The Formation of the New Testament Canon

By Stephen Voorwinde
From Vox Reformata 60, 1995.
After almost 2000 years of church history how can Christians be sure
that they have the right Bible? Can we indeed be absolutely certain that
we have exactly the right books in the Bible no more and no less? As
our standard of faith and practice can we confidently appeal to the
canon of Scripture as a collection of authoritative writings to which
nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away?
What if archaeology uncovered an ancient epistle of Paul or another
apostolic writer? Could such a hitherto lost document be added to the
canon? While we may dismiss such a question as hypothetical, there
are similar questions which are only too painfully relevant in the life of
the church today. Can God speak authoritatively today, and if so
should such revelation be regarded as on a par with Scripture or
perhaps even be added to Scripture? In other words, is the canon
closed? Moreover, whence do we have the information about which
books are canonical?
These are some of the urgent questions to which a thoughtful
consideration of our topic will inevitably lead. They are not only issues
of abiding theological interest, but can at times also be matters of
apologetic importance and even of pressing pastoral concern. Here we
touch upon the very basis of our Christian faith and life, and it is vital
that these foundations be secure. But how can this be established? How
can we espouse a view of Scripture which ipso facto cannot be proved
from Scripture itself?
To begin our investigation we will need to have a sound
understanding of the terminology. Our English word "canon" is a loanword from the Latin canon, which in turn was derived from the
Greek kanon. For our purposes it is important to trace the linguistic
development of the term. While the Greek word kanon does occur in
the New Testament it cannot be translated by "canon" in English. In

each case it is more suitably translated "rule" or "standard" (2

Cor.10:13,15,16; Gal.6:16; Phil.3:16). It will be noted that all the
occurrences of the word are in Paul's writings, and in none of these
instances is he referring to the canon of Scripture. That was to be a
much later development. Movement in this direction occurred when
"in the second century in the Christian church kanon came to stand for
revealed truth, rule of faith." It was not until the fourth century that
the church began to refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as ho kanon ("the canon"). A parallel development took
place in the history of the Latin term. In ecclesiastical Latin, canon came
to mean "a catalogue of sacred writings." The term "canon" as we use it
when referring to the canon of Scripture is therefore not a use of the
term in its biblical sense, but conforms to ecclesiastical usage from the
fourth century onwards. This is also the way the word was used at the
time of the Reformation. Particularly in the Reformed confessions the
term is used almost exclusively of the "rule," "norm" or "established
list" of the Scriptures. In these doctrinal statements it is closely
conjoined to such concepts as "inspiration," "authority" and "the
regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith." The idea of
normativity comes very much to the forefront.
1

This immediately raises an important question. Whence is this

normativity derived? What is its basis? These questions are far more
difficult for the New Testament than for the Old. In the case of the Old
Testament it can be convincingly demonstrated that Jesus placed his
infallible seal of approval upon the canon as we now have it (Lk.24:2527,44-45). His reference to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the
Psalms" reflects the traditional threefold division of the Hebrew canon.
On this point there was no quarrel between him and the Pharisees.
While the "closedness" of the Old Testament canon at the time of Jesus
has become the subject of recent theological debate, it is fair to say that
the traditional position has been challenged, but not shaken. Jesus and
his Jewish contemporaries agreed on the limits of the Old Testament
canon. In the nature of the case such a statement of divine approval is
impossible for the New Testament. We have no post
hoc pronouncement from Christ to the effect that these 27 books, and
4

these only, are authoritative, inspired and canonical. So how do we

proceed? On what basis do we define the canon? On what or whose
authority can it be established? How can we rest assured that the right
books have been included? These questions have been tackled from a
number of different perspectives theological and historical, a
priori and a posteriori, presuppositionally and evidentially. For a most
satisfying approach it is perhaps best not to make these contrasts
mutually exclusive, not to pit them against one another in an unhelpful
way. To get the full picture we cannot divorce the historical evidence
from our theological presuppositions. We cannot separate the a priori of
our faith from the a posteriori of historical development. To do justice to
the largeness of the question we will need to adopt a rather wide
approach.
A. Historical Considerations

We have already seen that the Greek word kanon was not applied to
the New Testament books before the middle of the fourth
century. However, this does not mean that the idea of the canon did
not exist earlier. Church history, from its beginnings till the end of the
fourth century, is characterized by an increasing awareness of the
canonicity of its sacred New Testament writings. In the words of
Herman Ridderbos, "the history of the Canon is the process of the
growing consciousness of the Church concerning its ecumenical
foundation." From its earliest days the Christian community was
aware that it had a body of writings equal in authority to the Old
Testament and equally revelatory in character. However, the
recognition of a closed collection of documents above all other
literature was a gradual process that was not complete till the end of
the fourth century. From the beginning Christians regarded the Jewish
canon as distinctively their own. The body of literature which
developed in their midst did not replace but supplemented the Jewish
canon. Around 200 AD we already find the terms "Old Testament" and
"New Testament," palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke.
5

The New Testament is not to be treated as a book that dropped

straight down from heaven, that came senkrecht von oben. Its recognition
by the Church was not immediate, but was historically qualified. It is to
this process of a gradual and ever more precise canonical awareness
that we must now devote our attention.
1. The New Testament Canon before 140

(a) An Awareness Within the New Testament Itself

At times the New Testament writers seemed plainly aware that they
or others from amongst themselves were writing Scripture, e.g. 2
Pet.3:16 refers to Paul's letters and "the rest of the Scriptures."
Especially the Book of Revelation seems rather self-consciously
Scriptural (e.g. 1:3; 22:18,19). But these are mere "hints" compared to the
authoritative tone conveyed by certain New Testament concepts. Three
terms stand out:
(i) "Apostle": The concept of "apostle" is defined especially by the
idea of authorization, by the transmission of definite powers. The
apostles are Christ's representatives (Mt.10:40; cf. Jn.13:20). In a very
special and exclusive manner he entrusted them with the preaching of
the Gospel. He also endowed them with the Spirit of truth who would
guide them into all the truth (Jn.14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15). They were thus
the transmitters of revelation (Heb.2:4). The salvation that appeared in
Jesus, first proclaimed by the Lord himself, was validly attested to by
the apostles.
9

(ii) "Witness": The apostles were witnesses of the salvation revealed in

Christ. This concept should be understood in a forensic way. The
apostles were eyewitnesses and they bear this testimony for the forum
of the coming Church and the entire world. This testimony is both oral
(preaching) and written (New Testament documents).
(iii) "Tradition": In the New Testament this is a very authoritative
concept. It means 'what has been handed down with authority.' In
apostolic times equal significance is given to oral and written
proclamation. The New Testament writings "are partially the remains
10

and fixation of a previous oral tradition." The source of the New

Testament tradition lies in the apostles, e.g. 1 Cor.15:1-4. Paul both
receives and transmits tradition. A personal power is involved here,
viz. that of the apostles. They had received authority from Christ to do
this. The tradition of which the New Testament speaks is therefore not
an unchanneled stream which is then perpetuated as the faith or
theology of the Church. It is rather the authoritative proclamation
entrusted to the apostles, as the witnesses of Christ and as the
foundation of the Church.
11

Although the importance of apostolic witness and tradition is hard to

exaggerate, the authority of the apostles should be seen in its proper
perspective. B.B.Warfield gives more content to apostolic authority
than is warranted by the New Testament itself. In his view the New
Testament canon was imposed by the apostles on the Church. Thus the
canon was not only complete but also fully and finally accepted by the
end of the first century. In an article originally published in 1892
Warfield writes: "In every case the principle on which a book was
accepted, or doubts about it laid aside, was the historical tradition of
apostolicity." However, "the principle of canonicity was not apostolic
authorship, but imposition by the apostles as 'law.'" Warfield then
further explains, "The authority of the apostles, as by divine
appointment founders of the Church, was embodied in whatever books
they imposed on the Church as law, not merely in those they
themselves had written." In his position Warfield is obviously taking
apostolic authorship too far. Not only is it difficult to conceive how the
apostles could impose books on the Church as law, there is no
historical evidence for any such apostolic imposition. Perhaps this is
the reason why Warfield's discussion does not proceed beyond the
second century. He completely leaves out of the question the whole
"recognition" element on the part of the Church. His view simply
cannot account for the diversity of opinions regarding the limits of the
New Testament which prevailed for decades and even for centuries.
12

13

Warfield's position certainly simplifies the canon question by making

the New Testament a closed book by the end of the first century, but it

fails to do justice to the historical facts. We must pay attention to the

diversity of opinions that came to expression in the early church.
(b) The Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers were more concerned with practical and moral
issues than with theological reflection. The works of these early
Christian writers contain no formulated doctrine of Scripture or canon,
and yet there is much that is suggestive of later development.
(i) Clement of Rome: Writing in about the year 96 Clement
emphasizes the importance of apostolic authority: "The apostles
received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ
was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles
from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good
order." His only specific references to the New Testament are from 1
Corinthians and Hebrews. However, there is evidence of his familiarity
with a wider range of the canonical materials. Yet Clement has no
formal theory of the New Testament canon. While the tradition that
derives from Jesus and the apostles is authoritative, it is not
authoritative in a specific form.
14

(ii) Ignatius of Antioch: Around 115 Ignatius stated that the teachings
of the apostles are known through their writings. There is, however, no
indication that he viewed the apostolic writings as Scripture parallel to
the Old Testament. For him the issue is the authority of the revelation
not its form, whether oral or written.
(iii) Polycarp (d.155): Like Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp sees an
integral unity between the Old Testament and the apostles. However,
he moves beyond his predecessors in that for him the importance of the
Old Testament has receded in favour of the increased esteem given to
the writings of the apostles, particularly Paul.
(iv) The Epistle of Barnabas (ca.130): Most of this epistle is a polemical
foray into interpreting the Old Testament. Barnabas wrestles with the
problem of continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New
Covenants. Generous use is made of the Old Covenant to show how it

points to Christ. Barnabas indicates that as the problems of Old

Testament interpretation grew, the Church would become more
conscious of its literature as forming a complementary Scripture (the
New Testament). He cites Matthew 22:14 with the formula "it is
written."
(v) "Gospel" and "Apostle": According to F.F.Bruce, in the early
years of the second century two Christian collections of authoritative
documents were current. One was called "The Gospel" (with subheadings "According to Matthew," etc.). The other was "The Apostle,"
i.e. the Pauline corpus (with sub-headings "To the Romans," etc.). Soon
these two parts were to be connected by the Book of Acts which
brought the two collections together. The implications of this were
significant, as Bruce explains:
15

So long as the fourfold Gospel and the Pauline collection circulated

separately, one can hardly speak of a canon, even in embryo. The bringing
together of the two collections into one was facilitated by the existence of Acts,
the hinge which joined the two. ... Acts provided the central structure of an
edifice which now took on the shape of the canon as we have received it. 16

So, already at this early stage, the Church was making progress in the
recognition of an authoritative collection of Christian books. Just before
the middle of the second century something happened to speed up that
progress and give it greater precision than had characterized it up until
that time.
2. The New Testament Canon between 140 and 220

The early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong
heretical movements:
(a) Marcionism
About the year 140 the Roman church received a visit from Marcion,
a native of Asia Minor. He presented his teachings to the presbyters at
Rome, but they found it utterly unacceptable, which was not surprising
considering his radical Gnostic views. He rejected the Old Testament
entirely and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior Being. 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. But this message had been obscured in the
Gospel by Judaizing corruptions. Paul and Luke were the only ones to
find favour with Marcion and these only partially. So what Marcion
did was to set up a canon, a definite group of books which he regarded
as fully authoritative, replacing all others. These comprised ten of the
Pauline epistles (without the Pastorals) and Luke's Gospel. He seems to
have edited these books, purging them of what did not accord with his
views.
Marcion's views were dangerous and widespread. The Marcionites
were the first to have a clearly defined canon. The compilation of this
canon was a challenge and incentive to the church of Rome and the
other like-minded churches. If these churches denied that Marcion's
canon was the true one, then let them show what the true one really
was. Before we examine the Church's response, we need to consider
other heretical groups which may have contributed to this precipitating
factor.
(b) Gnosticism
While the origins of Gnosticism are not certain, it is clear that the
movement came to full bloom in the middle of the second century.
With its idea of an esotericgnosis ('knowledge') it raised in more acute
form the questions of tradition and authority that engaged the
Apostolic Fathers. The Nag Hammadi finds of 1946 have provided us
with fresh insights into their teachings. Chief among the finds was The
Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus and which
has been proposed as a source for reliable traditions about the
historical Jesus. Another significant Gnostic work was the
apocryphal Gospel of Truth written in Rome ca. 140. The author used
practically the same books as our present New Testament canon and
the manner in which he treats these documents proves that they had
authority for him. However, for the Gnostics true gnosis was beyond
Scripture. Although they attributed their apocryphal writings to
various apostles, they at times portray the apostles themselves as

deficient in knowledge. While they did not delimit the canon as

Marcion did, the Gnostics also performed a catalytic function in the
formation of the canon. As David Dunbar concludes:
Gnosticism's effect on the Church was to intensify its concern for
faithful adherence to the teaching of the apostles. The necessity for a
concrete standard by which to evaluate the Church tradition pressed the
orthodox Fathers from Irenaeus onward to focus more consciously on
Scripture as the written fixation of the apostolic tradition. 17

(c) Montanism
Later in the second century orthodoxy was to be challenged from yet
another direction. Montanism was a movement that started ca. 156 in
Phrygia in Asia Minor. Its leader, Montanus, believed that Christ's
promise of the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) had now been fulfilled. Montanus
was the Paraclete's mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the
immediate prelude to the second advent of Christ and the
establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns of Phrygia.
Montanism spread throughout the empire. By the end of the second
century it had made one of its most illustrious converts in Tertullian of
Carthage.
While Montanism stressed the renewal of the prophetic gift and
taught that the Holy Spirit was manifesting himself supernaturally
through entranced prophets and prophetesses (notably Montanus
himself), the result of the Montanist challenge on the question of the
canon has long been debated. The claim to inspiration by the Holy
Spirit certainly challenged the Church's understanding of authority.
However, such influence as the New Prophecy had on the emergent
canon was certainly indirect. Montanist polemic comprised no attack
upon the authority or validity of the Biblical writings (Old or New
Testament). Nor were the Montanist oracles, collected in written form,
seen as equivalent to Scripture.
18

(d) The Church's Response

Nobody can doubt that Marcion, the Gnostics and Montanus forced
reflection on the canon question. But what was the nature of the
response it evoked in the Church? Opinion is sharply divided on this
question. There are two basic points of view the liberal and the
conservative. The canon debate was epitomized in the work of two
opposing German scholars. On the liberal side stood Adolf von
Harnack. His staunchest opponent from the conservative camp was
Theodor Zahn.
Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) was the leading liberal theologian in
Germany in the latter half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth
century. In his view primitive Christianity was a religion of the Spirit,
not of the letter. Oral tradition was supreme. Written documents had
no official status. The heretics were the first to occupy themselves with
the idea of a canon of authoritative writings. Marcion is the creator of
the New Testament canon and is primarily responsible for the idea of
the New Testament. In the light of this situation we are to understand
the activity of the Church. In defending its position the Church felt
compelled to create its own canon. The Church follows the lead of
Marcion, but comes up with different results. Harnack thinks this was
necessary, as oral tradition tends to become self-contradictory. As time
passes there is a need to distinguish what is true from what is false in
both oral and written tradition. In this the Christian Church goes
counter to its genius. Christianity becomes a book religion and its
essence is obscured. Its genius was recovered in nineteenth century
liberal theology. Harnack's view has been very influential and has
long represented the liberal consensus. It met with strong opposition
from conservative scholarship.
19

Theodor Zahn (1838-1933) was a staunchly conservative scholar in the

Lutheran tradition and an implacable foe of theological liberalism. His
major works wereGeschichte des Kanons (1888-90) and Einleitung in das
Neue Testament (1906). He did much valuable research in the area of
patristics and was unrivalled in his field.
His approach is to begin with the first point which stands in a clear
light, namely the Church's interaction with those heretics who came
20

with an alternative canon. He then works back as far as evidence will

permit, i.e. to the origin or beginning of the canon forming process.
Then he works in the other direction, namely the Church's reaction in
response to the challenges presented by the heretics. This method leads
him to conclude that from the beginning the Church had a New
Testament in addition to the Jewish canon. The Church has shown an
implicit awareness of this new collection of writings, and of the fact
that this collection stands on a par with the Old Testament with respect
to authority. The significance of heresies was that it forced the Church
into a clearer understanding of what it had. The function of heresy is
catalytic and not constitutive. It hastened a process. This explains why
it is that during the period 170-220 we get a clear glimpse of what was
held to be the canon for the first time. Zahn's position has in essence
been the basic orthodox position ever since. For example, in 1986 David
Dunbar could write:
The oral and written apostolic witness to Christ was that from which
the primitive Church drew its life. The process by which the written
form of that witness rose to increasing prominence and was gradually
defined in the canonical understanding of the Church was both natural
and spontaneous. The process was, to a great extent, underway before
the Christian community was aware of its implications. From this
perspective the sharp reaction of the Fathers to Marcion and the Gnostics
is to be seen, not as a de novo selection of an alternative canon, but rather
as a making explicit of what had always been implicit in the life of the
Church" 21

(e) Evidence of the Church's Response

Zahn began with points that stand in a clear light. We now need to
consider some of the historical evidence which provides the
underpinning for his position:
(i) The Muratorian Canon: This document gives a list of the canonical
books with some comments. It was discovered in 1740 by the
antiquarian L.A. Muratori. It is believed to have been written in Rome
towards the end of the second century. It is the earliest extant
document in which the canon is treated in a formal fashion. It states
what documents are to be regarded as canonical and which are to be

rejected. It is unfortunately a fragment. The meaning is also obscure at

points. It lists all the books of our New Testament except Hebrews,
James and 2 Peter. There is also a question as to whether 1 Peter is
mentioned. It includes one book, the Apocalypse of Peter (2 Peter?),
which was subsequently rejected. The author of the Muratorian Canon
himself has his hesitations about the book, for he notes that some do
not accept it. The main value of the Muratorian Canon is that it
indicates the books which were recognized as canonical in the Roman
church towards the end of the second century. In this document we are
already very close to our New Testament.
22

23

(ii) Irenaeus (ca.130-200), whose writings are contemporary with the

Muratorian list, presents the same picture. His evidence is significant in
that he was a rather ecumenical figure in his day. He spent his earlier
life in Asia Minor and his later life in Gaul. He was also in close touch
with Rome. He does not seem to have had Hebrews in his canon, and
there is some uncertainty as to whether he accepted the general epistles
(except 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John). He refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as
"scripture" but does not include it in the list of apostolic writings.
(iii) Tertullian (ca.160-220) is our authority for Africa. He appears to
have had 22 books in his canon the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen
epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. He did not treat
Hebrews as canonical.
(iv) Origen (ca.185-254) in the East has a good deal to say about the
canon. According to F.F. Bruce, "He acknowledged the four canonical
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles and Hebrews, 1
Peter, 1 John and Revelation as 'undisputed' books." Origen does
acknowledge, however, that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and
Jude were rejected by some.
24

(f) Summary
By the year 220 the status of the various writings of the New
Testament are broadly as follows:

(i) The Gospels: They are one of the best attested sections of the New
Testament during this period. In contrast to Marcion's one Gospel
(Luke) and the Gnostics'Gospel of Truth, Irenaeus maintains that the
Church recognizes four Gospels. There need to be four Gospels, he
says, because there are four parts of the world and four winds (a rather
quaint a posteriori argument!).
(ii) Acts: By this time it is acknowledged as the work of Luke. It has a
secure position between the Gospels and the letters of Paul.
(iii) Paul: All thirteen letters are universally received and accepted.
The unity of the Pauline material was recognized.
(iv) Hebrews: There is a sharp difference in the Church at this time
concerning its canonicity. The Eastern Church which was strongly
influenced by the Alexandrian theologians, Clement and Origen,
readily accepted it as a letter of Paul. In the Western Church it was not
accorded canonical status till late in the fourth century. This was
because Pauline authorship of this epistle had at an early stage been
denied in the West. Non-apostolic authorship was a dogmatic
consideration.
(v) The Catholic Epistles have various positions of security at this
time: James is an epistle over which there is again a sharp division of
opinion. In the Eastern Church it is one of the books accepted without
question, although in some circles as late as 325 it is regarded as a
forgery. 1 Peter has a firm place in the canon. (Its omission from the
Muratorian Canon was probably a scribal accident). The opposite is
true for 2 Peter. Its history is very uncertain. Some believe the
Muratorian Canon rejects 2 Peter. Others identify it with the
Apocalypse of Peter (see above). There is no evidence of its canonicity
before 350. It was rejected by the Syrian Church till the fifth century. It
is difficult to determine the grounds for uncertainty. There is nothing
of the modern trend to play off its theology against that of 1 Peter. 1
John was generally received. From a historical perspective 2 and 3 John
have an uncertain position. Only by the fourth century are they
received as canonical. It has been suggested that at this time all three
letters were called "The Epistles of John." Because of their brevity, 2 and

3 John may have circulated with 1 John. The Muratorian Canon refers
to two epistles of John. Jude is accepted in the Muratorian Canon and
appealed to by Clement, Tertullian and Origen. However, it is not
universally accepted. Around 360 it is not part of the canon in the
Syrian and African Churches.
(vi) Revelation has quite a secure position at this time, although there
is still some opposition. Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian refer to it as
"The Apocalypse" although the spurious Apocalypse of Peter was also
circulating at the time. Of the latter the Muratorian Canon notes that
"some of our people refuse to have it read in the Church."
(vii) Other Writings: Tertullian, Irenaeus and Clement cite
the Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture. However, after 200 a series of
ecclesiastical decisions began to loosen the bond between The
Shepherd and other books. It is done rather mildly it is to be read
privately and for edification, but not to be read publicly with the
prophets and the apostles. This attitude is already expressed in the
Muratorian Canon which states: ".... it should be read, indeed, but it
cannot be published to the people in Church either along with the
prophets, whose number is complete, or with the apostles of these last
days." This seems to be an attempt to develop a deutero-canon. This
attitude, however, seals the fate of The Shepherd.
25

The letters of Clement of Rome, especially 1 Clement (95 AD), were

used in worship services, particularly in Corinth. However, 1 Clement
never enjoyed widespread canonical recognition. The Apocalypse of
Peter, the Didache, and the Acts of Paul (Latin) were other such
documents. They were accepted for a time in limited circles, but
eventually were excluded by all.
(g) Evaluation
By the end of the second century the canon was taking shape
throughout Christendom. Twenty-three of the twenty-seven books are
unquestionably part of the authoritative collection at this time.
Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Revelation, the Didache, the Shepherd of
Hermas and 1 Clement have a doubtful position. The canonization

process was hastened during the second century because of the

catalytic activity of heretical groups.
Historically there are four factors which favour Zahn's position:
(i) The way in which the Fathers express themselves concerning the
canon provides no evidence for Harnack's theory. It excludes the
notion that around 150 the New Testament was established for the first
time and that it was preceded by a canonless period.
(ii) We are not yet in the time of a state church. The local churches are
still autonomous. The Church did not yet possess the instrumentation
and structure to assure that all accepted the same canon and to
suppress deviations in some other part of the Church. Harnack's point
of view requires a church situation which did not yet exist.
(iii) Supposing the Church had such an implementation, the attempt
to impose a canon would have run aground because of the respective
peculiarities of regional churches. There is no evidence for a judicial
battle over the canon at this time.
(iv) The strongest argument for Zahn is the state of the New
Testament around 200. Basic agreement coupled with random
disagreement characterizes this period. Difference of opinion rages
over some books. The idea of fluid boundaries is unthinkable if
(according to Harnack) the Church is creating a canon in response to
Marcion. The Church's canon would then have been defined as exactly
as Marcion's. Agreement and random disagreement point to an
organic, spontaneous process of development uncoerced by any
instrument of authority. In short, the status of the canon between 170
and 220 indicates that the Church was conscious of a canon both now
and earlier. The New Testament as an idea or a concrete phenomenon
was not something thrust abruptly into the life of the Church between
150 and 170.
26

3. The Third and Fourth Centuries (220-400)

Between 170 and 220 the basic contours are closely drawn by the
Church due to the catalytic effect of mid-second century heresies,

especially Marcionism. Subsequent history is almost solely a matter of

two mutually related processes: (a) fixing with ever greater
exclusiveness and hardening of the limits of the canon, and (b) ever
more widespread recognition of the canon increasing to the point of
universal acceptance. A brief survey of this development will be in
order:
(a) Eusebius (ca. 260-340)
With him we reach a very important landmark in the history of the
canon. He provides us with a full statement in which he explains the
position taken up in the Church at large. He makes an important
distinction between homologoumena ('recognized books')
and antilegomena ('disputed books') as follows:
i) The recognised books are the Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul
(including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John, and "perhaps Revelation" (if
written by the apostle).
(ii) He divides the disputed books into two sub-classes: (1) those that
ought to be included in the canon James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.
(2) those that ought not to be included the Acts of Paul, the
Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, Barnabas
and "perhaps Revelation" (i.e. if not apostolic). Apart from his
hesitation on Revelation Eusebius' New Testament is identical to ours.
27

(b) Athanasius (296-373)

The first time we have a list of the New Testament books which
coincides exactly with our New Testament (containing no more and no
less) is in the thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Athanasius (367AD). He
circulated it in the administration of his pastoral duties to advise his
clergy of the date of Easter, etc. He makes a sharp distinction between
"canonical writings" (the 27 books and these alone) and "those worthy
of reading" (Old Testament Apocrypha , The Shepherd and the
Didache). Having listed the canonical books in his Festal Letter
Athanasius then adds: "These are fountains of salvation, that they who
28

thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these
alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these,
neither let him take ought from these."
29

(c) Decisions of Councils

(i) The Greek Church: Athanasius' letter takes on judicial force and no
conciliar decision is needed.
(ii) The Latin Church: The Synod at Rome in 382 recognized the 27
books and them alone as canonical. (Jerome's Vulgate which appeared
shortly after this contained the 27 books).
(iii) The African Church: The synods at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in
397 ratify the synod at Rome.
(iv) The Syrian Church: The Peshitta version which includes 22 New
Testament books omits 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. The
native (as opposed to the Greek speaking) Syrian Church recognizes
only the more limited canon of the Peshitta to the present day.
30

(v) The Ethiopian Church acknowledges the canonical books of the

larger Christian Church plus eight additional works dealing primarily
with church order.
So although the consensus was not perfect, by the end of the fourth
century the New Testament canon is officially fixed in the sense of
being ecclesiastically defined and universally accepted. From this time
on there was no real challenge to the canon until the time of the
Enlightenment.
B. Theological Reflection

Our treatment of the subject would hardly be complete without

putting it into some theological perspective. Of course this has already
been implicit in our tracing the historical development of the canon,
but now we have come to the point where several theological
perspectives need to be explicitly stated:
1. The Significance of History

The virtual unanimity with which the Church received the writings of
the New Testament can be seen in the light of the special guidance and
providence of God. The Reformed theologian, Louis Gaussen, in the
nineteenth century saw this as evidence "that a concealed but almighty
hand has been here interposed, and that the Head of the Church
watches in silence over the new Oracles as he has watched over the old,
preserving them from age to age against the folly of men." This divine
providence is apparent from the fact that the reception of the canon
was a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was
handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed
by the apostles (Warfield), but neither was it imposed by church
leaders or by councils. Athanasius was no innovator. He simply set his
seal on what the Church had been doing for a long time. Such councils
as there were, were late and few. They stand at the end of the process
rather than at the beginning. No action of a council or a synod was
early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events.
The historical evidence suggests that in the course of the three centuries
following its completion the canon gradually commended itself to the
Church. This is quite in accordance with Christ's promise of the Holy
Spirit to his disciples. He is the Spirit of truth who will guide them into
all the truth (John16:13; cf.14:26; 15:26).
31

32

2. The Role of the Church

The slowness with which the canon was formed has led some to the
conclusion that "the Church gave us the Bible." In the contemporary
discussion this position has been strongly argued by the conservative
Catholic scholar, Nicolaus Appel. He sees the canon as an
ecclesiastical decision made in the postapostolic age. In this period the
Church came to a deeper consciousness of a canon and to a true insight
into the shape and boundaries of this canon. Only on the ground of an
infallibly guided Church can there be a secure canon. The infallibility of
the canon depends on the infallibility of the Church.
33

Leon Morris has given a concise answer to the question, "Did the
Church originate the canon?":

The Church did not originate the Bible. Its inspiration is divine, not ecclesiastical. It stands or falls because of its
relationship to God, not to the Church. Moreover, any official action of the Church is late. We do not find it before
the last part of the fourth century. But by then the canon had to all its intents and purposes been decided. 34

The wording of the conciliar decisions is also significant here. The

decrees are never in the form: "This council decrees that henceforth
such and such books are to be canonical." The Church never attempted
to confer canonicity. The Church did not give authority to the canon,
rather it recognized its authority. Hence the conciliar decrees have the
form: "This council declares that these are the books which have always
been held to be canonical." It would therefore be truer to say that the
canon selected itself than that the Church selected it. Canonicity is
something in the book itself, something that God has given to it, not a
favoured status that the Church confers upon it. Herman Ridderbos
sums up the situation rather aptly:
35

It must be emphasized that the Church does not control the Canon, but the Canon controls the Church. For the
same reason the Canon cannot be the product of the decision of the Church. The Church cannot 'make' or 'lay
down' its own standard. All that the Church can lay down is this, that it has received the Canon as a standard and
rule for faith and life, handed down to it with absolute authority. 36

3. The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit 37

Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally held that the authority

of the canon was guaranteed by an infallible Church. The Reformers
sensed here a threat to the sola Scriptura principle. For them the
authority of Scripture was not dependent on the Church. Rather it was
self-authenticating and sealed to the hearts of God's people by the
witness of the Holy Spirit. (However, this witness was generally
appealed to more to affirm the overall authority of the Bible than to
validate the specific contents of the canon. For this, appeal was made to
God's overriding providence). The Scripture is of divine origin,
character and authority. It bears the marks of its divinity. It clearly
evidences that it is of God, but man is unable to perceive this on his
own and hence needs the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The
Reformed and Roman Catholic positions are clearly contrasted in the
Belgic Confession, Article 5 ("The Authority of Scripture"):
38

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing
of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them not so much because the church
receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from
God, and because they prove themselves to be from God. 39

The internal witness of the Holy Spirit is not communication of

additional information. It is not a divinely given proposition. It is
simply one aspect of the organic action of the sanctifying activity of the
Holy Spirit. It is always cum verbo ('with the Word'). It is an integral
element of the process by which the mind of the sinner is enlightened
and his will renewed (1 Cor.2:10-16; 1 Thess.2:4,13). John Murray refers
to it as "supplementary attestation," i.e. in addition to the objective
excellencies inherent in Scripture. The Word must be allowed to
establish its own claim, i.e. independently of the Church.
40

4. Criteria of Canonicity

An appreciation of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit will enable

us to view the proposed criteria of canonicity in their proper
perspective. While certain criteria may appear to solve the canon
question they are all in the nature of the case a posteriori. The art will be
to isolate "factor x" as the index mark of canonicity. While a number of
plausible suggestions have been made throughout the history of the
Church, no conclusive criteria have successfully been established.
Some examples:
(a) Apostolicity: This criterion was certainly operative in the life of
the ancient Church. Its application in some circles clearly contributed to
the tardy acceptance of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. At times
this criterion is modified to apostolic environment, if not exact
authorship, such as in the case of Luke and Mark. But this weakens
apostolicity as a criterion. Other writings, which were not included in
the canon, could nevertheless have unequivocally claimed apostolic
authorship (1 Cor.5:9 and Col.4:16). Apostolicity falls far short of being
an all-embracing criterion for canonicity. Although he defines
apostolicity very generously as "what was characteristic of the earliest
church," H. Gamble is still careful not to overrate it as a criterion:
"Widespread and important as this criterion was, it must still be said
that no NT writing secured canonical standing on the basis of
apostolicity alone."
41

(b) Public Lection: Zahn believed that the important factor in

canonical development was the use of the New Testament writings in
the worship of the Church. It was the suitability of the writings for this
purpose that gave them a place in the canon. But this criterion does not
do justice to the facts. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were
so used at an early point. On the other hand, there is little evidence to
suggest that 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude were used for public lection in the
early Church. As was the case with apostolicity, Gamble also expresses
positive appreciation for this criterion, but again not without
qualification: "This criterion was not definitive: many documents which
met it quite adequately were not admitted into the canon ... while other
writings lacking longstanding and broad currency nevertheless did
gain canonical recognition, although tardily."
42

43

(c) Christological Concentration: This was Luther's criterion of

canonicity. He used the motto: "Was Christum treibet und prediget" ('what
urges and preaches Christ'). In practice this approach resulted in "a
canon within a canon." Luther relegated four books to a secondary
position, putting Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation at the end of his
New Testament in a detached position. Hence this criterion tends to
destroy the canon in any traditional sense of the term. It can vary to the
extent that the person applying the principle thinks what "urges
Christ." However, the churches of the Reformation (including the
Lutherans) held more closely to the views of Calvin than those of
Luther in these matters and the 27 books of the New Testament
maintained their position. (Luther's influence is still detected in some
Bible translations of the period, e.g. Tyndale's which places Hebrews
and James with Jude and Revelation at the end of the New Testament
collection).
(d) Evaluation: Further proposed criteria for canonicity could be
discussed, such as antiquity, catholicity, inspiration and
orthodoxy. Historically, however, all attempts to establish such
criteria have failed. More to the point is the observation that all
attempts to establish criteria must in principle fail and in fact destroy
the canonicity of the New Testament. This is true even in the case of
apostolicity and Christocentricity. It is impossible to isolate "factor
44

x." It would mean subjecting the canon to fallible human insight and
this destroys the absolute authority of the canon. To rationalize this
phenomenon rests upon man's autonomy. An Archimedean point is
then placed above the canon. A criterion would embrace the canon and
hence undercut it. We are shut up to the canon as a self-establishing
entity (cf. internal testimony). Canonicity is a unique concept. It
coincides neither with what is apostolic nor with what appears to be
"Christological." The canon is the highest authority and we cannot
appeal to a higher authority to validate the canon.
45

Admittedly this approach is heavily presuppositional and a priori.

The Scripture is self-authenticating. History shows that it commended
itself to the Church. The historical development of the canon concept is
quite in harmony with our presuppositions about the nature of its
authority.
5. Redemptive-Historical Considerations

The notion of redemptive history must be briefly considered at this

point. Herman Ridderbos has made the astute observation that the
authority of the canon is not to be sought in the history of the Church,
but in the history of redemption:
In the New Testament the connection is inseparable between the main events of redemption and their
announcement and transmission. The announcement of redemption is inseparable from the history of redemption
itself. 46

This is not to set up an extra-biblical criterion, for the entire spectrum

of Scripture from creation to consummation must be seen as a
redemptive-historical process. God provides a verbal commentary on
his redemptive activity. The New Testament is the record, the
testimony of God's redeeming activity. Hence the New Testament is
itself a phenomenon in the history of redemption. It is a phenomenon
in the history to which it bears witness. The basic principle, therefore, is
the correlation of redemptive act and its revelatory attestation. God's
deed and Word go together. God speaks, but his speech is related to his
action. This correlation is also applicable to the history in its unfolding.
High points in the history of redemption are also high points in the
history of revelation. To quote Ridderbos again:

In conclusion we can only say that the deepest foundation of the canon can only lie in Christ himself, and in the
nature of his coming and work. The very basis or ground for the recognition of the canon is, therefore, in principle
redemptive-historical. ... For Christ is not only himself the canon in which God comes to the world, and in which
he glorifies himself in contrast to the world, but Christ establishes the canon and gives it a concrete historical
form. 47

6. Is the Canon Closed?

One of the implications of the redemptive-historical perspective is the

closed canon. Christ and the apostolic tradition constitute the
eschatological fulness of divine revelation. The canon is therefore
limited to those documents that the Church experienced as
foundational to its own existence. A sensitivity to the flow of
redemptive history shows the correlation between redemptive activity
and revelation, and negatively between inactivity and silence. For
example, the rebuilding of the temple is the last event in redemptive
history prior to Christ. Following this there is a low in the history of
redemption for 400 years. With respect to revelation this is a period of
silence. A new redemptive event then occurs. In Christ both revelation
and redemption come to their climax and conclusion. Only the return
of Christ is outstanding now (1 Thess. 1:10). The redemption in Christ
is authoritatively recorded (Gospels) and interpreted (Epistles). Thus
the history of revelation for us is closed. This is connected to the
apostolic institution (cf. John 14-16). It provided infallible revelatory
attestation for Christ and his work.
Conclusion

Ridderbos has aptly illustrated the nature of the canonical process in

the history of the ancient Church:
The Church has dealt with this situation as does one who knows and points to a certain person as father or
mother. Such a knowledge rests not on demonstration but upon direct experience; it is most closely connected with
one's own identity. In this and no other way must we picture the knowledge and 'decision' of the Church
concerning the Canon. 48

In this way the history of the canon a posteriori supports the

redemptive-historical a priori. Yet it remains a confession of faith that
the canon of the New Testament corresponds exactly to Christ's canon.
Their identity cannot be absolutely established by historical study.
Historical evidence and "proofs" take us only so far. As in so many
other areas there comes a point where it becomes a matter of faith. Our

theological presuppositions and the historical evidence dovetail, but

not perfectly. While our view of the canon does greater justice to the
historical process than do, for example, the views of Harnack and the
Roman Catholic theologians, we do not claim any infallible criteria of
canonicity. In the end, with Ridderbos, we must acknowledge in faith
that the empirical canon coincides with the canon of Christ. We can be
absolutely certain and not just "practically" certain about the status of
the canon, but our certainty does not depend upon our study of
historical data, but it comes from our faith in the sovereignty and
providence of God.
49

Notes
1. W.F. Arndt & F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, second edition, Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 403.
2. C.T. Lewis & C. Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon, 1962, 280.
3. e.g. Belgic Confession, Article 5, and Westminster Confession of Faith (I:3).
4. A discussion of the recent debate from an Evangelical viewpoint is offered by D.G. Dunbar, "The Biblical Canon," Hermeneutics,
Authority and Canon, edited by D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1986, 303-15. In the closing paragraphs of his
discussion Dunbar concludes: "Placing a terminus ad quem on the completion of the Old Testament canon is difficult, partly due to an
almost total lack of evidence. Ancient Jewish and Christian tradition connect the closing of the canon with the ministry of Ezra. But if the
idea of the canon is a historical one that included the belief that the line of the ancient prophets had ceased, then a date subsequent to Ezra
is more likely. ... What can be said with confidence is that at least a century before the Christian era, the Jews were conscious that
prophecy in its classical form belonged to the past."
5. Its earliest attestation in this sense is in the writings of Athanasius, followed soon afterwards by the use of the Latin word canon by
Jerome and Augustine in the same way.
6. H.Ridderbos, "The Canon of the New Testament," in C.F.Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1958, 198.
7. This "canon awareness" on the part of the early Church is axiomatic for the discipline developed in recent years by B.S. Childs known as
canon criticism. This is an approach to the books of the Bible which does not treat them as individual documents but rather as
components of the completed corpus of Scripture. Childs explains the origin of the New Testament canon along the following lines:
"Canon consciousness thus arose at the inception of the Christian church and lies deep within the New Testament literature itself. There is
an organic continuity in the historical process of the development of an established canon of sacred writings from the earliest stages of the
New Testament to the final canonical stabilization of its scope. That the continuity was hammered out in continuous conflict is also true."
(B.S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984, 21).
8. As Childs observes, "the process of the formation of authoritative religious writings long preceded the the particular designation of the
collection as canon in the fourth century," The New Testament as Canon, 25.
9. For this and the following categories a more detailed discussion can be found in H. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament
Scriptures, translated by H. De Jongste and revised by R.B. Gaffin, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, 12-24.
10. This concept is represented in the NT by the noun paradosis and and its cognate verb paradidomi.
11. Ridderbos, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963, 18.
12. B.B. Warfield, "The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament," The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, edited by S.G. Craig,
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1959, 415.
13. Inspiration and Authority, 416.
14. 1 Clement 42:1,2, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, second edition, edited and translated by J.B.
Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, edited and revised by M.W. Holmes, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, 75.
15. The Spreading Flame, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958, 226.
16. F.F. Bruce, "Canon," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by J.B. Green and S. McKnight, Downers Grove/Leicester: Inter Varsity
Press, 1992, 95.

17. "The Biblical Canon," 331.

18. Dunbar, 338.
19. Harnack's discussion of the canon question appeared in English translation under the title, The Origin of the New Testament, London:
Williams & Norgate, 1925.
20. Zahn explains his methodology as follows: "Da uns keine Nachrichten ber die Entstehung des NT's zu Gebote stehen, so sind wir
darauf angewiesen, von einem in hellerem Licht stehenden Punkt der Entwicklung aus rckwrts schreitend, unter sorgfltiger
Bercksichtigung der einschlagenden Tatsachen, welche uns auf dieesm Wege aufstoen, dem Ursprung nher zu kommen." (Th.
Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons: Eine Ergnzung zu der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, second edition,
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1904, 14). Immediately following this explanation Zahn turns his attention to a discussion of Marcion, the Gnostics
and Montanism. It was in contradistinction to these three movements that the early Church began to define its collection of authoritative
writings with ever greater clarity. Ironically it was the heretics who provided Zahn with some of the most substantial evidence for his
position. It was because of their activity that the Church developed a clearer awareness of what it already had.
21. Dunbar, 357.
22. For a translation of the manuscript see F.F.Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 232-4.
23. Although an early date for the Muratorian fragment has been the traditional view and has been upheld in recent times by both F.F.
Bruce and B.M. Metzger, it has not been without its critics. A.G. Patzia has therefore sounded a note of caution: "The enthusiasm for the
value of the Fragment has been challenged in recent scholarship. A.C. Sundberg's analysis led him to propose a fourth-century date and
an Eastern setting ... Among Sundberg's objections to an early date for the Fragment are its attitude toward the Shepherd of Hermas and
the fact that there are no similar lists until the time of Eusebius in the fourth century." (A.G. Patzia, "Canon," Dictionary of Paul and his
Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne and R.P. Martin, Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 90).
24. "Canon," 98.
25. See Bruce, Spreading Flame, 234.
26. Zahn, Grundriss, 27.
27. Eusebius, "Church History," A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, volume 1, edited by
P. Schaff and H. Wace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, 133-35.
28. The Old Testament Apocrypha were never accepted as part of the Jewish canon. They were appended to copies of the LXX rather
ignorantly by the early Christians. Hence they began to circulate as Scripture in the Church. Jerome apparently challenged Augustine on
this, but without success. The practice was again tackled at the time of the Reformation. (Dunbar, 310).
29. Athanasius, "From Letter XXXIX," A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, volume 4,
edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, 552.
30. Dunbar, 317.
31. Quoted by Dunbar, 344.
32. See above.
33. N. Appel, Kanon und Kirche. Die Kanonkrise im heutigen Protestantismus als kontroverstheologisches Problem, Paderborn: BonafaciusDruckerei, 1964.
34. L.Morris, "Canon of the New Testament," in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, volume 2, edited by G.G. Cohen, Marshallton, Delaware:
The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1968, 337.
35. cf. Morris, 338.
36. "Canon of the New Testament," 196.
37. For a detailed discussion of this subject see John Murray, "The Attestation of Scripture," The Infallible Word, edited by Paul Woolley,
Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967, 46-54.
38. As Calvin said, "For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts
before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit," Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume 1, edited by J.T. McNeill and translated
by F.L. Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, 79. Although in the context of this statement Calvin is not addressing the canon
question per se, his argument has direct bearing on the issue of canonicity. Book 1, chapter 7, from which this quote is taken, bears the
title: "Scripture must be confirmed by the witness of the Spirit. Thus may its authority be established as certain; and it is a wicked
falsehood that its credibility depends on the judgment of the church." Throughout this chapter Calvin strongly argues the point that the
canon derives its authority not from the Church but from God. Scripture does not need to be authenticated by the Church nor by any
human authority because it is self-authenticating. As Calvin says in section 4 of this chapter: "If we desire to provide in the best way for
our consciences ... we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments or conjectures, that is, in the secret
testimony of the Spirit."
39. "The Belgic Confession," The Book of Forms - Reformed Churches of Australia, Geelong: Reformed Churches Publishing House, 1991, 21.
40. "The Attestation of Scripture," 42ff.
41. H. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985, 68.

42. E.F. Harrison makes a fair evaluation of Zahn's argument at this point: "Zahn's view has a measure of truth, surely, but it would be
hard to substantiate in the case of all the books of the New Testament, some of which are obviously less suited than others for
ecclesiastical use because of their brevity and in some cases their rather private character," Introduction to the New Testament, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, 116.
43. Gamble, The New Testament Canon, 71.
44. See Gamble, 67-72.
45. John Calvin claims as much in a slightly different context, in his discussion of the Scripture's own authentication: "We seek no proofs,
no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any
guesswork!" (Institutes, volume 1, 80).
46. H. Ridderbos, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963, 16.
47. Authority, 40.
48. "Canon of the New Testament," 200.
49. This is the final conclusion reached by Dunbar in his article, "The Biblical Canon," 360. It is the inevitable result of his consistently
evidentialist approach, which he shares with apologist John Warwick Montgomery. Although he has a high view of Scripture, his
confidence in the contours of the canon falls short of absolute certainty. His examination of the historical evidence can ultimately lead him
no further than the conviction that "there is great assurance to be drawn from the widespread judgment of the early Christians that this
group of writings comprises the authoritative teachings of the apostles."

Stephen Voorwinde is Professor of New Testament at the Reformed Theological College in Australia. This article originally appeared in
the 1995 issue of Vox Reformata, the faculty publication of the College.