Development of the New Testament canon
For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its Biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum of uncertain authorship)) as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419. For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.
Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions “memoirs of the apostles” as being read on “the day called that of the sun” (Sunday) alongside the “writings of the prophets.” A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.
By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word “canonized” (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regard to them. The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. 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, or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’ commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, 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.”
Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon, and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Gallic Confession of Faith of 1559 for Calvinism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
Comparison between earliest biblical canons
|Books||Marcionite canon||Muratorian fragment||Peshitta||Codex Vaticanus||Codex Sinaiticus||Codex Alexandrinus||Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus|
|Composition date||c. 130–140||c. 170||?||c. 300–325||c. 330–360||c. 400–440||c. 450|
|Shepherd of Hermas||No||No||No||No||Yes||No||No|
|Epistle of Barnabas||No||No||No||No||Yes||No||No|
|Apocalypse of Peter||No||Yes||No||No||No||No||No|
|Book of Wisdom||No||Yes||No||No||No||No||No|
Early Christianity (c. 30–325)
Clement of Rome
By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were known to Clement of Rome (fl. 96), together with some form of the “words of Jesus”; but while Clement valued these highly, he did not regard them as “Scripture” (“graphe”), a term he reserved for the Septuagint. Metzger 1987 draws the following conclusion about Clement:
Clement… makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering ‘the words’ of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a ‘gospel’. He knows several of Paul’s epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative ‘Scripture’.— page 43
Within the New Testament itself, there is a reference to at least some of the works of Paul as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 says:
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The reference to, presumably the Septuagint, as the “other” Scripture denotes that the author of 2 Peter regarded, at least, the works of Paul that had been written by his time as Scripture. It is difficult to determine the date of composition; commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160.
Marcion of Sinope
Marcion of Sinope, a bishop of Asia Minor who went to Rome and was later excommunicated for his views, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique list of Christian scriptures, compiled sometime between 130–140 AD. (Though Ignatius did address Christian scripture, before Marcion, against the perceived heresies of the Judaizers and Docetists, he did not define a list of scriptures.) In his book Origin of the New Testament Adolf von Harnack argued that Marcion viewed the church at this time as largely an Old Testament church (one that “follows the Testament of the Creator-God”) without a firmly established New Testament canon, and that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
Marcion rejected the theology of the Old Testament entirely and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior being. In the Antithesis, he claimed the theology of the Old Testament was incompatible with the teaching of Jesus regarding God and morality. Marcion believed that Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the authority of the God of the Old Testament, and to reveal the superior God of goodness and mercy, whom he called the Father. Paul and Luke were the only Christian authors to find favor with Marcion, though his versions of these differed from those later accepted by mainstream Christianity (also termed Proto-orthodox Christianity).
Marcion created a definite group of books which he regarded as fully authoritative, displacing all others. These comprised ten of the Pauline epistles (without the Pastorals) and a gospel similar to that of Luke. It is uncertain whether he edited these books, purging them of what did not accord with his views, or that his versions represented a separate textual tradition.
Marcion’s gospel, called simply the Gospel of the Lord, differed from the Gospel of Luke by lacking any passages that connected Jesus with the Old Testament. He believed that the god of Israel, who gave the Torah to the Israelites, was an entirely different god from the Supreme God who sent Jesus and inspired the New Testament. Marcion termed his collection of Pauline epistles the Apostolikon. These also differed from the versions accepted by later Christian Orthodoxy.
(c. 4th century)
|1. Contents unknown; some scholars equate it with Ephesians.|
Marcion’s list and theology were rejected as heretical by the early church; however, he forced other Christians to consider which texts were canonical and why. He spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism. In the introduction to his book “Early Christian Writings”, Henry Wace stated:
A modern divine… could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author.
Ferguson 2002 quotes Tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum 30:
Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation.
Note 61 of page 308 adds:
[Wolfram] Kinzig suggests that it was Marcion who usually called his Bible testamentum [Latin for testament].
Other scholars propose that it was Melito of Sardis who originally coined the phrase Old Testament, which is associated with Supersessionism.
Robert M. Price argues that the evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear, and concludes that Marcion was the first person to collect Paul’s writings to various churches and to treat ten Pauline letters, some of them Marcion’s own compositions, together with an earlier version of Luke (not the Gospel of Luke as now known):
But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.
In the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr (whose writings span the period from c. 145 to 163) mentions the “memoirs of the apostles”, which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. Scholars are divided on whether there is any evidence that Justin included the Gospel of John among the “memoirs of the apostles”, or whether, on the contrary, he based his doctrine of the Logos on it. Justin quotes the letters of Paul, 1 Peter, and Acts in his writings.
In Justin’s works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. In addition, he refers to an account from an unnamed source of the baptism of Jesus which differs from that provided by the synoptic gospels:
When Jesus went down in the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him. The apostles of our Christ wrote this.
Tatian was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 and, after much instruction, returned to Syria in 172 to reform the church there. At some point, likely around 160-175, he composed a single harmonized “Gospel” by weaving the contents of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together along with events present in none of these texts. The narrative mainly follows the chronology of John. This is called the Diatessaron (“(Harmony) Through Four”) and it became the official Gospel text of the Syraic church, centered in Edessa.
Irenaeus of Lyon referred directly to a defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph), c. 180. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various early Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Marcionism which used only Marcion’s version of Luke, or the Ebionites which seem to have used an Aramaic version of Matthew, as well as groups that used more than four gospels, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four “Pillars of the Church”: “it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four” he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6–10, of God’s throne borne by four creatures with four faces—”the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle”—equivalent to the “four-formed” gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion (Mark), ox (Luke), eagle (John), man (Matthew). Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. By reading each gospel in light of the others, Irenaeus made of John a lens through which to read Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus’s time. Against Heresies 3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four. The success of Tatian’s Diatessaron in about the same time period is “…a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized.”
Irenaeus apparently quotes from 21 of the New Testament books and names the author he thought wrote the text. He mentions the four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles with the exception of Hebrews and Philemon, as well as the first epistle of Peter, and the first and second epistles of John, and the book of Revelation. Irenaeus argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author; in Against Heresies 3.12.12 he ridiculed those who think they are wiser than the Apostles because the Apostles were still under Jewish influence. He may also refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude.
He does think that the letter to the Corinthians, known now as 1 Clement, was of great worth but does not seem to believe that Clement of Rome was the one author (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3) and seems to have the same lower status as Polycarp’s Epistle (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3). He does refer to a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (Mandate 1 or First Commandment), but this has some consistency problems on his part. Hermas taught that Jesus was not himself a divine being, but a virtuous man who was subsequently filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son (a doctrine called adoptionism). But Irenaeus’s own work, including his citing of the Gospel of John (Jn. 1:1), indicates that he himself believed that Jesus was always God.
Early proto-Orthodox definition attempts
In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus Against Heresies 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament (against this rumor see Romans 3:8, 3:31). 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around “as they do with the other scriptures.” In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History 6.38 says the Elchasai “made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely”; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul’s Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but 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.”
Between 140 and 220, both internal and external forces caused Proto-orthodox Christianity to begin to systematize both its doctrines and its view of revelation. Much of the systemization came about as a defense against the diverse Early Christian viewpoints that competed with emerging Proto-Orthodoxy. The early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong movements of faith later deemed heretical by the church in Rome: Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism.
Marcion may have been the first to have a clearly defined list of New Testament books, though this question of who came first is still debated. The compilation of this list could have been a challenge and incentive to emerging Proto-orthodoxy; if they wished to deny that Marcion’s list was the true one, it was incumbent on them to define what the true one was. The expansion phase of the New Testament canon thus could have begun in response to Marcion’s proposed limited canon.
The Muratorian fragment is the earliest known example of a defined list of mostly New Testament books. It survives, damaged and thus incomplete, as a bad Latin translation of an original, no longer extant, Greek text that is usually dated in the late 2nd century, although a few scholars have preferred a 4th-century date. This is an excerpt from Metzger’s translation:
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke… The fourth… is that of John… the acts of all the apostles… As for the Epistles of Paul… To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh… once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians… one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy… to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion… the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John… and [the book of] Wisdom… We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently… And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church.
This is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book NT, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed “practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered.” In addition to books that did not make it into the final 27-book NT but which had local acceptance (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than II Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.
There were those who rejected the Gospel of John (and possibly also Revelation and the Epistles of John) as either not apostolic or as written by the Gnostic Cerinthus or as not compatible with the Synoptic Gospels. Epiphanius of Salamis called these people the Alogi, because they rejected the Logos doctrine of John and because he claimed they were illogical. There may have also been a dispute over the doctrine of the Paraclete. Gaius or Caius, presbyter of Rome (early 3rd century), was apparently associated with this movement.
Period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787)
Eusebius, in his Church History (c. 330), mentioned the books of New Testament according to him:
1. […] it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles… the epistles of Paul… the epistle of John… the epistle of Peter… After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings [Homologoumena].
3. Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4. Among the rejected [Kirsopp. Lake translation: “not genuine”] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews… And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books… such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles … they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.
The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: “Recognized”) and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. The disputation perhaps attributed to Origen (see also Pamphili c. 330, 3.24.17–18). Pamphili c. 330, 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: “Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.” Pamphili c. 330, 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: “But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style.”
The Codex Claromontanus , c. 303–67, a page found inserted into a 6th-century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the Old Testament, including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2,4 Maccabees, and the New Testament, plus Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and Hermas, but missing Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.
Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that the list had been drawn up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighborhood ~300 AD. According to Jülicher the list belongs to the 4th century and is probably of western origin.
Constantine the Great
In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus may be examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.
Cyril of Jerusalem
McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, notes the following list of New Testament books from Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) from his Catechetical Lectures 4.36:
Gospels (4), Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, Paul’s epistles (14), and Gospel of Thomas listed as pseudepigrapha.
Council of Laodicea
The Council of Laodicea, c. 363, was one of the first councils that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60, sometimes attributed to the Council of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22-book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regard to them.
The Cheltenham List, c. 365–90, is a Latin list discovered by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th-century manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in North Africa soon after the middle of the 4th century.
It has a 24-book Old Testament and 24-book New Testament which provides syllable and line counts but omits Jude and James, and perhaps Hebrews, and seems to question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first.
McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, writes the following list for Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 374–77), from his Panarion 76.5:
Gospels (4), Paul’s epistles (13), Acts, James, Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, Rev, Wisdom, Sirach
Apostolic Canon #85
In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselves as the 85th of his list of such apostolic decrees:
Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament …] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.—(From the Latin version.)
It is said that the Coptic translation and some Arabic version include Revelation.
Amphilochius of Iconium
Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, discusses debate over the inclusion of a number of books that should be received, and seems uncertain about the later Epistles of Peter and John, Jude, and Revelation.
Pope Damasus I
Pope Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible to Jerome, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the Catholic canon, since what is thought as his list corresponds to the current Catholic canon. Purporting to date from a “Council of Rome” under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called “Damasian list” which some attributed to the Decretum Gelasianum gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent, and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable 6th century compilation.
This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
[A list of books of the Old Testament …], and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.
The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496 AD. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the Catholic New Testament.
McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, lists the following New Testament books according to Jerome, (c. 394), from his Epistle 53:
“Lord’s Four”: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul’s Epistles (14), 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Rev.
Augustine and the North African councils
Augustine of Hippo declared that one is to “prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority.” (On Christian Doctrines 2.12, chapter 8).
Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage (397), and another in Carthage in 419 AD (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: “nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures” except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. It seems these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.
The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Synod of Carthage (397) and Council of Carthage (419). These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. This North African canon reaffirmed at the Council of Trent of 1546.
Pope Innocent I
In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse, identical with that of Trent. It states “fourteen” Epistles of Paul, but F.F. Bruce prefers “thirteen” excluding the Hebrews. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, by the turn of the 5th century, the Western Church under Pope Innocent I recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which was previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419).
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. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; in the East, chiliasm and Montanism brought it under suspicion; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether in Byzantine or modern times. However, its canonical status is recognized.
Outside the Empire
In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17-book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Syriac Doctrine of Addai (c. 400) claims to record the oldest traditions of the Syriac Christianity, and among these is the establishment of a canon: members of the church are to read only the Gospel (meaning the Diatessaron of Tatian), the Epistles of Paul (which are said to have been sent by Peter, from Rome), and the Book of Acts (which is said to have been sent by John the son of Zebedee, from Ephesus), and nothing else.
For centuries the Diatessaron, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books of the Syriac Christianity, meaning that Tatian’s stricter views, resulting in the rejection in 1 Timothy, did not win out. Moreover, after the pronouncements of the 4th century on the proper content of the Bible, Tatian was declared a heretic and in the early 4th century Bishop Theodoretus of Cyrrhus and Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (both in Syria) rooted out all copies they could find of the Diatessaron and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels (M 215). As a result, no early copies of the Diatessaron survive—although a very early fragment suggests it would have been crucial evidence for the true state of the early Gospels (see IX).
By the 5th century, the Syriac Bible, called the Peshitta, was formalized, accepting Philemon, along with James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but excluding 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. After the Council of Ephesus, the Church of the East became separated, and retained this canon of only 22-books (the Peshitta) up to the present day. The Syriac Orthodox Church uses this text as well (known in the West Syriac dialect as the Peshitto), but with the addition of the other books normally present in the New Testament canon.
The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syriac Orthodox Church includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon.
McDonald & Sanders 2002, lists the following Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine’s, c. 400:
Gospels (4): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Gal, Rom, Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, 1–2 Thess, 1–2 Tim, Titus, Phlm.
The Syriac Peshitta, used by all the various Syriac Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22 books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347–407) and Theodoret (393–466) from the School of Antioch). It also includes Psalm 151 and Psalm 152–155 and 2 Baruch. Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22-books of the original Peshitta.
The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, also found in the Acts of Paul, which became canonized in the Armenian Church, but is not part of the Armenian Bible today. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200, when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text. Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas.
The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in its Old Testament and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list them with the other 27 canonical New Testament books.
Coptic and Ethiopian canons
The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement. The canon of the Tewahedo Churches is somewhat looser than for other traditional Christian groups, and the order, naming, and chapter/verse division of some of the books is also slightly different.
The “broader” Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of “Sinodos” (church practices), two “Books of Covenant”, “Ethiopic Clement”, and “Ethiopic Didascalia” (Apostolic Church-Ordinances). However, these books have never been printed or widely studied. This “broader” canon is also sometimes said to include, with the Old Testament, an eight-part history of the Jews based on the writings of Flavius Josephus, and known as “Pseudo-Josephus” or “Joseph ben Gurion” (Yosēf walda Koryon).
Protestant developments (from c. 1517)
The Encyclopedia of Theology says that the 27 books which make up the New Testament canon of Scripture are not based on a Scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, thus their legitimacy is considered impossible to be distinguished with certainty without appealing to another infallible source, such as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which first assembled and authenticated this list at the Council of Rome. Catholicism considers the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority, has equal position and linked together with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, each acts in its own way for the goodness of the Church. Rejecting these, Protestant reformers focused on the doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e. the supreme authority of Scripture alone. Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Protestant Reformation.
Martin Luther was troubled by four books, referred to as Luther’s Antilegomena: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; while he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. He did propose removing them from the canon, echoing the consensus of several Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus, and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia 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.
Among confessions of faith drawn up by Protestants, several identify by name the 27-books of the New Testament canon, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) during the English Civil War. The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books.
Catholic developments (from c. 1546)
Council of Trent
The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, approved the enforcement of the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books as an article of faith (the contents of the canon itself having already been reaffirmed unanimously), and the decision was confirmed by an anathema by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain). This is said to be the same list as produced at the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442), Augustine’s 397-419 Councils of Carthage, and probably Damasus’ 382 Council of Rome. Because of its placement, the list was not considered binding for the Catholic Church, and in light of Martin Luther’s demands, the Catholic Church examined the question of the Canon again at the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the canon of previous councils and added the anathema against attempts to change the contents of the canon.
The First Vatican Council on April 24, 1870, approved the additions to Mark (v. 16:9–20), Luke (22:19b–20, 43–44), and John (7:53–8:11), which are not present in early manuscripts but are contained in the Vulgate edition.
Pope Pius XI on June 2, 1927, decreed the Comma Johanneum was open to investigative scrutiny. 
Pope Pius XII on 3 September 1943 issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed translations based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate.
Orthodox developments (from c. 1672)
Synod of Jerusalem
The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox Canon which is similar to the one decided by the Council of Trent. They “call[ed] Sacred Scripture all those [books] which Cyril collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding to Scripture those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, called Apocrypha; specifically, [List of deuterocanonical books…].”
But it is to be noted that this was simply an affirmation of tradition, not a new canonization. As the Confession goes on to state, “ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these [deuterocanonical books] also as parts of Scripture…. And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture…”
- Bart D. Ehrman (1997). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. p. 8. ISBN978-0-19-508481-8.
The New Testament contains twenty-seven books, written in Greek, by fifteen or sixteen different authors, who were addressing other Christian individuals or communities between the years 50 and 120 C.E.
- McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Biblical Canon. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 317, 367. ISBN9780567668851.
- “The Christian canon”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica.
- Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company..
- Philip Schaff, “Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy”, History of the Christian Church, CCEL
- Martyr, Justin, First Apology, 67.3.
- Ferguson 2002, p. 301.
- Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3.11.8.
- Noll 1997, pp. 36–37.
- de Jonge 2003, p. 315.
- Ackroyd & Evans 1970, p. 308.
- Lindberg 2006, p. 15.
- Brakke 1994.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, note 19: ‘Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage.’
- Ferguson 2002, p. 320.
- Bruce 1988, p. 230.
- Augustine, 22.8.
- Bruce 1988, p. 234.
- Bruce 1988, p. 225.
- Metzger 1987, pp. 237–38.
- Bruce 1988, p. 97.
- Bruce 1988, p. 215.
- Ackroyd & Evans 1970, p. 305.
- Adrian Cozad. “Marcionite Bible”. Marcionite Research Library. Melissa Cutler. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
- Bruce Metzger (translator). “The Muratorian fragment”. EarlyChristianWritings.com. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
- Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 109. ISBN978-0-8028-4098-1.
- “Content”. The Codex Sinaiticus Project. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- “Codex Alexandrinus Table of Contents”. Chapel of St. Maximos the Confessor. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
- It is not known whether 2 Thessalonians and 2 John were excluded on purpose, or that not a single fragment of either epistle happened to survive. McDonald, Lee Martin (2017). The Formation of the Biblical Canon: Volume 2: The New Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 244. ISBN9780567668851. Retrieved 17 July2018.
- The beginning of the Muratorian Canon is lost; the fragment that has survived, starts by naming Luke the third gospel and John the fourth. Historians therefore assume that the first two gospels would have been Matthew and Mark, although this remains uncertain.
- The Gospel of Marcion bears a close resemblance to the Gospel of Luke. Most scholars think the former is an edited version of the latter, while a minority of scholars claim the Gospel of Luke must be an edited version of the Gospel of Marcion.
- The contents of this Marcionite Epistle to the Laodiceans are unknown. Some scholars equate it with the Epistle to the Ephesians, because the latter originally did not contain the words ‘in Ephesus’, and because it is the only non-pastoral Pauline epistle missing from the Marcionite canon, suggesting Laodiceans was simply Ephesians under another name.
- The Muratorian fragment mentions two letters by John, but gives little clues as to which ones. Therefore, it is not known which of the three was excluded that would later be considered canonical. Bruce Metzgerconcluded that the Muratorian fragment cites 1 John 1:1-3 when it says: “What marvel is it then, if John so consistently mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, saying about himself, ‘What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you?'”.
- Peter, II Letter (NIV ed.), Bible Gateway
- Bauckham, RJ (1983), Word Bible Commentary, Vol. 50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco
- Jason BeDuhn, “Marcion, Forgotten Church Father and Inventor of the New Testament”, The Fourth R, Vol. 27 No 5, Sep–Oct 2014. pp. 3-6, 23-24.
- Marcion, Early Christian writings.
- Ignatius, NT Canon.
- von Harnack, Adolf (1914). Origin of the New Testament.
- Knox, John, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon, ISBN0-404-16183-9
- Marcion, On truth, archived from the original on 2007-10-16, retrieved 2007-10-15.
- Marcion, Christian origins.
- Wace, Henry (1911). “Marcion”. Early Christian Writings.
- Kessler, Edward; Wenborn, Neil (2005-12-08), A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, p. 316, ISBN9781139447508.
- Ferguson 2002, pp. 302–03.
- Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3.
- Ferguson 2002, pp. 302–03 note 32.
- Craig D. Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation (BRILL 2002 ISBN978-9-00412619-0), p. 178
- Saint Justin Martyr, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 88:3.
- Cross, F. L, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005, article Tatian
- Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, p. 277.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, pp. 280, 310, summarizing 3.11.7: the Ebionites use Matthew’s Gospel, Marcion mutilates Luke’s, the Docetistsuse Mark’s, the Valentinians use John’s.
- Streeter, Tom (2012-01-05). The Church and Western Culture. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. p. 115. ISBN978-1-42595349-2.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, p. 288, claims Acts was first “clearly and extensively” used by Irenaeus, though it seems to have been known by Justin (1 Apol. 50.12, cf. 2 Apol. 10.6).
- Irinæus, Adversus Hæreses.
- Wallace, J. Warner (2013). “How the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Preserved the Eyewitness Gospel Accounts”. Cold Case Christianity. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
- Dillon, John J. (1991). St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. p. 9. ISBN978-0-80910454-3.
- “The Holy Pre-existent Spirit. Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that he desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit, walking honorably in holiness and purity, without in any way defiling the Spirit. When then it had lived honorably in chastity, and had labored with the Spirit, and had cooperated with it in everything, behaving itself boldly and bravely, he chose it as a partner with the Holy Spirit; for the career of this flesh pleased [the Lord], seeing that, as possessing the Holy Spirit, it was not defiled upon the earth. He therefore took the son as adviser and the glorious angels also, that this flesh too, having served the Spirit unblamably, might have some place of sojourn, and might not seem to have lost the reward for its service; for all flesh, which is found undefiled and unspotted, wherein the Holy Spirit dwelt, shall receive a reward.” 
- “Hermas never mentions Jesus Christ, or the Word, but only the Son of God, who is the highest angel. As holy spirit the Son dwells in the flesh; this human nature is God’s adopted son” in, Patrick W. Carey, Joseph T. Lienhard (editors), Biographical Dictionary of Christian Theologians, p. 241 (Greenwood Press, 2008). ISBN0-313-29649-9
- Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians,
At this point [Gal 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thess 2:2; 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries… In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his hand-writing may reflect the energy and determination of his soul.
- Metzger 1997, p. 98: “The question whether the Church’s canon preceded or followed Marcion’s canon continues to be debated. …Harnack… John Knox…”
- The Muratorian Canon, Early Christian writings, retrieved April 10,2007
- Bauckham 2006, pp. 425–26.
- Ferguson, E (1982), “Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance”, Studia Patristica, 17: 677–83.
- Ferguson, E (1993), “The Muragorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon”, Journal of Theological Studies, 44: 696.
- Bruce, FF (1983), “Some Thoughts on the Beginning of the New Testament Canon”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 65: 56–57.
- Metzger 1987, pp. 193–94.
- Henne, P (1993), “La datation du Canon de Muratori” [The dating of the Muratorian canon], Revue Biblique (in French), 100: 54–75.
- Horbury, W (1994), “The Wisdom of Solomon in the Muratorian Fragment”, Journal of Theological Studies, 45: 146–59.
- Hill, CE (1995), “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon”, Westminster Theological Journal, 57.
- Bauckham 2006, p. 426.
- Hahneman, GM (1992), The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Anchor Bible Dictionary.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, p. 595, note 17: “The Muratorian Fragment. While many scholars contend that this was a late second-century C.E. fragment originating in or around Rome, a growing number hold that it was produced around the middle of the fourth century (c. 350–375) and that it originated somewhere in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, possibly in Syria.”
- The Muratorian Fragment, Bible Research
- Lieuwen, Daniel F, NT canon emergence, Orthodox info.
- Metzger 1987, p. 150.
- The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. p. 45.
- Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Montanism in the West: “The old notion that the Alogi were an Asiatic sect (see ALOGI) is no longer tenable; they were the Roman Gaius and his followers, if he had any.”.
- Pamphili c. 330, Book 3, chapter XXV: The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.
- Kalin, Everett R. “The New Testament Canon of Eusebius”. In McDonald & Sanders (2002), pp. 403–04. “Eusebius divides the writings he has been discussing into three categories, the homologoumena (the universally acknowledged writings), the antilegomena (the writings that have been spoken against and are thus disputed—or, in a certain sense, rejected, even though in wide use) and the heretical writings. Only the twenty-one or twenty-two books in the first category are in the church’s New Testament (are canonical). It is the ancient church’s tradition of what the apostles wrote and handed down that is the criterion for evaluating these writings from the apostolic era, and only these twenty-one or twenty-two pass the test. In important recent contributions on this passage both Robbins and Baum agree that for Eusebius the church’s canon consists of these twenty-one or twenty-two books. … Given what we see in Eusebius in the early fourth century it is virtually impossible to imagine that the church had settled upon a twenty-seven book collection, or even one that approximated that, in the late second century. Moreover, whatever the merits of David Trobisch’s intriguing and important proposal that a twenty-seven book edition of the New Testament was produced in the second century, that notion seems hard to reconcile with what we have found in Eusebius regarding the church’s acceptance of apostolic writings in earlier centuries.”
- Kalin, ER (1990), “Re-examining New Testament Canon History: 1. The Canon of Origen”, Currents in Theology and Mission, 17: 274–82
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, p. 395.
- Codex Claromontanus, Bible Researcher.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, pp. 584.
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, pp. 414–15.
- Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon, Bible Research
- Schaff (ed.), Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, XIV, The Christian classics ethereal library.
- Council of Laodicea, Bible Research
- Athanasius (367), Schaff (ed.), Easter letter, The Christian classic ethereal library.
- Brakke, David (1994), “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty Ninth Festal Letter”, Harvard Theological Review, 87: 395–419.
- “The Cheltenham List”. Bible Research. Retrieved 2007-07-08.
- “The Cheltenham Canon”. NT canon. Retrieved 2007-07-08.; (also known as Mommsen‘s)
- From Cheltenham, Bible researcher which references Metzger: 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Numbers, 4. Leviticus, 5. Deuteronomy, 6. Joshua, 7. Judges, 8. Ruth, 9. I Kingdoms, 10. II Kingdoms, 11. III Kingdoms, 12. IV Kingdoms, 13. Chronicles I, 14. Chronicles II, 15. Maccabees I, 16. Maccabees II, 17. Job, 18. Tobit, 19. Esther, 20. Judith, 21. Psalms, 22. Solomon (probably to include the Wisdom of Solomon), 23. Major prophets, 24. Twelve Prophets
- Apostolic Canons, NT canon.
- Michael D. Marlowe. “The “Apostolic Canons” (about A.D. 380)”. Bible Research. Archived from the original on 29 August 2010. Retrieved 2 September 2010.
- “The Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium (after 394 CE)”.
- The Canon Debate, p. 400, note 78, translation attributed to Metzger’s Canon of the NT page 314 [“/” indicates newline]: “And again the Revelation of John,/ Some approve, but the most/ Say it is spurious.” and “Paul … [wrote]/ Twice seven epistles:… But some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious, not saying well, for the grace is genuine.” and on the Catholic Epistles: “Some say we must receive seven, but others say/ Only three [James, 1 Peter, 1 John] should be received…”
- Decretum Gelasianum, Tertulian.
- Bruce 1988, p. 234.
- Turner, CH, ed. (1900), “Damasian Canon”, JTS, 1: 554–60.
- Augustine, Aurelius, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Georgetown.
- “Letter of Innocent I on the Canon of Scripture”.
- Ramage, Matthew J. (2013). Dark Passages of the Bible. CUA Press. p. 67. ISBN978-0-81322156-4.
- Lee Martin McDonald, Formation of the Bible (Hendrickson Publishers 2012 ISBN978-1-59856838-7), p. 149
- John L. Mckenzie, The Dictionary of the Bible (Simon and Schuster 1995 ISBN978-0-68481913-6), p. 119
- Metzger 1987.
- Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou (editor) Commentary on the Apocalypse by Andrew of Caesarea (CUA Press 2011 ISBN978-0-81320123-8), p. 3
- “The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com”.
- “Peshitta”. The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. NT canon.
- “Reliability”. Theological Perspectives. Archived from the originalon October 8, 2007.
- Ethiopian Canon, Islamic Awareness.
- “Fathers”. Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL).
- Karl Rahner, ed. (1999). Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Burns & Oates. p. 172. ISBN978-0860120063.
- Dei verbum, n. 10.
- Michael Horton (March–April 1994). “Reformation Essentials”. Modern Reformation. Archived from the original on 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
- “Martin Luther”. WELS. Archived from the original on 2008-03-22.
- “Luther’s Treatment of the ‘Disputed Books’ of the New Testament”.
- “Gedruckte Ausgaben der Lutherbibel von 1545”. Archived from the original on 2010-04-19. note order: …Hebräer, Jakobus, Judas, Offenbarung
- “German Bible Versions”. Bible researcher.
- Metzger 1997, p. 246: “Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema.”
- “Council of Basel 1431-45 A”. Papalencyclicals.net. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
- F.L. Cross, E.A. Livingstone, ed. (1983), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 232
- “2”, Session 3, Daily Catholic, Item 6,
The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.In the context, the “decree of the said Council” is the decree of the Council of Trent defining the canon of the Scriptures.
- “The declaration adds that there was no intention of stopping investigation of the passage by Catholic scholars who act in a moderate and temperate way and tend to think the verse not genuine; provided, however, that such scholars promise to accept the judgment of the Church which is by Christ’s appointment the sole guardian and custodian of Holy Scripture (Enchiridion Bibttcum. Documenta Ecdesiastica Sacrum Scripturam Spectantia, Romae, apud Librarian! Vaticanam 1927, pp. 46–47)”. Explanation given in Under Orders: The Autobiography of William Laurence Sullivan, p. 186, 1945. Sullivan had written an article in 1906 opposing authenticity in the New York Review.
- Dennis Bratcher (ed.), The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox, 1672), Question 3, CRI / Voice, Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia