NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE
The corpus of our present New Testament was written during the
first century over approximately a 40-50 year period, from approximately
AD50/60–100. The original
texts were written by Apostles or by one of their associates.
The term Apostle according to HarperCollins Bible Dictionary
is, “the English transliteration of a Greek
word meaning "one who is sent out." An apostle is a personal
messenger or envoy, commissioned to transmit the message or otherwise
carry out the instructions of the commissioning agent.”5
In the case of Jesus’ Disciples, they were, “To Go into all the
world and preach the Gospel” (Mark 16).
Consequently, they are considered the original “Apostles,” or
“sent out ones.” Thus,
giving credence to the term “Apostolic Authority,” which simply means
in this case that, no early church document was canonized into the New
Testament, except for those documents that have their origin with an
Apostle or one of their associates.
By
‘associate,’ this implies one who accompanied an Apostle on their
missionary Journeys. For
instance, Bishop Eusebius (AD260 – 339), an early church Historian and
learned scholar, tells us through the writing of Papias that, Mark was
Peter’s companion, who “had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down
carefully [The Gospel of Mark], but not in order, all that he remembered
of the Lord’s saying and doings…For he had one purpose only – to
leave out nothing that he heard, and to make no misstatement about it.”6
Furthermore,
Luke was Paul’s associate who had accompanied Paul on most of his
missionary journeys. He wrote
both the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.
Moreover, the “Muratorian” manuscript gives us some idea of
Luke’s role as a first century writer.
According to F.F. Bruce, “The [Muratorian] document is best
regarded as a list of New Testament books recognized as authoritative in
the Roman Church at that time.”7
The manuscript states that, “After the ascension of Christ, Luke
the physician, whom Paul had taken along with him as a legal expert, wrote
[the record] down in his own name in accordance with [Paul’s] opinion.
He himself [Luke], however, never saw the Lord in the flesh and
therefore, as far as he could follow [the course of events], began to tell
it from the nativity of John.”8
Paul
on the other hand, is responsible for writing two thirds of our present
New Testament, for which he is accredited for approximately fifty percent
of the twenty-seven extant letters; which equates to thirteen letters
(fourteen, if Paul wrote Hebrews).
The Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse (Book of
Revelation) is accredited to the Apostle John.
It should be noted, however, that the Apocalypse was not
“fully” recognized by the church at Rome (orthodox church) until the
fourth century. In addition,
all four gospels remain anonymous where authorship is concerned.
In other words, none of the authors’ names appeared on the
original letters until much later.
The
Gospels, however, that were in circulation at the time, were perceived by
the early Christians, as having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or
John.
Moreover,
1st and 2nd Peter is attributed to the Apostle
Peter. Although it should be stated that 2nd Peter was not as
easily accepted as 1st Peter was.
This was because many felt that Peter was not the original author
of 2nd Peter; therefore, some of the early churches were
reluctant to accept it. In
addition, both 2nd and 3rd John received similar
treatment as 2nd Peter did; however, by the fourth century they
were all officially accepted as part of the canon of the New Testament.
The author of the book of James is attributed as the brother of
Jesus, and not the Apostle James. The
later having died around AD44, making it too early to have written the
book. The author of Jude is
said to have also been the brother of James, which would make him the
brother of the Lord. Although
both James and Jude did not describe themselves as brothers of Jesus;
others however, did not hesitate to speak of them as such (Matt 13:55; Jn
7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19).
In
sum, the corpus of our present New Testament is comprised of the following
twenty-seven books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Four Gospels). Acts,
Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Gatlations, Ephesians, Philipians, Collosians,
1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James,
1&2 Peter, 1-3John, Jude, and Revelation or Apocalypse.
It
should be asked at this point, “How did the early church go about
collecting the writings that make-up are present New Testament? For approximately thirty years after the Lord’s death and
resurrection, there were no writings; most teachings about Jesus were
passed on by word of mouth. It
wasn’t until approximately AD50-55 that the first writings emerge, which
is the Apostle Paul’s letter, 1st Thessalonians.
Hence, other writings began to surface such as, “The Gospel of
Mark (AD60-65),” and concludes with
John’s Apocalypse in the late AD90’s.
How
then was the message of Christianity conveyed from after the Lord’s
death and resurrection in AD30 to the first writings around AD50-60.
Hence, it was communicated exclusively for the most part, by word
of mouth.
ORAL TO WRITTEN FORM
When
the Gospels were written, not all of the churches had a complete corpus of
the New Testament. A first
century church would perhaps have one copy of Matthew, while another might
have the Gospel of Mark.
Moreover,
in an age of illiteracy where writing material was scarce, most of the
Christian population was considered illiterate; approximately one percent
of them could read or write. The
Bishops or leaders on the other hand, for the most part were considered
literate. In essence, they
would need to be able to read if they were going to minister to their
congregations. It wouldn’t
be inconceivable then, for a church to select its leadership solely on the
criteria of literacy.
Furthermore,
with respect to the literacy rate among Christians and non-Christians,
“the extent of literacy was about 10 percent and never exceeded 15 –
20 percent of the population as a whole.
The written culture of antiquity was in the main restricted to a
privileged minority – though in some places it was a large minority –
and it co-existed with elements of an oral culture.”9
Consequently, the early church grew up within a predominately Oral
Culture.
Historians
tell us that Churches in the first and well into the second century, would
read an entire NT book to their congregation for hours without preaching
or teaching; consequently, the Christian message was communicated
primarily through word of mouth. Perhaps
now we can better understand why Paul would write, “and when this
epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the
Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col
4:16).
There
came a point when the need arose to depend on a written message, rather
than an oral one; especially after the first century when the Apostles had
passed on. Moreover, with the
spread of Christianity, a written form of the Gospel(s) would help
Christians to answer questions that were being raised by the communities
that surrounded them. Thus, a written copy of the Gospel(s) would help
them to deepen and define their faith when dealing with the communities
that surrounded them. In one
sense, we can thank God for Paul’s imprisonment: “But I would ye
should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have
fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel” (Phil 1:12).
If he was not imprisoned, there’s a good chance that we
wouldn’t have the New Testament as we have it today.
If
the teachings of Jesus were passed on orally, and subsequently written
down, how was the church able to discern between what was doctrinally
correct or incorrect? In
other words, how was a church able to distinguish between the Gospel of
Thomas and the Gospel of Mark? How did a church know to exclude the
Shepherd of Hermas, yet include 1st John?
It should be pointed out that, there were other teachings that were
written besides what we know of in our New Testament, but were later
excluded because tones of heresy were found within their doctrines.
Another reason why documents were excluded were not because of
heresy, but rather because they were not written by an apostle or their
associate; thus failing to meet the criteria of ‘apostolic authority.’
Some of the heretical teachings included, Gnosticism and Marcionism.
It is these types of teachings that forced the early Church into a
position to define herself; which in essence, was the catalyst that gave
birth to the cannon of the New Testament.
GNOSTICISM
With
the rise and spread of Christianity during the first and second century,
there arose a great number of strange doctrines that diverted from the
orthodox teachings of the Apostles. This
form of doctrine was known as "Gnosticism."
The term "Gnostic" derives its name from the Greek word,
“Gnosis,” which means
“knowledge.” Its
fundamental tenets taught that, the way to salvation was through a
“special-knowledge,” which one could acquire through a series of
Gnostic teachings. While
these teachings included the Gospels, they were tainted, so as to demote
the sacrificial work of Christ; thus, nullifying the gift of Salvation.
According to Bruce Shelley, author of Church History In Plain
Language, Gnosticism was, “The basic belief…of what we call dualism,
that is, they believed that the world is ultimately divided between
two cosmic forces, good and evil. In line with much Greek philosophy, they
identified evil with matter. Because
of this they regarded any Creator God as wicked.
Creation by a deity, they felt, was not so much impossible as it
was indecent. Their own
Supreme Being was far removed from any such tendency to “evil.”
Since the ultimate deity could have no contact with the material
world, the Gnostic explained creation by a series of emanations…The
exact relationship of the series of emanations [proceeding powers or Aeons]
differed in the different gnostic schools…But they agreed that somehow
the pure light of heaven in the soul of man had become involved in this
unpleasant business of matter and had to be redeemed…Christ, however,
could have no real contact with matter, so at the baptism of Jesus of
Nazareth, or thereabouts, the Christ descended into him; then at the
arrest of Jesus, or thereabouts, it withdrew.”10
One
can readily see how this type of teaching could tarnish the salvation
message of Jesus Christ. If
Jesus did not come in the flesh, die on the cross, and spill his blood,
then salvation would be impossible; thus, leaving humanity in a hopeless
state of corruption. Hence,
perhaps we can better understand why the Apostle John in his letter,
aggressively attacked such false teachings (Gnosticism): “and every
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh [matter]
is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have
heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
(1Jn 4:3). As Shelley
portends, “This special knowledge of the spiritual world posed a major
threat to apostolic Christianity.”11
This is important because it forced the church at Rome into a
position that would require it to redefine herself.
Consequently,
it’s clear why "creeds" were extremely popular in the early
church; especially the "Apostles Creed."
According to Alister McGrath, “These creeds are intended to
remind believers of the basic themes of their faith, and enable them to
avoid false teachings…”12
In a predominately illiterate society, a creed was relatively
short, easy to memorize, and therefore made the Christian message readily
ascertainable. Thus, a
believer through a capsulized version would be able to absorb in a
palatable manner the fundamental tenets of Christianity, and
simultaneously avoid heretical doctrines.
Another
school of heretical thought that has its origin in Gnosticism, was
Marcionism. This is important to our study because the founder, Marcion,
was the first person we have record of to create his own canon of New
Testament scriptures; which, as we will see, tacitly forced the early
Church to redefine herself ecclesiastically, as well as doctrinally.
MARCIONISM
Marcion,
(Born AD100), was the son of a church leader, who became known as the
founder of Marcionism. Initially
he sought acceptance from the church at Rome through his teachings;
however, after the church examined them, it became clear that they
diverted from the orthodox Christian message delivered down to them from
the apostles. Thus, his teachings were rejected as heresy, and so he
decided to uproot and start his own church, which according to history
lasted for several centuries. Marcionism,
however, eventually died out as a result of a lack of members.
What hurt his churches growth was that, “Celibacy was obligatory
on all its membership.”13
Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was
"different" than the God of the New Testament.
He said that the OT God was evil, and that the New Testament God
was a loving father; consequently, he rejected the OT entirely, and only
accepted the New Testament. Moreover,
he rejected "portions" of the New Testament if it had Judaic
over-tones woven into it. He
said that those portions of the NT that had Judaic over-tones, were
interpolated by Judaizers, whose sole purpose was to corrupt the Christian
message. In other words,
according to Marcion, Jews got their hands on the manuscripts of the
apostles and inserted Jewish material into them; thereby corrupting the
scriptures. Consequently, he
reedited the NT manuscripts, so as to extract any scripture(s) that had
anything to do with the Old Testament.
Thus, he produced a mutilated version of the New Testament. Although his teachings were Gnostic in nature, he did take a
liking to Paul's writings; however, where he saw OT inferences, they were
severely edited. One can
imagine what this did for Paul’s reputation in the early Church.
Like
the Gnostics, Marcion taught, “The God who created the material
universe, the God of Israel, was (he held) a totally different being from
the Father of whom Jesus spoke. The
Father was the good and merciful God whom none had ever heard until Jesus
came to reveal him. As in the
teachings of most Gnostic schools, the God who made the material world was
an inferior deity – inferior in status and morality alike – to the
supreme God who was pure spirit. The
Gnostic depreciation of the material order finds an echo in Marcion’s
refusal to believe that Jesus entered human life by being born of a
woman.”14 Again,
like Gnosticism, his doctrine denied that Christ came in the flesh.
This belief, like other heretical teachings, denies the incarnation
of Christ. Thus, rendering
the Gospel message to no-effect.
His list of New Testament writings were called the “Gospel and Apostle,” which included: 1) the Gospel of Luke,
which was severely edited to exclude Judaic scriptural over-tones; and 2)
the Apostle, which included,
“Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans, 1&2 Thessalonians,
Laodiceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.
Again, these texts were customized so as to fit his twisted
doctrinal views.
Marcion’s canon was the first attempt by anyone that we have
record of in the early church to formally provide a list of New Testament
documents, and then claim them as final authority.
Again, as a consequence of Marcion’s endeavors, the church at
Rome was forced to redefine herself.
According to Theodor Von Zahn, “Marcion formed his bible in
declared opposition to the holy scriptures of the church from which he had
separated; it was in opposition to his criticism that the church in its
turn first became rightly conscious of its heritage of apostolic
writings.”15
It’s important to understand that there were other heretical
doctrines of the day that, for the sake of brevity will not be discussed. Some of these movements included, Montanism, Valentinianism,
docetism, and Arianism. All
of which stray doctrinally from the fundamental tenets of orthodox
Christianity; and yet, they remain harmonious; in that, they are
consistent in denying the incarnation of Christ.
Thus, rendering the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the
cross to no-effect.
This gives credence to another question: “if the teachings of
Marcion…were unsound, what was the sound teaching, and how could it be
defended?”16 The
Churches response to Marcionism was not to exclude scriptures; instead, it
sought to include them. In
other words, Marcion's mutilated canon, gave impetus to the church at Rome
to respond with gun-powder of her own: "We do not reject the Old
Testament scriptures, as Marcion does, they said; we accept them, as did
Jesus and the apostles (both the original apostles and Paul).
As for the scriptures of the new order, we accept not one gospel
writing only, but four…We accept not only ten letters of Paul, but
thirteen...We accept not the letters of Paul only, but letters of other
apostles too. We accept the
Acts of the Apostles, a work which links the gospels and the apostolic
letters.”17 The
church at Rome compiled this list in what is better known as the "Muratorian
Canon." It dates back to
the second century, and is “best regarded as a list of New Testament
books recognized as authoritative in the Roman Church at the time.”18
In addition to the heterodox doctrines of the day, there were other
books in circulation that were not considered heretical, but in fact, were
esteemed by the early Christian community as worthy reading material.
However, it should be pointed out that, these books were not
included within our New Testament because they did not originate
apostolically.
At this
point, in order to determine how these early documents were categorized
and distinguished, attention should be given to our early church
historian, Eusebius.
EUSEBIUS
Eusebius “may properly be acknowledged as the second Christian
historian, the first being Luke. His
greatest work ever produced was his Ecclesiastical
History, in which he traces the fortunes of the Christian movement
from the time of Christ to the establishment of the peace of the church
under Constantine in AD 313.”19
He divides early Christian documents into three categories: 1)
universally acknowledged; 2) Disputed; and 3) Spurious.
He writes, “In the first place should be placed the holy tetrad
of the gospels. These are
followed by the writings of the Acts of the Apostles.
After this should be reckoned the epistles of Paul.
Next after them should be recognized the so-called first epistle of
John and likewise that of Peter. In
addition to these must be placed, should it seem right, John’s
Apocalypse. [John’s Apocalypse was not officially accepted until the
fourth century at the council of Hippo – AD 393] To the books which are
disputed, but recognized by the majority, belong the so-called epistle of
James and that of Jude, the second epistle of Peter and the so-called
second and third Epistles of John…Among the books which are spurious
should be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd, the
Apocalypse of Peter and in addition to these the so-called epistle of
Barnabas and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles [Didache], and
moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, should it seem right.
For, as I said, some reject it, while others count it among the
acknowledged books. Some have
also included in the list the Gospel according to the Hebrews, in which
special pleasure is taken by those of the Hebrews who have accepted
Christ.”20 What
is most significant about this passage, is that Eusebius categorically
distinguishes between documents, in both an inclusive and exclusive
manner. In other words, it’s apparent that the early Church was
intelligent enough to distinguish as early as the second and third
century, what books should be included as sacred scripture, as well as
which books should not be treated as such.
It is interesting to
note that, all of the books Eusebius mentions as “universally
accepted” by the early Christian communities, actually make-up the bulk
of our present New Testament. Moreover,
it should be pointed out that, the disputed books that eventually gained
“universal acceptance,” in essence, were disputed for the most part
because of questions surrounding the “authorship” of the books.
The
spurious books on the other hand, were for the most part condemned as
being forged by false teachers. It
was not uncommon for an author to claim a book to be written by an
Apostle, when in reality it was the work of forgery.
This was done, so that the book would gain “universal
acceptance.” For instance,
the “Acts of Paul” was fabricated along these lines, and the “author
was therefore deposed from his office as presbyter in one of the churches
in Asia.”21 In
another instance, while one of the early churches was utilizing a book
with Peter's name on it, it became clear that it was by nature spurious:
"when Bishop Serapion heard that the church at Rhossus was using the
Gospel of Peter; and that it had been “tinged with docetism (it implies
that he [Jesus] did not really suffer), then he decided that he ought to
pay the church of Rhossus a pastoral visit to make sure that it had not
been led astray by this heterodox teaching.”22
It should be stated,
however, that among the spurious books that Eusebius mentions such as the
Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and Epistle of Barnabas; these books were
considered by many to be great works of devotion, but were not to be
considered canonical. They
were considered uncanonical because they were not apostolic in origin.
It would be fair to say that if the writings of the early church
were not limited on the basis or criteria of “apostolic authority,”
then the Church would have been forced to consider a slough of other
books, which ultimately would have affected the canonization process.
Another way the church combated heretical or spurious books
was by asking, “What does it teach about the person and work of Christ?
Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him as the historical
Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and raised from the dead, divinely exalted as
Lord over all?”23 In essence, the early Church was able through a systematic
approach, determine which books were canonical and which ones were not.
Thus, this way of thinking ultimately gave birth to the ‘Canon of
the New Testament.’
Having said this, we
should now turn our attention to Athanasius.
ATHANASIUS
According to Glenn Davis, “Saint Athanasius, theologian,
ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader, was the chief
defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle
against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like,
but not of the same, substance as God the Father.
Athanasius attended the Council of Nicaea (325) and shortly
thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328).”24 In AD 367, Bishop Athanasius wrote a letter to his churches
to announce the date of Easter. Apparently
this was a letter in which he wrote yearly, in order to remind his
churches of the date of Easter. What
is unique about this letter is that, he formally lists all of the New
Testament books that make-up our present NT canon.
His list of twenty-seven NT books was intended to serve as a guide
to his churches, so that they would know what books were acceptable and
which ones were not. His list
included, “Four gospels-according to Matthew, according to Mark,
according to Luke, according to John.
Then after these the acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called
catholic epistles of the apostles, as follows: one of James, two of Peter,
three of John and, after these, one of Jude.
Next to these are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, written in
order as follows: First to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians, and
after these to the Galatians and next that to the Ephesians; then to the
Philippians; then to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians; then to
the Hebrews. Next are two to
Timothy, one to Titus, and last the one to Philemon. Moreover, John’s Apocalypse.”25
What
is important about his “39th Festal Letter," written in
AD367, is that not only does his list of twenty-seven books appear in our
New Testament, but that from this point forward, these books begin to take
on a new meaning within the Church. In
essence, the twenty-seven books are promulgated throughout the known world
as sacred scripture; which means that all other books whether written
afore or after, are to take second place to the twenty-seven books that
make up the New Testament. Thus,
this manifested itself in full-fruition at the Council of Hippo in AD 393,
where the Church (ekklesia)
‘officially accepts’ and recognizes the corpus of the New Testament
canon as sacred scripture. It
should be stated, however, that there were other preceding councils that
list the NT books, but it was the council at Hippo that officially
recognized our present NT canon. Hence,
as Glenn Davis remarks, “the first council that accepted the present New
Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE).”26
CONCLUSION
As mentioned earlier, the process and formation of the New
Testament canon was an evolutionary event that took several centuries
before it was brought to completion. Beginning with the death and
resurrection of Christ (AD30), Christianity began to spread predominately
through the oral tradition; eventually taking on a written form from
Approximately AD50/60 - 90/100, in what came to be known as the New
Testament.
Through teachings brought about by Gnosticism, Marcionism, and
other heretical movements, the Church was forced to define herself through
the concept of apostolic authority. Moreover,
history intimates that she further sought to solidify and strengthen
herself through a production of significant documents and events such as,
the “Muratorian Canon,” Athanasius’ “39th festal
letter,” and the “Council of Hippo” in AD 393.
In
essence, it is these refining events that gave birth to the canon of the
New Testament. In the ages to
come, however, the Church would soon encounter some of her fiercest
enemies, but it would be the solidifying and cementing effect of the New
Testament that would enable her to weather through any storm she would
face.
Matt
7:24-25, "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does
them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
"and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and
beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
While this paper falls short in many
respects, it has been my goal to provide a brief survey of the development
of the New Testament Canon. My
endeavor has been to broaden the readers understanding of the various
epochs of canon history.
Please note, there are many early church figures and documents that are
not mentioned within this paper; as a result, in the proceeding pages I
have provided a list of key documents, figures, scriptures, and a
time-table that will further aid the reader in their study of the New
Testament Canon.
