The Canon on Trial: How the Catholic Church Forged the One True Bible by Jeff Callaway

The Canon on Trial: How the Catholic Church Forged the One True Bible

By Jeff Callaway

Texas Outlaw Poet

They tell you the Bible just showed up one day, leather-bound and chapter-numbered, dropped straight from heaven into some apostle's lap. They tell you it was always there, always clear, always the same 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. They tell you the Catholic Church corrupted it, added to it, manipulated the pure Word of God for power and profit.

They're lying.

Not accidentally. Not out of ignorance. But systematically, deliberately, and with the kind of historical amnesia that would embarrass a goldfish. Because here's the truth nobody wants to talk about: For nearly four hundred years after Christ ascended into heaven, there was no universally agreed-upon Bible. Not even close. What there was instead was a Church—a living, breathing, worshiping, martyr-making Church—celebrating Mass, ordaining bishops, baptizing converts, and spreading the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome to the ends of the known world, all without a table of contents.

So let's put the Bible on trial. Let's drag history into the witness stand. Let's examine the evidence with the cold precision of a courtroom and the fire of a truth that won't be buried. The Catholic Church didn't remove books from the Bible. She discerned them, guarded them, and defined the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And if you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with history itself.

Before There Was a Bible: Scrolls, Synagogues, and Sacraments

Let's start before the beginning—before the New Testament existed, before the apostles wrote a single letter, before the Gospels were composed. Let's start with the Old Testament, which wasn't even called that yet.

In the first century, when Christ walked the earth, there was no single, universally agreed-upon "Old Testament." Jews used multiple textual traditions. Some preferred Hebrew texts, the proto-Masoretic versions that would later become the foundation of the Masoretic Text we have today. Others used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed roughly 200 years before Christ's birth in Alexandria, Egypt.

The Septuagint wasn't some fringe translation. It was the Bible of the Jewish diaspora, the Scripture of Jews scattered across the Greek-speaking Roman world. And here's the kicker: It was the Bible Jesus Christ and His apostles used. When the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament—and they do, hundreds of times—they're quoting from the Septuagint more than three hundred times, compared to fewer than forty quotations that align with the later Hebrew text.

Why Greek? Because Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. The Gospel wasn't meant to stay locked in Jerusalem, whispered in Aramaic behind closed doors. It was meant to explode outward, to reach Greeks and Romans and Egyptians and every tribe and tongue under heaven. The Septuagint made that possible. It was inspired Jewish Scripture in a language the world could understand.

And here's what most Protestants don't want to admit: The Septuagint included those seven books they now reject as "apocrypha"—Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, plus additions to Daniel and Esther. These books weren't "added later" by some scheming medieval pope. They were already embedded in Jewish religious life before Christ was born, already part of the Greek Scripture that the apostles used, quoted, and revered.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Because even with the Septuagint in circulation, even with the apostles preaching and writing, there was still no "New Testament" for decades after the Resurrection.

The Apostles Did Not Leave a Table of Contents

Picture this: It's the year 50 AD. Paul is on his second missionary journey. Peter is in Rome. The Church is growing like wildfire, baptizing thousands, establishing communities across the empire. And what's in their hands? What are they reading on Sunday mornings?

They've got the Septuagint. They've got oral teaching, the traditions passed down directly from the apostles. They've got a few letters Paul wrote to churches—maybe Romans, maybe Galatians, maybe First Thessalonians if it's been written yet. But there's no Gospel of Matthew. No Gospel of Luke. No Gospel of John. Those won't be written for another decade or two or three.

The earliest Gospel, Mark, probably wasn't composed until around 70 AD, forty years after Christ's death. Matthew and Luke came later, drawing from Mark and other sources. John wasn't written until the end of the first century, perhaps as late as 90 or 100 AD. That's sixty to seventy years after the Resurrection.

And here's what drives Protestants crazy: The Church existed all that time without the New Testament. She celebrated the Mass, consecrated the Eucharist, ordained bishops, preserved apostolic succession, and proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen—all before the New Testament was finished being written, much less collected and canonized.

The Church didn't need a complete Bible to be the Church. The Bible needed the Church to exist at all.

The Flood of Books: True, False, and Dangerous

By the second century, Christian writings were everywhere. The apostolic fathers—Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna—were writing letters that were read in churches across the empire. The Didache, a manual of church practice, was circulating widely. The Shepherd of Hermas, a moral allegory, was popular enough that some communities considered it Scripture.

And then there were the forgeries. The heresies. The outright lies.

The Gospel of Thomas, claiming to preserve "secret sayings" of Jesus, taught salvation through hidden knowledge rather than through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It's pure Gnosticism, the kind of elitist mysticism that treats the material world as evil and the body as a prison. The early Church fathers recognized it immediately for what it was: a second-century fraud written long after the apostles were dead.

The Gospel of Judas portrayed Judas Iscariot as the true hero of the Passion, the only disciple who really "understood" Jesus. It was so clearly heretical that Irenaeus condemned it by name in the late second century, decades before the oldest surviving manuscript was even written.

The Gospel of Mary depicted Mary Magdalene as the recipient of secret teachings that the male apostles couldn't understand, pitting her against Peter in a manufactured conflict designed to undermine apostolic authority. It's feminist fan fiction dressed up as Scripture, written generations after the apostles were martyred.

And there were dozens more. The Gospel of Peter. The Acts of Paul. The Apocalypse of Peter. The Secret Book of James. Some were pious fiction, well-meaning attempts to fill in gaps in Jesus' life. Others were deliberate distortions, heretical texts crafted to promote doctrines the apostles never taught.

How do we know they weren't Scripture? Because the Church said so.

How the Church Discerned: The Four Tests of the Canon

The Church didn't pick books at random. She didn't vote based on politics or personal preference. She applied rigorous, Spirit-guided criteria that had been developing since the apostolic age.

First: Apostolicity. Was the book written by an apostle or by someone in direct contact with the apostles? Mark wasn't an apostle, but he was Peter's companion and interpreter. Luke wasn't an apostle, but he traveled with Paul and carefully interviewed eyewitnesses. If a book couldn't be traced back to apostolic origins, it was out.

Second: Orthodoxy. Did the book agree with the Rule of Faith, the deposit of teaching the Church had received from the apostles? Did it affirm the Incarnation, the bodily Resurrection, salvation through Christ's atoning sacrifice? Or did it teach Gnosticism, denying that Christ came in the flesh, promoting secret knowledge for spiritual elites? The Gnostic gospels failed this test spectacularly.

Third: Catholicity. Was the book accepted across the universal Church, or only in one isolated region or heretical sect? If a text was only popular among one group in Egypt or Syria, that was a red flag. True Scripture had to be recognized universally, from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria.

Fourth: Liturgical Use. Was the book read publicly in the Mass? This was perhaps the most important test. The Church didn't determine canonicity by committee votes in a smoke-filled room. She recognized Scripture in worship, in the liturgy, in the lived experience of the faithful gathered to celebrate the Eucharist. Books that nourished the Church in prayer, that were proclaimed Sunday after Sunday across the empire, that the faithful recognized as the inspired Word of God—those were Scripture.

Books that couldn't pass these tests were rejected, no matter how popular they might have been in certain circles.

The Deuterocanonical Books: The Real Controversy

Here's where Protestant heads explode. Because while the early Church was busy rejecting Gnostic garbage like the Gospel of Thomas, she was simultaneously affirming books that Protestants now reject: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, and the additions to Daniel and Esther.

These are the deuterocanonical books—deutero meaning "second," not because they were added later, but because there was some historical debate about them in certain quarters, even though they were overwhelmingly accepted. Protestants call them the "Apocrypha," a term that means "hidden" but now carries the connotation of "false" or "uninspired."

But here's the historical reality: These books were part of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles. They were quoted and referenced by the Church Fathers. They were read in the liturgy. They informed Catholic doctrine from the beginning.

Second Maccabees 12:41-45 describes Judas Maccabeus offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead, that they might be freed from their sins. This is the biblical foundation for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and intercessory prayer for the dead. Wisdom and Sirach contain profound meditations on God's providence, the nature of wisdom, and moral living that echoed throughout Christian theology for centuries.

The New Testament itself reflects themes from these books. Hebrews 11 describes heroes of faith who were "tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life"—a clear reference to the martyrdom accounts in Second Maccabees. The Book of Wisdom's teachings on divine wisdom influenced Paul's Christology. Tobit's emphasis on almsgiving and good works informed the Church's understanding of faith active in love.

So why did Protestant reformers reject them?

Simple. Martin Luther was losing a theological debate. In 1519, at the Leipzig Debate, the Catholic scholar Johann Eck cited Second Maccabees in support of the doctrine of Purgatory. Luther, who had already rejected Purgatory based on his novel doctrine of sola fide—faith alone—was cornered. He couldn't refute the text, so he rejected the entire book.

Luther's reasoning? These books weren't in the Hebrew Bible used by post-Christian Jews. But here's the irony: Luther was appealing to Jewish authorities who had explicitly rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The Jewish canon wasn't formally closed until the late second century AD at the earliest, long after the Church had been using the Septuagint. Why would Christians accept the authority of Jews who denied Christ to determine which Old Testament books were inspired?

Furthermore, Luther was using the Masoretic Text, finalized by Jewish scholars between the seventh and tenth centuries AD—a thousand years after Christ. The Jews who compiled that text had every reason to exclude books that supported Christian doctrine. They removed books that mentioned the Resurrection of the dead, prayers for the deceased, and the value of good works—all doctrines that challenged Protestant innovations.

Luther didn't "discover" the original Bible. He adopted a truncated Jewish canon specifically designed to undermine Christian teaching.

The Councils That Settled the Matter

The canon wasn't settled by a single dramatic vote. It was a gradual recognition, guided by the Holy Spirit, of what the Church had already been living for centuries.

The first major step came at the Council of Rome in 382, under Pope Damasus I. While some modern scholars debate the exact details of what was decreed at that council, the historical consensus is clear: A list matching the Catholic canon of 73 books was affirmed in Rome and would be reaffirmed repeatedly in the decades that followed.

In 393, the Synod of Hippo in North Africa listed the canonical books of Scripture. St. Augustine himself attended. The list included all 73 books—46 in the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals, and 27 in the New Testament.

Four years later, in 397, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed the same canon. The bishops explicitly stated that they had received this list from the fathers who came before them, that it was not something new but something handed down. The council added that the decision should be confirmed by "the Church across the sea"—meaning Rome.

In 419, another Council of Carthage ratified the canon again. Over and over, across multiple councils and multiple decades, the Church proclaimed the same 73 books as the complete and inspired Word of God.

Were there some Church Fathers who expressed doubts about certain books? Yes. Jerome, the great biblical scholar who translated the Vulgate, preferred the Hebrew text and initially questioned the deuterocanonicals. But—and this is crucial—Jerome submitted to the authority of the Church. He included the deuterocanonical books in his Latin Vulgate translation because that was what the Church decreed. His private scholarly opinion was superseded by Magisterial authority.

Some modern apologists try to claim the canon was in flux until the Council of Trent in 1546. That's a lie. Trent didn't invent the Catholic canon. It didn't "add" books. It dogmatically reaffirmed what had been settled for over a thousand years, in response to Protestant rejection of those books. The Council of Florence in 1442 had already reaffirmed the identical canon a century earlier. And Carthage had confirmed it a millennium before that.

The Catholic Bible isn't a sixteenth-century innovation. It's the original Christian Bible, preserved by the Church Christ founded.

The Core Argument: The Church Precedes the Bible

Here's the bottom line, the argument that stops every Scripture-alone Protestant in their tracks:

The Church existed before the New Testament was written.

The Church defined the canon of Scripture.

Therefore, the Bible cannot be the Church's authority against the Church that defined it.

Think about it. When Jesus established His Church, He didn't hand the apostles a book. He gave them the Holy Spirit. He gave them authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins, to teach in His name. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church—not against a book, but against the living community of believers He founded on Peter.

For the first few decades of Christianity, there was no New Testament at all. The Church was already baptizing, celebrating the Eucharist, ordaining bishops, and spreading the Gospel. When the apostles and their companions finally wrote the Gospels and epistles, those writings were recognized as Scripture because the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, said they were.

The same Church that gave you the Gospel of Matthew gave you the Gospel of John. The same Church that gave you Romans gave you Revelation. And the same Church that gave you those 66 books that Protestants accept also gave you the seven deuterocanonical books they reject.

You can't accept the Church's authority for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and then reject it for Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees. Either the Church had the authority to discern the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or she didn't. If she did, then you accept all 73 books. If she didn't, then you have no reason to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Scripture either.

Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium aren't three competing authorities. They're inseparable. The Bible itself is a product of Sacred Tradition, recognized by the Magisterium, and handed down through the living witness of the Church.

Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone—is a self-refuting doctrine. The Bible never claims to be the sole authority for Christian faith. In fact, it explicitly points to the authority of the Church. Jesus didn't tell the apostles to write a book. He told them to teach. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The Bible itself testifies that not everything Jesus did or said was written down.

The Word of God is bigger than the Bible. It includes the living Tradition of the apostles, safeguarded by the Magisterium, and proclaimed by the Church Jesus founded.

Final Verdict: History Delivers Its Judgment

Strip away the slogans. Follow the paper trail of blood, ink, and martyrdom. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

The Catholic Bible is historically grounded. Every major ecumenical decision about the canon—Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and 419, Florence in 1442, Trent in 1546—affirmed the same 73 books. For over a thousand years, all of Western Christianity used this Bible.

The Catholic Bible is liturgically born. The canon wasn't determined by scholars in libraries. It was recognized in worship, in the Mass, in the lived experience of the Church at prayer. The books that nourished the faithful in the Eucharistic celebration, that were proclaimed Sunday after Sunday across the empire, those were the books the Church knew were inspired.

The Catholic Bible is theologically coherent. It teaches the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the communion of saints, the necessity of both faith and works, the authority of the Church, and the hope of life everlasting. Every doctrine Catholics hold dear is rooted in Scripture rightly understood.

The Catholic Bible is spiritually complete. It contains everything God intended His people to have—the Law, the Prophets, the Wisdom literature, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles, and the Book of Revelation. Nothing is missing. Nothing is added. It is the full deposit of faith, preserved by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Protestant claims that the Catholic Church "removed" books collapse under the weight of history. The Church didn't remove anything. Protestant reformers, 1,500 years later, cut out books that had been in the Christian Bible since before the apostles died. They appealed to a Jewish canon finalized by Jews who rejected Jesus, in order to reject books that supported Catholic doctrines they didn't like.

To trust the Bible is to trust the Church that preserved it. To reject the Church is to saw off the branch you're sitting on.

Closing Fire: A Texas Outlaw Send-Off

They'll tell you all kinds of stories. They'll say the Catholic Church corrupted the Bible, that she hoarded it from the people, that she added books to control the masses. They'll quote Martin Luther like he was the second coming of Paul, ignoring the fact that Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament because they didn't fit his theology.

They'll claim they follow Scripture alone, even though the doctrine of sola Scriptura isn't in Scripture. They'll insist the Holy Spirit guided them to the truth, even though the Holy Spirit apparently told five hundred different Protestant denominations five hundred different contradictory truths.

But here's what they can't escape: History.

The Bible didn't create the Church. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave the world the Bible.

You can reject Rome. You can reject the papacy. You can reject the sacraments and the Mass and the communion of saints. You can create your own church with your own pastors and your own interpretations.

But you can't keep her Bible without admitting where it came from.

Every time you open your Protestant Bible with its 66 books, you're holding a testament to Catholic authority—because it was the Catholic Church that decided Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were inspired. It was the Catholic Church that recognized Romans and Galatians as Scripture. It was the Catholic Church that preserved, copied, and transmitted those texts for fifteen hundred years before the printing press existed.

And it was the Catholic Church that said there were 73 books, not 66.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Church had the authority to define the canon, or she didn't. If she did, accept all 73 books. If she didn't, throw out your entire Bible and start from scratch.

History has delivered its verdict. The Catholic Church forged the one true Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, preserved it through centuries of persecution and heresy, and handed it down to the world.

The canon is closed. The trial is over. The evidence is in.

Now the only question is whether you'll accept the truth or keep living the lie.

~by Jeff Callaway

Texas Outlaw Poet

© 2026 Texas Outlaw Press. All rights reserved.

https://texasoutlawpress.org