Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v75b9q0-the-search-for-the-smoking-gun-did-rome-remove-the-books.html
Synopsis
Suspicion must be tested or it becomes accusation. The conviction that Rome removed books from Scripture to protect institutional authority felt plausible, even reasonable. History is filled with institutions guarding power. But plausibility is not proof. So the question was pursued with documents, not assumptions.
Councils were examined. Canon lists were compared. Latin legal formulas were searched. Patristic writings were reviewed. The hope was to find revocation language, evidence of a book once received and later erased. What emerged instead was a different pattern—canon stabilization in late antiquity, followed by centuries of interpretive consolidation and textual regulation.
No decree surfaced removing a previously recognized canonical book from the Western Church. What did appear clearly were boundaries hardening, authority consolidating, and later mechanisms enforcing interpretation and access. The story is not dramatic deletion. It is disciplined stabilization and institutional protection of what had already solidified.
This investigation does not weaken discernment. It refines it. If we are going to question authority, we must do so with evidence that survives scrutiny. What began as a search for a smoking gun became something more valuable: clarity about how canon formed, how authority matured, and how power preserves what it has defined.
Monologue
The question began as a conviction, not as a headline. It felt reasonable to suspect that an institution as powerful as Rome would shape Scripture to protect itself. History is full of governments, councils, and empires editing narratives to secure continuity. If power preserves itself, then perhaps Scripture had not escaped that instinct. That was the suspicion.
But suspicion cannot be preached. It must be tested. So the search began not with rhetoric, but with documents. Councils were opened. Canon lists were examined. Patristic writings were reviewed in their own words. Latin phrases were searched, not modern paraphrases. If a book had been removed, there would be evidence of prior inclusion. If there had been deletion, there would be revocation language. Institutions record their boundaries.
The expectation was straightforward. Somewhere there would be a decree stating that a text once received was no longer to be read. Somewhere there would be language of removal. “Formerly accepted.” “Now rejected.” “No longer counted among the canonical books.” If such language existed, it would appear in the conciliar record. It would surface in Augustine. It would echo in Rome.
Instead, a different pattern emerged. The fourth century shows stabilization, not revision. Councils list what is to be read in church. Augustine names the books received by the Catholic Church. These are inclusion lists, not expulsion lists. Enoch does not appear among the canon—but it also does not appear as a book revoked. It is absent from reception, not removed from recognition.
The search widened. Latin legal formulas were tested. Apocrypha terminology was examined. Gelasian material was pursued. No document surfaced indicating that a book once formally canonized in the Western Church had later been excised. What did surface clearly were boundaries—carefully defined, publicly stated, and then guarded.
That guarding intensified over centuries. Trent centralized interpretive authority. The Vulgate was affirmed as normative. The Index regulated printing and vernacular access. Permission became written. Circulation became supervised. Interpretation became regulated. Authority did not rewrite Scripture; it defined how Scripture would function.
And that distinction matters. Removal is dramatic. Stabilization is structural. Deletion implies erasure. Consolidation implies protection. The documents support the latter far more clearly than the former. Canon hardened in late antiquity. Authority matured with it. Enforcement systems later arose to preserve what had already solidified.
What began as a search for a smoking gun became something more sobering. The story is not that Rome cut books out of a settled Bible. The story is that diverse early Christianity narrowed into defined boundaries, and those boundaries were later protected with institutional force. That is not sensational. It is historical.
The goal was not to defend Rome or condemn it. The goal was to test conviction against record. And when the record speaks, integrity requires listening. If authority is to be challenged, it must be challenged with evidence strong enough to endure scrutiny. What was found is not erasure—but consolidation. Not deletion—but definition. And that clarity is stronger than suspicion.
Part One – The Conviction That Launched the Search
The conviction did not come from a footnote. It came from instinct. Institutions protect themselves. History shows that clearly. Empires edit narratives. Governments suppress dissent. Religious bodies guard orthodoxy. So it felt plausible that Rome, at some point, might have shaped Scripture to secure its authority.
That suspicion was not irrational. The Church held immense power. It defined doctrine. It convened councils. It disciplined dissenters. If any institution in history had the capacity to shape a canon, it would be one with that level of structural control. Capacity alone made the theory believable.
But belief cannot substitute for documentation. If Rome removed books, the evidence would not be mystical. It would be administrative. It would be written. Canon formation is not folklore; it is recorded in decrees, synods, and letters. If deletion occurred, there would be traces of prior inclusion followed by formal exclusion.
The expectation was therefore precise. Somewhere there would be a list that once included a disputed text, and somewhere else a decree correcting or revoking that list. Canonical recognition followed by canonical removal. That would constitute proof.
The search began with that framework in mind. Not rumor. Not internet claims. Not secondary summaries. The councils themselves were examined. The canon lists attributed to Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were reviewed. Augustine’s reception lists were read in context. The language of inclusion was compared across regions.
If a book such as Enoch had once stood within the Western canon, that standing would appear in those early stabilization documents. If it had later been removed, that removal would be visible in the textual record. Canon boundaries do not shift invisibly; they shift publicly.
So the first movement of this investigation was not accusation. It was verification. Before charging erasure, the record had to be examined. Before alleging deletion, the lists had to be opened. Conviction demanded evidence. And evidence would either confirm the suspicion—or reshape it.
Part Two – Examining the Fourth-Century Canon Lists
The fourth century is where canon boundaries begin to harden in visible form. Before this period, Christianity functioned with a diversity of texts, oral tradition, and regional usage. After this period, councils begin listing the books to be read publicly in churches. If removal occurred, it would have to appear around this stabilization point.
The Council of Rome (382), followed by Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), produced lists of books considered suitable for ecclesiastical reading. These lists were not speculative essays; they were boundary statements. They defined what may be read in church as Scripture. That distinction is critical. Canon in practice meant liturgical authorization.
When these lists are examined, a pattern appears. They include the books that later become standard in the Western canon. They do not include Enoch. But more importantly, they do not remove Enoch. There is no language suggesting that Enoch had previously been accepted and was now revoked. There is only inclusion logic—naming what is received.
Augustine reinforces this pattern. In De Doctrina Christiana, he lists the books “received by the Catholic Church.” His approach is descriptive, not corrective. He does not announce a revision. He does not retract prior acceptance of other works. He names what is recognized.
This is where expectation and documentation begin to diverge. If Rome had once recognized Enoch as canonical and later removed it, the fourth century would be the moment to see evidence of that transition. Instead, what appears is a narrowing through reception, not a correction of previous canon status.
The lists function as consolidation points. They reflect a maturing ecclesial identity. Textual diversity gives way to defined boundaries. But the record shows stabilization, not excision. Inclusion, not revocation. Definition, not deletion.
That distinction begins to shift the direction of the investigation. The question moves from “What was cut?” to “What was selected?” The fourth century does not display dramatic removal. It displays careful consolidation. And that consolidation becomes the foundation for everything that follows.
Part Three – The Search for Revocation Language
If a book was removed, the evidence would not be subtle. It would appear in legal phrasing. Councils speak with formula. Decrees record boundaries. Canon law is precise. So the investigation shifted from general history to targeted language. The goal was to find revocation, not just absence.
Search terms were narrowed. Latin phrases were examined. “Non recipiuntur.” “Apocrypha.” “Formerly received.” “No longer counted among the canonical books.” “Shall not be read in the churches.” If a text had once been canon and later excluded, that transition would require explicit wording. Canon does not change by implication. It changes by declaration.
What surfaced instead were consistent patterns of classification. Texts were either received or not received. They were categorized as canonical or apocryphal. But there was no documentary trail showing that a previously recognized canonical book in the Western Church had later been removed. The language of expulsion did not appear.
This absence became increasingly significant. Revocation leaves marks. Especially in ecclesiastical structures. Councils preserve records. Disputes generate correspondence. Controversies produce statements. If a canonical book had been stripped of status, theologians would have debated it. The silence around such a shift suggests something else.
The search extended into conciliar material often associated with the Decretum Gelasianum, which contains lists of accepted and rejected writings. Even there, the pattern is consistent. Books are named as canonical. Others are named as apocryphal. But no document surfaced indicating that Enoch had first stood within the canon and was later expelled.
This reframes the issue. There is a difference between exclusion and removal. Exclusion happens during stabilization—when boundaries are drawn. Removal would require a prior acceptance followed by revocation. The documents support the former far more clearly than the latter.
As the search for revocation language continued without result, the investigation began to shift. The dramatic narrative of deletion did not emerge. Instead, what appeared was a steady process of selection, classification, and eventual consolidation. Not erasure—but definition.
Part Four – Ethiopia and the Question of Divergence
The survival of Enoch in Ethiopia becomes the pivot point in this investigation. If the West does not include it, but Ethiopia preserves it as canonical, the instinct is to assume suppression. It feels intuitive. One tradition retains the book. Another does not. The gap invites suspicion.
But divergence is not the same as deletion. Early Christianity was not a single uniform stream. It was regional. Jewish apocalyptic literature circulated differently in different communities. What was read in one liturgical setting was not always read in another. Canon formation did not descend fully formed; it matured in context.
Ethiopia preserved a broader canon that includes Enoch and Jubilees. That preservation reflects a transmission line that valued those texts and continued copying them. Survival in history often depends on copying priority. What is copied lives. What is not copied fades. That dynamic does not require conspiracy. It requires preference.
The Western Church followed a different trajectory. By the fourth century, its canon lists stabilized around a narrower corpus. Enoch does not appear among the books received for liturgical reading. But it also does not appear as a book revoked. It simply never enters the Western stabilization process.
This reframes the narrative. If Enoch had been canon in Rome and later stripped away, the record would reflect that correction. Instead, what the record reflects is regional canon development before convergence. One branch retains apocalyptic breadth. Another narrows around apostolic and liturgical consensus.
The difference, then, is not necessarily suppression but consolidation. Western Christianity defined its canon according to criteria that emphasized apostolicity, catholicity, and widespread liturgical use. Ethiopia’s tradition preserved texts that held longstanding theological significance in its own ecclesial memory.
This is not a dramatic act of erasure. It is historical divergence. And divergence, over centuries, hardens into difference. What survives in one region may disappear in another, not because it was surgically removed, but because it was never universally received. The evidence supports that pattern far more clearly than intentional deletion.
Part Five – What Did Appear: Consolidation and Control
While the search for removal language did not produce a decanonization event, another pattern became unmistakable. The later history of the Western Church reveals strong consolidation around the stabilized canon. Authority did not rewrite the list, but it did begin to regulate how that list functioned.
By the time of Trent, the canon is reaffirmed with precision. The Latin Vulgate is named as the authoritative text for public use. Interpretation is not left to private judgment if it contradicts what the Church has received and held. The boundary is no longer only about which books are read; it is about who defines their meaning.
This is where the structure shifts from stabilization to protection. Once the canon has hardened, institutional authority begins guarding it. The Index regulates which books may be printed. Vernacular translations require permission. Possession of certain texts becomes conditional. Access becomes supervised.
That is not speculative. It is administrative. Written permission. Episcopal oversight. Printed approval. Enforcement mechanisms. The Church built systems to regulate reading and interpretation within its jurisdiction. These measures were not aimed at altering the text of Scripture but at controlling its circulation and use.
The distinction is crucial. Control over interpretation is not the same as deletion of content. The text remains. The list remains. But authority narrows the interpretive field and supervises transmission. The canon is protected through regulation, not rewritten through removal.
What emerged clearly from the documents is this: once the Western canon stabilized, Rome acted to preserve unity around it. Dissenting interpretations were restricted. Unauthorized printings were prohibited. Translation became a controlled act. The mechanism of power was not erasure; it was governance.
This reframes the original suspicion. The instinct that authority protects itself was not misplaced. The historical record shows interpretive consolidation and circulation control. But the mechanism uncovered was not surgical deletion of canonical books. It was structured preservation of what had already been defined.
Part Six – How Canon Stabilization and Authority Grew Together
As the research moved forward, something deeper began to surface. Canon stabilization did not occur in a vacuum. It unfolded alongside the maturation of episcopal authority. As the Church clarified which books were to be read publicly, it was also clarifying who had the authority to define that boundary.
This is not sinister by default. Every community eventually defines its sources of identity. But in late antiquity, identity and authority were inseparable. When bishops gathered to define doctrine, they also defined Scripture. When they defined Scripture, they reinforced ecclesial unity. Canon and governance matured together.
The fourth century is therefore not merely about texts. It is about consolidation. Christianity was emerging from persecution into imperial recognition. Doctrinal disputes were fracturing communities. A stable canon provided continuity. A defined list anchored orthodoxy. Boundary-setting became a tool for cohesion.
This explains why the canon hardens when it does. It is not simply a literary decision. It is an ecclesial one. Books that were widely read but lacked universal liturgical use or apostolic grounding did not make the stabilization cut. That exclusion was not dramatic expulsion. It was consolidation around consensus.
Over time, that consolidation became institutional memory. What the councils received became the standard. What the Church read publicly became the norm. Authority and canon were no longer developing separately. They were reinforcing each other.
Seen through this lens, the absence of Enoch in Western lists is not evidence of later removal. It reflects the criteria of a maturing ecclesial structure seeking unity around texts broadly received across its communion. Authority and canon did not collide; they coalesced.
That coalescence matters. Because once canon and governance become intertwined, protecting the canon becomes synonymous with protecting institutional continuity. The later regulatory mechanisms do not create the canon. They defend the one that had already stabilized. And that is a far more historically coherent explanation than secret deletion.
Part Seven – The Difference Between Removal and Marginalization
At this stage, the distinction becomes critical. Removal is an event. Marginalization is a process. Removal requires a decree. Marginalization requires time. One leaves a paper trail. The other leaves a pattern of silence.
The research did not uncover a revocation decree. It did not reveal a council retracting a previously canonical book. What it revealed instead was a narrowing of liturgical reading and copying priority. What is not read publicly is less frequently copied. What is less frequently copied becomes harder to preserve. Over generations, marginal texts fade from regional memory.
This is how textual ecosystems change. Not always by prohibition, but by preference. When bishops defined what may be read in church, they were defining what would be copied consistently. Scriptoria reproduce what communities value. Over centuries, reproduction becomes preservation.
Enoch, influential in earlier Jewish and some early Christian circles, did not secure universal liturgical use in the Western Church. Without that anchor, it did not enjoy the copying momentum granted to canonical texts. Its survival in Ethiopia reflects a different copying tradition, not necessarily an act of Western excision.
Marginalization is quieter than deletion, but historically powerful. A text may fall outside the canon not because it was erased, but because it was never stabilized within the consensus. Once outside that consensus, it receives less transmission energy.
This perspective reframes the suspicion. Instead of a dramatic act of cutting a book out of a settled Bible, the evidence points to gradual boundary-setting followed by centuries of copying habits reinforcing that boundary. The absence of Enoch in the Western canon reflects consolidation, not surgical removal.
Understanding this distinction preserves clarity. It prevents overstating the case. It recognizes how institutions shape continuity—often through selection and repetition rather than overt excision. And that nuance is essential if the investigation is to remain grounded in documented history.
Part Eight – The Real Mechanism of Power
If deletion was not the mechanism, what was? The documents point clearly toward a different form of consolidation: interpretive control. Once the canon stabilized, authority turned toward defining how that canon would function within the Church.
By the sixteenth century, this becomes explicit. The canon is reaffirmed. The Latin Vulgate is named as normative for public use. Interpretation contrary to the received sense of the Church is restricted. The emphasis shifts from which books are included to who has jurisdiction over their meaning.
This is a subtler form of power. The text remains intact. The list does not change. But interpretation is guarded. Translation becomes supervised. Access to Scripture in the vernacular requires permission. Printing is regulated. Enforcement mechanisms are built to ensure compliance.
Such structures are documented. The Index outlines restrictions. Licensing is required. Unauthorized texts are prohibited. The Church does not erase Scripture; it regulates it. Authority protects its stabilized canon by narrowing interpretive freedom within its domain.
This reveals something important. Institutional strength does not require rewriting sacred texts. It requires governing how they are used. By defining the authorized text and the authorized interpreter, continuity is preserved without altering the corpus.
The suspicion that authority protects itself was not misplaced. What the research clarifies is how that protection functioned. It was not achieved by secretly cutting books from the Bible. It was achieved by establishing a stable canon and then constructing systems to guard its transmission and meaning.
This distinction reshapes the narrative. The power dynamic was real. The enforcement systems were real. But the mechanism was not deletion. It was governance. And governance leaves a far different historical footprint than erasure.
Part Nine – The Hard Adjustment
There comes a moment in any serious investigation where conviction must yield to documentation. That moment is uncomfortable. It feels like retreat. But it is not retreat. It is refinement. The search for a smoking gun did not produce a deletion decree. It produced clarity.
The instinct that something had been hidden was strong. The expectation that Rome must have removed something felt plausible. But plausibility is not proof. Repetition of suspicion does not create evidence. Only documents do.
As each search returned stabilization rather than revocation, the narrative began to shift. The absence of a removal decree across multiple conciliar records is not a small detail. It is significant. Councils preserve boundary changes carefully. If a canonical book had been stripped from the Western Bible, it would have left marks.
Instead, what remained consistent was inclusion logic. Lists naming what is received. Not lists retracting what was once accepted. The pattern did not collapse under scrutiny. It clarified under scrutiny.
This is the hard adjustment. It requires separating what feels true from what is documented. It requires acknowledging that divergence between traditions does not automatically imply suppression. It requires allowing evidence to refine conviction.
That refinement does not weaken discernment. It strengthens it. Authority consolidation is real. Interpretive regulation is real. Censorship mechanisms are real. But canonical deletion in the Western Church, as originally suspected, does not appear in the examined record.
The adjustment, then, is not surrender. It is precision. The claim must match the documentation. And when the documentation speaks clearly, integrity demands listening. Truth is not defended by exaggeration. It is defended by alignment.
Part Ten – The Refined Conclusion
After examining councils, patristic lists, Latin legal phrases, canon scholars, and regulatory systems, the shape of the evidence becomes clear. The Western Church stabilized its canon in late antiquity. That stabilization did not include Enoch. No document surfaced showing that Enoch was first canonized in Rome and later removed.
What did emerge was consolidation. By the fourth century, boundaries were defined around what may be read publicly in church. Those boundaries hardened over time. Authority matured alongside them. Later, Rome constructed interpretive and publishing regulations to protect the stabilized corpus.
This reframes the original suspicion. The question was whether Rome deleted books to protect institutional authority. The documents support a different structure: Rome protected a canon that had already stabilized. It guarded interpretation. It regulated translation. It supervised circulation. But it did not rewrite the canon through documented removal.
That distinction is not trivial. It separates erasure from consolidation. It replaces accusation with documentation. It allows criticism where evidence exists—interpretive monopoly, vernacular restriction, regulatory control—without asserting what cannot be demonstrated.
The divergence between Western and Ethiopian canons reflects different historical trajectories before full standardization. Survival in one region and absence in another does not automatically prove deletion. It reflects transmission patterns and liturgical adoption.
So the refined thesis stands on firmer ground. Canon hardened in the fourth century. Authority consolidated with it. Enforcement mechanisms later preserved that structure. The record supports stabilization and governance—not secret excision.
And that clarity is stronger than a dramatic narrative unsupported by documents. Truth survives scrutiny. Precision strengthens argument. When conviction aligns with evidence, the case endures.
Conclusion
The search began with suspicion. It ended with documentation. The expectation was to uncover a dramatic act of removal—a moment when Rome cut books from Scripture to guard its authority. What emerged instead was a far steadier pattern.
Canon stabilization occurred in late antiquity. Councils named the books to be read in church. Augustine listed those received. The Western canon hardened through inclusion, not through revocation. No decree surfaced removing a previously recognized canonical book. The dramatic cut never appeared in the record examined.
What did appear clearly was consolidation. Authority matured alongside the canon. Once boundaries were defined, they were guarded. Interpretation was centralized. Translation was regulated. Circulation was supervised. Power preserved what had stabilized. But preservation is not deletion.
The divergence between Western and Ethiopian traditions reflects differing historical trajectories. Survival in one region and absence in another does not automatically imply suppression. It reveals how transmission and liturgical adoption shape what endures.
This investigation does not weaken discernment. It strengthens it. It replaces suspicion with precision. It allows criticism where evidence exists and restrains accusation where it does not. Truth does not require embellishment. It requires alignment with the record.
What began as a search for a smoking gun became something more valuable—clarity about how canon formed, how authority matured, and how institutions protect what they define. And clarity is stronger than conjecture.
Bibliography
- Athanasius of Alexandria. The Festal Letters. Translated by David Brakke and David M. Gwynn. Translated Texts for Historians 81. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022.
- Bethencourt, Francisco. La Inquisición en la época moderna: España, Portugal e Italia, siglos XV–XIX. Madrid: Akal, 1995.
- Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
- Charles, R. H., ed. and trans. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
- Charles, R. H., trans. The Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893.
- Council of Carthage (397). Acts of the Council of Carthage and Council of Hippo. Various modern English editions.
- Council of Trent. Decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Trent. 1546. Various English translations.
- Eusebius of Caesarea. On the Theophania. Translated by Samuel Lee. Syriac Studies Library 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1843.
- McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Baker Academic, 2007.
- Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
- Vose, Robin. The Index of Prohibited Books: Four Centuries of Struggle over Word and Image for the Greater Glory of God. London: Reaktion Books, 2022.
- Augustine of Hippo. De Doctrina Christiana. Various English translations.
- Jerome. Prologus Galeatus (Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings). Various Latin and English editions.
Endnotes
- Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Baker Academic, 2007), 14–19.
- Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 17–22.
- F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 17–36.
- Council of Carthage (397), in Acts of the Council of Carthage and Council of Hippo, various English editions; see also Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 2.8.
- Augustine of Hippo, De Doctrina Christiana, trans. R. P. H. Green (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), II.8.
- R. H. Charles, trans., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), General Introduction.
- R. H. Charles, ed. and trans., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), vol. 2.
- Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25, in which disputed and rejected writings are categorized; see also Samuel Lee, trans., Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the Theophania (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1843).
- Council of Trent, Fourth Session (April 8, 1546), “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” in various English translations of the Tridentine Decrees.
- Robin Vose, The Index of Prohibited Books: Four Centuries of Struggle over Word and Image for the Greater Glory of God (London: Reaktion Books, 2022), 10–25.
- Francisco Bethencourt, La Inquisición en la época moderna: España, Portugal e Italia, siglos XV–XIX (Madrid: Akal, 1995), 23–47.
- Jerome, Prologus Galeatus (Preface to Samuel and Kings), in which he discusses canonical and apocryphal distinctions within the Latin tradition.
- McDonald, The Biblical Canon, Appendix B (comparative canon lists).
- Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Part III, “The Significance of the Canon,” especially the discussion of “authoritative collection” versus “collection of authoritative books.”
- Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, chapter 2, on the rejection of the Jamnia-closure hypothesis and the development of the Old Testament canon.
#BiblicalCanon #CanonFormation #ChurchHistory #EarlyChurch #CouncilOfCarthage #CouncilOfTrent #Athanasius #Augustine #Enoch #EthiopianCanon #Apocrypha #Pseudepigrapha #IndexOfProhibitedBooks #InquisitionHistory #AuthorityAndScripture #ChurchCouncils #CanonDebate #HistoricalTheology #TextualHistory #ScriptureStudy
BiblicalCanon, CanonFormation, ChurchHistory, EarlyChurch, CouncilOfCarthage, CouncilOfTrent, Athanasius, Augustine, Enoch, EthiopianCanon, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, IndexOfProhibitedBooks, InquisitionHistory, AuthorityAndScripture, ChurchCouncils, CanonDebate, HistoricalTheology, TextualHistory, ScriptureStudy