A Brief Compendium on the Disparate Canons of the Christian Bibles

Introduction

In my experience when I write out a document it usually turns out best when I have a specific audience in mind. In a Pauline way, when you have someone or some group in mind when putting a work together then you (perhaps) will be more focused and better communicate the ideas you’re wishing to share. And so, revisiting this document, that is what I shall do with this collection of information. As for my audience, I write this for my younger self; all the questions I had in the past regarding the Bible and the different canons, how the book came about in the first place, the conflicts between the Christian groups regarding this book - this “letter” is all that I looked for in the past and would have answered most of those questions for me.

I do not pretend to think that this is a complete document with every piece of information you will ever need to know regarding Biblical canons. Perhaps I will address this later or it may remain only in this introduction, but the Tanakh (more info on that later) gets its name from the first two letters in Hebrew in how the Jews divide up their Bible - meaning they categorize their Bible into the three sections of “the Law”, “the Prophets”, and “the Sacred Writings”. Am I going to dive into this categorization and speak on the history of it and the effect it has on the Jew’s view of the canon (and subsequently the Protestant view of the Old Testament)? Absolutely not; at least, I will not in the fourth draft of this letter I have written. Perhaps I will revisit it one day, but for the time being I am satisfied with the information I’ve currently gathered because this would have been more than enough for five-years-ago-me when I was seeking to understand the disparity between  the canons of the major Christian groups.

Now, to begin addressing the intended topic of this letter - the canons. Over the two millennia since the institution of the Christian faith many divisions have taken place, separating us for one reason or another. Different groups arose in the beginning of our faith, but for the most part Christianity was considered to be whole. But then there was the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation of 1517, and there now exist many divisions within the Christian family. Today we struggle to have conversations with one another because of bad blood from generations past, perceiving those of another branch as the enemy, causing further separation from each other. We also speak past each other, using definitions not shared between Christian groups or with meanings different from the other branches, claiming the other believes something that they do not and arguing against a position they do not hold. Of course, this leads to nothing except for greater division between us.

The divisions between the major branches of Christianity will not be resolved today, and especially will not be resolved in just one letter. But, among our many disagreements is the Bible itself, which as I said is the topic I will address today. It is strange to think that we would disagree on what the Bible is and what makes up its parts because you would think that God’s word handed down to us would be something we could agree on - and yet, we are human so we will find things on which to disagree on and ways to maintain that disagreement. The debate over who does and does not have the authority to determine what is Scripture is too long and lengthy to be resolved in my short writing here and so I will not attempt to do so. But, one thing that can be addressed is the misunderstandings the branches of Christianity have toward each other, and clarity can be provided so that we can have more meaningful conversations. Clarity, specifically, on why we have different canons of the Bible. Each of the branches will claim “Well we have our canon because the Holy Spirit showed us that these books are Scriptural and inspired works of God.” This is only convincing of those already present within your “group” and frankly is dismissive of the entire conversation over the history of the Bible, shutting down meaningful dialogue, causing more division. I am not engaging here with the conversation of which canon is the correct one, but will instead dive into the history behind the different canons and attempt to remove barriers in conversations about the canons. The reason for writing this is to give historical context to the different versions of the Bible seen in the world today, and help those Christians in their conversations around the Bible. 

Now, before jumping into the meat of the topic, I want to state one more thing. I will have my own biases, because of course I will, but my goal here is not to tear down one group or uplift another, I only intend to share the history and background regarding the development of the different canons of Scripture. For those wishing to increase their knowledge, this is for you. For those wishing to have inter-Christian dialogue, this is for you. One reading this letter will have the right to disagree with any personal opinions I put forth in here, but as much as possible I have tried to purge myself from these paragraphs and present the historical facts so that you may increase in knowledge.

Definition of terms

Christian

Referring to those accepting the basic tenants of the faith, which areas follows:

• They believe in God who created the world from nothing, who is outside of time and space.

• The doctrine of the Trinity which states that God is one divine being and three distinct persons in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

• Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and he entered into this world to live as one of us. Like the Father and the Holy Spirit He is uncreated, having always existed. He was born of a virgin, was crucified, died for the sins of man, and was resurrected on the third day. 

• The Bible is the Word of God and is His letter to us on how we should conduct ourselves.

• Mankind is affected by Original Sin through our first parents, Adam and Eve, and because of their sinning we all inherit a separation from God which we call sin. Eastern Christians use the term Ancestral Curse instead of Original Sin which has different connotations, but the idea of being separated from God is still present.

• Sin is wrong and impermissible, and to be united with God we must actively turn away from our sin.

• If you follow the commands of God and seek out a relationship with Him, then when you die you will be raised from death to be with Him.

Catholic

Those that are members of the Catholic branch of Christianity. These Christians trace the roots of their practices back to the Apostles and can trace the ordinations of their priests today all the way back to the Apostles, and they refer to themselves as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Also known as the Western Church, or “the Latins”.

Orthodox

Those that are members of the Orthodox branch of Christianity. These Christians trace the roots of their practices back to the Apostles and can trace the ordinations of their priests today all the way back to the Apostles, and they refer to themselves as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Also known as the Eastern Church, or Eastern Orthodox. 

Protestant

Those that are members of the Protestant branch of Christianity. These Christians trace their roots back to the Protestant Reformation, led by Martin Luther, in 1517 Germany. Different denominations of Protestantism look back to the Early Church and say they are reflecting the way the first Christians held their services, worshiped, and lived out their lives, and so they in a different way will sometimes trace their roots back to the origin of the Christian religion as the Catholics and Orthodox do. Rather than Apostolic succession, Protestants instead emphasize (to differing degrees) Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Sola Fidei (faith alone) in their faith.

Scripture

The sacred writings and teachings of the Christian faith. What writings make up Scripture varies between the major branches of Christianity, but the idea that it is all inspired by God is not disagreed upon despite the variances in canons between branches.

Divinely inspired

A term used to mean that God guided the writing of a book, that the words of the book are without error and contain good, moral teaching from God.

Canon

What is accepted as belonging within the Bible.

For eastern Christians (the Orthodox, eastern Catholics, and others) it also means those writings which are permitted to be read at Liturgy.

Protocanon

Coined in 1566 by a Roman Catholic named Sixtus of Sienna to distinguish between the disparate canons used by Protestants and Catholics. Protocanon literally means “first canon”. The term is used to refer to the thirty-nine Old Testament books present within the canons of each of the three major branches of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

Deuterocanon

Coined in 1566 by a Roman Catholic named Sixtus of Sienna to distinguish between the disparate canons used by Protestants and Catholics. Protocanon literally means “second canon”. The term is used to refer both to the seven books found in the Catholic Old Testament and lacking in the Protestant Old Testament, as well as the entirety of the Old Testament held by Catholics.

Anagignoskomena (ah-nuh-GIH-nō-skó-MEH-nuh)

A Greek word that literally means “worthy to read”. Loosely meaning secondary-canonical, meaning a book that belongs in Scripture but are not to be read during Sunday Liturgy. Used by some Orthodox in the place of the word Deuterocanon.

Apocrypha

Meaning “secret” or “hidden”. Used by Martin Luther to refer to the seven books not present in Protestant Bibles to signify that they should not be considered Scripture, but were still good to read. Over time the word evolved to mean false teachings, false works, or heretical books.

Extrabiblical

Original meaning of Martin Luther’s title for “Apocrypha”. This title is given to books that are not divinely inspired, but are good to read. Books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistles of Polycarp, and others are classified as extrabiblical. To be extrabiblical a work must be good and edifying to read, and not go with the intention of preaching a different Gospel than the one we have been given.

Septuagint (sep-TOO-uh-jint)

The Greek version of the Old Testament. Septuagint comes from the Latin and means “seventy”. The story goes that King Ptolemy II commissioned the royal librarian Demitrius of Phaleron to collect all the books in the world. The librarian then wrote to the high priest at Jerusalem named Eleazar and requested six respected and educated elders of each tribe, totaling seventy-two men, to translate the Scriptures into the Greek language. According to the legend these seventy-two scribes completed their work in seventy-two days. The compiled books are called Septuagint because of this legend.

Tanakh (tuh-NAK)

The Jewish canon of the Old Testament, containing the Law, the Prophets, and the Sacred Writings. How many “books” there are varies depending on which works the Jews do or do not combine together. For example, the minor prophets were sometimes combined into a single book, which greatly reduces the number of books in their canon, but the amount of writings, the number of pages remain the same because they are not removing any works, just categorizing them together.

Masoretic text

Another name for the Tanakh.

Mishnah

A jewish text written in the third century detailing practices that should be followed by the Jewish people and defining their canon of Scripture.

Hellenists 

Those Jewish people living outside of Jerusalem and heavily influenced by Hellenist (another word for Greek) culture.

Diaspora

Referring to all those Jews outside of Jerusalem.

Hebraic

Those Jews living within the area of Jerusalem.

Council

An authoritative meeting publicly held by religious leaders to speak on doctrine and make decisions on matters of faith.

The Protestant Canon

The Protocanon

The Protestant Christian canon of the Bible possesses all the same New Testament books as the other major branches of Christianity, but in their Old Testament they have only the Protocanonical books, which makes the total number of books in their Bible 66. To head things off before arguments may arise, I will not be arguing for or against the legitimacy of the Protestant canon, as this section of the article is meant solely to explain the development of this canon. To argue its merits or put forth any canons as illegitimate is outside the parameters of this letter. But, I will express my biases here and confess that I find the Protestant argument for their canon to be weaker than the other major branches. I believe this, but I do my best to present the facts as they are for the development of the canon while dispersing with any false history those opposed to or in favor of the Protestant canon may believe.

For a long time Christians did not have a doctrinally-declared canon of Scripture as the Protestants and Catholics do now - more on this later as well - and so this the first time we really see the 66-book canon of the Bible appear in history is at the time of Martin Luther after his 95-theses. Because of this, many attribute the origin of the Protestant canon to the Protestant Reformation, while others say the origin is from the very beginning of the Christian faith. The Catholics and Orthodox both also trace the roots of their canons to the early Church and yet have more books than the Protestants do, so clearly this is not a good argument for any one branch of Christianity over another. Since the first recorded canon containing the 66 books of the Protestant Bible is not found until Martin Luther it is at this time that many attribute it as the “founding” or “origin” of the canon, and in this letter we will move forward sharing in this assumption.

Returning to the canon in general, Protestant Christians will often reference the Jews at the time of Christ and say that they used the same Scriptures (the Old Testament to us Christians) as the Protestants do today. Of course, since it was so long ago and because of the destruction of the Jewish Temple we have very few original documents from the Jews or the Christians from the time; but, though there are few documents, there are things from later on that reference back to those days and Scriptures. What this has to do with the canon of Scripture is this: Jews hold to a canon called the Tanakh, and these books that the Jewish people view as Scripture today, as did those at the time of Martin Luther, are reflective of the Protestant Old Testament. The earliest reference we have to this being the official Jewish canon comes from the Mishnah, which will be spoken of in the next section. 

Simply put, if the Jews viewed certain texts as Scripture and others as not, then why shouldn’t we as Christians, tracing our roots back to the Hebrews, also have the same canon for our Old Testament? That was partly the reasoning of Martin Luther with his canon of Scripture, though not all of it. As humans we know that choices are often multifaceted and do not boil down to one singular reason as to why something was done, and so it is the same with Luther’s canon. Saying that Luther did it solely to reflect the canon of the Jews (as the Protestants will sometimes claim), or that he did it to take out books that supported Catholic teachings (as the Catholics will sometimes claim) does not help in the discussion of what is and isn’t the canon, so let us do away with it.

There are issues, though, with looking to the Jews for their canon of Scripture that Orthodox and Catholics are quick to point out. For one, not all Jews have the same canon, just like us Christians. Ethiopian Jews have a canon more expansive, representing something similar to the Ethiopian Orthodox Old Testament, and their canon is as old or older than the Hebraic Jewish Scripture of the Tanakh. A second issue with looking for the Jews to determine the canon, the Jews are not Christians, and so it is not up to another religion to determine what our Scripture should be. And thirdly, and this will be more deeply delved into in the next section, the earliest we see a declaration of the Jewish canon is centuries after Christ establishes His Church, and relatively close to when Christians first officially proclaim their canon of Scripture.

Now, whether you believe these criticisms from the previous paragraph have any merit is up to you. This is merely a place to present all of the arguments for and against each of the canons of Scripture. Now to continue.

To return to Martin Luther, as stated earlier he was not so one-dimensional as to say that “Since the Jews have this canon, we should too” and leave it at that. One of his arguments against certain books and their “canonicity” was that he did not believe God was present in them, and so they must not have been divinely inspired works - the criteria all books must meet to be present in a canon of any of the Christian Bibles. If God was not the one who inspired the writing of these works then obviously they should not be in the Bible. The question is though, was Luther correct in his determination of what should and should not be considered canon? Critics of Martin Luther point out that he viewed the works of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be good works but uninspired. In his translation of the Bible into German he did not remove these New Testament books - as is claimed by some Catholics and Orthodox - but moved them to the end of the Bible with the seven Old Testament books that he did not consider canon. This is another thing the other branches use to argue against the Protestant canon - Luther placed these New Testament books alongside these Old Testament books, all of which he considered uninspired, and yet Protestant Bibles today have the four New Testament books in their canon - so what’s the deal? If these New Testament books are actually inspired, why aren’t the seven removed books from the Old Testament also considered the same? This is not a complete answer, you will have to go to a Protestant scholar to receive a more full and thought-out answer, but as said earlier the decisions that led to the current Protestant canon are multi-faceted and the Jewish canon is just one of the factors. 

Something to point out to those Christians wanting to engage in conversation with Protestants is that very few of them see themselves as beholden to anything said or done by Martin Luther. Why should they? Except to the Lutherans, the man was just a guy who started a movement to get back to original Christianity (as the Protestants would say) so they don’t need to hold him to any more authority than that. To all but the Lutherans he is not a founder of their movement or branch of Christianity, but one of those first to set the faithful back on track. And so, when another Christian is wanting to discuss the canon of Scripture with a Protestant do not think that they hold anything said or done by Martin Luther as gospel (metaphorically speaking).

In a moment we will return to the seven books of the Old Testament and speak on why they are called “Apocrypha”, but first we will wrap up our discussion of Martin Luther’s New Testament with the infamous addition of the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. When Luther added the word to the passage it reads thus: “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law” (emphasis added by me). Whatever you may think of Luther doing this, hold off for a moment, and we will go into his rationale for adding the word. The justification he had was that although the word “alone” is not present in the passage, it is implied by the text, and so adding the word brings clarity to the passage and more accurately represents what the original author meant to communicate through the verse. Not exactly the same, this is somewhat the intention of the King James translation of the Bible; the translation is not trying to give a word-for-word translation of what the original text says, but rather communicate the intended meaning of the text. 

Now, whether you believe Luther was right or wrong to add the word will largely depend on which branch of Christianity you are part of - if you are Orthodox or Catholic then you will be against it, and if you are Protestant you will likely be more understanding of his addition of the word. But, whatever you think of what he did, all scholars since Luther agree that the word “alone” is not implied in the passage to the Romans and so all modern major translations lack the word. Perhaps Luther included the word to justify his Sola Fidei (faith alone) belief along with his Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), perhaps he really thought the word made sense in the passage, or perhaps he just made a bad translation. Whatever the reason for the word being added in, “alone” is no longer present in Romans 3:28.

Now we will return to the matter of canon and the seven books not present in the Protestant Old Testament when compared to the Catholic Bible. Those books by name are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and portions of Ruth and Daniel. Whether or not these should be present in the Old Testament will be spoken of in the section on the Catholic canon of Scripture, instead we will go over Luther’s opinion of these books. In his canon he moved these works to the end of the Bible, a portion that in study Bibles of today we might call the Extrabiblical section. This is where you can find works that are not considered to be Scriptural, but are good works and are enriching to read. For these books he gave the title “Apocrypha”. The word comes from Latin and means “secret” or “hidden”, understood as writings that were not inspired by God but teach good morals. As I mentioned, good writings that are not heresy, something we today call Extrabiblical text.

Today you may find within the Extrabiblical section texts such as the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, or the Shepherd of Hermas, or more writings from early Christians that we do not consider to be canonical. So it was with Protestants with the seven books mentioned, they were present in a separate section of the Bible until 1825 when the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society scrubbed them from the list of approved books. With this, the Protestant Bibles going forward would not have these texts readily available to them.

Pinning down the exact time when this happened is difficult, but sometime after Luther’s canon was developed the word Apocrypha changed meaning, and shifted from being “good to read” and came to mean “heretical, false texts”. Thus the divide between the branches grew farther, as the understanding of the “extra books” revered by other Christians went from being non-Biblical but edifying to heretical. 

Speaking at all of the divisions between branches of the religion is difficult, because it is very personal to many people and will be taken personally. The hope I have is that in the future we will be able to come to a better understanding of each other and where we are coming from so we can have more understanding conversations. That is my hope in writing this, to build bridges.

The “Council of Jamnia”

To finish addressing the development of the Protestant canon, we have to return to the Jewish canon of Scripture. Part of Martin Luther’s factoring into what should be canonical in the Bible come from looking around at the canon held by the Jews at his time, and he then made the assumption that what Jews at the time of Christ must have had the same canon, and therefore we as Christians should be using that same canon. But, that’s not the case. The Hebrew canon comes from a book called the Mishnah, which was written somewhere between the second and fourth century, and claims that the canon was definitively established in the year 90AD at the “Council of Jamnia”. This canon is reflective of the books considered to be Scripture by the Jewish group called the Pharisees, who were the only surviving Jewish school of thought after the destruction of the second temple in the year 70 A.D.

Now, before going on I do not want to operate under false pretenses, so I will address why there are quotation marks around the Council of Jamnia. There was never such a council, and calling it such is misleading. There was, in fact, a meeting at a place named Jamnia, but not a religious council held there. What is the difference, you ask? Well, a Council, with the capital C, is an official call and gathering of religious leaders to determine matters of the faith, settle doctrine, and clarify teachings regarding the religion. A meeting may call itself a council but never be given the capital-C authority of a Council, or it may after the fact be awarded the title of being an official Council. But, the gathering in Jamnia was no more than a meeting of leaders, not a “Council”, not having any doctrinal matters to contend or settle. From what information we do have of the meeting its purpose was to address the unrest after the second temple had been destroyed twenty years earlier, and to combat the growing influence of Christianity. To emphasize the point again, it was not a gathering that would influence the greater Jewish religion, rather it was intended to deal with some cultural issues at the time. 

As for the alleged Hebrew canon settled on at the council, there was nothing settled. The only recordings we have regarding a discussion of canonicity were about whether they should include Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Book of Esther, three books present in all Christian canons today. The canonicity of these three books would continue to be debated for many, many decades more, not being settled until much later. On top of this, the Jews at the time continued to reference the book of Sirach as Scripture, one that Protestant Christians consider an “Apocryphal book”, and it was treated as Scripture within this “Council” of Jamnia.

The reason for bringing up all this information regarding the meeting at Jamnia is not to war against Protestants, but to call into question the canon held by the Jews. One of the criteria used by the Jewish people for a book to be considered Scripture is that it must have an ancient copy of the text in Hebrew. The seven books, with the additions to Daniel and Esther, were only in Greek, and so they could not have a place in the Jewish canon. That was the case up until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946 and on, where ancient Hebrew copies of several of the books were discovered. So, why have the Jewish people not reconsidered their canon and added books that fit their criteria for Scripture? I do not have the answer for that, but that is a question that needs to be addressed and answered, though it seems to be ignored at this moment.

Another argument a Protestant may have against the Catholic or Orthodox canons, a bad argument but one I will address here nonetheless, is that the seven books are not referenced in the New Testament and therefore should not be considered canon. But, if being referenced is the criteria for canon candidacy then we should remove the Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah since they are not quoted anywhere even once in the New Testament. And, if being referenced in the New Testament means it is canonical then 1 Enoch  should be in Scripture since the Book of Jude references it (Jude 1:14-15).

And for the books considered canon by Catholics and Orthodox, if being referenced in the New Testament makes it scriptural then at least some of the seven books should be present in the Protestant Old Testament. Take Hebrews 11:35 for example, which references a tale only found in 2 Maccabees 7. Hebrews, having been addressed to the Hebrew people, assumes they have knowledge of this story and so will know what is spoken about in 2 Maccabees, as if it were common knowledge just as the books 1 Kings or Ezra or Genesis are. There are many examples of the books Protestants call the Apocrypha being referenced in the New Testament, by inference or indirect quote, but of course this is a silly criteria for Scriptural canonicity. For a Protestant reading this, I would assume you would not use this argument, as it is silly, just as a Catholic saying to you that “guitars aren’t in the Bible so you can’t use them for worship” is silly and is not a good argument against a fellow Christian. My point is to bring clarity to the discussion of canon and do away with any of the low-brow arguments someone may use against another’s canon.

For the final point on the section on the Protestant canon of Scripture, I present to you the question that a Catholic or an Orthodox would ask a Protestant: who determines Scripture? Most would answer “The Church of course.” Then the next question would be “Who is the Church” and it spirals from there debating on which group is right on what “the Church” is. In my mind, a better question to begin with is this: “Who does not determine what is Scripture?” The answer, clearly, is anyone outside of the Church (whatever that may be). So then, if Christianity was already established and flourishing before the meeting at Jamnia - where no canon had been settled - and the Hebrew people did not have an official canon until well after Christ established His Church, why should we adhere to their canon of the Old Testament? It used to be that the Jews were the chosen people of God, but no longer, it is those who follow Christ who are His chosen people. If they are not Christians, they have no power in determining the canon of Scripture.

Do not mistake me, this is not me trying to undermine Protestantism. I do not mean to say that the Protestant canon is illegitimate altogether, rather I say that if you are Protestant you cannot hold to what the Jews decided to be Scripture after Christ established His Church. I am not telling you to throw out your canon, but to reevaluate the justifications for it. If you believe that Luther’s judgment regarding the canonicity of certain books was enough - or, if you believe that it is the affirmation of those many scholars after him reinforcing Luther’s canon of the Bible that give credence to the Protestant version of the Bible - then we can discuss from there. What is unhelpful for everyone is not knowing history, which is the thing trying to be remedied in this first section as well as the following sections.

The Catholic Canon

The Deuterocanon and the Septuagint

Now, the canon of the Bible for the Catholic Christians. Once again I wish to reiterate that I do not intend to argue for this as the correct canon, but rather to present the history of how it came about and add clarity to the conversation around this version of the Bible. When I say “this version” I mean the seventy-three books found in the New and Old Testaments of the Catholic Bible.

To begin speaking on the Deuterocanonical books and explaining what the term means, first the Protocanon should be revisited. As mentioned in the section on the Protestant canon, Protocanon literally means “the first accepted as canon”. Deuterocanon - “deutero” meaning second - means “the second accepted as canon”, or can be understood as “later accepted as canon”. This will be important to keep in mind in the section on the Deuterocanon.

“Hold on a minute,” you may be saying, “If these books that they call the Deuterocanon were accepted as canonical later, then these books were added by the Catholics, just like the Protestants have been saying!” I see where you’re coming from, but no, not quite. See, at the time of Christ there was no settled canon of Scripture. As mentioned already, the earliest declaration of Hebrew canon was not until centuries after Christ, and which books were considered to be Scripture could still be debated. Our New Testament, for example, was not immediately settled and developed over time. Some works, such as Paul’s letters, were quickly accepted to be Scripture, then the Gospels were written and they came to be accepted, but other works took time to be accepted as Scripture. For example, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, the Letter to the Hebrews, and Revelation were debated for a long time at the beginning of the Church and were later confirmed into the canon and given equal footing with the other writings. This is why you will find these books are sometimes referred to as the “New Testament Deuterocanonicals” as they were not immediately accepted by the Church.

To back up again - with the founding of Christianity, its growth into many regions, and introduction to many people, this blossoming religion had many things it needed to address, and so the great fathers of our Church addressed them through their preaching and writings. First there were Paul’s letters addressing immoral behavior or heretical beliefs, as well as the letters from the other Apostles, then the accounts of Christ’s life which we call the Gospels, and finally the Apocalypse of John which we call Revelation. Today we clearly know which of these are and are not Scripture, but back then different groups revered different writings, so there was no agreed upon canon of Scripture for a few hundred years. Writings such as the Epistle of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, and others were considered to be Scripture by some Christians, and by others were not.

Now, before we can continue speaking on the canon for Christians we need to return to the Jewish people. What the Hebrew people constituted as Scripture was possibly most hotly debated between the Jewish groups of the Hellenists and the Hebraics, two groups that you will see referenced throughout the New Testament. The Hebraics were the Jews who lived within the bounds of Jerusalem; think of these as the Jews with a Hebrew culture. The Hellenists, on the other hand, were all the Jews living outside of Jerusalem and influenced by Hellenist culture, which is another name for Greek culture. So the Hellenists are still just as Jewish as the Hebraics, but they will have a more Greek-looking culture. 

Between these two groups of Jews there were many disagreements on how the religion should be lived out, and much more than just that - what was divinely inspired Scripture was also debated between the groups, and caused drastic division between God’s chosen people. The authorities in Jerusalem, the Hebraic Jews, generally revered works that had Hebrew copies more highly than those without, meaning that the thirty-nine books all Christians share today. The Hellenists though, they were more expansive with their Scripture and accepted additional books, some of which are now only in the Ethiopian Jewish and Christian canons of the Bible; these books being the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Enoch, and more. The questions that the people at that time and those since have asked is, who is right on the canon of Scripture on what books are canonical? These things will be addressed more in the next section, so please bear with me until then. Before getting to that issue, I want you to understand how complicated the situation was back then so you understand why it is not so simple.

The Tanakh, which is the version of the Old Testament that is held by the Jews and Protestants of today, was not the settled canon at the time of Christ. As mentioned previously when speaking about Jamnia, some books were still up for debate, and those books accepted today reflect the opinions of the only Jewish group of scholars not wiped out in the conflict around the destruction of the second Temple. Another set of writings revered by the Jews of the day is what we call the Septuagint. If you happen to be a Biblical scholar then you will be very aware of what it is, but for those unaware it is essentially the Old Testament in Greek rather than Hebrew. As you could imagine, there were divisions between the Hellenists and the Hebraics over which was and which was not God’s word. The Jews can argue if they’d like over what they believe to be Scripture, but as was made clear already we are not held to what the Jews may decide to do since we parted ways with them as our ancestors a long time ago.

You may be asking now, “What’s the big deal? Were the two versions so very different from each other to argue over it? Why should it matter whether a book was written in Greek or Hebrew?” Well, there are some important differences between the two versions, and they cannot be ignored. Though they are very similar, some prophecies of the Jewish messiah were understood differently depending on whether you read the Greek or Hebrew text.  Next you may say “Alright, there are two different versions of the Old Testament. Which one is authoritative? Which version is referenced in the Bible?” And the answer to that is, both. In the New Testament both the Tanakh and the Septuagint are referenced. But, it is not as if they are necessarily equal. The Septuagint, being the Greek copy of the Old Testament, is referenced twice as often as the Tanakh Old Testament by the New Testament writers. I haven’t been able to verify this myself and so please take this with a grain of salt, but according to the wording of the New Testament quotes or inferences that point back to the Old Testament, it’s been said that shy of ninety-percent of those quotes match up more closely with the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament than it does with the Tanakh (Hebrew) version. At minimum what is confirmed is that two-thirds of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are from the Greek and not Hebrew Old Testament.

To get back to the first questions put forth at the beginning of the previous paragraph, though the two versions do not put forth opposing messages, there are some important differences between the Old Testaments. They do not at all constitute a different theological understanding or a radically different reading of the Old Testament, but the differences cannot be ignored. Following are two short examples of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. In Matthew 1:23 during the story of the birth of Christ it references Isaiah 7:14 and says a “virgin” shall conceive. In Greek Isaiah says “virgin”, but in the Hebrew it says a “young woman” shall conceive. The passages are similar, but not the same, and the Greek gives us the prophecy that was fulfilled by Christ. And one more example, John 6:31. In the verse it references Psalm 78:24 and says “He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.” This is word-for-word what the Psalm says in Greek, but in Hebrew it says instead that he gave them “food” or “grain” from heaven. The Hebrew is similar, but John is quoting from the Septuagint as we can see as the wording is exactly the same.

There are many more instances of the Septuagint being quoted in the New Testament, and it would not do to reference each instance here when these have been so diligently documented elsewhere. And with the understanding that Scripture is divinely inspired and so cannot have error in it, the New Testament could not be referring to a false Old Testament two-thirds of the time, and so the Septuagint is a legitimate copy of the Old Testament, either on the same or greater level to the Tanakh. Without the Septuagint the miracle of the Messiah being born of a virgin would be unknown as a prophecy and would not add to Christ’s legitimacy as the Savior. Yet, the New Testament writers knew this to be a prophecy of the Messiah, and so referenced the Septuagint because it is the Word of God.

The next question is, exactly what books are in the Septuagint? Once again, as was covered earlier, the Jews at the time of Christ did not have a defined canon of Scripture, so some teachers and some of the common people considered certain books to be the Word of God that are not present in Bibles today. The Septuagint gets its name from the legend of its origin. It is said that King Ptolemy II commissioned the royal librarian Demitrius of Phaleron to collect all the books in the world. The librarian then wrote to the high priest at Jerusalem named Eleazar and requested six respected and educated elders of each tribe, totaling seventy-two men, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language. According to the legend these seventy-two scribes completed their work in seventy-two days. And the word Septuagint is Latin for “seventy” and thus the name came about. 

Yes, I still have not addressed the question of what books are present in the Septuagint. This is because it is not an easy question to answer, and I wanted to give a little bit of background on its origin. So far as we know with the oldest copies we have of the text, it had Maccabees 1-4, Baruch, Tobit, Sirach, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the additional verses to Esther and Daniel, Wisdom, and of course the rest of the Old Testament writings that Protestants have in their Old Testament. Some of these books are included in the Catholic canon today, some are not, and this was decided early on in Christianity what should and should not be included in the canon - which we will cover in the next section.

To close this portion of the conversation over canon, I want you to know this was merely the introduction to the conversation over the Catholic canon. The groundwork of the Septuagint, the conflict and separation between the Hebraic and Hellenist Jews, and the defining of the word Deuterocanon had to be established before the next part could be understood. And now, we start to wrap up the topic of the Catholic Christian canon of the Bible.

The Council of Rome, and more

Now that we have addressed the lack of an official canon at the time of Christ, you may be wondering when it is we Christians finally settled on one. As with Catholics Christians today so it was back at the start, we don’t necessarily answer major questions as a Church before they are a major talking point, only once they become so. And so, among other things, this question became a serious talking point in the early Church and a canon had to be settled. Enter the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. This is the first record we have of a canon assembled by Christians on what constitutes as Scripture. Read the declaration below, with additions by me in brackets to clarify the names of some of the old books since the spelling is not always the same.

Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave [ie. Joshua] one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books [ie. 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings], Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books [the next three books listed], Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles [ie. Song of Songs] one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias [ie. Isaiah] one book, Jeremias [Jeremiah] one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel [Ezekiel] one book, Daniel one book, Osee [ie. Hosea] one book, Micheas [ie. Micah] one book, Joel one book, Abdias [ie. Obadiah] one book, Jonas [ie. Jonah] one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc [ie. Habakkuk] one book, Sophonias [ie. Zephaniah] one book, Aggeus [ie. Haggai] one book, Zacharias [ie. Zechariah] one book, Malachias [ie. Malachi] one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias [ie. Tobit] one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees [Maccabees] two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.

As you can see, all seventy-three books lauded by Catholics are present in this canon declared at the Council of Rome. After the Council of Rome declared this to be the canon we should adhere to it was then ratified by the future councils at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and 419, II Nicea in 787, Florence in 1442, and Trent in 1546. Many Protestants have made the claim that Catholics added books to their Bibles (as mentioned earlier) at the Council of Trent in 1546, and clearly we see that this is not accurate. But, there was something different in Trent, which is true. The established canon was reaffirmed at the Council, as well as the importance and role of Scripture reiterated for all believers; all books are divinely inspired, those seven Old Testament books that Protestants removed are on equal footing to all the other books, the Bible is of equal authority as the Church established by Christ, and all of this is a dogma of the faith (which means dissension on the canon and its importance would mean you are not united with the Church). 

The term used by the Council is that the canon was “closed” which means the 73 books present in the canon are no longer up for debate, they are canon. You may think it peculiar that the canon took 1,500 years to be closed, but it was the norm up until that time to not have a closed canon. Until Christianity was officially considered a separate religion from the Jews the Hebrew people did not have a closed canon, it remains the norm for Orthodox Christians today to not have a closed canon, and it was the case for the Catholic Church until they felt it needed to be addressed due to the Protestant Reformation. And so, this was the norm of the Christian world up until the Protestants decided on a different canon and put forth the idea of Sola Scriptura and the Catholics felt the need to respond.

“But wait,” says the one stooped in history and familiar with the Council of Rome, “the Council of Rome was not an ecumenical council and therefore is not binding on all Christians. How can you site that as the origin of the canon?” But I do not cite that as the origin of the canon, but rather as the earliest time we see the Catholic canon put forth. I mention that council because it refutes the idea some hold to that Catholics made up their canon at the Council of Trent, which is blatantly false. 

What you are absolutely correct on is that the Council of Rome was not ecumenical, it was regional, and therefore the canon was not binding on all other Christians. But, I have two counterpoints, one weaker then one stronger. Firstly, this council was held in Rome, and the Roman Church is the head Church in the Catholic Church where the Holy See resides, so why wouldn’t the other Churches follow the lead with their canons to adhere to the head Church? Second, this first council with the canon was not ecumenical and so was not binding on all Christians, but the later councils that were ecumenical reaffirmed the canon established at the Council of Rome and therefore the canon was raised to ecumenical status in II Nicea in 787.

To wrap up and move on, the point has been made, Catholics have had a declared canon since 382, and it has remained unchanged ever since. If you are a Protestant or Orthodox Christian and wish to debate on the merit of the canon held by Catholics then so be it, I just beg that you use accurate information. 

The Orthodox Canon

Who are the Orthodox Christians, some may wonder. Being this letter is written in English, most of the Christian audience reading this would be either Catholic or Protestant as those groups make up the majority of Christians in the English-speaking world. So, I will make a brief introduction to this group of individuals here. The groups called “Orthodox” and “Catholic” had a split in 1054 during the period of the Great Schism. It was a tragedy in the Christian world and resulted in a great divorce in Christ’s Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a collection of Churches that adhere to Apastolic Succession, have the Sacraments, and although presenting a different flavor of Christianity they will hold to things that Catholics find familiar. There were several reasons for the separation from the East and the West, but that is not what this paper is being written to address. I will at some point, soon I hope, share an introduction for Westerners to help understand the East and its spirituality, but for the time being you just need to know that this is another ancient Christian group, and while Protestants and Catholics are often called “the Latins” because of the association with the western Latin-speaking portion of the Roman Empire, they refer to themselves as “the Greeks” because of their association with the eastern Greek-speaking portion of the Roman Empire.

“Canonicity” and the Anagignoskomena

For Orthodox Christians it is difficult to say exactly what their canon is, the reason being that as mentioned in earlier sections they do not have a closed canon as the Protestants and Catholics do. But, generally, they have a canon consisting of seventy-six books or more for their canon. Before jumping into the deep end on the Orthodox canon, we need to revisit what it means for a book to be canon.

In the Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity the term is mutually understood as “those books which belong in Scripture”. For those of us westerners, we all know this. If a book is included in our canon then it is revered as Inspired Scripture. Orthodox, however, do not see it the same way as the rest of us do - or, at least, the more ancient perspective was not that way, though it has evolved some and is now much more similar to the western definition of canon for many of these Christians. Now I do not pretend to be an expert on all things related to Orthodoxy, or to truly understand even a majority of their philosophy - but, for those things that can be understood by westerners without going through a whole learning course will be addressed here, at least as it relates to the canon.

Returning to the topic of canon, the Orthodox view it differently. Their approach to the Bible is the same as that of the very first Christians, the same philosophy of approach to books that Christians held for a few hundred years. For a book to be “canon” that means it will be read at the Sunday liturgy. If a book is not going to be read on Sunday, it therefore is not canon. At the beginning of the Christianity there were many City Churches (which is somewhat similar to how the Orthodox operate today) and each City Church had their own canon of Scripture - once again, canon being what is read on Sunday. For a long time certain books were considered to not be canonical that we all now agree to be Scripture, such as the book of Revelation. This is not the language used by them, but now there are books that are “Bible canon” but not in the “Sunday church canon”, where the writings are works inspired by the Holy Spirit but not to be read during a church service. 

This brings us to the Anagignoskomena - a big Greek word that means secondary-canonical. Please refer to the definitions at the beginning of this letter for an overview of the word, but in short it means something similar to Deuterocanon, yet is different. Deuterocanon is used to describe as confirmed secondly as canonical, while Anagignoskomena is something closer to “secondary canonical” in meaning. To the Orthodox Christians this means, essentially, that all of these books are equally inspired Scripture, but the faithful should not hold these books to as high a reverence as the other books. The writings were written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit as all the other books are, but they do not hold as much weight as the books we call “Protocanonical”. Books such as the Revelation of John would traditionally be called Anagignoskomena, but whether an Orthodox Christian would classify it as such today I do not know, for the Orthodox do not have the same unity on teachings as the Catholic Church does so I can only speculate on some things.

I wish to speak on these “secondarily canonical” books more so that there is no misunderstanding regarding them. What they are not is something to be ignored by believers; they possess good teaching and truth communicated by God to the world, they are Scripture. The literal translation of Anagignoskomena is “things to read”. They are different from extrabiblical text - which are historical documents that were written alongside Scripture and yet have not been elevated as being the Word of God. Extrabiblical books don’t hold a candle to the value of the Anagignoskomena, but these other works are, for example, of less import to read compared to the Gospels, or the letters of Paul. 

Orthodox Christians take an approach similar to ancient Judaism and some of the first Christians where there is a hierarchy of Scripture. It would be best for you to read the accounts of the life and ministry of Christ in the Gospels, then you should read the letters to the Christian Churches in the New Testament, then certain works of the Old Testament - so an Orthodox Christian may say to you. There is some truth to this, that if you were only to read one Book in the Bible it should probably be one of the Gospels, and if you could read all books save for one in the Bible then you would be unlikely to choose to abstain from one of the Gospels in that situation. The reason why Catholics do not divide the books into levels of importance (and by consequence, in a sense, the same goes for the Protestants) is because of certain heresies at the beginning of the Church which threw out certain books, like the entirety of the Old Testament, because they were seen as either less important or inconsequential to books in the New Testament. To combat the heresy the Church declared that no one book is less worthy to read than another because all of them are the Word of God, all tell the story of salvation for mankind, and to take away or demote any would be to tell God that some of His lessons are less important than others.

Partly this is the Protestant perspective on the entirety of Scripture, but since they elevate Scripture as their sole authority since protest against the idea of hierarchy in the Church they in a sense must view all the books as being of equal and greatest importance. Catholics would agree for different reasons, and Orthodox would agree with them as well in a different way. All Christians possess an extremely elevated view of Scripture, but all approach it from different angles, so to speak.

Now, why do these Christians have a canon of Scripture with a different number of books compared to the Catholic Christians? Afterall, the Council of Rome took place in 382, and the presented canon was ratified by four more councils before the split in 1054 A.D. between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches - with one of them being ecumenical - so why do the Orthodox have a different canon? Well, they do hold to this canon, but they do not close their canon at it because they’ve never had a council that would close their canon. They agree that the seventy-three books that Catholics read are Scripture, but they have additional books that they also revere. They don’t disagree with the Protestant Canon, or the Catholic Canon, they just have additional books that they have revered from the very beginning. I find the Orthodox approach to determining the canon very respectable, since it is how the Jewish people always did it up until the time after Christ, and it is how the Christians all approached the canon up until the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Does it make their canon the correct canon? Definitely not. In the end, just as with the Catholics and Protestants, it comes down to the question “Who has the authority to determine Scripture?” and your canon is determined by the answer.

To return to the discussion of the specifics of the canon, there are some portions of Scripture that are “larger” than the Bibles of Protestant and Catholic Christians. Just as the books of Daniel and Esther are longer in the Catholic Bibles compared to the Protestant Bibles, because Catholics reference the Septuagint for their Old Testament, the Orthodox have an additional Psalm and the Prayer of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles. And for standalone books the Orthodox have 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and the Letter of Jeremiah as its own book (Catholics include it in Baruch). These works show up in different ancient documents such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, we find ancient copies of some of these works alongside the oldest copies we have of other Scripture. 

The “Other Orthodox”

I added an additional section to this portion on the Orthodox partly to beef up the section so it is not so short, but moreso because there is a false association that some people have with the Eastern Orthodox Christians and the other Christians who have Orthodox in the name. There is this false, though understandable, association that westerners will have with Eastern Orthodox and the groups such as Oriental Orthodox. The names are very similar and thus confusing, yes, but they are different groups with some different history, practices, and beliefs. And so, I will explain these “other Orthodox” and what we can understand (without being a member of those Churches ourselves) as the rationale behind the assembly of their canon of Scripture.

Most of what we will speak about here will be the Oriental Orthodox Churches though there will be other groups touched on as well. Something to be noted regarding these Christians, they are generally grouped together under the umbrella of Oriental Orthodox, but these Churches are not necessarily in communion with each other. Eastern Orthodox for example are (mostly) in communion with each other yet have different practices, such as Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox doing some things differently yet they still consider each other united and part of the same family. The Catholic Church, though most westerners are unaware of this, have several Churches (twenty-four at the moment, to be exact) under its umbrella and each are in communion with the other; Rome is the head Church, but along with Rome there is the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, and many more. Oriental Orthodox does not connote a union between the groups under this umbrella, it is moreso a label to help identify Christians from a certain tradition and theology for the rest of the Christians in the world. Explaining the theology of Oriental Christians is a letter for another time, I will remain on the topic of the Biblical canons instead.

Seeing as the Oriental Orthodox are not exactly fully in communion with each other it will not be a surprise to learn that each have different different canons of the Bible. I will start with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church with their Tewahedo Bible, as this canon is possibly the oldest one in existence, and is the largest Bible so it is often an interesting study. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a long list of additional books (when compared to the Catholic canon), and we’ll quickly list them here: 1 & 2 Esdras, 1, 2, & 3 Meqabyan (in place of the other Maccabees), Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Ethiopic Pseudo-Josephus, 4 Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the other “additions” to Psalms, Daniel, Esther, and Lamentations. Some books or other works are short and bundled with another book, some are separated into their own work, but their canon comes out to the number of eighty-one books. 

The Coptic Christians, another group under the umbrella of “Oriental Orthodox”, possess a canon identical to that of the Roman Catholics - when I say identical, I mean their Bible has the exact same seventy-three books as Catholics. A topic for another time, the Coptics are the only other Church that has a Pope (ignoring any schismatic offshoots from Catholicism as those aren’t Churches). Their tradition of Scripture reads slightly differently compared to many other Bibles because they take the oldest Coptic writings of the Bible and translate it to other languages from those originals. It is similar to how the Eastern Orthodox will translate a passage differently than the Roman Catholics in some instances. One example is Romans 5:12 - for the Romans it says “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” and for the Eastern Orthodox “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned.” These two translations are one of the causes for disagreement on the concept of Original Sin and concupiscence (the tendency to desire sin over righteousness). In the Roman perspective we are all destined to die because of the first sin of Adam, and for those of the East they say that we sin because we are destined to die, it is a severance from the promise of eternal life our ancestors Adam and Eve rejected. So for Eastern Christians we have concupiscence because we have inherited death (a separation from God), while Western Christians believe we have concupiscence because of the sin inherited by our ancestors. 

It is complicated, I know. The Eastern Church gets the interpretation of the verse from Romans from the way some of the Greek Fathers translated and interpreted the Bible, while the Western Church gets its traditional understandings of the meaning of Scriptural passages from the Latin Fathers. And the reason I explain this is because the Coptics are another tradition that have understood certain passages in a different way, and so translating them to another language (English as an example) will result in slightly different wording. For the East and West these differences are almost entirely just different perspectives on a passage of Scripture and not an opposing interpretation. In the Catholic Church, as it’s brought more Churches that had been previously separated back into its fold, it addresses all differences between the Church seeking reunification, and if it finds something to oppose a doctrinal teaching the Church that is reentering communion has to resolve that issue.

And now, last to be spoken about for the “Other Orthodox” is the group called the True Orthodox church, the Old Calendarists, or the Old Believers. I will only speak on them briefly because they are not of much consequence in the greater conversation around Christian groups. The history behind the True Orthodox is a bit long, but in short they are a number of Slavic Orthodox who split with the Orthodox Church a long time ago due to certain liturgical reforms being put into place. They did have legitimate grievances with the Orthodox Church as the reforms were not being done through the proper channels and were happening unilaterally through the then-ruler of the Russian region. The True Orthodox split into two groups from there - one that they call the Priested, the other the Priestless, both of which claim to be the true Christians and all others are anathema. Many similarities can be drawn to Catholicism today as there are those severing communion with Rome over the suppression of the Latin Mass, these being similar to the Priested True Orthodox. The Priestless True Orthodox believe that the Church lost its way years ago and that there is no longer a legitimate priesthood (Sedevacantism except in this case for all Holy Orders) but continue to meet on Sundays. The Priestless are essentially the Protestants of the Orthodox Church, coming about one hundred years after the Protestants emerged. The canon of Scripture held by these two Christian groups generally adhere to that of the Orthodox Church, but the Priestless are more difficult to speak on since they are not so unified as the Priested are.

Closing

Now to revisit the general idea of canonicity and wrap things up. Many, mostly Catholics, will wonder why it is we do not all have the same Biblical canon. Afterall, the Council of Rome declared a canon in 382, and the first split in Christianity happened in A.D. 431 and 451, the next one in 1054, and the next ones 1517 and 1552. Well, this is a long topic that would be better covered in a multi-volume book, but I will explain things as succinctly as I can right now. 

Firstly, a thing that was spoken on already. It was not until the Protestant split from the Catholic Church that the idea of a “closed canon” really became an idea in the minds of the faithful. Up until then the Christians of the west were like the other Churches of the world and viewed the Bible not as closed, but settled. Meaning that the Christians understood that although there was a possibility more books could be “added” to the canon, it’s unlikely the canon will change because it had remained the same for so long. Well, because of this some of the regional Churches after the Council of Rome continued to recognize certain books as Scriptural that the rest of Christianity did not necessarily recognize. Really, they did not need to adhere to solely the books mentioned in the Council, it was at that Council that we see what book you must recognize, not saying what books you may only recognize. 

Now comes in the part that makes the whole situation a bit more complicated. If you are an enjoyer of history then you will know that there was a lot of segmentation of Christianity at the beginning. As mentioned previously, City Churches were the precursors to what the Orthodox have as Eparchies with their Patriarchs, and which evolved into dioceses for Orthodox and Catholic Christians. At the start these City Churches were very regional, so much so that each area had their own canon of the Bible. Recall that a “canon” originally described the books that were permitted to be read at their Sunday gatherings. What makes this complicated is that to many, though not to all, this Council of Rome was considered to be a regional council that only affected certain Churches. This Council, being a Council in Rome, organized by the Roman Church, was ignored by a number of non-Roman Churches because they were not Rome. 

Therefore, you can see why there are many disparate canons of Scripture today. Ancient Christians believed very much in a - shall we say - segregated idea of Christianity where each group should operate how their Apastolic representative and descendent (the Bishop) saw fit. There are ways to argue for and against this idea, but that is not the purpose of this letter. Now, generally, all Christian groups have a settled canon, some of them having a “closed” canon, and coming together to unify becomes more difficult because everyone has a separate settled canon. It is difficult to come together when you cannot agree on what is and what is not God’s Word handed down to us. 

I have no solution to this. Arguing that “my Bible is right, yours is wrong” is usually not a fruitful conversation. For an Eastern Orthodox to say to an Ethiopian Orthodox “you follow an incorrect canon of Scripture” would result in nothing, as both groups are following canons that have been historically maintained by each of their groups. Instead, theology, history, and the Scripture you do agree on is what should be used to argue with.

Of course, I did not write this with the intention of facilitating arguments or bolstering one group above another. I believe the historical development of the Christian canons of the Bible to be very interesting, and one that is either unknown or misunderstood by most people. Education was my purpose in writing this, and sharing an education is what I have done.

Written for VME Catholic, my friends, family, and loved ones, by Ethan Hall