n the early days of the church, probably
by the end of the first century, there was widespread agreement on the
acceptability of twenty of the books that made it into the New Testament.
But the question of just what should be treated as inspired does not seem
to have been raised until several decades after Christ's death. A big
concern of the early churches was to know what Christ and the apostles
really taught so that they might continue to follow their teachings and
practice. While the apostles and their followers still walked on earth,
the church could rely on them for guidance. When the apostles were not
present (because occupied elsewhere or in prison) or as that first generation
died off, it became necessary to consult their writings. Churches shared
these writings with each other. When heretics arose seeking to change
the gospel, it became important to decide which writings were authoritative.
The heretic Marcion was expelled from the church around 144. His principle
error was to declare the God of the Old Testament to be a different being
than the Father of Jesus, (which became a common Gnostic claim). Marcion
is unique in that he listed the books acceptable to his cult. This included
ten letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke, which he greatly edited. The
Pauline epistles that he endorsed were Colossians, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
This is significant as it shows that there was widespread acknowledgment,
a century or less after they were written, that those particular letters,
at least, were accepted as being by Paul.
Marcion's list, the appearance of numerous infancy and Gnostic gospels,
and the increase of forgeries were all factors that spurred Christians
to compile their own lists of authentic books.
One such list, which is generally thought to date from about 200 is the Muratorian Fragment. Found near Rome, it is lopped off at the
top, but apparently accepted the four gospels (two are listed) and all
of the Pauline epistles that we have in our New Testament. It also lists
the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon and Shepherd of
Hermas.
Eusebius, the early Church historian, writing in the era of Athanasius
and Constantine, accepted all of the books of our New Testament, although
he questioned Revelation and noted that James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3
John were disputed by some churches. He declared that the Epistle
of Barnabas, Didache, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter and Shepherd
of Hermas were spurious.
Athanasius, the influential fourth century Bishop of Alexandria, is the
first person known to have compiled a list of just the New Testament books
that we now accept. He did so in a widely circulated letter setting the
date of Easter. Although he rejected the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, he acknowledged their usefulness.
This may explain why they continued to be bound with Scripture texts.
A compilation of more early lists or usages.
In 397, the Council of Carthage confirmed Athanasius' list, but separated
Hebrews from Paul's letters. Almost all scholars agree that this was justified,
since Hebrews, while evidently written by someone who moved in the same
circles as Paul, is not written in Paul's style and, unlike Paul's other
writings, does not claim him as its author.
Because Carthage was a local council its decision was not binding on
the whole church. In fact, different groups made different decisions.
The Peshitta translation made by the so-called Jacobites, admits
only 22 books (rejecting 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation).
Armenian New Testaments sometimes include 3 Corinthians and the Letter from the Corinthians to Paul. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
accepts the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement and the Acts of
Paul. Eastern versions also have textual differences from western
versions. However it is noteworthy that all the churches east and west
which accepted the orthodox ruling of the Council of Chalcedon on the
natures of Christ also accept the same 27 books of New Testament, even
though Chalcedon did not address the makeup of the canon.
What is clear is that while there was early and wide-spread acceptance
of almost all of the books that the church later included in its New Testament,
Christians of the early centuries (when they began asking the question)
were not absolutely fixed on which books to use as Scripture. They tended
to accept as inspired whatever writings strengthened them to stand under
persecution and guided them in operating the church, but only if those
writings agreed with the portrait of Christ which had been handed down
to them. For the most part the accepted works were those believed to have
been composed by the apostles or their immediate associates.
As time went on, some books proved less helpful or were seen to contain
discrepancies when compared with other more highly regarded books. These
tended to drop out. Some, however, were useful enough that they continued
to be copied and bound with the Scriptures. Thus Codex Sinaiticus includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas;
Alexandrinus has 1 and 2 Clement; Claromontanus has Barnabas,
Shepherd, Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. The
inclusion of these books does not mean they were considered scripture
but certainly shows they were thought of as useful and not to be lost.
This summary leaves us with the same unanswered questions we posed earlier:
Are any New Testament books forgeries and were books left out which should
have been included?
Are any Books of the New Testament Forgeries?
The most we can say is that several New Testament books were viewed with
suspicion by church leaders in the second, third and fourth centuries.
They simply were not sure that the apostles had written them. As we have
seen, parts of the eastern church finally decided against certain works
which the African and western churches accepted. Reading the disputed
books today, I personally find 2 Peter and Revelation inspiring. Both
have the authoritative and Christ-exalting tone that one expects from
Scripture. I've always found it a little disconcerting that Jude quotes
apocryphal sources but it certainly speaks with power in places. 2 John
and 3 John are useful in showing the conditions in the early church and
the opposition that pastors and apostles had to deal with. All in all,
our Bible would be poorer without these books. Are there others books
we are poorer for losing?
Are there Books that Should Have Been in the Bible?
The books which did not make it into the western canon do not belong
in it. The infancy gospels are clearly fictitious-- and not very good
fiction at that. The Gnostic gospels teach a different doctrine and simply
cannot be squared with either the Old or New Testaments. The Didache,
Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas and letters of Clement do
not speak with authority. Some of their content is weird and has not withstood
the scrutiny of time. So far as I have been able to determine, all scholars
agree 3 Corinthians is a forgery. All of these books are useful
for scholars but none is indispensable. In a long struggle, the orthodox
church managed to reject the false books and to select only the best of
the orthodox writings for inclusion in its canon.
History is a messy business, but that is the lathe God used to forge
his people and the books of the New Testament. One reason the Bible is
such a powerful word is that it emerged from white hot situations, pure
and glowing because shaped by spiritual and temporal reality.
Early Versions of the New Testament.
The New Testament having finally been put together, how did it spread?
Up until the year 600, it existed in only nine languages. These old translations
remain useful for comparison with the texts we have received and may help
scholars to reconstruct the likeliest original wording of the books of
the New Testament. They are:
Greek (first century)
Latin (second century; Jerome retranslated it in the fourth, the famous
Vulgate)
Syriac (late second century, early third)
Coptic (third and fourth centuries)
Gothic (fourth century; an Arian translation)
Armenian (fifth century)
Georgian (fifth century)
Ethiopic (ca. fifth or sixth centuries)
Nubian (ca. 6th century)
There is much more that could be said about the emergence, growth and
spread of the New Testament. We might discuss textual variations, modern
reconstructions and worldwide translation. But that must be another story.
We close this article noting that there are reasonable grounds for accepting
the New Testament as we have it and its essential message. If God works
at all in history, then we can trust that "The eyes of the Lord keep watch
over knowledge, but he frustrates the words of the unfaithful" (Proverbs
22:12). What we have is a reliable guide to salvation. Wherever the New
Testament has gone, the Holy Spirit has used it to change peoples and
cultures. He can only do so for those who take the time to read it or
hear it, seeking His grace to apply its truths.
Resources:
- Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1987.
- Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents; Are they reliable? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971, 1943.
- Farmer, William R. and Denis M. Farkasfalvy. The Formation of
the New Testament Canon; an ecumenical approach. New York: Paulist
Press, 1983.
- Goodspeed, Edgar J. How Came the Bible? Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1940. Read with caution.
- Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus. Joplin, Missouri: College
Press, 1996.
- Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Bible in Translation: ancient and
English versions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.
- Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downer's
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
- Robinson, John Arthur Thomas. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1976.
- Stanton, Graham. Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1995. Read
with caution.
- Thiede, Carsten Peter and Matthew D'Ancona. Eyewitness to Jesus;
Amazing new manuscript evidence about the origins of the gospels. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
- Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: a fresh assault on
the synoptic problem. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1992.
Back to Part 1: When was the New Testament written?
