The Formation of the New Testament Canon

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. TIMOTHY MINK
TO FULFILL THE COURSE REQUIREMENTS OF NBST 525
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN RELIGION

The purpose of this research paper is to show Christianity’s need for a commonly recognized set of authoritative and trustworthy written documents. The paper will also show how that under the guidance of God the twenty-seven books of the New Testament came into existence and ultimately became a part of that closed body of generally accepted documents called the canon.

Christianity was soon recognized as a movement with separate identity from Judaism. The Christian community realized the need for written records of the history and teachings of Jesus and the apostles. “So long as the eye-witnesses of the great salvation-bringing events were alive to tell the tale, it was not necessary to have a formal written record. But the apostles were not going to live on earth for ever, and it was obviously desirable that their message should be preserved after they had gone.”[1] Within a few years after the advent of Christ Christian writers began to record the stories and words of Jesus and interpret their significance. The documents they produced were thought to be divinely inspired and their writings were accepted as trustworthy and authoritative, but there was not yet a canon in the sense of a recognized collection of authoritative and final Christian documents. “Towards the end of the first century, however, we find the beginnings of a movement in this direction.”[2] Over time that movement strengthened until Christianity as a whole recognized all of the twenty-seven of the New Testament books to be Scripture. Other documents were not given that status.

The earliest Christians did not reject Judaism, but they were convinced that their faith was the fulfillment of the age-long expectation of a Messiah.[3] However, most Jews quickly came to view Christianity as a new movement to be rejected and opposed, an estrangement soon recognized by both Christians and Jews. The Jewish leadership negotiated the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:1)[4] and attempted to silence Peter and John (Acts 4:1-21). They soon martyred Stephen (Acts 7:54-60). Before Paul’s conversion he was a militant Pharisee who passionately “persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women” (Acts 22:4). The early Jewish Ebionites strongly opposed the deity of Christ as an affront to monotheism.[5] Within a few decades Romans also distinguished Christianity as a separate sect from Judaism.[6] As Rome awakened to this reality she waged an increasingly vicious war against Christians. Millions were persecuted and martyred. This transition in how Christians were viewed made the need for authoritative Christian documents increasingly apparent.

The word canon comes from the Greek kanon and is used metaphorically in reference to a measure, norm or standard.[7] The Greek term had a concrete meaning as well as several metaphorical extensions.[8] For example the apostle Paul used the word in reference to the standard or “rule” of conduct expected of believers (Galatians 6:16). Canon as used in relation to the Bible arose in Christian circles however it was borrowed from the Hellenistic world.[9] Athanasius mentioned of the “books which have been canonized.”[10] This is a use of the word canon in the sense of a standard of authoritative, divinely revealed documents.[11] The words canon and canonical “came into general use in the 4^th century with the technical meaning of the books which were received by the church as the rule of Christian faith.”[12] The word has come to be currently used in a specialized sense as referring to the books of the Bible which are accepted by a particular church.[13] Though most of Christianity has agreed for centuries on the books that form the New Testament, there are those who disagree. The debate over which books belong in the canon is limited to a small number. There is strong agreement on most of the books.

Soon after the earthly life and ministry of Christ, books were written and recognized as authoritative Scripture. Acceptance of canonical books was not the work of councils; it was “a spontaneous process that went on throughout the church.”[14] Towards the end of the first century the four Gospels were written and “appear to have been brought together in one collection.”[15] Acts shared the same authority as Luke. From their initial writing, possibly a few years earlier than the Gospels, Paul’s letters to the churches were circulated and read among the churches (Colossians 4:16). Paul’s letters were gathered in a collection bearing the title The Apostle.”[16] Peter mentioned multiple writings by Paul all of which he assumed to be authoritative (2 Peter 3:15-16). Of the seven general letters known as the Catholic letters, 1 Peter and 1 John were without substantial question. James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter and Jude struggled for acceptance and many churches, particularly in the East, rejected the Revelation.[17] All books of the New Testament were complete, or substantially complete, by A.D. 100. The majority of the writings were in existence twenty to forty years earlier.[18] However debate over James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and the Revelation continued for over 200 years but there was wide acceptance of all except these six books. The fact is that even these books were questioned rather than completely rejected by the majority.

A main criterion applied by the early Christians in deciding whether or not a book was canonical was apostolic authorship. These men claimed divine inspiration (2 Peter 1:19-21) and their writings were accepted as such (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Pseudonymous books were regarded with great skepticism, if not rejected altogether.[19] If a book could be proven to have been written by an apostle, it was almost certain to be accepted by the majority, however Mark, Luke and Acts were not written by an apostle and many do not believe that Paul wrote Hebrews. It is thus evident that apostolic authorship was not the sole ground for acceptance. If a book was not written by an apostle, to gain acceptance it must have been written by someone very close to the apostles. Such was the case of Mark and Luke.[20] Another basis for canonicity was conformity to the rule of faith which was “conformity between the document and orthodoxy, that is, Christian truth as normative in the churches.”[21] Orthodoxy was generally recognized in the Christian community and no book that failed to conform to the widely accepted standard was considered canonical. A book’s authority “must be confirmed by the internal testimony of the book itself.”[22] A third but less important criterion was a document’s widespread and continuous acceptance and usage by churches everywhere.[23] Jerome accepted both Hebrews and the Apocalypse “in part because many ancient writers had accepted both of them as canonical.”[24] The canonical books were read widely in the churches, but other non-canonical books were read also which many help explain why some early manuscript copies of the Scriptures have non-canonical books bound in with the canonical ones.[25] It is noteworthy that inspiration was not a conscious consideration in determining the canonical status of a book. There did not seem to be significant questioning of the divine inspiration of the apostles or of what they wrote. The early Christians assumed that the apostles, and those close to them who wrote, were inspired.[26]

When the canon was eventually closed it included the 27 books that make up the English New Testament. There were far more books than these and some were regarded as canonical. With progression of time and the proliferation of books the issue of which books were authoritative Scripture and which were not grew.

To make them seem authoritative many books were accredited to one of the apostles. Around A.D. 120 the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, was regarded by Clement of Alexandria and by Origin as Holy Scripture.[27] Early writings regarded by some as Scripture included the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul. “These books hovered on the border of Canon in some sections of the country for a time, but were all rejected by and by. Many other later Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses appeared under the names of the Apostles which did not receive the serious consideration of the Church.”[28] Eusebius subdivided the disputed books into three divisions. He classified into those James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John as those generally accepted. Into a category of books that are not genuine he put Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and, perhaps, the Apocalypse. The third category, embracing clearly heretical writings, included gospels such as those of Peter and Thomas, acts of Andrew and John, and similar writings.[29] It is obvious that determining canonicity became a growing problem. The potential for confusion grew. The need for an authoritative canon became increasingly clear.

Even before all of the New Testament books were written, a heretical theology claiming to be Christian emerged. This theology called Gnosticism drew elements from Judaism, eastern religions and Christianity.[30] Gnosticism distinguished what it held to be the inferior Creator-God of the Old Testament from the God and Father revealed in Christ.[31] Among many other anti-Christian beliefs, Gnostics rejected the material world and insisted that Jesus Christ was not material but only appeared to be real. This meant Gnostics denied the reality of the incarnation of Christ.[32]

In the early 2^nd century a famous and highly influential man named Marcion emerged as leader of the Gnostics. He rejected all of the Old Testament as having no authority for Christians. He reduced Christian Scripture to the Gospel of Luke from which he extracted all Jewish sympathies plus the Pauline Epistles from which he removed “all references to the Old Testament and all mention of the true God, the Father of Jesus, as the creator of the world.”[33] Marcion believed the Church ought to jettison all that was Jewish including all parts of the New Testament that seemed to be infected with Judaism.[34]

Marcion was in Rome in A.D. 140. It was then and there that he drew up the “the earliest list of New Testament books of which we have definite knowledge.”[35] It is presumed that he brought with him to Rome the New Testament text that he had used in the Black Sea area where he grew to adulthood.[36]

Marcion’s followers formed a very influential group for many years. They attracted many from the orthodox churches. In light of Marcion’s bold initiative in announcing a canon and its influence in the Christian world, leaders of orthodox churches saw the necessity of explicitly defining a true canon of New Testament Scripture. Marcion’s canon necessitated a countering.[37]

Marcion was highly influential and his canon made the need for a true canon obvious, although one should not jump to the premature conclusion that the establishing of a New Testament canon is only a response to Marcion. There were many other factors. For example, a movement called Montanism emphasized continued prophesying. This movement forced the church to declare what was legitimate and illegitimate prophecy.[38] Also, the persecution and martyrdom of multitudes of Christians intensified the climate for the clear identification of a standardized body of accepted Scriptures. During the hundreds of years of great persecution Roman authorities demanded that Christians surrender their writings. To the Romans it was important to destroy these Christian writings. Furthermore the Christian community viewed surrender of the Scriptures to the authorities to be a grievous sin. The pressure on Christians to decide what was Scripture and what was not was great. Often writings considered non-canonical were surrendered to Roman authorities while those believed to be Scripture were hidden. Another force that heightened the need for a clearly recognized canon was Constantine’s call for multiplication of copies of the Scriptures. It is obvious that identifying what they were became highly important.[39] There were external factors accenting the need for a canon but, “external factors did not determine that there would be a New Testament canon nor dictate its contents. However external factors influenced the process of definition and likely hastened that process.”[40]

The canon was well on its way to taking clear shape before Marcion’s activity began.[41] Internally the church needed authoritative materials for various purposes such as guidance in the moral life of members, confessional materials and worship practices. Material accepted as divine revelation was regarded as authoritative from its reception.”[42] Thus, “handed down” or “received” became standard language used by the first Christian writers about the canonical books.[43] “The increasing of time decreased direct contact with living witnesses and put more premium on written records as aids to memory and a standard by which to evaluate teachings.”[44] Historians trace three phases in the process of canonization. First, certain of the documents of the N.T. were collected locally and quoted in works of theology without any thought of having to argue their genuineness. Second, in response to Marcion and the spurious Gnostic texts, Christian leaders began to investigate the canon and publish lists of genuine books. Finally, church councils met to decide between genuine and spurious books.[45]

Long before Marcion and with acceleration thereafter the need not only for authoritative books but also for an authoritative set of books grew. “Generally speaking, from the time of Irenaeus on the New Testament contained practically all the same books we receive today, and were regarded with the same reverence that we bestow on them today.”[46] Irenaeus lived from approximately A.D. 130 to A.D. 200.[47] Even before Irenaeus, Polycarp used much of the New Testament in his letter to the Philippians. The Didache of A.D. 120 alludes to most of the New Testament books. Melito, who was bishop of Sardis in the second century, quotes from all the books of the New Testament except James, Jude, 2 John and 3 John. Lucian’s Antioch Canon, which is believed by many to be the parent of the great majority of present Greek manuscripts, includes all books of the New Testament except the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude. Eusebius seems to have accepted all 27 books, although he was uncertain about the Apocalypse.[48]

The Muratorian Canon, named after Lodovico Antonio Muratori who discovered it, is a list of canonical books originating in Rome about A.D. 190.[49] It mentions Luke as the third Gospel, apparently an acknowledgment of Matthew and Mark. It also “mentions John, Acts, Paul’s nine letters to churches and four to individuals (Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy), Jude, two epistles of John, and the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter. The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as worthy to be read (i.e. in church) but not to be included in the number of prophetic or apostolic writings.”[50]

It is obvious that with the passing of time, consensus was growing in the Christian community as to which books were canonical. There was a mounting recognition of an accepted canon or body of books considered to be authoritative Scripture.

As long as the list was open, there was a collection of authoritative books, a collection of Scriptures, but there was not yet an authoritative collection of books, a canon.[51] Essential elements in the concept of canon are reflective judgment and an exclusively closed list of books. As long as these elements were missing, the Christian community had a collection of authoritative books of Scripture, but it did not yet have a canon.[52] The need for a divine standard of faith and practice could not be denied.

The collection of the current 27 books of the New Testament into a canon, in distinction both from apocryphal or pseudo-apostolic works, and from orthodox yet merely human productions, was the work of the early church. In “performing it she was likewise guided by the Spirit of God and by a sound sense of truth.”[53] The sifting, rejecting and collecting of books was not a series of sporadic events. It was rather a long, continuous process. Instead of being the result of a deliberate decree by an individual or a council near the beginning of the Christian era, the collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences.[54] “One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect.”[55]

The first list that includes all and only the twenty-seven books of the New Testament is that of the Easter Letter by Athanasius to the Alexandrian in 367. This letter is prescriptive rather than descriptive.[56] He wrote, “Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.”[57]

Two prominent and very influential early church fathers had a tremendous bearing on the closing of the New Testament canon and the acceptance thereof. One was Jerome who was born in A.D. 346. He was a highly educated and brilliant scholar. From A.D. 386 until his death in A.D. 420 he lived at Bethlehem. In A.D. 384 he finished a translation of the New Testament into Latin. It “contained the books which we use, and, as it came more and more to be accepted as the chief Latin version, the books it contained became the generally accepted books of the Western Church.”[58]

The influence of Augustine upon the Western Church was even greater than that of Jerome. Augustine was born in A.D. 354 and became the bishop of Hippo in A.D. 395. In his famous treatise on Christian learning, he listed the current 27 books of the New Testament. The greater part of this document was written in A.D. 396-397.[59]

The great debate of so many generations was practically over, but it remained for some one to say that it was over. It was Augustine who, in three provincial synods, cast his weight for the twenty-seven books now known as the Christian Scriptures. Three synods were held, one in Hippo in A.D. 393, one in Carthage in 397, and the last in Carthage in 419.[60] The synod at Carthage in A.D. 397 stands out. Augustine was there. The twenty-seven New Testament books were officially recognized and declared.[61] “The opening words of the statute on the canon are straightforward and forthright: ‘Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures.’”[62] Other books could be read, but not as Scripture. “Twenty-seven books, no more, and no less, is henceforth the watchword throughout the Latin Church.”[63] It would be a mistake to imply that the decision of this council finally settled the issue of canonicity in all Christian communities. It did not, particularly in the East.[64] There are still several segments within Christianity whose canons differ slightly from the standard twenty-seven. Minor debate continues. “Nevertheless the worldwide church almost universally came to accept the same twenty-seven books.”[65]

No person has impacted the world like Jesus Christ. He dramatically and radically changed lives. He came, not for one generation only, but for all men. His stories and sayings must be told and preserved in writing. God reared up men for that very purpose and guided them by His Spirit in the undertaking which was His and not theirs.

The New Testament canon is the work of God. Not only did He use human instruments to bring it into existence, but the writing of the books and the gathering of them into a closed canon was clearly not orchestrated by any person or group of persons. Over several hundred years players entered and exited God’s grand stage, but His project continued. He was determined to give, then consolidate and preserve His word.

From the first the Christian community knew what Jesus did and said and recognized the truthfulness of the twenty-seven books as they were written. They also recognized that many writings with claims of inspiration were spurious. The passing of time made it increasingly evident that an authoritative set of documents be officially declared. The vast majority had long recognized which ones they were. Declaring them was not therefore a difficult task. It was simply a matter of making the obvious official. Once that was done, most of the Christian community recognized the declaration to be correct and in touch with reality. Most accepted the canon and the debate was over. Just as giving the individual books took several years, amalgamating them under one cover that was generally recognized and accepted as authoritative and final took time, but it happened. The historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the formation of the canon is strong and the internal evidence of the New Testament that it is the work of God remains as evident and convincing as it was to the early Christians. From its start Christianity needed a commonly recognized set of authoritative and trustworthy written documents which is exactly what it has in the New Testament.

[1] F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984), 98.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984) 20.

[4] All references and quotations taken from the King James Version Bible unless otherwise noted. King James Version Bible, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996).

[5] Colin Brown, Generation, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 36.

[6] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3^rd ed, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 87.

[7] Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002), 3.

[8] Eugene Ulrich, The Notion and Definition of Canon, The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002), 22.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Athanasius, Athanasius: Select Words and Letters, Letter XXXIX, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 2^nd series, vol. 4, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2004), 552.

[11] Thiessen, 4.

[12] Hans-Georg Link, Glossary of Technical Terms, New InternationalDictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, s.v. “canon.”

[13] Webster’s New World Dictionary with Student Handbook: Young People’s Edition, (1971), s.v. “canon.”

[14] Thiessen, 26.

[15] Bruce, 98.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 2^nd ed., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 49.

[18] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 7.

[19] Kent D. Clarke, The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications of Canon Formation, The Canon Debate, 454-455.

[20] Bruce, Books and Parchments, 101.

[21] D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 494.

[22] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 572.

[23] Carson, Moo and Morris, 495.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Bruce, Books and Parchments, 102.

[26] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 254-257.

[27] Thiessen, 6.

[28] Ibid., 7.

[29] Carson, Moo and Morris, 493.

[30] Hans-Georg Link, 58.

[31] Bruce, New Testament Documents, 17.

[32] Hans-Georg Link, 58.

[33] John Barton, Marcion Revisited, The Canon Debate, 341.

[34] Bruce, New Testament Documents, 17.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Aland, 54.

[37] Bruce, Books and Parchments, 100.

[38] Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon: A Survey of Some Recent Studies, The Canon Debate, 315.

[39] Ibid., 316-320.

[40] Ibid., 295.

[41] Bruce: Books and Parchments, 100.

[42] Ferguson, 296.

[43] Ibid., 295.

[44] Ibid, 296.

[45] David A. Fiensy, The College Press NIV Commentary: New Testament Introduction, (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1997), 369.

[46] Thiessen, 10.

[47] Hans-Georg Link, 59.

[48] Thiessen, 12-19

[49] Aland, 48.

[50] Bruce, New Testament Documents, 17-18.

[51] Ulrich, 32.

[52] Ibid., 32-33.

[53] Schaff, 572.

[54] Metzger, 7.

[55] Bruce, New Testament Documents, 22.

[56] Carson, Moo and Morris, 493.

[57] Athanasius, 552.

[58] Metzger, 234-235.

[59] Ibid., 236-237.

[60] Ibid, 237-238.

[61] Carson, Moo and Morris, 493.

[62] Metzger, 238.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Carson, Moo and Morris, 494.