How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Now there were in existence certain writings, known upon particular and specific evidence to have been written by men used of God to do so. By far the greater proportion of these writings are addressed to persons (often to assemblies of persons) with whom the writer was acquainted. No great number of books were ever promiscuously, and as having equal claims, submitted to the judgment of men, but certain particular writings possessed peculiar and notorious claims, from the time they were received — claims which were never detached from them. The evidence for their genuineness (I allude here to the outward evidence, which itself is logically decisive; but there is likewise an inward evidence of the divine origin of Holy Scripture, which is no less, nay, even more, decisive to those who, through the grace of God, are acquainted with it) was unofficial, but reliable human — i.e. personal — testimony, originated and maintained by divine Providence; and so clear and conclusive, that, with extremely few exceptions, to know that such writings existed was almost to know which they were, since the sacred writings created their own fame, as do all the works of God. (Psalm 145:10). As to the few exceptions, the same principle was involved of letting God's Word speak for itself, i.e., letting the claims of what really was God's Word be heard alone; whereas whatever difficulties there were, were produced by the folly and wickedness of men in regard to their own writings (the Apocrypha for instance — the apostolical constitutions, besides a swarm of evidently spurious gospels), which the Church encouraged and availed herself of, but which was permitted by God to a limited extent only, though quite far enough to manifest the unfaithfulness of the Church. The settling the Canon of Scripture was, on the part of the Church, simply an official and formal recognition of already established evidence, not the discovery, still less the creation, of evidence. The Holy Scriptures were written by inspiration, they were identified (so far as man had to do with it) by ordinary but adequate human testimony.

The Eastern Church confirmed that the epistle of James belonged to the canon of Holy Scriptures at the synod of Laodicea (around 360 AC). The west accepted the epistle in the known synods in Rome (382 AC), Hippo (393 AC) and Cartago (397 AC). This is also where the writings of the NT (inspired by the Holy Spirit) found final acceptance for the protection from false doctrines being propagated at the time.

Now, though we cannot refer back and say that the church, or those who seemed to be pillars in the church, have always counted our present list of books to be authentic, yet we can say that very early the list was completed as we now have it, and was believed to contain all the New Testament scripture, and nothing but the scripture; and, further, we doubt not that this has been the judgment and conviction of the great mass of Christians for centuries, altogether apart from any order of council that it should be so, and altogether beyond the doubts that any might attempt to throw upon any one of its books.

It is indeed surprising to find human writings attached to the scriptures, and that they were read in the churches. The formation of the canon of scripture was doubtless a work of time, and great respect was naturally shewn to those who had been companions of the apostles; but it must not be forgotten that long after that canon was settled, passages from apocryphal books were read in churches, as indeed in the Established Church of England — read, as the Prayer Book says, "for example of life and instruction of manners," but not "to establish any doctrine." And this, after so many years, is more surprising than that it should have been done before the canon was settled.

External evidence gives many quotations, and so on. There never were any other books than the list we have, that were considered to be 'canon,' so-called, though some of these, as 2 Peter, have been set aside. The Revelation was fully received at first, and came to be doubted in the Church about the second or third century. So with Hebrews; it was not left out until the third century, and then only because it opposed certain innovations. Again, there came injunctions not to read anything but these inspired writings, for Clement's epistle used to be read, and so on, though not inspired. Eusebius gives us a complete list, and declares that none other was to be received as sound. The two epistles of John, being small, appear to have been much less copied, and it was late before they were received. There are translations of them in the first century, as in the Syriac Peschito which has them. They were translated a very few years after John's time.

It is true that numerous Christian books were in circulation, even in the days of Luke, the writer of the third Gospel and of "The Acts" (Luke 1:1), some of them attributed to the Apostles and their companions, but they were not regarded as inspired, however highly esteemed otherwise. So numerous are the quotations from the New Testament in the writings of the fathers of the first seven centuries, that the whole of the New Testament might from thence be recovered, if needs be. We frankly admit, however, that certain Epistles, as Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were not at first universally received as canonical, owing to the difficulty of communication existing in these early times. It was no easy matter then for Churches or individuals at a distance to hold mutual intercourse, and it must be borne in mind that Epistles were addressed to persons or assemblies in some instances 1000 miles apart; besides which the transcribing of accurate copies of the originals required time and care. These facts remembered, we are thankful for the extreme caution with which the canon of the New Testament was finally accepted.

In 2 Peter 3:15-16 the author puts the writings of the apostle Paul on the same level with the “other scriptures” (the writings of the OT) while writing: “As also in all his epistles, ... which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” The canon of the OT had been established for a long time. The OT is referred to as “the scriptures” (compare Luke 24:32.45; John 5:39). The Holy Spirit had been at work in the authors of both OT and NT by inspiration and he worked to the effect that the recipients or readers accepted these writings as coming from God. This we see also with Peter. Similarly the Apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 5:18 refers to a verse of the OT (Deut. 25:4) and one of the NT (Luke 10:7) with the introductory words: “For the scripture says.” In these two examples we definitely see that the collection of NT writings had already begun at that time and that they were considered as godly authority as were the writings of the OT.

In the case of the New Testament, the whole of Christendom is agreed. All the books making up its canon were composed within the compass of a single generation; and therefore easily capable of being marked off from all other writings. Every single book of the New Testament was written either by an apostle, or in the case of two of the gospels, by immediate companions of apostles. And, as though to make assurance doubly sure, the life of St. John was extended over a long period, in order that no book might go out to the world, as canonical and inspired, but what he had sanctioned as such; and in this matter he exercised his Master's authority.

There were indeed some congregations at an early time, which had not known some of the books:— such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, the two shorter Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse: but, upon investigation, it is clearly seen that they never rejected these writings, but only that the writings had not at that moment reached them.

The inspired writings had such spiritual power that they commended themselves to spiritual men. They knew that they were handling holy inspired writings (many of which, after all, stated explicitly that they were God's word). Interestingly, the Lord referred to 'the prophets', 'the Pslams' and the 'the Scriptures' as known and recognised collections (e.g. Mt. 26:56), as did the New Testament writers (e.g. Lk 24:27).

Various New Testament writers acknowledge each other's writings and place them on the same level as the OT 'Scriptures'. See question 11.