History of the canon of the Bible

I agree about historical content, but I disagree they add anything "necessary" to essential doctrines of Christianity. And "embellishments and exaggerations" are contrary to divine inspriation. ....not to mention direct contradictions and mistakes.

Having been raised Catholic, I think I have a special appreciation for some of the stories in these books, but I also feel troubled over how some distort the Word as well as the character of certain prominent Biblical characters.
 
I have to agree that our bible today is totally the inspired Word of God. Are there certain bibles that go beyond? Absolutely!, but I honestly feel that God places in our heart the ability to discern what is inspired and what is not. .....[/qoute]

I agree!!!!

Is it felt that this is the only reason they were deleted?

Depends on who you ask. LOL

Catholics say Luther removed these books to deny certain RC doctrines and create his own doctrines based on his personal beliefs.

I say that can't be true, since Luther's translation was identical to Jerome's Vulgate and these books were removed fairly recently.... can't remember the date, but definitely long after Luther's death - hundreds of years after!
 
They aren't "essential" or "necessary", but they do help us get a feel for what "In the fullness of time" means, and that has value. But yes, they don't appear to be divine inspiration, and I kinda feel that is a shame.

On a slightly side note (but still on topic), are you familiar with the Epistle to the Church at Laotecia? It's mentioned in Colossians, and I have the text of it at home. I couldn't find anything in it that wasn't proper. Actually, it reads like a short version of Colossians, sharing many of the same phrases. I just wondered why it wasn't considered for canon. Not that it really adds anything useful, but just because it is actually mentioned, and it's Pauline.
 
As far as inspiration goes, all the lists of inspired Old Testament books agree with today's Protestant Bibles.

There is a myth that states Jews removed books to deny Jesus was the Christ, but that is totally ridiculous and here's why:

1. Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia. He had actual temple scrolls in his possession.
Josephus' canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible.

2. The Jews were given the OT. They would not have disposed of known inspired writings to disprove Jesus. We know this as they acknowledge books like Isaiah -which contain some of the clearest prophecies!!!. There was no need to dispose of Sacred writings as Jews demonstrated by simply rejecting the idea Jesus fit the prophesies or stating the verses pointed to by Christians are not prophecies of the Messiah.

3. The apocryphal books admit that prophetic succession had already ended.
(I Macc. 9:27) Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
(1 Macc. 14:41) And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

This means the Apocrypha were not written under the inspiration of God. It also means the Old Testament canon was closed long before Jesus.
 
On a slightly side note (but still on topic), are you familiar with the Epistle to the Church at Laotecia? It's mentioned in Colossians, and I have the text of it at home. I couldn't find anything in it that wasn't proper. Actually, it reads like a short version of Colossians, sharing many of the same phrases. I just wondered why it wasn't considered for canon. Not that it really adds anything useful, but just because it is actually mentioned, and it's Pauline.

I don't know off hand why it's specifically rejected. But, just because a book is true and accurate does not mean "inspired".

Take Jerome. He translated the Scriptures into Latin, but he wasn't writing under inspiration. What about the men who made copies of inspired books? They copied down in spired writings, but they were not writing under inspiration.

Again, a person can write an accurate history, but their words do not belong to the inspired Scriptures unless they were writing under the inspiartion of God.

In fact, not everything included in the Scriptures is inspired, but I believe God allowed it because it doesn't take away or add to His Word.

The phrase "The Scriptures Can't Be Broken" does not mean humans beings can't distort nor misunderstand, nor even write a corrupt Bible. We've seen people do so!!! What is meant is that God's Word does not change. And those who belong to Him will n ot be deceived!
 
BTW, Jerome's translation does contain errors. That's because he was not writing under inspiration! The last two popes before the current began the work of correcting these errors.
 
As far as inspiration goes, all the lists of inspired Old Testament books agree with today's Protestant Bibles.

There is a myth that states Jews removed books to deny Jesus was the Christ, but that is totally ridiculous and here's why:

1. Josephus wrote twenty years before Jamnia. He had actual temple scrolls in his possession.
Josephus' canon was the same canon as the Protestant Bible.

2. The Jews were given the OT. They would not have disposed of known inspired writings to disprove Jesus. We know this as they acknowledge books like Isaiah -which contain some of the clearest prophecies!!!. There was no need to dispose of Sacred writings as Jews demonstrated by simply rejecting the idea Jesus fit the prophesies or stating the verses pointed to by Christians are not prophecies of the Messiah.

3. The apocryphal books admit that prophetic succession had already ended.
(I Macc. 9:27) Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
(1 Macc. 14:41) And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,

This means the Apocrypha were not written under the inspiration of God. It also means the Old Testament canon was closed long before Jesus.
 
It just occured to me I mentioned Jamnia and didn't say what Jamnia was.

Jamnia was a meeting of some Jewish teachers. Christians know almost nothing about what went on because there were no Christians at the meeting. It is a known fact this was NOT a Jewish synod to discuss the canon of Scriptures.

However, around 1870 someone got the mistaken idea the Jews met to decide their canon at Jamnia. The false theory spread like widefire and to this day some people point to this imaginary council to claim Jews removed inspired books to deny Jesus was the Christ.

We have so very little info on this meeting, but it is known they discussed two books, one was Esther. I am writing from memory so I can't remember the other book, but no decisions were made and no changes came from their discussions before they had no authority to do anything and they only met for theoligical discussions.

Ginger
 
The Jews were the divinely appointed keepers of the inspired Scriptures and that is why they knew which Scriptures were inspired from the very beginning - Just like the Apostles knew they were writing Scriptures.
 
Perhaps I can shed a little light on the subject from the writings of the Church Historian Eusebius (Circa 264-340AD) who wrote quite a comprehensive history of the first
300 years of the Apostolic Churches.

The four Gospels and Acts were copied and distributed among virtually all of the original churches together with the authorisation of the Apostles contained in them from
the outset and so were known to be authentic. The other letters were also copied and widely spread throughout the early churches and were well known.

This is something that many critics of the Bible do not grasp. The Apostolic churches ALWAYS had the gospels, Acts and letters of the Apostles from the day they were
written, autrhorised and received from the Apostles themselves.They were, from the outset, carefully copied and distributed among the various original churches.
What the united Apostolic churches of the Byzantine Christian Empire did after the Great Council of Nicaea convened by Constantine in 325AD was to "simply" confer and
combine their knowledge of the documents they already had to reach a decision as to which of them were clearly authentic and which were too doubtful to include in the
"canon" of genuine writings. Those that were accepted as genuine together with the official Jewish Scriptures that the Apostles and Christ Himself used and refered to
were collated, copied and distributed to all the churches to ensure they all had copies of all the documents. Hence our 66 Book Bible, courtesy of the Apostolic churches
of the Byzantine Christian Empire, not the RC.
Here is Eusebius' summary of the results (he wrote more about it in other chapters if you want to download his entire history from the CCEL website - its free)

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
Book III
Chapter XXV.—The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament
which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of
John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. 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.

4. Among the rejected 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.
5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be
reckoned among the disputed books.

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing
those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly
accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same
time known to most ecclesiastical writers—we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order
that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the
name of the apostles, including, for instance, 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, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed
worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts
and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true
orthodoxy that 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.

But when we look at the history of how our Bible came into being from the meeting together often of the surviving Apostolic churches of those who feared the Lord you
might want to ponder the interesting future prophecy of Malachi so many overlook. For it would be strange indeed if the Lord did not foretell of such an important event as
the printing and preserving of HIS word so that all might know it and remember it.

Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before
him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

The Bible comes not from the church but from the Lord Himself.
 
It just occured to me I mentioned Jamnia and didn't say what Jamnia was.

Jamnia was a meeting of some Jewish teachers. Christians know almost nothing about what went on because there were no Christians at the meeting. It is a known fact this was NOT a Jewish synod to discuss the canon of Scriptures.

However, around 1870 someone got the mistaken idea the Jews met to decide their canon at Jamnia. The false theory spread like widefire and to this day some people point to this imaginary council to claim Jews removed inspired books to deny Jesus was the Christ.

We have so very little info on this meeting, but it is known they discussed two books, one was Esther. I am writing from memory so I can't remember the other book, but no decisions were made and no changes came from their discussions before they had no authority to do anything and they only met for theoligical discussions.

Ginger

Interestingly Esther is the ONLY OT book they did NOT find among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
Perhaps I can shed a little light on the subject from the writings of the Church Historian Eusebius (Circa 264-340AD) who wrote quite a comprehensive history of the first
300 years of the Apostolic Churches.

........ Hence our 66 Book Bible, courtesy of the Apostolic churches
of the Byzantine Christian Empire, not the RC.

..........The Bible comes not from the church but from the Lord Himself.

Amen!
 
3. 2 Timothy 3:8
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

Jannes and Jambres are not mentioned in the Old Testament. 2 Ti is the only place we are given the magicians' names. I suggest Jude knew Enoch's quote the same way Paul knew the magicians' names - Jews were the God-appointed keepers of the Old Testament. They were both Jews and had been taught these stories from childhood.

Just purely for info if anybody is checking up on the Jannes and Jambes thing.
(From Strong's)
2389 Iannes ee-an-nace’
of Egyptian origin; TDNT-3:192,344; n pr m
AV-Jannes 1; 1
Janna =" he vexed"
1) he and Jambres, were two Egyptian magicians who in the presence of Pharaoh imitated the miracles of Aaron in order to destroy his influence with the king. The author of the epistle derived their names from the tradition of the Talmudists and the Rabbins
And this footnote from Josephus' "Antiquities of The Jews" Book II:-
Dr. Bernard informs us here, that instead of this single priest or prophet of the Egyptians, without a name in Josephus, the Targum of Jonathan names the two famous antagonists of Moses, Jannes and Jambres. Nor is it at all unlikely that it might be one of these who foreboded so much misery to the Egyptians, and so much happiness to the Israelites, from the rearing of Moses.
 
Hey Bill, :)
I agree nothing that was lost was intended by God to be in the collective wrtitings we call The Holy Scriptures.

But, I'm not sure that's what John means.

My own thought on this is that what is in the Scriptures is all we NEED to know. If any books were lost, they didn't contain any "missing" revelation from God OR the Apostle wrote of true events, but not under inspiration - which means those writings were subject to human error - which suggests they were "lost" intentionally.

Follow me? Just because there might have been other books or letters written by Apostles, doesn't mean everything they wrote was written under divine inspiration.

Which would be good cause for the LOrd God to "lose" them. Men would naturally jump to the conclusion these books/letters were inspired because they were written by Apostles, whereas, those that are forgeries are easy to reject.

Ginger

YES. The end results are justified by the means that got them there.
 
I LOVE I & II Machabees. I really, really, really do. There is so much important information in there, it makes me sad that we don't include them or study them enough. III & IV Machabees....well, I can mostly do without. I've read the rest of those, but didn't particularly find anything new or groundshaking, but I could have just missed it at the time. Perhaps it is time to go back through them again.

I agree with that!
 
I have to agree that our bible today is totally the inspired Word of God. Are there certain bibles that go beyond? Absolutely!, but I honestly feel that God places in our heart the ability to discern what is inspired and what is not.

Too many times, some, are only seeking the 'feel good' and there is plenty of that out there. And there are those who insist on making God's Word say what benefits them, which we all know is against God. In reading, and more importantly studying God's Word our hearts must be open to God's guidance through the Holy Spirit. If we stagger down the wrong road, it is our fault, not God's.

Is it felt that this is the only reason they were deleted?

It is my understanding as well, if that means anything.
 
I thought I said the Books of Enoch claim to be written by Enoch and that is impossible because Enoch was dead for what.....2000 years?

Jude and Enoch were written very close together, so it is unclear which was written first, however, Jude is said to have been about 60-66 A.D. and Enoch consists of several books - some whose chapters appear to have been written by several different people - at different times. The one in question, I believe is said to have been written before 70 A.D.

So, the dating makes it very likely Enoch's author was quoting Jude. :)

The difficulty in setting a specific date is, you need to know, not only which book you are dealing with, but also which chapter!

Here's the nail in the coffin:
A quote is repeating the words of someone else and giving the reference. Jude said he was quoting Enoch! The books of Enoch were not written by Enoch! Therefore, Jude was not quoting from the Book of Enoch.

When I say I am quoting a person, I quote the words of that person, I don't not quote from a book or movie that has info on that person as.

Ginger...you are ON TARGET!
As you read the Book of Enoch, you will notice a big difference between it and the genuine Word of God. The Bible is readable, from cover to cover, it tells a story. In sharp contrast, the Book of Enoch appears to be mocking the Word of God, quoting phrases here-and-there from the Bible, without any meaningful logic or order. This, coupled with a bunch of added mumbo-jumbo, makes the Book of Enoch a ridiculous piece of literature to even consider inspired by God. As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into New Age occultism without even realizing it. Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion. The fact that it's being paraded to the public nowadays on Walt Disney's History Station as a SHOCKING revelation, should be a clear warning sign where this is all headed. The credibility of the Word of God is under malicious attack. Here's what the History Station is teaching people about Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Book of Enoch uses unfamiliar terminology, referring to the "Lord of Spirits" and the "Head of Days." These terms are foreign to the Word of God. The messiah is NOT directly mentioned. The ambiguous mention of what may or may not be the Lord Jesus in the Book of Enoch, is eerily reminiscent of Freemasonry (who worship the "Great Architect" ...an undefined, ambiguous, universal god). This is the false god of New Age. It is worthy to note that Christ's deity is not evidenced in the Book of Enoch.
 
A word of caution.....

Reading uninspired stories about Biblical events can be dangerous as it is easy to confused where you read what!

I no longer read these uninspired books for that very reason, and still I find myself thinking something is in the Scriptures that is not really there because I read it in a pseudo-text. :-(

Which is one reason it's important to cross reference translations....make sure the verse you basing a certain belief on is actually in the original texts or if someone simply added it because he thought it should be !!!!

The King James and Douay Rhiems are two examples of Bible translations that contain errors.
 
We know from history that, under the newly established Byzantine Christian Empire, beginning with the Great Council at Nicaea convened by Constantine himself the various churches of the Apostles met (and talked) together often and from the documents long copied and distributed among themselves compiled the thoroughly verified and authenticated 66 books of our Bible that we might all remember and have access to the actual words of the Lord as delivered by HIS PROVEN Prophets and Apostles.

To be assured that these 66 books ALONE have been assembled by the Lord Himself as THE book of remembrance of HIS word you might want to ponder the much neglected and ignored future prophecy the Lord delivered to us all through Malachi:-

Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
 
Back
Top