The New Testament Canon

The apostles are no longer walking among us today to tell us the stories about Jesus. Nor are there prophets today who can reveal to us God's divine will for our lives. Instead, as Christians we rely on a set of twenty-seven books we call the New Testament to teach us the truth about God. To us, these twenty-seven books are our sole witness to Jesus the Christ. We consider the books to be from God, faithfully passed down from generation to generation over the past nineteen hundred years. They are our link to the divine, our map for understanding God's will. They are our Bible, our canon of scripture. And yet, how do we know they are the right books? Some people suggest that there are more books which we have wrongfully excluded, while others say that we have accepted some books which are not really from God. So what evidence do we have that these twenty-seven books are the right ones?

It would be nice if we could point to some unmistakable sign from God that listed all twenty-seven books. But God rarely provides such miraculous signs today. Yet two-thousand years ago, when Christianity was first new, he gave his apostles signs and wonders to perform so that they could prove that they were sent by God. These miracles proved the apostles' authority, and the people of their day respected them as being authorized by God. Thus when these apostles wrote books, the people of the day recognized the authority of these books as well. Later, as different Christian books and letters began to circulate, Christians made an effort distinguish the authoritative books written by God's apostles from the non-authoritative books written by men. Over the years, they passed on this knowledge, and eventually their witnesses were written down for the benefit of future generations, like us. So, even though today we do not have an unmistakable sign from God that lists all twenty seven books, we do have the word of people who saw such signs from God, and who witness to us the books that came from the men God authorized. When we look at the testimonies of these witnesses, there are twenty-seven books which they clearly identify as having come from the apostles, and therefore having the authority of God.

There are three different ways we may discover the testimony of these witnesses, each way having its own strengths and weaknesses. First we find out what books the early Christians considered authoritative by reading their writings and seeing which books they quoted as scripture. This type of evidence has the benefit of being the earliest, since we have writings from Christians within the first century, and the benefit of being the most plentiful, as there are literally thousands of pages of manuscripts written by Christians within the first four centuries of Christianity. However, this evidence is not altogether conclusive. If an author fails to quote a book, especially a short book like 3 John or Jude, we cannot conclude whether he accepted or rejected the book. He may have failed to quote it simply because he never though of an opportunity to use it; after all, he was not trying to use all the books so that we could know what the canon was, he was writing on other topics and using scripture as he felt necessary. This type of evidence is plentiful and useful, but not as conclusive as we would like. The second type of evidence is collections of books. Early New Testament Bibles show us which books the Christians actually placed in their canon. However, again we run into some difficulties. We do not start seeing these collections until the third century or later, so the testimony is a little later tna we migh like. Also, we only have about five such collections within the first four hundred years of Christianity, and with one of these, the Codex Vaticanus, we have lost everything that came after Hebrews 9:14.1 These early Bibles are an extremely valuable resource, but with so few few Bibles available, their testimony is limited. The final type of evidence is actual lists of authoritative, or canonical, scriptures. These have the benefit of being written expressly for the purpose of identifying which books are authoritative, thus the authors list all the authoritative books and often provide information on why some books were not accepted. Another benefit is that we have about seventeen2 such lists from the first four centuries, lists from all different points of the globe. These lists provide the clearest and most conclusive evidence, even though most were not written until the fourth century. Combined together, the lists, the Bible collections, and the writings of early Christians testify that there are twenty-seven books that have the authority of scripture.

The catalogues of canons we have available fall into three different categories -- lists from individuals found in their writings, lists produced by church councils, and miscellaneous discoveries.

The lists by individuals are written mostly by bishops and are found in a context where the writer is disputing heresy, or attempting to prevent it by promoting that which is true and acceptable. The earliest of these lists is attributed to a man named Caius and is called the "Muratorian Fragment". Most scholars consider that this fragment was written around AD 190, due to internal evidence.3 The text actually is a fragment of a longer manuscript. The peice of the manuscript we have left begins in the middle of a sentence, apparently after the author has finished talking about the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and proceeds to talk about the third gospel, the gospel of Luke. Since we only have a fragment of the original text, we cannot be certain what we are missing. We assume that the author listed the gospels of Matthew and Mark, but if he listed any other books before these we do not know. Thus, this fragment is our earliest piece, but not necessarily our most useful text. The other canon lists by individuals were written by Rufinus, who included the list in his commentary on the Apostle's Creed; Eusebius, the great historian who included a canon list in his history of the church; Cyril, whose list we find in one of his lectures; Athanasius, a bishop writing a "Festal Letter" to churches, this one dealing most specifically with the problem of heretical books; Epiphanius, who included his canon in a long dissertation against a heresy called "arianism"; Gregory of Nazianzus, who put his list in poetical form; Jerome, the man who created the first Latin translation of the Bible, whose canon list is found in one of his letters; Augustine, a prolific Christian writer who included a canon list in his larger work on Christian doctrine; Amphilochius, who included in a poetic admonition to Seleucus a list of the canonical scriptures; John Chrysostum, whose canon list some consider to be spurious, who wrote numerous commentaries on scripture and included a canon list in his introduction to scripture; and Pope Innocent I, who wrote Bishop Exsuperious and included in his letter a listing of the books to be considered authoritative. These twelve are our chief source of canon lists from individuals.

From church councils we receive three more witnesses to the list of authoritative scriptures. These come in the Apostolical Canons, the Council of Laodicea, and the African Code, which is also called the Council of Carthage. Each of these documents is a set of rules to guide church doctrine and practice in such areas as baptism, work of the bishops, holy days, and general orthodoxy. Among the rules, or canons, in these three council decisions are lists of the accepted scriptures. It is important to note, however, that the list of scriptures found in the canons of the Council of Laodicea is considered to have been added later. That particular document contains 59 canons in the earliest copies, but in the later copies it has an extra canon added, "Canon 60", which includes the names of the Bible books. Although it is possible that this list of scriptures was not original, it is still worth noting this source. Together, these three council lists give us an insight into what the leaders of the church, as a group, considered to be authoritative works.

Finally, we have two documents of great interest, but uncertain provenance. These two documents are the Codex Claramontanus and the Mommsen Catalogue, also known as the Cheltenham Canon. The Codex Claramontanus is a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript that contains the epistles of Paul. The canon list is inserted in Latin between the books of Philemon and Hebrews and believed to have been written by a different person than whomever wrote the rest of the work. The canon list is unusual because it is found in a set of Paul's epistles that includes the book of Hebrews, but the list itself does not include Hebrews as one of the books of the canon. Also, it lists some books with dashes before them. Some think these dashes indicate books that are not to be considered part of the canon, but we cannot be sure. It is an interesting list, but we are not certain who wrote it or what it all means. The second list, the Mommsen Catalogue, was discovered in 1885 by Theodor Mommsen in a manuscript in the Phillipps Collection at Chelthenham. The manuscript contains more than just the canon list and is dated around 385 based on references made in the other parts of the manuscript. Again, we do not know the author of this list, making both of these lists very limited in what they offer us. Without knowing who wrote them, and therefore how reliable the author was, or even why they wrote their canon lists, we really cannot be certain how reliable their catalogues are.

With the witnesses of these seventeen documents, fourteen of which are presented in English translation in Appendix A, we receive a very clear answer to the question, "Which books should be in our Bible?"

To begin, the four gospels are unanimously confirmed in all of the available catalogues of canons. Eleven of the canon lists name separately Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authoritative gospel accounts of Jesus. Five of our witnesses, namely Pope Innocent, Epiphanius, the African Code, Cyril, and Eusebius, simply tell us that we are to accept four gospels. We assume, based on the evidence of the other lists as well as tradition, that when these witnesses refer to "four gospels" they are talking specifically about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The only text that does not clearly authorize all four books is the Muratorian Fragment. Again, this text is a fragment, which begins in the middle of a sentence. That sentence is in the middle of a paragraph describing the four gospels, for our text begins by saying that the third gospel is Luke. We can readily assume that the missing portion of the fragment began by listing Matthew and Mark as the first two gospels. Thus all seventeen of our witnesses confirm that there are exactly four gospels, and that these gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In fact none of the canon lists suggest that any other gospel account might be considered true and authoritative. Our witnesses tell us clearly and unmistakably that there are only four gospels, and these are the four we still accept today.

The book of Acts is likewise strongly confirmed by the canon lists. All of the lists, with the exception of the Muratorian Fragment, acknowledge the authority of the Acts of the Apostles. In some lists, such as Eusebius, it is noted that there were other books of "Acts" circulating, such as the "Acts of Paul", which should not be considerd authoritative. Thus most of the canon lists make it clear that the book they authorize is the "Acts of the Apostles". Jerome specifies it by saying that this is the book written by Luke the physician, and the Muratorian Fragment further identifies the work by noting that it is addressed to Theophilus. So, even though other books containing the acts of different apostles were circulated, the canon lists of the early church fathers distinguish the "Acts of the Apostles" written by Luke to Theophilus as the only book of acts sealed with God's authority.

The next set of scripture the canon lists commend to us are the fourteen epistles of Paul, thirteen of which are almost unanimously approved, and one which is approved by all but three lists. The thirteen unanimous epistles, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, are included in every canon list, except the Codex Claramontanus. Ten of the canon catalogues do not list the epistles separately, they simply say "the fourteen epistles of Paul". The other seven authorities list the works individually, letting us know exactly what these fourteen epistles were. Athanasius and the Council of Laodicea each say, "the fourteen epistles of Paul" and then list each of his books. Since there is no difference in any of the canon lists of Paul's epistles, we can readily assume that when the others say "the fourteen epistles of Paul", they are the same as those listed separately in other canon catalogues. The Codex Claramontanus, the only catalogue not to acknowledge these thirteen epistles, omits the books of Philiipians, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. However, the manuscript, which lists each book separately and tells how many lines are in the book, is missing approximately three lines in the middle of the manuscript. It is assumed that these three missing lines authorize the books of Philippians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. If that is so, then the first thirteen of Paul's epistles are unanimously supported by every canon catalogue available.

Hebrews, then, is the only one of Paul's epistles about which there is some question. Ever since the second century there has been some question as to who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Traditionally, the book is ascribed to Paul, but some suggest that any number of other disciples, including Barnabas, may have written it. Throughout the canon lists, most writers simply place Hebrews with the epistles of Paul, saying that Paul wrote fourteen epistles. Athanasius and the Synod of Laodicea point out that Hebrews is one of those fourteen, for they each declare as authoritative "the fourteen epistles of Paul" and then list those fourteen books individually, with Hebrews being included in both lists. Amphilochius and Jerome, on the other hand, each make note that some people claim Hebrews was not written by Paul. Nonetheless, after recognizing that some people question the book's authorship, both authors authorize the book as belonging to the New Testament canon. The three canon catalogues which exclude the book of Hebrews are the Mommsen Catalogue, the Muratorian Fragment, and Codex Claramontanus. The Codex Claramontanus is a canon list found within a collection of Paul's epistles. The codex does not list Hebrews as a canonical epistle, yet the collection of scriptures in which it was found does include Hebrews. This odd situation has caused some to speculate that the "Epistle of Barnabas" mentioned later in the codex is actually a reference to the book of Hebrews4, since Tertullian (in De Pudicitia 20) refers to the book in this way. This conclusion is possible, but certainly not necessary. The Mommsen Catalogue, on the other hand, does not specifically omit Hebrews. The author of this canon list says there are thirteen epistles of Paul, but does not say which thirteen they are. It seems most likely that he would omit Hebrews, but we cannot be certain. Nevertheless, despite the questions about who wrote the book of Hebrews, fourteen of the seventeen available canon lists include the book, as do the four collections of canons from the first four centuries, so there is no doubt that the book itself deserves to be in our canon today.

The next section of scriptures addressed by the canon catalogues is called the "Catholic Epistles" and contains the books of James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. For these epistles we find very strong support throughout the canon lists, but not as much unanimity. As with the epistles of Paul, many of the catalogue writers do not list these books by name, they merely say "we accept the seven Catholic epistles". Cyril, Athanasius, Amphilochius, Gregory and the Synod of Laodicea clarify which books are the "Catholic Epistles" by declaring such as the Synod of Laeodicea does, "Seven Catholic Epistles -- one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude."5 Amphilochius informs us that of the Catholic epistles, some say that "only three should be received -- that of James, one, and one of Peter, and those of John, one."6 John Chrysostom appears to be such a person, for in his canon list he tells us that he receives only three Catholic epistles, but he does not name them. We assume then that Chrysostum's three books are James, 1 John, and 1 Peter. Similarly, Epiphanius is unclear as to which of these books is authoritative. He states that he receives the epistles of John, James, Jude and Peter, but does not tell us how many epistles each wrote, or how many he receives all together.

In general, the epistles of 1 Peter and 1 John receive the most support, as Eusebius declares when he places them as the only Catholic epistles among the "recognized books". Fifteen authors fully support James, sixteen fully support 1 Peter, fourteen support 2 Peter, all seventeen support 1 John, sixteen support 2 John, fifteen support 3 John, and fifteen support Jude. Some, such as Eusebius and Amphilochius, mention that their is a question about certain of these epistles, but they themselves support them as authoritative. So, according to at least fourteen witnesses, the early church acknowledged exactly seven Catholic epistles as being authoritative, the same seven we still use today.

Finally, the canon writers address the book which seems to have the most controversy around it, Revelation of John. Some of the canon writers included John's Revelation without comment, granting it unquestioned status as scripture. Others omit it, for unknown reasons. Still others, like Eusebius, seem to straddle the fence. Eusebius included the book in his highly exalted list of "Recognized" as well as in his list of "Spurious" books. Amphilochius, too, lists the book as part of his canon, but mentions that most people consider it spurious. Thus, of all the books we still use today, Revelation seems to have had the least support.

This status for the book of Revelation is understandable. During the first few centuries, many seem to have rejected the book of Revelation not because they had been taught that it was spurious, but rather because of its content. Heretics often used the book to promote false teachings, thus causing church leaders to react strongly against it. Nonetheless, others recognized it as being the true Revelation of the apostle John, and true scripture even if it was not always used correctly or fully understood. Of the seventeen canon lists in our discussion, five authors omit the book of John's Revelation and twelve accept it. Thus the book still received overwhelming support as being genuine and authoritative, but many then, just like today, were simply afraid of it.

Beyond the books that are contained in our modern New Testament, a total of nine other books are mentioned in four of the canon lists as belonging in the approved set of scripture. However, none of them are supported by more than two canon catalogues. The Muratorian Fragment lists as canonical books the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter, though it notes that some will not have the latter read in church. The Codex Claramontanus, on the other hand, lists The Shepherd in its canon list, along with The Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter. In the list, each of these books is preceded with a dash, however. Thus some suppose that this dash is an indication that these books are not accepted as part of the authoritative canon. The Apostolical Canons declares that the books of 1 and 2 Clemens should also be considered part of the canon, and that there is a book of Constitutions by Clemens which is addressed to the bishops but should not be published to all since they contain mystical things. Finally, Epiphanius includes in his canon the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.

Thus, among four of the seventeen canon catalogues, the following books are given some credence as belonging in our canon: Wisdom of Solomon (2 sources), Apocalypse of Peter (2 sources), Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd, Acts of Paul, 1 and 2 Clemens, and Wisdom of Sirach. Many of these books are also declared to be non-authoritativ in the other canon catalogues. Athanasius, for instance, notes that the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and The Shepherd were each good books for reading in church, but were not to be considered part of the canon. Eusebius specifically names the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas as rejected books. Rufinus provides a list of books he says are not "canonical" but which are "ecclesiastical", which includes The Pastor of Hermas (or The Shepherd), Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach. And finally, the Muratorian Fragment notes, very specifically, that a certain book called The Shepherd, or The Pastor, should not be accepted in the canon. The text reads, "The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome."

Of the nine extra books that are listed for possible inclusion in the canon, the strongest case can be made for one book, all but one are elsewhere rejected. Furthermore, none of them receive the wide range of support that the most controversial canonical book, Revelation, received. It is obvious, then, that among the canon lists of the first four centuries only twenty-seven books were consistently promoted as authoritative.

The canon catalogues of the first four centuries provide us with a strong foundation for our faith in the twenty-seven books we call scripture today. Of the seventeen lists, eight are in perfect harmony with our New Testament, and four more agree on all but Revelation. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament does not have a tradition of apocryphal books. Different Christian traditions accept or reject the set of Old Testament books known as the apocrypha. However, there is no tradition for a set of New Testament apocryphal books. All of orthodox Christianity seems to agree that there are exactly twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

The catalogues of canons available to us from the first four centuries of Christianity clearly testify to exactly twenty-seven authoritative books written by the apostles of Jesus Christ. These are the books that received validation from those who witnessed the miracles of the apostles, the miracles that testified to all that God was speaking through these men. Today we no longer have the apostles with us, or great miracles to testify to what is the truth. But we do have the words of the apostles always with us, certified by God in a set of books which has been known for centuries as the New Testament.

WORKS CITED

New Testament Canon Lists: English translations of the early New Testament canon lists.

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. London: MacMillan and Co., 1870.