1. The New Testament canon is earlier than Constantine
A common modern claim is that “Constantine or Nicaea created the Bible.” Historically, the Council of Nicaea (325) dealt with Christology (Arian controversy), not a canon list, and there is no historical record of Nicaea deciding the New Testament contents. Phoenix Seminary+2The Gospel Coalition+2
What we actually see is a recognition process already underway well before the 300s:
- By the late 2nd century, a substantial core of NT books is already listed in early canon evidence such as the Muratorian Fragment, which includes Acts, Paul’s letters, and other familiar books; it also distinguishes between books read publicly in church and books read privately. Encyclopedia Britannica
- By A.D. 367, Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 provides the earliest surviving list that matches the 27-book New Testament used by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox today. New Advent+2Archive.org+2
This matters because it shows that the 27-book NT is not a late, political invention. It is a convergence of early, widespread Christian usage that becomes explicitly documented.
2. Councils did more “confirm” than “create”
Councils and synods functioned to standardize what churches were already reading and receiving, especially when disputed writings circulated. That is different from “a group of bishops invented Scripture.” The historical record supports a gradual recognition and consolidation rather than a single moment of authoritarian selection. Phoenix Seminary+1
3. The Great Schism (1054) does not destabilize the New Testament
The 1054 schism created institutional and doctrinal tensions between East and West, but it did not produce rival New Testaments. The 27-book NT is shared across Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox traditions. The major differences across traditions relate primarily to Old Testament scope (Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books and some tradition-specific texts), not to the apostolic NT core. New Advent+1
4. Reformation-era disputes were mostly about the Old Testament boundary and authority, not “losing the Gospel”
A frequent claim is “Protestants removed books.” Historically, the Reformers argued that the Old Testament canon should follow the Hebrew Bible (the 39 books Protestants use), while often still printing the Apocrypha as useful reading but not a basis for doctrine. Evidence of this is visible in the Geneva Bible tradition, where the Apocrypha was included in many editions (often between testaments), even when distinguished from canonical Scripture. Garrett Guides+1
So the Reformation is better described as a dispute over the status of certain books, not a discovery that Christians “had the wrong Bible for 1500 years.”
5. The strongest reliability claim is the textual evidence base
Reliability is not only “which books,” but also “do we have the text accurately.”
Modern textual criticism tests reliability through:
- comparing thousands of manuscript witnesses,
- cataloging variants,
- weighing manuscripts by age, geography, and textual family,
- and publishing transparent apparatus notes in critical editions.
This discipline exists because the manuscript base is large enough to detect copying variations rather than hide them. The existence of variants is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence that we can see and evaluate differences openly. Archive.org+1
Addressing modern criticisms directly
A. “Constantinian corruption”
This claim generally assumes centralized political control could rewrite Christianity’s texts.
The counter-evidence is:
- Canon recognition and widespread usage predates Constantine (late 2nd century evidence exists). Encyclopedia Britannica+1
- By Athanasius (367), the 27-book NT list is explicit and matches today’s NT—again, not a late medieval invention. New Advent+1
- Manuscripts and early translations are distributed across regions and languages, which makes coordinated, empire-wide “rewriting” implausible without leaving obvious traces across textual families.
B. “Various councils picked winners”
Councils helped settle disputes about public reading and orthodoxy, but the evidence points to recognition of already-authoritative books, not the creation of authority. Phoenix Seminary+1
C. “The Reformation changed the Bible (Geneva/KJV, etc.)”
The key clarifications:
- Canon (which books) is different from translation (how the text is rendered in English).
- Many early Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha as non-canonical reading; later publishing decisions often omitted it. Garrett Guides+1
- The central Christian message does not depend on the Apocrypha, and the New Testament canon is shared across major traditions.
Translation errors: what’s possible, and how we investigate it
What can go wrong in translation
- word-sense ambiguity (one word, multiple meanings),
- idioms that don’t map neatly across languages,
- textual variants (different manuscript readings),
- theological bias (rare, but possible).
How accuracy is tested
- translation committees include specialists in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek,
- they work from critical editions with documented manuscript evidence,
- differences are footnoted,
- translations are compared across philosophies (formal vs dynamic).
In other words, modern scholarship does not ask you to “trust blindly.” It shows its work.
What remains contested today
It’s important to say plainly what is still debated:
- A small set of New Testament passages with notable manuscript variation (often flagged in Bible footnotes).
- Old Testament scope across Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox/Ethiopian traditions (a canon-boundary question more than a “text corruption” question).
- Interpretation (especially Revelation), far more than the existence or basic wording of the core texts.
A clear bottom line
The Protestant canon’s reliability is supported by:
- early and widespread recognition of a core NT well before Constantine, Encyclopedia Britannica+1
- explicit 27-book listing by Athanasius in 367, New Advent+1
- and a manuscript tradition robust enough for transparent, critical comparison rather than reliance on a single “controlled” transmission line.
Why the Book of Enoch Is Not Canon Elsewhere
1. Not Included in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians often call the Old Testament) were preserved, transmitted, and recognized within the Jewish community long before the time of Jesus. By the first century, there was a widely recognized core collection of sacred writings—the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings.
The Book of Enoch does not appear in any Jewish canonical lists from antiquity. It was not copied or preserved alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, nor was it read in synagogue worship as Scripture. While it circulated among some Jewish groups, circulation alone was never sufficient for canonical status. Many ancient Jewish writings existed, but only a limited set were recognized as divinely inspired.
From a Christian standpoint, this matters because Christianity received the Old Testament through Israel’s Scriptures, not by later Christian invention. A book excluded from the Jewish canon already stands outside the primary scriptural stream Jesus and the apostles inherited.
2. Not Affirmed as Scripture by Jesus
Jesus consistently treated the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. He regularly cited the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and He spoke of them collectively as “the Scriptures.” When Jesus appealed to divine authority, He appealed to this recognized body of texts.
There is no record of Jesus quoting or affirming the Book of Enoch as Scripture. He never introduced it with formulas such as “It is written” or “Scripture says,” which He frequently used for canonical texts. His teaching assumes and reinforces the authority of the Jewish Scriptures already recognized by His contemporaries.
This silence is significant. If Enoch had been regarded as Scripture in Jesus’ time, its absence from His teaching would be difficult to explain, given how freely He used other texts. Christian theology has always treated Jesus’ use of Scripture as a decisive indicator of what belongs to the canon.
3. Not Used as Scripture by the Apostolic Church
The apostles followed the same scriptural framework Jesus used. In their preaching, teaching, and letters, they consistently quoted from the recognized Jewish Scriptures, especially the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. These writings formed the foundation for how they interpreted Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
There is no evidence that the apostolic churches read the Book of Enoch as Scripture in worship or instruction. Early Christian communities distinguished between writings that were spiritually helpful and writings that were authoritative. Enoch falls into the former category for most of the early church.
When disputes arose in the early centuries, the question was not “Is this book interesting?” but “Is this book apostolic, consistent with the rule of faith, and universally received?” Enoch did not meet those criteria outside of a limited geographic tradition.
4. Quoted Once in Jude, Illustratively Rather Than Canonically
Jude 14–15 contains a quotation that parallels a passage from 1 Enoch. This is often cited as proof that Enoch should be considered Scripture. However, the logic does not hold historically or theologically.
The New Testament contains multiple examples of authors quoting non-biblical sources:
- Paul quotes Greek poets (Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12)
- Biblical writers allude to cultural sayings, hymns, and traditions
- Wisdom literature sometimes reflects common ancient Near Eastern thought
Quoting a source does not canonize it. Jude uses a familiar text to make a point his audience would recognize, just as Paul does with pagan poetry. Jude does not introduce the quotation with “Scripture says,” nor does he place Enoch on the same authoritative level as the Law or the Prophets.
The early church understood this distinction clearly. Jude’s use of Enoch was seen as illustrative and rhetorical, not as an endorsement of Enoch as inspired Scripture.
Theological Summary
The Book of Enoch is excluded from most Christian canons not because it was hidden or suppressed, but because it was never widely received as Scripture in the first place.
- It was not part of the Jewish Scriptures Jesus affirmed
- It was not treated as Scripture by the apostles
- It was not used authoritatively in early Christian worship
- Its occasional quotation functions illustratively, not canonically
Ancient, interesting, and influential do not mean inspired.
Christian Scripture is defined not by curiosity or novelty, but by apostolic witness and Christ-centered authority. The canon reflects a careful process of recognition, not the loss of secret books or suppressed truths.
John Hargrove Seeking Truth and Reality 