Biblical Canon

A biblical canon, or canon of scripture,[1] is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community. While this terminology may be applied to any scriptural tradition, the scope of this article is mainly Judeo-Christian in nature. The word “canon” comes from the Greek “κανών”, meaning “rule” or “measuring stick”. The term was first coined in reference to scripture by Christians, but the idea is said to be Jewish.[2] The textual basis of the canon can also be specified. For example, the Hebrew/Aramaic text as vocalized and pointed (cf. niqqud) in the medieval era by the Masoretes, the Masoretic text, is the canonical text for Judaism. A modern example of this closing of a textual basis, in a process analogous to the closing of the canon itself, is the King James Only movement, which takes either the actual English text of various redactions of the actual King James Bible itself, or alternately, the textual basis of the King James Version — Bomberg’s Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus in various editions, those of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus, alongside the Complutensian polyglot, for the New Testament — as the specified, correct, and inspired textual tradition. Similarly, certain groups specify their particular self-published version or translation of the Bible as the most reliable. Among these are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who produce the New World Translation.

The Bible: A biblical canon, or canon of scripture

Most of the canons listed below are considered “closed” (i.e., books cannot be added or removed),[3] reflecting a belief that public revelation has ended and thus the inspired texts may be gathered into a complete and authoritative canon, which scholar Bruce Metzger defines as “an authoritative collection of books.”[4] In contrast, an “open canon”, which permits the addition of books through the process of continuous revelation, Metzger defines as “a collection of authoritative books.” (A table of Biblical scripture for both Testaments, with regard to canonical acceptance in Christendom’s various major traditions, appears below. For a further listing of canons used and enumeration of the books included in them, with distinct regard to the original language in which they were written, see Wikipedia’s article on the books of the Bible.)

These canons have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective faiths. Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and His people. Books, such as the Jewish-Christian Gospels, have been excluded from the canon altogether, but many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered to be Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical by others. There are differences between the Jewish Tanakh and Christian Biblical canons, and between the canons of different Christian denominations. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the various communities regard as inspired scripture. In some cases where there are varying strata of scriptural inspiration, it becomes prudent even to discuss texts that only have an elevated status within a particular tradition. This becomes even more complex when considering the open canons of the various Latter Day Saint sects — which may be viewed as extensions of both Christianity and thus Judaism — and the scriptural revelations purportedly given to several leaders over the years within that movement.

Jewish canon

Rabbinic Judaism (יהדות רבנית) recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh (תַּנַ”ךְ‎) or “Hebrew Bible.” Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, indeed a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and the Writings c. 100 AD[5] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia — however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.

A scroll of the Book of Esther; one of the five megillot of the Tanakh.

The book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting (4:2, 12:32) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a “closed book”, a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai.[6] The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (c. 400 BC) as having “founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings” (2:13–15). The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (c. 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42–50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty.[7] However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon.

The Great Assembly, also known as the Great Synagogue, was, according to Jewish tradition, an assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets, in the period from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism, marking a transition from an era of prophets to an era of Rabbis. They lived in a period of about two centuries ending c. 70 AD. Among the developments in Judaism that are attributed to them are the fixing of the Jewish Biblical canon, including the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, and the Twelve Minor Prophets; the introduction of the triple classification of the oral Torah, dividing its study into the three branches of midrash, halakot, and aggadot; the introduction of the Feast of Purim; and the institution of the prayer known as the Shemoneh ‘Esreh as well as the synagogal prayers, rituals, and benedictions.

In addition to the Tanakh, mainstream Judaism considers the Talmud (תַּלְמוּד ) to be another central, authoritative text. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 AD), the first written compendium of Judaism’s oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 AD), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The Talmud is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is often quoted in other rabbinic literature.

Samaritan canon

Another version of the Torah in the Samaritan alphabet, also exists. This text is associated with the Samaritans (שומרונים‎; السامريون‎), a people of whom the Jewish Encyclopedia states: “Their history as a distinct community begins with the taking of Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 BC.”[8]

The Abisha Scroll; the oldest scroll among the Samaritans in Nablus and possibly the oldest surviving Pentateuch scroll on Earth.

The Samaritan Pentateuch’s relationship to the Masoretic Text is still disputed. Some differences are minor, such as the ages of different people mentioned in genealogy, while others are major, such as a commandment to be monogamous, which only appears in the Samaritan version. More importantly, the Samaritan text also diverges from the Masoretic in stating that Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Gerizim — not Mount Sinai — and that it is upon this mountain (Gerizim) that sacrifices to God should be made — not in Jerusalem. Scholars nonetheless consult the Samaritan version when trying to determine the meaning of text of the original Pentateuch, as well as to trace the development of text-families. Some scrolls among the Dead Sea scrolls have been identified as proto-Samaritan Pentateuch text-type.[9] Comparisons have also been made between the Samaritan Torah and the Septuagint version.

Samaritans consider the Torah to be inspired scripture, but do not accept any other parts of the Bible — probably a position also held by the Sadducees.[10] They did not expand their canon by adding any Samaritan compositions. There is a Samaritan Book of Joshua, however this is a popular chronicle written in Arabic and is not considered to be scripture. Other non-canonical Samaritan religious texts include the Memar Markah (Teaching of Markah) and the Defter (Prayerbook) — both from the fourth century AD or later.[11]

The people of the remnants of the Samaritans in Palestine retain their version of the Torah as fully and authoritatively canonical.[12] They regard themselves as the true “guardians of the Law.” This assertion is only re-enforced by the claim of the Samaritan community in Nablus to possesses the oldest existing copy of the Torah — one that they believe to have been penned by Abisha, a grandson of Aaron.[13]

Christian Biblical canons

Early Church

Earliest Christian communities

Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[14] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito’s canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the “memoirs of the Apostles,” which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called “gospels,” and which were considered to be equally as authoritative as the Old Testament.[15]

Marcion’s canon

Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later considered heretical), to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[16] (c. 140 AD). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today. After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the “canon” (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the proto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion.[17]

Apostolic Fathers

A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus in the following quote: “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the ‘pillar and ground’ of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh… Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform… These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer.” [18]

A folio from P46; an early 3rd century collection of Pauline epistles.

By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using — or at least were familiar with — the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena).[19] Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[20] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[21]

Eastern Church

Alexandrian Fathers

Origen of Alexandria was an early figure in the codification of the Biblical canon. He was a scholar well educated in the realm of both theology and pagan philosophy but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Origen decided to make his canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[22] He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen’s efforts, saying “The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer.”[23] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[24] and he used the phrase “being canonized” (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[25] Athanasius also included the Book of Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah, in his Old Testament canon. However, from this canon, he omitted the book of Esther.

Eastern canons

The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the west for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691-692, which was rejected by Pope Constantine (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363) , the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367). And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences.[26] The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.

Western Church

Latin Fathers

The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[27] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[28] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[24] or if not, the list is at least a 6th century compilation.[29] Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[30] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[31] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[32] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[33]

A Gutenberg Bible on display.

Luther’s canon

Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[34] In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha.

Evangelical-Protestant canon

Evangelicals accept the original texts in Hebrew and Aramaic as the inspired Hebrew Bible, rather than the Septuagint translation into Greek, though many recognize the latter’s wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the 1st century. They note that early Christians evidenced a knowledge of a canon of Scripture, based upon internal evidence, as well as by the existence of a list of Old Testament books by Melito of Sardis, compiled around 170 AD (see Melito’s canon).[35]

Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament — though these ideas aren’t isolated to Protestant theology, but extend to or are derived from other Christian traditons:[36]

The basic factor for recognizing a book’s canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term “apostolic” as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather “apostolic authority”. According to these Protestants, “apostolic authority” is never detached from the authority of the Lord.[37] (See Apostolic succession.)

It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all of the books in the accepted canon, however, and one can point to writings that Protestants consider to be unscriptural, which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, most Protestants — and all Evangelicals — hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.

Canons of various Christian traditions

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[38] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other tradtitions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons.

Old Testament

All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative. Furthermore, all of these traditions, with the exception of the Protestants, add to this number various deuterocanonical books. However, in some Protestant Bibles — especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible — many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of the tradition in a section called the “Apocrypha.”

Some books listed here, like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs for the Armenian Apostolic Church, may have once been a vital part of a Biblical tradition, may even still hold a place of honor, but are no longer condidered to be part of the Bible. Other books, like the Prayer of Manasseh for the Roman Catholic Church, may have been included in manuscripts, but never really attained a high level of importance within that particular tradition. The levels of traditional prominence for others, like Psalms 152–155 and the Psalms of Solomon of the Syriac churches, remain unclear.

In so far as the Ethiopian Orthodox canon is concerned, some points of clarity should be made. First, the books of Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah and 4 Baruch, are all considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It is not always clear as to how these writings are arranged or divided in the Ethiopian canon, however. In some lists, they may simply fall under the title “Jeremiah,” while in others, they are divided various ways into separate books. Moreover, the book of Proverbs is divided into two books — Messale (Prov. 1–24) and Tägsas (Prov. 25–31). Additionally, while the books of Jubilees and Enoch[39] are fairly well-known among western scholars, 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often called the “Ethiopian Maccabees,” but are completely different in content from the books of Maccabees that are known and/or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, the Book of Joseph ben Gurion, or Pseudo-Josephus, is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based upon the writings of Josephus.[40] The Ethiopic version (1–8 Yosëf wäldä Koryon) has eight parts and is included in the Ethiopian broader canon.[41][42]

  Western tradition Eastern Orthodox tradition Oriental Orthodox tradition Assyrian Eastern tradition
Books Protestant
[O 1]
Roman Catholic Greek Orthodox Slavonic Orthodox Georgian Orthodox Armenian Apostolic
[O 2]
Syriac Orthodox Coptic Orthodox Ethiopian Orthodox
[O 3]
Assyrian Church of the East
Genesis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exodus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leviticus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Numbers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Deuteronomy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Joshua Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Judges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ruth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Samuel Yes
(as 1 and 2 Samuel)
(as 1 and 2 Samuel)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kings Yes
(as 1 and 2 Kings)
(as 1 and 2 Kings)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 and 2 Chronicles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Prayer of Manasseh No
(Apocrypha)[O 4]
No – inc. in some mss. Yes
(part of Odes)[O 5]
(part of Odes)[O 5]
(part of Odes)[O 5]
Yes Yes Yes Yes
(part of 2 Chronicles)
(1 Ezra)
Yes Yes
1 Esdras
Esdras B
1 Esdras
1 Ezra
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2 Ezra)
Yes Yes
2 Esdras
Esdras B
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Esdras
(3 Ezra)
3 Esdras
3 Esdras
(inc. in some mss.)
Esdras A
2 Esdras
2 Ezra
3 Esdras
No – inc. in some mss. No – inc. in some mss. Yes
2 Ezra
No – inc. in some mss.
2 Esdras 3–14
(4 Ezra)
[O 6]
4 Esdras
4 Esdras
(inc. in some mss.)
No – inc. in some mss. No
3 Esdras
Yes (?)
3 Ezra
4 Esdras
No – inc. in some mss. No – inc. in some mss. Yes
Ezra Sutu’el
No – inc. in some mss.
2 Esdras 1–2; 15–16
(5 and 6 Ezra)[O 6]
(part of 4 Esdras apocryphon)
(part of 4 Esdras)
(Greek ms.)[O 7]
No No No No No No No
Esther Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additions to Esther No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Tobit No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Judith No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Maccabees No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
2 Maccabees No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
3 Maccabees No
(Apocrypha)[O 8]
No – inc. in some eds.[O 9] Yes Yes Yes Yes No – inc. in some mss. No – inc. in some mss. No No – inc. in some mss.
4 Maccabees No No – inc. in some eds.[O 9] No
Yes No No – inc. in some mss. No No No – inc. in some mss.
Enoch No No No No No No No No Yes No
Jubilees No No No No No No No No Yes No
1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan No No No No No No No No Yes No
Ethiopic Pseudo-Josephus No No No No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
Josephus’s Jewish War VI No No No No No No No – inc. in some mss.[O 10] No No No – inc. in some mss.[O 10]
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs No No No No No No – inc. in some mss. No No No No
Ascension of Isaiah No No No No No No
[O 11]
No No No – inc. in some mss.[O 12] No
Job Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Psalms 1–150 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Psalm 151 No No – inc. in some mss. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Psalms 152–155 No No No No No No No – inc. in some mss. No No No – inc. in some mss.
Psalms of Solomon[O 13] No No No – inc. in some mss. No No No No – inc. in some mss. No No No – inc. in some mss.
Proverbs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(in 2 books)
Ecclesiastes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Song of Songs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Book of Wisdom No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sirach (1–51) No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Prayer of Solomon
(Sirach 52)[O 14]
No No – inc. in some mss. No No No No No No No No
Major prophets
Isaiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Jeremiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lamentations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Baruch No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Letter of Jeremiah No
(chapter 6 of Baruch)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(rest of Jeremiah)
Syriac Apocalypse
of Baruch
(2 Baruch 1–77)[O 15]
No No No No No No No – inc. in some mss. No No No – inc. in some mss.
Letter of Baruch
(2 Baruch 78–87)[O 15]
No No No No No No No (?) – inc. in some mss.[O 16] No No Yes (?)
[O 16]
Greek Apocalypse
of Baruch
(3 Baruch)[O 17]
No No No
(Greek ms.)
(Slovonic ms.)
No No No No No No
4 Baruch No No No No No No No No Yes
(rest of Baruch)
Ezekiel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Daniel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additions to Daniel[O 18] No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Minor prophets
Hosea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Joel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Amos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Obadiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Jonah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Micah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nahum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Habakkuk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zephaniah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Haggai Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zechariah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Malachi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table notes

  1. The term “Protestant” is not accepted by all Christian denominations who often fall under this title by default—especially those who view themselves as a direct extension of the New Testament church. However, the term is used loosely here to include most of the non-Roman Catholic Protestant, Charismatic/Pentecostal, Reformed, and Evangelical churches. Other western churches and movements that have a divergent history from Roman Catholicism, but are not necessarily considered to be historically Protestant, may also fall under this umbrella terminology.
  2. The growth and development of the Armenian Biblical canon is complex. Extra-canonical Old Testament books appear in historical canon lists and recensions that are either exclusive to this tradition, or where they do exist elsewhere, never achieved the same status. These include the Deaths of the Prophets, an ancient account of the lives of the Old Testament prophets, which is not listed in this table. (It is also known as the Lives of the Prophets.) Another writing not listed in this table entitled the Words of Sirach—which is distinct from Ecclesiasticus and its prologue—appears in the appendix of the 1805 Armenian Zohrab Bible alongside other, more commonly known works.
  3. Adding to the complexity of the Orthodox Tewahedo Biblical canon, the national epic Kebra Negast has an elevated status among many Ethiopian Christians to such an extent that some consider it to be inspired scripture.
  4. The English Apocrypha includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 & 2 Esdras, the Additions to Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the Additions to Daniel. The Lutheran Apocrypha omits from this list 1 & 2 Esdras. Some Protestant Bibles include 3 Maccabees as part of the Apocrypha. However, many churches within Protestantism—as it is presented here—reject the Apocrypha, do not consider it useful, and do not include it in their Bibles.
  5. The Prayer of Manasseh is included as part of the Book of Odes, which follows the Psalms in Eastern Orthodox Bibles. The rest of the Book of Odes consists of passages found elsewhere in the Bible.
  6. 2 Ezra, 3 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees are included in Bibles and have an elevated status within the Armenian scriptural tradition, but are considered “extra-canonical.”
  7. In many eastern Bibles, the Apocalypse of Ezra is not an exact match to the longer Latin Esdras–2 Esdras in KJV or 4 Esdras in the Vulgate—which includes a Latin prologue (5 Ezra) and epilogue (6 Ezra). However, a degree of uncertainty continues to exist here, and it is certainly possible that the full text—including the prologue and epilogue—appears in Bibles and Biblical manuscripts used by some of these eastern traditions. Also of note is the fact that many Latin versions are missing verses 7:36–7:106. (A more complete explanation of the various divisions of books associated with the scribe Ezra may be found in the Wikipedia article entitled “Esdras”.)
  8. Evidence strongly suggests that a Greek manuscript of 4 Ezra once existed; this furthermore implies a Hebrew origin for the text.
  9.  An early fragment of 6 Ezra is known to exist in the Greek language, implying a possible Hebrew origin for 2 Esdras 15–16.
  10. Esther’s placement within the canon was questioned by Luther. Others, like Melito, omitted it from the canon altogether.
  11. 2 and 3 Meqabyan, though relatively unrelated in content, are often counted as a single book.
  12. Some sources place Zëna Ayhud within the “narrower canon.”
  13. A Syriac version of Josephus’s Jewish War VI appears in some Peshitta manuscripts as the “Fifth Book of Maccabees,” which is clearly a misnomer.
  14. Several varying historical canon lists exist for the Orthodox Tewahedo tradition. In one particular list found in a British Museum manuscript (Add. 16188), a book of Assenath is placed within the canon. This most likely refers to the book more commonly known as Joseph and Asenath. An unknown book of Uzziah is also listed there, which may be connected to the lost Acts of Uziah referenced in 2 Chronicles 26:22.
  15. Some traditions use an alternative set of liturgical or metrical Psalms.
  16. In many ancient manuscripts, a distinct collection known as the Odes of Solomon is found together with the similar Psalms of Solomon.
  17. The book of Sirach is usually preceded by a non-canonical prologue written by the author’s grandson.
  18. In some Latin versions, chapter 51 of Ecclesiasticus appears separately as the “Prayer of Joshua, son of Sirach.”
  19. A shorter variant of the prayer by King Solomon in 1 Kings 8:22–52 appeared in some medieval Latin manuscripts and is found in some Latin Bibles at the end of or immediately following Ecclesiasticus. The two versions of the prayer in Latin may be viewed online for comparison at the following website: Sirach 52 / 1 Kings 8:22–52; Vulgate
  20. The “Martyrdom of Isaiah” is prescribed reading to honor the prophet Isaiah within the Armenian Apostolic liturgy (see this list). While this likely refers to the account of Isaiah’s death within the Lives of the Prophets, it may be a reference to the account of his death found within the first five chapters of the Ascension of Isaiah, which is widely known by this name. The two narratives have similarities and may share a common source.
  21. The Ascension of Isaiah has long been known to be a part of the Orthodox Tewahedo scriptural tradition. Though it is not currently considered canonical, various sources attest to the early canonicity—or at least “semi-canonicity”—of this book.
  22. In some Latin versions, chapter 5 of Lamentations appears separately as the “Prayer of Jeremiah.”
  23. Ethiopic Lamentations is not included in the current printed bibles.<>
  24. The canonical Ethiopic version of Baruch has five chapters, but is shorter than the LXX text.
  25. Jump up to:a b Some Ethiopic translations of Baruch may include the traditional Letter of Jeremiah as the sixth chapter.
  26. The “Letter to the Captives” found within Säqoqawä Eremyas—and also known as the sixth chapter of Ethiopic Lamentations—may contain different content from the Letter of Jeremiah (to those same captives) found in other traditions.
  27. The Letter of Baruch is found in chapters 78–87 of 2 Baruch—the final ten chapters of the book. The letter had a wider circulation and often appeared separately from the first 77 chapters of the book, which is an apocalypse.
  28. Included here for the purpose of disambiguation, 3 Baruch is widely rejected as a pseudepigraphon and is not part of any Biblical tradition. Two manuscripts exist—a longer Greek manuscript with Christian interpolations and a shorter Slavonic version. There is some uncertainty about which was written first.
  29. Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, & The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children.

New Testament

Among the various Christian denominations, the New Testament canon is a generally agreed-upon list of 27 books. However, the way in which those books are arranged may vary from tradition to tradition. For instance, in the Lutheran, Slavonic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Armenian traditions, the New Testament is ordered differently from what is considered to be the standard arrangement. Protestant Bibles in Russia and Ethiopia usually follow the local Orthodox order for the New Testament. The Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East both adhere to the Peshitta liturgical tradition, which historically excludes five books of the New Testament Antilegomena: 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. However, those books are included in certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions.

Other New Testament works that are generally considered apocryphal nonetheless appear in some Bibles and manuscripts. For instance, the Epistle to the Laodiceans[43] was included in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate (and has appeared in over 100 Vulgate manuscripts), in the 18 German Bibles prior to Luther’s translation, and also a number of early English Bibles, such as Gundulf’s Bible, and John Wycliffe’s English translation; even as recently as 1728 William Whiston considered this epistle genuinely Pauline. Additionally, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians[44] was once considered to be part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible, [45] but is no longer printed in modern editions. Within the Syriac Orthodox tradition, The Third Epistle to the Corinthians also has a history of significance. Both Aphrahat and Ephraem of Syria held it in high regard and treated it as if it were canonical.[46] However, it was left-out of the Peshitta and ultimately excluded from the canon altogether.

The Didache,[47] The Shepherd of Hermas,[48] and other writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers, were once considered scriptural by various early Church fathers. They are still being honored in some traditions, though they are no longer considered to be canonical. However, certain canonical books within the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition find their origin in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well as the Ancient Church Orders. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes these eight additional New Testament books in its broader canon. They are as follows: the four books of Sinodos, the two books of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Didascalia.[49]

Books Protestant tradition Roman Catholic tradition Eastern Orthodox tradition Armenian Apostolic tradition[N 1] Coptic Orthodox tradition Ethiopian Orthodox tradition Syriac Christian traditions
Canonical gospels
Matthew Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mark[N 2] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Luke Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
John[N 2] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Apostolic history
Acts[N 2] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Acts of Paul and Thecla
[N 3][50][51]
No No No No
(early tradition)
No No No
(early tradition)
Pauline epistles
Romans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Corinthians to Paul and
3 Corinthians
[N 3][N 4]
No No No No − inc. in some mss. No No No
(early tradition)
Galatians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ephesians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Philippians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Colossians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Laodiceans No − inc. in some eds.[N 5] No − inc. in some mss. No No No No No
1 Thessalonians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Thessalonians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Titus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Philemon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
General epistles
Hebrews Yes[N 6] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
James Yes[N 6] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 7]  
1 John[N 2] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
2 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 7]  
3 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 7]  
Jude Yes[N 6] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 7]  
Apocalypse[N 8]  
Revelation Yes[N 6] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 7]  
Apostolic Fathers and Church Orders[N 9]  
1 Clement[N 10] No
(Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus)
2 Clement[N 10] No
(Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus)
Shepherd of Hermas[N 10] No
(Codex Siniaticus)
Epistle of Barnabas[N 10] No
(Codices Hierosolymitanus and Siniaticus)
Didache[N 10] No
(Codex Hierosolymitanus)
Ser`atä Seyon
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
Book of the
Covenant 1
(Mäshafä Kidan)
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
Book of the
Covenant 2
(Mäshafä Kidan)
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
Ethiopic Clement
(Qälëmentos)[N 11]
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)
Ethiopic Didescalia
(Didesqelya)[N 11]
No No No No No Yes
(broader canon)

Table notes

  1. The growth and development of the Armenian Biblical canon is complex. Extra-canonical New Testament books appear in historical canon lists and recensions that are either distinct to this tradition, or where they do exist elsewhere, never achieved the same status. Some of the books are not listed in this table. These include the Prayer of Euthalius, the Repose of St. John the Evangelist, the Doctrine of Addai (some sources replace this with the Acts of Thaddeus), a reading from the Gospel of James (some sources replace this with the Apocryphon of James), the Second Apostolic Canons, the Words of Justus, Dionysius Aeropagite, the Acts of Peter (some sources replace this with the Preaching of Peter), and a Poem by Ghazar. (Various sources also mention undefined Armenian canonical additions to the Gospels of Mark and John, however, these may refer to the general additions—Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11—discussed elsewhere in these notes.) A possible exception here to canonical exclusivity is the Second Apostolic Canons, which share a common source—the Apostolic Constitutions—with certain parts of the Orthodox Tewahedo New Testament broader canon. The correspondence between King Agbar and Jesus Christ, which is found in various forms—including within both the Doctrine of Addai and the Acts of Thaddeus—sometimes appears separately (see this list). It is noteworthy that the Prayer of Euthalius and the Repose of St. John the Evangelist appear in the appendix of the 1805 Armenian Zohrab Bible. However, some of the aforementioned books, though they are found within canon lists, have nonetheless never been discovered to be part of any Armenian Biblical manuscript.
  2. Though widely regarded as non-canonical, the Gospel of James obtained early liturgical acceptance among some Eastern churches and remains a major source for many of Christendom’s traditions related to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
  3. The Diatessaron, Tatian’s gospel harmony, became a standard text in some Syriac-speaking churches down to the 5th century, when it gave-way to the four separate gospels found in the Peshitta.
  4. Parts of these four books are not found in the most reliable ancient sources; in some cases, are thought to be later additions; and have therefore not historically existed in every Biblical tradition. They are as follows: Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, the Comma Johanneum, and portions of the Western version of Acts. To varying degrees, arguments for the authenticity of these passages—especially for the one from the Gospel of John—have occasionally been made.
  5. Skeireins, a commentary on the Gospel of John in the Gothic language, was included in the Wulfila Bible. It exists today only in fragments.
  6. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians are all portions of the greater Acts of Paul narrative, which is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in the Codex Claromontanus, but has survived only in fragments. Some of the content within these individual sections may have developed separately, however.
  7. The Third Epistle to the Corinthians often appears with and is framed as a response to the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul.
  8. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is present in some western non-Roman Catholic translations and traditions. Especially of note is John Wycliffe’s inclusion of the epistle in his English translation, and the Quakers’ use of it to the point where they produced a translation and made pleas for its canonicity (Poole’s Annotations, on Col. 4:16). The epistle is nonetheless widely rejected by the vast majority of Protestants.
  9. These four works were questioned or “spoken against” by Martin Luther, and he changed the order of his New Testament to reflect this, but he did not leave them out, nor has any Lutheran body since. Traditional German Luther Bibles are still printed with the New Testament in this changed “Lutheran” order. The vast majority of Protestants embrace these four works as fully canonical.
  10. The Peshitta excludes 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions include later translations of those books. Still today, the official lectionary followed by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, present lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions.
  11. The Apocalypse of Peter, though not listed in this table, is mentioned in the Muratorian fragment and is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in the Codex Claromontanus. It was also held in high regard by Clement of Alexandria.
  12. Other known writings of the Apostolic Fathers not listed in this table are as follows: the seven Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus, the fragment of Quadratus of Athens, the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis, the Reliques of the Elders Preserved in Irenaeus, and the Apostles’ Creed.
  13. Though they are not listed in this table, the Apostolic Constitutions were considered canonical by some including Alexius Aristenus, John of Salisbury, and to a lesser extent, Grigor Tat`evatsi. They are even classified as part of the New Testament canon within the body of the Constitutions itself. Moreover, they are the source for a great deal of the content in the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon.
  14. These five writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers are not currently considered canonical in any Biblical tradition, though they are more highly regarded by some more than others. Nonetheless, their early authorship and inclusion in ancient Biblical codices, as well as their acceptance to varying degrees by various early authorities, requires them to be treated as foundational literature for Christianity as a whole.
  15. Ethiopic Clement and the Ethiopic Didascalia are distinct from and should not be confused with other ecclesiastical documents known in the west by similar names.

Latter Day Saint canons

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

A 21st-century artistic representation of the Golden Plates with Urim and Thummim.

The standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) consists of several books that constitute its open scriptural canon, and include the following:

King James Version of the Bible[52] — without the Apocrypha The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Pearl of Great Price

The Pearl of Great Price contains five sections: “Selections from the Book of Moses”, “The Book of Abraham”, “Joseph Smith—Matthew”, “Joseph Smith—History” and “The Articles of Faith”. The Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew are portions of the Book of Genesis and the Book of Matthew (respectively) from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

The manuscripts of the unfinished Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) state that “the Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture.”[53] However, it is still printed in every version of the King James Bible published by the church.

The Standard Works are printed and distributed by the LDS church in a single binding called a “Quadruple Combination” or a set of two books, with the Bible in one binding, and the other three books in a second binding called a “Triple Combination”. Current editions of the Standard Works include a bible dictionary, photographs, maps and gazetteer, topical guide, index, footnotes, cross references, excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and other study aids.

Other Latter Day Saint sects

Canons of various Latter Day Saint denominations diverge from the LDS Standard Works. For instance, the Bickertonite sect believes that the New Testament scriptures contain a true description of the church as established by Jesus Christ. Both the King James Bible and Book of Mormon are considered to be the inspired word of God, as all doctrines and faith of the church are referenced with these two books.[54]

The Community of Christ points to Jesus Christ as the living Word of God,[55] and it affirms the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, as well as its own version of the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture for the church. While it publishes a version of the Joseph Smith Translation — which includes material from the Book of Moses — the Community of Christ also accepts the use of other translations of the Bible, such as the standard King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version.

Like the aforementioned Bickertonites, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) rejects the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, preferring to use only the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon as doctrinal standards. The Book of Commandments is accepted as being superior to the Doctrine and Covenants as a compendium of Joseph Smith’s early revelations, but is not accorded the same status as the Bible or Book of Mormon.

The Word of the Lord and The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel are two related books considered to be scriptural by certain (Fettingite) factions that separated from the Temple Lot church. Both books contain revelations allegedly given to former Church of Christ (Temple Lot) Apostle Otto Fetting by an angelic being who claimed to be John the Baptist. The latter title (120 messages) contains the entirety of the former’s material (30 msgs.) with additional revelations (90 msgs.) purportedly given to William A. Draves by this same being, after Fetting’s death. Neither are accepted by the larger Temple Lot body of believers.[56]

The Strangite sect consider the Bible (when correctly translated), the Book of Mormon, and editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published prior to Joseph Smith’s death (which contained the Lectures on Faith) to be inspired scripture. They also hold the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to be inspired, but do not believe modern publications of the text are accurate. Other portions of The Pearl of Great Price, however, are not considered to be scriptural — though are not necessarily fully rejected either. The Book of Jasher was consistently used by both Joseph Smith and James Strang, but as with other Latter Day Saint denominations and sects, there is no official stance on its authenticity, and it is not considered canonical.[57] An additional work called The Book of the Law of the Lord is also accepted as inspired scripture by the Strangites. They likewise hold as scriptural several prophecies, visions, revelations, and translations printed by James Strang, and published in the Revelations of James J. Strang. Among other things, this text contains his purported “Letter of Appointment” from Joseph Smith and his translation of the Voree plates.

Many Latter Day Saint denominations have also either adopted the Articles of Faith or at least view them as a statement of basic theology. (They are considered scriptural by the larger LDS church and are included in The Pearl of Great Price.) At times, the Articles have been adapted to fit the respective belief systems of various faith communities.


1.   McDonald, L. M. & Sanders, J. A., eds. (2002). The Canon Debate. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” pp. 29, 34. (In the article written by Eugene Ulrich, “canon” is defined as follows: “…the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after serious deliberation.” It is further defined as follows: “…the definitive, closed list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture.”)

2.   McDonald & Sanders, editors of The Canon Debate, 2002, The Notion and Definition of Canon by Eugene Ulrich, page 28: “The term is late and Christian … though the idea is Jewish”; also from the Introduction on page 13: “We should be clear, however, that the current use of the term “canon” to refer to a collection of scripture books was introduced by David Ruhnken in 1768 in his Historia critica oratorum graecorum for lists of sacred scriptures. While it is tempting to think that such usage has its origins in antiquity in reference to a closed collection of scriptures, such is not the case.” The technical discussion includes Athanasius’s use of “kanonizomenon=canonized” and Eusebius’s use of kanon and “endiathekous biblous=encovenanted books” and the Mishnaic term Sefarim Hizonim (external books).

3.   Athanasius Letter 39.6.3: “Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.”

4.   McDonald & Sanders, page 32–33: Closed list; page 30: “But it is necessary to keep in mind Bruce Metzger’s distinction between “a collection of authoritative books” and “an authoritative collection of books.”

5.   McDonald & Sanders, page 4

6.    McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 60, chapter 4: The Formation of the Hebrew Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case by Joseph Blenkinsopp.

7.    Philip R. Davies in The Canon Debate, page 50: “With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty.”

8.    Jewish Encyclopedia: Samaritans

9.   The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 6: Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls by James C. VanderKam, page 94, citing private communication with Emanuel Tov on biblical manuscripts: Qumran scribe type c.25%, proto-Masoretic Text c. 40%, pre-Samaritan texts c.5%, texts close to the Hebrew model for the Septuagint c.5% and nonaligned c.25%.

10.  Jewish Encyclopedia: Sadducees: “With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently identified (see Hippolytus, “Refutatio Hæresium,” ix. 29; Epiphanius, l.c. xiv.; and other Church Fathers, who ascribe to the Sadducees the rejection of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; comp. also Sanh. 90b, where “Ẓadduḳim” stands for “Kutim” [Samaritans]; Sifre, Num. 112; Geiger, l.c. pp. 128–129), and by the Karaites (see Maimonides, commentary on Ab. i. 3; Geiger, “Gesammelte Schriften,” iii. 283–321; also Anan ben David; Karaites).”

11.  Samaritan Documents, Relating To Their History, Religion and Life, translated and edited by John Bowman, Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series Number 2, 1977.


13.  Crown, Alan D. (October 1991). “The Abisha Scroll – 3,000 Years Old?” in Bible Review.

14.  McDonald & Sanders’s 2002 The Canon Debate, page 259: “the so-called Septuagint was not in itself formally closed.” — attributed to Albert Sundberg’s 1964 Harvard dissertation.

15.  Everett Ferguson, “Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3.

16.   Bruce Metzger‘s The canon of the New Testament, 1997, Oxford University Press, page 98: “The question whether the Church’s canon preceded or followed Marcion’s canon continues to be debated. …Harnack…John Knox…”

17.  von Harnack, Adolf (1914). Origin of the New Testament.

18.   (Adv. Haer., iii. x. 8 & 9) Everett Ferguson, “Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8

19.  Both points taken from Mark A. Noll’s Turning Points, (Baker Academic, 1997) pp 36–37

20.    H. J. De Jonge, “The New Testament Canon,” in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003) p. 315

21.    The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 308

22.    Prat, Ferdinand. “Origen and Origenism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 31 July 2008.<>. According to Eusebius’ Church History 6.25: a 22 book OT [though Eusebius doesn’t name Minor Prophets, presumably just an oversight?] + 1 DeuteroCanon [“And outside these are the Maccabees, which are entitled S<ph?>ar beth sabanai el.”] + 4 Gospels but on the Apostle “Paul … did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines.”

23.  Bruce Manning Metzger, “The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance”, p. 141

24.   Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.

25.   David Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty Ninth Festal Letter,” in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419

26.  Metzger, Bruce M. (1987.). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

27.   McDonald & Sanders’ The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19: “Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage.”

28.  Everett Ferguson, “Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230; cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8

29.    F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 234

30.    F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 225

31.    Everett Ferguson, “Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) pp. 237–238; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 97

32.   F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 215

33.   The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 305; cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament

34. note order: … Hebr�er, Jakobus, Judas, Offenbarung; see also

35.    While Melito did not include the Hebrew book of Esther in his canon, Evangelicals accept it as fully canonical. It appears in every modern version of the Old Testament.

36.    Just, Felix, S.J. Ph.D. 2006. “The New Teatament Canon.” Available online at <3 February 2012>

37.    Clark, Stephen B. 1980. Man and Woman in Christ. Servant Books. pp.329-332. Available online at

38.    Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament

39.    The canonical Enoch may differ in various ways from certain versions known in the west.

40.    Josephus’s The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews are highly regarded by Christians because they provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and early Christianity. Morover, in Antiquities, Josephus made two extra-Biblical references to Jesus, which have played a crucial role in establishing him as a historical figure.

41.   The Ethiopian broader canon in its fullest form — which includes the narrower canon in its entirety, as well as nine additional books — is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in Ethiopia. While the narrower canon has indeed been published as one compilation, there may be no real emic distinction between the broader canon and the narrower canon, especially in so far as divine inspiration and scriptural authority are concerned. The idea of two such classifications may be nothing more than etic taxonomic conjecture.

42.    Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. 2003. “The Bible.” Online at <20 January 2012>

43.  A translation of the Epistle to the Laodiceans can be accessed online at <25 January 2012>

44.   The Third Epistle to the Corinthians can be found as a section within the Acts of Paul, which has survived only in fragments. A translation of the entire remaining Acts of Paul can be accessed online at <26 January 2012>

45.   Saifullah, M.S.M. 2006. “Canons & Recensions Of The Armenian Bible.” Online at <25 January 2012>

46.   Metzger, Bruce M. Canon of the New Testament. pp 219, 223; cf. 7, 176, 182. Cited in McDonald & Sanders, eds. 2002. The Canon Debate. p 492.

47.   Various translations of the Didache can be accessed online at <26 January 2012>

48.   A translation of the Shepherd of Hermas can be accessed online at <25 January 2012>

49.  Cowley, R.W. 1974. “The Biblical Canon Of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today” in Ostkirchliche Studien, Volume 23, pp. 318-323. Online at <20 January 2012>

50.   Burris, Catherine and Van Rompay, Lucas. 2002. “Thecla in Syriac Christianity: Preliminary Observations” in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2. Available online at <7 February 2012>

51.   Carter, Nancy A. 2000. “The Acts of Thecla: A Pauline Tradition Linked to Women.” Available online at <7 February 2012>

52.   The LDS Church uses the King James Version (KJV) in English-speaking countries; other versions are used in non-English speaking countries.

53.    LDS Church, Bible Dictionary p.776, Song of Solomon

54.   Lovalvo, V James (1986) (PDF). Dissertation on the Faith and Doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ. Bridgewater, MI: The Church of Jesus Christ. pp. 115–16.

55.   Community of Christ Theology Task Force, Scripture in the Community of Christ, Saints Herald, August 2006, p. 15.

56.   A Synopsis of the Church of Christ Beliefs and Practices as Compared to Other Latter Day Saint Churches, by Apostle William Sheldon. Refers to the Bible and Book of Mormon as “the only safe standards”.

57.   Strangite Scriptures Retrieved 3 March 2012.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave a Reply

Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: