Who Decided the New Testament Canon? The Athanasius Debate

Who decided which books belong to the New Testament?

The formation of the biblical canon was not an automatic divine process, but a human decision that breeds skepticism in many. The figure of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century, is key: his Easter letter of 367 included, for the first time, the 27 books we know today as the New Testament. But why should we accept his authority? Critics point out that Athanasius was never prophesied nor held any explicit divine mandate; he simply applied criteria such as apostolic origin, liturgical use and doctrinal coherence. The debate intensifies when we remember that he was unaware of later manuscripts such as those of Nag Hammadi or Qumran.

Athanasius's criteria: arbitrary or necessary?

Defenders of the Catholic tradition argue that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the authority to define the canon. They point out that Jesus himself promised to be with his apostles until the end of the age (Matthew 28), and that the Church, through councils and Church Fathers, has discerned the inspired texts. One defender notes that the Second Vatican Council devoted three years of debates, with 2,800 bishops and 7,000 advisers, to settle questions of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. For them, doubting Athanasius means falling into the radical skepticism that leads to Gnosticism or Marxism.

The skeptical position: dogma without foundation?

Against this, a critical current holds that Athanasius, Eusebius or Tertullian had no authority to determine what should be believed. They are accused of acting according to their own interests and of excluding books to please the majority of their time. The question is uncomfortable: what evidence do we have that they were not mere mortals in the service of an ecclesiastical regime? For these skeptics, the canon is a human construct that the Church elevated to dogma out of ignorance or convenience.

The exchange of arguments leaves a central question hanging: trust in the transmission of Revelation depends on a chain of authority that, for many, does not hold up on its own. The analysis of Athanasius's criteria and the response of tradition remain at odds, with no definitive consensus.