Alternatively: How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed? A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book' There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations. (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author) If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have? This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version. I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.

Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question [Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74835/can-somebody-summarize-the-different-branches-of-christianity-to-me-and-expla) gets this point across tremendously well. But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: **Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place?** If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations. And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the [many questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/canon?tab=Votes) that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture). If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture. Why? ____ *(\*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.* ______ Related questions: - [How do proponents of Sola Scriptura choose the “correct” interpretation of a key Bible verse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83846/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-choose-the-correct-interpretation-of-a-key) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89211/50422 - [Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/81069/are-there-any-denominations-that-give-official-advice-on-how-to-handle-the-uncer)

Sola Scriptura can be broken into two parts: 1. Sola - Alone 2. Scriptura - The sacred Scriptures One aspect of Sola Scriptura is the idea that Scripture is the *Sole* **Infallible AND Authoritative** rule of faith over Christians. But in relation to [my last post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89214/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-defend-the-doctrine-without-scripture-being) , there is a question over the canon of scripture. Since no book that anyone would consider scripture (at least among protestants that would claim Sola Scriptura) *never* says what scripture is, who determines what scripture is? Or, as I point out in my [blog post](https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5957239847810915194/4590423893995530597) : >This poses a two horned dilemma. Horn 1 - The source that canonized the Bible is not infallible and authoritative, thus we could add any books to the Bible and no one would have a basis to reject these additions (this is obviously bad). Horn 2 - The source that canonized the Bible is infallible and authoritative, thus Sola Scriptura is false. So whatever horn you take, you will end up with consequences. So to close on my question, what source has given us the canon of scripture (not scripture, since that has come from God), and is that source infallible or authoritative?

I've noticed occasionally, people use slightly different names for the books of of the Bible (especially in older literature). For example, sometimes Revelation is called Apocalypse. In the Orthodox Study Bible, the books of Samuel-Kings are titled 1-4 Kingdoms, and 1-2 Chronicles are called 1-2 Paralipomenon. The Wycliffe bible has "Deeds of the Apostles" instead of "Acts of the Apostles". Based on this neat article on Wikipedia , I'm guessing that part of this goes back to the differences between titles in KJV and Douay-Rheimes. In other language versions of the Bible, I've also noticed some differing names for the books of the bible. For instance, in Chinese Bibles, the book of Exodus is titled "出埃及" (literally, "exiting Egypt"). That's a pretty good title; it's short and descriptive. This all got me thinking: **What considerations do translators make when deciding what to title Biblical books?** In English, we largely now follow the precedents set by the King James, but that doesn't explain the KJV's translators reasoning originally. It seems that the books that are named after people/places (the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Prophets) are pretty uniform across languages, but other books less so. For the other books, I don't see much of a pattern regarding the usage of **transliterations or common vs. uncommon vs. archaic words** for these translations. ------ Here's few other variants in meaning I see between the Bibles of the three languages that I speak (with my non-expert translations to English; I am a native speaker of English so please correct me if I've misunderstood anything in Chinese or Mongolian). I've also noted when some words are uncommon or archaic (neither of the Asian languages are using transliterations other than for the books named after people/places): | English | Chinese | Mongolian | translation of Chinese name | translation of Mongolian name | | ------- | --------- | --------- | --------------------------- | --------------------- | | Genesis | 创世记 | Эхлэл | "Record of the creation of the world" | "Beginning" | | Exodus | 出埃及记 | Гэтлэл | "Record of exiting Egypt" | "Conquest" - this is not a common word in Mongolian (it's not in the most popular English-Mongolian dictionary at all); It is the noun form of the verb "гэтлэх" meaning to conquer/overcome (also not the most common word for this concept). | | Deuteronomy | 申命记 | Дэд хууль | "Record of the repeated commands" - using an archaic meaning of the character 申 as "repeat", which in modern Chinese means "stretch", "announce", or "request". | "Secondary law" | | Psalms | 诗篇 | дуулал | "poems" | "anthems" (it's a rare word for "song", otherwise mainly used to refer to the national anthem) | | Ecclesiastes | 传道书 | номлогчийн үгс | "Book of preaching" | "words of the preacher" | | Song of Songs | 雅歌 | Соломоны дуун | "Elegant song" | "Solomon's song" | | Acts | 使徒行书 | Үйлс | "Book of the Apostles' Actions" - same as the full English title. I've included it because it is abbreviated to "disciples" (徒) instead of "acts" like in English | "acts" | My Mongolian Bible (Mongolian Bible Society 2019 version) includes brief introductions to each book, but they don't explain the choice of words for titles (especially, whether to use a common, a rare word, or an archaic word). Interestingly, for the book of Exodus it does explain the origin of the *Greek* title, but not why the specific Mongolian word 'Гэтлэл' was chosen. Please note I'm not asking *specifically* about these three languages, but rather a more general question about the kinds of logic that translators use to make these decisions. Some examples from other languages that I don't speak would still be a good answer. ----- P.S. For more documentation, and just for fun, here's some interesting examples other users have pointed out: * In Finnish bibles, the five books of the Pentateuch are simply titled "First book of Moses", "Second book of Moses", etc. (suggested by user JiK) * Song of Solomon in the Russian Synodal Version has the title "Song of Songs of Solomon" (suggested by user Seggan)

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. **why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.**

In answering a question on Bible Hermeneutics.SE, Carly Perkins asked, "Why can [Protestants] believe the men who decided which books were in the canon (around 400 A.D.) but not believe what they lived and believed?" I realize that my question is somewhat different from Carly's. What did the people who set the Protestant canon of the Bible believe were the requirements for salvation?

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the *Books of Maccabees* is not part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So I am wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today (which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in Greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what I am asking of any books in the Catholic Bible that precede the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonization of the Hebrew Bible used today?

This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

The Book of Jubilees is included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It retells the events of Genesis and part of Exodus, but with significant expansions, reinterpretations, and a highly structured chronological system based on 49-year "jubilee" cycles. Does the Book of Jubilees imply that the Genesis and Exodus accounts are disorganized, incomplete, or in need of correction? I'm especially interested in how this is understood within Christian theology, rather than purely literary or historical analysis.

> A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament > (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the > Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of > the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in > thought and diction. — Wikipedia So why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical by major Christian denominations?

In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The *Deuterocanonical books* were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one. I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books > Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

One of the common criticisms of *Sola Scriptura* (meaning that Scripture is the only infallible rule for Christians) is that the canon list is not found in the Bible itself, so Protestants rely on Scripture being infallible without infallibly knowing what is infallible. I hear this especially from Catholics, but I also hear it from Eastern Orthodox. Anyway, I don't want to debate that point here; I'm just mentioning it to give context. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that in addition to Scripture, the ecumenical councils are also infallible. As I understand it, local synods and councils are not regarded as infallible by either tradition. For the Catholics, this doesn't threaten the integrity of the canon of Scripture, as it was defined for them by the Council of Trent. However, regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, the canon was not defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils. Instead, they follow the decision of the Council in Trullo (692), a.k.a. the Quinisext Council, which was reaffirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672). However, neither of these is one of the seven ecumenical councils. I know that the Quinisext Council may be seen as an emendation of the decisions of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, but is it therefore regarded as infallible despite not being itself an ecumenical council? This canon list is different from those of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Council of Rome (382), both local councils (though admittedly the provenance of the preserved canon lists from those councils is disputed). So my question is: **Despite not being defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils, does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a belief in an infallible canon list for Scripture?** If so, how is it known to be infallible?

Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East ? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan ? The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.

An answer to this question, [*How do Protestants make claims to follow scripture and ignore the traditions of the ancient church which produced the scriptures?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104738/how-do-protestants-make-claims-to-follow-scripture-and-ignore-the-traditions-of/104743#104743&:~:text=the%20Spirit%20is%20still%20witnessing,leave%20the%20Catholic%20Church) , concerning the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles, contains: > … the Spirit is still witnessing to Catholics about the canon. If the true canon is the smaller Protestant canon, then some Catholics would be persuaded by the Spirit to leave the Catholic Church, > … > Likewise, if the Protestant canon is wrong, then many people will feel the Spirit's witnessing to a larger canon. Another question, [*Which doctrines are based solely on the Deuterocanonical books?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7369/which-doctrines-are-based-solely-on-the-apocrypha) , is about doctrines that Protestants are missing out on by not accepting the Apocrypha, corresponding to the second case above. This question is about the first case: **What Protestant doctrines are refuted only by the [Deuterocanonical books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books)?**

A recent highly upvoted answer on a different question sparked this question to me. It is at the bottom. Searching found this similar but different question I will quote the parts that sparked the question here. I as always will leave the author unnamed. (I'm not here to put anyone on "blast" so to speak) > ...we don’t blindly accept what men claim. We follow Acts 17:11 where the Bereans were commended because “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” > >**If it wasn’t done during the first century when Christ Jesus established his church** – not a building, not an organisation but the body of believers – **then we reject it.** We follow Scripture. > >That, in a nutshell, is how Protestants deal with the claims of men who lived after the death of Jesus and the apostles. If their teachings and claims are found in Scripture, then we accept that as our authority. **What we reject is the teachings and traditions of men who have added to the word of God.** I assume "add" would also include "remove or change". To understand the spirit of the words written here. Edit: It has come to my attention that the above is likely to be incorrect with regards to how protestants do things. This makes the question based on a misunderstanding I thought it was accurate. Knowing this resolves the issue of the main question, and leaves the "bonus questions" remaining. --- Immediately I find myself wondering how the logic can possibly work here. Because we have several problems that are immediately apparent. (As noted here in another question, but I'm not focused on Sola Scriptura like that question is) Facts. 1. The Scriptures were starting to be canonized maybe as early as 382AD (Rome) or 393 (Hippo). This does not mean the early church had no scriptures, but there was much that was "repeated" and also "not divinely inspired" (Protogospels, multiple letters, gnostic false scriptures... etc) This process was formally completed in the 6th Ecumenical Council Canon 2 **in 692AD** 2. Who decided which texts were "divinely inspired" and "good for worship"? The Church fathers did *after the 1st century*. > Edit: I just remembered the local councils at Carthage (255 AD). So the process started even earlier in some formal sense. --- Claims from above combined with facts. 1. Protestants only accept things within Scripture. 2. Protestants reject things after the 1st century. (So they do accept some "direct contact tradition") 3. The New Testament and Bible was starting to be canonized from multiple texts in multiple councils starting in 382AD. And at this point the protestants somehow accept the Biblical Canon. Though they seem to have a problem with the original canon list. Even Luther wished parts of the Bible didn't exist (see here... ) --- #### How do protestants, accept* the given tradition of the Bible, despite it being canonized by the traditions of men after the 1st century? - Bonus question: How do they reconcile changing the Bible from the original canon of 692AD? - Bonus question: How is this not cherry picking which tradition you like? (You like scripture, but dislike XYZ)

This question is inspired by part of an answer given to a recent question : > It is God alone who has created the canon, our human responsibility is only to recognise it, which we have done better and worse through history. If someone seeking the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and diligently studying the Bible arrived at the conclusion that, say, Song of Solomon, or Esther, or James, was not inspired, would it be possible for that person to accept Sola Scriptura AND accept a 65 book canon? Why or why not? *** This question is seeking the perspective of those who believe in Sola Scriptura, and I'm primarily interested in the answer to the 2nd part of the question (why or why not?)

1 Kings 11:41 says: >Now the rest of the acts of Solomon and whatever he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? What is the biblical and historical background to this "book of the acts of Solomon" and have any manuscripts been found to support the existence of additional information about what Solomon did? Or are such writings apocryphal?

Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon . It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?

When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture? 1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?