From Scrolls to Scripture: How Early Christian Writings Became Authoritative Scripture

NOTE: This article was researched and written with the assistance of AI.

Few developments in religious history have been as consequential as the formation of the biblical canon—that carefully curated collection of texts that would become Christianity's sacred scriptures. The word "canon" derives from the Greek term "kanōn," originally referring to a measuring rod or standard, which later came to denote a "rule" or "list" of authoritative texts accepted as Scripture [1]. Yet behind this seemingly straightforward definition lies a remarkably complex story spanning centuries, one that challenges simplistic understandings of how the Bible as we know it came to be.

The development of the Christian biblical canon was neither instantaneous nor dictated by a single authority figure or council. Rather, it unfolded gradually through a dynamic process of recognition, debate, and consensus-building among diverse Christian communities spread across the Mediterranean world. As historian Bart Ehrman notes, "The canon of Scripture was not delivered from on high but developed over time through historical processes involving human decisions and disagreements" [2].

This article explores the fascinating journey of how early Christians determined which writings would be considered sacred Scripture. We'll begin with the pre-Christian Hebrew scriptural traditions that Jesus and his followers inherited, then trace the gradual emergence of distinctly Christian sacred texts, examining the criteria, controversies, and historical developments that ultimately shaped the biblical canon we recognize today.

Pre-Christian Context: The Hebrew Scriptures

To understand how early Christians approached the concept of sacred scripture, we must first grasp the status of the Hebrew Bible during Jesus' time. By the first century CE, Jewish communities already revered a collection of sacred texts, though the precise boundaries of this collection remained somewhat fluid.

Evidence suggests that the canonization of Hebrew scriptures occurred in three distinct stages. As Bart Ehrman explains, "The Torah (the first five books) was likely canonized around 400 BCE, the Prophets around 200 BCE, and the Writings around 90-100 CE" [3]. This three-part division—Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings)—forms the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible that would become the Christian Old Testament.

By Jesus' time, there was substantial agreement among Jewish communities about the authority of the Torah and Prophets, while some texts in the Writings category remained disputed. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus affirmed that Jews recognized a fixed collection of twenty-two books, roughly equivalent to the thirty-nine books in today's Protestant Old Testament (the difference in number reflecting how the books were grouped) [4].

The Septuagint—a Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures completed between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE—played a crucial role in the development of Christian scripture. This translation included not only the books that would later form the Hebrew Bible but also additional texts and expanded versions of some biblical books. When early Christians, particularly Greek-speaking Gentile converts, sought scriptural authority, they naturally turned to the Septuagint [5]. This choice had far-reaching implications, as the Christian Old Testament would eventually incorporate books not found in the Jewish canon, creating lasting distinctions between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant biblical traditions.

Between the Old and New Testaments lies a corpus of intertestamental literature—works like the books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon. While these texts weren't universally accepted into the Jewish canon, they remained influential and were read widely. The Catholic Church would eventually classify many of these works as deuterocanonical ("second canon"), while Protestant reformers would later designate them as apocryphal. As Bible scholar F.F. Bruce notes, "These books provide a vital window into Jewish thought during the crucial period between the Old and New Testaments, helping us understand the theological environment in which Jesus and his earliest followers lived" [6].

Understanding this pre-Christian scriptural context is essential because early Christians didn't start with a blank slate when forming their own canon. Instead, they built upon established Jewish traditions while gradually adding their own distinctly Christian texts to create what would eventually become the complete Christian Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Window into Jewish Canonical Development

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls beginning in 1947 revolutionized our understanding of Jewish scriptural practices during the late Second Temple period. These ancient manuscripts, hidden in caves near Qumran by what many scholars believe was the Essene community, provide crucial insights into the development of the biblical canon just before and during the time of Jesus [7].

The Scrolls contain an astonishing range of texts: copies of almost every book of the Hebrew Bible (except Esther), apocryphal works, and sectarian documents unique to the Qumran community. What makes this collection so significant for understanding canon formation is the evidence it provides of canonical fluidity during this pivotal era. As biblical scholar James VanderKam explains, "The Scrolls demonstrate that there was not yet a firmly fixed canon of scripture among all Jewish groups in the first century. Instead, different communities appear to have recognized different collections of authoritative texts" [8].

Among the most noteworthy findings is the presence of multiple versions of biblical books, suggesting that the exact wording of sacred texts remained somewhat fluid. Additionally, certain texts that would later be excluded from the Jewish canon—such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees—appear to have been treated with scriptural reverence by the Qumran community. Paleographic scholar and Dead Sea Scrolls expert Emanuel Tov notes, "The manuscripts from Qumran show that the concept of an authoritative collection of sacred writings existed, but the precise boundaries of this collection were not yet firmly established" [9].

This evidence of canonical diversity provides crucial context for understanding early Christian approaches to scripture. As New Testament scholar Craig A. Evans observes, "The sectarian nature of early Christianity emerged from this environment of competing Jewish scriptural traditions. The early church's decisions about which texts to recognize as authoritative must be understood against this background of canonical fluidity" [10]. The Dead Sea Scrolls thus offer a unique window into the textual world that early Christians inherited and transformed as they began to develop their own sacred writings.

Writing in First-Century Christian Movements

Christianity originated as a predominantly oral tradition, centered on the teachings of Jesus passed down by his disciples. However, the transition to written texts began remarkably early, with the first Christian writings appearing within two decades of Jesus' crucifixion. This rapid development of a textual tradition would ultimately lay the groundwork for the formation of the New Testament canon.

Paul's letters, written between approximately 50-65 CE, represent the earliest surviving Christian writings. These epistles were not composed as scripture but as practical communications addressing specific situations in various Christian communities [11]. Nevertheless, evidence suggests these letters quickly attained authoritative status. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 (likely written later in the first century), the author already refers to Paul's letters as being counted among "scriptures," indicating an early process of recognizing certain Christian texts as authoritative [12].

The Gospels emerged in the latter half of the first century as Christianity spread and the original eyewitnesses began to die. New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham explains, "The Gospels represent a crucial transition from oral testimony to written record, preserving the apostolic witness for future generations" [13]. Although modern scholarship generally dates Mark to around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke to 80-85 CE, and John to 90-95 CE, early Christian tradition strongly connected these texts to apostolic figures, a factor that would prove crucial for their later canonical recognition.

By the early second century, collections of Christian writings had already begun to form. The Pauline corpus—a collection of Paul's letters—appears to have circulated as a unit by the end of the first century. As Harry Y. Gamble notes in his study of early Christian book culture, "The collection and transmission of Paul's letters as a unified corpus represents one of the earliest and most significant developments in the formation of the New Testament canon" [14].

Evidence from the early second century also indicates that Christian communities had started reading their own texts alongside traditional Jewish scriptures in worship settings. Writing around 150 CE, Justin Martyr described Christian worship services where "the memoirs of the apostles" (likely referring to the Gospels) were read alongside "the writings of the prophets" [15]. This liturgical practice of reading distinctly Christian texts alongside Hebrew scriptures represents a critical step in the elevation of Christian writings to scriptural status.

The development of a physical culture of book production among early Christians also facilitated canonical development. Unlike their Jewish contemporaries who preferred scrolls, Christians adopted the codex (bound book) format earlier and more universally than other religious groups. As Larry Hurtado observes, "The early Christian preference for the codex may reflect a desire to collect and circulate multiple texts together, facilitating the concept of a defined corpus of authoritative writings" [16].

This early period of textual development set the stage for more formal processes of canonical recognition that would unfold over the following centuries. By the mid-second century, most of the writings that would eventually comprise the New Testament were already in circulation, being copied, collected, and increasingly treated as authoritative by Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean world.

Early Criteria for Canonicity

As Christian communities faced questions about which texts truly deserved recognition as scripture, several criteria emerged to guide this discernment process. While never formally codified as a checklist, historical evidence reveals consistent patterns in how early Christians determined which writings belonged in their sacred collection.

Perhaps the most fundamental criterion was apostolicity—the requirement that a text be connected directly to Jesus' apostles or their close associates. As New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger explains, "Apostolicity became the primary test of canonicity. If a book could be shown to have been written by an apostle or by someone in direct connection with an apostle, it was considered to have a very strong claim to inclusion in the canon" [17]. This criterion established a direct line of authority from Jesus through his appointed representatives to the written text, grounding scriptural authority in eyewitness testimony.

A second critical criterion was orthodoxy—alignment with what the church recognized as the "rule of faith" or the core doctrinal content that had been preserved within Christian communities. The influential third-century theologian Origen articulated this principle clearly, stating that canonical texts must conform to "the ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" [18]. This criterion gained particular importance after heretical challenges emerged, especially from figures like Marcion around 140 CE, who proposed radical revisions to Christian scripture.

Catholicity or universality constituted a third important criterion—whether a book was widely recognized and used across diverse Christian communities. As Augustine would later articulate, preference should be given to "those [books] that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" [19]. This criterion helped ensure that canonical texts represented the shared faith of the whole church rather than sectarian perspectives limited to particular regions or theological factions.

Antiquity also played a significant role in canonical determinations. Writings from the apostolic era were given preference over later compositions. As Eusebius of Caesarea would emphasize in his Church History, the temporal proximity to the apostolic age enhanced a text's claim to authenticity and authority [20]. This criterion effectively closed the canon to new compositions after the apostolic era, distinguishing it from ongoing prophetic traditions in some other religious movements.

Underlying these criteria was the fundamental conviction that canonical texts were divinely inspired. While inspiration alone was difficult to verify objectively, early Christians understood it as the theological foundation for canonicity. As Paul had written in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos]" [21]. Importantly, divine inspiration was understood as the prerequisite for canonicity, not its result. As Lee Martin McDonald notes, "The early church recognized the inspiration and authority of certain writings; it did not confer inspiration and authority upon them" [22].

These criteria did not operate as rigid requirements applied mechanically but rather as overlapping considerations that guided the church's discernment. The process was neither arbitrary nor merely political but reflected a careful attempt to identify those texts that truly preserved the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ. This multifaceted approach helps explain the remarkably consistent results of canonical decisions across geographically and culturally diverse Christian communities.

Key Historical Developments in Canon Formation

The formation of the New Testament canon was profoundly shaped by several pivotal historical developments that forced the early church to clarify which texts truly belonged in its authoritative collection. Perhaps none was more influential than the challenge posed by Marcion around 140 CE.

Marcion, a wealthy shipowner from Sinope in Pontus, arrived in Rome with radical ideas about Christian scripture. Rejecting the Hebrew Bible entirely and claiming that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God revealed by Jesus, Marcion proposed a severely limited canon consisting of an edited version of Luke's Gospel and ten of Paul's letters [23]. As biblical scholar Bart Ehrman explains, "Marcion's attempt to establish an authoritative collection of Christian texts—even though his choices were viewed as too restrictive—forced other Christians to consider which books they themselves recognized as authoritative" [24].

The church's response to Marcion's challenge was decisive. Church leaders like Irenaeus of Lyon vigorously defended the unity of the Old and New Testaments and began more explicitly discussing which Christian writings should be recognized as scripture. Tertullian, writing around 200 CE, articulated a strong defense of the four Gospels against Marcion's single edited Gospel [25]. This controversy catalyzed more formal discussions of canonical boundaries within orthodox Christian communities.

Around the same time Tertullian was writing, a remarkable document now known as the Muratorian Fragment emerged—the earliest known list of New Testament books recognized as canonical by the church in Rome. This fragmentary text (discovered by Italian historian Ludovico Antonio Muratori in 1740) dates to approximately 170-200 CE and mentions most of the books that would eventually comprise the New Testament, though it includes some works later excluded and omits others that would eventually gain canonical status [26]. The Muratorian Fragment demonstrates that by the late second century, substantial agreement already existed regarding the core of the New Testament canon, even as debates continued about certain books.

The rise of Gnosticism in the second century also significantly influenced canonical development. Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Mary claimed apostolic authorship but contained teachings that diverged significantly from what mainstream Christian communities recognized as apostolic tradition. As historian David Brakke notes, "The church's rejection of Gnostic gospels reflected not merely theological disagreement but judgments about historical authenticity based on careful comparison with acknowledged apostolic writings" [27]. The exclusion of Gnostic texts reinforced the importance of both apostolicity and orthodoxy as canonical criteria.

Despite growing consensus around a core collection of texts, debates persisted regarding certain books, collectively known as the Antilegomena or "disputed texts." These included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation [28]. Questions about these books centered primarily on their apostolic connections. Hebrews, for instance, circulated anonymously, creating uncertainty about its authorship and therefore its apostolic authority. As New Testament scholar Armin Baum explains, "The extended debates over these disputed books reveal that apostolicity remained the fundamental criterion for canonical recognition, even as the church sought to apply this criterion with historical discernment" [29].

Regional variations in canonical recognition added further complexity to this process. The Syrian church long excluded several shorter epistles and Revelation, while the Latin-speaking West was initially hesitant about Hebrews. According to David Trobisch, "These regional variations reflect the decentralized nature of early Christianity, with different communities applying similar principles but reaching slightly different conclusions about peripheral texts based on their historical connections and traditions" [30]. Despite these variations, remarkable consensus emerged about the core of the New Testament collection, with the four Gospels, Acts, and the majority of Paul's letters universally accepted very early.

By the fourth century, these various historical developments had produced substantial, though not yet complete, agreement about which books belonged in the New Testament. This gradual process of recognition would eventually culminate in more formal endorsements through church councils and authoritative lists compiled by influential bishops—yet even these would largely confirm the consensus that had already emerged through the church's lived experience with these texts over the preceding centuries.

Eusebius of Caesarea's Contribution

Few individuals influenced the development of the New Testament canon as profoundly as Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340 CE). As the first major church historian and a trusted advisor to Emperor Constantine, Eusebius played a pivotal role in documenting and shaping how the church understood its sacred texts.

Eusebius's monumental work, the Ecclesiastical History, written primarily in the early fourth century, provided a comprehensive account of Christianity's first three centuries. Throughout this history, he meticulously documented early Christian writings, their attributed authorship, and how they were received in various Christian communities [31]. As historian Timothy Barnes observes, "Eusebius combined exhaustive research in early Christian literature with a deep concern for establishing the authentic apostolic heritage of the church, making his historical work an invaluable resource for understanding canonical development" [32].

Perhaps Eusebius's most significant contribution to canonical studies was his systematic categorization of early Christian writings. In Book III of his Ecclesiastical History, he divided texts into four categories: the homologoumena (acknowledged writings), the antilegomena (disputed writings), the notha (spurious writings), and heretical works falsely attributed to apostles [33]. This careful classification system reflects the historical and critical approach that informed canonical decisions, demonstrating that the process was neither arbitrary nor merely dogmatic.

The homologoumena included the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, 1 John, 1 Peter, and (with some qualification) Revelation. The antilegomena comprised James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John—texts that were disputed but still considered valuable. The spurious category included works like the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter—texts that, while not considered scripture, were still deemed useful for instruction. Finally, heretical works like the gospels attributed to Thomas, Peter, and others were explicitly rejected as inauthentic and theologically problematic.

Eusebius's influence expanded significantly after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity. When Constantine commissioned fifty luxury copies of the Christian scriptures for churches in Constantinople, he entrusted Eusebius with determining their contents [34]. As biblical scholar David Trobisch notes, "This imperial commission effectively endorsed Eusebius's judgment about canonical boundaries and provided unprecedented resources for the production and dissemination of standardized biblical codices" [35]. While no copies of these specific manuscripts survive, this project likely contributed to greater standardization of the biblical canon throughout the empire.

Eusebius's legacy for the canonical process extends beyond his own time. His historical work preserved crucial information about early Christian writings that would otherwise have been lost, and his categorization system influenced later canonical discussions. As Gregory Sterling of Yale Divinity School observes, "Eusebius's careful historical work created a framework for thinking about canonical questions that valued both historical evidence and theological discernment—a balance that continues to inform how we understand the formation of the New Testament" [36]. Through his meticulous documentation and thoughtful classification, Eusebius helped transform what had been a somewhat fluid process of canonical recognition into a more historically grounded and systematically articulated understanding of Christian scripture.

Church Councils and Formal Recognition

Popular imagination often attributes the formation of the biblical canon to dramatic moments of ecclesiastical decision-making, particularly at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). However, historical evidence presents a more nuanced reality. As New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger definitively states, "The Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of scripture at all. This persistent myth has no historical foundation" [37]. Instead, the formal recognition of the New Testament canon occurred through a series of regional councils and episcopal pronouncements that largely confirmed the consensus that had already emerged through centuries of church practice.

The first known synod to address the canon explicitly was the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE, which approved a list of canonical books. Unfortunately, the acts of this synod have been lost, but its decisions were reaffirmed by the Third Council of Carthage in 397 CE [38]. This North African council, influenced significantly by Augustine of Hippo, recognized the same twenty-seven books that comprise the New Testament today. The council decreed that "nothing be read in church under the name of divine scriptures" except the canonical books, and then listed the books they recognized as canonical [39].

Earlier, the Council of Rome in 382 CE, under Pope Damasus I, had promulgated what became known as the "Damasine List"—a complete canon of both Old and New Testament books that matched the one later confirmed at Carthage [40]. This Roman canonical list indicates that substantial agreement about the contents of the New Testament had already been reached in major centers of Christianity by the late fourth century.

The Council of Carthage held in 419 CE reaffirmed the earlier decisions and sent its canonical list to the pope for confirmation, reflecting the growing desire for universal agreement about scriptural boundaries throughout the church [41]. Nevertheless, these councils were not creating a canon ex nihilo but rather formally recognizing what had already gained widespread acceptance through generations of liturgical use and theological reflection.

Augustine of Hippo played a particularly influential role in these formal canonical decisions. His treatise On Christian Doctrine, written around the same time as the Carthaginian councils, outlined principles for interpretation of scripture and included his own list of canonical books [42]. Augustine's enormous theological influence helped solidify the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon throughout the Western church. As scholar Andrew McGowan notes, "Augustine approached canonical questions with both pastoral sensitivity and theological depth, recognizing that the church's extended experience with these texts provided the surest guide to their authority" [43].

It's crucial to understand that these councils and declarations were recognizing rather than creating the canon. As F.F. Bruce emphasizes, "The councils did not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codified what was already the general practice of those communities" [44]. The formal pronouncements simply confirmed the organic consensus that had developed through the church's lived experience with these texts—their use in worship, their citation by theologians, and their copying and distribution among communities.

This understanding of canonical recognition—as confirmation rather than creation—reflects a fundamental theological principle that underlies the entire canonical process. From the church's perspective, these texts possessed authority because of their apostolic origins and divine inspiration, not because councils declared them authoritative. The councils were acknowledging an authority that preceded their declarations, an authority that had already demonstrated itself in the life and faith of Christian communities across the Mediterranean world.

Theological Perspectives on Canon Formation

Different Christian traditions have developed distinct theological understandings of how and why the canon took the shape it did, reflecting broader differences in how these traditions understand religious authority. Darrell Jodock's influential work on biblical authority provides a particularly nuanced framework for understanding these perspectives.

Jodock argues that discussions about biblical authority often suffer from overly narrow theoretical frameworks that fail to capture how Scripture actually functions in the life of faith communities. According to Jodock, "The authority of the Bible is best understood not as a formal property that exists independently of its use, but rather as something that emerges within the context of the community's engagement with these texts" [45]. This perspective shifts attention from abstract theories about inspiration to the practical ways Scripture functions authoritatively within Christian communities.

Protestant theological traditions have typically emphasized the intrinsic authority of Scripture, often articulating theories of verbal inspiration to ground biblical authority. Yet Jodock suggests this approach can become problematic when it treats the Bible primarily as a collection of propositional statements rather than as a narrative that shapes Christian identity and practice. He proposes that "the Bible's authority is located not in its status as a repository of doctrine but in its capacity to mediate God's presence and purpose to the community of faith" [46].

Catholic approaches emphasize the church's role in discerning and determining scriptural authority. From this perspective, scripture and church tradition form complementary aspects of a single divine revelation, with the church serving as the authoritative interpreter. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books" [47]. Jodock's work suggests points of potential convergence with this position through his emphasis on the communal context of biblical authority.

Orthodox Christianity emphasizes the dynamic relationship between scripture and tradition within the church's ongoing life. As John Meyendorff explains, "For the Orthodox, scripture is genuinely understood only within the church's living tradition, which is guided by the Holy Spirit" [48]. This approach views canonical development as an organic process internal to the church's sacramental and liturgical life—a perspective that resonates with Jodock's emphasis on how Scripture functions within communities.

Jodock proposes a particularly helpful framework by distinguishing between material and functional aspects of biblical authority. The material aspect concerns the content of Scripture—its witness to God's saving work—while the functional aspect involves how Scripture operates to shape Christian identity and guide ethical discernment [49]. This distinction helps overcome simplistic oppositions between "high" and "low" views of Scripture by recognizing that authority manifests differently in different contexts.

Jodock further suggests that biblical authority must be understood through four key dimensions: its narrative character (its capacity to tell a compelling story that shapes identity), its kerygmatic dimension (its proclamation of God's saving work), its communal aspect (its role in forming and sustaining faith communities), and its contextual nature (its ongoing reinterpretation in new historical situations) [50]. This multifaceted approach offers a more nuanced alternative to traditional debates about inspiration and inerrancy.

These different perspectives reveal a fundamental theological tension regarding the relationship between divine guidance and human process in canon formation. All major Christian traditions affirm some form of divine guidance in the canonical process, but they conceptualize this guidance differently. Jodock's contribution reminds us that these differing conceptualizations need not be mutually exclusive—they may instead highlight different aspects of how Scripture functions authoritatively in the life of the church.

Final Shape of the Canon(s)

The New Testament canon that eventually emerged from the complex process of recognition and formal confirmation consists of 27 books: four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Pauline epistles, Hebrews, seven catholic or general epistles (James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude), and Revelation. This collection represents remarkable coherence across diverse Christian communities, suggesting that despite regional and theological differences, similar criteria led to largely consistent conclusions about which texts truly preserved the apostolic witness to Christ.

However, it's important to recognize that variations in the biblical canon persist across different Christian traditions, primarily concerning the Old Testament. The Protestant Old Testament includes 39 books, following the Hebrew Bible's structure, while Catholic and Orthodox traditions include additional books referred to variously as deuterocanonical or apocryphal [51]. The Eastern Orthodox tradition recognizes several books not included in the Catholic canon, such as 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras. These variations reflect different historical relationships to Jewish scriptural traditions and different understandings of canonical authority.

Darrell Jodock's work provides valuable insights into how we might understand these canonical differences. He suggests that the canon functions not primarily as a closed container of propositional truths but as "a normative collection of writings that continues to address the community in ever-new contexts" [52]. This perspective helps us recognize that canonical boundaries, while important, are secondary to how these texts function within communities to mediate God's presence and purpose.

The concept of a "closed canon"—a fixed list of authoritative texts that cannot be expanded—represents another important development in canonical history. By the late fourth century, the idea that the canon was effectively closed had gained widespread acceptance. Jodock notes that this closure serves an important function: "The closure of the canon establishes a normative period of Christian origins against which later developments can be measured, while still allowing for ongoing interpretation and application" [53]. This understanding created a clear distinction between scripture and later Christian writings, regardless of their theological value or ecclesiastical usage.

The establishment of canonical boundaries carried significant implications for Christian theology and practice. The canon created an authoritative framework for theological reflection, provided a standard for evaluating later claims to revelation, and fostered a sense of shared identity among diverse Christian communities. As Jodock observes, "The canon functions not merely to provide doctrinal content but to establish a community's identity through its narrative of God's saving work" [54].

At the same time, the formation of canonical boundaries inevitably involved certain tensions. Works like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, which had been widely read and respected in early Christian communities, were ultimately excluded from the New Testament. This exclusion reflected not necessarily negative judgments about these texts' value but rather assessments of their apostolic connections and foundational status. Jodock suggests that "the canonical process involved distinguishing between texts that were normative for all generations and texts that, while valuable, were not similarly foundational" [55].

The boundaries established through the canonical process have endured with remarkable stability through significant historical transitions—from the early church to medieval Christianity, through the Reformation, and into the modern era. This stability testifies to the enduring significance of the discernment process that shaped this collection of sacred texts, even as communities continue to reinterpret these texts in new contexts.

Modern Scholarship and Contemporary Relevance

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have witnessed significant developments in canonical studies, as archaeological discoveries, advances in historical methods, and new theoretical approaches have enriched our understanding of how the biblical canon formed. These developments have both challenged traditional perspectives and provided deeper historical context for understanding this complex process.

Darrell Jodock's work proves particularly valuable in this contemporary context, as he argues for a "third path" beyond both uncritical traditionalism and detached historical criticism. As he explains, "We need an approach to Scripture that takes seriously both historical investigation and the Bible's continuing role as a vehicle of God's presence and purpose" [56]. This balanced perspective allows us to engage honestly with historical findings while maintaining a theologically meaningful understanding of biblical authority.

The discovery of previously unknown early Christian texts, such as the Nag Hammadi library in 1945, has illuminated the diversity of early Christianity and provided new insights into texts that were ultimately excluded from the canon. These discoveries present both challenges and opportunities for understanding canonical formation. Jodock suggests that "recognizing the diversity of early Christianity need not undermine canonical authority if we understand that authority as residing not in abstract theories of inspiration but in the texts' capacity to mediate God's presence to the community" [57].

Modern historical-critical scholarship has raised important questions about traditional attributions of authorship for certain canonical texts. Many scholars now doubt that the pastoral epistles were written by Paul or that 2 Peter was authored by the apostle Peter. Such scholarly conclusions create interpretive challenges for traditions that emphasize apostolic authorship as a primary criterion for canonicity. However, Jodock proposes that "apostolicity might be understood less as a matter of direct authorship and more as a connection to the apostolic witness to Christ, which can be mediated through communities and traditions" [58].

Jodock's emphasis on recontextualization offers a particularly fruitful approach to contemporary engagement with Scripture. He argues that "biblical authority functions through a dynamic process of recontextualization, as communities continually reinterpret these ancient texts in their new situations" [59]. This perspective acknowledges both the historical distance between biblical texts and contemporary readers and the continuing capacity of these texts to address new contexts in meaningful ways.

Different Christian traditions continue to approach canonical questions in distinctive ways that reflect their broader theological commitments. Jodock's work provides resources for potential ecumenical convergence by focusing attention on how Scripture functions within communities rather than on competing theories of inspiration. As he notes, "Christians across traditions share the experience of encountering God through Scripture, even when they conceptualize that encounter differently" [60].

These diverse approaches demonstrate the ongoing theological significance of canonical questions for contemporary Christian faith. How we understand the formation of the canon ultimately shapes how we understand the nature of scriptural authority, the relationship between scripture and tradition, and the role of the church in preserving and interpreting divine revelation.

The study of canonical development also holds importance for interfaith dialogue, particularly between Christians and Jews. As Jodock's extensive work on Christian-Jewish relations suggests, "Understanding how Christianity gradually distinguished its scriptural collection from Jewish scripture provides important context for addressing historical tensions and fostering more constructive theological conversations between these traditions" [61]. Similarly, awareness of canonical diversity within Christianity itself can facilitate more nuanced ecumenical dialogue among different Christian traditions.

The continuing scholarly investigation of canonical history reminds us that receiving scripture as authoritative does not require ignoring the complex historical processes through which these texts were recognized and collected. Rather, as Jodock suggests, "Acknowledging the humanity of the canonical process enables us to appreciate more fully how divine purpose works through human history, human communities, and human discernment" [62]. This perspective invites contemporary believers to engage canonical questions with both historical honesty and theological depth.

Concluding Thoughts on Biblical Canon Development

The formation of the biblical canon represents one of the most significant developments in religious history—a process that was neither as simple as divine dictation nor as arbitrary as skeptics sometimes suggest. Instead, as we have seen, the canon emerged through a gradual, organic process of recognition, guided by specific criteria, and influenced by various historical developments and theological convictions.

Darrell Jodock's nuanced approach to biblical authority offers valuable insights for understanding this complex process. By focusing on how Scripture functions within communities rather than abstract theories of inspiration, his work helps us appreciate the lived dimensions of canonical authority. As he explains, "The Bible becomes authoritative not merely through formal declarations but through its capacity to mediate God's presence and purpose to communities of faith" [63].

The pre-Christian context of Jewish scriptural traditions provided the essential foundation upon which Christian canonical development built. The early church inherited not only the Hebrew Scriptures but also approaches to thinking about sacred texts and authority. The criteria for recognizing canonicity—especially apostolicity, orthodoxy, catholicity, and antiquity—emerged to guide the church's discernment, not as abstract principles but as practical tools for identifying texts that authentically preserved the apostolic witness.

Historical developments like Marcion's challenge, the Muratorian Fragment, and disputes over particular books shaped the ongoing process of canonical recognition. Formal recognition through church councils in the late fourth century largely confirmed what had already gained acceptance through the church's lived experience with these texts. As Jodock might observe, this illustrates how "authority emerges within the dynamic interaction between texts and the communities that receive them as meaningful" [64].

Different theological traditions continue to interpret this historical process through distinct lenses, reflecting broader understandings of how divine guidance works through human history and institutions. Yet across these differences, Christians share a reverence for canonical scripture as a unique witness to God's revelation in Christ. Jodock's emphasis on the narrative, kerygmatic, communal, and contextual dimensions of biblical authority offers potential common ground for ecumenical conversation.

The enduring significance of understanding canonical formation lies not merely in historical curiosity but in how it shapes our approach to scripture today. Recognizing the canonical process as both divine and human invites us to engage biblical texts with both reverent faith and historical awareness. As Jodock concludes, "The Bible continues to function as an authoritative vehicle of God's presence and purpose, not despite its human characteristics but through them" [65]. This balanced perspective enables us to appreciate both the complex journey through which these particular writings came to be recognized as the church's authoritative scriptures and their continuing capacity to transform individuals and communities.

References

[1] Timothy H. Lim, “How was the Canon Formed?” The Expository Times 133:9 (2022): 357-69, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00145246221088365.

[2] Joshua Schachterle, "The Canonization of the Bible: Understanding How We Got the Bible," The Bart Ehrman Blog, September 11, 2023,, https://www.bartehrman.com/canonization-of-the-bible/.

[3] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 229-231, https://books.google.com/books/about/Lost_Christianities.html.

[4] Michael J. Kruger, "The Biblical Canon," The Gospel Coalition, accessed March 5, 2025, .https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-canon/.

[5] Lyle Boudreaux, "The Canon of the Bible," The Imaginative Conservative, September 2024, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2024/09/canon-bible-lyle-boudreaux.html.

[6] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 43-44. Referenced in Greg Koukl, "The New Testament Canon: Which Books and Why," Stand to Reason, accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.ivpress.com/the-canon-of-scripture.

[7] John J. Collins, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 15-28, https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691143675/the-dead-sea-scrolls.

[8] James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 142, https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6648/the-dead-sea-scrolls-today-2nd-edition.aspx.

[9] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 107-108, https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800696641/Textual-Criticism-of-the-Hebrew-Bible-Third-Edition-Revised-and-Expanded.

[10] Craig A. Evans, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of Scripture in the Time of Jesus," in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 75, https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/2461/the-bible-at-qumran.aspx.

[11] Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 5th ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 22-25, https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/066423333X/the-letters-of-paul-fifth-edition.aspx.

[12] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 54, https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-canon-of-the-new-testament-9780198269540.

[13] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 310, https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/7431/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-2nd-edition.aspx.

[14] Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 63, https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300069181/books-and-readers-early-church.

[15] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.3, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 186, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html.

[16] Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 53-54, https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/2895/the-earliest-christian-artifacts.aspx.

[17] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 253, https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-canon-of-the-new-testament-9780198269540.

[18] Origen, Commentary on Matthew, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890), https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.html.

[19] Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2.8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.html.

[20] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890), https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.html.

[21] Paul's Second Letter to Timothy 3:16, New International Version, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16&version=NIV.

[22] Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 251, ttps://ia601308.us.archive.org/13/items/lee-martin-mc-donald-the-biblical-canon-2007-baker-publishing-group-libgen.li/Lee%20Martin%20McDonald%20-%20The%20Biblical%20Canon%20%282007%2C%20Baker%20Publishing%20Group%29%20-%20libgen.li.pdf.

[23] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 39-41. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/60248/the-early-church-by-henry-chadwick/.

[24] Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 103-104. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/lost-christianities-9780195182491.

[25] Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 347-348. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.html.

[26] Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 14-16. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-muratorian-fragment-and-the-development-of-the-canon-9780198263418.

[27] David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 90-92. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066038.

[28] Everett Ferguson, "Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 302-303. https://www.hendricksonrose.com/p/canon-debate/9781565635173.

[29] Armin D. Baum, "The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature," Novum Testamentum 50 (2008): 120-142. https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/50/2/article-p120_2.xml.

[30] David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 43-44. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-first-edition-of-the-new-testament-9780195112405.

[31] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Books I-III, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library 153 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), xxiii-xxvii. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL153/1926/volume.xml.

[32] Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 128-129. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674165311.

[33] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25.1-7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890). https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.html.

[34] Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine, 4.36, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890). https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.html.

[35] David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 62-63. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-first-edition-of-the-new-testament-9780195112405.

[36] Gregory E. Sterling, "Eusebius as Biblical Scholar," in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1, ed. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 629-630. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/new-cambridge-history-of-the-bible/CA3155D333AC6BE57C31C3E4E9C8BF06.

[37] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 156. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-canon-of-the-new-testament-9780198269540.

[38] Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 377-378. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-church-in-ancient-society-9780199265770.

[39] Third Council of Carthage, Canon 47, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900), 453-454. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html.

[40] Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers: Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 25-26. https://www.paulistpress.com/Products/4437-7/beginning-to-read-the-fathers.aspx.

[41] Joseph F. Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 36-37. https://litpress.org/Products/6316/The-Ecumenical-Councils-of-the-Catholic-Church.

[42] Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), 538-539. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.html.

[43] Andrew B. McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 103-104. https://www.bakerbooks.com/p/77/9780801097003/ancient-christian-worship.

[44] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 256-257. https://www.ivpress.com/the-canon-of-scripture.

[45] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 13. https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.

[46] Darrell Jodock, "The Authority of Scripture," in Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 8. https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/0664229107/engaging-the-bible-in-a-gendered-world.aspx

[47] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), paragraph 120. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.

[48] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987), 7-8. https://www.fordhampress.com/9780823209675/byzantine-theology/.

[49] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 16-17, https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.

[50] Darrell Jodock, "The Reciprocity Between Scripture and Theology: The Role of Scripture in Contemporary Theological Reflection," Interpretation 44, no. 4 (October 1990): 374-377. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002096439004400405.

[51] James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus," in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1-74. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/24774/jesus-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls-by-james-h-charlesworth/.

[52] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 14. https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.

[53] Darrell Jodock, "Biblical Authority in Light of the History of Critical Biblical Study," in Teaching the Bible in the Liberal Arts Classroom, Vol. 2, ed. Jane S. Webster and Glenn S. Holland (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 73. https://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/title.asp?id=155.

[54] Darrell Jodock, "Rethinking Faith, the Bible and Theology," in Faithful Conversations: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, ed. James M. Childs Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 34-35. https://www.fortresspress.com/store/productgroup/1335/Faithful-Conversations.

[55] Darrell Jodock, "Biblical Authority for Lutherans," in By What Authority? Lutheran Contributions to an Ecumenical Dialogue, ed. Darrell Jodock (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2022), 47, https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/9781506468747/By-What-Authority.

[56] Darrell Jodock, "The Third Path: Gustavus Adolphus College and the Lutheran Tradition," The Center for Vocational Reflection, Gustavus Adolphus College (2002): 3, https://gustavus.edu/faith/pdf/Third_Path_Article.pdf.

[57] Darrell Jodock, "Biblical Authority in Light of the History of Critical Biblical Study," in Teaching the Bible in the Liberal Arts Classroom, Vol. 2, ed. Jane S. Webster and Glenn S. Holland (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 78, https://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/title.asp?id=155.

[58] Darrell Jodock, "Christians and Jews in the Context of World Religions," in Christians and Jews in Dialogue: Learning in the Presence of the Other, ed. Mary C. Boys and Sara S. Lee (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths Publishing, 2006), 28-29, https://www.skylightpaths.com/9781594731181/christians-and-jews-in-dialogue/

[59] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 20, https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.

[60] Darrell Jodock, "A Third Path: A Lutheran Contribution to Jewish-Christian Dialogue," in Covenantal Conversations: Christians in Dialogue with Jews and Judaism, ed. Darrell Jodock (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 7, https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800662417/Covenantal-Conversations.

[61] Darrell Jodock, ed., Covenantal Conversations: Christians in Dialogue with Jews and Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 12, https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800662417/Covenantal-Conversations.

[62] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 22, https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.

[63] Darrell Jodock, "Biblical Authority for Lutherans," in By What Authority? Lutheran Contributions to an Ecumenical Dialogue, ed. Darrell Jodock (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2022), 50, https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/9781506468747/By-What-Authority.

[64] Darrell Jodock, "The Authority of Scripture," in Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 10, https://www.wjkbooks.com/Products/0664229107/engaging-the-bible-in-a-gendered-world.aspx.

[65] Darrell Jodock, "The Church's Bible: Its Contemporary Authority," Word & World 11, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 23, https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/11-1_Death_And_Resurrection/The%20Church's%20Bible;%20Its%20Contemporary%20Authority.pdf.