How do we know the Bible only has 66 books? What qualifies a book to be in the Bible?

[MilitaryBrat2007]

For a little bit of context: I had a recent conversation with a Catholic friend. We came to the discussion of the canonical books of the Bible. I attempted to explain how it's not the Church that approves the books of the Bible, but rather, it is the Holy Spirit that testifies to us Christians that they are from God (also that they testify to be from God as well). However my friend refuted this position with examples of how Protestants want specific books (such as the Maccabees) removed because they have purgatory and other theological disagreements within them. I replied with Jesus' affirmation of the Old Testament and authoritative command for the Apostles to establish the New Testament. But even then, it's a little bit of a vague argument.

What are your thoughts on the question I wrote above?

 

[arapahoepark]

The Council of Trent, if I recall correctly, officially made the Apocrypha scripture for the Catholics. We didnt take out what was never there.
Michael Kruger has some good stuff on this. His model is 'self-authentication' that the church recognizes what is Scripture, not that the church creates it, as a recent article by some conservative Anglicans argue. It's similar to what you say. I am still working through his works though.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Our Old Testament canon is the same as accepted by the Jewish Church from Christ's day until the present.
Josephus lists our 44 39 book Old Testament canon.
If the apocrypha wasn't canonical in Christ's day, it isn't today, because writings don't suddenly become inspired, God-breathed Scripture.
Moreover, all Scripture must be God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).
Also, the apocrypha is clearly full of errors, contradictions, etc that cannot be present in Scripture. It is not consistent with the other books.
Archibald Alexander has a book where he lists all the problems with the apocryphal books.

 

[RamistThomist]

We take the Palestinian, not Alexandrian canon. And you can turn it around by asking why his church doesn't include the same books as the Slavic and Ethiopian churches.

 

[RamistThomist]

And press home on Macabbees. Ask him why there should be prayers for the dead for those who died in mortal sin?

 

[Steve Curtis]

Josephus lists our 44 book Old Testament canon

To the best of my recollection, he listed 22, which corresponds to our 39

 

[Charles Johnson]

To the best of my recollection, he listed 22, which corresponds to our 39

My bad, I subtracted wrong.

 

[greenbaggins]

When Maccabees ends with a statement to the effect of "Well, I didn't do a very good job on this, but this is my best effort," we can assume that a canonical book would not speak like that. By the way, Maccabees does NOT teach purgatory as the RCC understands it. Purgatory is only for venial sins, whereas the people in Maccabees were being punished for the mortal sin of idolatry. So no, actually, Protestants do NOT reject the deuterocanonical books "because they teach purgatory." We reject them because they are not inspired and do not have that self-authenticating mark that God's sheep can always recognize.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Roman Catholic approach is to overstate its case by pointing to a supposed weakness in the Protestant conception and claiming that it solves the problem through its perfections. I think one has to be blindly sentimental to believe in their solutions, especially given the current Pope.

The question is asked as to how we know we have the right number of books in the Bible because the Roman Catholic is assured that an infallible Magisterium consistently guides that Church without error - even on the number of books (or in this case, what constitutes Scripture).

From a historical perspective, one could ask the Roman Catholic: "How did anyone know what the Scriptures were prior to the Roman Catholic Magisterium?"

Michael Krueger writes in Canon Revisited:

The principles in this paragraph may help address a potential objection to the self-authenticating model. If the testimonium leads to the church’s corporate reception of the canonical books, then how do we understand the fact that Roman Catholics and Protestants have differed over the extent of the Old Testament canon (with the Catholic Church eventually accepting the Apocrypha)? Does this not prove that the church’s consensus is an unreliable indicator of canonicity? Although the story of the Apocrypha is too complex to fully address here, there is no indication that it contradicts our model. Several considerations: (1) It should be kept in mind that the books of the Old Testament canon were, in fact, widely recognized by the Old Testament “church.” There are good reasons to think that the Hebrew canon was established within Judaism prior to the first century. This is confirmed by the writings of the New Testament themselves, which are some of our best first-century sources and regularly cite the Old Testament as Scripture, but give no similar treatment to the books of the Apocrypha. God had entrusted the Old Testament books to the Jews, and they received them by a wide consensus (Rom. 3:2). Thus, the full reception of the Old Testament by the people of God in Israel is a sufficient justification for our belief in them as canonical. (2) It was the church’s duty to receive what had been handed down to the people of God before her. In the first few centuries of the church we have good evidence that the dominant position (though not the only position) was an acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha. This would include church fathers like Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, and Jerome. Thus, it appears that both the Jewish “church” and the first centuries of the Christian church widely adopted the Old Testament books and not the Apocrypha (of course there were minority opinions, but this does not contradict the model). (3) If so, then we must explain how the church in the Middle Ages, and ultimately at the Council of Trent, could divert from this clear foundation and affirm additional books that were not canonical. We noted above that there can be, in principle, “a situation where the Spirit’s testimony was so obscured by the church’s sin and rebellion that the church reached consensus on books that are not canonical.” No doubt we have good reasons to think that the extensive moral and doctrinal corruption of the church in the Middle Ages—which stood in opposition to the consensus of the Jewish believers, as well as the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament—would constitute just such a situation. The apocryphal books would have been attractive to the church during this time since they were used to justify doctrines, like purgatory and prayers for the dead, that were at the heart of the ecclesiastical abuse of power. Indeed, so substantial was this corruption, especially in regard to the gospel message, that legitimate questions can be raised about whether the Roman Catholic Church continued to be the true church of Jesus Christ—and therefore a place where the Spirit was actively working (and if, lacking the Spirit, it is not the true church, then its affirmation of the apocryphal books is not relevant). But even if one accepts Roman Catholicism as a true church, the fact remains that we have good grounds for believing that, in this instance, the Spirit’s witness was widely obscured by the church’s sin and rebellion. Of course, at this point one might raise the following objection: If the church was mistaken about the Old Testament books, how can we be sure that it was not mistaken about the New Testament books? But it is here that we must remember our model: we have warrant for thinking that the church’s consensus is a reliable indicator of canonicity, unless we have good reasons to think the contrary. In regard to the very specific situation of the Roman Catholic Church’s acceptance of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, we do have good reasons to think the contrary. But in regard to the New Testament canon, we have no reasons to think that the church was mistaken in this regard. We do not have to prove that the church is not mistaken in order to be rational in our belief that the church is not mistaken. Again, consider the eyesight analogy above. Even if my eyesight were unreliable at some point (perhaps I had a bad reaction to medication and hallucinated), that wouldn’t mean that I must reject the reliability of my eyesight at all other times (like after I stopped taking my medication).

 

[Northern Crofter]

The question is asked as to how we know we have the right number of books in the Bible because the Roman Catholic is assured that an infallible Magisterium consistently guides that Church without error - even on the number of books (or in this case, what constitutes Scripture).

Just a quick note of clarification - the literal number is debatable given that some OT "books" (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are really 2 halves of 1 book (or 1 book divided over 2 scrolls). Thus in listing them the WCF gives a list without giving a number.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just a quick note of clarification - the literal number is debatable given that some OT "books" (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) are really 2 halves of 1 book (or 1 book divided over 2 scrolls). Thus in listing them the WCF gives a list without giving a number.

Yes, I'm aware. I was trying to express that in my parenthetical.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Yes, I'm aware. I was trying to express that in my parenthetical.

I wasn't thinking you weren't aware - just wanted to clarify given the OP title.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Then there's the Belgic Confession which believes there are only 2 canonical books:

4. Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books...