What Is the Canon? Defining ‘Canon’ in Biblical and Historical Context
Article 1 (Series 1)
Introduction
The term “canon,” in ecclesiastical contexts, describes far more than a mere collection of religious texts. It stands, historically, for a body of writings received by the Church as revelatory, authoritative, and normative for faith and practice. In Greek, the word kanōn (κανών) originally denoted a measuring rod or rule, signifying that which offers a standard of measurement. Within Christian theology, this concept of a “rule” expanded to include all writings believed to come from God Himself. Accordingly, “canon” demarcates the textual boundaries for the community of faith, delineating which books bear divine weight and must govern teaching, doctrine, worship, and devotion.
This article addresses foundational questions about how “canon” has been understood both in Scripture and in the early Church. It also highlights why the Reformation reasserted a formal distinction between canonical and merely helpful ecclesiastical texts, and why acknowledging the canon in the strongest sense is non-negotiable for Christian orthodoxy. Drawing from the confessional insights of Louis Gaussen and William Whitaker, we will see that the canon is not a malleable product of human convention but rather emerges from God’s gracious act of self-disclosure and the Church’s Spirit-guided recognition.
Given that this article sets the stage for a multi-part exploration of the doctrine of the canon, it must clarify key terminology, engage with relevant historical testimonies, and address the practical implications for believers today. Thus, we first consider how early Christians spoke of an authoritative set of writings, then examine biblical foundations for the notion of a canon, and finally explore how this concept differs from mere tradition or beneficial reading material. By doing so, we underscore the abiding importance of the canon in shaping theological conviction and ecclesial life, from the apostolic age to the present.
I. Canon in the Early Church
To appreciate the Christian canon’s contours, one must look closely at how early Christians read, copied, and preserved certain texts. From the mid-to-late first century onward, local congregations used apostolic letters and Gospel accounts in worship and instruction. Although the term “canon” was not always explicitly used in the earliest decades of the Church’s life, the reality of an emerging standard is difficult to deny.
1. First-Century Context
Even before the formal compilation of the New Testament, the apostles themselves wrote with the expectation that their teachings carried divine authority. In passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Paul instructs his letters to be read publicly in the assembly—a strong indicator that believers accorded these writings the status of God’s directive. Moreover, 2 Peter 3:16 famously recognizes Paul’s letters as on par with “the other Scriptures,” implying that the apostles knew certain documents functioned as normative, akin to the Old Testament. Early Christian usage was thus shaping a concept of recognized, divinely bestowed texts, though a full list had yet to be universally codified.
2. Second- and Third-Century Testimonies
By the second century, individuals like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna quote or allude to Pauline and Petrine writings as bearing distinctive authority. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD) enumerates many, though not all, of the books that would become the New Testament canon, demonstrating that early Christians were not merely reading these texts for edification—they were, in essence, measuring doctrine by them. The vocabulary of “canon” arises more explicitly in the third and fourth centuries, yet the underlying principle of a textual “rule” existed from the Church’s earliest strata.
This coalescing phenomenon suggests that apostolic and (in the Old Testament sense) prophetic authority made certain documents fundamentally distinct from writings such as the Apostolic Fathers’ letters or later patristic homilies. While the latter were beneficial and morally instructive, they lacked the final, unassailable authority that the earliest Christian communities attributed to the apostolic texts.
II. Canon as a Rule of Faith and Life
While the Greek word kanōn means “measuring rod,” in Christian discourse it soon denoted the normative writings for doctrine and practice—equipping believers to evaluate teachings and moral claims. By calling Scripture the “rule of faith,” early theologians affirmed that these canonical writings possess a qualitative difference from anything merely ecclesiastical or customary.
1. Patristic Understanding
Irenaeus of Lyon spoke about the “rule of truth,” a concise summary of apostolic teaching inherited through the writings that bore witness to Christ’s redemptive work. His polemic against Gnosticism in Against Heresies consistently appeals to the written “rule” recognized throughout the universal Church. Tertullian likewise insisted that Scripture, properly interpreted, must have the final say in doctrinal disputes. The synergy of these voices evinces an assumed body of texts, even if not formally labeled a “New Testament” at every juncture.
2. Competing “Authorities”
Historically, a tension arose between the canon’s sufficiency and the human inclination to elevate local traditions or additional writings to near-canonical status. Gnostic sects circulated alternative “gospels” that diverged sharply from apostolic orthodoxy. Similarly, certain local Christian communities might honor apostolic fathers’ letters, or even incorporate them liturgically, but seldom equated them with the divine authority of apostolic Scripture. The Church soon recognized that if it were to preserve the purity of the gospel, it needed to delimit those writings that carried universal apostolic sanction.
Thus, the concept of canon as a “rule” or standard was not merely theoretical: it served as a living criterion to distinguish legitimate faith from theological aberrations. This distinction later crystallized more fully in the Reformation’s principle of sola Scriptura, reaffirming that Scripture, as the final rule, transcends any local tradition or council decree that might conflict with what is given by God.
III. Biblical Foundations for a Canon Concept
Despite the relative novelty of the word “canon” within later ecclesiastical usage, the Scriptures themselves exhibit an inherent canonical impulse. That is, the Bible—both Old Testament and New—reveals a consistent pattern of preserving God’s words in writing as an enduring, authoritative witness.
1. Old Testament Precedent
The Old Testament gives repeated indications that God’s directives were to be recorded and treasured as binding for His people. In Exodus 24:4–7, Moses writes down “all the words of the Lord,” and then the people hear this “Book of the Covenant.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 31:24–26 depicts Moses completing the law and commanding that it be placed beside the Ark of the Covenant. Far from an optional record, this writing was integral to the covenant itself, testifying that God’s revelation to Israel had a textual form which demanded perpetual fidelity.
Over time, prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel similarly wrote or had scribes record their oracles, denoting that God’s communication warranted careful preservation. The significance is profound: the Old Testament communities were shaped by a corpus that they believed to be God’s Word, encapsulated in tangible documents to be read, transmitted, and obeyed. This foreshadows the New Testament’s continuation of the same practice—putting the “new covenant” revelation into writing.
2. New Testament Witness
In the New Testament, Jesus treats the Old Testament as a closed collection with binding authority. He often quotes “the Law and the Prophets,” referencing a recognized textual boundary. Moreover, the earliest Christians, as indicated by Paul’s instructions for church reading (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16) and Peter’s equating Paul’s letters with Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16), reveal a consciousness that certain documents function at the level of “sacred writing.” By commending these epistles to the entire Christian community for instruction and obedience, they effectively sow the seeds of the developing New Testament canon.
Hence, the biblical text itself models the formation and reception of an authoritative corpus. The Church later embraced explicit lists, but the impetus arose from Scripture’s witness to its own divine authorship and necessity for guiding belief and morality.
IV. Canon vs. Merely “Edifying” Writings
One of the pivotal distinctions in early Christian thought—and later sharpened by the Reformation—concerns writings that are undoubtedly beneficial but not ultimately canonical. This demarcation also appears in debates about the Old Testament Apocrypha and certain post-apostolic Christian texts (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas or 1 Clement).
1. Distinguishing Canonical Books
Criteria for canonicity historically involved apostolicity (direct or indirect association with an apostle), orthodoxy (consistency with the rule of faith), and catholicity (widespread usage across churches). Jerome and Augustine, for instance, both grappled with how to treat Apocryphal books. While Augustine considered them worthy of reading, Jerome insisted that they be recognized as “ecclesiastical” rather than fully canonical. Some of these texts, although pious, included historical or doctrinal elements deemed incompatible with the recognized corpus.
This distinction proved vital in preserving doctrinal purity. The Church recognized the danger of conflating edifying literature—sermons, letters, theological treatises—with the Spirit-breathed deposit. Works penned by church fathers, while revered, could err in certain doctrinal or exegetical details, thereby demonstrating that they were not the product of apostolic or prophetic inspiration.
2. Gaussen’s & Whitaker’s Warnings
Louis Gaussen, focusing heavily on the vantage point of faith, underscored that receiving “merely edifying” writings as though they bore the same authority as Scripture would breed confusion about what God truly commanded or revealed. William Whitaker’s polemic against the Roman Catholic acceptance of certain Apocryphal books at the Council of Trent similarly hinged on the principle that the Church must not elevate even well-intentioned, venerable texts if they lacked the hallmarks of genuine inspiration and universal apostolic endorsement. The impetus, therefore, was to maintain a clear boundary: truly inspired texts form the canon, while any supplemental or pious material, though at times helpful, does not bind the conscience in the same manner.
V. Practical Implications
Affirming the canon as a distinct, unchangeable body of Scripture carries significant weight for both the Church’s corporate identity and believers’ personal devotion. From theological formulation to public worship, the recognized canon shapes the lens through which the Christian community encounters the living Word of God.
1. The Church’s Dependence on a Stable Canon
Doctrinal formation throughout Church history—be it the ecumenical councils of the first five centuries or confessional statements from the Reformation—relies upon having a stable textual reference. Creeds like the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon continuously cite biblical texts. For the Church to guard orthodoxy, it must know which writings hold ultimate authority. Without that clarity, ecclesiastical tradition might overreach, or diverse communities might adopt contradictory standards.
Moreover, in corporate worship, the practice of reading Scripture aloud is predicated on the assumption that God’s people can reliably identify which texts are, in fact, the Word of God. The canon thus galvanizes liturgical unity across time, reminding believers that they belong to a shared heritage shaped by the same scriptural norm.
2. Individual and Communal Devotion
On a personal level, the canon’s clarity fosters confidence in Scripture as an unshakable source of divine truth. Gaussen emphasizes that faith rests not on “human argumentation alone” but on a spiritual recognition that these texts are from God. When a believer reads Psalms, studies Romans, or meditates on the Gospel of John, they do so under the conviction that this is God’s final and trustworthy revelation.
Beyond personal edification, confessional fidelity requires adherents to remain anchored to canonical texts. The Reformation reaffirmed this principle precisely to curb the infiltration of teachings that might obscure or contradict the biblical gospel. William Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture demonstrates, at considerable depth, how necessary it is for the Church to subject even beloved traditions and devotions to the higher bar of Scripture’s authority.
VI. Conclusion
From the earliest Christian centuries to the Reformation and beyond, “canon” has served as the fundamental question of which books the Church regards as God’s Word. Far from a concept invented in the post-apostolic era, the impetus for a canon rests in biblical precedent: God has consistently chosen to reveal Himself and preserve that revelation in an identifiable textual form. This conviction is woven into the theology of major Church Fathers, the practice of local congregations, and the explicit arguments of Reformation stalwarts such as Whitaker, who insisted that the Church bears witness to, rather than creates, the canon.
Studying the canon is thus neither a dry academic pursuit nor an exercise in mere historical curiosity. It is a clarifying lens on how believers come to hear the voice of Christ—how the Holy Spirit acts through written words to shape the faith and life of God’s people. Differentiating canonical from non-canonical texts is not a quibble over minor details but a profound recognition that only those writings bearing divine imprimatur can bind the conscience in matters of doctrine and ethics. Gaussen’s emphasis on the vantage point of faith underscores that, while historical inquiry can illuminate many details, it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately persuades hearts that certain books carry the voice of God Himself.
Thus, the Christian canon stands as the privileged medium of divine communication to the Church, providing both a boundary and a beacon. The boundary is that no other writings, however pious or helpful, may claim equal authority. The beacon is that this canonical Scripture continues to illuminate the path of believers and shape the Church’s witness in the world. Recognizing this measure or rule proves indispensable for preserving the purity of Christian doctrine and fostering a faith that is anchored not in human speculation, but in the revealed Word of God.
In the subsequent articles, we will transition from defining the canon to exploring its theological significance more thoroughly—particularly how Scripture functions as divine self-revelation, why the Old Testament canon was already established in the time of Christ, and how the Church historically came to receive the New Testament as Scripture in continuity with the apostolic foundation. By moving deeper into these questions, we gain a clearer grasp of why the canon remains a doctrinal linchpin, even as it faces modern historical-critical challenges and ecumenical debates about its extent. Ultimately, the canon is not an arbitrary collection; it is the written expression of God’s unerring or, more precisely, infallible truth—providing the Church with a sure Word for all matters of faith and life.
