-The Canon of scripture isn't something that was found, formulated or instituted in the early centuries of the church or by the church but instead it was what had already been devotional to the early Christians as they gathered and copied apostolic instruction from the apostles and eventually ran from area to area to escape persecution.
Early Christians already knew what they had in their possession from the beginning of the collecting of what we now know to be the Christian manuscripts. They knew what was authoritative and what came from the apostles either by their own pen or the pen of those who were instructed by the apostles.
-The Canon of scripture was not created or instituted as authoritative by a church creed or council. Instead, even early church fathers wrote concerning its self-authenticating authority of these books and differentiate them from others with regard to importance and sacredness.
-The authoritativeness of scripture is not only seen in scripture directly (2 Peter 3:16; 1 Timothy 5:18, etc.) but easily perceived by the authoritative writing accounts of the Apostles and those they instructed to write concerning their witness of Christ's commandments and the gospel.
-Long before Emperor Constantine (300's AD), there were a core of (approximately 22 out of 27 books of our NT Canon) which were mentioned among the early patristic church fathers (starting from 101AD) demonstrating their sacred relevance. Among these were the gospels and Paul's epistles.
-Why NOT the apocryphal writings in the NT and OT?
Simply because Protestants wanted to use the Bible (scriptures) that was around during the days of Christ and what He would have used in the OT.
The NT quotes an extraordinary amount of the OT and the NT never quotes from apocryphal texts.
**It was only as a counter-reformation reaction that the Roman Catholic Church decided on their own official Church Canon of scripture.
So, the idea that books at any time were "taken out" of the Canon is a gross misunderstanding of history.
The OT Canon which Jesus followed included The Law, The Prophets and the Psalms, and so these were what needed to be included within a complete Canon of scripture for Protestant Christians.
*** Note that these decisions are ones that are made with a full scope on honoring and making SCRIPTURE exclusively authoritative above and beyond outward tradition, ecclesiastic councils, etc.
Not that apostolic traditional churches have less care or concern over scripture but that nothing FALLIBLE should get in the way of scriptural INFALLIBLE teaching and authority.
DO WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH TO DECIDE WHAT BOOKS ARE IN THE CANON?
-NO. When Jesus told the Jewish leaders, "Have you not read what God said to YOU.." (Concerning David, Moses, the resurrection, the prophets, etc.)
There was an already established OT Canon which was authoritative without an official COUNCIL to establish it other than God Himself.
Therefore, the same thing goes for our NT Canon:
Hebrews 1:1-2 -
"God, having spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds,.."
Which Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament?
The books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted in the NT.
HOWEVER, ALL OT books in the Hebrew Canon were laid up by the Jews in their temple, and so early Protestants wanted to use the official canon which were accepted by the Jews.
*There's an argument that claims that the OT depended upon oral tradition therefore, the NT church also depends upon oral tradition of the NT. But this is not an adequate argument b/c The NT quotes the OT 283 times!
Included therein are the four books of Moses (Torah). So if the OT is inadequate because it depended upon any oral traditions, then the NT can't be reliable either because the reliability of the NT is dependent upon the reliability of the OT.
Thanks for stopping by and God bless!
