896

Do we have the correct 66 books in the Bible?

Has something been omitted from the Bible? There’s a wealth of information on the so-called “Canon of the Bible” online. Here you’ll find the most important information: When was the canon of the Bible established? Who established it? Were any books omitted?

If you don’t believe the Bible is factual and has been reliably transmitted, start with my two articles on these issues: The Bible – Is the Bible Credible? and The Bible – Is It Correctly Delivered?

Who decided which books were included in the Old Testament?

The Christian Old Testament contains 39 books, although the Catholic Bible has seven additional books, the so-called Apocrypha. The Jewish Bible, the TaNaCh, contains the same books, but they are counted differently, resulting in only 24 books. The compilation of these books was carried out by the Jewish scribes. There is no consensus as to when this order was finally determined. However, it is assumed that the order of the books was established in the second century AD. It was already clear beforehand which books should be included:

“There is much evidence to suggest that the first steps toward this fixed textual form were taken by Ezra, the scribe.”
https://juedisches-leben.erfurt.de/jl/de/mittelalter/handschriften/wissenswertes/118691.html

If this is right, this means that by the middle of the 5th century BC it had already been determined which books should belong to the TaNaCh.

So here we rely on the Jewish definition, which is a good thing. Paul confirms the authority of the Jewish scholars when he writes:

“Well, the Jews are far superior to other people in every respect. Above all, it is one thing: God has entrusted them with his words.”Romans 3:2 (NLT)

Who decided which books would be included in the New Testament?

Already in the 1st century parts of the NT were recognized

We have evidence that large portions of the New Testament as we know it today were already in circulation in the 1st century AD.

Clement of Rome wrote a letter around 95 AD in which he wrote: “And elsewhere in the Scriptures it is said: ‘I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'” He quotes Matthew 9:13.

Polycarp, who became a Christian in 70 AD, quotes Ephesians 4:26 and adds: “as it is written in these Scriptures.” Polycarp also wrote a letter to the Philippians in which he quotes from 16 New Testament books. (Adapted from Brian H. Edwards, “The Truth of the Bible,” pp. 207-208)

Who decided which books should be included in the NT?

Important: The early Catholic Church did not establish the canon. The books had already been recognized much earlier, by the early Church Fathers. The Councils which made the final determinations merely confirmed what had already been recognized.

Here are a few details:

• 115 AD: Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, mentions the Gospels, i.e. the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
• 115 AD: Ignatius and Polycarp mention the 13 Epistles of Paul (including the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose authorship was still clearly attributed to Paul at that time).
• 140 AD: Marion, a Gnostic heretic, establishes a controversial canon. This challenged the churches to clarify their own canon. By this time, the following were already firmly established: the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the 13 Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John.
• The church historian Eusebius lived between 265 and 340 AD. He noted that “the entire canon we have today was already recognized by the majority of the congregations.” Only a few congregations still doubted the authenticity of the following books: 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, and Jude. (See Mario Wahnschaffe: “Difficult Questions about the Bible”)

So when you read in Wikipedia that at the latest Athanasius in 367 BC confirmed the 27 books of the NT, you now have enough evidence that even before the year 367 the biblical writings of the NT were widely accepted.

Why are the Old Testament Apocrypha missing from most Bibles?

There are good reasons not to call the Apocrypha divinely inspired:

• They contain historical misstatements,
• they contain legendary embellishments,
• they contain serious dogmatic errors compared to the authorized books,
• they contain superstition (e.g. in the Book of Tobit),
• they are not quoted anywhere in the New Testament,
• they were only declared canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546, i.e. as divinely inspired.

I find the last point particularly interesting. What prompted the Roman Catholic Church to include these books in the Christian Bible? It was the time of the Counter-Reformation, and it appears to have been a reaction to the Reformation.

Read more here: Why the Apocrypha isn’t the Bible

I’m convinced we’re reading the right books in the Bible. You can read the Apocrypha and you’ll quickly see how big the difference is. Save yourself the time and read the original books of the bible which are widely accepted by all christians all over the time.

Why are the New Testament Apocrypha missing from the Bibles?

These books, too, fall more into the category of legends. It is unclear who the authors were, and it can be proven that these writings were written long after the events reported in the New Testament.

One example: The so-called “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”: It was written at the end of the 2nd century AD. The author wanted to create the impression that he was the Apostle Thomas. The episodes described are highly imaginative and fictitious. Even the early Christians recognized the book as a forgery. It does not correspond to the teachings and character of Jesus (for example, Jesus curses a playmate who withers away and dies). Jesus did not curse people; he blessed them.

Interestingly, Muhammad quoted a story from this Infancy Gospel in the Quran in Sura 3:49. No wonder the Quran elsewhere claims that the Gospels are corrupted. This is true with regard to the Infancy Gospel, but not true of the other writings of the Bible.

Did the Roman Catholic Church determine the books that should be included in the Bible in order to justify its own teachings?

Actually, it is the other way around: The Roman Catholic Church included Old Testament apocrypha in the Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546 in order to justify its own teachings.

Did self-interest play a role in the inclusion of the biblical books in the canon? I don’t think so. Many statements in the Bible contradict the practices of the Catholic Church. If self-interest had played a role, certain contents of the Bible would have been suppressed. But that is not the case.

Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” has spread some rumors, but they’re pure fantasy. Detailed information can be found here (you can translate it from German into English e.g. with the Google Chrome translator): Alexander Schick on Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code .

Conclusion: Enough truth to read: The right books are in the Bible

I encourage you to read the authorized books of the Bible. It’s not worth researching fictitious accounts or forgeries like the New Testament Apocrypha when the authentic sources are available.

For further reading:

Brian H. Edwards: “The Truth of the Bible: Authority, Inspiration, and History” (2013, 3L Publishing)

Image source:

• Books of the Bible: http://christlicheperlen.de