How We Got the New Testament

[Josiah]

.

This is in 6 parts:


How We Got the New Testament


It’s an important question but one very few Christians ask.

There are two common MYTHS:

Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many centuries) the Roman Catholic Church told the world.

Evangelical: God sent out a mass-email to all Christians telling everyone that these 27 books (and only these) are Scripture. It’s just that no one has found this email.

Both are wonderful myths, it would be nice if they were true, but they aren’t. What we have is… well…. TRADITION. A growing, evolving TRADITION. And a fairly messy one at that.


+ The Early Years (30-45 AD)


The Kerygma (“Proclaimation”). Jesus lived! Jesus acted! Jesus taught! Many were eye witnesses! And doubtless, they reported what they saw and heard. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. 1 Thessalonians 2:4,9, 14-15. Acts 20:35 all seem to allude to this “kerygma”. Some of the writings of the earliest Church Fathers do, as well (1 Clement, for example). As long as the Apostles themselves and the hundreds (probably thousands) of eye-witnesses were still proclaiming, it seems there was little interest (or need) for written records. People heard it – from eyewitnesses.

But some have theorized that even at this time of the living witnesses, there were some written records made. It has long been suggested that there was at least one Gospel written in this period (in Aramaic) but NOTHING of such has ever been found; there is zero evidence of this. The theory nonetheless persists.

More have theorized that there was SOME writing (or maybe writings) that come from this period that were incorporated into Matthew, Mark and Luke. Called the “Quilla” (or “Q” – it means Source), this theory comes from remarkable similarities in these 3 Gospels. Some theorize the authors of these are heavily dependent on this pre-existing book (or books), this “Q.” But here, too – NOTHING has been found to support the theory. We have hundreds and hundreds of very early fragments of Matthew, Mark and Luke – but nothing from any “Q” (in Greek or Aramaic). An interesting (maybe even likely) theory without any substantiation.


Continues in part 2 below...



.

 

[Josiah]

Part 2


+ Things Get Written (45-100 AD)


In time, the Apostles and the eye-witnesses begin to die off. And (equally important), the church expands quickly – far beyond the Holy Lands. It simply is not possible for seekers or Christians to speak directly to these eye-witnesses. This presented a need: For something in writing. Remember: at this time, many are literate. Even Jesus, at the very bottom of the social ladder, was able to read and write.

Also, as many congregations were formed, it became necessary to communicate with them. Letters to churches (epistles) became common; consider Paul’s which make up nearly half of our NT and also those of Early Church Fathers such as Clement and Polycarp who also wrote letters to congregations. There were likely hundreds (thousands?) of these; Paul himself alludes to at least two of his that are not in our NT. But significantly, we have evidence of only a FEW written in the First Century.

James is often considered the earliest book written that’s now in our New Testament (around 50 AD). Paul’s 13 letters were written between perhaps 50-57 AD. The three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) as well as Acts were probably written in the 60’s. John’s works (his Gospel, 3 letters and Revelation) might have been written in the 90’s although scholars often now think perhaps also in the 60’s. It is likely that all 27 books in our NT were written in a short time frame of 50 years at most. Of course, by the end of the First Century, all the Apostles and eye-witnesses would be gone, replaced in a sense by these writings.


Continues in Part 3 below...


.

 

[Josiah]

Part 3


+ What Books were Around?


Quite remarkable, 2 Peter 3:16 (written about 68 AD) refers to Paul’s epistles! Those were brand new yet obviously were widely known and very highly regarded. This is actually the only thing we have from the First Century about what Christian books people were using.

But in the Second Century (100-200 AD), we find Church Fathers referencing books or seeming to be familiar with them. For example, Clement in 96 AD seems familiar with Paul’s letters and quotes several. Ignatius (107 AD) speaks of the Gospels of Matthew and John, “all Paul’s letters”, and Acts. The Shepherd of Hermas (140 AD) seems to know all 4 Gospels, James and 3 of Paul’s letters as well as the Revelation of John. Polycarp (150) references Matthew, most of Paul’s letters, 1 John, 1 Peter and maybe Acts.

But there are a lot more books floating around at this time besides our familiar 27. There were dozens (The Protoevangelium of James is one still referenced) but five (or so) others were popular and often used and quoted, and LIKELY were considered “Scripture” by some. These all still exist (they aren’t “lost”, you can read them online).

The Epistle of Barnabas (ca 110)

The Shepherd of Hermas (ca 140)

The Didache (ca 120)

The Gospel of the Hebrews (early 100’s)

The First Epistle of Clement (ca 100)



Continues in Part 4 below...


.

 

[Josiah]

Part 4


+ But Which are Canonical?

By “canonical” we mean seen as normative, reliable as a source of doctrine, the inerrant inscripturated words of God. Not just good reading, not just informative and inspirational (MANY writings were regarded as that) but SCRIPTURE in every sense of that.

First of all, there was no formal, official “decision.” It may surprise you, but contrary to what some want to claim, there never was a formal, ecumenical, decisive ruling. By anyone or anything. No Ecumenical Council ever even discussed this issue. What happened was an informal, unofficial, growing/evolving consensus (typically referred to as “Tradition”). No one referenced any memo from Jesus or Peter. No one referenced any mysterious, unknown Ecumenical Council.


Reports from Individuals -

We have “hints” to this process from several who wrote about what Christians (at least in their area) regarded as canonical. NONE is declaring anything to be anything, just what they sensed from Christians.

Origen, a controversial figure from Egypt, gives us the earliest report. Around 250 AD, he reports that some books are “generally accepted.” Here he lists 21: The 4 Gospels plus Acts, Paul’s 13 letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation of John. He also lists 10 as “widely used but challenged” and here lists Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James, Jude, Barnabas, Hermas, the Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

A full century later, we have several more reports (mainly from the East):

Eusebius (he lived in Palestine and Egypt) states in 350 that there are 20 ‘Accepted Books”: The four Gospels, Acts, 13 letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, Revelation of John. He lists another 5 as “Disputed, Questioned” and lists them as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. And he lists another 5 as even more questioned: Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache, and the Revelation of Peter. So he reports 20 as “IN”, another 5 as “SORTA” and 5 as NOPE.

Athanasius of Alexandra (he lived in Egypt) wrote in 367 about what books people there considered Scripture. He lists 27 books as accepted (the books of our NT), although he hints that not all are “equal.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (from Jerusalem) notes 26 of our 27 books (he does not include the Revelation of John) and adds “The rest are harmful” but does not list these by name.

Chrysostrom (from Constantinople) says 22 are accepted (our 27 minus 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude and Revelation).

Coming just a bit later and representing the West were Jerome who notes an acceptance of our 27 books (although he included the Shepherd of Hermas as deuterocanonical) and Augustine who seems to suggest all 27 (although perhaps not Hebrews).



Continues in Part 5 below...



.

 

[Josiah]

Part 5


+ A Two Tier Canon?

What we see in these (admittedly few and isolated) reports is often embraced as a “Two-Tier” Canon. (in the middle ages this was called “canonem in canone” – canon within the canon). Origen around 250 used the terms “Homologoumena” (spoken for) and “Antilegomena” (challenged) – and this ‘stuck” well into Reformation and beyond; indeed it was not until the late 1700’s or early 1800’s that this distinction disappeared and all 27 books were regarded equally by both Protestants and Catholics.

Homologoumena:

The 4 Gospels plus Acts

Paul’s 13 letters

1 Peter

1 John

Revelation of John (in the West)

Antilegomena:

Hebrews

James

2 Peter

2-3 John

Jude

Revelation of John (in the East)

Early on, Luther (wrongly) concluded that Romans and James disagreed on the issue of Justification, and so (using the normal rubric) simply held that Romans “outranks” James. He was following the normal practice of subjecting the Antilegomena to the Homologoumena. It seemed some canonical books were more canonical than others.

Because of this, it’s important when studying the history here to ask not ONLY if the book is “Scripture” but if equally so. Although again, this distinction has been lost in the past 200 years or so.



Continues in Part 6 below...



.

 

[Josiah]

Part 6


+ Early Western/Latin Meetings

Christians continued the Jewish practice of reading from books during the worship service. But WHICH books (the same issue existed in Judaism)? The list of books was called “the Lectionary.” What books should and should not be present there? It’s not exactly the issue we’re discussing (because it’s not uncommon to have books in the Lectionary that are NOT considered fully canonical) but it’s certainly related.

This issue of the Lectionary was taken up at 3 regional church meetings around the year 400. None of them were ecumenical or authoritative or decisive on the issue of the Lectionary (much less, the canon) BUT all three DO reveal the growing, developing Tradition.

The Synod of Leodicea. 363. It consisted of several clergy from Lydia and Phrygia (in modern day Turkey). It addressed the issue of the lectionary (what could and could not be read during the Mass) and it seems our 27 is embraced.

The Council at Hippo. 397. A Latin church meeting in northern Africa, it lists our 27.

The Council of Carthage. 397. Also a Latin church meeting in northern Africa, it lists the 27 as “to be read in church and nothing other.”

It would be easy to conclude that these settled the issue of the New Testament canon (and some Catholic try to argue that!). But that’s just not the case. None of these even directly addressed that issue, and none of these seems to have even been known outside that area – they simply were not ecumenical or authoritative. Long after this, we see Bibles with books not mentioned here (the Epistle to the Leodiceans, for example) and several missing that were mentioned at these (Revelation, Hebrews, James, etc.). In practice, none of them “settled” anything. BUT they do reveal that the consensus around 27 was quite firm – it’s not perfect, it’s not universal/catholic/ecumenical – but close. And there probably was that “Two-Tier” distinction.

Over ONE THOUSAND years later, at the Council of Florence (1431-1449) the Roman Catholic Church – by itself alone, for itself alone – declared the 27 books to be canonical. The authority of this is very controversial. But perhaps for that reason, was repeated at the Council of Trent in 1559. The Church of England (the Anglican Communion) did the same in the 16th Century as did the Reformed community in their Westminster Confession also in the16th Century. But there has never been any universal, ecumenical, pan-Christian declaration.


What we 2.2 billion Christians thus embrace as our New Testament is the result of Tradition. An evolving one over some 400-500 years or so; not perfect but pretty close! Of course, Christians believe God was active in this and that God’s will was done.


I'll attempt to address the OT later... I hope this is helpful!

NOTE: The above comes from several resources but primarily from my class.



Blessings!

Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

A thread about the OLD TESTAMENT...

How We Got the Old Testament

This is in 4 parts.... How We Got the Old Testament Writing began around 3400 BC in ancient Samaria, a land where Abraham (and Judaism) would be born some 1300 years later, so writing was already an ancient and well established by the time of Abraham. It’s very likely that Abraham could...

www.christianityhaven.com

.