Development of the New Testament Canon

If scripture is the Word of God, then the "development of the New Testament" is a bit of an oxymoron: When, where and how man put those words into a collection is rather besides the point. Determining when man got around to saying, “Ok God, your word is your word," is audacious if not arrogant in the extreme. However, the culture would have you believe that the New Testament was written late and accepted late because the culture does not want you to know the overwhelming evidence for the early dating of the New Testament. Below we will review the overwhelming evidence.

We will see that when the disciples wrote the scripture we call the New Testament, the disciples knew they were writing scripture and so did their readers. We will see this by asking four questions¹: 1) Did the apostles believe they were writing scripture or merely letters? 2) Was the canon made up by the later church to enforce dogma or was it obvious to the early church that the apostles' letters were scripture? 3) Do books become canon or are they canon? 4) If a book (or letter) becomes canon, shouldn't it imply there is a point in history at which the book (or letter) was not canon?

Below we will answer these four questions by examining the historical climate in Palestine during the first century, what the text says about itself, what the early church wrote concerning the text as well as what the church councils declared concerning the text. However, before we dive into answering these questions, we should review the secular position on the compilation of the New Testament, as these positions are the foundational grounds for why they deny the traditionally accepted dates and authors.

Secular Position

For the sake of context, when it comes to discrediting scripture, the secular world most commonly criticizes the authorship and accuracy of the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible), the book of Isaiah and the New Testament corpus. This article will focus solely on the development of the New Testament, but in the conclusion we will close by explaining why Isaiah and the Books of Moses are commonly included by critics of the New Testament.

The typical two positions proposed by the secularists suggest that the New Testament's compilation was either a reaction to Marcion or dogma instituted by the Church post-Constantine.

Marcion of Sinope

Constantine

The second secular position, typically proposed, is that the canon was created as dogma instituted by the Church during or after emperor Constantine. So, what does that mean? Briefly stated, after Constantine converted to Christianity (AD 312) and legalized the religion (AD 313, Edict of Milan), it became clear that there was a growing sect called the Arians that opposed the church's position on Jesus Christ. Arianism taught that Jesus was a created being and as such he was distinct and subordinate to the Father. To address this theological rift Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). Many secular scholars see this as setting a precedent for determining future church dogma.

Fast forward a few decades to the "39th Festal Letter of Athanasius"² (AD 367) for one of the first formal list of the 27 books that comprise today's New Testament. Thirty years later the Festal Letter's list was confirmed by the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397). Then twenty years later in 419 the Third Council of Carthage listed the same 27 books as the books of the New Testament.

While there may seem to be strong correlation between the councils and the church determining dogma, the truth is councils have always been reactionary. From the first council, recorded in Acts 15 to the Councils of Trent (1545 - 1563), the councils that cemented the Protestant Reformation, fifteen hundred years later and each one in between, they have always been reactionary.

Acts 15 opens with a disagreement amongst the apostles, some are requiring converted gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law, others are not. The first council was called in direct reaction to this disagreement. As addressed above, the Council of Nicaea was a reaction to the Arian rift (side note, Constantine supported the Arians even after Arius' excommunication). Lastly, the Councils of Trent were a direct reaction by the Catholic Church to determine how it would handle the great divide occurring by the Reformers.

However, the purpose of this article is not to explain the when, why, how and who could call a council, so no more on the topic will be said.

Biblical Assertion

The Mosaic covenant provided God's people with clear instructions on how to handle God's word. It was to be written down and read aloud. The New Testament writers demanded the same of their word.

While the writers of the New Testament continued the structure decreed in the Old Testament, their belief that they were writing scripture is not confirmed only by the use of Old Testament structure but clearly commanded by their words. As will become quite apparent from the verses below, the disciples believed they were writing and speaking with authority on par to the authority of the Old Testament.

Disciples knew (believed) they were writing Scripture

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15: To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. ¹⁵So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:14: If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

John summarizes the reason for writing his Gospel with but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (20:31). The Greek used for "these are written" is γέγραπται, gegraptai, a term that is used 66 times in the New Testament. Sixty five of those usages are when quoting the Old Testament⁴ and each of those are used to denote authority. Example: Matthew 4's four usages occur during the temptation of Jesus, But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone ..." (v 4a), and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “'He will command his angels concerning you, ...'" (v 6a), Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (v 7), Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'" (v 10). Yet, John in chapter 20 uses it to refer to his work. This is not accidental, he is clearly making an authoritative claim about his Gospel.

If the verses above were not sufficient, the disciples go a step further and affirm the authority of each other. In 1 Timothy 5 Paul affirms the authority of Luke by quoting from his Gospel and the book of Deuteronomy in the same breath: ¹⁷"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,"⁵ and, “The laborer deserves his wages."⁶

Peter does the same concerning Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:16 as he [Paul] does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

And lastly, 2 Peter 3:2 [T]hat you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

See also: Romans 2:16; 1 Cor 14:37; Gal 1:8, 10; 1 Thes 4:2; 1 Peter 3:2; 2 Peter 1:16-21; Jude 17-18

Early Church

Irenaeus (circa 130-200/3)

• Scholars call him the "Father of the NT"
• Disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John
• Stated that there are four Gospels and that there cannot be more or less than four (Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11, Section 8))

Since Irenaeus wrote that there were four Gospels in his book Against Heresies directed at Marcion this too has added to the secular theory that the creation of the canon was directed against Marcion's Canon. However, if Irenaeus' objective was creating a New Testament canon then why in the same book does he discredit a Gnostic gospel for its lack of apostolistic authorship? Writing, “though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, … what they have published in the Gospel of Truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles."
* The Gospel of Truth (circa 140-180) is a Gnostic gospel

Muratorian fragment (circa 170-180)

• Contains 22 of the current 27 books
• Missing: Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, III John
• Apocalypse of Peter / Wisdom of Solomon at the end of list
  * Common among early church lists to include common but not canonical works at the end of the list
  * “But Hermas wrote The Shepherd 'most recently in our time', in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time." (bishop Pius would imply a date around 140-155)

Notice the consistency of requiring Apostle authorship.

Theophilus of Antioch (?-185)

• Apology to Autolucus
• Book is an attempt to convince a pagan that the NT was on par with the OT
• Quotes from Matthew and Luke and calls John's gospel by name
• While he does not quote from Mark, Jerome (author of the Vulgate) says Theophilus used Mark

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

• Stated there are four gospels
• Paul's letters and others
• “Handed down from the apostles"

— Pre-Irenaeus —

Justin Martyr (100-165)

• 4 gospels (2 written by apostles, 2 written by companions)
• Quotes Matthew, Mark and Luke and states that Mark received his material from Peter
• Believed John wrote Revelation
• "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things" (1 Apol 67.3).

Notice the consistency, Apostles writings on par with the OT.

Papias of Hierapolis (60-130)

• Friend of Polycarp
• Heard John preach
• Heard Philip's daughters (Acts 21)
• "I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else's commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord's disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."
  This incredible quote is from the preface of his work The exposition of the oracles of the Lord.

John the Elder

People speculated if John the Elder was John the son of Zebedee or merely an eye witness of Jesus. We will not speculate, but he is obviously referenced a good bit, but no writings remain or are quoted as inspired.

• Said Matthew wrote in Hebrew

Epistle of Barnabas (70-132)

• Barnabas 4:14 “Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen." This appears to be a direct quote of Matthew 22:14, referred to as scripture, which implies that it had been written down and accepted on par with the OT by A.D. 70-132.

While this list is not exhaustive it should be sufficent to any reader that the early church understood the apostles wrote with authority. But, to remove all doubt we will end with Melito.

Melito of Sardis (?-180)

• Extracts
  "Melito, to his brother Onesimus greetings.
  Since you have often asked, in view of your great zeal for the word, that I should make for you extracts from the law and the prophets concerning the savior and the whole of our faith, and have further desired to learn the truth about the ancient books, especially with regard to their number and the manner in which they are arranged, I have been keen to do such a thing, knowing your devotion to the faith and love of learning concerning the word and especially given that, as you strive for eternal salvation, you examine these matters more than any others which pertain to God. And so, going to the east, where these matters were spoken and performed, I learned there the books of the old covenant with accuracy. Now I send you my treatise.
  
  These are their names. There are five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. Joshua the son of Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two books of Omissions, the Psalms of David, the proverbs and the wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, and among the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. There are twelve prophets in one book, and Daniel, Ezekiel and Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, which are divided into six books."

Notice his wording, "I learned there the books of the old covenant with accuracy." It makes one wonder, why does Melito use the phrase "old covenant" if there were not two collections in which to distinguish between?

Conclusion

First, the disciples knew they were writing scripture. The Bible's conclusion needed to be written. God had promised for 1,500 years that He would send the Anointed One. One that would crush the head of the serpent. One that would bring good news to the poor, bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. One that would have the government upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. One that God would say to, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."

AND HE DID!

Are we surprised that God used holy men to write about it? God just spent the last 1,500 years telling holy men to write about His promised Messiah. Of course, He was going to demand that His word be written down and read aloud. How much more so once the Christ was made known?! Immanuel!

But don't take my word for it. Look at the layout of a Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). It is broken into three sections. The first is the Torah, just like a Christian Bible—this is the first five books of Moses. Second is the Nevi'im (the Prophets). Third is the Kethuvim (the Writings): Psalms, Proverbs, Job, The Song of Songs (Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles.

The last book of the Hebrew Bible is the book of Chronicles because it is the book that contains the genealogy of David. The incomplete and unfulfilled genealogy of the Anointed One. So, what does the first book of the New Testament begin with? The complete and fulfilled genealogy of the Anointed One.

Second conclusion, the early church believed the apostles were authoritative on par with scripture and as such all acceptable works had be tied directly to apostolistic authorship / testimony.

We can see the importance of this apostolistic tie by reviewing some gnostic gospel names: Gospel of Thomas, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Philip, The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, Acts of Peter, Gospel of Mark. It is almost embarrassing how clearly these rejected works attempted to piggy back on the apostles' names, thus their authenticity.

So, why Biblical Text Criticism?

With so much Biblical and historical evidence that so clearly shows that the apostles were writing scripture and everyone knew it including them, why does the world teach that the New Testament canon is a late construction? What good comes from such a blatant lie? The answer is discrediting scripture and strengthening the Catholic Church.

Strengthening the Catholic Church

I plan to do justice to how Text Criticism strengthens the Catholic Church by dedicating an entire article to just that topic, but here are three things to consider. 1) The Catholic Church claims apostolic succession, "the teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the first Apostles of Jesus Christ."⁷ If this were true then the authority the apostles had when they were writing would remain on those that proceeded the apostles. Therefore, the church could continue to write scripture. But, as we saw above, this cannot be true because one of the criteria used by those that proceed the apostles, aka the early church, to determine if something was scripture was if it was written by an apostle. 2) Additionally, we saw above that church councils were always reactionary. Councils affirmed the books that the church believed to be scripture because of a reaction against those trying to claim other books as scripture. Councils never had nor claimed to have the power to determine canonicity until the brash Reformation reactions at Trent, 1500+ years after Christ's ascension. 3) Lastly, the discipline of Text Criticism began by the Catholic Church as a way to discredit the reformers who were preaching sola scriptura. In fact, Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) was so influential in his pursuit of text criticism that he garnered the recognition of "Father of the higher criticism."⁸

Discrediting Scripture

Satan knows that if the scriptures that tells of the Messiah's arrival can be discredited people are less likely to give it a true look. Why would a college student study something that her professor laughed at while claiming a bunch of men four hundred years after Jesus died put together to control millions and make billions? How easy is it for Jews to ignore their long-awaited King if they are convinced he has not come? What is the point of a Muslim reading the Bible if his imam has convinced him that it is riddled with errors due in part to its late construction by men with an agenda?

A last word on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the Deutero-Isaiah. The New Testament quotes Deuteronomy more than 50 times (to say nothing about New Testament's quotations from the other 4 books). Only the books of Psalms and Isaiah are quoted more often than Deuteronomy. Moreover, Jesus claims Mosaic authorship multiple times. What better tactic to further deminish the belief in the New Testament than to question and mock one of its primary sources?

As for Isaiah. It is the book of the suffering Servant. It contains some of the clearest Christological prophecies found in the Old Testament. From the virgin birth to the new heavens and the new earth, it tells how the Chosen One would be pierced for our transgressions; it tells how he would be crushed for our iniquities; it says that upon him was laid the chastisement that brought us peace, and it proclaims by his wounds we are healed.

No. They cannot allow Isaiah, as Isaiah prophesied the story of the New Testament.

FOOTNOTES