The Bible Isn’t Biblical: Unpacking Its Origins and the Catholic Church’s Role

The Bible Isn’t Biblical: Unpacking Its Origins and the Catholic Church’s Role

The Bible is often viewed by Protestants as the ultimate authority in Christianity, a sacred text that defines faith and practice. But here’s a surprising truth: the Bible isn’t “biblical.” That is, the Bible as we know it—a single, cohesive collection of sacred writings—is not found within its own pages. The biblical canon, or the official list of books considered inspired Scripture, is not defined anywhere in the Bible itself. Instead, the Bible’s formation is a product of human history, specifically through the authority of the Catholic Church, with a pivotal role played by Pope Damasus I in the 4th century. In this blog post, we’ll explore the origins of the Bible, the Catholic Church’s role in its creation, and why the notion of a self-contained “biblical” canon is a misconception.

The Bible Is Not in the Bible

Let’s start with the core idea: the Bible does not define itself. Nowhere in its pages does it provide a table of contents or a list of books that should be included in the canon. For example, there’s no verse in the Old or New Testament that says, “These are the 66 books” (for Protestants) or “These are the 73 books” (for Catholics) that constitute inspired Scripture. The closest we get are references to “Scripture” (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16, which states, “All Scripture is God-breathed”), but this term is vague in the text and, at the time, likely referred to the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) or early Christian writings that were still circulating informally.

The New Testament books, written between approximately 50 and 120 CE, were individual letters, gospels, and apocalyptic works composed by various authors. These texts were not initially compiled into a single volume. Early Christian communities used a variety of writings, some of which (like the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas) were widely read but later excluded from the canon. The process of determining which books were inspired and authoritative was a gradual one, driven by the Church’s discernment, not by a directive within the texts themselves. This absence of a self-defined canon within the Bible underscores that its formation was an external, historical process—not a “biblical” one.

The Catholic Church and the Formation of the Biblical Canon

The Bible as we know it today is a product of the Catholic Church’s tradition and authority. By the late 2nd century, Christian leaders began discussing which writings should be considered authoritative, prompted by the need for uniformity in teaching and worship, as well as the rise of heretical movements like Gnosticism, which produced competing texts. However, it wasn’t until the late 4th century that the canon began to take its final shape, largely through the leadership of the Catholic Church.

A key figure in this process was Pope Damasus I (reigned 366–384 CE). In 382 CE, at the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus commissioned the scholar St. Jerome to produce a definitive Latin translation of the Bible, which became known as the Vulgate. More crucially, the Council of Rome, under Damasus’s leadership, issued a decree listing the canonical books of Scripture—46 for the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonical books like Tobit and Wisdom) and 27 for the New Testament. This list was reaffirmed by subsequent councils, including the Council of Hippo (393 CE) and the Council of Carthage (397 CE), both of which were regional synods of Catholic bishops but carried the authority of the broader Church.

The canon established under Pope Damasus included books that are now part of the Catholic Bible but were later removed by Protestant reformers in the 16th century, such as the Deuterocanonical books. These councils relied on tradition, liturgical use, and the consensus of bishops to determine the canon, not on a directive from Scripture itself. For example, the New Testament books were chosen based on criteria like apostolic authorship (or association), orthodoxy (alignment with Church teaching), and widespread use in worship. This process was inherently ecclesiastical, rooted in the authority of the Catholic Church, not in a self-evident “biblical” standard.

Why the Biblical Canon Isn’t in the Bible

The absence of a biblical canon within the Bible itself poses a challenge for those who adhere to the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), a foundational Protestant doctrine that asserts the Bible as the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. If the Bible is the only authority, then how do we know which books belong in it? The answer lies outside the Bible—in the tradition and authority of the Catholic Church, which Protestants, ironically, rely on for the New Testament canon they accept.

Consider this: the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, does not conclude with a list of canonical books. Nor do any of the Gospels or Epistles provide such a list. Early Christians debated the inclusion of books like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation, while others, like the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache, were excluded despite early popularity. The canon was finalized through Church councils, guided by the Holy Spirit (as Catholics believe), but this process was human and historical, not dictated by the Bible itself.

Moreover, the Old Testament canon varied among Jewish and Christian communities. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by early Christians, included the Deuterocanonical books, which were accepted by the Catholic Church but later rejected by Jewish leaders (post-70 CE) and, centuries later, by Protestant reformers. The Catholic Church’s canon, established by the 4th-century councils, reflects the broader Septuagint tradition, while Protestant Bibles align with the later Hebrew canon. This discrepancy further highlights that the Bible’s contents were determined by external decisions, not by the Bible itself.

The Implications of the Bible’s Origins

Understanding that the Bible comes from the Catholic Church, through the leadership of figures like Pope Damasus I, has significant implications. It challenges the idea that the Bible is a self-contained, self-authenticating document. Instead, it reveals the indispensable role of tradition and Church authority in its formation. For Catholics, this is not problematic—it aligns with their belief in the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve and interpret Scripture.

For those who reject Church authority, however, the Bible’s origins raise a dilemma. If the canon was determined by the Catholic Church, then accepting the Bible implicitly relies on that Church’s authority. Protestant reformers like Martin Luther accepted the New Testament canon established by the Catholic Church but rejected the Deuterocanonical books, arguing they were not part of the Hebrew Bible. Yet even this decision was based on historical and traditional judgments, not on a biblical mandate.

Conclusion

The Bible is not “biblical” in the sense that it does not define its own canon. The list of books we call the Bible was compiled through the authority of the Catholic Church, with a defining moment at the Council of Rome in 382 CE under Pope Damasus I. This historical reality underscores the role of tradition in shaping the Christian faith—a tradition that cannot be separated from the Scriptures it produced. Recognizing the Bible’s origins invites a deeper appreciation for the Church’s role in preserving God’s word and challenges us to consider how authority, tradition, and Scripture intertwine in the story of Christianity. The Bible may not be in the Bible, but its existence is a testament to the enduring work of the Church through the centuries.