The Church’s Role in the Forming of the New Testament Canon
Recently I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the early Church. Being a nerd about history I tend to invest a lot of time in such things. As anyone versed in early Church history would know, you cannot avoid running into the formation of the New Testament canon. Growing up, I never really thought about how the canon was formed. I kind of thought that God told all of the authors of the Bible to write their letter or letters and then get together and compile it into one book and tell everyone that this is God’s inspired word. This is incorrect. I don’t think that a great many Christians, even if they can see this as a silly and naive notion, can, in fact, offer up a more accurate account of the formation of the canon.
The canon, or the 27 books that make up the New Testament, was a collection of books written between AD 49 through as late as AD 95 (depending on your dating of Revelation). However, these were not the only Christian books/letters in circulation at this time. In fact the books of the canon were just 27 books in a great sea of books written by holy men of the first and second centuries. This begs two questions: Why these books and not others, and who decided what’s in and what’s out?
In brief, this is what I intend to answer.
I might be stepping on toes for this one, so feel free to be bothered and form a rebuttal.
The Apostolic Age
In the 16th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, Jesus Christ, before ascending to heaven, told His Apostles that he was sending them the Holy Spirit, who will empower them to be His “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). He did not, however, leave them with a handbook, or a list of books that need to be completed so they can be compiled into a second testament. It wasn’t even until two decades later that the first book in the canon, Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, was written. The apostles were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His words were orally passed down and spread throughout the empire. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17). Most people probably could not read at that time as it was. We do know that some of the apostles dictated to others what to say in their letters. Paul, an apostle and major author of the New Testament, valued the oral tradition greatly: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13). And again in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
We’ve all played the telephone game where one person starts with a story and then it is passed to the next person and the next, until it reaches the final person who’s retelling of the story is usually considerably different than the original. Could this same type of thing be an issue with the oral tradition of the Christians? No. The apostles, being filled with the Holy Spirit, accurately and authoritatively preached the Good News. They were protected by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. “For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a). This is an important point. The Holy Spirit is the key. Without the Holy Spirit, we would not be able to completely trust the preaching of the apostles, nor the written Gospels or epistles as inspired. I had a conversation with a friend some time ago, and he confessed to me that he has not looked into how the New Testament canon was formed because he was afraid that what he would find would shake his faith. This is understandable. If the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Jesus’s Church, then all is up for grabs and the Church could run into serious error.
Church Fathers
The year is AD 96 and the apostles have all passed on. The Bishop of Rome at this time is Clement and is, according to Paul, “a fellow laborer in Christ” (Philippians 4:3). Clement refers to the epistles of Paul, and the words of Jesus and holds them in high regard, but he never calls them Scripture. That is a term he reserves for the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). Although this is by no means substantial proof, it does seem that if the Bishop of Rome doesn’t consider certain letters to be scripture and never mentions or is unaware of the vast majority of them at this time, then it is logical to assume that oral tradition, even after the death of all the apostles, is still the main vehicle for spreading the Gospel. While the Gospels and letters are still in their infancy, it should be noted that they were being dispersed throughout the empire, and more and more Christians were becoming aware of the written teachings of Jesus.
Jump forward about 50 years. Marcion, a bishop from Sinope, a city in modern day Turkey, the villain of our story, distanced himself from the traditional conservative teachings and proposed his own canon. Although he believed Jesus was sent by God and was the Savior of the world, He believed that the God of the Old Testament was not compatible with the Church’s teachings of Jesus. He viewed YHWH to be a lesser deity, jealous and bent on unfairly judging men for their sins, and that the Heavenly Father, spoken of by Jesus, was compassionate and full of mercy. Therefore he believed that Jesus Christ was not the fulfillment of Old Testament Law nor the second Moses, for they were not of the same God. In fact he believed Judaism to be utterly opposed to Christianity. He believed that the New Testament canon should comprise of only ten of Paul’s letters and Luke’s Gospel, both of which he personally edited out things of which he didn’t agree. This of course created a huge controversy that ultimately led to Marcion’s ideas being deemed heretical by the early Church. It also forced the Church to deal with the issue of what was the true biblical canon.
In the next couple of centuries, Church Fathers started compiling their own lists of books that should be included in the canon. Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century included the three Synoptic Gospels, but doesn’t mention John’s. He also quotes the apostles from unknown works that are not in the New Testament canon, such as a fire in the Jordan River during the Baptism of Jesus. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was taught by Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, deems the four Gospels the only true gospels and attacks those who only accept one.
A late 2nd century canon was found to be very similar to that of the current New Testament with the following exceptions, it includes the Book of Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter (with reservation), and does not mention anything about Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, and only accepts two epistles of John. The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as a worthy book, but that it should not be read during worship. By the beginning of the 3rd century, a pattern of among the many different canons started showing that although some include this one or that one and exclude in like fashion, generally they all excepted the canonicity of the modern day New Testament, with slight reservation for Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Revelation, with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being established as the the only true Gospels. Some of the other books to be included in various local canons were the Gospel of Barnabas, Didache, which gave directions on the Eucharist, I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, the Acts of Paul, and many others that have been lost and are only mentioned by early Church leaders. St. Athanasius, who famously fought Arianism and helped bring about the Nicene Creed, also proposed a list that contained, in entirety, the same 27 books in the current canon.
The canon, or the 27 books that make up the New Testament, was a collection of books written between AD 49 through as late as AD 95 (depending on your dating of Revelation). However, these were not the only Christian books/letters in circulation at this time. In fact the books of the canon were just 27 books in a great sea of books written by holy men of the first and second centuries. This begs two questions: Why these books and not others, and who decided what’s in and what’s out?
In brief, this is what I intend to answer.
I might be stepping on toes for this one, so feel free to be bothered and form a rebuttal.
The Apostolic Age
In the 16th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, Jesus Christ, before ascending to heaven, told His Apostles that he was sending them the Holy Spirit, who will empower them to be His “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). He did not, however, leave them with a handbook, or a list of books that need to be completed so they can be compiled into a second testament. It wasn’t even until two decades later that the first book in the canon, Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, was written. The apostles were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His words were orally passed down and spread throughout the empire. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17). Most people probably could not read at that time as it was. We do know that some of the apostles dictated to others what to say in their letters. Paul, an apostle and major author of the New Testament, valued the oral tradition greatly: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13). And again in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
We’ve all played the telephone game where one person starts with a story and then it is passed to the next person and the next, until it reaches the final person who’s retelling of the story is usually considerably different than the original. Could this same type of thing be an issue with the oral tradition of the Christians? No. The apostles, being filled with the Holy Spirit, accurately and authoritatively preached the Good News. They were protected by the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. “For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a). This is an important point. The Holy Spirit is the key. Without the Holy Spirit, we would not be able to completely trust the preaching of the apostles, nor the written Gospels or epistles as inspired. I had a conversation with a friend some time ago, and he confessed to me that he has not looked into how the New Testament canon was formed because he was afraid that what he would find would shake his faith. This is understandable. If the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Jesus’s Church, then all is up for grabs and the Church could run into serious error.
Church Fathers
The year is AD 96 and the apostles have all passed on. The Bishop of Rome at this time is Clement and is, according to Paul, “a fellow laborer in Christ” (Philippians 4:3). Clement refers to the epistles of Paul, and the words of Jesus and holds them in high regard, but he never calls them Scripture. That is a term he reserves for the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). Although this is by no means substantial proof, it does seem that if the Bishop of Rome doesn’t consider certain letters to be scripture and never mentions or is unaware of the vast majority of them at this time, then it is logical to assume that oral tradition, even after the death of all the apostles, is still the main vehicle for spreading the Gospel. While the Gospels and letters are still in their infancy, it should be noted that they were being dispersed throughout the empire, and more and more Christians were becoming aware of the written teachings of Jesus.
Jump forward about 50 years. Marcion, a bishop from Sinope, a city in modern day Turkey, the villain of our story, distanced himself from the traditional conservative teachings and proposed his own canon. Although he believed Jesus was sent by God and was the Savior of the world, He believed that the God of the Old Testament was not compatible with the Church’s teachings of Jesus. He viewed YHWH to be a lesser deity, jealous and bent on unfairly judging men for their sins, and that the Heavenly Father, spoken of by Jesus, was compassionate and full of mercy. Therefore he believed that Jesus Christ was not the fulfillment of Old Testament Law nor the second Moses, for they were not of the same God. In fact he believed Judaism to be utterly opposed to Christianity. He believed that the New Testament canon should comprise of only ten of Paul’s letters and Luke’s Gospel, both of which he personally edited out things of which he didn’t agree. This of course created a huge controversy that ultimately led to Marcion’s ideas being deemed heretical by the early Church. It also forced the Church to deal with the issue of what was the true biblical canon.
In the next couple of centuries, Church Fathers started compiling their own lists of books that should be included in the canon. Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century included the three Synoptic Gospels, but doesn’t mention John’s. He also quotes the apostles from unknown works that are not in the New Testament canon, such as a fire in the Jordan River during the Baptism of Jesus. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was taught by Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, deems the four Gospels the only true gospels and attacks those who only accept one.
A late 2nd century canon was found to be very similar to that of the current New Testament with the following exceptions, it includes the Book of Wisdom, the Apocalypse of Peter (with reservation), and does not mention anything about Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter, and only accepts two epistles of John. The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as a worthy book, but that it should not be read during worship. By the beginning of the 3rd century, a pattern of among the many different canons started showing that although some include this one or that one and exclude in like fashion, generally they all excepted the canonicity of the modern day New Testament, with slight reservation for Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Revelation, with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being established as the the only true Gospels. Some of the other books to be included in various local canons were the Gospel of Barnabas, Didache, which gave directions on the Eucharist, I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, the Acts of Paul, and many others that have been lost and are only mentioned by early Church leaders. St. Athanasius, who famously fought Arianism and helped bring about the Nicene Creed, also proposed a list that contained, in entirety, the same 27 books in the current canon.
In AD 383, 353 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, the Latins get down to business and make it happen. Between the efforts of Pope Damascus I, St. Jerome and St. Augustine of Hippo, the canon in the west officially comes to a consensus. The Pope commissioned the new Latin translation, called the Vulgate, to replace the older Latin texts. This translation, largely produced by the efforts of St. Jerome, had in its canon the Latin translation of the Septuagint and only the 27 books that we know of as the New Testament. In AD 397, St. Augustine called together the Council of Carthage in part to authoritatively establish the official New Testament canon, which he already thought was agreed upon by all, but was not officially recognized. The canon was accepted and closed on August 28, 397.
Recent History
Things were peachy for a while, but 1,000 years later, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation challenged the canon of the Vulgate and removed some of the books of the Septuagint from the Protestant canon. Luther also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation because he perceived that they went against his doctrines of Grace alone and Faith alone. James especially troubled him, because the only place where “faith alone” is mentioned in the Bible is in James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” These books are now mentioned last in the German Luther Bible. Everybody had to officially affirm their canons–the Catholics at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Church of England in the 39 Articles in 1563, and in the Westminister Confession of Faith for Calvinists in 1647.
Why Only These 27 Books?
This is impossible to answer outside of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. If it were not for Jesus’s promise to send a Helper, we would have absolutely no confidence in the Scriptures. Just think if the House of Representatives and the Senate were ones to try to agree up a canon. All sorts of books would have slid in or have been removed because of favors, lobbyists, and public opinion. Now as much as the men and woman of the legislative branch of the United States are similar in human nature to the men of the Council of Carthage, there is no Holy Spirit guiding Congress. Congress can make grave mistakes (of which we are pretty aware), but Jesus has promised us that He will build His Church and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), and that the Holy Spirit would Sanctify and give life to the Church. “The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church). It was men who chose the canon, but chosen through the working of the Spirit by the grace of Jesus Christ. What is included in the Bible is accepted by Christians in faith in Jesus’s promise to His Body.
This is impossible to answer outside of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. If it were not for Jesus’s promise to send a Helper, we would have absolutely no confidence in the Scriptures. Just think if the House of Representatives and the Senate were ones to try to agree up a canon. All sorts of books would have slid in or have been removed because of favors, lobbyists, and public opinion. Now as much as the men and woman of the legislative branch of the United States are similar in human nature to the men of the Council of Carthage, there is no Holy Spirit guiding Congress. Congress can make grave mistakes (of which we are pretty aware), but Jesus has promised us that He will build His Church and “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), and that the Holy Spirit would Sanctify and give life to the Church. “The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit” (Catechism of the Catholic Church). It was men who chose the canon, but chosen through the working of the Spirit by the grace of Jesus Christ. What is included in the Bible is accepted by Christians in faith in Jesus’s promise to His Body.
Now, interestingly, the Church was moved by God in the Apostolic Age to write all of the books to be used in the New Testament canon. This is pretty much universally accepted. Protestants and Catholics alike say that the authority of the Apostles was greater or at least equal to the Scriptures, for they themselves wrote it, were commissioned by Jesus Himself and were filled with the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room. And based on the history of the formation of the canon, the Church was moved by God to authoritatively deem what truly is the canon. (If you don’t believe that by now, is your faith now shaken?) But AD 397 is way beyond the Apostolic Age. It is generally agreed that not one apostle lived to see the 2nd century. So where does this maintained authority that was used to canonize the Scriptures come from? Even then, after the canon is formed, does the Church then lose it’s authority to become subordinate to the Scriptures? Is the Church’s authority greater, equal to, or inferior to the Bible? What does the Bible say on the matter? To mention just one solid verse, for there are many proof texts to be used for opposing viewpoints, look to the Apostle Paul in his first letter Timothy: “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth" (3:15).
But this is another topic to be discussed later.
Thanks for an interesting review. You could probably write on this subject alone and still have plenty to keep a pretty reasonable blog well stocked with meaty posts. Any particular reason you haven't mentioned the Council of Nicea? Or is that your next blog post?
ReplyDelete