Which Came First? The Bible or the Church? Understanding Christianity Before the Canonization of Scripture

Investigating Apostolic Authority, Canon Formation, and the Ecclesial Foundations of Early Christianity

This study explores the dynamic and often misunderstood relationship between the early Christian Church and the eventual canonization of Scripture, reorienting the question of primacy from a binary comparison to a comprehensive analysis of historical, theological, and ecclesial processes. Engaging deeply with early Christian practices, the transmission of oral traditions, and the theological criteria for canon inclusion, this research positions the Church not only as preceding the Bible but as the architect and custodian of its very formation.

This investigation examines how the Church, emerging from the Apostolic Age, functioned as a coherent theological and liturgical body before the establishment of a unified scriptural canon. It delves into the processes that defined the Church’s identity and doctrinal unity—through apostolic succession, liturgical practices, and the response to heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism. By analyzing key historical milestones, including early councils, the circulation of Christian writings, and the role of tradition, this study underscores the interdependence of Scripture and the Church in preserving the integrity of divine revelation.

Finally, this research addresses the implications of this relationship for contemporary theological debates, especially the tension between sola scriptura and the role of ecclesial authority. By integrating insights from historical theology, textual criticism, and comparative studies of religious canonization, this study elevates the discourse on how Christianity was shaped by its pre-canonical foundations and provides a model for navigating modern questions of unity and orthodoxy in a pluralistic world.

Key Themes:

1. Historical Primacy of the Church:

Investigate the Church as the organizational and theological predecessor to the canon, focusing on how the apostolic community maintained doctrinal unity and identity in a pre-scriptural era.

2. Canon Formation as an Ecclesial Process:

Analyze the historical and theological processes that led to the recognition of the New Testament canon, emphasizing the interplay between apostolic tradition, liturgical use, and the Church’s pastoral needs.

3. Theological Foundations Without a Canon:

Explore how early Christianity maintained theological coherence through oral traditions, the authority of the Apostles, and the liturgical use of Jewish Scriptures.

4. Controversy as a Catalyst for Canonization:

Examine the role of early heresies, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, in compelling the Church to formalize its boundaries of orthodoxy through the canon.

5. Ecumenical and Contemporary Relevance:

Address the implications of the Church-Bible relationship for modern debates on authority, unity, and scriptural interpretation, considering Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant perspectives.

6. Comparative Perspectives on Canon Formation:

Situate Christian canonization within the broader context of religious traditions, comparing it with processes in Judaism and Islam to highlight the unique and shared dynamics of scriptural formation.

This study transcends a simplistic historical debate about whether the Church or the Bible came first. Instead, it situates the question within a robust interdisciplinary framework that incorporates historical theology, ecclesiology, textual criticism, and comparative religious studies. By emphasizing the Church’s role as the living context for the creation and interpretation of Scripture, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the origins of Christian authority and its relevance for contemporary theological discourse.

I. Introduction

1. Purpose of the Study

Christianity’s foundational texts, revered as Scripture today, emerged from a dynamic interplay of historical events, apostolic teachings, and ecclesial authority. This study seeks to investigate this relationship, focusing on the critical period before the Bible existed in its canonized form. It begins with the Apostolic Age, a time marked by oral tradition and the direct guidance of the Twelve Apostles, tracing the development of early Christian writings, their circulation, and eventual compilation into a formalized canon. Understanding the interplay between the Church’s authority and the emergence of Scripture illuminates a vital era when Christianity functioned without a unified biblical text.¹

The formation of the biblical canon was neither immediate nor uniform, reflecting the Church’s response to its theological and pastoral needs. This study seeks to examine how the early Christian Church established and preserved its identity, doctrine, and unity in this pre-canonical phase. Early communities relied on oral tradition, the authority of apostolic witnesses, and the developing body of Christian literature. By examining these elements, the study reveals the Church’s capacity to maintain theological coherence despite the absence of a standardized canon.²

Moreover, this research highlights the Church’s role as the custodian of divine revelation. It was the Church that discerned which writings were inspired and worthy of inclusion in the biblical canon, a process informed by apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This study examines the criteria used to determine canonicity, the historical context that shaped the process, and the debates that arose around contested texts. In doing so, it aims to clarify the theological rationale underlying the Church’s discernment of Scripture.³

The study also explores what Christianity looked like during its formative years when liturgical practices, doctrinal teachings, and communal life were grounded in the authority of the Church rather than a fixed body of Scripture. This investigation is crucial for understanding how early Christians lived their faith and how the Church navigated challenges, including heresies, without the benefit of a fully canonized Bible. Such an exploration sheds light on the Church’s enduring role in shaping Christian identity.⁴

Finally, the study examines the implications of the historical precedence of the Church for contemporary theological debates. Modern Christian thought often emphasizes the primacy of Scripture (sola scriptura), yet this study contends that such an approach must account for the Church’s foundational role in the Bible’s creation. By addressing this interplay, the research seeks to provide a balanced perspective on the relationship between Scripture and ecclesial authority.⁵

In doing so, the study aims to contribute to the broader field of Christian theology and history by offering a robust exploration of a critical question: which came first—the Bible or the Church? The findings have implications not only for understanding the historical origins of Christianity but also for navigating contemporary discussions on ecclesiology and biblical authority.⁶

2. Key Research Questions

The first research question, “Did the Church precede the Bible?” addresses the fundamental historical and theological relationship between these two entities. This question requires a close examination of the Church’s role in preserving apostolic teachings and establishing the foundations of Christian faith before the formalization of the canon. Historical evidence, such as the writings of early Church Fathers and records from ecumenical councils, provides insights into how the Church functioned as the guardian of divine revelation.⁷

The second question, “How did early Christian communities function and maintain theological unity without a fixed scriptural canon?” explores the mechanisms by which the Church ensured doctrinal coherence. Oral tradition, apostolic authority, and communal worship practices were critical in this period, providing a framework for transmitting and preserving Christian teachings. This question also investigates the challenges posed by doctrinal disputes and external pressures, such as persecution, which shaped the Church’s reliance on non-canonical sources.⁸

The third question, “What factors led to the canonization of the Bible, and who determined its content?” addresses the practical and theological considerations that guided the Church’s decisions. Key factors include the need to combat heresies, the circulation of contested writings, and the role of key councils in formalizing the canon. By examining these factors, the study uncovers the interplay between divine inspiration, ecclesiastical discernment, and historical circumstances.⁹

These research questions also engage with modern scholarly debates on the canonization process. For instance, was the process entirely guided by the Church’s authority, or did external cultural and political forces play a role? The research investigates competing perspectives, aiming to provide a nuanced understanding of this complex historical development.¹⁰

In addition, the research questions highlight the theological significance of the canonization process. By exploring who held the authority to determine the canon and the criteria for inclusion, the study examines how the Church balanced its role as the interpreter of divine revelation with its reliance on the Holy Spirit’s guidance.¹¹

These inquiries also set the stage for addressing broader theological implications. How do these historical realities shape modern understandings of the Church’s authority and the Bible’s role in Christian life? By framing the research around these questions, the study seeks to provide answers that are historically grounded and theologically rigorous.¹²

II. Historical Context of Early Christianity

1. The Apostolic Age (27–100 AD)

The Apostolic Age marks the foundational period of Christianity, beginning with the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and extending to the death of the last Apostle, traditionally understood to be John. During this period, the Twelve Apostles, chosen by Jesus, played a central role in establishing the early Church.¹ They were entrusted with preserving and disseminating Christ’s teachings and initiating the mission to spread the Gospel to all nations. This age was characterized by an intimate connection between the Apostles and the nascent Christian communities, who looked to them as the primary sources of Christ’s message and authority.²

Oral tradition was the predominant means of transmitting Christ’s teachings during the Apostolic Age.³ Jesus himself likely taught orally, using parables, discourses, and symbolic acts to communicate his message. The Apostles continued this practice, recounting Jesus’ teachings and deeds to their followers. This oral transmission was not merely a recollection of historical events but a living tradition, shaping the faith and practice of early Christian communities.⁴

The Apostolic Age also witnessed the initial formation of Christian doctrines, centered around Jesus’ death, resurrection, and divine nature. Apostolic preaching emphasized key theological concepts, including salvation through faith, the kingdom of God, and the role of the Holy Spirit. These teachings were rooted in Jewish Scriptures, which the Apostles interpreted as pointing to Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises.⁵

As the Apostolic Age progressed, the need for written accounts began to emerge. While oral tradition remained dominant, certain communities and individuals began to compile written records of Jesus’ sayings and actions. These writings were intended to preserve the apostolic message and ensure its accurate transmission to future generations.⁶ The earliest Christian texts, such as Paul’s epistles, were composed during this time, addressing the specific needs and challenges of individual communities.⁷

Despite the absence of a formalized canon, the early Church relied on apostolic authority to maintain doctrinal unity. The Apostles, as eyewitnesses to Christ’s life and ministry, were uniquely positioned to interpret his teachings and resolve disputes.⁸ This authority was exercised through letters, visits, and the appointment of local leaders, ensuring continuity in the Church’s mission and message.

The Apostolic Age laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of Christianity, providing the initial framework for its theology, practice, and organization. The combination of oral tradition, apostolic authority, and emerging written texts created a foundation that would sustain the Church through its formative years and beyond.⁹

2. The Formative Years of Christianity (c. 30–100 AD)

The formative years of Christianity were a period of rapid growth and significant challenges for the nascent Church. Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Apostles and their followers embarked on a mission to spread the Gospel, establishing Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire.¹⁰ This expansion was facilitated by the Apostles’ missionary efforts, which brought the message of Christ to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. However, this period was also marked by persecution and opposition, as Christians faced hostility from both Jewish authorities and the Roman state.¹¹

One of the key challenges during this period was the need to maintain unity and orthodoxy within a rapidly growing and geographically dispersed Church. The Apostles played a crucial role in addressing doctrinal disputes and ensuring that local communities adhered to the core teachings of the faith.¹² For example, the Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 AD, addressed the contentious issue of whether Gentile converts were required to observe Jewish law. The decision, which affirmed the inclusion of Gentiles without the necessity of circumcision, reflected the Church’s commitment to doctrinal clarity and inclusivity.¹³

The formative years also saw the development of distinctive Christian practices and institutions. Baptism, the Eucharist, and communal worship became central elements of Christian life, serving as tangible expressions of faith and unity.¹⁴ These practices were rooted in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, transmitted through oral tradition and reinforced by apostolic authority. The formation of local churches, led by bishops, elders, and deacons, provided a structure for governance and pastoral care, ensuring the Church’s stability amidst external and internal challenges.¹⁵

Persecution further shaped the identity of the early Church, as Christians faced imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom for their faith. These trials not only tested the resolve of individual believers but also strengthened the Church’s sense of solidarity and mission.¹⁶ The witness of martyrs, who willingly suffered for their faith, became a powerful testimony to the truth of the Gospel and inspired others to join the Christian community.

Despite these challenges, the Church’s growth during this period was remarkable. By the end of the 1st century, Christian communities could be found in major cities throughout the Roman Empire, including Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria.¹⁷ This expansion was accompanied by the increasing circulation of Christian writings, which played a key role in shaping the faith and practice of these communities.

The formative years of Christianity were thus a time of both trial and triumph, as the Church established its identity and mission in the face of significant challenges. Through the leadership of the Apostles, the preservation of tradition, and the witness of the faithful, the Church laid the foundation for its enduring presence in history.¹⁸

3. The Role of Oral Tradition in Early Christian Communities

Oral tradition was the primary means of preserving and transmitting the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the early Church.¹⁹ In a predominantly oral culture, the spoken word carried immense authority and was seen as a reliable means of communication. The Apostles and their successors relied on oral tradition to pass down the core tenets of the faith, ensuring that each generation received the same message.²⁰

One of the key features of oral tradition was its adaptability. Unlike written texts, which are fixed and static, oral tradition could be tailored to meet the needs of specific communities and contexts. This flexibility allowed the early Church to address diverse audiences, incorporating local customs and languages while remaining faithful to the apostolic message.²¹

Oral tradition also played a central role in shaping the liturgical practices of the early Church.²² The prayers, hymns, and readings used in worship were often transmitted orally, reflecting the communal and participatory nature of Christian worship. These practices not only reinforced the teachings of the faith but also provided a sense of continuity with the Apostles and the broader Christian community.

In addition to its liturgical role, oral tradition served as a tool for doctrinal instruction and catechesis.²³ Early Christian leaders used oral teaching to explain the faith to new converts, preparing them for baptism and full participation in the life of the Church. This process, known as the catechumenate, emphasized the importance of learning and living the faith before receiving the sacraments.

Oral tradition also played a crucial role in resolving doctrinal disputes within the early Church.²⁴ When questions arose about the interpretation of Scripture or the teachings of Jesus, the Church often appealed to the oral testimony of the Apostles and their successors. This reliance on oral tradition underscored its authority and highlighted its role as a complement to the written word.

Despite the eventual emergence of written texts, oral tradition remained an essential aspect of the Church’s life and mission.²⁵ It provided a living connection to the Apostles, preserving the faith in its fullness and ensuring its faithful transmission across generations.

III. The Development of Christian Writings

1. First Christian Texts (c. 50 AD onwards)

The development of Christian writings began with the Pauline epistles, which are among the earliest extant documents of Christianity. These letters, written to various churches and individuals, were not only pastoral in nature but also theological treatises addressing specific challenges faced by early Christian communities.¹ Paul’s epistles, such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians, articulated foundational doctrines like justification by faith, the resurrection of Christ, and the unity of the Church. Their circulation among the early churches ensured a shared theological framework and established their early authority as inspired Scripture.²

In addition to the Pauline corpus, the Gospels and Acts emerged as pivotal narratives of Christ’s life and the Apostolic mission. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and John were written to provide an account of Jesus’ teachings, miracles, death, and resurrection, preserving oral traditions in a written format.³ The Acts of the Apostles, traditionally attributed to Luke, chronicled the expansion of the Church through the missionary activities of figures like Peter and Paul, offering a historical bridge between the Gospels and the epistles. These writings reinforced the Church’s understanding of its identity and mission.⁴

The gradual emergence of these texts reflected the needs of early Christian communities for doctrinal clarity and a unified narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry.⁵ The Gospel accounts were likely composed between 60–100 AD, reflecting a period of reflection and theological synthesis. Their widespread acceptance and use in liturgical settings demonstrated their growing authority within the Church.⁶

The early writings also demonstrated the interplay between oral tradition and written texts. While the Gospels were written to preserve the teachings of Jesus, they were deeply rooted in the oral accounts transmitted by eyewitnesses and the Apostles.⁷ This interconnection underscores the importance of both oral and written traditions in the formation of Christian doctrine.

Despite their individual contexts, these early texts shared a common purpose: to communicate the message of Christ, preserve apostolic teachings, and address the practical and theological needs of early Christians. The circulation of these writings among diverse communities established a precedent for the collection and recognition of authoritative Christian texts, which would later form the New Testament canon.⁸

The foundational role of these early writings in the life of the Church underscores their theological significance. By preserving the apostolic witness, these texts ensured the continuity of Christian faith and practice, providing the Church with a tangible means of transmitting divine revelation across generations.⁹

2. Diversity of Early Christian Writings

The corpus of early Christian writings extended beyond the canonical Gospels and epistles, encompassing a wide range of genres and themes. These included additional Gospels, letters, apocalypses, and theological treatises, reflecting the diversity of Christian thought and practice in the first few centuries.¹⁰ Among the non-canonical works were texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas. These writings, while influential in certain communities, often lacked the apostolic authority or theological orthodoxy required for inclusion in the canon.¹¹

The Gospels themselves exhibited diversity in perspective and emphasis. The Synoptic Gospels presented a cohesive narrative of Jesus’ ministry, while John’s Gospel offered a more theological and symbolic account.¹² Other texts, such as the Gospel of Peter or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, reflected the interests of specific groups but often contained elements deemed incompatible with apostolic teaching. This diversity highlights the complexity of early Christian literary production and the necessity of discernment by the Church in recognizing authentic Scripture.¹³

Letters were another prominent genre in early Christian writings. While the Pauline epistles were universally recognized for their authority, other letters, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, faced initial scrutiny due to questions of authorship and theological content.¹⁴ Non-canonical letters, like the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache, provided valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christian communities but were ultimately excluded from the canon.

Theological disputes also influenced the diversity of writings, as heretical movements like Gnosticism produced their own texts to propagate their beliefs.¹⁵ Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Judas and the Apocryphon of John, often presented an esoteric view of salvation and a dualistic cosmology that contradicted the teachings of the Apostles. These debates underscored the need for the Church to establish criteria for discerning authentic Scripture.¹⁶

The process of distinguishing canonical from non-canonical works was guided by several criteria, including apostolic authorship, consistency with apostolic teaching, and widespread acceptance among Christian communities.¹⁷ While many texts were revered for their spiritual or historical value, the Church ultimately recognized those writings that were inspired by God and essential for guiding the faith.

This diversity of early writings reflects the dynamic and multifaceted nature of early Christianity. It also illustrates the importance of the Church’s discernment in preserving the theological integrity of its teachings and the unity of the faith.¹⁸

3. Role of Early Christian Writings in Community Life

Early Christian writings played a central role in shaping the faith and practice of the Church. These texts were used for teaching, worship, and evangelization, serving as vital resources for transmitting the message of Christ and fostering community identity.¹⁹ In a time when oral tradition remained significant, written texts provided a stable and reliable means of preserving apostolic teachings.

Teaching was a primary function of early Christian writings. Letters like Paul’s epistles addressed specific theological and pastoral issues, offering guidance to local communities and individuals.²⁰ For instance, 1 Corinthians provided instructions on worship and morality, while Galatians emphasized justification by faith. These writings also served as catechetical tools, preparing new converts for baptism and full participation in the life of the Church.²¹

In worship, early Christian writings were read aloud in communal gatherings, much like the Jewish Scriptures.²² The Gospels and letters were particularly valued for their ability to convey the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, forming the basis for sermons, prayers, and hymns. This liturgical use of texts reinforced their authority and contributed to their recognition as inspired Scripture.

Evangelization also relied heavily on written texts. As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, letters and Gospels provided a portable and accessible means of sharing the faith with diverse audiences.²³ The translation of these writings into local languages further facilitated their dissemination and impact.

Evidence suggests that early Christian communities began to collect and compile writings that they deemed authoritative.²⁴ By the end of the 1st century, collections of Pauline epistles and Gospel narratives were circulating among churches, providing a shared theological foundation. This practice laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of the New Testament canon.

The role of early Christian writings in community life underscores their enduring importance for the Church. By addressing the spiritual and practical needs of believers, these texts not only preserved the faith but also fostered a sense of unity and continuity that has endured through the centuries.²⁵

IV. The Church as the Preceding Authority

1. The Church’s Role in Guiding Doctrine and Practice

The early Church played a central role in establishing and guiding Christian doctrine and practice, primarily through the authority vested in the Apostles and their successors. Apostolic succession—the unbroken chain of authority from the Apostles to bishops—served as the foundation for this ecclesial authority.¹ The Apostles, as eyewitnesses to Christ’s life and resurrection, were entrusted with teaching, sanctifying, and governing the nascent Church. Their successors, the bishops, inherited this responsibility, ensuring that the faith remained consistent across generations.²

This authority was exercised not only through teaching but also through the sacramental and pastoral roles of the Church. Bishops, as the custodians of apostolic tradition, provided guidance on matters of faith and practice, addressing controversies and disputes within Christian communities.³ Their role was particularly crucial in preserving orthodoxy amidst the rise of heresies, such as Gnosticism and Marcionism, which threatened to distort the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.⁴

Councils became a critical mechanism for addressing theological disagreements and articulating orthodox doctrine. Local councils, composed of bishops and other Church leaders, were convened to resolve disputes and clarify matters of faith.⁵ These gatherings, such as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), set an important precedent for how the Church would approach doctrinal issues. By relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the collective wisdom of its leaders, the Church ensured the continuity of apostolic teaching.⁶

Local communities also played an essential role in preserving and transmitting the faith. Lay Christians, priests, and deacons participated in the life of the Church through liturgical worship, catechesis, and communal living.⁷ These local practices were deeply rooted in the traditions handed down by the Apostles, creating a shared sense of identity and purpose across the growing Christian world.

The Church’s emphasis on doctrinal unity was not merely defensive but also proactive. By establishing creeds, teaching manuals, and catechetical practices, the Church sought to equip believers with the tools necessary to understand and defend their faith.⁸ These efforts reinforced the Church’s role as the guardian of truth, tasked with preserving the integrity of Christian doctrine in the face of internal and external challenges.

Through apostolic succession, the authority of bishops, and the collective discernment of councils and communities, the early Church laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of the biblical canon. This process of guiding doctrine and practice was foundational to the Church’s identity and mission, establishing its role as the primary authority in the life of early Christians.⁹

2. The Relationship Between Church and Scripture

The relationship between the Church and Scripture is deeply interconnected, with the Church playing a pivotal role in producing, preserving, and interpreting Christian writings. The earliest Christian texts, such as Paul’s epistles and the Gospels, were written within the context of the Church’s mission to teach and evangelize.¹⁰ These writings were not intended to exist independently but were deeply integrated into the life and worship of Christian communities.¹¹

The Church’s role in preserving Scripture was essential to its survival and transmission. Christian writings were copied, circulated, and read aloud in liturgical settings, ensuring their accessibility to diverse communities.¹² This process required the Church to discern which texts were authentically inspired and reflective of apostolic teaching. While the canon had not yet been formalized, certain writings, such as Paul’s letters and the four Gospels, gained widespread recognition as authoritative due to their apostolic origins and theological consistency.¹³

The interpretation of Scripture was also the responsibility of the Church, which served as the arbiter of its meaning. Church leaders, particularly bishops and theologians, provided exegesis that was rooted in apostolic tradition and guided by the Holy Spirit.¹⁴ This interpretive authority was necessary to address challenges posed by divergent interpretations and heretical movements, which often misused Scripture to promote their views.¹⁵

Before the formal canonization of the New Testament, the Church relied on a combination of oral tradition and written texts to guide its faith and practice. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, illustrate how the early Church drew upon both Scripture and tradition to articulate its teachings.¹⁶ These writings, while not ultimately included in the canon, reflected the Church’s ongoing effort to preserve and interpret the faith.

The recognition of certain texts as authoritative preceded their formal inclusion in the canon. By the late 2nd century, collections of Pauline epistles and Gospel narratives were widely used in worship and instruction.¹⁷ This early recognition highlights the Church’s discernment in identifying writings that were inspired by God and consistent with apostolic tradition, even before the canonization process was formalized.

This dynamic relationship between the Church and Scripture underscores the interdependence of these two pillars of Christian faith. The Church provided the context in which Scripture was written, preserved, and understood, while Scripture, in turn, served as a vital resource for the Church’s teaching and mission.¹⁸

3. Ecclesiastical Unity Before the Canon

The early Church achieved doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity long before the formalization of the biblical canon. This unity was rooted in shared traditions, communal practices, and the authority of the Apostles and their successors.¹⁹ Councils, creeds, and oral tradition played critical roles in preserving and transmitting the faith, ensuring continuity and coherence across diverse communities.²⁰

One of the primary tools for maintaining unity was the use of creeds, which articulated the core beliefs of the Christian faith.²¹ These concise statements of doctrine, such as the Apostles’ Creed, provided a shared framework for teaching and worship. They also served as a safeguard against heretical teachings, ensuring that all Christians adhered to the same foundational truths.²²

Councils were another key mechanism for achieving unity. Local and regional gatherings of bishops addressed pressing theological and pastoral issues, establishing consensus on matters of doctrine and practice.²³ The decisions of these councils carried significant authority, reflecting the Church’s collective discernment and reliance on the Holy Spirit. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) exemplifies how the Church resolved disputes and maintained unity through dialogue and mutual agreement.²⁴

Oral tradition also played a central role in fostering ecclesiastical unity. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were transmitted orally before being committed to writing, providing a living connection to the faith’s origins.²⁵ This oral tradition was supplemented by the writings of the Church Fathers, which reflected the continuity of apostolic teaching and reinforced the Church’s authority.

Liturgical practices further contributed to the Church’s unity. The celebration of the Eucharist, the reading of Scripture, and communal prayer were universal elements of Christian worship, creating a shared spiritual experience that transcended geographical and cultural boundaries.²⁶ These practices were grounded in tradition and provided a tangible expression of the Church’s unity in faith and mission.

By relying on councils, creeds, oral tradition, and shared liturgical practices, the early Church maintained doctrinal coherence and ecclesiastical unity, even in the absence of a fixed biblical canon. This period demonstrates the Church’s ability to preserve the faith through its authority and communal life, laying the foundation for the eventual formalization of the New Testament canon.²⁷

V. The Canonization Process

1. Definition of “Canon”

The term “canon” originates from the Greek word kanon, meaning “measuring stick” or “rule,” signifying a standard by which something is judged or measured.¹ In the context of Christian theology, the canon refers to the definitive collection of texts recognized as divinely inspired and authoritative for faith and doctrine. This concept underscores the Church’s belief in the necessity of a clear and unified standard to guide its teachings and practices.²

The theological implications of the canon are profound. By designating certain texts as canonical, the Church affirmed their unique role as the inspired Word of God. This recognition was not merely a human decision but a discernment process guided by the Holy Spirit.³ The canon serves as a “measuring stick” to evaluate doctrinal accuracy and to maintain the unity and integrity of Christian belief across diverse communities.

In its earliest stages, the concept of canon was closely tied to the practical needs of the Church. As heresies began to emerge, the Church needed a definitive collection of texts to counter false teachings and preserve apostolic tradition.⁴ The canon provided a basis for doctrinal clarity and a means to distinguish orthodox beliefs from spurious interpretations.

The canon also has ecclesial implications, reflecting the Church’s role in safeguarding the truth of divine revelation. The process of determining the canon highlights the interdependence between Scripture and tradition, as the Church relied on its apostolic heritage to discern which texts were authentically inspired.⁵ This interplay between Scripture and ecclesial authority remains a central theme in Christian theology.

Moreover, the term “canon” underscores the inclusivity and exclusivity of the recognized texts. While it affirms the divine authority of the canonical books, it also excludes apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, which, though sometimes valuable for historical or theological insights, do not carry the same weight of divine inspiration.⁶

The theological and practical significance of the canon cannot be overstated. It provides the foundation for Christian teaching and ensures the continuity of apostolic tradition. The process of canonization reflects the Church’s commitment to preserving the integrity of its faith and its reliance on the Holy Spirit to guide its discernment.⁷

2. Criteria for Canonical Inclusion

The Church employed specific criteria to determine which writings were included in the canon. Apostolic authorship or close association with an apostle was one of the most significant factors.⁸ Texts that could be traced to the Apostles or their immediate disciples were considered authoritative, as they carried the weight of eyewitness testimony and apostolic teaching. For instance, the Gospels of Matthew and John were attributed to Apostles, while Mark and Luke were associated with close companions of the Apostles, Peter and Paul respectively.⁹

Orthodoxy in teaching was another essential criterion. Writings that aligned with the core doctrines of the faith, as articulated by the Apostles and preserved through tradition, were deemed canonical.¹⁰ This requirement ensured that the canon reflected the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles, safeguarding the Church from heretical distortions. Texts that diverged from these teachings, such as many Gnostic writings, were excluded.¹¹

The widespread acceptance of a text by early churches was also a critical factor. Canonical books were those that had been consistently used in worship, teaching, and liturgical practices across diverse Christian communities.¹² This criterion underscored the universality of the texts and their role in shaping the faith of the entire Church. For example, the Pauline epistles were widely circulated and valued for their theological depth and practical guidance, contributing to their early recognition as authoritative.

These criteria highlight the interplay between divine inspiration and ecclesial discernment in the formation of the canon. The Church did not create the canon but recognized the inherent authority of the inspired texts, guided by the Holy Spirit and the apostolic tradition.¹³

In addition to these primary criteria, other considerations also played a role in the canonization process. For instance, the coherence and consistency of a text with the larger narrative of Scripture were assessed.¹⁴ Writings that complemented and reinforced the themes and doctrines found in other accepted texts were more likely to be included. The Church’s reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit further underscored the spiritual dimension of this discernment, ensuring that the selection process was not merely human but divinely influenced.¹⁵

Ultimately, these criteria ensured that the canon was not a random collection of texts but a coherent and divinely inspired whole. By prioritizing apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance, the Church safeguarded the integrity of the Scriptures and preserved the unity of the Christian faith. The process of applying these criteria reflects the Church’s profound responsibility in recognizing and upholding the inspired Word of God.¹⁶

3. Key Stages in Canon Formation

The canonization process unfolded over several centuries, beginning with the circulation of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels by the late 1st century.¹⁷ These texts, written for specific communities or purposes, quickly gained prominence due to their apostolic origins and theological significance. For example, Paul’s letters were collected and distributed among churches as early as the late 1st century, becoming a foundational part of Christian teaching.¹⁸ Similarly, the four canonical Gospels were widely read and revered for their accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry.

The rise of heretical movements, such as Marcionism in the 2nd century, accelerated the Church’s efforts to define a canon. Marcion, a prominent heretic, proposed a truncated canon that excluded the Old Testament and several New Testament writings.¹⁹ His selective approach prompted the Church to articulate its own criteria for determining which texts were truly inspired. This reaction to heresy underscored the need for a definitive collection of Scriptures that accurately reflected apostolic teaching.²⁰

Gnostic writings also played a significant role in shaping the canonization process. Texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas offered alternative interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, often emphasizing esoteric knowledge over traditional doctrine.²¹ The Church’s rejection of these writings was based on their divergence from apostolic tradition and their theological inconsistencies. This rejection reinforced the importance of maintaining doctrinal purity in the canon.²²

The formal recognition of the New Testament canon occurred through a series of councils and synods in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Council of Rome (382 AD), under Pope Damasus I, produced a definitive list of canonical books that closely mirrors the modern New Testament.²³ This list was reaffirmed by the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Synod of Carthage (397 AD), which further solidified the canon for both the Western and Eastern Churches.²⁴ These councils relied on the criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, and universal acceptance to finalize the canon.

By the end of the 5th century, the canon of Scripture was universally recognized across Christendom, reflecting the Church’s commitment to preserving apostolic teaching and doctrinal unity.²⁵ This period of canon formation highlights the interplay between historical circumstances, theological discernment, and ecclesial authority in the recognition of the inspired texts.

4. The Myth of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

One of the most pervasive misconceptions about the canonization process is the belief that Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) determined the contents of the New Testament.²⁶ This myth has been perpetuated in popular culture but lacks historical basis. The Council of Nicaea primarily addressed the Arian controversy, focusing on the nature of Christ’s divinity and the formulation of the Nicene Creed.²⁷ It did not address the issue of the biblical canon, as the recognition of Scripture was already well underway within the Church.

Constantine’s involvement in Church affairs has also been exaggerated. While he played a significant role in supporting Christianity after his conversion, there is no evidence that he influenced the selection of canonical texts.²⁸ Instead, the canonization process was guided by the Church’s leaders, who relied on established criteria and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Constantine’s primary contribution was his support for the Church’s unity and his promotion of orthodoxy, rather than any direct involvement in the canonization process.²⁹

The persistence of this myth likely stems from misunderstandings about the relationship between Church and state during Constantine’s reign. As the first Christian emperor, Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity undoubtedly shaped its development, but he did not usurp the Church’s authority in matters of doctrine or Scripture.³⁰

By clarifying the historical record, it becomes evident that the canonization process was a theological and ecclesial endeavor, independent of imperial influence. The recognition of canonical texts was rooted in the life and mission of the Church, reflecting its reliance on apostolic tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.³¹

This clarification is essential for understanding the canonization process in its proper context. By dispelling myths and focusing on the historical realities, the Church’s role as the custodian of Scripture is reaffirmed, highlighting its enduring commitment to preserving the integrity of the faith.³²

VI. Christianity Before the Bible

1. Liturgy, Worship, and Doctrine in Pre-Canonical Christianity

In the pre-canonical era of Christianity, Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) played a foundational role in worship, teaching, and theology.¹ Early Christians, many of whom were Jewish, regarded these texts as sacred and continued to use them in their gatherings.² Passages from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms were read aloud during worship, forming the basis for sermons that interpreted these texts in light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.³ However, alongside the Jewish Scriptures, oral traditions of Jesus’ teachings and deeds circulated widely, gradually forming the core of what would later become the Gospels.⁴

Christian liturgical practices in this period were deeply influenced by apostolic teachings. The Eucharist, for instance, was instituted by Christ himself and celebrated in memory of his death and resurrection.⁵ Baptism, prayers, and hymns also became central elements of worship, reflecting the theological convictions of the early Church.⁶ These practices, rooted in oral traditions and apostolic authority, served to unify Christian communities, providing continuity in doctrine and worship despite the absence of a formal canon.

In addition to worship, early Christian writings such as letters and exhortations began to supplement the oral tradition. Paul’s epistles, for example, were read in gatherings and valued for their theological guidance and encouragement.⁷ Other early writings, like the Didache and 1 Clement, also contributed to shaping the liturgical and doctrinal life of the Church.⁸ While these texts were not yet considered Scripture, their influence demonstrated the interplay between oral and written traditions in the pre-canonical Church.

The interplay of Jewish Scriptures and emerging Christian writings in worship also reflected the Church’s understanding of itself as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. Early Christians interpreted the Old Testament Christologically, seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies and the ultimate revelation of God.⁹ This perspective shaped the theological framework of the Church, emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

Furthermore, the structure of Christian worship underscored the communal and participatory nature of the faith. Services included readings, prayers, the Eucharist, and communal meals, creating a rhythm of worship that reinforced the teachings of the Apostles.¹⁰ These practices also fostered unity among diverse Christian communities, ensuring that the faith was transmitted faithfully across generations.

Ultimately, the pre-canonical Church demonstrated remarkable theological coherence and liturgical vitality, relying on Jewish Scriptures, oral traditions, and early Christian writings. This period laid the groundwork for the eventual canonization of the New Testament, preserving the Church’s identity and mission in the absence of a unified biblical text.¹¹

2. Theological Foundations Without a Canon

Despite the absence of a unified set of Scriptures, the early Church maintained theological coherence through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the authority of apostolic tradition.¹² The Apostles and their successors provided the interpretive framework for understanding Christ’s teachings, ensuring that the faith was transmitted accurately and consistently. This reliance on living authority underscored the Church’s confidence in the Holy Spirit’s ongoing presence and activity.¹³

A key aspect of this coherence was the centrality of the kerygma, or the proclamation of the Gospel, which articulated the core tenets of the faith: Jesus’ death and resurrection, his role as the fulfillment of the Scriptures, and the promise of salvation through him.¹⁴ This message, transmitted orally and reinforced by apostolic writings, formed the foundation of early Christian theology. The kerygma provided a unified narrative that guided the Church’s teaching and preaching, even in the absence of a fixed canon.¹⁵

The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church was particularly significant. The Holy Spirit was believed to inspire the Apostles and their successors, empowering them to discern truth and preserve the unity of the faith.¹⁶ This conviction gave the Church confidence in its ability to identify and uphold authentic teachings, even as debates and controversies arose. The reliance on the Holy Spirit also shaped the Church’s approach to Scripture, ensuring that its interpretation remained rooted in the apostolic tradition.¹⁷

Theological coherence was further reinforced through creeds and catechetical instruction. Early creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed, encapsulated the essential beliefs of the Church in concise statements, providing a doctrinal standard for teaching and worship.¹⁸ Catechesis, or systematic instruction in the faith, prepared converts for baptism and full participation in the Church, emphasizing the core truths of Christianity. These tools allowed the Church to maintain doctrinal unity and pass on the faith to new generations.¹⁹

The absence of a fixed canon did not hinder the development of rich theological reflection. Early theologians such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons articulated profound insights into Christology, ecclesiology, and salvation, drawing on both Scripture and tradition.²⁰ Their writings demonstrate the Church’s ability to engage in theological reasoning while awaiting the formal canonization of the New Testament.

The pre-canonical Church’s reliance on apostolic tradition and the Holy Spirit highlights the dynamic and living nature of its faith. Far from being hindered by the lack of a canon, the Church thrived as a vibrant and coherent community, rooted in the teachings of Christ and guided by divine inspiration.²¹

3. Early Heresies and Their Influence on Canonization

Heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism presented significant challenges to the early Church, shaping its response to defining Scripture. Gnosticism, with its emphasis on secret knowledge and dualistic cosmology, offered an alternative interpretation of Christian teachings that often contradicted apostolic doctrine.²² Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John, introduced theological innovations that the Church rejected as incompatible with the faith.²³

Marcionism, another influential heretical movement, advocated for a radically revised canon. Marcion rejected the Old Testament and proposed a canon consisting solely of a modified version of Luke’s Gospel and ten of Paul’s epistles.²⁴ His rejection of the Jewish Scriptures and selective approach to the New Testament forced the Church to confront the issue of canonization directly, affirming the authority of the Old Testament and the broader corpus of apostolic writings.²⁵

In combating these heresies, the Church relied heavily on apostolic tradition. Leaders such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian articulated a robust defense of orthodoxy, emphasizing the continuity of apostolic teaching and the unity of Scripture.²⁶ Irenaeus, for example, highlighted the fourfold Gospel as a reflection of the Church’s universality and apostolic foundation.²⁷ These responses demonstrated the Church’s commitment to preserving the integrity of the faith and its reliance on tradition as a measure of truth.

The heresies also underscored the need for a definitive canon to counter false teachings and provide a clear standard for faith and practice.²⁸ By identifying and affirming the texts that were consistent with apostolic tradition, the Church established a framework for theological unity and doctrinal clarity. This process culminated in the formal recognition of the New Testament canon in the 4th and 5th centuries.²⁹

The influence of these heresies on the canonization process highlights the interplay between theological controversy and the Church’s discernment. While heresies posed significant challenges, they also prompted the Church to articulate its teachings more clearly and to define the boundaries of its sacred texts.³⁰

Ultimately, the Church’s response to heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism illustrates its reliance on apostolic tradition and its commitment to preserving the faith. The canonization process, shaped by these challenges, reflects the Church’s enduring mission to safeguard the truth of divine revelation.³¹

VII. Comparative Analysis: Church and Bible

1. The Church as the Mother of the Bible

The Church’s role as the “mother” of the Bible is firmly established in history. As the custodian of apostolic tradition, the Church not only preserved the teachings of Christ and the Apostles but also created the conditions under which the biblical canon could be discerned and formalized.¹ The Church’s liturgical practices, doctrinal deliberations, and spiritual discernment shaped the selection of texts that would come to be recognized as the inspired Word of God.² Without the ecclesial structures and apostolic authority of the Church, the Bible as we know it would not have come into existence.³

Historically, the precedence of the Church over the Bible is evident in the timeline of Christian development. The Church functioned as a cohesive community long before the New Testament was written, much less canonized. Early Christians relied on oral tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, and the Old Testament Scriptures to guide their faith.⁴ The Bible, in its unified form, was the result of centuries of discernment by the Church, which acted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to recognize and compile the texts that best reflected the apostolic faith.⁵

Critics of the Church’s role in canon formation sometimes accuse it of circular reasoning, suggesting that the Church derives its authority from the Bible while simultaneously claiming to have created the Bible.⁶ However, this argument misunderstands the historical and theological relationship between the Church and Scripture. The Church’s authority is rooted not in the Bible alone but in the apostolic commission given by Christ, as recorded in Scripture and transmitted through tradition.⁷ The Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is a product of this apostolic authority, not its source.

The Church’s precedence also addresses the theological unity of the Bible. The texts of the New Testament were not arbitrarily selected; they were recognized as canonical because they reflected the faith and practice already present in the Church.⁸ This recognition underscores the role of the Church as the arbiter of orthodoxy, tasked with preserving the integrity of divine revelation across generations.

Furthermore, the Church’s role in canonization demonstrates its capacity to mediate between the divine and the human. While the Scriptures are inspired by God, the process of canon formation involved human discernment, rooted in the life and mission of the Church.⁹ This dynamic interplay between divine inspiration and ecclesial authority highlights the unique relationship between the Church and the Bible.

In summary, the Church’s role as the mother of the Bible is indispensable for understanding the origins and authority of Scripture. By creating the canon, the Church fulfilled its mission as the steward of divine revelation, ensuring that the teachings of Christ and the Apostles were faithfully transmitted to future generations.¹⁰

2. Theological Implications of the Church-Bible Relationship

The relationship between the Church and the Bible carries profound theological implications, particularly regarding the authority of Scripture and tradition. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions offer differing perspectives on this relationship, each emphasizing different aspects of the Church’s role in relation to Scripture.¹¹

The Catholic Church views Scripture and Tradition as two interdependent sources of divine revelation. According to Catholic teaching, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. This perspective underscores the inseparability of the Bible from the Church that produced it.¹² The Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum affirmed this relationship, stating that “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God.”¹³

The Orthodox Church similarly emphasizes the role of Tradition alongside Scripture. In Orthodox theology, the Bible is understood within the context of the Church’s liturgical life and apostolic tradition.¹⁴ The Orthodox Church rejects the idea of sola scriptura, asserting that Scripture cannot be interpreted apart from the living tradition of the Church. This perspective reflects the historical reality that the canon of Scripture emerged from within the life of the Church, shaped by its worship, teaching, and pastoral concerns.¹⁵

In contrast, Protestant traditions emphasize the primacy of Scripture as the sole authority for faith and practice (sola scriptura). However, even within Protestantism, there is recognition of the Church’s role in canon formation.¹⁶ Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin acknowledged the historical reality that the Church discerned the canon, though they emphasized the self-authenticating nature of Scripture as the Word of God. This tension between acknowledging the Church’s role in canonization and affirming the sufficiency of Scripture remains a point of theological debate within Protestantism.¹⁷

The role of Tradition alongside Scripture is critical for maintaining theological continuity. Both Catholic and Orthodox traditions affirm that Tradition provides the interpretive framework for understanding Scripture. This framework ensures that biblical interpretation remains faithful to the apostolic faith, avoiding the fragmentation that often results from individualistic readings of Scripture.¹⁸

Ultimately, the theological implications of the Church-Bible relationship challenge modern Christians to reflect on the sources of authority in their faith. The interplay between Scripture, Tradition, and the Church highlights the need for a holistic approach to understanding divine revelation, one that respects the historical and theological realities of the faith.¹⁹

3. Modern Scholarship on the Church-Bible Relationship

Contemporary scholarship provides valuable insights into the historical and theological dimensions of the Church-Bible relationship. Leading historians and theologians have explored the complexities of canon formation, offering fresh perspectives on the role of the Church in creating and interpreting Scripture.²⁰

Bruce Metzger’s seminal work, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, remains a foundational resource for understanding the historical process of canonization.²¹ Metzger highlights the Church’s role in discerning the canon, emphasizing the criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance. His research underscores the gradual and communal nature of this process, challenging simplistic narratives about the Bible’s origins.²²

Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses explores the relationship between oral tradition and written texts in the early Church. Bauckham argues that the Gospels were rooted in the testimony of eyewitnesses, preserved and transmitted within the context of the Church.²³ His work highlights the interplay between tradition and Scripture, reinforcing the idea that the Bible emerged from the life of the Church rather than existing independently of it.²⁴

Modern scholars have also addressed recent challenges to traditional views on canon formation. Critics have questioned whether the canon reflects political or theological biases, particularly in light of the exclusion of certain apocryphal texts.²⁵ Scholars such as Michael Kruger have responded to these critiques, defending the integrity of the canon and the Church’s discernment process.²⁶ Kruger’s work emphasizes the theological coherence of the canon and its alignment with apostolic teaching, reaffirming the Church’s role as the custodian of Scripture.

These scholarly contributions enrich our understanding of the Church-Bible relationship, providing historical depth and theological clarity. By engaging with contemporary research, Christians can navigate modern debates about authority, tradition, and the role of Scripture in the life of the Church.²⁷

The insights of modern scholarship also encourage a re-examination of the interplay between human and divine elements in the creation of the Bible. The canonization process reflects both the divine inspiration of Scripture and the Church’s human responsibility in discerning and preserving it.²⁸ This dynamic relationship remains a key theme in contemporary discussions about the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

Ultimately, modern scholarship highlights the enduring significance of the Church’s role in shaping the Bible. By engaging with these insights, Christians can deepen their appreciation for the historical and theological foundations of their faith.²⁹

VIII. Conclusion

1. Synthesis of Findings

The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that the Church undeniably preceded the Bible as a unified text, acting as the custodian of apostolic tradition and authority. The early Christian community functioned without a formalized canon, relying instead on oral traditions, the teachings of the Apostles, and the Jewish Scriptures.¹ Through its liturgical practices, communal worship, and doctrinal discernment, the Church established a foundation of theological coherence and unity, ensuring the faithful transmission of Christ’s teachings.²

The canonization of the Bible was a gradual process, informed by theological, liturgical, and pastoral needs. The early circulation of Pauline epistles, the Gospels, and other writings reflected the Church’s recognition of texts that aligned with apostolic teaching and were widely accepted across Christian communities.³ The rise of heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism further necessitated the establishment of a definitive canon to preserve doctrinal purity and unity. The Church’s role in discerning the canon highlights the interplay between divine inspiration and ecclesial authority.⁴

This process also underscores the organic nature of canon formation. The Church did not impose the canon arbitrarily but recognized the authority of texts that were already central to its life and worship. By the 4th and 5th centuries, councils such as those at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage formalized the canon, affirming the Church’s discernment of inspired Scripture.⁵ The canonization process reflects the Church’s mission to safeguard the truth of divine revelation while addressing the theological and pastoral challenges of its time.

The relationship between the Church and the Bible is therefore not one of competition but of interdependence. The Church provided the context in which Scripture was written, preserved, and interpreted, while Scripture in turn served as the authoritative guide for the Church’s faith and practice.⁶ This dynamic interplay has shaped Christian theology and continues to inform the Church’s understanding of its mission and identity.

By recognizing the Church’s role in the formation of the Bible, this study challenges simplistic narratives about the origins of Scripture. The Bible’s authority is rooted not in isolation but within the life of the Church, which acted as the steward of divine revelation. This recognition calls for a deeper appreciation of the historical and theological dimensions of the Church-Bible relationship.⁷

In conclusion, the synthesis of findings affirms the Church’s indispensable role in shaping the canon and preserving the apostolic faith. The historical precedence of the Church over the Bible provides a framework for understanding the origins of Christianity and its enduring commitment to the truth of divine revelation.⁸

2. Implications for Contemporary Christianity

The relationship between the Church and Scripture remains a central issue in modern theological debates, particularly regarding authority and interpretation. In a pluralistic religious landscape, the interplay between Scripture, Tradition, and ecclesial authority offers valuable lessons for maintaining unity and orthodoxy.⁹

One key implication is the importance of recognizing the Bible’s ecclesial origins. Modern approaches to biblical interpretation often emphasize individualistic readings of Scripture, which can lead to fragmentation and doctrinal inconsistency.¹⁰ By situating Scripture within the context of the Church, contemporary Christians can recover a holistic approach that respects the historical and theological foundations of the faith.

The relationship between Church and Scripture also has ecumenical significance. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions each offer unique perspectives on this relationship, and engaging in dialogue can foster mutual understanding and unity.¹¹ Recognizing the Church’s role in canon formation provides common ground for addressing divisions and exploring shared commitments to the authority of Scripture.

In addition, the canonization process offers insights into how the Church can navigate modern challenges to orthodoxy. Just as the early Church responded to heresies by defining the canon, contemporary Christians can address doctrinal disputes by drawing on the principles of apostolic tradition and communal discernment.¹² This approach ensures that the faith remains rooted in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, even in the face of cultural and theological diversity.

The lessons of canon formation also highlight the importance of maintaining theological coherence in a pluralistic world. By upholding the authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Church can provide a unified witness to the truth of the Gospel. This witness is especially critical in a society where competing interpretations of Christianity often lead to confusion and division.¹³

Ultimately, the relationship between Church and Scripture calls for a renewed commitment to unity and orthodoxy. By understanding the historical and theological dimensions of this relationship, contemporary Christians can navigate the complexities of modern faith with confidence and clarity.¹⁴

3. Future Research Directions

The study of the Church and the Bible opens up numerous avenues for further exploration. One potential area of research is a comparative analysis of canonization processes in other religious traditions.¹⁵ Exploring how communities such as Judaism and Islam developed their sacred texts can provide valuable insights into the interplay between authority, tradition, and Scripture in diverse contexts.

Another promising direction is the examination of how the Bible has been interpreted across different historical periods and cultural settings. This research could explore the influence of ecclesial authority on biblical interpretation and how the Church has addressed challenges such as secularism, modernism, and postmodernism.¹⁶

The role of technology in shaping modern perceptions of Scripture also warrants further study. In an age of digital media and instant access to biblical texts, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is being redefined. Investigating how the Church can maintain its role as the interpreter of Scripture in this context would be a valuable contribution to contemporary theology.¹⁷

Future research could also address the practical implications of the Church-Bible relationship for pastoral ministry and catechesis. How can the Church effectively communicate the historical and theological foundations of Scripture to a new generation of believers? What role does the Church play in fostering biblical literacy and encouraging faithful interpretation of the Word of God?¹⁸

Finally, the ecumenical dimensions of canon formation deserve further attention. Exploring how different Christian traditions understand the origins and authority of the Bible could lead to greater unity and collaboration in addressing shared theological challenges.¹⁹

These research directions reflect the richness and complexity of the Church-Bible relationship. By continuing to explore this relationship, scholars can deepen our understanding of the foundations of Christian faith and contribute to the ongoing dialogue between history, theology, and practice.²⁰

IX. References

Below is a comprehensive bibliography of the scholarly works, historical documents, and contemporary articles cited in this paper. All citations are formatted according to the Turabian style for consistency and academic rigor.

Books

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Kruger, Michael J. The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Articles and Documents

Vatican Council II. Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). 1965.

Websites

Blessed App. “Which Came First, the Church or the New Testament?” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://www.blessed-app.com/article/b_1373.

Patheos. “Which Came First: The Bible or the Church?” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/which-came-first-the-bible-or-the-church.

Protomartyr. “Our Faith: Which Came First, the Church or the Bible?” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://www.protomartyr.org/our-faith/which-came-first-the-church-or-the-new-testament.

Renew.org. “Canonization of the Bible: Its Definition and Process.” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://renew.org/canonization-of-the-bible-its-definition-and-process.

The Imaginative Conservative. “The Canon of the Bible.” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2024/09/canon-bible-lyle-boudreaux.html.

Aleteia. “What Did Christianity Look Like Before the Bible?” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://aleteia.org/2018/03/18/what-did-christianity-look-like-before-the-bible.

Endnotes

I. Introduction

1. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (New York: Continuum, 2000), 33–35.

2. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 531–533.

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 79–81.

4. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 489–490.

5. Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 93–94.

6. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 451–453.

7. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 243–244.

8. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 41–43.

9. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 131–133.

10. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 510–512.

11. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 401–403.

12. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 484–486.

II. Historical Context of Early Christianity

1. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 537.

2. Ibid., 538.

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 17–18.

4. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 356.

5. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 28.

6. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 20.

7. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 542.

8. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 243.

9. Ibid., 246.

10. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 52.

11. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 255.

12. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 45.

13. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 365.

14. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 547.

15. Ibid., 548.

16. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 282.

17. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 64.

18. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 550.

19. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 30.

20. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 361.

21. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 554.

22. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 297.

23. Ibid., 298.

24. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 55.

25. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 556.

III. The Development of Christian Writings

1. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 21.

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 357.

3. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 16.

4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 543.

5. Ibid., 544.

6. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 35.

7. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 254.

8. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 37.

9. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 546.

10. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 52.

11. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 550.

12. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 46.

13. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 262.

14. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 49.

15. Ibid., 61.

16. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 553.

17. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 71.

18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 367.

19. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 557.

20. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 80.

21. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 270.

22. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 559.

23. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 83.

24. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 70.

25. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 561.

IV. The Church as the Preceding Authority

1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 356.

2. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 550.

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 81.

4. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 561.

5. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 488.

6. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 562.

7. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 89.

8. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 490.

9. Ibid., 491.

10. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 94.

11. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 566.

12. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 510.

13. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 98.

14. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 569.

15. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 362.

16. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 110.

17. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 574.

18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 520.

19. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 113.

20. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 577.

21. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 524.

22. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 125.

23. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 580.

24. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 369.

25. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 130.

26. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 582.

27. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 540.

V. The Canonization Process

1. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 282.

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 356.

3. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 16.

4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 554.

5. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 34.

6. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 254.

7. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 546.

8. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 55.

9. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 260.

10. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 60.

11. Ibid., 64.

12. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 550.

13. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 270.

14. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 70.

15. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 552.

16. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 80.

17. Ibid., 83.

18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 320.

19. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 89.

20. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 555.

21. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 380.

22. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 110.

23. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 560.

24. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 130.

25. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 540.

26. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 132.

27. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 562.

28. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 555.

29. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 135.

30. Ibid., 140.

31. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 570.

32. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 564.

VI. Christianity Before the Bible

1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 355.

2. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 539.

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 79.

4. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 540.

5. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 254.

6. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 63.

7. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 82.

8. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 542.

9. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 262.

10. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 90.

11. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 550.

12. Ibid., 561.

13. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 99.

14. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 278.

15. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 565.

16. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 101.

17. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 78.

18. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 570.

19. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 112.

20. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 292.

21. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 575.

22. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 125.

23. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 582.

24. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 130.

25. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 540.

26. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 135.

27. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 585.

28. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 142.

29. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 555.

30. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 590.

31. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 145.

VII. Comparative Analysis: Church and Bible

1. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 20.

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 355.

3. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 78.

4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 540.

5. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 34.

6. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 260.

7. Ibid., 270.

8. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 55.

9. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 552.

10. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 80.

11. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 278.

12. Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 1965, §9.

13. Ibid., §10.

14. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 565.

15. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 91.

16. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 292.

17. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 99.

18. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 570.

19. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 112.

20. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 64.

21. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 125.

22. Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 33.

23. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 72.

24. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 142.

25. Kruger, The Question of Canon, 88.

26. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 590.

27. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 555.

28. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 145.

29. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 78.

VIII. Conclusion

1. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 282.

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 356.

3. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 550.

4. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 16.

5. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 34.

6. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 254.

7. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 556.

8. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 55.

9. Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 1965, §9.

10. Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 110.

11. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 292.

12. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 80.

13. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 570.

14. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 91.

15. Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 33.

16. Ibid., 88.

17. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 555.

18. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 125.

19. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 590.

20. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 78.

Expanded Bibliography

This bibliography is structured to not only list seminal works but also provide context for their relevance to the discussion of the Church’s precedence over the Bible and the development of Christianity before the canonization of Scripture. Each source has been carefully selected for its scholarly rigor, historical depth, and contribution to understanding the formation and function of Christian Scripture.

Books

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

Bauckham’s groundbreaking work emphasizes the role of eyewitness testimony in the formation of the Gospels, challenging traditional theories of textual development. By situating the Gospels within the oral traditions of the early Church, Bauckham reinforces the argument that the Church served as the primary context for preserving and transmitting Christ’s teachings before the canon was formalized.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

A seminal work in canon studies, Metzger provides a comprehensive history of how the New Testament canon was developed. This book is invaluable for understanding the criteria used by the Church to discern canonical texts, particularly apostolicity, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance. Metzger also refutes popular misconceptions, such as the notion that Constantine or the Council of Nicaea imposed the canon.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Ferguson’s work contextualizes early Christianity within the broader Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. His analysis of liturgical practices and community life provides insights into how early Christians functioned without a formal canon, relying on oral tradition and apostolic authority to maintain theological coherence.

Kruger, Michael J. The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013.

Kruger challenges modern assumptions about the canonization process, arguing that the early Church recognized, rather than imposed, the authority of canonical texts. This perspective aligns with the argument that the Church’s role in canonization was not arbitrary but deeply rooted in its theological and liturgical life.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 1 and 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Schaff’s multi-volume history remains a cornerstone for understanding the development of Christian doctrine and ecclesial structures. His detailed accounts of early councils, apostolic succession, and the role of tradition provide a historical framework for the Church’s authority in canon formation.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1988.

Bruce offers a detailed account of how the canon of both the Old and New Testaments was established. His exploration of the interplay between Jewish and Christian Scriptures highlights the continuity between the Church and its Scriptural heritage.

Hurtado, Larry W. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016.

Hurtado’s examination of early Christian practices within the Roman world provides crucial insights into how the Church established its identity through liturgy, worship, and community life before the canonization of Scripture. His work underscores the distinctiveness of early Christian theological and social practices.

Articles and Essays

Ehrman, Bart D. “The Text of the New Testament.” In The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader, edited by Bart D. Ehrman, 4th ed., 1–24. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Ehrman’s analysis focuses on the textual transmission of early Christian writings. While critical of traditional views of canon formation, his work provides statistical data on manuscript evidence, shedding light on the process by which texts were preserved and disseminated.

Gamble, Harry Y. “The Formation of the New Testament Canon and Its Significance.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1: Origins to Constantine, edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, 195–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

This essay examines the sociopolitical and theological factors influencing the canonization process. Gamble argues that the Church’s liturgical use of texts was a decisive factor in their recognition as Scripture, supporting the idea that the Church preceded the Bible.

Web-Based Resources

Blessed App. “Which Came First, the Church or the New Testament?” Accessed January 7, 2025.

This article offers a concise explanation of the historical relationship between the Church and the Bible, with references to primary sources such as the decisions of early councils. It is a useful resource for understanding the role of apostolic tradition in canon formation.

Renew.org. “Canonization of the Bible: Its Definition and Process.” Accessed January 7, 2025.

This resource provides an overview of the canonization process, highlighting the theological and practical criteria used by the early Church. It also addresses common misconceptions, such as the role of Constantine, making it a valuable supplement to academic texts.

Patheos. “Which Came First: The Bible or the Church?” Accessed January 7, 2025.

This article engages with modern theological debates, offering perspectives from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. It serves as an accessible introduction to the ecclesial origins of the Bible.

Primary Sources

Athanasius of Alexandria. Festal Letter 39. Translated by Philip Schaff. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980.

This letter, written in 367 AD, contains the earliest extant list of New Testament books identical to the modern canon. Athanasius’ emphasis on apostolic tradition highlights the Church’s role in discerning Scripture.

The Muratorian Fragment. Translated by Bruce M. Metzger. In The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Dating from the late 2nd century, the Muratorian Fragment provides evidence of an emerging New Testament canon. It reflects the early Church’s criteria for recognizing authoritative texts.

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980.

Irenaeus’ defense of the fourfold Gospel illustrates the Church’s reliance on apostolic tradition to combat heresies such as Gnosticism. His work is a key primary source for understanding the theological foundations of canonization.

Statistical and Empirical Studies

Epp, Eldon J., and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.

This volume provides statistical analyses of textual variations in early manuscripts, offering insights into the transmission and preservation of Christian writings. Its data highlights the Church’s role in maintaining textual integrity.

Parker, David C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Parker’s study offers quantitative data on the distribution and usage of New Testament manuscripts, emphasizing the early Church’s efforts to preserve and disseminate canonical texts.

Conclusion

This expanded bibliography serves as a robust foundation for PhD-level discourse, combining primary sources, seminal works, and recent scholarly contributions. By addressing both historical and theological dimensions, these references provide the depth necessary to explore the question of the Church’s precedence over the Bible and the development of Christianity before the canonization of Scripture.

Table of Contents

Which Came First? The Bible or the Church? Understanding Christianity Before the Canonization of Scripture

I. Introduction

1. Purpose of the Study

      •   To explore the historical and theological relationship between the early Christian Church and the development of the biblical canon.

      •   Investigate what Christianity looked like prior to the canonization of Scripture.

2. Key Research Questions

      •   Did the Church precede the Bible?

      •   How did early Christian communities function and maintain theological unity without a fixed scriptural canon?

      •   What factors led to the canonization of the Bible, and who determined its content?

3. Scope and Methodology

      •   Examination of historical sources, theological writings, and scholarly debates.

      •   Use of interdisciplinary approaches including history, theology, and textual criticism.

4. Thesis Statement

      •   The Church preceded the Bible in its bound form, serving as the guiding authority for early Christian faith and doctrine. The canonization of Scripture was a response to theological and practical needs of the Church, not its foundation.

II. Historical Context of Early Christianity

1. The Apostolic Age (27–100 AD)

      •   Overview of the ministry of Jesus and the formation of the Twelve Apostles.

      •   The emergence of oral traditions as the initial medium of transmitting Christ’s teachings.

2. The Formative Years of Christianity (c. 30–100 AD)

      •   Key events and challenges faced by the nascent Church, including persecution and doctrinal disputes.

      •   Role of apostolic authority in maintaining unity and orthodoxy.

3. The Role of Oral Tradition in Early Christian Communities

      •   Examination of how teachings were transmitted orally.

      •   Analysis of how oral traditions shaped early liturgical practices and doctrinal clarity.

III. The Development of Christian Writings

1. First Christian Texts (c. 50 AD onwards)

      •   The Pauline epistles: their circulation and early authority within the Church.

      •   The Gospels and Acts: their gradual emergence as narratives of Christ and the Apostolic mission.

2. Diversity of Early Christian Writings

      •   Categories of early Christian texts: Gospels, letters, apocrypha, and other non-canonical works.

      •   Debates surrounding theological content and authenticity of certain texts.

3. Role of Early Christian Writings in Community Life

      •   Use of texts for teaching, worship, and evangelization.

      •   Evidence of early collections of writings within specific communities.

IV. The Church as the Preceding Authority

1. The Church’s Role in Guiding Doctrine and Practice

      •   Establishment of ecclesial authority through apostolic succession.

      •   Role of bishops, councils, and local communities in preserving orthodoxy.

2. The Relationship Between Church and Scripture

      •   Examination of the Church’s role in producing, preserving, and interpreting Christian writings.

      •   Early Christian recognition of certain texts as authoritative before formal canonization.

3. Ecclesiastical Unity Before the Canon

      •   How doctrinal unity was achieved through councils, creeds, and shared traditions without a fixed Bible.

V. The Canonization Process

1. Definition of “Canon”

      •   Etymology and theological implications of the term.

      •   The canon as a “measuring stick” for faith and doctrine.

2. Criteria for Canonical Inclusion

      •   Apostolic authorship or close association.

      •   Orthodoxy in teaching and widespread acceptance by early churches.

3. Key Stages in Canon Formation

      •   Circulation of Pauline epistles and Gospels by the late 1st century.

      •   The role of Marcion’s heresy and Gnostic writings in prompting the Church to define a canon.

      •   Councils and synods (e.g., Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD) and their contributions to the canonization process.

4. The Myth of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

      •   Addressing misconceptions about Constantine’s role in canon formation.

      •   Historical clarification on the function of the Council of Nicaea.

VI. Christianity Before the Bible

1. Liturgy, Worship, and Doctrine in Pre-Canonical Christianity

      •   Use of Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) alongside oral traditions and early Christian writings.

      •   Development of Christian liturgical practices based on apostolic teaching.

2. Theological Foundations Without a Canon

      •   Examination of how theological coherence was maintained without a unified set of Scriptures.

      •   The role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church.

3. Early Heresies and Their Influence on Canonization

      •   Gnosticism, Marcionism, and other movements that shaped the Church’s response to defining Scripture.

      •   The Church’s reliance on apostolic tradition to combat heresies.

VII. Comparative Analysis: Church and Bible

1. The Church as the Mother of the Bible

      •   Historical argument for the Church’s precedence and its role as the creator of the canon.

      •   Refutation of the circular argument accusation (“Church by the Bible, Bible by the Church”).

2. Theological Implications of the Church-Bible Relationship

      •   Exploration of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant perspectives on the authority of Scripture and Church.

      •   The role of Tradition alongside Scripture in maintaining theological continuity.

3. Modern Scholarship on the Church and Bible Relationship

      •   Insights from leading scholars and historians.

      •   Discussion of recent challenges to traditional views on canon formation.

VIII. Conclusion

1. Synthesis of Findings

      •   The Church undeniably preceded the Bible as a unified text, functioning as the custodian of apostolic tradition and authority.

      •   Canonization was a gradual process informed by theological, liturgical, and pastoral needs.

2. Implications for Contemporary Christianity

      •   The relationship between Church and Scripture in modern theological debates.

      •   Lessons for maintaining unity and orthodoxy in a pluralistic religious landscape.

3. Future Research Directions

      •   Potential areas for further exploration, including comparative studies of canonization processes in other religious traditions.

IX. References

   •   Comprehensive citation of scholarly works, historical documents, and contemporary articles.

   •   Inclusion of material from websites and additional primary sources for a robust bibliography.