The Canon of the New Testament
The canon of the New Testament (that is, the books which belong to the New Testament) is not properly a topic of textual criticism. Someone, not necessarily the critic, decides which books are canonical, and then the critic tries to reconstruct the text.
But there are many books (e.g. by Souter and Gregory) which combine the two topics, sometimes with greater emphasis on one, sometimes on the other. So this article attempts to give a very, very brief summary of the canonical lists found in some of the earliest documents.
This article will not even attempt to address the question of the canon of the Old Testament. The canon of the Hebrew Bible is hardly open to question; the canon of the Greek Old Testament is far too complicated for us to deal with. In any case, that is a very different sort of problem. In the New Testament, consensus was achieved (as it never really was in the Old Testament), and our goal is primarily to trace the steps by which that consensus was reached.
In the lists which follow, a "Y" indicates that the source definitely includes that book. A "N" indicates that the source definitely excludes the book. "X" indicates that the source is defective in such a way that it does not testify. "Y?" indicates that there is some reason to think the source includes the book, but it is not entirely explicit. "N?" indicates that there is some reason to think it excludes the book, but it is not entirely explicit (this usually comes up with reference to Paul, where a source might say "14 epistles" if it includes Hebrews, "13 epistles" if it does not).
For the references I have consulted in compiling the lists, see the notes below the table.
| Source | M A T T | M A R K | L U K E | J O H N | A C T S | R O M A | 1 C O | 2 C O | G A L A | E P H E | P H L P | C O L O | 1 T H | 2 T H | 1 T I | 2 T I | T I T U | P H L M | H E B R | J A M E | 1 P E | 2 P E | 1 J O | 2 J O | 2 J O | J U D E | A P O C | Additional books accepted by this source |
| Marcion | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
| Irenaeus | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | N? | N? | Y | N? | Y | Y | N? | N? | Y | |
| Muratorian Canon | Y? | Y? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y? | Y? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y? | Y? | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N? | N | Y? | Y? | N? | Y | Y | Apocalypse of Peter; Wisdom (of Solomon) |
| Peshitta | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | |
| Jerome to Paulinus | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y | Y? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y? | Y | Y? | Y? | Y | Y | |
| Codex Sinaiticus | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Barnabas; Hermas (?) |
| Doctrine of Addai | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | N? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
| Mommsenian Canon | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N? | N | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | |
| Eusebius | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y? | Y? | Y | Y? | Y | Y? | Y? | Y? | Y? | 1 Clement (probably), Hermas (maybe) |
| Athanasius's Festal Letter | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Synod of Carthage | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Anonymous Syriac Canon | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
| Augustine of Hippo | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Eucharius of Lyons | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | |
| Claromontine Catalog | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N? | Y | N? | N? | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Barnabas, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Hermas (? -- the text reads simply "Pastoris") |
| Gelasian Decree | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Cassiodorus | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | |
| Isidore of Seville | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
| Council of Trent | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Books Now Considered Extra-Canonical But Included by Some Authorities
The following table shows the various books which are occasionally included in New Testament lists, with the authorities which support them.
| Book | Sources |
| Acts of Paul | Claromontine Catalog |
| Apocalypse of Peter | Muratorian Canon, Claromontine Catalog |
| I Clement | (Codex Alexandrinus); (Eusebius in part) |
| Didache | Clement of Alexandria? |
| Epistle of Barnabas | Codex Sinaiticus, Claromontine Catalog, Clement of Alexandria?, Origen? |
| Shepherd of Hermas | Codex Sinaiticus, Claromontine Catalog? |
References used to compile the above lists:
Anonymous Syriac Canon. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 226. The manuscript containing it is at Mount Sinai, and apparently the copy dates from c. 900, but Souter thinks the archetype dates from c. 400. He notes the absence of the Catholic Epistles, and observes that neither major Syriac author of this period (Aphraates or Ephraim) seems to refer to the shorter epistles. There is an error in the manuscript, causing it to list Philippians twice, but this seems to be a case of copying part of the line above and part of the line below.
Athanasius's Festal Letter: 367 C.E. Widely regarded as somehow defining the canon, because it is the first list to clearly and explicitly include exactly the modern New Testament canon. This is somewhat overblown -- the letter was simply a bishop telling his flock what he thought was official. But it does mark the rough dividing line between the era when the canon was somewhat questionable and the era when the canon was fixed.
Augustine of Hippo: De Doctrina Christiana. Written no earlier than 397 C.E. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 221-222.
Cassiodorus: Institutio. Of very uncertain date, probably between 540 and 562. In any case, it is noteworthy as a late source which omits a number of books. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 230-231. As is often the case, it is not entirely clear which letters of Peter and John are omitted, but the strong presumption is that it is 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. The list is confirmed by the fact that Cassiodorus claims a total of 70 Biblical books, and 48 in the Old Testament, leaving 22 in the New.
Codex Sinaiticus: Fourth century. Greek uncial manuscript, originally with complete Old and New Testaments. Most of the Old Testament now lost, but the canonical New Testament is complete. Barnabas follows the New Testament, then a portion of Hermas. B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, pp. 430-431, details the contents and notes an argument that Hermas "was treated as a separate section of the document, and therefore perhaps as an appendix to the more generally received books."
Council of Trent: The official Last Word of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1546, they finally declared a formal canon. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 236. It should be noted, however, that while the Council of Trent canonized the standard 27 books of the New Testament, they did not canonize the original text but rather the Vulgate -- and, as the Clementine Vulgate would show, they didn't even know what Vulgate they were talking about!
Claromontine Catalog: Probably sixth century. A list of books and their lengths found in Codex Claromontanus. Found as appendix C of Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (p. 211). There are obvious errors in the lengths of the books (2 Corinthians is listed as only 70 lines!), so Souter thinks the several Pauline epistles omitted from the list should have been included in the catalog. This is reasonable but unprovable, so I have listed these books as ""N?."
Doctrine of Addai: A Syriac letter instructing congregations on what to read in churches. It is very brief, listing in fact only "the gospel," "the Epistles of Paul," and "the Acts of the twelve apostles", without explicitly listing the content of the former two. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 225-226.
Eusebius: Eusebius of Cæsarea in his history of the Church; the exact date is unknown but it was certainly completed in the 320s, after probably a decade or more of work. This is a difficult source because Eusebius -- who was an abominable writer -- uses rather confusing language. Indeed, he sometimes contradicts himself in various places. I have started from Appendix F of the G. A. Williamson translation, with its list of accepted, disputed, and rejected books, but I have evaluated the passages myself. For the books which are doubtful, the list below shows the passages which refer to the issue. I hope the list is comprehensive for Eusebius's own opinions, although I haven't bothered with some of the instances where he cites others.
- 1 Clement: III.16 (calls it a "recognized" letter), III.28 ("universally recognized," but this may be a recognition of authorship rather than canonicity), IV.23 (more a statement of antiquity than true canonicity)
- Hebrews: III.3 (says Paul wrote 14 epistles but admits that some churches question it as un-Pauline), VI.13 (calls it "disputed" without really expressing an opinion of his own); VI.20 (cites a Bishop Gaius who considered Hebrews uncanonical). In addition, at several places Eusebius cites other who think that the basic outline of Hebrews was Pauline but the actual text from someone else, such as Clement or Luke, who assembled/translated/polished it.
- Shepherd of Hermas: III.3 (some reject; some call it vital for instruction), III.25 (declares it spurious without any discussion); V.8 (notes that Irenaeus accepted it)
- James: II.23 (says it is disputed but used in many churches), III.25 (disputed but "familiar to most")
- 2 John: III.25 (disputed; the work of John the evangelist or someone with the same name!), VI.25 (John wrote one letter, and "possibly two more")
- 3 John: III.25 (disputed; the work of John the evangelist or someone with the same name!), VI.25 (John wrote one letter, and "possibly two more")
- Jude: II.23 (says it is disputed but used in many churches), III.25 (disputed but "familiar to most"), VI.14 (calls it disputed while noting that Clement of Alexandria commented on it)
- 2 Peter: III.3 (does not mention the second epistle and says that only one letter of Peter is authentic), III.25 (disputed but "familiar to most"), VI.25 (Peter left one, possibly two, letters, but the second is "doubtful)
- Revelation to John: III.25 (may be canonical "if it is thought proper"); all other references seem to be to people who have cited it as scripture rather than opinions of his own regarding its canonicity.
Eucharius of Lyons: Author of a book of "difficult questions" about the New Testament, written between 424 and 455. It lists only 17 New Testament books, which makes one wonder if the copy is defective (the source, Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 228-229, says that there is an urgent need for a critical edition). But it seems to be just about the last Latin source to list something other than the familiar canon (even if all the other omissions are accidental, it pretty clearly lists only one letter of John and one to the Thessalonians!), so I thought it should be included, if only to show that Athanasius did not finally define the canon for all of Catholic Christianity.
Gelasian Decree: A document of uncertain date and origin; it has been attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormidas. The best guess makes it the work of none of these, and dates it to the sixth century. Its interest lies not in which books it includes (since it has the standard 27 book canon) but in how it attributes them: It says that one of the Letters of John is by John the Apostle, and two are by the "other" John, the Presbyter. And Jude is said to be by Judas the Zealot.
Irenaeus: Writer active around 180 C.E. He does not explicitly describe a canon -- indeed, it is at least possible that his personal canon varied over his life -- but his quotations are so extensive as to give us a pretty clear idea of which books he did and did not consider authoritative. For this I use the catalog found in note 2 on pp. 346-347 of B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, supplemented by Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 170, who notes that Irenaeus also used 2 John, and thinks (but cannot prove) that he recognized Philemon and 3 John also.
Isidore of Seville: Bishop of Seville, who around 600 C.E. produced an encyclopedia. (A pretty inaccurate one, we would now say, but it was highly respected in an unscientific age.) The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 233.
Jerome to Paulinus: A letter, written perhaps in 394, from Jerome to a presbyter named Paulinus. The interpretation of this letter is somewhat complex. It lists the gospels by name, but the epistles only by destination -- Paul is said to have written to seven churches, plus Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Hebrews is mentioned by name. Similarly we are told that there are letters by James, Peter, John, and Jude, plus the Apocalypse. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 220.
Justin Martyr: Writer active in the second century. Dates are rather uncertain, but it is suggested that he died c. 148, and his major literary activity was in the half decade or so preceding this. Like most second century writers (e.g. Irenaeus), he does not really define a canon. We can only list the books he seems to cite with respect (and note that he often quotes them in very wild form, implying either an extensively rewritten tradition or a lousy memory or both. Also of significance is the fact that he almost never seems to cite a source by name; he just quotes it, unattributed. This makes it difficult to be absolutely sure he uses Mark, e.g., because so much of what he quotes from that book could also be from Matthew or Luke). I am following Westcott's opinions of which books he uses; other scholars, because of the freedom of the quotations, might disagree in some cases. The most interesting point about Justin is that he seems to show no knowledge at all of John, even though John would often have been the most useful of the Gospels for his purposes.
Marcion: Second century schismatic, originally from Rome, who regarded the God of the Old Testament as distinct from the God of the New. His is considered the first true canon of scripture, but he edited all the books to match his theological opinions. The book we call Ephesians he apparently called Laodiceans. No copies of his edition survives; we know of its content only from sources such as Tertullian and Epiphanius. The list here is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 165-166.
Mommsenian Canon: Named for Theodor Mommsen, who discovered it in 1885. Also sometimes called the Cheltenham Canon, after the place where the first copy was found. The list refers simply to 13 Pauline epistles; presumably the omitted book is Hebrews. The list seems to explicitly deny the canonicity of 2 and 3 John and 2 Peter, since it lists one letter by each author and says it is "una sola." The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 212-213.
Muratorian Canon: Copied probably in the eighth century, perhaps by an Irish scribe, but believed to be a (very bad) Latin translation of a second century Greek original. Latin text in Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament and, with some commentary and marginalia, in B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament; English translation in Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church. The fragment does not list the numbers of books by Paul, only their destinations, so we cannot be sure that there were two to the Corinthians or two to the Thessalonians. It has been proposed that the reference to the Apocalypse of Peter is an error and the reference should be to 1 Peter, but this is purely conjectural.
Peshitta Syriac Version: Syriac translation, taken from a (mostly Byzantine) Greek text probably in the late fourth or just possibly early fifth century. Source: almost any handbook of TC criticism.
Synod of Carthage: A report from a synod held in Carthage in 397. Neither the gospels nor the letters of Paul are listed by name, but since there are four of the former plus 13 of the latter apart from Hebrews, we can be confident that they intend the list shown here. The list is from Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 220-221.
Sources Not Cited
The following sources are sometimes considered references for the New Testament canon. I have omitted them for the reasons cited below.
Tatian. Tatian's Diatessaron is usually considered as evidence that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were canonical at his time. There are two problems with this: Since, despite extravagant claims, we do not know the exact contents of the Diatessaron, we cannot in fact be certain that it did not contain other material as well (likely the Gospel of the Hebrews), so we cannot in fact be sure which Gospels Tatian considered inspired. Second, the very fact that Tatian produced a conflation of the Gospels implies a different sense of canonicity than we now have -- Tatian cannot really have considered the books inspired as they were, or he would not have tried to offer his combined version as anything except a sort of study aid. Although sometimes compared to what Marcion did, Tatian's efforts in fact are distinctly different: Marcion thought (falsely) that he was engaged in textual criticism; Tatian was creating a new canonical work. Souter also thinks Tatian translated the Pauline corpus -- but can offer no evidence at all for this.