How We Got the Canon

What you'll learn

Explain the Old Testament canon as Jesus received it, using Luke 24:44 and other evidence.
Describe the criteria and historical milestones of New Testament canon recognition, including the Muratorian fragment and Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter.
Defend the claim that the church recognised rather than created the canon and give the Protestant view of the Apocrypha.

What is the canon?

The word canon comes from a Greek word for a measuring rod or rule. The biblical canon is the collection of books recognised as inspired Scripture and therefore the rule for faith and life. Protestants recognise 66 books: 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. (You met the canon briefly in Know Your Faith, Lesson 1; here you learn the history well enough to defend it.)

A popular myth says that the Council of Nicaea in 325, under Emperor Constantine, voted on which books went into the Bible. This is false. Nicaea dealt with the deity of Christ against Arius and with the date of Easter; it issued no list of biblical books. The real story is slower, more organic and more interesting.

What does the word canon mean, and how would you correct the popular myth about the Council of Nicaea?Show answer

Canon comes from a Greek word for a measuring rod or rule; the biblical canon is the collection of books recognised as inspired Scripture and therefore the rule for faith and life. The myth says Nicaea in 325, under Constantine, voted on which books went into the Bible, but this is false. Nicaea dealt with the deity of Christ against Arius and with the date of Easter, and it issued no list of biblical books.

canon = measuring rod, rule
66 books recognised
Nicaea: Arius and Easter
no list of books

The Old Testament Jesus received

Jesus did not leave his followers guessing about the Old Testament. He spoke of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), matching the threefold Jewish division of the Hebrew Bible: Law (Torah), Prophets and Writings, with Psalms as the largest and often first-listed book of the Writings. He spoke of the blood of the prophets “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Luke 11:51; Matt 23:35), likely spanning Genesis to 2 Chronicles, the first and last books in the traditional Hebrew order.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Against Apion 1.37-43) describes a fixed collection of 22 books, counted differently from our 39 but generally understood to contain the same content, and says no one had dared to add to or remove from them. Paul says the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). So the Protestant Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible Jesus and the apostles used and quoted as authoritative.

Which texts show that Jesus received a defined Old Testament, and how do they match the Protestant Old Testament?Show answer

Jesus spoke of "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44), matching the threefold Jewish division of the Hebrew Bible. His phrase "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Luke 11:51) likely spans Genesis to 2 Chronicles, the first and last books in the traditional Hebrew order. Josephus describes a fixed collection of 22 books, generally understood to contain the same content as our 39, so the Protestant Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible Jesus and the apostles used.

Law, Prophets, Psalms (Luke 24:44)
Abel to Zechariah
Josephus: fixed 22 books
same content as our 39

The New Testament: recognition over time

From the start, the apostles' writings were treated as authoritative. Peter places Paul's letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16), and Paul quotes as Scripture, alongside Deuteronomy 25:4, a saying of Jesus that matches Luke 10:7 word for word (1 Tim 5:18), quite possibly citing Luke's Gospel itself. By the second century, the four Gospels and Paul's letters were widely read in worship. Irenaeus of Lyon, around 180, defended exactly four Gospels.

The Muratorian fragment, a Latin list discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori and published in 1740, is usually dated to the late second century, though some scholars argue for the fourth. It lists most of our New Testament, rejects the Shepherd of Hermas for public reading because it was written recently, and rejects writings associated with heretics. It shows an early church carefully distinguishing apostolic from later books.

In AD 367 Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sent his 39th Festal Letter, the annual Easter letter to his churches. It contains the first surviving list of exactly our 27 New Testament books, and he calls them fountains of salvation to which no one should add or take away. Regional councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) affirmed the same 27.

What evidence shows the apostles' writings were treated as authoritative from the very beginning?Show answer

Peter places Paul's letters alongside "the other Scriptures" (2 Pet 3:16). Paul quotes as Scripture, alongside Deuteronomy 25:4, a saying of Jesus that matches Luke 10:7 word for word (1 Tim 5:18). By the second century the four Gospels and Paul's letters were widely read in worship, and Irenaeus around 180 defended exactly four Gospels.

2 Pet 3:16
1 Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7
Gospels and Paul read in worship
Irenaeus: four Gospels

Explain the significance of the Muratorian fragment and Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter.Show answer

The Muratorian fragment, usually dated to the late second century, lists most of our New Testament, rejects the Shepherd of Hermas for public reading because it was recent, and rejects writings linked with heretics, showing the early church carefully distinguished apostolic from later books. In AD 367 Athanasius' Festal Letter gave the first surviving list of exactly our 27 books, calling them fountains of salvation to which no one should add or take away. The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) affirmed the same 27.

Muratorian: most of NT, rejects Hermas
careful distinction
Athanasius 367: exactly 27
Hippo and Carthage affirmed

Criteria for recognition

Historians commonly identify the first three marks below as what the early church looked for; Reformed theologians, following the Westminster Confession (1.5) and scholars such as Michael Kruger, stress the fourth. None of these were hoops a book had to jump through to become Scripture; they were ways of recognising what God had already given.

Apostolicity: written by an apostle or a close associate (Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul), within the apostolic era.
Orthodoxy: consistent with the rule of faith, the core apostolic teaching already received, and with the Old Testament.
Catholicity (universal use): widely received and read across the churches, not just in one region or sect.
Self-attestation: the divine qualities of the book itself, its power, harmony and Christ-centredness, through which the Spirit testifies that it is God's word.

Why does the section say the criteria were not "hoops" a book had to jump through? Briefly explain two of the criteria.Show answer

The criteria were not ways a book became Scripture but ways the church recognised what God had already given. Apostolicity means a book was written by an apostle or close associate, like Mark with Peter or Luke with Paul, within the apostolic era. Self-attestation means the book itself shows divine qualities, its power, harmony and Christ-centredness, through which the Spirit testifies that it is God's word; orthodoxy and catholicity (wide use across the churches) are the other marks.

recognising, not making Scripture
apostolicity
orthodoxy / catholicity
self-attestation

Recognised, not created

Did the church create the canon? Reformed theologians answer no. God's word carries authority because God spoke it, not because a council voted. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27). The church is like a jeweller who recognises gold; the jeweller does not make the gold valuable. Michael Kruger calls this the self-authenticating model of the canon: the books bear divine qualities, were given through apostles, and were corporately received by the church, all under God's providence.

This also explains why the process was gradual. In the early fourth century the church historian Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.25) sorted books into those recognised everywhere and those disputed yet known to most, naming James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John among the latter. These and a few others, such as Hebrews and Revelation, took longer to be universally received, partly because some were short or circulated less widely, and some raised questions about authorship. Yet the core of the New Testament, the Gospels and Paul's letters, was settled very early, and no council ever overturned the consensus that emerged.

Roman Catholic theology agrees the canon is inspired, but holds that the church's authority definitively identifies it (see the Council of Trent, Session 4, 1546). Protestants argue that if the church's authority is needed to know Scripture, the church becomes the higher authority; instead, the church is the servant and witness of Scripture.

Explain the jeweller illustration and what it teaches about the church's role in the canon.Show answer

The church is like a jeweller who recognises gold but does not make the gold valuable. In the same way, God's word has authority because God spoke it, not because a council voted, and Jesus said his sheep hear his voice (John 10:27). Michael Kruger calls this the self-authenticating model: the books bear divine qualities, came through apostles and were corporately received by the church under God's providence.

jeweller recognises gold
authority from God, not council
John 10:27
Kruger: self-authenticating

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view of the church's authority in identifying the canon?Show answer

Roman Catholic theology agrees the canon is inspired but holds that the church's authority definitively identifies it, as stated at the Council of Trent in 1546. Protestants reply that if the church's authority is needed to know Scripture, the church becomes the higher authority. Instead, Protestants see the church as the servant and witness of Scripture.

Catholic: church definitively identifies (Trent)
Protestant: church would become higher
church as servant and witness

The Apocrypha: a Protestant view

The Apocrypha (Catholics call most of these books deuterocanonical) includes works like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther and Daniel. They were included in many copies of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and are valued historically. Trent declared them canonical in 1546.

Protestants do not accept them as Scripture for several reasons: they were not part of the Hebrew canon Jesus and Josephus affirmed; Jesus and the apostles never quote them as Scripture; 1 Maccabees itself notes a time when prophets had ceased (1 Macc 9:27); and early scholars like Jerome distinguished them from the canonical books. The Westminster Confession (1.3) says they are “no part of the canon of the Scripture” and are to be used only as other human writings. Luther gathered them into a separate section of his German Bible, describing them as books not equal to Holy Scripture but useful and good to read, and the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles (Article 6) allow them to be read for example of life and instruction in conduct, but not to establish any doctrine.

Give three reasons Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture.Show answer

The Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew canon that Jesus and Josephus affirmed, and Jesus and the apostles never quote these books as Scripture. 1 Maccabees itself notes a time when prophets had ceased (1 Macc 9:27), and early scholars like Jerome distinguished these books from the canonical ones. So the Westminster Confession says they are no part of the canon, though Luther called them useful and good to read, and the Thirty-Nine Articles allow them to be read for example of life but not to establish doctrine.

not in Hebrew canon
never quoted as Scripture
1 Macc 9:27; Jerome
read for example, not doctrine

In their own words

“The Church, by her authority, has defined the canon of Scripture, and the deuterocanonical books are sacred and canonical.” (Council of Trent, Session 4 (1546), Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures; CCC 120)

“It was by apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.” (CCC 120)

Key texts

Luke 24:44: Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, the threefold Hebrew canon he endorsed.
Matthew 23:35: From Abel to Zechariah likely spans the whole Hebrew canon from Genesis to Chronicles.
Romans 3:2: The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, supporting the Hebrew Old Testament canon.
2 Peter 3:15-16: Paul's letters are already classed with “the other Scriptures” in the apostolic era.
1 Timothy 5:18: Paul cites as Scripture, alongside Deuteronomy 25:4, words that match Luke 10:7, suggesting New Testament writings were recognised early.
John 10:27: Christ's sheep hear his voice; the theological basis for the church recognising rather than creating Scripture.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“The Council of Nicaea chose the books of the Bible, and Constantine suppressed the others.”Show a response

This claim is popular, partly thanks to novels like The Da Vinci Code, but it has no historical basis. The Council of Nicaea in 325 addressed the Arian controversy over Christ's deity and the date of Easter; its records contain no list of biblical books. The core of the New Testament, the four Gospels and Paul's letters, was already widely recognised by the late second century, as Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment show. The first list of exactly our 27 books comes from Athanasius in 367, decades after Nicaea, and Athanasius was a bishop writing to his churches, not an emperor issuing decrees. The canon emerged through the churches' long use of apostolic writings, not a single political decision.

“You Protestants depend on the Catholic Church for your Bible. Without the church's authority you can't know which books belong.”Show a response

Israel recognised the Old Testament canon without an infallible magisterium, and Jesus held people responsible for knowing Scripture (Matt 22:29-31). So knowing God's word does not require an infallible church. The early church did recognise the New Testament books, but recognising is not creating. A child can recognise her father's voice without giving him authority. Also, the fourth-century church that affirmed the 27 books was not the Roman Catholic Church as defined by Trent; Trent's formal canon decree came in 1546. Protestants gladly receive the church's historical witness as a real but fallible testimony. Our certainty ultimately rests on God, who speaks in his word and by his Spirit opens our eyes to it (WCF 1.4-1.5).

“What about the lost gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas? Weren't they unfairly excluded?”Show a response

These works were not lost by accident; they were rejected because they lacked apostolic origin and contradicted apostolic teaching. Most scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to the second century (a minority argue for an earlier core), and the Gospel of Judas to the mid to late second century, well after the canonical Gospels. They also reflect a different theology, often Gnostic, which taught that salvation comes through secret knowledge and that the material world is bad. Irenaeus, writing around 180, already knew of a Gospel of Judas and rejected it. Read side by side with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which are rooted in Jewish history and eyewitness testimony, the difference is obvious. The church was not suppressing equals; it was distinguishing originals from later imitations.

“The Apocrypha was in the early Christian Bibles, so Protestants removed books from Scripture.”Show a response

The Apocrypha did appear in many manuscripts of the Septuagint, and some church fathers quoted it. But appearing in a codex is not the same as being regarded as canonical; Codex Sinaiticus also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which no church accepts as Scripture. Jesus and the apostles never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture, the Jewish canon Jesus affirmed did not include it, and early scholars like Jerome distinguished it from the Hebrew canon. The Reformers did not invent this distinction; they returned to it. Some earlier councils (Hippo, Carthage and Florence in 1442) included them in their lists, but Rome first defined them as canonical with binding dogmatic force, under anathema, at Trent in 1546. Protestants still value them as historical writings, but not as the infallible rule of faith.

“Books like 2 Peter, James, Jude and Revelation were disputed for centuries. If the early church wasn't sure about them, how can you be?”Show a response

It's true that a few books took longer to be received everywhere, and Christians shouldn't hide that. But notice what it shows. These books were mostly short or circulated less widely, so not every region had them or knew their origin straight away. The early church was not credulous; the Muratorian fragment even rejected a popular book, the Shepherd of Hermas, for public reading because it was too recent. That kind of care makes the final consensus more trustworthy, not less. The core of the New Testament, the four Gospels and Paul's letters, was settled very early, and the debated books, once examined, were recognised across the churches; no council ever overturned that consensus. Above all, the books' authority never depended on the speed of recognition. God gave them, and his sheep came to hear his voice in them (John 10:27).

“Why should the canon be closed? Who says God couldn't inspire new books of Scripture today?”Show a response

God can do whatever he pleases, so the question is what he has actually said about his revelation. The New Testament canon is tied to the apostles: the church recognised books written by apostles or their close associates within the apostolic era. Scripture describes the apostles and prophets as the church's foundation (Eph 2:20), and a foundation is laid once. Jude speaks of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3), and Hebrews says that God, who spoke in many ways through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son (Heb 1:1-2). Since the apostolic era has ended, no new book can meet the mark of apostolicity. That is also why Athanasius warned that no one should add to the 27 books. A closed canon means God's word is complete and sufficient, not that God has stopped working.

Written task

A Catholic friend says, “You can only know which books are in the Bible because the Catholic Church told you.” Write a 250-400 word respectful response explaining how the Old and New Testament canons were recognised, why the church recognised rather than created the canon, and the Protestant view of the Apocrypha.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Accurately represents the Catholic position (Trent Session 4, CCC 120) before responding.
Uses Luke 24:44 and the Jewish canon to explain the Old Testament.
Cites at least two historical milestones (Muratorian fragment, Athanasius 367, Hippo or Carthage).
Explains the recognition-not-creation model clearly, ideally with an analogy.
Maintains a gracious, non-polemical tone toward a fellow professing Christian.