The Canon of the New Testament
THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Milton Fisher
The New Testament was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the Old Testament. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both Old Testament and New Testament is based solidly upon that twofold premise.
The Old Testament is so far removed from us in time that its formation as a body of Scripture might be considered too remote for certification of its contents. Such is not the case. In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the Old Testament canon than of the New Testament canon (see the chapter “The Canon of the Old Testament” for definition). We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God.
Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the New Testament content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (John 14:26; 16:13, NIV).
From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the New Testament. It is identical to that of the Old Testament, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of Old Testament times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the New Testament epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at the first. Conversely, that all twenty-seven books of the now universally received New Testament were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.
Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the New Testament Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the Old Testament.
From available information, the gradual process which led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the twenty-seven books comprising the New Testament takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then. Analogous to this would be the way certain theological doctrines have been enunciated at particular periods of church history, as—for example—the Christological formulations of early centuries of the church and the doctrine of justification by faith at the time of the Reformation. The fact that Tertullian is credited by some to be the first to define the Trinity clearly is not taken to mean that the doctrine of the triune God came into existence at that point in history or that the Bible did not contain that truth. Just so, the New Testament was actually completed with the writing of its final portion (which was not necessarily the Book of Revelation), not constituted Scripture by statements about it by men, speaking either as individuals or corporately.
While the New Testament is very much the counterpart and completion of the revelation given in the Old Testament, its formal structure is somewhat dissimilar. The organizing principle of the Old Testament canon was its nature as a covenant document. The Pentateuch, in particular, partakes of the pattern set by other treaties and written agreements of the ancient Near East. The principle of authoritative sacred writings established by the Old Testament for God’s people obviously carried over to the New.
Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the New Testament, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the New Testament canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the New Testament, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.
In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the New Testament books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze how and why our early Christian forebears settled upon the twenty-seven books in our New Testament.
The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and one-half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:
Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the church. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period they held a recognized place alongside the Old Testament as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century A.D., our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process which was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals which produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our New Testament.
PERIOD ONE: FIRST CENTURY
The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical New Testament writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his first letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the New Testament to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the Christians” (1 Thess. 5:27, TLB). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Deut. 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Luke 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between Old Testament Scripture and a New Testament Gospel.
In A.D. 95 Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and Ephesians.
PERIOD TWO: FIRST HALF OF SECOND CENTURY
One of the earliest New Testament manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about A.D. 125, within thirty to thirty-five years of his death. There is evidence that within thirty years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another fifty years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.
The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the New Testament in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter are not clearly attested.
The Epistles of Ignatius (c. A.D. 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.
It is in the Epistle of Barnabas, c. A.D. 130, that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a New Testament book (Matt. 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined Old Testament and New Testament quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by, “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around A.D. 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical New Testament sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome (at this period) there was a New Testament compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.
The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire Old Testament, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.
Near the end of this period Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the Old Testament prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the New Testament was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from New Testament Scriptures.
PERIOD THREE: SECOND HALF OF SECOND CENTURY
Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with first generation Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the New Testament on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (Against Heretics, 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The Word,” he says, “. . . gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, and the book of Revelation.
Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatessaron, attesting to the equal status they had in the church by A.D. 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the Muratorian Canon. An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.
Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by A.D. 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The New Testament canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.
PERIOD FOUR: THIRD CENTURY
The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (A.D. 185–254). A prodigious scholar and exegete, he made critical studies of the New Testament text (alongside his work on the Hexapla) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the New Testament, emphasizing their inspiration by God.
Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John, but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about the canon as at its beginning.
PERIOD FIVE: FOURTH CENTURY
Early in this period the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (A.D. 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his Church History (3, chpts. iii-xxv). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century. (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, Letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”
It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the New Testament canon finds full and final declaration. In his Festal Letter for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document which specifies our twenty-seven books without qualification. At the close of the century the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This too lists the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the New Testament books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard which gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the twenty-seven books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.
PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS DETERMINING THE CANON
By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether Old or New Testament, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.
In a sense the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority. (See, for example, 1 Cor. 14:29-30; Eph. 4:11.)
When in the Protestant Reformation all things were being reexamined, some of the reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.
Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (John 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (TLB).
Hence the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter and Luke’s with Paul gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books which were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.
The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the Old Testament Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the One who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.
The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.
CANON CRITICISM
By way of a footnote to the case for confidence in the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books with which we are familiar, it must be observed that there are still some who feel the issue is not yet settled, or perhaps should not have been settled as it was. Two objections are raised. One has to do with the inadequacy of the solutions the Reformers proposed to their own questions. We would submit that the questions were already answered historically and that the tests of canonicity proposed by both Luther and Calvin are improper. The other objection is based on an assumption that the church Fathers operated on wrong information. Several of the New Testament books, they suggest, were not written until after the apostolic age, or at least have questionable authorship. These suspicions have been dealt with and dispelled, I believe, in the above presentation. No Christian, confident in the providential working of his God and informed about the true nature of canonicity of his Word, should be disturbed about the dependability of the Bible we now possess.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture, 1988.
Gamble, Harry Y. “The Canon of the New Testament” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. eds. E. J. Epp and G. W. McRae, 1989.
Harrison, Everett. Introduction to the New Testament, 1971.
McRay, John R. “New Testament Canon” in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter Elwell, 1988.