:Biblical canon

{{Main|Development of the Hebrew Bible canon}}

{{Judaism|state=collapsed}}

Rabbinic Judaism ({{Langx|he|יהדות רבנית}}) recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh ({{lang|he|תַּנַ"ךְ}}) or Hebrew Bible.For the number of books of the Hebrew Bible see: {{cite book |author-last=Darshan |author-first=G. |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/7021817 |chapter=The Twenty-Four Books of the Hebrew Bible and Alexandrian Scribal Methods |editor-last=Niehoff |editor-first=M. R. |title=Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters: Between Literary and Religious Concerns |location=Leiden |publisher=Brill |year=2012 |pages=221–244}} Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that the Torah was canonized {{Circa|400 BC}}, the Prophets {{Circa|200 BC}}, and the Writings {{Circa|100 AD}}{{sfnp|McDonald|Sanders|2002|p=4}} perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.{{cite journal |url=http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/026_347.pdf |title=The Jamnia Period in Jewish History |first=Christie |last=W. M. |journal=Journal of Theological Studies |year=1925 |volume=os-XXVI |issue=104 |pages=347–364 |doi=10.1093/jts/os-XXVI.104.347}}{{cite journal |author-first=Jack P. |author-last=Lewis |author-link=Jack P. Lewis |journal=Journal of Bible and Religion |volume=32 |issue=2 |date=April 1964 |title=What Do We Mean by Jabneh? |pages=125–132 |publisher=Oxford University Press |jstor=1460205}}{{cite book |editor-last=Freedman |editor-first=David Noel |year=1992 |title=Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. III |location=New York |publisher=Doubleday |pages=634–637}}{{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |last=Lewis |first=Jack P. |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=Jamnia Revisited |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers}}{{sfnp|McDonald|Sanders|2002|p=5}}Cited are Neusner's Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine, pp. 128–145, and Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism, pp. 1–22. According to Marc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books.{{cite book |author-last=Brettler |author-first=Marc Zvi |author-link=Marc Zvi Brettler |title=How To Read The Bible |publisher=Jewish Publication Society |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=39nQafdJ_ssC&pg=PA274 |isbn=978-0-8276-1001-9 |pages=274–275}}

File:Scroll.jpg of the Book of Esther, one of the five megillot of the Tanakh]]

The Book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting ({{bibleverse-nb||Deut|4:2}}, {{bibleverse-nb||Deut|12:32}}) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book", a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mount Sinai.{{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |author-last=Blenkinsopp |author-first=Joseph |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=The Formation of the Hebrew Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |page=60}} The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah ({{Circa|400 BC}}) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" ({{bibleverse-nb||2Macc|2:13–15|NRSV}}).

The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple ({{bibleverse-nb||Nehemiah|8–9}}) around the same time period. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus ({{Circa|167 BC}}) likewise collected sacred books ({{bibleverse-nb||1Macc|3:42–50|NRSV}}, {{bibleverse-nb||2Macc|2:13–15|NRSV}}, {{bibleverse-nb||2Macc|15:6–9|NRSV}}), indeed some scholars argue that the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE) fixed the Jewish canon.{{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |author-last=Davies |author-first=Philip R. |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |page=50 |quote=With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty.}}

{{Samaritanism}}

{{Main|Samaritan Pentateuch}}

Another version of the Torah, in the Samaritan alphabet, also exists. This text is associated with Samaritanism and its adherents, the Samaritans ({{langx|he|שומרונים}}; {{langx|ar|السامريون}}), a people whose emergence as a distinct ethno-religious group began with the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722 BC.{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=110&letter=S&search=Samaritan |title=Samaritans |encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia |year=1906}}

File:Samaritan Pentateuch (detail).jpg

The Samaritan Pentateuch's relationship to the Masoretic Text is still disputed. Some differences are minor, such as the ages of different people mentioned in genealogy, while others are major, such as a commandment to be monogamous, which appears only in the Samaritan version. More importantly, the Samaritan text also diverges from the Masoretic in stating that Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Gerizim—not Mount Sinai—and that it is upon Mount Gerizim that sacrifices to God should be made—not in Jerusalem. Scholars nonetheless consult the Samaritan version when trying to determine the meaning of text of the original Pentateuch, as well as to trace the development of text-families. Some scrolls among the Dead Sea scrolls have been identified as proto-Samaritan Pentateuch text-type.{{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |author-last=VanderKam |author-first=James C. |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |page=94}} Citing private communication with Emanuel Tov on biblical manuscripts: Qumran scribe type c. 25%, proto-Masoretic Text c. 40%, pre-Samaritan texts c. 5%, texts close to the Hebrew model for the Septuagint c. 5% and nonaligned c. 25%.

Samaritans consider the Torah to be inspired scripture, but do not accept any other parts of the Bible—probably a position also held by the Sadducees.{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=40&letter=S&search=Sadducees |encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia |title=Sadducees |year=1906 |quote=With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently identified (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio Hæresium", ix. 29; Epiphanius, l.c. xiv.; and other Church Fathers, who ascribe to the Sadducees the rejection of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; comp. also Sanh. 90b, where "Ẓadduḳim" stands for "Kutim" [Samaritans]; Sifre, Num. 112; Geiger, l.c. pp. 128–129), and by the Karaites (see Maimonides, commentary on Ab. i. 3; Geiger, "Gesammelte Schriften", iii. 283–321; also Anan ben David; Karaites).}} They did not expand their canon by adding any Samaritan compositions. There is a Samaritan Book of Joshua; however, while it is held in high regard, it is not considered to be scripture.{{cite web |url=https://shomron0.tripod.com/articles/thebookofjoshua.pdf |title=The Samaritan Chronicle Or The Book of Joshua, the son of Nun. |date=1890 |access-date=3 March 2023 |author=O.T.C}} Other non-canonical Samaritan religious texts include the Memar Markah ('Teaching of Markah') and the Defter (Prayerbook)—both from the 4th century or later.{{cite book |title=Samaritan Documents, Relating To Their History, Religion and Life |editor-last=Bowman |editor-first=John |translator-last=Bowman |translator-first=John |series=Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series No. 2 |year=1977}}

The people of the remnants of the Samaritans in modern-day Israel and Palestine retain their version of the Torah as fully and authoritatively canonical. They regard themselves as the true "guardians of the Law". This assertion is only reinforced by the claim of the Samaritan community in Nablus (an area traditionally associated with the ancient city of Shechem) to possess the oldest existing copy of the Torah—one that they believe to have been penned by Abisha, a grandson of Aaron.Crown, Alan D. (October 1991). "The Abisha Scroll – 3,000 Years Old?". Bible Review.

{{Christianity}}

The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419), the Council of Florence (1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Those established the Catholic biblical canon consisting of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 73 books.{{sfn|Rüger|1989|p=302}}{{cite web |title=Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent |url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html |website=www.bible-researcher.com |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805122857/http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html |archive-date=5 August 2011}}{{efn|The Council of Trent confirmed the identical list/canon of sacred scriptures already anciently approved by the Synod of Hippo (Synod of 393), Council of Carthage, 28 August 397, and Council of Florence, 4 February 1442;{{cite web |title=Council of Basel 1431–45 A.D. Council Fathers |url=http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm |website=Papal Encyclicals |language=en |date=14 December 1431 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130424112748/http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm |archive-date=24 April 2013}} – Bull of Union with the Copts seventh paragraph down.}}{{cite web |url=https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html |title=Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon |date=19 August 2008 |website=Taylor Marshall |access-date=1 December 2019}}

The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Various forms of Jewish Christianity persisted until around the fifth century, and canonized very different sets of books, including Jewish–Christian gospels which have been lost to history. These and many other works are classified as New Testament apocrypha by Pauline denominations.{{citation needed|date=September 2024}}

The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and most primary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books.{{citation needed|date=September 2024}} For the biblical scripture for both Testaments, canonically accepted in major traditions of Christendom, see § Canons of various traditions.

For churches which espouse sola scriptura it is necessary and critical to have a clear and complete list of the canonical books.{{cite web |last1=Wallace |first1=Daniel B. |title=The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology |url=https://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/18/the-problem-with-protestant-ecclesiology/ |website=Daniel B. Wallace |language=en |date=18 March 2012}} For churches which espouse sacred Tradition or Magisterium as well as Scripture, the issue can be more organic, as the Bible is an artifact of the church rather than vice versa.

Theologian William J. Abraham has suggested that in the primitive church and patristic period the "primary purpose in canonizing Scripture was to provide an authorized list of books for use in worship. The primary setting envisaged for the use of Scripture was not that of the science of theology, or that of the debates of scholars, but the spiritual nourishment of the people of God...the factor which ultimately carried the day (for what was in the canon) was actual usage in the Church."{{cite journal |last1=Abraham |first1=William J. |title=The Epistemic Fortunes of Sola Scriptura |journal=Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology |date=31 January 2002 |pages=139–161 |doi=10.1093/0199250030.003.0006 |isbn=0-19-925003-0}}{{rp|140}}

The Early Church used the Old Testament, namely the Septuagint (LXX){{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |author-last=Sanders |author-first=J. A. |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |page=259 |quote=... the so-called Septuagint was not in itself formally closed.}} Attributed to Albert Sundberg's 1964 Harvard dissertation. among Greek speakers, with a canon perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon. The Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time.

Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. Possible apostolicity was a strong argument used to suggest the canonical status of a book.{{rp|141}}

The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.{{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |author-last=Ferguson |author-first=Everett |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |pages=302–303 |postscript=none}}; cf. Justin Martyr. First Apology. 67.3.

Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon{{sfnp|Metzger|1997|p=98|loc="The question whether the Church's canon preceded or followed Marcion's canon continues to be debated."}} (c. 140). This included 10 epistles from Paul, as well as an edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. By doing this, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today.{{cite book |author-last=von Harnack |author-first=Adolf |chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/origin_nt.v.vi.html |chapter=Appendix VI |title=Origin of the New Testament |year=1914}}

After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the canon (meaning 'measuring line', 'rule', or 'principle') of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the proto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the list produced by Marcion.

A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus ({{circa|130|202 AD|lk=no}}) in the following quote:{{harvp|Ferguson|2002|p=301}}; cf. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. 3.11.8.{{Blockquote|It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh [...] Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things ... For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform [...] These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer.}}

Irenaeus additionally quotes from passages of all the books that would later be put in the New Testament canon except the Letter to Philemon, II Peter, III John, and the Epistle of Jude in Against Heresies, refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as "scripture"{{sfnp|Metzger|1997|p=155}} and appears to regard I Clement as authoritative.

File:P46.jpg, an early 3rd-century collection of Pauline epistles]]

By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena).Both points taken from {{cite book |author-last=Noll |author-first=Mark A. |year=1997 |title=Turning Points |publisher=Baker |pages=36–37}} Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.{{cite book |author-last=de Jonge |author-first=H. J. |chapter=The New Testament Canon |editor-last1=de Jonge |editor-first1=H. J. |editor-last2=Auwers |editor-first2=J. M. |title=The Biblical Canons |publisher=Leuven University Press |year=2003 |page=315}} Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.{{cite book |editor-last1=Ackroyd |editor-first1=P. R. |editor-last2=Evans |editor-first2=C. F. |year=1970 |title=The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=308}}

Origen of Alexandria (184/85–253/54), an early scholar involved in the codification of the biblical canon, had a thorough education both in Christian theology and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 since some of his teachings were considered to be heresy. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current New Testament canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.Prat, Ferdinand (1911). [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm "Origen and Origenism"]. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company. According to Eusebius' Church History [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xxv.html 6.25]: a 22 book OT [though Eusebius does not name Minor Prophets, presumably just an oversight?] plus 1 deuterocanon ["And outside these are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el."] and 4 Gospels but on the Apostle "Paul ... did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."

He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer."{{sfnp|Metzger|1997|p=141}}

In his Easter letter of 367, Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,{{cite book |title=A Brief History of Christianity |url=https://archive.org/details/briefhistorychri00lind |url-access=limited |author-first=Carter |author-last=Lindberg |page=[https://archive.org/details/briefhistorychri00lind/page/n26 15] |year=2006 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=1-4051-1078-3}} and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them.{{cite journal |author-last=Brakke |author-first=David |title=Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter |journal=Harvard Theological Review |volume=87 |issue=4 |date=1994 |pages=395–419 |doi=10.1017/s0017816000030200 |s2cid=161779697}}

{{Main|Fifty Bibles of Constantine}}

In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. AthanasiusApol. Const. 4 recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are examples of these Bibles. Those codices contain almost a full version of the Septuagint; Vaticanus lacks only 1–3 Maccabees and Sinaiticus lacks 2–3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah.{{citation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LUmGZ0NiweAC |title=Septuagint As Christian Scripture |author-first=Martin |author-last=Hengel |publisher=A&C Black |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-567-08287-9 |page=57}} Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.The Canon Debate, pp. 414–415, for the entire paragraph

There is no evidence among the canons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon; however, Jerome (347–420), in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".{{CathEncy|wstitle=Book of Judith}}: Canonicity: "...the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council"

The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making sharp delineations with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (for example, the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691–692, which Pope Sergius I (in office 687–701) rejected{{cite book |author-last=Ekonomou |author-first=Andrew J. |year=2007 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zomZk6DbFTIC&pg=PA222 |title=Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes |publisher=Lexington |isbn=978-0-7391-1977-8 |page=222}} (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363), the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367).{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm |chapter=Council in Trullo |title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14 |editor-last1=Schaff |editor-first1=Philip |editor-last2=Wace |editor-first2=Henry}} And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences, yet five of these Churches are part of the same communion and hold the same theological beliefs.{{sfnp|Metzger|1997}}

{{Main|Peshitta}}

The Peshitta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition. Most of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are found in the Syriac, and the Wisdom of Sirach is held to have been translated from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint.[http://www.bible-researcher.com/syriac-isbe.html Syriac Versions of the Bible by Thomas Nicol] This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616) of Thomas of Harqel.Geoffrey W. Bromiley The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Q–Z 1995. p. 976 "Printed editions of the Peshitta frequently contain these books in order to fill the gaps. D. Harklean Version. The Harklean version is connected with the labors of Thomas of Harqel. When thousands were fleeing Khosrou's invading armies, ..."

The standard United Bible Societies 1905 edition of the New Testament of the Peshitta was based on editions prepared by Syriacists Philip E. Pusey (d. 1880), George Gwilliam (d. 1914) and John Gwyn.Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium: Subsidia Catholic University of America, 1987 "37 ff. The project was founded by Philip E. Pusey who started the collation work in 1872. However, he could not see it to completion since he died in 1880. Gwilliam, All twenty seven books of the common western New Testament are included in this British & Foreign Bible Society's 1905 Peshitta edition.

{{Main|Latin Church|Catholic Bible}}

The first Council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent of 1546) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius, held in North Africa in 393. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and also the Council of Carthage (419).{{sfnp|McDonald|Sanders|2002|loc=Appendix D-2, Note 19|ps=. "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."}} These Councils took place under the authority of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who regarded the canon as already closed.{{harvp|Ferguson|2002|p=320}}; {{cite book |author-first=F. F. |author-last=Bruce |title=The Canon of Scripture |publisher=Intervarsity Press |year=1988 |page=230}}; cf. Augustine. De Civitate Dei. 22.8.

Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches", which would include Eastern Churches, the prestige of which Augustine stated moved him to include the Book of Hebrews among the canonical writings, though he had reservation about its authorship.{{cite web |url=http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Development%20of%20the%20NT%20Canon%20in%20First%20Four%20Centuries.pdf |title=Corey Keating, The Criteria Used for Developing the New Testament Canon.}}

Philip Schaff says that "the council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, ... This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I (414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session."{{citation |title=History of the Christian Church |chapter=Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy |author-first=Philip |author-last=Schaff |publisher=CCEL |chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm}} According to Lee Martin McDonald, the Revelation was added to the list in 419.{{sfnp|McDonald|Sanders|2002|loc=Appendix D-2, Note 19|ps=. "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."}} These councils were convened under the influence of Augustine of Hippo, who regarded the canon as already closed.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", in The Canon Debate, eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8.

Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382 (if the Decretum is correctly associated with it) issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above. Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, {{circa|383|lk=no}}, proved instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.{{sfnp|Bruce|1988|p= 225}}

In a letter ({{circa}} 405) to Exsuperius of Toulouse, a Gallic bishop, Pope Innocent I mentioned the sacred books that were already received in the canon.{{cite web |url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/innocent.html |title=Innocent I |publisher=Bible Research |access-date=21 May 2016}} When bishops and Councils spoke on the matter of the Biblical canon, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".{{sfnp|Ferguson|2002|pp=319–320}} Thus from the 4th century there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon as it is today,{{sfnp|Bruce|1988|p= 215}} with the exception of the Book of Revelation. In the 5th century the East too, with a few exceptions, came to accept the Book of Revelation and thus came into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.{{harvp|Ackroyd|Evans|1970|p=305}}; cf. {{cite book |author-last=Reid |author-first=George |title=Catholic Encyclopedia |publisher=Robert Appleton Company |year=1908 |chapter=Canon of the New Testament |chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm}}

As the primary canon crystallised, non-canonical texts fell into relative disfavour and neglect.{{cite book |author-last1=Rohmann |author-first1=Dirk |title=Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ie7CDAAAQBAJ |series=Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte |volume=135 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |date=2016 |isbn=978-3-11-048555-4 |access-date=11 April 2018 |quote=Prudentius [348–{{circa}} 410] ... intends to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity and was likely aware that at this time the Bible has not replaced other books as much as he wants to think. This passage also presents a possible hint that old Latin translations were replaced with a new canonical version, perhaps alluding to the Vulgate, written by Jerome at the end of the fourth century. By implication, this suggests that uncanonical texts were unlikely to be transcribed—an ideologically and authoritatively endorsed selection process that comes close to modern understandings of censorship.}}

File:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu, listing "The Books of the Old Testament", "The Books called Apocrypha", and "The Books of the New Testament"]]

Before the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Florence (1439–1443) took place. With the approval of this ecumenical council, Pope Eugenius IV (in office 1431–1447) issued several papal bulls (decrees) with a view to restoring the Eastern churches, which the Catholic Church considered as schismatic bodies, into communion with Rome. Catholic theologians regard these documents as infallible statements of Catholic doctrine. The Decretum pro Jacobitis contains a complete list of the books received by the Catholic Church as inspired, but omits the terms "canon" and "canonical". The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pronounce itself on canonicity.{{cite book |author-last1=Gigot |author-first1=Francis Ernest Charles |author-link1=Francis Gigot |chapter=The Canon of the Old Testament in the Christian Church: Section II. From the Middle of the Fifth Century to our Day |title=General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures |year=1900 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n3kQAQAAIAAJ |volume=1 of Introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures |edition=3 |location=New York |publisher=Benziger |publication-date=1900 |page=71 |access-date=1 February 2021 |quote=[...] the bull of Eugenius IV did not deal with the canonicity of the books which were not found in the Hebrew Text, but simply proclaimed their inspiration [...].}}{{CathEncy|wstitle= Canon of the Old Testament}} section titled "The Council of Florence 1442"

{{Main|Luther's canon}}

Martin Luther (1483–1546) proposed that the genuine mark of canonical material was that it preached Christ.{{rp|147}} This allowed him to relegate books (including ones that may not have supported his theology) to a secondary status.

Luther moved seven Old Testament books (Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) into a section he called the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rl3lcbLkHV0C&pg=PA521 |title=The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fully Defining and Explaining All Religious Terms, Including Biographical, Geographical, Historical, Archæological and Doctrinal Themes |page=521 |editor-first=Samuel |editor-last=Fallows |publisher=The Howard-Severance co |orig-year=1901 |year=1910 |display-editors=etal}}

All of these apocrypha are called anagignoskomena by the Eastern Orthodox Church per the Synod of Jerusalem.

As with the Lutheran Churches,{{cite book |author-last1=Geisler |author-first1=Norman L. |author-last2=MacKenzie |author-first2=Ralph E. |title=Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences |date=1995 |publisher=Baker Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-8010-3875-4 |page=171 |quote=Lutherans and Anglicans used it only for ethical / devotional matters but did not consider it authoritative in matters of faith.}} the Anglican Communion accepts "the Apocrypha for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine",{{cite book |author-last=Ewert |author-first=David |title=A General Introduction to the Bible: From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations |date=2010 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-87243-6 |page=104}} and many "lectionary readings in The Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha", with these lessons being "read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament".{{cite book |author-last1=Thomas |author-first1=Owen C. |author-last2=Wondra |author-first2=Ellen K. |author-link2=Ellen Wondra |title=Introduction to Theology |edition=3rd |date=2002 |publisher=Church Publishing |isbn=978-0-8192-1897-1 |page=56}} The Protestant Apocrypha contains three books (3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) that are accepted by many Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches as canonical, but are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles.{{cite book |author-last1=Henze |author-first1=Matthias |author-last2=Boccaccini |author-first2=Gabriele |title=Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall |year=2013 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-9004258815 |page=383}}

Anabaptists use the Luther Bible, which contains the intertestamental books; Amish wedding ceremonies include "the retelling of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Apocrypha".{{cite web |author-last1=Wesner |author-first1=Erik J. |title=The Bible |date=8 April 2015 |url=https://amishamerica.com/bible/#apocrypha |publisher=Amish America |access-date=23 May 2021 |language=English}} The fathers of Anabaptism, such as Menno Simons, quoted "them [the Apocrypha] with the same authority and nearly the same frequency as books of the Hebrew Bible" and the texts regarding the martyrdoms under Antiochus IV in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees are held in high esteem by the Anabaptists, who historically faced persecution.{{cite book |last1=deSilva |first1=David A. |title=Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance |date=2018 |publisher=Baker |isbn=978-1-4934-1307-2 |language=English}}

Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries continue to include readings from the Apocrypha.{{cite book |title=Readings from the Apocrypha |year=1981 |publisher=Forward Movement |page=5}}

{{Main|Canon of Trent}}

In response to Martin Luther's demands, the Council of Trent on 8 April 1546 approved the present Catholic Bible canon, which includes the deuterocanonical books, and the decision was confirmed by an anathema by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).{{sfnp|Metzger|1997|p=246|ps=. "Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstentions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema."}} The council confirmed the same list as produced at the Council of Florence in 1442,{{cite web |title=Council of Basel 1431–45 A |date=14 December 1431 |url=http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm |website=Papalencyclicals.net |access-date=7 January 2015}} Augustine's 397–419 Councils of Carthage, and probably Damasus' 382 Council of Rome.{{citation |title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church |edition=2nd |editor-first1=F. L. |editor-last1=Cross |editor-first2=E.A. |editor-last2=Livingstone |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1983 |page=232}} The Old Testament books that had been rejected by Luther were later termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval. The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate contained in the Appendix several books considered as apocryphal by the council: Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Esdras, and 4 Esdras.Praefatio, Biblia Sacra Vulgata, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1983, p. xx. {{ISBN|3-438-05303-9}}

{{See also|Protestant Bible}}

Several Protestant confessions of faith identify the 27 books of the New Testament canon by name, including the French Confession of Faith (1559),[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3/Page_361.html Schaff, Philip. Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, French Confession of Faith, p. 361] the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). The Second Helvetic Confession (1562), affirms "both Testaments to be the true Word of God" and appealing to Augustine's De Civitate Dei, it rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1, Of The Holy Scripture Being The True Word of God The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The Belgic Confession[http://creeds.net/belgic/ Belgic Confession 4. Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture] and the Westminster Confession named the 39 books in the Old Testament and, apart from the aforementioned New Testament books, expressly rejected the canonicity of any others.The Westminster Confession rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha stating that "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings." Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646

The Lutheran Epitome of the Formula of Concord of 1577 declared that the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures comprised the Old and New Testaments alone.{{Cite web |url=http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php |title=The Epitome of the Formula of Concord – Book of Concord |access-date=19 August 2020 |archive-date=31 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031063041/http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php |url-status=dead}} Luther himself did not accept the canonicity of the Apocrypha although he believed that its books were "Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. Volume 3, p. 98 James L. Schaaf, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985–1993. {{ISBN|0-8006-2813-6}} Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries continue to include readings from the Apocrypha.

{{Main|Biblical apocrypha|New Testament apocrypha}}

Various books that were never canonized by any church, but are known to have existed in antiquity, are similar to the New Testament and often claim apostolic authorship, are known as the New Testament apocrypha. Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.{{cite book |last=Van Liere |first=Frans |date=2014 |title=An Introduction to the Medieval Bible |pages=68–69 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-86578-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dwd-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA68}}{{cite book |last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |author-link=Bart Ehrman |date=2003 |title=Lost Christianities: Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew |pages=230–231 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-975668-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HHDNe8KmMAIC&pg=PA230}} Thus Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Final dogmatic articulations of the canons were made at the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism.{{sfnp|Reid|1908}}

{{Main|Development of the Old Testament canon}}

{{See also|Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity and Middle Ages}}

Another set of books, largely written during the intertestamental period, are called the deuterocanon ('second canon') by Catholics, the deuterocanon or anagignoskomena ('worthy of reading') by Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the biblical apocrypha ('hidden things') by Protestants. These are works recognized by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches as being part of scripture (and thus deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal), but Protestants do not recognize them as divinely inspired. Some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible—include an "Apocrypha" section.

Many denominations recognize deuterocanonical books as good, but not on the level of the other books of the Bible. Anglicanism considers the apocrypha worthy of being "read for example of life" but not to be used "to establish any doctrine".The foundational Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism, in Article VI, asserts that these disputed books are not (to be) used "to establish any doctrine," but "read for example of life." Although the biblical apocrypha are still used in Anglican Liturgy, ("Two of the hymns used in the American Prayer Book office of Morning Prayer, the Benedictus es and Benedicite, are taken from the Apocrypha. One of the offertory sentences in Holy Communion comes from an apocryphal book (Tob. 4: 8–9). Lessons from the Apocrypha are regularly appointed to read in the daily, Sunday, and special services of Morning and Evening Prayer. There are altogether 111 such lessons in the latest revised American Prayer Book Lectionary [The books used are: II Esdras, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Three Holy Children, and I Maccabees.]" – [http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.pdf The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090205074449/http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.pdf|date=5 February 2009}}), the modern trend has been to not even print the Old Testament Apocrypha in editions of Anglican-used Bibles. Luther made a parallel statement in calling them "not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but [...] useful and good to read."{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rl3lcbLkHV0C&q=luther+%22are+useful+and+good+to+read%22&pg=PA521 |title=The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fully Defining and Explaining All Religious Terms, Including Biographical, Geographical, Historical, Archæological and Doctrinal Themes |page=521 |editor=Samuel Fallows |publisher=The Howard-Severance company |orig-year=1901 |year=1910 |display-editors=etal}}

Additionally, while the books of Jubilees and Enoch are fairly well known among western scholars, 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often called the "Ethiopian Maccabees", but are completely different in content from the books of Maccabees that are known or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, the Book of Joseph ben Gurion, or Pseudo-Josephus, is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based upon the writings of Josephus.Josephus's The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews are highly regarded by Christians because they provide valuable insight into 1st century Judaism and early Christianity. Moreover, in Antiquities, Josephus made two extra-Biblical references to Jesus, which have played a crucial role in establishing him as a historical figure. The Ethiopic version (Zëna Ayhud) has eight parts and is included in the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon.The Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon in its fullest form—which includes the narrower canon in its entirety, as well as nine additional books—is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in Ethiopia. While the narrower canon has indeed been published as one compilation, there may be no real emic distinction between the broader canon and the narrower canon, especially in so far as divine inspiration and scriptural authority are concerned. The idea of two such classifications may be nothing more than etic taxonomic conjecture.[http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html "The Bible"]. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. 2003. Retrieved 20 January 2012.

Some ancient copies of the Peshitta used in the Syriac tradition include 2 Baruch (divided into the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Letter of Baruch; some copies only include the Letter) and the non-canonical Psalms 152–155.

The Ethiopian Tewahedo church accepts all of the deuterocanonical books of Catholicism and anagignoskomena of Eastern Orthodoxy except for the four Books of Maccabees.According to some enumerations, including Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, 1 Esdras, 4 Ezra (not including chs. 1–2 or 15–16), Wisdom, the rest of Daniel, Baruch, and 1–2 Maccabees It accepts the 39 protocanonical books along with the following books, called the "narrow canon".These books are accounted pseudepigrapha by all other Christian groups, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox (Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Introduction) The enumeration of books in the Ethiopic Bible varies greatly between different authorities and printings.{{cite web |url=http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html |title=The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today |publisher=Islamic-awareness.org |access-date=2012-08-14}}

Protestants and Catholics{{cite web |author=Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments |date=7 May 2001 |title=Liturgiam Authenticam |url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html |access-date=18 January 2012 |location=Vatican City |language=la, en |quote=Canon 24. 'Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely ... the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture.'}} use the Masoretic Text of the Jewish Tanakh as the textual basis for their translations of the protocanonical books (those accepted as canonical by both Jews and all Christians), with various changes derived from a multiplicity of other ancient sources (such as the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.), while generally using the Septuagint and Vulgate, now supplemented by the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, as the textual basis for the deuterocanonical books.

Eastern Orthodoxy uses the Septuagint (translated in the 3rd century BC) as the textual basis for the entire Old Testament in both protocanonical and deuterocanonical books—to use both in the Greek for liturgical purposes, and as the basis for translations into the vernacular.{{cite book |last=Ware |first=Timothy |title=The Orthodox Church: New Edition |year=1993 |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=978-0-14-014656-1 |page=368}}{{cite book |title=Orthodox Study Bible |year=2008 |publisher=Thomas Nelson |location=Nashville, TN |isbn=978-0-7180-0359-3 |page=1824 |edition=Annotated |chapter=Introduction}} Most of the quotations (300 of 400) of the Old Testament in the New Testament, while differing more or less from the version presented by the Masoretic text, align with that of the Septuagint.{{cite book |last=McLay |first=R. Timothy |title=The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research |year=2004 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |isbn=978-0-8028-6091-0 |page=222}}

Marcionism rejects the Old Testament entirely; Marcion considered the Old Testament and New Testament gods to be different entities.

This table lists seventy-four books and additions. See notes below table.

{{sticky header}}{{sort under}}

Although many books of the Jewish apocrypha has been variously recognized by different Christian communities, those that aren't embraced by any tradition are excluded here.

The order of some books varies among canons. The Talmud in Bava Batra 14b gives its own order for the books in Nevi'im and Ketuvim. This order is also quoted in Mishneh Torah Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. The order of the books of the Torah are universal through all denominations of Judaism, Samaritanism, and Christianity.

The table uses the spellings and names present in modern editions of the Bible, such as the New American Bible Revised Edition, Revised Standard Version and English Standard Version. The spelling and names in both the 1609–1610 Douay Old Testament (and in the 1582 Rheims New Testament) and the 1749 revision by Bishop Challoner (the edition currently in print used by many Catholics, and the source of traditional Catholic spellings in English) and in the Septuagint differ from those spellings and names used in modern editions that derive from the Hebrew Masoretic text.Generally due to derivation from transliterations of names used in the Latin Vulgate in the case of Catholicism, and from transliterations of the Greek Septuagint in the case of the Orthodox (as opposed to derivation of translations, instead of transliterations, of Hebrew titles) such Ecclesiasticus (DRC) instead of Sirach (LXX) or Ben Sira (Hebrew), Paralipomenon (Greek, meaning "things omitted") instead of Chronicles, Sophonias instead of Zephaniah, Noe instead of Noah, Henoch instead of Enoch, Messias instead of Messiah, Sion instead of Zion, etc.

The King James Version references some of these books by the traditional spelling when referring to them in the New Testament, such as "Esaias" (for Isaiah). In the spirit of ecumenism more recent Catholic translations (e.g., the New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and ecumenical translations used by Catholics, such as the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) use the same "standardized" (King James Version) spellings and names as Protestant Bibles (e.g., 1 Chronicles, as opposed to the Douay 1 Paralipomenon, 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, instead of 1–4 Kings) in the protocanonicals.

{{Main|Development of the New Testament canon|New Testament apocrypha|Antilegomena}}

Other New Testament works that are generally considered apocryphal nonetheless appear in some Bibles and manuscripts. For instance, the Epistle to the Laodiceans was included in numerous Latin Vulgate manuscripts, in the eighteen German Bibles prior to Luther's translation, and also a number of early English Bibles, such as Gundulf's Bible and John Wycliffe's English translation—even as recently as 1728, William Whiston considered this epistle to be genuinely Pauline. Likewise, the Third Epistle to the CorinthiansThe Third Epistle to the Corinthians can be found as a section within the Acts of Paul, which has survived only in fragments. A translation of the entire remaining Acts of Paul can be accessed online at [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html Early Christian Writings]. was once considered to be part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible,{{cite web |last=Saifullah |first=M. S. M. |title=Canons & Recensions of the Armenian Bible |publisher=Islamic Awareness |url=http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/armenianlist.html |access-date=25 January 2012}} but is no longer printed in modern editions. Within the Syriac Orthodox tradition, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians also has a history of significance. Both Aphrahat and Ephraem of Syria held it in high regard and treated it as if it were canonical.{{harvp|Metzger|1997|loc=pp. 219, 223; cf. 7, 176, 182}}. Cited in {{cite book |editor-last1=McDonald |editor-first1=L. M. |editor-last2=Sanders |editor-first2=J. A. |year=2002 |last=Epp |first=Eldon Jay |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers |page=492}}

The Didache,Various translations of the Didache can be accessed online at [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html Early Christian Writings]. The Shepherd of Hermas,A translation of the Shepherd of Hermas can be accessed online at the [http://sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob26.htm Internet Sacred Texts Archive]. and other writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers, were once considered scriptural by various early Church Fathers. They are still being honored in some traditions, though they are no longer considered to be canonical. However, certain canonical books within the Orthodox Tewahedo traditions find their origin in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well as the Ancient Church Orders. The Orthodox Tewahedo churches recognize these eight additional New Testament books in its broader canon. They are as follows: the four books of Sinodos, the two books of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Didascalia.{{cite journal |last=Cowley |first=R. W. |year=1974 |title=The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today |journal=Ostkirchliche Studien |volume=23 |pages=318–323 |url=http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html}}

This table lists fifty-two books. See notes below table.

{{sticky header}}

{{Portal|Religion}}

• Canon (fiction)
• List of religious texts
• Related to the Bible
• Biblical criticism
• Canonical criticism
• Jewish apocrypha
• List of Old Testament pseudepigrapha
• Non-canonical gospels include:
• Gospel of Barnabas
• Gospel of Bartholomew
• Gospel of Basilides
• Gospel of Thomas
• List of Gospels
• New Testament apocrypha
• Pseudepigrapha
• Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible
• Canons of other religions
• Islamic holy books
• Canonization of Islamic scripture
• Avesta or Zoroastrian scriptures
• Yazidi holy texts
• Hindu scriptures
• Sikh scriptures or Adi Granth aka Guru Granth Sahib
• Tripiṭaka or Buddhist canon
• Pāli Canon
• Mahayana Canons
• Chinese classics
• Thirteen Classics or Confucian canon
• Ruzang
• Daozang or Taoist canon

{{Reflist|group=note|2}}

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

{{reflist|group=O}}

• {{cite book |last=Beckwith |first=R. T. |year=1986 |title=The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism |publisher=Eerdmans Publishing Company |isbn=978-0-8028-3617-5}}
• {{cite book |last=Davis |first=L. D. |year=1983 |title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology |publisher=Liturgical Press |isbn=978-0-8146-5616-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/firstsevenec_davi_1990_000_6702418}}
• {{cite book |last=Ferguson |first=Everett |title=Encyclopedia of Early Christianity}}
• {{cite book |last=Fox |first=Robin Lane |title=The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible |publisher=Penguin Books |year=1992}}
• {{cite book |last=Gamble |first=Harry Y. |author-link=Harry Y. Gamble |year=2002 |title=The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning |publisher=Wipf & Stock Publishers |isbn=1-57910-909-8}}
• {{cite book |last=Jurgens |first=W. A. |title=Faith of the Early Fathers |year=1970 |place=Collegeville, Minn. |publisher=Liturgical Press |url=https://archive.org/details/faithofearlyfath00jurg |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite book |editor1=Lightfoot, Joseph |editor2=Harmer, John |editor3=Holmes, Michael |year=1992 |title=The Apostolic Fathers |publisher=Barker Book House |isbn=978-0-8010-5676-5}}
• {{cite book |last1=McDonald |first1=L. M. |last2=Sanders |first2=J. A. |year=2002 |title=The Canon Debate |chapter=Introduction |publisher=Hendrickson Publishers}}
• {{cite book |title=The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance |first=Bruce M. |last=Metzger |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=13 March 1997 |isbn=0-19-826954-4}}
• {{cite book |last=Nersessian |first=V. |chapter=The Armenian Canon of the New Testament |title=The Bible in the Armenian Tradition |location=Los Angeles, CA |publisher=J. Paul Getty Museum |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-89236-640-8 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7tSkalMzNvkC&pg=PA29}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Rüger |first1=Hans Peter |title=The Extent of the Old Testament Canon1 |journal=The Bible Translator |date=July 1989 |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=301–308 |doi=10.1177/026009358904000301 |s2cid=164995721}}
• {{cite book |last=Sundberg |first=Albert |title=The Old Testament of the Early Church |publisher=Harvard Press |year=1964}}

• Armstrong, Karen (2007) The Bible: A Biography. Books that Changed the World Series. Atlantic Monthly Press. {{ISBN|0-87113-969-3}}
• Barnstone, Willis (ed.) (1984). The Other Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures. HarperCollins. {{ISBN|978-0-7394-8434-0}}.
• Childs, Brevard S. (1984). The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. SCM Press. {{ISBN|0-334-02212-6}}.
• {{Cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Edmon L. |author-link1=Edmon L. Gallagher |url= |title=The biblical canon lists from early Christianity: texts and analysis |last2=Meade |first2=John D. |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-879249-9 |edition= |location=Oxford, United Kingdom |oclc=987346634}}
• Schneemelcher Wilhelm (ed). Hennecke Edgard, New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vol. Original title: Neutestamentliche Apokryphen
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2009). Forgotten Scriptures. The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings. Westminster John Knox Press. {{ISBN|978-0-664-23357-0}}.
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2000). Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. Hendrickson Publishers. {{ISBN|1-56563-266-4}}.
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2007). The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Hendrickson Publishers. {{ISBN|978-1-56563-925-6}}.
• {{Cite book |editor-last1=Pentiuc |editor-first1=Eugen J. |editor-link=Eugen J. Pentiuc |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity |via=OUP Academic |date=2022 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190948658.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190948658 |language=en |isbn=978-0-19-094868-9 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190948658.001.0001}}
• Souter, Alexander (1954). The Text and Canon of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Studies in Theology, No. 25. London: Duckworth.
• Stonehouse, Ned Bernhard (1929). The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of the New Testament Canon. Oosterbaan & Le Cointre.
• Taussig, Hal (2013). A New New Testament: A Bible for the 21st Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Wall, Robert W.; Lemcio, Eugene E. (1992). The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. JSOT Press. {{ISBN|1-85075-374-1}}.
• Westcott, Brooke Foss. (1875). A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. 4th ed. London: Macmillan.

• {{Commons category-inline|Biblical canon}}
• [http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html The Canon of Scripture] – contains multiple links and articles
• [http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/OSIS_Book_Abbreviations Cross Wire Bible Society] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305131428/https://crosswire.org/wiki/OSIS_Book_Abbreviations |date=5 March 2016 }}
• [https://reading-rooms.tyndale.ca/old-testament/ Old Testament Reading Room] and [https://reading-rooms.tyndale.ca/new-testament/ New Testament Reading Room] – Online resources referenced by Tyndale Seminary
• [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the New Testament]
• [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1025&letter=B Jewish Encyclopedia: Bible Canon]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20040611134128/http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/bible/Pdf/books%20of%20the%20bible.htm Table of Tanakh Books] – includes Latin, English, Hebrew and abbreviated names (from Tel Aviv University).
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080513222152/http://www.sain.org/Armenian.Church/Bible.txt The Bible in the Armenian Church] (an essay, with full official canon at the end)
• H. Schumacher, [https://archive.org/stream/handbookofscript01schuuoft#page/n105/mode/2up The Canon of the New Testament] (London 1923), pp. 84–94.
• {{citation |url=http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament |title=Introduction to New Testament History and Literature" course materials |others=Open Yale course |publisher=Yale University |author=Dale B. Martin |access-date=2016-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815203224/http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament |archive-date=2010-08-15 |url-status=dead}}
• [https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080102012808/http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=939&cuItem_itemID=13407 WELS Topical Q&A: Canon – 66 Books in the Bible], by Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Confessional Lutheran perspective)

{{The Bible}}

{{Biblical canon}}

{{Books of the Bible}}

{{History of the Catholic Church}}

{{Christianity footer}}

Canon

Category:Christian terminology

Category:Development of the Christian biblical canon