Why Sixty-Six Books? The Development of the Canon: Why We Trust the Bible with Stephen Nichols

Throughout history, some have questioned the Bible’s authority based on concerns about how its sixty-six books were recognized and compiled. Why are these specific books included in the Bible and not others? Who made these important decisions? In this message, Stephen Nichols explains the development of the canon of Scripture.

[EvieBear]

If commenters would listen to Dr. Nichols' whole series on this subject you would have a lot of your questions answered. He is a church historian and has a wealth of information to share. Other good sources are Dr. Robert Godfrey, Voddie Baucham, RC Sproul.

[kamii]

The Church did recognize Athanasius' list of NT canon at the Councils of Rome(called by Pope Damusus in 382AD), Synod of Hippo(393AD), and Carthage(397AD, 419AD). Those same councils did not affirm the Protestant OT canon, in fact those councils included books that Protestants would remove over a thousand years later. He keeps saying the Church recognized the canon, I wonder what Church that is? The Bishops he references; Polycarp, Irenaeus, Athanasius are all Catholic Bishops.

[aussiebloke]

Very disappointing discussion on the OT Canon. 1st century writers quoted the Septuagint which included the deutercanonical books. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews includes a reference to the torture of the seven sons in Maccebees.The Letter of Jude quotes the book of Enoch which is part of the canon of the Ethiopian church.
There has never been a whole church (ie, western, eastern, oriental) council listing the OT Canon.
Even though their status has been varied, the deutercanonical books were included in the Authorised Version of 1611( KJV ) and only omitted in the 1800 by US publishers to save printing costs.

[david_porthouse]

Codex Amiatinus has 72 books. Add Baruch, and we have the 73 books of the Gutenberg Bible. Then Luther shunts 7 books into his “Apocrypha”. Then the 7 books are deleted in the 1820s to save money. Then Protestants announce that the Bible always had 66 books, and 7 books were added by the Council of Trent.

The Didache is worth a read. It condemns abortion, and advises saying the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.

[mikesturm]

But the talk never resolved the controversy of 39 vs 44 books in the Old Testament??? For example, how can the Council of Carthage be identified as recognizing the true New Testament Canon, but not be cited as an authority in recognizing the Old Testament canon as including the debated books??? Still seems apparent to me that the Reformation did indeed drop these books that were otherwise long recognized.

[zacharyleblanc]

To make a charitable statement to anyone who watched this video. This is not a good example of how the Catholic Church or how Protestants got there canon. The OT was not the Protestant 39, J.N.D Kelly (Protestant historian) says, ”the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive…It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Church Doctrines, 53).
The early church always had a bigger OT. And had regional councils in 393, 397, and 419 all affirming the Catholic Canon of scripture. Protestants later adopted the Hebrew mesoretic text in the 1500’s.

[michaeljefferies]

Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that he said he would address the question of where the 7 extra books came from, but then he never did. He said they were “added much later”.

For those interested in the question, they would probably be interested to know that the Council of Carthage in the 390s that he mentioned as recognizing the New Testament, and apparently settling the question there, that same council recognized the 7 deuterocanonical books (also called apocryphal) as being part of the Old Testament.

So if it’s not too late to recognize the New Testament, it’s not too late to recognize the Old Testament. These books were always part of Christian Bibles, and it’s a problem that they aren’t in most Protestant bibles today.

[justfromcatholic]

There is no single verse in the Bible that informs us how many and which books belong to the Scripture. We need external authority to decide that. Dr.Nichols try to diminish the role of the Church by using the verb "to recognize", instead of "to establish". But even using the verb "to recognize" we still need to know who is entitled to recognize which books and how many of them belong to Scripture. The first Christians unanimously agree on scriptural status of 38 books of OT and 20 books of NT. The status of Esther and apocryphal books were disputed and so were 7 books of NT (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). While citing statement of Melito, bishop of Sardis, Dr. Nichols did not tell his audience that Melito's list of OT does not include Esther and includes Wisdom. When Luther made his German translation of NT he intentionally placed four books (James, Jude, hebrews and Revelation) as appendix or they are inferior to the other twenty three books.

[Sennen]

Another one who
1. Skirts around any discussion of the Septuagint and the deutero canonical books and its historical relevance before, during and after Christ
2. Barely mentions historical details/facts regarding Council of Rome & Pope Damasus and the reaffirmation of its declarations at Carthage and Hippo establishing the canon for over a millenia before the reformation

[cliffmorganekitson]

I've read through several Catholic councils, such as the council of Rome, the council of Trent, Vatican I and II, and I didn't find the word "established" anywhere 🤔 Could I know where you found it?

[JudeMichaelPeterson]

The criteria of acceptance is a true criteria, but it was called Tradition. They appealed to Tradition for what was and was not scripture because the Apostle Paul had commanded them to hold fast to Traditions taught by Jesus and the Apostles. In other words, the early Church saw Tradition as a valid source for establishing doctrine, not scripture alone. This is clearest in how they used Tradition to affirm which books were and were not legitimate. If you accept sola scriptura, this entire argument falls apart with the canon.

[nics]

I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help.

[martyshrader]

Melito of Sardis left Esther out of the OT Canon, it was his opinion and not authoritative. This is why the church councils were essential, to establish the truth, based on the broader church authority and not one or a few persons opinions. And the councils were the continuation of the first council in Acts concerning circumcision. The general rules of a church council as established in Acts include: anecdotal evidence, Scripture, some reasonable arguments, and finally ‘what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and them’ (apostles). This is the foundation for future church councils. The church only had councils in response to heresies, schisms, serious problems that were troubling the broader congregation. The Canon was defined in the 4th century, confirming what had been filtering through previous centuries to the last apostle and included the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha for Protestants). The proof of this is obvious; the Orthodox Church has the same Canon as the Catholic Church, although they split 5-6 centuries later. The canon was already established. Then in 1500’s along comes a few people who question the established Bible, thus the council of Trent is tasked with reaffirming the Bible to reassure the church that they do in deed have the word of God. This is the Bible. I am a Protestant but reject Luther, Calvin, and a few others regarding their attempt to thwart scripture. The fact that my people reject the historical record is convincing me to cross the Tiber. Time will tell.

[MasterKeyMagic]

90% of the time when Jesus quotes the OT, he's referencing the Septuagint, not the masoretic that the jews after 150AD would canonize that the protestant bible is based on. Which means Jesus knew about the DC and did not reject them. he even references them, as do other NT books. 100% of the Church fathers, who determined the canon, accepted them as canon and reject every doctrine of all forms of protestantism. especially calvinism.

[thomasnorton]

Why 66 books? Because the Apocrypha isn't inspired.

1- Jesus summarised the OT canon as "The Law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44)
2- Nowhere in the NT does it say "As it is written" and then goes on to quote the Apocrypha
3- Church Fathers like Athanasius and Jerome did not view them as inspired
4- Rome only affirmed them as inspired in 1546 as a kneejerk reaction to the Reformation.

Conclusion - The Apocrypha DOES NOT belong in Holy Scripture. The Bible contains only 66 books

[Oak]

This is great! I just had one question at 15:31. How did Paul quote the Gospels regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11 when it’s widely accepted that 1 Cor was written before the Gospels?

[coreyfleig]

Michael Kruger's books on canon are a great resource. Nichols has a kind heart, but its a shame he addresses adults as if they were junior highers. Nonetheless, Im grateful for his work.

[bootgrease]

Thanks human, I don’t know who you are but I appreciate your expounding on the subject of canonization.
Question: what do you consider the apocryphal books to be and when and where did they come from? My wife is Armenian and she grew up reading them in her Bible and we’re both struggling to understand their origins.

[davidkinnon]

At what point did Jewish scholars within Judaism recoginse the OT canon? Isn't that the important question here?

[kimberlywilliams]

"We're accepting as canon what is accepted as canon" Sounds circular, but is, in fact....circular.