Davidson opens his preface with a revealing account of the work's origin: written for the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1875, it was abridged and mutilated against his wishes, prompting him to publish it entire. This editorial note frames the book as a corrective—an attempt to fill a vacant place in English scholarship with a comprehensive, critical summary of the canon's formation in both Testaments. Davidson explicitly contrasts his approach with apologetic or traditional treatments, aiming instead for a scientific and impartial handling of the evidence.

A Canon Made by Teachers, Not the Church

Davidson makes a striking claim early in the text: the canon was not the work of the Christian Church as a collective body, but of three leading teachers—Irenæus, Tertullian, and Cyprian—each working separately. He argues that the formation of a Catholic Church and of a canon were simultaneous, and that the circumstances of the collection were unfavorable to authenticity, as tradition had already altered the materials. This perspective challenges the common assumption that the canon emerged organically from early Christian consensus.

He further contends that the first mention of a Catholic Church occurs in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, dated no earlier than 160 A.D., and that the established use of the term is due to the three teachers mentioned. By locating the canon's decisive stage in the late second century, Davidson emphasizes the role of individual agency over institutional decree.

Disputing the Ignatian Epistles

Davidson devotes careful attention to the Ignatian epistles, which he believes are supposititious and later than Justin. He dismisses both the Syriac three and the Greek seven as inauthentic, despite Zahn's attempts to prove the latter genuine and date them to 144 A.D. Davidson's argument hinges on the improbability of Ignatius's journey to Rome and the circumstances of his martyrdom. He prefers the testimony of Malalas, a native of Antioch and a historian, who places Ignatius's death at Antioch in December 115, over that of Chrysostom and the Syriac calendar. This detailed critique illustrates Davidson's method: he weighs historical evidence against traditional claims, refusing to accept patristic testimony uncritically.

Dissension Before the Canon

Davidson challenges the notion that the church was a unified entity from apostolic times. He states plainly that the apostles themselves were by no means unanimous, and that important differences divided Jewish and Gentile Christians from the beginning. The types of Christian truth only gradually coalesced around the mid-second century, when heretics—especially the Gnostics—prompted the development of a catholic church. The canon, in this view, was a response to conflict, not a product of harmony. Davidson's language is pointed: he speaks of dissensions among the earliest Christians and of the apostles' lack of unanimity, undercutting any idealized picture of primitive unity. The shift from traditional teaching to a written rule, he argues, came only after a change in the church's condition—a change driven by controversy.

Readers should approach Davidson's work as a product of its time—a late nineteenth-century critical study that explicitly rejects apologetic frameworks. His arguments about the canon's formation by a few teachers and his skepticism toward traditional attributions (like the Ignatian epistles) reflect the higher criticism then emerging. The book rewards those interested in the history of biblical scholarship, but its conclusions are not the last word; they represent one strand of a long debate. For a fuller picture, Davidson refers readers to his own Introductions to the Old and New Testaments and to other critics of his era.