When the Bible was canonized, the Church did not seek a "perfect" Bible

The formation of the biblical canon was a gradual process, shaped by theological, historical, and communal factors.

1. Canonization Timeline

• Old Testament (Hebrew Bible):
  The Jewish canon was largely settled by the end of the 1st century CE, traditionally linked to the Council of Jamnia (Yavne), though modern scholars debate its formal role. The tripartite structure (Torah, Prophets, Writings) was affirmed, with most books accepted by the 2nd century BCE.
• New Testament:
  The canon evolved over centuries. Key milestones include:
• 367 CE: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Easter letter listing the 27 NT books.
• 393–397 CE: Councils of Hippo and Carthage ratifying the NT canon as recognized today.

2. Manuscripts Available at the Time

• Old Testament:
• Hebrew Texts: Pre-Masoretic manuscripts (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, 3rd c. BCE–1st c. CE), which show textual diversity.
• Greek Septuagint: A 3rd–2nd c. BCE translation widely used by Hellenistic Jews and early Christians.
• New Testament:
• Early Papyri: Fragments like 𝔓52 (John, ~125 CE) and codices like 𝔓45, 𝔓46, 𝔓66 (2nd–3rd c. CE).
• Uncial Codices: Complete 4th-century manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) containing most NT books.

3. Pursuit of a "Perfect" Bible?

• Canon vs. Textual Perfection:
  The focus was on authoritative content, not textual uniformity. Early communities prioritized apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and liturgical use over resolving minor textual variations.
• Textual Diversity:
  Manuscripts exhibited variations (e.g., spelling, phrasing), but these were tolerated as long as theological coherence remained. The concept of a "perfect" text is modern; ancient compilers relied on available copies without systematic comparison.
• Heresies as Catalyst:
  Challenges like Marcion’s truncated canon (2nd c.) and Gnostic writings spurred efforts to define orthodoxy, emphasizing canon over textual precision.

Why This Matters Today

The canonization process sought to unify communities around a shared scriptural foundation, prioritizing theological consistency over textual perfection. Manuscripts of the era were diverse but functionally authoritative, reflecting the practical realities of ancient book production and transmission.

The ancient approach reminds us that the Bible’s authority lies in its theological message, not in an idealized, error-free text. Modern textual criticism (using ancient manuscripts to reconstruct early readings) is a later development, born of Enlightenment-era ideals of precision—a lens the ancients wouldn’t recognize.

In short, the canonizers sought to unify the Church around which books conveyed God’s truth, trusting that the Holy Spirit guided the community despite the messy realities of human copying.