Introduction

Welcome to this series on defending the Bible. As Christians, we’re called to practice discernment and to be ready with a thoughtful explanation for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). We should examine the Scriptures to confirm the truth (Acts 17:11) and not be led astray by false doctrine (1 John 4:1). However If we’re going to build our lives on the Word of God, we should be confident that it is reliable.

Our goal is to explore why the Scriptures are trustworthy and how they provide a solid foundation for faith. The goal of arguments concerning the Bible's reliability is not to force belief, but to demonstrate that faith in Jesus and confidence in the Bible are rational.

Icebreaker

"What's something new you learned about the Bible"

Question Of The Week

What about: “Why are some books, such as the gospel of Thomas or the book of Enoch, not included in the Bible? How was it decided which books belong in the Bible and which do not?”

Introduction

This is a great question, and I think it ties into our blind faith vs Biblical Faith theme that we have been following. This really is just a question of Canon

Canon of Scripture:
The canon of Scripture refers to the recognized collection of books that are accepted as divinely inspired and authoritative for Christian faith and practice. The word canon means “rule” or “standard,” and it describes the writings that serve as the measuring standard for doctrine, teaching, and life.

Check out this site I found

https://biblecanon.org/canons/

As you can see, significant differences exist in the canons used by different denominations today. A Protestant Bible typically contains 66 books, a Roman Catholic Bible contains 73 books, and an Eastern Orthodox Bible generally contains 76 to 81 books, depending on the specific Orthodox tradition.

Question: Does the fact that different Christian groups have different Bibles ever cause you doubt?

Three Approaches

Protestant Perspective

Protestants understand the canon as the collection of books that God’s people historically recognized as inspired. The Protestant Bible contains 66 books—39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The OT is the same as the “Hebrew canon (Tanakh)”. The early church studied which writings were widely read, taught, and preserved, treating these as authoritative because they bore clear evidence of God’s revelation. Authority is seen as resting in God’s Word itself and in the discernment of God’s people, rather than in a single human institution.

Protestant Challenge:

1. The primary challenge Protestants face the historical charge that they removed books (the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha) that had been used liturgically by church consoles in other traditions, they are accused of making their own canon in the Reformation.
2. How can they claim an infallible Bible without an infallible church or person to define it. Since the Bible does not list its own contents, you have to leave sola scriptura and go with an "unbiblical" tradition to establish which books constitute the Bible.

Catholic View

Catholics accept additional Old Testament books, often called the Deuterocanonical books, bringing the total Bible to 73 books. Catholics rely on the authority of church tradition and councils to define the canon. Councils such as the Synod of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442 AD) affirmed these books, and the Council of Trent (1546) dogmatized the canon, declaring anathema on anyone who rejected them. From the Catholic perspective, the church—guided by the Holy Spirit—has the authority to definitively identify the canon.

Catholic Challenge:

1. They run into a “infinite regress” problem that can create an endless chain of “who validates whom,”.
   • If an infallible church is needed to identify the infallible Bible, how do we know the church is infallible? To recognize an infallible church authority (like the Magisterium or Ecumenical Councils), one needs an infallible standard to identify that authority. This can lead to an endless chain of authorities. For example there’s no perfectly clear list of which papal statements are ex cathedra (infallible).
   • Even if an authority explains Scripture, each person still has to understand that explanation. For example, when the Pope makes a statement, clarifications are often needed because people interpret it differently. So, the “interpreter” also requires interpretation.
2. If you claim the Church is infallible because the Bible says so, and the Bible is infallible because the Church says so, the logic is circular.
3. Before the Council of Trent (1546), there was widespread use of the Deuterocanonical books but no universally binding, infallible definition of the Old Testament canon for the entire church. Trent’s decree—issued in response to the Reformation—was the first time the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settled the canon for all believers.

Orthodox View

The Orthodox canon is rooted in the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the exact number of books varies by tradition. The Greek Orthodox Bible generally contains 76 books, while some other traditions like the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible may include up to 81 books. Authority is understood to reside in the life and witness of the historic church rather than in a single definitive council.

Orthodox Challenge:

1. There is no completely uniform canon across Orthodox traditions. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes books like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which are not accepted by Greek or Russian Orthodox churches. Historical lists from early Eastern fathers, often matched the shorter Hebrew canon rather than the modern Orthodox canon.

Question: Which approach to the canon makes the most sense to you personally, and why?

So What Is The Main Issue

Most debates about the canon ultimately come down to Authority, affecting Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox in different ways. The key idea is the difference between creating truth and recognizing truth. At the center of the disagreement is whether the church creates the canon or recognizes the canon and who has the Authority to declare it?.

Scripture is authoritative because God spoke. When God spoke through Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, His words carried divine authority immediately and inherently. That authority did not wait for a council, a bishop, or a later church decision to become true.

The role of the church, therefore, is not to determine which books become Scripture, but to recognize and receive the books God has already given. Just as Newton did not create gravity but identified what already existed, the church did not create the canon—it acknowledged the writings through which God had already spoken.

So Lets do that

1. Moses, and The First Books of The Bible

So let’s start with Moses.

So we know Moses was confirmed by sign and God himself. But we don't just have Moses making the claim, God came down publicly in all His glory and gave the law to Israel.

The New Testament talks about this event as well. Stephen condemns Israel for receiving the law “by the direction of angels” and failing to keep it (Acts 7:53). Paul says the law “was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator” (Galatians 3:19).

We know Moses was from God because God openly and repeatedly authenticated him. Moses was validated through overwhelming signs and wonders: the plagues in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, water from the rock, manna from heaven. God did not merely send Moses; God Himself visibly accompanied Israel for forty years in the pillar of cloud and fire.

Then, at Mount Sinai, God formally gave the Law. The mountain shook. God spoke audibly and this Law was delivered through angels. This was a public, historical event witnessed by an entire nation.

At some point, the question almost becomes rhetorical: how many miracles, signs, and divine interventions does it take to know something is from God? By any reasonable standard, Moses passes that test decisively.

Because of that, the five books written by Moses are Scripture immediately. Not because Israel voted on them. Not because a later group compiled them. But because they came directly from God through a divinely authenticated mediator. Their authority is intrinsic.

The Pattern Continues: The Prophets

This same logic continues with the rest of the Old Testament prophets.

The prophets did not invent a new standard of authority; they followed the Mosaic pattern. A true prophet was someone God personally called, commissioned, and authenticated. Their authority rested on one question alone: did God speak through them?

Question: "Ready Deuteronomy 18:22, Jeremiah 28:9 or 1 Samuel 3:19-20, what was the test to know If God used a prophet?"

That’s why Scripture gives an objective test. If a prophet spoke in the name of the Lord and what he said did not happen, then God had not spoken. But if it did come to pass, it confirmed that the message was from God. The authority was not granted afterward—it was demonstrated in history.

So from Moses onward, Scripture grows organically as God continues to speak. Each prophet stands in continuity with what came before, adding nothing of human origin, only what God Himself revealed.

Jewish Canon

This is how the Jewish canon formed, it is traditionally divided into three sections: the Torah (the Law/Pentateuch), the Nevi’im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim (the Writings). This tripartite collection is often referred to by the acronym Tanakh (or TaNaK).

They correspond to the 39 books found in the Protestant Old Testament, Jewish tradition counts them as either 22 or 24 books because they would group certain texts together:
• The Twelve Minor Prophets are counted as a single book.
• Double books (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles) are reckoned as single books.
• Ezra and Nehemiah are combined into one book.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus explicitly states that the Jews did not have "myriads of inconsistent books," but only twenty-two books that contain the record of all time. The Jews said many times that their canon as stretched from Moses to the end of the prophets in the reign of Artaxerxes (c. 450 BC). They wrote the Apocrypha at this time, but they were "not judged worthy of the same trust" because the "exact succession of prophets" had ceased. Even the The book of 1 Maccabees (a Deuterocanonical book) itself admits that it was written during a time of great distress "since the time when the prophets ceased to appear among them". Philo, a first-century Jewish scholar who lived in Egypt and used the Greek Bible, quoted extensively from the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, yet he never once quoted from the Apocryphal books.

For more examples of why they were not considered scripture, the book of Tobit teaches that almsgiving (giving to the poor) atones for sin and saves a person from death, which contradicts the biblical teaching on atonement. Additionally, the books contain historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms that undermine their reliability. Many early church fathers, including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius, spoke against them. Jerome, the great translator of the Latin Vulgate (c. AD 340–420), explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as non-canonical, stating the church reads them for example but not to establish doctrine.

1. The Original Septuagint (LXX) was Only the Torah

It is a common misconception that the "Septuagint" was a single volume containing the entire Greek Old Testament plus the Apocrypha produced all at once. The name "Septuagint" (meaning seventy) and its abbreviation "LXX" derive from the Letter of Aristeas, which describes a legend in which 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew law into Greek in 72 days for the library of King Ptolemy II. This original translation project, datable to around 280 BC, consisted only of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The term was originally attached strictly to these Mosaic books,. The translation of the Prophets and Writings happened gradually over the following centuries by different people in different places, without the unified authority of the original "seventy",.

No as for those extra books of the Bible that started this weeks study. Wouldn't it be nice if God just came down and told us which ones were the correct one?

Jesus: Affirming the Canon and Claiming Its Authority

When Jesus steps onto the scene, He does not treat Scripture as open-ended or undefined. He consistently appeals to a known body of writings and holds His audience accountable to it.

Some one read Matthew 23:35 and Luke 24:44

Jesus defines the boundaries of Scripture Himself. In Matthew 23:35, He refers to the blood of the righteous “from Abel to Zechariah.” Abel appears in Genesis, and Zechariah appears at the end of Chronicles. Jesus is effectively referencing the entire canon, from beginning to end. He is not expanding it, questioning it, or redefining it—He is assuming it. He does the same thing in Luke 24:44, when He speaks of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms”. That is the threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus treats this collection as settled, authoritative, and binding. He never appeals to later writings, traditions, or disputed books as Scripture. His disputes are never about what Scripture is, only about how it has been understood.

In His disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus never debates which books are Scripture. The disagreement is always about how Scripture is interpreted.

In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, He rebukes the religious leaders for allowing human tradition to override the written Word of God. Jesus said the Word of God is the highest authority.

In John 10:35, He states plainly that “Scripture cannot be broken.” After His resurrection, Jesus explains His mission by interpreting “all the Scriptures” as pointing to His suffering and glory (Luke 24).

The author of Hebrews asks how anyone can escape if they neglect a salvation that surpasses “the word spoken through angels.”

Question: What Sign did Jesus do to Prove He can define Scripture?

Just as with Moses, Jesus’ authority is confirmed by signs. He heals the sick, raises the dead, commands nature, casts out demons, and ultimately rises from the dead.

The logic remains consistent: God confirms His authorized messenger publicly.

The Apostles: Authorized Witnesses Confirmed by Signs

The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes that the apostles are not self-appointed teachers. Acts describes them as men chosen by Christ, eyewitnesses of His resurrection, and men through whom God worked signs and wonders. his is based on the “pre-authentication” passages where Christ authorized the apostles to write scripture in advance (Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:13).

After His resurrection, Jesus authorizes witnesss commissions the apostles to speak in His name and promises them that the Holy Spirit will remind them of everything He said and guide them into truth.

Paul explicitly refers to “the signs of a true apostle”—miracles, mighty works, and the power of God.

This is the same pattern again:

• Moses was confirmed by signs.
• Jesus was confirmed by signs.
• The apostles are confirmed by signs.

That is why their writings carry authority. When the apostles write; they are delivering authorized testimony to what Christ did and taught. That is also why writings connected to apostolic witnesses—such as Mark or Luke—were received, because they were authorized by Peter and Paul.

The authority does not come from the church. The authority comes from Christ, who authorized the apostles, and from God, who confirmed them by signs. Scripture is accepted for one reason, consistently from beginning to end: it is from God.

Quick Test: Is a Book Scripture?

• From God: Was it spoken or inspired by God?
  • Authorized Messenger: Delivered by someone God confirmed—Moses, a prophet, Jesus, or an apostle. To be apostolic, a book had to be written during the apostolic age (the first century). Most scholars agree the New Testament books were written between AD 50 and AD 100.
  • Confirmed by Signs or Fulfillment: Miracles, wonders, or fulfilled prophecy show God’s hand.
• Consistent with God’s Word: Fits with previous revelation; does not contradict it (If it says Jesus is not human/God or that the God of the OT is evil, the answer is no).
  • The Gospel of Thomas was excluded partly because it contained pantheistic statements (e.g., "Split wood; I am there") and teachings that contradicted the canonical Gospels. Similarly, the Gospel of Peter was rejected because of its Docetic leanings (the heresy that Jesus only appeared to be human).
  • God cannot contradict Himself; therefore, a book claiming to be the Word of God cannot contain false claims or contradict established truth.
• Recognized by Jesus and the Church: Affirmed by Christ or acknowledged historically by God’s people. The early church fathers believed the Word of God was "living and active" (Hebrews 4:12).
  • If a book did not possess the power to transform lives for edification and evangelization, it was not viewed as having the stamp of God. (If it was only used by a specific sect in Egypt, the answer is no).
  • Justin Martyr (c. AD 150) notes that the "memoirs of the apostles" (the Gospels) were read in services alongside the prophets.
• Rejection of Late Writings: The Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Judas or Gospel of Mary) and other apocryphal works were written in the second century or later—too late to be written by eyewitnesses. For example, the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected from the canon because it was written "recently" (in the second century), long after the apostolic age had closed.

As Bruce Metzger concluded, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. The authority was in the documents before the list was ever drawn up.

Bruce Metzger notes that the canon was a result of the "survival of the fittest." The books that proved themselves authoritative in the lives of believers were the ones preserved and copied. The "fringe" books that enjoyed only local or temporary popularity eventually fell away.