Board index ‹ Bible

[Mountain Man]

When was the New Testament added to the Old Testament to form the Bible that we know today? Who composed it? What is the difference in the catholic Bible and the KJV of the Bible?

[jimwalton]

The Gospels and epistles of Paul were recognized as authoritative when they were written. Various lists, few as they are, have different collections of books.

• Eusebius (AD 300) include 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles, 1 Peter, 1 Jn., Rev.
• Codex Vaticanus (300): 39 OT books, Apocrypha, 22 books of the NT (missing 1 & 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and Rev.)
• Codex Sinaiticus (330): OT segments, 7 apocryphal books, the 27 books of the NT as we have them today, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd, by Hermas
• Athanasius (367): the 27 books as we have them today. Africanus and Melito of Sardis also opposed the inclusion of the Apocryphal books.
• Jerome's Vulgate (382): The 66 books of the Bible as we have them today
• Council of Rome (382): The 39 books of the OT, the books of the Apocrypha and the 27 books of the NT. The Synod of Rome added the books to the Vulgate over Jerome’s objections.
• Council of Hippo (393): The 27 books of the NT as we have them today plus 6 books of the Apocrypha

And so on. The Gospels and letters of Paul were never in dispute. Some of the General Epistles were occasionally in dispute. The books of the Apocrypha have always been disputed.

> Who composed it?

I believe the NT was composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and an anonymous writer (Hebrews).

> What is the difference in the catholic Bible and the KJV of the Bible?

When the KJV was published in 1611, there was no difference. The KJV included the books of the Apocrypha as a placating nod to the pope, but those books were removed in the late 19th century.

[Mountain Man]

This detailed breakdown was very insightful! When I meant composed, I was referring to the books themself as a whole becoming the New Testament. Thank you so much! This gave me a good start to do some research.

[What's Up Doc]

Not saying you’re wrong or right, but the view that Matthew Mark Luke etc wrote the books traditionally ascribed to them is definitely not in line with what scholars think. Like I said, without getting into who is correct, it would be useful to look at why each side believes what they believe.

[jimwalton]

Oh, I'm WELL aware what the scholars think, and I, as a scholar, disagree with them on the basis of my research and study.

> without getting into who is correct, it would be useful to look at why each side believes what they believe.

There's always value in studying a subject from every angle and from considering every viewpoint. That's how we learn, weigh, and decide.

[What's Up Doc]

I should have clarified, I was making this suggestion to Mountain Man, the original poster, but it still stands. And good to hear about your research. Not enough people, myself being a prime example, consider the other side’s views on some really important subjects. I agree, it’s a great way to learn and grow. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, and until relatively recently thought everyone agreed, with good reason, on things like biblical authorship. I thought everyone agreed that Moses, Daniel, Matthew, Paul etc all wrote the books traditionally attributed to them, and anyone disagreeing wasn’t doing so in good faith. Now I see that is very much not the case, but have also come to appreciate that learning other peoples views has given me a fuller, richer understanding of the Bible that simply wasn’t possible in my previous understanding.