The doctrine of the Table of Contents

[historia]

Consider this quote from Douglas Wilson, in "A Severed Branch," Credenda Agenda vol 12, iss. 1 (2012):

The problem with contemporary Protestants is that they have no doctrine of the Table of Contents. With the approach that is popular in conservative evangelical circles, one simply comes to the Bible by means of an epistemological lurch. The Bible "just is," and any questions about how it got here are dismissed as a nuisance. But time passes, the questions remain unanswered, the silence becomes awkward, and conversions of thoughtful evangelicals to Rome proceed apace.

In this thread I want to explore a few questions:

1. When did you personally decide which books should be in the Bible and which ones shouldn't?

2. If the answer to the first question is that you didn't personally make that decision, then who made that decision for you, and what authority did they have to make that decision?

3. If you don't know the answer to the second question, or your answer is uncertain, then how can you be certain that your Bible isn't missing books that should be there or, conversely, contains books that shouldn't be there?

[Bible_Student]

The specific texts acknowledged as part of what has been termed the "canon" and deemed inspired by God have consistently been recognized in various ways, though with some variations.

During the first century, the Hebrew-Aramaic canon was already established, categorized into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (or the Writings). While the divisions differ from today's structure, the same texts found in the modern Old Testament are present, excluding those historically regarded as apocryphal.

As for the Greek canon, in the first century, there were discernible methods to determine when a newly created writing was genuinely inspired by God and held "divine significance." The biblical method involved a gift from the holy spirit during that era (akin to the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and others). This gift, termed "recognition of spirits," empowered individuals to discern whether an expression claimed to be inspired was indeed so, which included assessing circulating letters and gospels of questionable origin.

Subsequently, Catholics inherited earlier lists that they preserved. While new catalogs contained some texts of uncertain origin, they were never regarded in the same light as the other accepted writings.

Over time, uncertainties emerged regarding certain texts already acknowledged as inspired. New methods were then discovered to reassess these texts, particularly those of dubious status. The guiding principle, which remains relevant today, involves investigating both authorship and content.

For instance, concerning content, it is reasonable to conclude that a book inspired by the same spirit that inspired the originals would not present subtle invitations to engage in actions deemed disapproved by God in older inspired writtings... such as witchcraft. Additionally, they would not include fantastical accounts that starkly contrast with the divine miracles already documented, such as narrating an event where a dragon flies and breathes fire as a factual occurrence. This also encompasses stories that are historically proven to not align with the period in which they are said to occur, i.e. chronologically inaccurate.

There is no basis for doubting that the 66 books accepted as inspired today by the majority of biblical scholars and Christian tradition are indeed part of the canon of divinely inspired writings.

[historia]

[Replying to Bible_Student in post #2]

You offered a number of assertions in your post, but didn't cite any evidence or scholarship to back them up.

For example, you said:

During the first century, the Hebrew-Aramaic canon was already established, categorized into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (or the Writings).

The historical evidence doesn't really support this conclusion. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on biblical literature (to choose one of many examples here) notes that, well beyond the first century, rabbinic Jews were still debating the canonical status of some of the books in the ketuvim, or Writings:

Rabbinic sources betray some hesitation about Esther and a decided ambivalence about the book of Ben Sira. A third-generation Babylonian amora (rabbinic interpretive scholar; plural amoraim) actually cites it as "Ketuvim," as opposed to Torah and Prophets, and in the mid-2nd century CE the need to deny its canonicity and prohibit its reading was still felt. Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinic scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.

This, coupled with the fact that the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls include a number of texts that the Rabbis ultimately rejected, indicates rather strongly that there was no fixed Jewish canon in the first century.

This brings us back to the questions I asked in the OP, which you didn't really answer:

1. When did you personally decide which books should be in the Bible and which ones shouldn't?

2. If the answer to the first question is that you didn't personally make that decision, then who made that decision for you, and what authority did they have to make that decision?

Since I take it you didn't personally decide which books should be part of the Bible and which ones shouldn't, who made that decision for you? And, this should go without saying, but perhaps I should add: What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?