NT. There were variations, but nothing agreed upon. The way I read your first post was to say that Paul wrote in letters to the church in Corinth, for example, and mandated that this would be added to scripture form the OT. That's certainly not how I understand it.

 

[Mike]

but I think there are books that we haven't see or have seen that have truth in them

In knowing that the Bible is Inspired and used as the Word of God, I find it hard to believe that He wouldn't have Led us to discover books that include His Message to us. I'm not willing to consider this possibility. Why would He hide part of His Message from His Church? We have what He intended us to have; what we need to have. This is part of the problem I have with the Catholic church putting their tradition on the level of Scripture.

 

[Bazz1040]

who decided what books to put in the Bible

The same way God inspire the men and women back then to speak His words, He motivated certain people to put the Bible together. It takes divine faith to believe those whom God speaks through, even so it takes that same faith that God will make sure His word is preserve for His people today.

 

[Bazz1040]

he means who took out that book



I believe the scriptures are true...

but I think there are books that we haven't see or have seen that have truth in them


Christian books


MJA-- don't flame this thread or get flagged

It does not really matter one way or the other.......meaning; it does not affect our salvation good or bad. There are more than enough written testimony of God. And even if all the Bibles in the world were to be destroyed God would still be committed to His word. God can and does speak to His people today, through His Holy Spirit and other ways. The Bible is temporary, so there will come a time when we will no longer need it, have it or remember it.

 

[farouk]

Actually, Psalm 119.89 says:

'For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven'.

 

[stovebolts]

Funny that I would find the Rauch HoKadesh mentioned in this thread.

In days past when one inquired of the Lord through the ephod, it is said that letters would randomly light up (think urim), and it was through the Rauch HoKadesh that one would be able to properly put the letters together to form the words of the Lord.