During our discussion last night I mentioned an essay I wrote about a month ago regarding the formation of the New Testament. I have posted it here for those who might be interested in the more technical issue. A disclaimer: I did not originally write this essay for this blog, and it is at times very dense. I quickly prepared it for the blog this morning, so please excuse any typos. Most of the facts are a summary of a discussion in the New Testament introduction
, The Cradle, The Cross, and The Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles. A few definitions are in order:
Canon- a Greek word meaning measuring rod or bar. Within the discussion of Christianity it refers to the collection of books regarded as Scripture.
OT- Old Testament
NT- New Testament
Eusebius- (A.D. 260- 340) 3rd century church historian.
Athanasius- 4th century bishop of Alexandria
Let me know if you have any questions or comments!
-----------
Understanding the formation of the New Testament canon is a theological
and historical investigation which addresses the acceptance and inclusion of a
selected body of literature which comprise the teachings of Jesus and His
apostles. The theological aspect
addresses the nature and criteria of the books included into the NT. The historical aspect traces the acceptance
of this fixed group of books throughout church history, and attempts to
understand both the reason and the criteria which marked the books
included. The discussion concerning the
formation of the NT canon has continued to stir much debate as scholars examine,
sift, and interpret the data concerning the first few centuries following the
life of the apostles. The theological
debate focuses on if the writings included in the NT should be considered the
very words of God, and therefore are included in the NT while others writings
are excluded (such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). The historical debate examines the timeline
of the ‘closing’ of the canon in an attempt to understand why and when certain
books were included and others excluded.
In their
introduction to the New Testament Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles[i] describe the traditional
evangelical view as one which values God’s role in the formation of the canon. In this view Scripture is considered to be
inspired by God, and therefore the words of Scripture are His words. The church’s role in the formation of the NT
was not the creation of the NT, but the recognition of those works which were
inspired by God. Therefore, the final
authority is not found in the church, but it is found in the very words of God
(Scripture).
Several
passages of the NT implies other NT writings are Scripture on par with the
OT. 1st Timothy 5:18 states,
“For the Scripture says, ‘You must not muzzle an ox that is threshing grain,’
and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’”
While 1st Timothy quotes from Deut. 25.4 it mentions a quote
which is identical to Luke 10.7.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the author of 1st Timothy
considered the Gospel of Luke as Scripture equal with Deuteronomy. Another passage includes Peter’s comment
about the apostle Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3.15-16: “…as also in all of his epistles, speaking of
them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which
untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also
the rest of the Scriptures.” This supports
the traditional understanding that the works included in the New Testament were
viewed by the church as inspired in the same fashion as the OT.
The Cradle, Cross, and the Crown (see
endnote below) quotes Geisler and Nix who describe five factors which lead the
canonization of the NT. The first is the
prophetic nature of the NT books. Since
the NT books were prophetic they were intrinsically valuable and worthy of
preservation. Secondly, there was
lacking a selected list of authoritative books, and therefore a selection
process was required. The third stimuli
stems from a response to heretical challenges which denied apostolic works
and/or included pseudepigraphical works.
Fourthly, missionary outreach necessitated a decision concerning which
books should be translated into Syriac and Latin. The final stimuli involved the persecution of
the early church. Since the edict of
Diocletian in 303 ordered all the sacred books of the Christians to be burned,
the early church needed to decide which books were worthy of preservation.
As stated
earlier, the church’s role in the canonization process involves the
identification and confirmation of authoritative Scripture and not the creation
of the NT canon. In order to recognize
which writings were divinely inspired four major criteria were used. The first was apostolicity which involved a
direct or indirect association with an apostle.
The second was orthodoxy which compared the writing with the “church’s
rule of faith.” The third determined a
writing’s antiquity or if the work was produced during the apostolic era. The final criteria investigated the degree of
ecclesiastical usage of a certain work.
Although this was not a list of exact criteria the church used to
determine canonicity these categories were compared and contrasted in order to
determine which books deserved a place among the NT canon.
While this
was largely the criteria used by the church to determine the books which
reflected divine inspiration, there was some debate regarding several
books. Eusebius categorized the books of
the NT three ways. First, were those
writing which were commonly recognized as Scripture. These included the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s
letters, 1st John, 1st Peter, and Revelation. The second category included books which were
questioned by some, but were accepted by most.
These included James, Jude, 2nd Peter, and 2nd-3rd
John. Eusebius’ final category consisted
of spurious books which may have been accepted by some, but were now
rejected. Several of these works
included literature such as the Acts of
Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Several
church councils dealt with the canon of the NT.
The three which officially addressed the issue were the Council of
Laodicea (363), the 2nd Council of Hippo Regius (393), and the
Council of Carthage (397). A list which
describes the books discussed and affirmed at the Council of Laodicea include
all the books of the present NT except Revelation. The 2nd Council of Hippos Regius
in North Africa affirmed all 27 books of the present NT. The last council, the council of Carthage
read the affirmations of previous councils and repeated them. There seems to be little debate within the
councils concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain books.
Other lists
concerning the writings of the NT canon are found in the works of individuals
such as Athanasius (296-373). The bishop
of Alexandria, included in his Easter letter of A.D.367 the same 27 books
included in the NT. Irenaeus, the second
century bishop of Gaul, argues for and assumes that the canon included the four
Gospels. In his book which addresses
modern conspiracy theories of the canon, C.E. Hill, mentions that many scholars
attacked Irenaeus because his views of the four Gospels seem two mature and
advanced for the 2nd century.
Another important canonical list is the Muratorian Canon, which the
bears the name of it discoverer in the 18th century. This is a fragment of a 2nd
century work which includes a list of at least 22 books considered at the time
to be Scripture.
The concept
of canonicity has endured much recent attention among scholars. The discussion addresses questions such as who decided which books should be included
in the NT, and at what time did they
decide this? With the discovery of
the Gospel of Judas and other gnostic
writings these two question have revived with new intensity and vigor. Scholars such as Elaine Pagels and Bart
Erdman argue that the books included in the NT reflect one flavor of Christianity
which won out and claimed orthodoxy.
They believe the NT canon was in flux as late as the fourth
century.
There are
reasonable critiques to these interpretations by modern scholars. Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles argues that
the Muratorian Canon is considered by many to be a 2nd century list
of canonical books which indicated the agreement of NT books much earlier than
Erdman proposes. It is also important to
remember that the absence of terminology does not indicate the absence of a
concept. Therefore, the absence of the
term canon in earlier writing does
not indicate the absence this concept. This
argument from silence has no proof to support its claim.
Several
scholars argue the presence and popularity of unorthodox writings indicates
that there was little agreement concerning the NT canon in the early
church. However, if there were no record
of dissenting voices among the early church, then scholars would have more
reason to be suspect. It is natural to
expect some dissenting from the church and therefore, their presence argues
against the Erdman thesis. C.E. Hill has
also argued that one should be careful drawing conclusions based on manuscript
evidence. Since most ancient manuscripts
are the result of random discoveries of limited archaeological sites we must
not assume the findings of these sites are universal. Scholars should tread lightly in making
unsupported limited claims.
The
canonical discussion is a complex and difficult issue. While there are different interpretations of
the evidence the most consistent and conservative position seems to be the
traditional evangelical view- That God
spoke through men and has given to His church a wonderful and trustworthy NT.
[i] Andreas
Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle,, The Cross, and the Crown. B&H Academic, 2009.
