Beyond the Hebrew Bible: The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Beyond the Hebrew Bible:
The Formation of the New Testament Canon

By Nigel Watson

A Long Process

When the writers of the New Testament refer to "the scriptures", they, almost   without exception, mean the Hebrew Scriptures. The only exception I know of is 2 Peter   3:15f, where the writer implies that "the scriptures" include the letters of Paul.   The process that culminated in the official recognition of a collection of Christian sacred   writings, to be honoured alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, was a lengthy one, lasting over   300 years. This process is often described as the formation of the "New Testament   Canon". Among the meanings listed in dictionaries of Ancient Greek for the Greek word kanon   we find the following: a straight rod, bar; a rule, straight-edge; metaphorically, a rule,   standard. The process of "canonising", or accepting as a rule of faith, certain   early Christian writings was stimulated by events both inside and outside the church.

Internal Stimuli – The Collection of the Pauline Letters

It appears that, by the end of the first century of the common era, the letters of Paul   were being collected together to form a kind of anthology. When Clement of Rome writes to   the Corinthians in 95, he can quote 1 Corinthians as readily as Romans and appears to know   Ephesians and Philippians as well.

The Recognition of Four Gospels

There were a number of Gospels written in the first two centuries after Christ, some of   which, like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, came to light at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in   1945-46. Gospels like Thomas competed with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the early church,   but the latter rapidly gained an ascendancy, which they never lost. By the end of the second   century it was generally recognised that only these four were serious contenders for   inclusion in a collection of Christian sacred scriptures.

External Stimuli – Marcion

The movement to set apart four Gospels was accelerated by the activity of Marcion   (excommunicated in 144). Marcion"s central thesis was that the Christian gospel was wholly a   gospel of love, to the absolute exclusion of law. This conviction led him to reject the   Hebrew Scriptures completely. The Creator God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures had nothing   in common with the God of Jesus Christ. So, for Marcion, the only authoritative scriptures   were the letters of Paul, plus an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. The effect of   Marcion"s narrow canon would have been the complete rejection of Christianity"s roots in   Judaism.

Gnostics and Montanists

While Marcion sought to reduce the body of authoritative writings, others, particularly   Gnostics and Montanists, sought to enlarge it. These were different movements, but both of   them claimed to possess a plus of divine revelation.

The combined pressure of all these movements created an acute problem for the mainstream   churches in the late second century. Which of the growing mass of Christian writings were to   be recognised as authoritative? What were the criteria that should be used?

In practice, the main criteria that appear to have been used were (1) apostolic origin;   (2) orthodoxy of content; and (3) general acceptance by the churches. We should not suppose,   however, that these criteria were carefully articulated, formally accepted and then   consciously applied. We are dealing with something more like instinctive reactions on the   part of church members.

To comment briefly on these criteria: apostolic origin commended itself as a counter to   claims by Gnostics and Montanists to have access to a direct revelation not open to others.   Thus it was argued that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were each the work   either of an apostle or of a companion of an apostle. Many modern scholars seriously doubt   whether, in fact, any one of the four meets that criterion.

In a letter written by Jerome to Dardanus in 414 , we see a church father applying all   three of the criteria mentioned above. Jerome is discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews,   regarded by some as Pauline but not by others. For his own part, along with the   Greek-speaking churches, he accepts it, on balance, as Pauline, but then adds: "And it   does not matter whose it is, since it is the work of a churchman and honoured daily by being   read in the churches." Thus, for Jerome, the question of apostolic origin is relevant,   but not decisive. Hebrews is the work of a churchman, not a heretic. And it has proved to be   the sort of book that church people want to hear read and expounded regularly.

Growth from the Bottom Upwards

Jerome"s last comment on Hebrews illustrates an important truth about the formation of   the canon. In eventually establishing the canon, church authorities were only subsequently   ratifying decisions which had already been reached by the Christian communities. Church   leaders did not create the canon, they recognised the canon which had already been created.

A Firm Core with Controversial Edges

For some 200 years, however, there was a fuzziness about the edges of the canon. That is   clear from the variations in the lists of authoritative books that were proposed in the late   second and early third centuries. The so-called Muratorian canon shows us what books were   accepted and what books were rejected in Rome towards the end of the second century. This   list comprises the following books: the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, Jude,   1 and 2 John, Wisdom, Revelation and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Tertullian (c. 160-220), the first writer to speak of the "New Testament",   accepts the following: the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John,   Jude, and Revelation.

Nevertheless, the number of books that were "acknowledged" was considerably   larger than the number of those that were "disputed". By the year 200, the canon   of the New Testament was already five-sixths complete, and accepted without debate in the   entire Eastern and Western church.

A Certain Closure

The process of canonisation reached something like closure at Easter, 367, when   Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, circulated a festal letter, listing twenty-seven books as   constituting the scriptures of the New Testament. Athanasius was followed by Jerome, by the   Council of Hippo in 393 and the third Council of Cartage in 397. Nevertheless, centuries   passed, before the twenty-seven book canon prevailed everywhere.

Luther and a "Canon Within the Canon"

The most important challenge to the consensus reached in the fourth century came from the   reformer, Martin Luther, in the early sixteenth century. Luther had problems with four   books, in particular: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. While he included these books in   his Bible, he clearly regarded them as marginal. Without denying the traditional canon,   Luther raised the issue of a "canon within a canon".

Do the Churches have the Right to Revise the Canon?

The view is sometimes expressed that the New Testament canon would be enriched by the   addition of some modern spiritual classics, like, for example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer"s Letters   and Papers from Prison. But, apart from the practical difficulty of securing consensus among   the churches over which modern books to include, there is the obvious objection that such   books have not been used and accepted by the churches for almost two thousand years, however   inspiring and theological they may be.

But what if an ancient book turned up with strong claims for inclusion? For example, most   New Testament scholars believe that Matthew and Luke drew on a collection of sayings of   Jesus generally referred to as Q [Q stands for Source]. If Q existed, it has been lost. But   what if a copy of Q were to turn up in the sands of Egypt?

Again, we can be sure that we do not have all of the letters that Paul wrote to his   churches. In 1 Cor. 5:9, for example, in his earliest extant letter to the Corinthians, Paul   refers to an earlier letter. What if this "Previous Letter" were to turn up?

My own opinion is that the churches today would have to apply the same criteria that were   used in the early church, particularly the third, namely, use and acceptance by the   churches. In other words, the newly discovered writing would have to prove itself over time,   just as the writings eventually included in the New Testament proved themselves over time.

To approach the problem from another angle: the view is expressed from time to time that   the churches would be better served, if this or that part of the New Testament canon were   excluded. Some have proposed, for example, that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and   Titus) be omitted, because of their hierarchical-patriarchal pattern of thought. Others have   proposed that the anti-Jewish passages in John"s Gospel be omitted.

It is highly unlikely, however, that anything will come of these or similar proposals. In   practice, the churches do marginalise parts of some New Testament books, by simply not   including them in their lectionaries. The Common Lectionary is a very effective mute button.   Besides, publications like Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth provide clergy with prefaces   with which they can introduce any problematical passages.

A Product of Sanctified Commonsense?

Few scholars would deny that, on the whole, the early church decided well. I do not see   how one could maintain that the New Testament would not have played the part that it has   played in the life of the

Christian community and in the lives of its individual members, if it had included some   early writings which it does not now include, such as, say, the letters of Ignatius   (35-107). Nor do I see how one could maintain that the New Testament would not have played   the part it has played, if it had excluded some early writings that were regarded as   "disputed", such as, say, 2 Peter or Jude. The distinctiveness and   indispensability of what lies centrally and solidly within the boundaries of the New   Testament canon is undeniable.

For Further Reading:

Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon (London: Mowbray, 1962).
John Barton, Making the Christian Bible (Oxford: OUP, 1998).
Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., "Introduction to the Canon", in Leander E. Keck and   others (eds.), The New Interpreter"s Bible, Volume 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994)   pp.7-21.
B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its origin, Development and Significance   (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).  

Nigel Watson was Professor of New Testament Studies in Ormond College within the University   of Melbourne from 1965 to 1993. He has published books and numerous articles in the field of   New Testament studies.
Source: Gesher.