The fact that early Christians did not just use books from the New Testament is used to criticize the canon. This article explains that two factors need to be taken into account: such non-canonical writings were rarely cited as Scripture, and are cited far less frequently than the canonical texts.

This article offers a review of the book by Hal Taussig, A New New Testament, a book that argues that apocryphal literature should be regarded as scriptural. The review interacts with the book's introduction, where the author offers his apologetic for the book. This article shows that the author's claims regarding the origins and dates of the books are deceptive, as are his remarks on when the current New Testament came into existence.

This article focuses on the fact that the New Testament books are the earliest Christian writings we have. In other words, all our canonical books are from the first century.

Were the canonical Gospels written by anonymous individuals outside of Palestine? This article considers this claim, and argues that there are good reasons to think that the titles of the Gospels were included at a very early point.

Were the apocryphal gospels as popular and widespread as the canonical gospels? This article argues to the contrary, with three pieces of evidence: the extant manuscripts, the (in)frequency of their citation, and the way they are cited. The majority of early Christians preferred the books that are now in our New Testament canon.

Why were the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas both included in one of the earliest complete New Testament manuscripts? This article considers this question, and argues that their inclusion was according to the standard structure of canonical lists in their time period.

Walter Bauer's book, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, is in many ways the basis for a common misperception about the New Testament canon, that there was very little agreement over the books that made it into the canon until the fourth or fifth century. This article evaluates that claim, showing that there is substantial evidence for widespread agreement over the core canonical books from an early time.

This article discusses the contention of Roman Catholics and others that tradition is the only means by which we may know what books are in the canon of Scripture. It expresses two concerns with this, stating that while a helpful way to know which books are canonical, the consensus approach is not the only way. For the books of the Bible speak for themselves as authoritative.

In this essay, Harris considers the canonical place and position of the book of Chronicles.