Defining the Biblical Canon

The English word “canon” (not to be confused with the military weapon “cannon”) originated from the Greek word kanon (or the root word káne). The Greek language borrowed the term from the ancient Hebrew word kaneh, which meant “cane” or “reed.” Hence, the term was used for a “measuring rod” (Ezek. 40:3; 42:16).^[1]

In the NT, Paul used the word kanōn to refer to the “rule” of faith (Gal. 6:16), but it was the church historian Eusebius (AD 325) who used the term “canon” to refer to the collection of inspired books of the Bible: “In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels” (Church History, 6.25.3). Thus, canonicity is the study of which books belong in our Bibles.

Popular culture uses the term “canon” in a similar way. In the world of fiction, the “canon” of a fictional series refers to officially accepted or authentic material in the storyline. Consider several examples:

·       SHERLOCK HOLMES: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a series of books about a famous detective named Sherlock Holmes. Only those stories written by Doyle were in the “official canon” of Sherlock Holmes, while those written by later authors were considered “non-canonical.”

·       THE MARVEL UNIVERSE: The popular Marvel superhero films and comic books are referred to as the “Marvel Universe.” That is, only those stories that are “official” are considered to have happened in this fictional universe.

·       STAR WARS: Until George Lucas sold-out to Disney in 2014, the same was true for the Star Wars saga. Lucas was the creator of Star Wars, and he permitted authors to write comic books and novels based off his original series. If a book wasn’t authorized by Lucas, then it wasn’t considered to be in the “canon” of the story—that is, it wasn’t officially part of the story.

In each of these cases we see a common theme: material not authorized by the creator (or owner of the work) is not in the official “canon” of writing. In a similar way, the canon of the Bible consists only of those books which were inspired by the Creator himself.

Defining the Canon

Our definition of the canon is almost as important as our defense of the canon. Bruce Metzger rightly comments, “The debate… over the date at which the New Testament canon was formed involve[s], to a great extent, a difference of definition rather than of facts.”[2] Indeed, if we clumsily define what we mean by the canon, we can easily create misunderstanding from the outset. Moreover, those who wish to undermine our confidence in the Bible may offer prejudicial definitions that could stack the deck against us.

For example, imagine if someone said, “The canon refers to the moment when all Christians on Earth agreed over which books were inspired Scripture.” All Christians? Everywhere? Yikes! Such a definition creates a burden of proof unreasonably high, and more importantly, the definition lacks a strong foundation. To explain, imagine if we defined a scientific theory in this way: “A hypothesis that every person on Earth agrees with.” Such a definition would rule out virtually all scientific theories—not based on the evidence—but based on an arbitrary definition. In other words, we wouldn’t be explaining any theories away, but only defining them all away.

A popular and inadequate definition of the canon

Many books on canonicity define the canon as a list of books that Christians accepted at official church councils. In fact, one notable Christian scholar defines the canon as “the list of the writings acknowledged by the Church as documents of the divine revelation.”[3] The “list” of books is the focus of this all too common definition. This definition isn’t wrong per se, but it is seriously incomplete. Indeed, there are at least three serious problems with defining the canon as simply a “list” of books:

First, this would mean that Christians did not have a Bible for at least three centuries. The first complete list of all 27 NT books isn’t found until AD 367. Christian historian Gregg Allison writes, “The first appearance of a list of New Testament writings that corresponds exactly with the canon as is known today was Athanasius’s Thirty-ninth (Easter) Letter in AD 367.”^[4] However, Athanasius’ list was merely a letter, and his list wasn’t officially ratified until the Council of Hippo in AD 393.^[5]

But the story gets even worse! The Council of Hippo in northern Africa did not represent all Christians—specifically the Christians in Rome. Hence, we don’t have an “official” council giving us a list even during this time. Indeed, if we want an “official council” and an “official list,” we don’t get this until the 16^th century! NT scholar Michael Kruger writes,

It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church ever made a formal and official declaration on the canon of the Bible, particularly the Apocrypha… Are we to believe that the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent?^[6]

Kruger’s question is quite damning to this definition of the canon. This would mean that no Christian knew what Scripture actually was until 1,500 years after the time of Christ! Indeed, under this view, for 75% of church history, Christians didn’t know what belonged in their Bible. Hence, Kruger writes that such a perspective “is as guilty of anachronism as any of the views that it critiques.”^[7]

Second, the need for a canonical list leads to an infinite regress. This is another philosophical problem with depending on lists to determine canonicity. If we need a list for a book to be considered Scripture, then we would need to know which list should be officially canonized. After all, different people have different lists! We still haven’t explained how we can know which books are canonical and which are not. But at this point, we should note that the lists formed at church councils do not create or even confirm Scripture.

Third, this makes a philosophical error that confuses the BEING of Scripture with the KNOWING of Scripture. Philosophers clearly distinguish between the being of Scripture (ontology) with the knowing of Scripture (epistemology). We would be wise to keep these categories clear.

Think about it like this. The NT documents circulated across the Roman Empire for over three centuries before various bishops convened the Council of Hippo in AD 393. Now, ask yourself a question: When the bishops in this council wrote down this list of NT books, did these documents suddenly and magically become inspired Scripture? To put this more bluntly, are we really to believe that these documents were not Scripture five minutes before the council, but they instantly became Scripture five minutes after?

Of course not. The Scripture itself was God-breathed (theopneustos) the moment it was written (2 Tim. 3:16; cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21), and later people could either discover or distort the Scriptures—to their own reward or their own peril (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Indeed, the psalmist writes, “Forever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89).

An illustration might be helpful to explain such an abstract concept. In 1908, a wealthy industrialist purchased a painting from an art dealer that apparently belonged to Theo van Gogh—the brother of Vincent van Gogh. The painting was titled, “Sunset at Montmajour,” and it sat in the attic of the wealthy man for over six decades before he died and new homeowners bought his house. After examining the painting, the new homeowners took it to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, where researchers studied it for 22 years. After advances in technology, they discovered that the painting was created same type of canvas as van Gogh, it contained similar underpainting techniques, and it even had an inventory call number (“180”) painted on the back which corresponded to Theo van Gogh’s collection. Finally, in September of 2013, the Museum “declared the work a genuine product of the master, calling it a major discovery.”[8]

Now, think about this for a moment. The experts certainly perceived that the painting was authentic, but they did not produce its authenticity! Indeed, this had been an authentic painting for over a century, and it was genuine while the oil paint was still wet on the canvas. In the same way, God inspired the biblical documents at their outset and origin, and these were immediately inspired—even while the ink was wet on the papyrus.

Those who hold that the canon was created in the late fourth century would surely bristle at all of this. Surely, they would disagree that the NT documents were inspired at that moment that their name appeared on a list in a church council. However, this is the logically consistent consequence of their perspective. That is, this conclusion follows from their definition.

Someone might respond, “I don’t agree with any of this. These books were always Scripture—even from the moment they were written. We simply didn’t know this until the Council of Hippo.” Suffice it to say, the evidence doesn’t support this statement. But for our purposes, let’s not get off track. If someone is admitting that the documents were Scripture before any church councils ratified them as such, then they have conceded our point precisely! We do not determine the canon, but only discover the canon.

How should we DEFINE the Canon?

We hope to give a clear and concise definition of the canon. In reality, we will not give one definition but three. Each of these aspects of canon are complementary—not contradictory—and each consistently explain what we discover from history on the canon of Scripture. Put simply, the biblical canon refers to those books which are (1) uniquely inspired by God, (2) quickly recognized and used by followers of God, and (3) eventually collected into one book which is the word of God. To put this even more simply, the canon was (1) revealed, (2) recognized, and (3) recorded. We have developed this definition from the work of Dr. Michael Kruger, who is an expert in NT studies in general and the canon in particular.^[9]

(1) REVEALED: The canon was uniquely inspired by God

So far, we have been arguing that inspired books are the same as canonical books. This is the primary and central definition of what the canon is. Michael Kruger—a NT scholar and a leading expert on the subject of canonicity—calls this the “ontological definition” of the canon. That is, this refers to what the canon is, and under this definition, a biblical book “would be canonical as soon as it was written—giving a first century date for the canon.”^[10]

(2) RECOGNIZED: The canon was quickly recognized and used by followers of God

Christians didn’t immediately possess copies of all of the NT books; it took time for these to be copied and passed around. Indeed, some of the books weren’t written until the very end of the first century (~AD 95). Therefore, it would also take time for Christians to recognize the apostolic authority of these received books.

Yet, these books would’ve been quickly recognized and used by the early church. For instance, consider a Christian who had a library of books in the second century AD. Did he know that certain books in his library were Scripture? And did he know that others were not Scripture? If this is the case, then “how is that materially different than saying which books are in (or not in) a canon?”^[11]

Kruger refers to this as the “functional definition” of the canon. During this period, the early Christians quickly copied and spread the NT documents across the Roman Empire, reading these documents publicly and teaching others about their contents. From this definition, it seems that “we have a canon at least by the middle of the second century.”^[12] This definition builds on the primary definition of the canon above.

(3) RECORDED: The canon was eventually collected into one book which is the word of God

Finally, Christians wrote formal lists of what were considered to be canonical and inspired books at various councils. These lists are quite helpful to the subject of canonicity, and we don’t intend to minimize this. Kruger agrees that this aspect of canonicity is important, and he calls this the “exclusive definition” of the canon, because it further clarified these inspired texts. However, under this definition alone, we would not have a canon “until about the fourth century.”^[13]

As was made clear above, many scholars define the canon solely on this final criterion. As you can see by now, this is greatly mistaken. We would rather think of this criterion as building atop the foundation of the earlier criteria, rather than floating in midair on its own.

What are the criteria for canonical books?

The primary basis for canonicity is authorship. Paul writes, “God’s household [was] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Eph. 2:19-20 NIV; cf. 2 Pet. 3:2; Mt. 10:41; Lk. 11:49). For a book to be considered canonical, it needed to be written by an apostle (or prophet) or supervised by an apostle (or prophet). For a defense of this, see our articles on New Testament Canonicity and Old Testament Canonicity.

^[1] Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded (Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1986), pp.202-204.

[2] Emphasis mine. In context, Metzger is referring to the debate between Theodor Zahn and Adolf Harnack over the canon. Their debate is illustrative of the principle we are explaining here. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1989), p.24.

[3] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p.17.

[4] He uses the verbal form “canonized” (kanonizomenon) to describe his list. Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 46.

[5] Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.46.

[6] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2012), p.37.

[7] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), p.32.

[8] Nina Siegal, “A van Gogh’s Trip From the Attic to the Museum.” The New York Times (September 9, 2013).

[9] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited (Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2012).

Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013).

[10] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), p.43.

[11] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), p.31.

[12] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), p.43.

[13] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), p.43.