Before we reach the first verse of our Bible, we pass something we may rarely stop to consider.
The table of contents.
Who determined which books belong there? Why do some Bibles contain additional books? And once we begin reading, how can we trust words translated from languages most of us have never studied?
These questions bring our journey through this series close to home.
We have considered Scripture’s claim to be God’s Word, its connection with the world of history, and the manuscripts through which its words have reached us. Now we turn to the collection we open and the language we read.
We believe these writings are inspired by God and that He has acted providentially in their preservation. Understanding how they were recognized and translated can deepen our gratitude for the Bible in our hands.
The word scholars use for the recognized collection of biblical books is “canon.” In this setting, it refers to the writings received as authoritative Scripture.
As Christians, we distinguish between the authority God gives His Word and the process through which people recognize that authority. An inspired writing did not become God’s Word when someone placed it on a list. Its authority came from God. Recognizing it meant receiving an authority it already possessed.
That conviction still leaves a historical question worth examining: What evidence do we have of that recognition?
The story begins long before a Christian council.
Jesus and His first followers lived in a world that already possessed sacred writings. In Luke 24:44, Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms as writings that spoke about Him. He appealed to Scriptures His hearers already knew, drawing their attention to their fulfillment.
Outside the New Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus provides another window into this world.
Writing near the end of the first century, Josephus described twenty-two books regarded as having divine authority. He distinguished them from later historical works, explaining that those later writings did not possess the same standing because the succession of prophets was no longer certain.
His testimony shows that the distinction between sacred Scripture and other religious or historical writing existed long before Nicaea. However, Josephus did not name every book in this passage. His description is evidence of a recognized collection, not an exact modern table of contents.
Even counting books requires care.
The Jewish Bible traditionally counts twenty-four books, while our Protestant Old Testament counts thirty-nine. Those collections contain the same books grouped and ordered differently. For example, the twelve shorter prophetic books, from Hosea through Malachi, count together as one in the Jewish arrangement. A different total does not necessarily mean different content.
Other differences are more substantial. Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments include writings outside the Protestant collection, such as Tobit and Judith. These differences reflect a long history of reception and differing understandings of authority. We should represent those traditions fairly.
Why, then, do we receive the Old Testament collection corresponding to the Hebrew Bible?
Our reasoning begins with Jesus’ reception of Israel’s Scriptures. We give substantial weight to the sacred writings preserved and recognized within the Jewish community from which Jesus and the apostles came. Josephus’s distinction between those writings and later works contributes to that reasoning.
Neither Luke’s passage nor Josephus’s testimony independently settles every book’s place. Our conclusion draws these considerations together with the wider history of reception. It is a reasoned Christian judgment, and we can explain it without pretending the history contains no disagreements.
The New Testament’s history brings us to the testimony of Jesus’ apostles and those associated with their witness.
These writings circulated among believers. Paul instructed the Colossians to have his letter read in another congregation and to read a letter coming from Laodicea. His instruction in Colossians 4:16 shows that Christian writings were being shared beyond their first recipients during the apostolic period.
Circulation alone does not establish that every shared writing was Scripture. But we also have early testimony showing how Gospel writings were received and used.
In his Brief Introduction to Matthew, Bible teacher Ferrell Jenkins points readers to Justin Martyr, a Christian writer of the middle of the second century. Justin describes the apostles’ memoirs as writings called Gospels.
When we examine Justin’s First Apology directly, we find something particularly helpful. In chapter 67, he describes believers gathering on Sunday, when the apostolic memoirs or the writings of the prophets were read. Instruction followed, urging the hearers to practice what they had heard.
Picture what that means. Long before the Council of Nicaea, Christians were gathering to hear these writings and receive instruction from them.
Justin does not supply a complete twenty-seven-book New Testament list in these passages. He does provide evidence that Gospel writings already held an important place in Christian worship and teaching.
Later in the second century, Irenaeus names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in Against Heresies and connects their written accounts with the apostolic proclamation. His testimony gives us named Gospel writings well before Nicaea.
These witnesses help explain why the relationship to the apostles mattered. Christians were seeking the testimony entrusted to those who knew Jesus and were commissioned to proclaim Him.
Questions about a writing’s origin, teaching, and reception therefore carried weight. Did it genuinely belong to the apostolic witness? Did its teaching agree with the message handed down from the beginning? How had it been received among churches?
These considerations were not a mechanical checklist applied identically everywhere. An apostle’s name on a document did not establish that the apostle wrote it. Neither age nor popularity, by itself, made a book Scripture.
We can see both agreement and uncertainty in the work of Eusebius, an early fourth-century Christian historian.
In his Church History, he identifies the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and 1 Peter among accepted writings. He also reports that some books, including James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2–3 John, remained disputed, although many recognized them. His treatment of Revelation reflects differing judgments as well.
A question about a particular book did not make the whole collection equally uncertain. Eusebius’s distinctions show a substantial recognized body of writings alongside questions about certain boundaries.
Here we should address a familiar claim directly.
The Council of Nicaea, held in AD 325, did not choose which books would belong in the Bible. Biblical writings were already being received as Scripture before that council.
Scholar John Meade explains that neither the early council records nor eyewitness accounts support the popular story that Constantine and the bishops created the Bible by selecting its books. Discussions about certain books continued after Nicaea, further challenging the idea that the council settled the collection.
Later evidence helps us follow that continuing history.
In his Easter letter of AD 367, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, names the same twenty-seven books found in our New Testament today.
That is significant evidence of recognition. It does not mean those books first became Scripture in 367, or that his letter immediately ended every disagreement.
We should also read his entire list honestly. His Old Testament arrangement does not exactly match ours. He includes Baruch with Jeremiah and places Esther among books recommended for reading outside his canonical list.
Athanasius also distinguishes useful religious reading from canonical Scripture. He recommends works such as the Shepherd of Hermas for instruction without including them in his canon. A writing could be valued without being received as an authoritative biblical book.
Our confidence does not rest merely on the fact that a later leader produced a list. These records allow us to trace reception, examine claims about apostolic origins, and distinguish widely received testimony from other writings.
Agreement is historically significant, but agreement alone does not prove inspiration. As Christians, we understand this history within the larger foundation of our trust in Jesus and the apostolic witness. We believe God was at work providentially as His people received and preserved His Word.
But recognizing the books brings us to another question.
Can we understand them in English?
Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with portions in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. Translation carries the meaning of those writings into another language.
We sometimes imagine this as a long chain in which each generation translates the previous generation’s translation until the original message becomes unrecognizable. Responsible modern Bible translation remains accountable to the biblical languages.
The ESV’s translators explain that they used an earlier English translation as a starting point while weighing its wording against Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their work could be checked against those languages rather than depending only on another English rendering.
They describe their approach as “essentially literal,” seeking close correspondence to the original wording while accounting for differences in grammar and expression. Their preface also acknowledges that translation requires judgments about precision and readability.
Languages do not fit together one word at a time.
An expression that communicates clearly in one language may sound confusing when its individual words are carried directly into another. Faithful translation must attend to what the words mean together in context.
Consider Peter’s instruction about “preparing your minds for action” (1 Peter 1:13 ESV).
The Greek expression uses the picture of gathering up clothing around the waist in preparation for activity. A person wearing a long garment could secure it so that it would not hinder movement. Peter applies that image to the mind.
The ESV communicates the instruction in clear English: prepare our minds for action. Its footnote preserves the more literal clothing image for readers who want to examine it.
The instruction calls us to mental readiness and disciplined hope in Christ. Understanding the ancient picture can enrich our reading, while the English wording helps us grasp the point immediately.
Sometimes the challenge involves an older English word. Jenkins offers a simple example in his Matthew notes: “tax collector” or “customs officer” communicates the occupation more clearly than the older term “publican.”
The person described has not changed. The wording helps today’s reader understand who that person was.
These examples illustrate why translations may use different words without teaching different things. One may preserve an ancient image more closely; another may express its meaning more directly. We evaluate those choices by asking how faithfully they communicate the original passage.
That does not mean every difference is insignificant or every translation equally reliable.
Some differences arise from how translators understand a word or sentence. Others arise from decisions about manuscript readings, the subject we examined in Part 3. Particular choices can affect our understanding of a passage and deserve careful attention.
Our confidence in inspired Scripture does not require us to treat an English translation as inerrant. We can value the ESV, read it with confidence, and still examine its wording and footnotes thoughtfully.
A footnote can help us see where another rendering is possible or where the manuscript evidence requires judgment. It gives us information for understanding the text more carefully.
We can genuinely understand and obey Scripture through a faithful translation. We do not need to become specialists in ancient languages before we can learn what it teaches about Christ, repentance, forgiveness, love, and faithful living.
When a passage is difficult, we can read its surrounding context, notice how its sentences fit together, and seek responsible help. Careful study can deepen the understanding already available to us.
That brings us back to the Bible we open today.
Across this series, we have considered different questions that contribute to a larger foundation for trust. Scripture’s claims direct us to the God who speaks and to Jesus Christ. Historical evidence connects its testimony with real people and places. Manuscript comparison allows us to examine its transmission. The history of recognition and the work of translation help explain the collection we read in our own language.
No single inscription, manuscript, or ancient list proves every biblical claim. Questions remain, and careful study continues. Yet we have substantial reasons to receive Scripture with informed confidence.
We believe God has given us His Word and has acted providentially so that it remains available to us. That conviction invites both gratitude and responsibility.
We can spend a great deal of time defending the Bible while giving little attention to what it asks of us.
James writes, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22 ESV).
Perhaps our next step is to choose a passage and read it slowly. We can consider what it meant in its setting, follow its argument, and give honest attention to anything we do not understand. Then we can ask what its teaching requires of us.
There may be a truth we need to trust, a sin we need to leave, or a responsibility we have delayed.
The history of this book gives us much to study. Its message gives us much to live.
If you are willing, share your reflections or questions in the comments so we can learn and walk this journey together.