Composition of the Bible

Compiling the New Testament Canon

IN HARMONY with her view that the church is the mother and preserver of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that she alone was responsible for determining which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God: “The determination of what the Bible should contain could never have been achieved except by the living voice of the authoritative Church.”* “It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. … If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as the inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is.”**

* Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, The Bible Is Not Our Sole Guide, p. 43.

** Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, The Bible Is a Catholic Book, p. 4.

Specifically, it is stated that the church, through the efforts of a council of Catholic bishops assembled at Carthage in A.D. 397, was responsible for the selection and adoption of the New Testament Canon as it exists today. It is thus firmly believed that the intervention of the living authority of the Roman Catholic Church was necessary to finally settle this momentous matter.* To test the accuracy of this claim, we will need to examine the historical evidence regarding developments in the early Christian church.

* Ibid., p.2.

To begin with, it is interesting to note the origin of the word “canon,” for it gives an insight into how these inspired books were viewed by those adopting the term. “Canon” comes originally from the Hebrew word quaneh, meaning “reed”; the corresponding Greek word is kanon, also meaning “reed, measuring rod, or straight edge.” In other words, the canon of the Bible became the written rule of faith, or straight edge, against which all doctrines were to be compared.

As already mentioned, the writings of the apostles were immediately recognized as inspired Scriptures and were specially honored to be read in all the churches. (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27) However, soon other writings appeared, purporting to be additional epistles or gospels of apostolic authorship. Some of these works were obvious forgeries; others were highly esteemed, and it was not at once apparent whether or not they were of genuine apostolic authority.

There were other difficulties facing the Early Church as it endeavored to obtain a complete collection of the Holy Scriptures. In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament books were originally written in widely separated places: Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, etc. Travel in those days was slow and dangerous. Rapid communication was not possible. Printing had not been invented.

Moreover, it was an age of persecution, when Christian meetings could not be held openly, and their writings had to be kept under cover. It was difficult for Christians in widely separated places to get together to share notes on what sacred writings they possessed. For these reasons, the earliest collections of New Testament books did vary from place to place for a considerable time before it was possible to agree on their exact contents.

Now then, at what point in time did the church decide upon the contents of the New Testament Canon? Were the early Christians continually in doubt until the Council of Carthage was convened in A.D. 397? Actually, the church grew as individual congregations or ecclesias in the various cities where they were founded, so that it was not just one decision that was made, but numerous ones, arrived at independently and coming into general acceptance. We believe the providential hand of God was especially present in those early times, overruling the activities of the faithful in selecting and preserving the true Bible Canon.

Already in the second century the various books of Scripture were widely known, quoted with authority, and given a place beside the Old Testament as sacred Scripture. In the third century these writings were collected into one whole, were spoken of as the New Testament, and by a sifting process were separated from other Christian literature. By the fourth century all doubts had been dispelled, and the conclusions reached in earlier years regarding the contents of the New Testament Canon were universally accepted.*

* Dr. James Hastings (ed.), “Canon of the New Testament,” Dictionary of the Bible, p. 114.

Fortunately, in pursuing this historical search for facts, we need not rely merely upon oral traditions. There are still in existence writings of the early Christians who were contemporaneous with the apostles, or who lived shortly thereafter. Because of the perishable nature of the writing materials and because of the efforts of persecutors to destroy Christian works, relatively few of these writings are extant. Nevertheless, there is a sufficiency of these to bear unimpeachable testimony to the existence of a group of authoritative writings regarded as the sacred canon of New Testament Scriptures at least a century and a half prior to the Council of Carthage.

The writings of these early Christian fathers, as they are fondly called, are replete with references to the Holy Scriptures; so much so that it is believed the entire New Testament could be reconstructed just from a careful analysis of their writings. Here is found abundant testimony to the sacred place that the written Scriptures were given in the communications and dissertations of those who lived closest to the time of the apostles. But not only do these writings abound with multitudinous quotations, they also set forth personal catalogues of the inspired New Testament Canon.

There are at least ten of these ancient catalogues of the inspired books still extant. Of these, six agree exactly with our canon today; three of them omit only Revelation (Greek: Apocalypse); and one of them omits Hebrews as well as Revelation. Among those corresponding exactly to the canon as we know it, and predating the Council of Carthage, are: Origen’s Hexapla (third century), Eusebius’ Bible (fourth century), and Athanasius’ Festal Letter (A.D. 365.)*

* Ibid., p. 115.

Thus, when the Council of Carthage was finally convened in A.D. 397, it merely gave its formal ratification to the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It did not make the New Testament Canon, as Catholics are taught to believe, but merely expressed what had already become the unanimous judgment of the various churches. Can there be any doubt that the same God who originally inspired these writings was also fully capable of overruling their compilation, working through natural means and the instrumentality of human hands?

And it is indeed a cause for gratitude that the Scriptures are authoritative, not because any body of men has made them so, but because they already bore the stamp of their divine origin, which was capable of being recognized by the earliest followers of Christ.

Are Apocryphal Books Genuine?

NOW let us shift our attention to the Old Testament Canon. When Catholics carefully examine any modern Protestant Bible, they notice certain discrepancies in the contents of the Old Testament. Most conspicuous is the absence of seven books which are always found in Catholic Bibles. These books have been designated the “Apocrypha,” which means “hidden.” This meaning stems from the Jewish custom of keeping these books hidden or separate from the inspired canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures which were openly displayed for reference on the library shelves of the Jewish scribes. These apocryphal books include Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, two books of Machabees, and portions of the books of Esther and Daniel.

Why should this difference exist in the makeup of Catholic and Protestant Bibles? Do Protestants leave out seven books which are vital to the complete Old Testament Canon, or have Catholics intermingled with the genuinely inspired Scriptures some’ books which are of merely human origin? It will be readily apparent that, whichever of these views is correct, it could seriously affect the quality of the divine message that is obtained from the Scriptures. Again, let us fall back upon the voice of history to help us in settling this issue.

The apocryphal books seem to have originated in the first two centuries B.C. and the first century A.D. They were of uncertain authorship and appeared at a time when Old Testament prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased. It is worthy of note that none of the apocryphal writers claimed inspiration for themselves, and some actually disclaimed it.*

* Ibid., “Apocrypha,” p. 42.

From the very start, the Jews never recognized them as a part of their inspired Old Testament Canon. They believed that this canon had been completed in the days of Ezra, from two to three hundred years prior to the appearance of the Apocrypha. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian of Jesus’ day and an expert in Jewish and Greek culture, also rejected the Apocrypha as a whole.

Tracing the background of these books, we begin in the third century B.C. At that time a Greek translation of the Old Testament was started, which was completed in the first century B.C., for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere. This was the well-known Septuagint in common use in Jesus’ day. It is not clear whether the apocryphal books were included in this version from the very start, but they formed a definite part of the later editions, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate. Here, then, is the first instance where the Apocrypha was added to the Old Testament writings.

Perhaps the most vital question that can be raised pertaining to the Apocrypha is, how was it regarded by Jesus and the apostles? Although there is no direct written testimony on this point, there is an answer. Jesus and the apostles were constantly quoting from the Old Testament Scriptures, such that multitudinous references were made to every Hebrew book in the Bible, with the exception of Ruth, Ezra, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. If they felt the apocryphal books were inspired, we surely would expect some references to them to dispel any possibility of doubt. Yet the fact that not even one quotation from the Apocrypha can be found in the entire New Testament seems extremely significant and speaks volumes of testimony.

What about the attitude of the Early Church toward the Apocrypha? In surveying the reference material which is available on this subject, we must be careful in identifying the facts. From some literature the impression is given that many of the Early Church fathers gave almost equal weight to the Apocrypha in their writings, since they quoted from them so freely. Actually, the profuse references and allusions to the apocryphal writings were based on the common belief that they were a valuable supplementary source of instruction to the Holy Scriptures, though not to be placed on an equality with them.*

* Ibid.

Thus, whenever mention was made of the sacred Canon of Scripture, the Apocrypha was consistently excluded. Only the Hebrew Canon was accepted as the genuine Old Testament Scriptures. Mileto and Origen were two of the church fathers who made this position very clear, echoing the sentiment of the group in disapproving the Apocrypha as of canonical authority. This view predominated during the first four centuries of the Christian era.

How, then, did these questionable books become a part of the Catholic Bible? About the third century A.D. the Bible was translated into Latin. Instead of basing it upon the original Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, the translators used the Greek Septuagint, which itself was only a Greek translation of the original and to which by that time had been added the apocryphal books. Thus the Apocrypha was carried over into the early Latin translation, which eventually grew in favor with the church.

It was not until the Council of Carthage convened in A.D. 397 that the apocryphal books gained any measure of strong acceptance. This council officially approved an enlarged canon which included these books. Thus, by the decree of these men, the Apocrypha came to be considered of equal inspiration to the other Old Testament books. However, none of the Eastern Churches accepted this decree, and even in the West many prominent spokesmen refused to thus add to the original Hebrew Canon.

Then in the fourth and fifth centuries followed the Latin Vulgate, the great version of St. Jerome. As the most capable biblical scholar of his day, he was asked by Pope Damascus to undertake a revision of the Latin Bible. The Old Testament part which he produced was unique in that it represented not merely a revision of the Old Latin translation, but an entirely new translation based directly on the original Hebrew. “He appears to have felt no doubt as to the superiority of the Hebrew text over the Greek, and in all cases of divergence regarded the Hebrew as alone correct.”*

* Sir Frederic Kenyon, “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” pp. 142, 143.

St. Jerome adopted a very stern attitude toward the Apocrypha: “The apocryphal books he wished to reject entirely, because they found no place in the current Hebrew Bible. He did indeed consent reluctantly to make a very hurried translation of the books of Judith and Tobit; but the remaining books he left untouched.”* His distinction between the canonical writings and the Apocrypha was very clear: he considered the latter useful for private perusal and “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but which ought not to be used to “establish any doctrine.”**

* Ibid., pp. 143, 144.

** Dr. W. M. Clow (ed.), “The Apocrypha,” Bible Reader’s Encyclopedia and Concordance, p. 23.

Despite St. Jerome’s valiant efforts to have the Apocrypha banished, the Catholic Church added these books to the Latin Vulgate, retaining them in the same form in which they had stood in the Old Latin version before St. Jerome’s day. This brings us to the Douay version, the classical and most popular Catholic Bible, which basically is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and hence includes the apocryphal books. But we are glad to point out that even in Catholic circles until the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) there were eminent scholars who followed St. Jerome’s lead in recognizing the error that had been made and who refused to give the Apocrypha equal veneration with the inspired Word of God.

These are the facts as recorded upon the pages of history. Let the reader inquire for himself for further confirmation of them, using the standard reference works available in the public libraries. Armed with this information, we are brought to the realization that God’s hand is still working in the affairs of his people, leading them to recognize the true authority and to distinguish it from all others.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |