Canon Formation, Israel, and the Early Church’s Struggle With Its Jewish Roots

Abstract

This article does not seek to question the authority of the New Testament canon, nor does it argue that the early church fathers intentionally corrupted the Christian faith. Rather, it explores the theological atmosphere in which canon discussions occurred, especially by the time of the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393. The New Testament canon had already been developing through earlier witnesses such as the Muratorian Fragment, Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Therefore, Hippo did not create the canon from nothing; it affirmed a developing consensus already present in the wider church.

At the same time, the fourth-century church was increasingly Gentile, increasingly institutional, and often uncertain about how to understand its relationship to Israel and the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. The Apocalypse of Peter, mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment and preserved more fully in Ethiopic tradition, provides a valuable case study because it appears within early canonical conversations yet was ultimately not received into the New Testament. This article argues that while we should not claim the canon was wrong, nor that certain books were rejected simply because of restoration themes concerning Israel, we may carefully observe that supersessionist assumptions and anti-Jewish attitudes formed part of the broader theological atmosphere of late antiquity. The purpose is not to reopen the canon, but to better understand how the early Gentile church wrestled with Israel, prophecy, judgment, restoration, and its own Jewish inheritance.

The Question Behind the Question

The question of the New Testament canon is not merely a question of books. It is a question of memory, authority, identity, theology, and historical development. When Christians speak of the “canon,” they are speaking of the recognized collection of inspired writings that became authoritative for the faith and practice of the church. The word canon carries the idea of a rule, standard, or measuring line. In that sense, the canon is not simply a list of religious writings; it is the recognized apostolic witness by which the church measures doctrine, worship, preaching, discipleship, and theological confession.

Yet when we approach the formation of the New Testament canon, we must do so with both reverence and honesty. Reverence keeps us from treating the canon as a mere political accident or ecclesiastical invention. Honesty keeps us from pretending that the church’s historical process unfolded in a vacuum, untouched by theological struggle, cultural pressure, human limitation, or historical context. A mature Christian understanding of history does not require us to flatten the past. It allows us to affirm God’s providence while also recognizing that God often worked through imperfect people, imperfect councils, and imperfect historical circumstances.

My purpose in raising this question is not to attack the New Testament canon. I am not arguing that the church fathers “got it wrong,” nor am I suggesting that Christians should question the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. The canon we have received bears faithful witness to Christ, the apostles, and the gospel. It proclaims the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of Jesus Christ. It gives the church its apostolic foundation. It remains the authoritative witness of the new covenant.

The question is more careful than that. How did a largely Gentile church, increasingly separated from its Jewish roots, understand Israel, Jewish restoration, and Jewish hope while also discerning which writings were to be read publicly as Scripture? That question matters because the early church struggled with something many Christians still struggle with today. What do we do with Israel? What do we do with the Jewish roots of our faith? How do we confess Jesus as Messiah without erasing the people, promises, covenants, and prophetic hopes from which the gospel itself emerged?

The Canon Was Not Created at Hippo

One of the most important clarifications is that the New Testament canon was not created at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393. Hippo was important, but it was not the beginning of the canon. The council affirmed a list of canonical books, including the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, the catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse of John. But it did so after generations of Christian use, debate, recognition, and theological discernment.

Long before Hippo, Christian communities were already reading apostolic writings as authoritative. The four Gospels were not waiting for a fourth-century council to become spiritually meaningful. Paul’s letters were not dormant documents suddenly elevated by ecclesiastical vote. From the earliest centuries, Christian communities read these writings in worship, preached from them, copied them, circulated them, defended them, and measured doctrine by them. Canon formation was not first a committee decision; it was a process of reception in the worshiping life of the church.

The Muratorian Fragment, commonly dated to the late second century, is one of the earliest surviving canonical lists. It includes many writings now found in the New Testament and also mentions the Apocalypse of Peter, though it also notes that some Christians did not want that text read publicly in church. This is historically significant because it shows that early Christians were already wrestling with questions of reception, public reading, apostolicity, and authority long before the fourth century.

By the third century, Origen was already distinguishing between writings widely received and writings whose status remained disputed. In the early fourth century, Eusebius also categorized Christian writings into recognized, disputed, and rejected books. Then, in A.D. 367, Athanasius of Alexandria issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, which contains the first surviving list that exactly matches the twenty-seven books of the New Testament used today.

Therefore, Hippo should be understood as one important stage in a long process of recognition. It did not invent the canon. It affirmed a developing consensus. This matters because any serious discussion of Hippo must avoid the false idea that the bishops of North Africa simply gathered and created the Bible. The canon was not born in a single council. It was recognized through the life, worship, discernment, and theological struggle of the early church.

The Early Church Became Increasingly Gentile

The earliest Christian movement was deeply Jewish. Jesus was Jewish. The apostles were Jewish. The first believers worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They read Israel’s Scriptures, proclaimed Israel’s Messiah, and understood the gospel through the promises given to the patriarchs and prophets. The vocabulary of the New Testament is filled with Israel’s story: covenant, kingdom, Messiah, temple, priesthood, sacrifice, exile, restoration, promise, inheritance, remnant, and resurrection.

Christianity did not begin as a religion detached from Israel. It began as the proclamation that Israel’s Messiah had come and that through Him the nations were being brought into the blessings promised to Abraham. The earliest Christians did not believe they were abandoning Israel’s story. They believed they had found its fulfillment in Jesus.

However, as the gospel spread among the nations, the church became increasingly Gentile. This was not wrong in itself. Gentile inclusion was not an accident or corruption of the faith. It was part of the promise of God. The prophets had already anticipated that the nations would come to the light of Israel’s God. The book of Acts records the Spirit falling upon Gentiles. Paul’s mission to the nations was not a betrayal of Israel; it was part of the mystery of God’s redemptive plan.

The problem was not Gentile inclusion. The problem was Gentile forgetfulness.

Over time, many Gentile Christians became uncertain about how to relate to Israel. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the devastation connected to the Bar Kokhba revolt in A.D. 132–135 were often interpreted as signs that God had rejected the Jewish people permanently. This interpretation helped feed what later became known as supersessionism or replacement theology, the idea that the church had replaced Israel in such a way that Israel no longer had continuing covenantal significance.

This does not mean every early Christian thinker expressed the same view with the same intensity. History is always more complex than slogans. Some Christian writers spoke harshly against the Jews. Others had more restrained or complicated views. Some still preserved aspects of hope, mercy, or continuity. Nevertheless, by the fourth century, anti-Jewish rhetoric and supersessionist assumptions were undeniably present in large portions of Christian thought.

This matters because theology shapes reception. A church unsure what to do with its Jewish roots may also become unsure what to do with Jewish restoration themes, prophetic hope for Israel, and writings that preserve apocalyptic expectations shaped by Jewish categories.

The Council of Hippo and the Theological Atmosphere of the Fourth Century

The Council of Hippo met in a church world very different from the world of the apostles. Christianity had moved from the margins toward public recognition and imperial influence. The church was no longer primarily a persecuted Jewish-rooted messianic movement. It was increasingly Gentile, increasingly institutional, and increasingly shaped by Greco-Roman theological categories.

This does not mean the Council of Hippo was evil or corrupt. It does not mean the bishops sat in a room plotting against Israel. Such a claim would be historically careless and unfair. The men involved in these processes were seeking to preserve apostolic truth, protect the church from false teaching, and identify which writings had been received as authoritative in the life of the churches.

Yet we must also admit that they were men of their time. They lived in a world where the Jewishness of the Christian faith was often minimized, spiritualized, or treated mainly as something fulfilled and surpassed. They inherited an environment where Israel’s dispersion was frequently interpreted as divine judgment and where the church’s identity was sometimes defined over against the synagogue.

Therefore, it is fair to say that Hippo operated within a theological atmosphere where replacement theology was increasingly normal. That does not mean replacement theology determined the canon. But it does mean the broader interpretive environment of the fourth-century church cannot be ignored.

This distinction is important. The canon may be providentially preserved while the historical church still contains interpretive blind spots. The fathers may be honored without being treated as infallible. Councils may be respected without assuming that every theological assumption surrounding them was equally pure. Christian maturity requires this kind of distinction.

The Apocalypse of Peter as a Case Study

The Apocalypse of Peter is especially interesting because it appears in early canonical discussion but was ultimately not included in the New Testament. The Muratorian Fragment states, “We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter,” but then immediately adds that “some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.” This small statement is important because it shows that the Apocalypse of Peter had a measure of early Christian respect, yet its reception was already disputed long before the Council of Hippo.

The text also survives in different forms, including Greek fragments and a fuller Ethiopic version. The Ethiopic version contains a notable passage where Jesus interprets the fig tree as “the house of Israel.” In that passage, Peter asks about the meaning of the fig tree, and the Lord answers, “Understandest thou not that the fig-tree is the house of Israel?” The text later adds, “Then shall the twigs of the fig-tree, that is, the house of Israel, shoot forth.”

This language should be handled carefully. It would be too strong to say that the Apocalypse of Peter clearly teaches the full national restoration of Israel in the same way that some Christians interpret Romans 11, Ezekiel 37, or prophetic restoration passages in the Old Testament. The text is apocalyptic, symbolic, and difficult in places. However, it does appear to preserve an early Christian imagination in which Israel still has eschatological significance. The “house of Israel” is not simply erased. It appears in connection with the last days, deception, martyrdom, and divine vindication.

That makes the text historically fascinating. It does not prove that the Council of Hippo rejected the Apocalypse of Peter because of replacement theology. Such a claim would go beyond the evidence. The book may have remained outside the canon for several reasons, including disputed apostolic authorship, limited catholic reception, questions about public reading, and concerns about some of its apocalyptic imagery and theological themes. The Muratorian Fragment itself already shows hesitation about reading it publicly in church.

Still, the presence of this Israel-related language raises an important question worth considering. By the fourth century, the church was largely Gentile and often uncertain about what to do with its Jewish roots. Many Christians increasingly interpreted Israel’s dispersion as divine judgment and read the church as replacing Israel in God’s purposes. In that kind of theological atmosphere, texts that preserved strong Jewish apocalyptic categories, or language about the “house of Israel” having a role in the last days, may not have been as attractive or central to the developing Christian imagination.

Therefore, the point is not to blame replacement theology for the exclusion of the Apocalypse of Peter. The point is more modest and, I believe, more academically responsible: the text gives us a window into early Christian diversity and into the way some Christians were still thinking with Jewish apocalyptic categories. It invites us to ask how a mostly Gentile church received, questioned, or neglected writings that carried traces of Israel’s ongoing eschatological significance.

In that sense, the Apocalypse of Peter becomes less important as a “lost book” and more important as a historical witness. It reminds us that early Christianity was wrestling with judgment, mercy, resurrection, Israel, and the end of the age long before later theological systems became fixed. And it helps us see that the deeper issue is not whether the New Testament canon should be reopened, but how the church learned, and sometimes struggled, to understand the Jewish roots of the faith it inherited.

The Difference Between Causation and Influence

This discussion should not be misunderstood as an attack on the New Testament canon. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament remain the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ and the authoritative foundation of Christian faith. The question is not whether the canon should be reopened, but how the early church, especially as it became mostly Gentile, wrestled with the Jewish roots of the faith it inherited.

For academic balance, we must distinguish between causation and influence. It would be too strong to say, “The Council of Hippo rejected the Apocalypse of Peter because it taught Israel’s restoration.” That claim cannot be proven with the available evidence. The Apocalypse of Peter may have been excluded for several reasons: disputed authorship, limited reception, theological concerns, uncertainty about public reading, or discomfort with some of its apocalyptic imagery and ideas.

However, it is reasonable to say that the broader fourth-century theological climate may have influenced how restoration-oriented themes were received. Influence is not the same as direct causation. A council does not have to issue an anti-Jewish statement for anti-Jewish assumptions to shape the way Scripture, prophecy, and disputed writings are interpreted. The issue is not conspiracy. The issue is atmosphere.

When the church breathes a certain theological air long enough, it may begin to assume things without having to formally state them. If the dominant assumption is that Jewish dispersion proves permanent rejection, then texts emphasizing Israel’s ongoing hope may naturally appear less useful, less central, or less fitting within the church’s developing imagination.

That is the careful argument. Not that the canon is wrong. Not that Hippo was malicious. Not that the fathers intentionally erased Israel. Rather, the argument is that a largely Gentile church was trying to define its identity while often struggling to know what to do with the Jewish roots from which it came.

What This Means for Christians Today

This discussion matters because many Christians today still do not know what to do with Israel or with the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. Some ignore Israel altogether. Some treat the Old Testament as background material rather than as the living framework of the gospel. Some reduce Israel to politics alone. Others overcorrect in unhealthy ways and blur the distinction between biblical appreciation and speculative theology.

The healthier path is neither erasure nor imbalance. The healthier path is biblical remembrance.

Christians do not need to abandon the canon to recover the Jewish roots of the faith. We need to read the canon more faithfully. We need to read Matthew with Abraham in mind. We need to read Luke with Jerusalem in mind. We need to read Acts with the restoration question in mind. We need to read Romans 11 without explaining away Paul’s grief and hope for Israel. We need to read Revelation as a book saturated with the prophets.

The canon itself still preserves Israel’s story. Matthew begins with Abraham and David. Luke roots Jesus in Israel’s history. Acts begins with a question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Paul declares in Romans 11 that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Revelation is filled with imagery from Israel’s prophets. If later Christian interpretation sometimes struggled with Israel, the New Testament itself did not erase Israel.

The New Testament was not dropped from heaven in isolation. It grew from the soil of Israel’s Scriptures, Israel’s Messiah, and Israel’s promises. To forget that soil is to misunderstand the tree. The early Gentile church struggled with this. The modern church still struggles with this.

And perhaps that is why this conversation is so important. It forces us to ask whether we have inherited not only the canon of the early church, but also some of its unresolved tensions. It challenges us to honor the canon while correcting the anti-Jewish instincts that later attached themselves to Christian interpretation.

Conclusion: Not a New Canon, but a More Faithful Reading

The Council of Hippo did not create the New Testament canon from nothing. It affirmed a canon already developing through centuries of ecclesiastical use, theological discernment, and apostolic reception. Earlier witnesses such as the Muratorian Fragment, Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius show that the canon was already taking shape long before A.D. 393.

At the same time, the Council of Hippo took place within a church that had become overwhelmingly Gentile and increasingly uncertain about how to understand Israel. Replacement theology and anti-Jewish attitudes were part of the broader theological environment. That does not mean the canon is wrong. It does not mean the church fathers were malicious. But it does mean we should read the history honestly.

The Apocalypse of Peter provides an interesting window into this larger conversation. Its mention in the Muratorian Fragment shows that it was known and respected in some early Christian circles, though disputed even then. Its preservation in Ethiopic tradition reminds us that early Christianity was wider and more complex than later Western memory sometimes suggests.

In the end, the purpose of this discussion is not to question the canon, but to ask how the early church handled the Jewish roots of the faith. That question remains urgent. If the early Gentile church often struggled to know what to do with Israel, many Christians today are still struggling with the same issue.

The answer is not to reopen the canon. The answer is to reread the canon with greater faithfulness, humility, and historical awareness. The New Testament itself has not forgotten Israel. Perhaps the church must learn not to forget either

References & Further Reading

• The Muratorian Fragment (English Translation by Bruce Metzger) – Early Christian Writings
  One of the earliest surviving New Testament canon lists. Important because it mentions the Apocalypse of Peter while also noting that some Christians objected to its public reading in church. Useful for showing that canon discussions were already active in the second century.
• The Muratorian Fragment: The State of Research – Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (PDF)
  A scholarly academic study by Eckhard J. Schnabel examining the date, historical context, and theological significance of the Muratorian Fragment. Helpful for understanding modern debates surrounding canon formation.
• Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter – Early Church Texts
  Contains the earliest surviving list that exactly matches the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament canon. Important for showing that the canon was already substantially recognized before Hippo.
• Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 – New Advent
  Another accessible translation of Athanasius’ canon list with historical notes.
• Canons of the Council of Hippo (393) – Roger Pearse
  Translation and discussion of the surviving canons connected to the Council of Hippo. Useful for demonstrating that Hippo affirmed rather than invented the canon.
• The Apocalypse of Peter – Early Christian Writings
  Excellent overview of the Apocalypse of Peter, including historical background, fragments, translations, and scholarly discussion.
• The Apocalypse of Peter (Ethiopic Translation PDF) – St. Mary’s University
  Scholarly English translation of the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter. Helpful for readers who want to study the text directly.
• Was the Apocalypse of Peter Originally Considered Part of the New Testament? – Bart Ehrman Blog
  Helpful overview discussing how the Apocalypse of Peter was viewed in some early Christian communities and why it eventually fell outside the canon.
• The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon – The Gospel Coalition Review
  Scholarly review discussing the importance of the Muratorian Fragment in understanding the historical development of the New Testament canon.
• The Figure of Peter in the New Testament: A Canonical Analysis (PDF)
  Academic research examining how the authority and memory of Peter influenced canon formation and early Christian literature.
• Christian History Institute – “367: Athanasius Defines the New Testament”
  Accessible historical overview explaining why Athanasius’ Festal Letter became so important in the history of the canon.
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 – New Advent
  Important primary source where Eusebius categorizes Christian writings into recognized, disputed, and rejected books. Essential for understanding early canon discussions.