The

Canon of Scripture
Trinity Bible Church article, April 6, 2012 ◦ http://www.trinitybiblechurch.org ◦ Pastor M. V. Pereira 

Introduction

In a world of postmodernism, community‐defined latter suggests the concept of a definitive collection
relativism, and various debates concerning the of the former. If this distinction is accurate, the
nature and meaning of truth, Christians perhaps implication leads to the question: Is both the
more than ever are challenged concerning the content and the collection of its constituent parts
conception and constitution of what has inspired? In other words, is the collection—the
historically remained the definitive Christian “rule fixed list of books to be included in the Bible—
of faith,” namely the Bible.1 The conservative itself inspired, and if not is it authoritative? This
evangelical often appeals to relativistic, concept prompts a number of questions, like: What
postmodern, and even skeptical thinking by books belong in the Bible? Are there any inspired
referring to the Bible as God’s word, special books that are not included? Are any of the books
revelation of divine truth—a truth that is absolute included not inspired? Who determined what
and personally binding. There are a number of books should be included in the official Christian
challenges that could be posed against this canon of Scripture and how? Is the Christian
position, many of which are represented by the canon, of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New
various discussions in the area of bibliology. Testament books, the only true collection of
Though there are many valid and important inspired Scripture? Upon what authority was the
subjects to consider within this section of theology, canon established? Is the canon closed?
each of these topics fundamentally assume one
great premise, namely that the Bible contains The questions and thoughts that have been
sacred Scripture, only sacred Scripture, and all of presented thus far are intended to demonstrate
sacred Scripture. It is a moot point to debate the that “the precise determination of the extent of the
biblical concept of truth if the concept of biblical is canon of Scripture is . . . of the utmost
not first understood. Likewise, the inspiration of, importance.”2 Sanders asserts, “The Bible’s own
inerrancy of, doctrine of, authority of, sufficiency integrity lies in its very nature as canon.”3 Even if
of, etc., are all predicated upon what the Bible is, at space allowed, it would simply be impractical to
least in concept. attempt compiling a comprehensive list of
questions that exhaustively address all of the
The endeavor to describe the concept and various issues related to canonicty. However,
constitution of the Bible, as presented here, is because this subject is so foundational and the
primarily the subject of the canon of Scripture. For theological implications far reaching and profound,
instance, “all Scripture is inspired” and “the Bible is a careful yet brief consideration of the major issues
inspired” are two different statements. Even if the associated with biblical canonicty follows. The
two are considered precisely equal in content, the scope of this discourse will be specifically limited
to the topic of the canon of Scripture as
1 The term “Bible” is used here in a manner that

deliberately draws attention to the original meaning of the 2 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to
word as “a collection of books.” See also, Brooke Foss
Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 54.
Wescott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the
Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the 3 James A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to
Christian Churches, (1864; repr., New York: The Macmillan Canonical Criticism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Company, 1896), 5‐6. Publishers, 2000), 19.
represented in the Holy Bible, understood as the discourse and identify its relevance to the overall
definitive collection of 66 books professed by thesis. In brief, there are numerous instances
Christians to be the true and inspired word of God.4 where the New Testament attests to a standard set
of sacred Hebrew writings called Scripture.9
What is Canon? Furthermore, F. F. Bruce aptly notes, “Our Lord and
his apostles might differ from the religious leaders
As Bruce Metzger points out, the Greek word
of Israel about the meaning of the scriptures; there
kanw,n, from which we get the English term ‘canon’,
is no suggestion that they differed about the limits
was used in a variety of senses.5 For the scope of
of the scriptures.”10 Thus by implication, the
this article, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the common understanding of ‘the Scriptures’ used by
term was most originally and broadly used to Jesus and his contemporaries suggests the notion
describe a standard rule of measure. Witness of of a defined group, a demarcation between
this type is found as early as the second century in ‘scripture’ and other ‘writings’.
patristic writings in the context of exhorting fellow
Christians to live “in accord with ‘the rule of the Given the national, traditional, and ceremonial
faith.’”6 The term also developed the meaning of a homogeny of the Hebrew people, study of the
fixed and established list. It is in this sense that recognition and canonization of the Old Testament
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, used the term in canon is categorically different as compared to that
a circulated letter in A.D. 367 “in reference to the of the New Testament canon. Therefore, it is
books of the Bible, in the sense in which these relevant to understand that “there are several lines
books constitute the ‘list’ of writings which the of evidence in the New Testament that at least
Church reckons as the authoritative documents of suggest that [the New Testament writers]
divine revelation.”7 This is the meaning of the term recognized a closed canon”11 and that “the thirty‐
‘canon’ when it is used in the context of the Bible as nine books which make up the Old Testament
being the canon of Scripture. Therefore, “the canon according to our common reckoning are the books
of Scripture is the list of all the books that belong in which, from the beginning of the Christian era at
the Bible.”8 any rate, have been accepted as the books of the
Hebrew Bible.”12 Furthermore, it is also important
The Old Testament as Canon to note that “there is adequate evidence to support
the view that there was a (closed) canon of Old
A detailed discussion concerning the concept,
Testament Scripture to serve as a model in the
development, methodology, historicity, and New
formation of the New Testament canon.”13
Testament attestation of the Old Testament canon
is beyond the scope this article. This section is The New Testament as Canon
simply intended to assert what is accepted in this
The Apostle Paul clearly writes in 1 Cor 14:37, “the
4 I acknowledge that there is debate regarding other things I write to you are the Lord’s
purported “Christian canons” of Scripture, such as the commandment.” The apostles were sent out as
Alexandrian canon; however, discussion of these
questionable arguments are outside of the scope of this
article. 9 Matt 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:29; John 5:39; 1 Cor 10:11; 2

5 Bruce M. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin,

Tim 3:16‐17; etc.
Development, and Significance (1987; repr., New York: 10 Bruce, 28.

Oxford University Press, 1988), 289. 11 D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the
6 Ibid., 291. New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005),
7 F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL:
731.
Inter‐Varsity Press, 1988), 19. 12 Bruce,19.

8 Grudem, 54. 13 Carson, 732.

direct messengers of the risen Lord, commissioned “Canonical criticism is much more than
for the task of bearing witness to the testimony of observations about the final shaping of the Bible,
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (cf. but one can see how it has evolved out of earlier
Matt 28:19‐20; Rom 1:1‐5). They were uniquely interest and work of historical‐critical nature.”15 In
equipped as authoritative representatives of the this category of criticism, the current canon of the
teachings of Christ (cf. Acts 2:42; 2 Cor 12:12). Bible is said to likely contain uninspired books or
Once the apostles earthly lives were taken, the simply contain only a set of the originally inspired
church had no authoritative witness, living on books because the canon is seen as a product of
earth, to consult for teaching; a concern that the history and tradition determined by man and
apostles expressed (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). prone to error.16
This situation elevated the church’s dependence
upon the teachings of the apostles to an U.S. News reports: “‘The Christian movement
unprecedentedly crucial level. hasn't seriously examined the question of canon
since the 15th century,’ says Robert Funk, head of
This critical dependency upon the authoritative the seminar's Westar Institute in Sonoma, Calif.
teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles, now ‘It's time for academic scholars to raise the issue.’”
accessible only by written form, gave substantial It goes on to say that the Jesus Seminar “will likely
rise to the necessity of a canon of apostolic recommend that at least some of the 27 books be
writings. The challenge to this necessity was jettisoned and that other ancient texts be added.” 17
ultimately a matter of officiating what was already This type of criticism is largely based upon modern
received, recognized, and regularly used by the discoveries of other ‘spiritual’ writings that are not
true followers of Christ and the apostles. included in the canon. Some suggest that the
reasons these books were not included in the
The following sections will discuss various views of canon range from strong biased leadership, power
criticism of the canon of Scripture as commonly struggles, persecution, suppression, and historic
known in the Bible. The focus of these sections will factors in general. One might question whether or
deal with the concept of canon and canonization not the reasons for suggesting a different canon—
process as it relates primarily to the New by people two thousand years removed—are not
Testament. motivated by the very same factors that they indict.
Excitement concerning modern discovery often
Canonical Criticism
accompanies historical‐critical thinking that has a
Is there a contemporary problem with the tendency to see modern thinking and discovery as
traditional canon? What are the ‘problems’ causing more trustworthy, accurate, and laudable:
debate? In the following sections, I will attempt to
We found that they [the secret ‘gospels’ and
concisely describe, in basic terms, the most visible ‘apocrypha’ written during the first centuries]
issues currently in debate. revealed diversity within the Christian
movement that later, ‘official’ versions of
“What complicates any discussion of canonicity in Christian history had suppressed so effectively
the various Judaisms of the first century of the
15 Sanders, 9
common era and in early Christianity is the paucity
of any clearly stated and universally accepted 16 This does not necessarily suggest that the writings

definitions of what constitutes scripture and themselves are subject to this error rather it is a matter of
canon.
canon.”14 This is a criticism historical in nature.
17 Jeffery L. Sheler, “Cutting Loose the Holy Canon: A
controversial re‐examination of the Bible,” U.S. News &
14 Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon World Report (November 8, 1993),
Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002), http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/93110
4. 8/ archive_016074_print.htm (accessed October 16, 2008).
 that only now, in the Harvard graduate school, argument completely misses the issue at hand and
did we hear about them.18 is clearly motivated by personal and selective
suitability.
As for criticism, the historical‐critical view argues
against the current canon on the basis of Each of these views fundamentally describe the
pseudonymity, anonymity, textual alteration, canon as the product of human determination.
apocryphal writings and discoveries, etc.19 The
historical‐critical view is based upon modern The Bible as the Canon of Scripture
assumptions that are biased against historical
record. At its very core it denies the providence of What is the motivation to defend the Bible as the
God and presumes a higher degree of personal plenary canon of Scripture? Is it out of logical
integrity and intellectual power over and against necessity? Is it out of fear that our faith may be
those involved in the process historically. built upon the thoughts and choices of man as
much or more than those of God? Is it out of
Another form of canonical criticism argues that the wishful thinking? Is it a matter of mere tradition?
primary force responsible for the formation of the Given the said criticisms, should we abandon sola
canon was theological in nature. Unlike the scriptura? If not, why? Can the canon be trusted
historical‐critical argument, this view suggests that with our lives as though it were determined
the formation was not so much concerned with directly by God? Can we trust that the “all” in 2
authenticity as it was the promotion and defense of Timothy 3:16 is available to us in the canon, and if
presupposed doctrine, as noted by Meade, “Once not then is the Bible sufficient for “life and
again, then, it is doctrine, not authenticity, that is of godliness” (2 Peter 1:3)?
paramount concern.”20 Some have argued that “the
canon was created as a critical weapon in a Ultimately this is an issue of recognizing source
religious and cultural revolution.”21 Because this and authority; it is not merely a matter of tradition
view is theologically critical, it asks the questions: (sola traditio), consensus, history, or community.
are there canons within the canon? However, one The core issue and solution to criticism is found in
must ask, is the canon ruled by theology or does the the understanding that the canon was established
canon rule theology? Like the historical‐critical by God and was received, recognized, and regularly
view, this view cannot justify itself by simply used by God’s people. Scripture was recognized by
promulgating a disparate presupposition. God’s people: “When a book was received,
collected, read, and used by the people of God as
A third view appears to advocate the the Word of God, it was regarded as canonical.”22
contemporary community of postmodern thinking Carson aptly notes the aspect of recognition:
that says, that canon is fine for that community of
people, but we need a different canon because we It is important to observe that, although there
was no ecclesiastical machinery like the
live in a different context and community. This
medieval papacy to enforce decisions,
nevertheless the world‐wide church almost
universally came to accept the same twenty‐
18
Elaine H. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of
Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), 52.
seven books. It was not so much that the church
selected the canon as that the canon selected
19 Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An itself.23
Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 13ff.;
McDonald, 418‐423.
20 David Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation

into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish

and Earliest Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 22 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a
Publishing, 1986), 205. Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 22.
21 Childs, 15. 23 Carson, 735.
Foundational to the understanding of "the canon" believes and trusts that God is able and has
is that all of the inspired writings of God were providentially preserved and orchestrated the
recognized as such. The vast majority of the books inclusion of exactly what He had predetermined to
found in the NT were universally accepted and clearly communicate to His people—that is exactly
revered as Holy Scripture, even before the death of what He wants them to have. As Metzger notes,
the apostles (cf. 2 Peter 3:16; 1 Tim 5:18). Just as “Despite the very human factors (the confusio
inspiration is not directed by man, so the hominum) in the production, preservation, and
authoritative collection of inspired writings is not collection of the books of the NT, the whole process
directed by man. The canon of Scripture was not can also be rightly characterized as the result of
shaped by the church of the second, third, or fourth divine overruling in the providential Dei.”26 It is
centuries, it shaped them. Since God's word is necessary then to appropriate faith and providence
inspired and thereby self‐attesting, so each self‐ when evaluating the issue. This is echoed again by
attested manuscript was received, recognized, and Robert Reymond:
regularly used by the church, making the canon
the Christian must accept by faith that the
self‐establishing.
church, under the providential guidance of God’s
Spirit, got the number and the ‘list’ right since
Bruce rightly states, “Divine authority comes first:
God did not provide the church with a specific
canonicity follows authority and is dependent list of New Testament books. … God’s Spirit
upon it.”24 Clearly the Scripture throughout the providentially led his church—imperceptively
ages has been recognized by the people of God as yet inexorably … to adopt the twenty‐seven
their Lord’s words; the canon was simply the documents that the Godhead had determined
would serve as the foundation of the church’s
codification of what the people of God recognized
doctrinal teaching and thus bear infallible
as coming from Him. Thus the source is not man, witness throughout the Christian era to the great
nor man’s determination, rather the source is God. objective central events of redemptive history,
Van De Beek couches this understanding into the and that this ‘apostolic tradition’ authenticated
context of faith: and established itself…27

People did not say at a particular moment, God is the source of the Scriptures, and therefore
‘Come, let us choose a number of texts as a faith in God and trust in His care for His church
standard for our faith’. It is rather that their leads us to the understanding that the authority of
encounter with these texts shaped their faith, the Bible rests not in the minds of men, but rather
and that these texts therefore were authoritative
for them. The texts thus precede the belief, in the very power of God. F.F. Bruce nicely
which subsequently acknowledges that these are summarizes:
canonical texts. ‘So faith comes from what is
heard’ (Rom 10:17), wrote Paul long ago.25 Certainly, as one looks back on the process of
canonization in early Christian centuries . . . it is
This is not merely an intellectual exercise, it does easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion
on the limits of the canon they were directed by
involve faith in the self‐authenticating, self‐
a wisdom higher than their own. . . . in the
disclosing, self‐sufficient and only true God, who is exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that
sovereign over the events of history. By faith one ‘the books which were to form the future canon
forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic
24 Bruce, 19.

25 A. Van De Beek, “Being Convinced: On the Foundations of

the Christian Canon,” in Canonization and Decanonization:

Papers presented to the International Conference of the 26 Metzger, 285.
Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, Held at Leiden
9—10 January 1997, Studies in the History of Religions, ed. 27 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the

A.Van Der Kooij and K. Van Der Toorn (Leiden, Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Netherlands: Brill, 1998), 336. 1998), 67.
 apostolic authority, as they do still, because the McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
Kyrios Christ speaks in them’.28 Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Meade, David. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation
This is the ultimate test, the recognition of the into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in
Savior's voice (cf. John 10:27). We can trust in the Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1986.
Bible as God’s providential means of
authoritatively communicating Himself and His Metzger, Bruce M. Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin,
Development, and Significance. 1987. Reprint, New
work in history to those who have ears to hear. In York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
the end, God is capable of moving man to write His
———. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
word and God is capable of moving His church to Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed. New York:
recognize it. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the
Praise be to God! Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1998.

Saucy, Robert. Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and
Relevance. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
2001.
Van Der Kooij, A., and K. Van Der Toorn, eds. Canonization
Bibliographic Reference and Decanonization: Papers presented to the
International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the
Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: Study of Religions, Held at Leiden 9—10 January 1997.
Inter‐Varsity Press, 1988. Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill, 1998.
———. New Testament History. New York: Doubleday,
1971. Wescott, Brooke Foss. The Bible in the Church: A Popular
Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy
———., and E. G. Rupp. Holy Book and Holy Tradition.
Scriptures in the Christian Churches. 1864. Reprint,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1968.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1896.
Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of the Christian Bible.

Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1972.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the
New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2005.
Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An
Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to
Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the
Scriptures. 1995. Reprint, Greenville, SC: A Press,
1996.
MacArthur, John. Is the Bible Reliable? Panorama City, CA:
Word of Grace Communications, 1982.
———. The MacArthur Bible Handbook. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.
McDonald, Lee M., James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon
Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
2002.

28 Bruce, 282. (Emphasis mine.)