The Canonization of Scripture (Seminary Notes)



Have you ever wondered how we got the Bible that we have?

Canonization of Scripture

Did you ever hear that there were other books, letters, and documents that were written near the time the books of the Bible were written, claiming to be by authors like the Apostles Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Paul,  but which are not found in our Bible? 

I own several of these other books and have read them. Many of these books are found in the New Testament Apocrypha. They make for interesting reading. While some of them sound very similar to what we read in the New Testament, most do not, especially some of the stories about the childhood years of Jesus as found in the Gospel of Thomas.

The reason these books were not included in the Bible is because of something called the Canonization of Scripture. No, we are not talking about putting the Bible in a cannon and shooting it at the walls of a city.

Canonization of Scripture
We will look below at the the need for Canonization, what it is, and how it was done.

The Need for the Canonization of Scripture

In the early church, many of these “other books” were floating around the churches, and contained ideas and teachings which caused problems in these churches. There were numerous controversies about what Christians should believe, how Christians should behave, and who gets to decide both.

So in an attempt to develop unity among all Christians, some of the authorities in the early church gathered together to decide which books should be included in the Bible, and which ones should not.

They developed what is called the “canon of Scripture.”

The Meaning of “Canon”

“Canon” means “rod” and refers to a measuring rod that was used by carpenters and builders. In relation to Scripture, it refers to the rules and standards by which the various letters and documents were measured to determine whether or not they should be accepted and recognized by the church.

How Scripture was Canonized

By about 200 AD, there was a list of about 20 New Testament books which were recognized by most church leaders as having the authority and accuracy of Scripture. Seven of the books which we have in our current New Testament which were debated by the early church are: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

The final list of our currently accepted 27 books was formalized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage.

The Rules of Canonicity

Canonization of ScriptureCuriously, it is difficult to determine which standards and methods the members of this Council used to decide which books to include in the New Testament. Though they left us a list of 27 books recognized as authoritative, they did not leave the list of criteria that they used to make this list.

Nevertheless, there are some hints in their writings, and most scholars today believe that some version of the following six criteria were used:

  1. Apostolic – The book must be written by an apostle, or a ministry partner of one.
  2. Orthodox – The book must agree with the the accepted and approved teachings of the church.
  3. Christocentric – The book must focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ, especially in relation to His redemptive work on the cross for the world.
  4. Inspiration – The book must have the qualities and characteristics of the divinely inspired Word of God.
  5. Testimony of the Holy Spirit – The church authorities felt the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in helping them select certain books.  
  6. Acceptance by the Church – The book must already be widely accepted and used by the majority of churches.

As a result of this process, we ended up with the New Testament that we now read, study, and preach. And in case you are curious, the process described above only applies to the New Testament. The formation of the Old Testament was completely different, but I will not cover that here.

The Canon of the New Testament still faced challenges over the years. For example, Martin Luther wanted to remove the book of James from the Bible. Some today want to include some of the other books as it seems to them that there were arbitrary and political motivations for the selection of the books.

The above information is a summary of what I was taught in Bible college and Seminary. Tomorrow, I will begin to ask questions about it, and raise issues that I see. Until then, what do you think about this process? Did it need to be done? Was it done correctly? Where the six standards wise? Why or why not?

The newsletter includes a weekly blog digest
and the monthly newsletter with exclusive news and offers. This month's offer is a
free copy of my eBook
The Skeleton Church.


  • Kirk

    I don’t believe that all of the books were included that should have been and probably a couple that were included shouldn’t have been. Some of the letters of Paul don’t have verified authorship (i.e. they just say Paul wrote them without proof because it is tradition) Now does this mean the books are wrong? No. It just means that according to the “rules” during the Council of Nicea, they probably shouldn’t have even been included. Besides that, any book that didn’t agree with the Roman version of Christianity was thrown out, so as to unify Christianity.

    Also, I don’t see any good reason the “book” of Jude is in the Bible.

    Just my opinions though.

    • http://www.tillhecomes.org Jeremy Myers

      Kirk,
      Very interesting. Which books would you include that were not?

      That is a great point about books that did not agree with the theology of those who made the selections. I will be talking about that in a later post.

  • Kirk
  • http://helpwiththebible.wordpress.com Steve

    Can’t wait to see what’s next!

  • http://homekettle.wordpress.com David Nilsen

    This is a confusing issue to me. How does anyone ever hold to any particular view on this with any certainty? I look forward to reading your future posts on this.

    • http://helpwiththebible.wordpress.com Steve

      I see canonization as a perplexing issue as well. One guideline I use is the fact that Judah had lost the Law, right in the Temple and hadn’t read or followed it for many many years. If God would allow that to happen among his people, I find it consider it probable that our canon is not perfect. The Catholic Bible was the only one allowed for over a thousand years, but the reformation changed that. Who’s to say what’s right? The book of Enoch was canonical for years until it was removed. I consider the progression of the church politics and history when making some choices, too. Something has been afoot and I don’t trust man. I go by what I see in the world around me.

      • http://www.tillhecomes.org Jeremy Myers

        Steve,

        I never thought about the parallel between our situation and when Israel lost the law. Very interesting.

    • http://www.tillhecomes.org Jeremy Myers

      David,

      Yes, the whole Canonization process is shrouded in mystery. Though we know much about the process, there is much we do not know, which makes it confusing, as you said.

  • Pingback: Questioning the Canon of Scripture - Till He Comes

  • Pingback: How the Early Church Undermined Inerrancy - Till He Comes

  • Pingback: You Don't Believe in Sola Scriptura - Till He Comes

Want to write a Guest Post while I move across the country? Get Published on this Blog