At the end of the second century, a list was compiled that included a number of writings from the New Testament. This is called the Muratorian canon, named after the 18th century theologian Lodovico Antonio Muratori who published the now famous Muratorian Fragment. It is difficult to date this compilation, but it probably originated in Rome in the latter part of the second century. If it is early, it may be one of the first major canonical lists. It consisted of Luke, John, Acts, the letters of Paul (1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, and 1 and 2 Timothy), Revelation, Jude, 1 and 2 John, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Apocalypse of Peter (though the list notes that some believe this last work should not be read in church).

​

The Muritorian Fragment contains a list that gives us a glimpse into the acknowledged writings in Rome, and may well represent other Christian communities, but it is difficult to say with certainty. We can infer with some accuracy based on the Muritorian Fragment together with the writings of the Church Fathers that at the end of the first century, many Christians in the western part of the empire acknowledged the authority of the four Gospels and Paul’s letters. There is scattered recognition of the Catholic epistles (James, 1, 2, 3 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude) and Revelation. But they were not as yet regarded as canonical scripture.

 

 

Third and Fourth Centuries

 

By the middle of the third century, many Christians in both the eastern and western regions of the empire acknowledged the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, and some Catholic epistles as authoritative writings. Revelation continued to be controversial for the next century in the East, and Hebrews continued to be controversial in the West. Often, certain writings were rejected because they were being used by dominant Christian groups. 

​

In the third and fourth centuries, many more Christian writers turn their interests to issues associated with the canon. In the East, one of the brightest minds in the third century was Origen (185-254 CE), who was born in Egypt and lived in Caesarea in Palestine. He acknowledges the four Gospels and the letters of Paul as being authoritative for the Church. But he also saw the value of Acts, James, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and 1 Clement.

​

In the West, a renowned theologian in the Roman Church, named Hippolytus, argued that the following writings be deemed as scripture: the four Gospels, the letters of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation. He also placed value on Hebrews, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Paul, James, Jude, and 2 Peter, but not equal to scripture.

​

One of the best sources for recovering the history of canonization up to the middle of the fourth century is the Christian historian Eusebius (263-340 CE), bishop of Caesarea. Not only did Eusebius record the historical events associated with the development, but he records the writings that were being used (or once considered) in the churches, classifying them into four categories: the recognized writings, the disputed writings, the spurious writings, and the heretical writings. Selections from his Ecclesiastical Histories 3.25.1-7 read as follows.

​

1.Recognized Writings:

... the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John ....

​

2. Disputed Writings:

Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John ....

​

3. Spurious Writings:

... the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. ... And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews ....

​

4. Heretical Writings:

... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles.

​

In the second half of the fourth century, with the empire now thoroughly Christianized institutionally and politically, greater efforts began in the compilation of lists. Some contained as many as 30 writings; whereas others contained as few as 24. It was not until 367 CE when we come across a list that mirrors our 27 writings of the New Testament. This list is attributed to the Egyptian theologian Athanasius (293-373 CE), who writes, 

​

I also resolved to set forth in order the writings that are in the list and handed down and believed to be divine.… Those of the New Testament … are … four gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John]. Then after these are Acts of the Apostles and the seven letters of the Apostles called the ‘Catholic’ letters [James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude]. In addition, there are fourteen letters of Paul the apostle [Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon]. Last, from John again comes the Revelation. These are springs of salvation … let no one add to them or take away aught of them.”

(39th Festal Letter 2, 7–10. Translation from McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, 221).

​

Athanasius also wrote in this letter that the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas were important to the Church for teaching, but they should not be part of the canon. This demonstrates an important phenomenon. Some excluded writings may not have been deemed as scripture, but they were nevertheless used. Writings that were deemed heretical, however, played no role whatsoever. 

​

After the Council of Laodicea (which omitted Revelation) in 363 CE and the Council of Hippo in 393 CE, the twenty-seven writings of the New Testament were finally ratified in 397 CE at the Council of Carthage. There is some indication that Revelation was subsequently debated. Lingering controversies were settled at a subsequent synod in Carthage in 419 CE.

​

In summary, the New Testament writings that were most debated all over the empire were James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.

 

 

Criteria for Canonization

 

The canonization of the New Testament writings was not a random decision at the Council of Carthage. It was also not a decision that was hastily made. It was the result of a long and drawn out process that involved bishops from all over the empire. This was an ecumenical decision, meaning that it involved representation from the whole church. The process included reflective and even heated theological dialogues that were taken to councils and ratified. 

So, why were these twenty-seven writings selected and not others? Historians often point to criteria that operated during the decision making process. These were nowhere written down, but were based on implied principles that were in play since the time of Marcion, and maybe earlier. Historians are not always in agreement about the meaning, number, or prominence of criteria, but the following four were certainly influential (Gamble, Canon 67-72).

 

 

Apostolicity

 

The criterion of apostolicity did not mean that a writing had to be written by an apostle.  It was more general. While some writings were believed to be written by apostles, such as Paul and Matthew, others were included because they were written within the general time period of the apostles and were theologically consistent with their teachings, such as Mark and Luke. In short, the criterion limited the selection to writings that were characteristic of the earliest church, which was the meaning of “apostolic.” No writing however, was included in the canon solely on the basis of this criterion. Interestingly, those writings that claimed apostolic authorship, such as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or the Gospel of Peter, were not included because they did not meet this criterion.

 

 

Catholicity

 

The word “catholicity,” like the word “catholic” refers to universality. As a criterion, it referred to those writings that were relevant to the church throughout the empire (i.e. universally), and intended as such by their authors. To anyone who is familiar with the letters of Paul, this criterion would seem to be a problem since they are all addressed to individual churches. The apostolic nature of Paul’s writings were unquestioned, but even in the second century, their catholicity was a problem for some. By the end of the fourth century, the letters were no longer disputed and were being used universally. The criterion was now primarily applied to private and esoteric writings that emerged well after the apostolic period.

 

 

Orthodoxy

 

The term “orthodox” or “orthodoxy” means correct thinking, and was used as a criterion to weed out writings that did not correspond theologically to the received faith (or standardized thinking) of the church. This criterion implies that the received faith of the church, sometimes called the “tradition of faith” or the “rule of faith,” preceded and operated alongside scripture. Of course, orthodoxy had in part been influenced by some writings that would eventually become scripture. In the fourth century, the criterion was not applied to writings that were already accepted, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s letters because they were regarded as orthodox. Rather, the criterion was applied to those writings that were in theological disagreement with orthodoxy. Interestingly, there were lots of writings circulating in the fourth century that could be deemed as orthodox (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas), but since they did not meet other criteria, they were excluded.

 

 

Traditional Usage

 

Without this criterion, there probably would not have been a canon that transcended the empire. By traditional usage, historians refer to the widespread public use of writings in church settings. In other words, the criterion poses the question: is a given writing used for public worship and teaching in the churches across the empire? This is closely tied to the criterion of catholicity, but it focuses on the function of the writings instead of the location of the writing. Usage in the church played an important role over time. As the Christian writings were read and used with more frequency (especially in the third and fourth centuries) alongside the Jewish scriptures, the two blended functionally into one authoritative anthology. This criterion is a good example of the principle that we see operating in the history of doctrines, namely that lex orandi (the law of prayer) always precedes lex credendi (the law of creed). Not all writings that met this criterion, however, made it into the canon. We can see that writings like the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles were used quite broadly in the context of worship and teaching, but they did not satisfy the criterion of apostolicity.

 

 

What About Inspiration?

 

It is often remarked in popular Christian circles and websites that the New Testament writings were chosen by church authorities because they were inspired, meaning that God was involved in the composition. This is a misconception. While the inspiration of scripture is an important Christian belief, it was never a criterion for canonicity. As Christian writings became more popular and were used in worship and teaching more frequently alongside the Jewish scriptures, they came to be viewed in the same way—as inspired scripture.

 

Inspiration in the first few centuries of the church was not limited to scripture. The term was also applied to the church as whole because it saw itself as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Where the Spirit resided, there resided inspiration. As a result, the writings of some Church Fathers were also regarded as inspired, though not on the same level as scripture, because their teachings were consistent with orthodox tradition, be it scripture or the rule of faith. Conversely, heretical writings were not deemed as inspired because they were inconsistent with the belief of the inspired church. Harry Gamble summarizes the process this way: “The New Testament writings did not become canonical because they were believed to be uniquely inspired; rather, they were judged to be inspired because they had previously commended themselves to the church for other, more particular and practical reasons” (Canon 72).

​