Who decided which books are in the Bible?
It was recognition, not selection
The usual picture is a committee in a room with a pile of books and a vote. The history is slower and more ordinary. Letters and Gospels circulated, were read aloud in gatherings, copied, and sent on. Over time some were used everywhere and treated as carrying apostolic authority; others were valued but local, or clearly later. By the time anyone drew up an official list, the list mostly described existing practice.
The tests they applied
Three criteria come up again and again in the ancient sources. Was it connected to an apostle or their circle? Was it received broadly, not just by one region or faction? Did it agree with the faith already handed down? Those are the tests that kept out later writings — many second-century gospels fail the first test plainly, being written long after the people whose names they carry.
The dates worth knowing
The Muratorian Fragment, usually dated around 170 AD, already lists most of the New Testament. Athanasius' Easter letter of 367 AD names the 27 books we now have. The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) affirmed that list. Note the order: the list existed in use for generations before the councils, which is the opposite of the story where a council invents it.
Where the genuine arguments were
Some books were debated for a long time — Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation. That debate is recorded; nobody hid it. And the disagreement never fully closed: Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include books Protestant Bibles place outside the canon, and the Ethiopian Orthodox canon is wider still. You can hold that history honestly without concluding the whole thing was arbitrary.
Paul also wrote you... His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.— 2 Peter 3:15–16
You accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God.— 1 Thessalonians 2:13Ask your own question →
Did Constantine choose the books of the Bible?
No. This claim spread through popular fiction rather than history. Constantine convened Nicaea in 325 to address a dispute about Christ's divinity; the canon was not its subject, and lists resembling our New Testament predate him.
Why were the "lost gospels" left out?
Most were written well after the apostolic period — the Gospel of Thomas, Judas and Mary come from the second century or later — so they failed the apostolic test, and several conflict sharply with the earlier material. They were known and rejected, not undiscovered.
Why do Catholic Bibles have more books?
Catholic and Orthodox Bibles include the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1–2 Maccabees and additions). They were in the Greek Old Testament used by early Christians; the Reformers followed the Hebrew canon instead. Both sides have argued it in public for five centuries.
Could a book still be added?
In practice, no. The tests themselves rule it out — nothing new can now be apostolic in origin or already received by the ancient churches.
kinwove's answers are designed never to invent quotes, statistics, or scripture — every Bible reference is verified against the actual text, and where faithful Christians genuinely disagree, we say so.
All questions · kinwove — honest answers to hard faith questions