How were the hundreds of ancient churches that existed in the first few centuries of Christianity able to come to agreement on which 27 books belonged in the New Testament when churches typically find it difficult to agree on things?
Let’s say you have 27 genuine one-dollar bills to which you add 73 counterfeit bills so that you now have a stack of 100 bills. You then shuffle them so that the authentic dollar bills are randomly distributed among the 73 fakes. Now let’s say you go to a friend of yours and ask him if he can determine which of these 100 bills are genuine and which are counterfeit. You tell him that he can consult anyone he wants for advice, including counterfeit experts, in order to arrive at his answer. You also tell him that he has a year to complete the project. And you offer him a very attractive prize he if correctly identifies the 27 that are real and the 73 that are fake and a booby prize if he fails. Are you going to be surprised if he comes back to you within a year and correctly identifies the 27 genuine dollar bills? Of course not. And if you decided to replicate the project with 200 people you know and respect, are you going to be surprised if they can do the same thing? Of course not. Now let’s say you also asked each of the 200 people to tell you which are most important words on a one dollar bill. Are you going to be surprised if the 200 individuals come back with same answer? Yes, you are. Why would they all give the same answer to the first question but different answers to the second? Because answering the first question was a matter of investigation, while answering the second was a matter of interpretation.
Textual Issues Are Matters of Investigation
For hundreds of ancient churches to come into agreement about which texts actually came from the apostolic generation in the 1st century and which were forgeries that followed after was a matter of investigation. The churches had a long time to make up their minds: at least 300 years. There was an attractive prize: the honor of not being fooled by a forger. There was a booby prize: no group enjoys being duped. And there were plenty of people who could be consulted. Since there was no printing press back then and all manuscripts had to be copied by hand, there was a manageable number of manuscripts to be analyzed. And a chain of custody could be established and tracked for virtually all of them. Also, since this activity was one of great concern to the church congregations, there were many witnesses to all the copying and distribution of manuscripts. Thus the determination of which texts are genuine is a matter of history, not theology.
Theological Issues are Matters of Interpretation
Theology, unlike history, is much more susceptible to controversy. This is why various ecumenical church councils had to debate and hammer out agreements on difficult theological questions while the work of authenticating, copying, and circulating apostolic manuscripts routinely proceeded in the background and without fanfare. For example, the first two ecumenical councils, which were held in the 4th century, addressed, among other subjects, Arianism, Apollinarism, and Sabellianism. You and I don’t have to have to understand these terms to understand that coming to agreement on “isms” was a lot more complicated matter than distinguishing counterfeit documents from authentic ones. Even today, we still see how hard it is for churches to agree theologically.
Summary
There’s a reason that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations but only one New Testament. It’s because the number of denominations is driven by theology which must be inferred from texts while the latter is a matter of the texts themselves which could simply be examined by the people who handled them. The contrast between tens of thousands and one is remarkable, but altogether understandable.
Related essays:
Why Did It Take 300 Years to Form the New Testament? (5 min)
The Extraordinary 1st-Century Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (6 min)
All Essays
9/23/25
The Duty of a Man 