How did we get the New Testament? Christians claim that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ. If this is true, perhaps we would expect that God would go to great lengths to ensure that Jesus’ words were preserved in some miraculous way. Perhaps He might have provided gold or brass tablets inscribed with the record of this incarnation. Particularly in the eyes of the skeptic, the delivery and recognition of the NT can seem to have been exactly the opposite. Some claim that the books to be included were picked out almost 400 years later and perhaps many other reasonable candidates were rejected. Admittedly we don’t have detailed records of either the writing or the selection process. That is not to say that we know nothing, however.
Is it possible that there was a good reason why God did not make His revelation in the New Testament blindingly obvious? In at least some senses, this is entirely consistent. First, the God of the Bible normally chose to work through frail, faulty humans. The Bible records visions and more direct revelations at times, but often it claims that He chose to use human vessels to spread His word. Secondly, the Bible places immense value on faith. Hope comes from faith (Romans 8:25). If God had made his revelation so blatantly obvious that no one could doubt it, what kind of faith would be involved? He provides evidence, but it does involve effort to recognize the support that exists.
In this post, we will look at nine points that help to show how the church came to recognize the books that God had chosen to place in what we call the New Testament. Notice that I did not say that some set of bishops or church leaders chose to be in the Bible. The church prayed and chose the books that they believed that God had chosen. These nine points serve to show what their criteria was and over what timeframe they recognized those books accepted. They provide another chain of evidence that helps understand why Christians believe the NT to be true.
We don’t know exactly when the OT canon was closed, but it was closed by the time of Jesus.[1] There are no quotations or other indications that books such as those in the Apocrypha were ever given such authority by the apostles, despite their knowledge of them. It had been 400 years since actual scripture was added.
[1] Jesus in Matthew 11:35 referred to murder in the OT ranging from that of Abel to Zechariah. Abel’s murder is recorded in the book of Genesis, while that of Zechariah was recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, the last book in the Hebrew Old Testament, with all of the current books included. This indicates that Jesus accepted as canonical this set of books and no others.
Point One along this NT timeline shows that the acceptance of new books as being scripture began in the first century. The Jews did not do this lightly and the earliest Christians were Jewish. Yet it is logical that the message of Jesus and the Apostles would have been vitally important to the early church. Since they considered Jesus to be God, his words and his Apostle’s words were vital messages from God. There are clues that the Apostle Paul was aware of and used the Book of Luke. (1 Timothy 5:18 vs. Luke 10:7 and I Corinthians 11:17-34 vs. Luke 22:19-20). Such allusions suggest that the book of Luke might have been written very early. Yet an even more direct indication is found in 2 Peter 3:14-16, showing that the Apostle’s writings were considered authoritative scriptures. (Figure 2) This indicates that, when this book was written, Paul’s letters were already recognized as scripture on par with the Old Testament.
I am well aware that many scholars do not believe that the Apostle Peter wrote this letter. First, I find their arguments unpersuasive. The early church investigated, looking specifically to reject those who were not written by who they claimed to be. Serapion, the bishop of Antioch, banned “the Gospel of Peter” because it was not written by Peter and also because it denied the humanity of Jesus. Secondly, 2 Peter certainly seems to have been used by several of the early Church fathers, such as Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, and it is highly unlikely that they would have used a book falsely claiming to have been written by Peter.
Even if it were not written by Peter, one would have to conclude that it had to have been written at least by the early 2nd century. Even that would mean that the writings of Paul were considered scripture by that time. Peter or even some other author assumed that his readers were familiar with Paul’s writings and considered them authoritative. He doesn’t argue why they should be considered so, but urges the readers to use them.
If the early church was right that Peter wrote 2 Peter, this is extremely powerful evidence for how soon the Apostle’s writings were recognized as scripture.
Point Two
Imagine the scenario where all of the books of the NT or references to them seemed to appear in the 3rd or 4th century. Surely that would seem strange. We do have manuscript evidence that shows that the books were older than that. What if the books were written in the first century and then just ignored for the next couple of centuries? That might have meant that the earliest church really didn’t accept them. In fact, that was far from the case. While there was no universally agreed upon set of books from the start, Christian leaders began immediately to incorporate the NT books into their writing. Point 2 is the example of Clement of Rome. He lived from about 35 to 100 AD and he wrote two letters that we have today. He personally knew at least some of the Apostles, including Peter and Paul. What do you know, he used at least 14 of our 27 NT books. Sometimes, he quoted them and sometimes alluded to them, using their phraseology. Phrases from the NT are used every day even in the present. That practice began early. In this case, it shows that NT books were in use around the end of the first century.
Point Three
More of the early apostolic fathers used the NT books. One such was Polycarp. Polycarp was known as a disciple of the Apostle John. He was well positioned to know the authenticity of the various books and used 16 different books in his writings.
Point Four
Around the same time, others led churches, including Ignatius of Antioch, another leader who personally knew the apostles and used their writings. He quoted or alluded to 21 of the 27 books of the NT. How likely is it that he or any of these early Christians would have used books that they thought were untrue or that they believed were written by someone other than who they claimed to be? This is not 27 books like today’s NT. Why? Remember that there was no central organization collecting them or verifying them. Different churches in different areas had access to different sets of books. Even so, the churches clearly recognized that some books were special.
Point Five.
In 1700, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, an Italian scholar, was going through an 8th century manuscript when he found a partial document written in Latin. Internal clues reveal that the document was originally written in Greek around 170 AD. While the first part of the document was not found, what actually was found gives us the first description of the set of books accepted by the church at that time, viewed as coming from the Apostles. It begins by describing how the third gospel was written by Luke. It describes how the Apostle John wrote his gospel. In all, it names 23 of the books in our NT. Some books were considered disputed. It did take a bit of time for a consensus to be reached on them. Some it lists with the instruction not to read them in the churches and they are still rejected today. 
The criteria for acceptance were clear. There had to be a connection to the Apostles or one of Jesus’ brothers (such as Jude). They had to believe that the books were written while the Apostles were there to validate them. Hence, though the allegory, the Shepherd of Hermas, was valued, it could not be read in the churches. Why? It was from a later time. This tells us that the early church took the validation of the books seriously and believed that those that they accepted were actually written by the traditional authors in the first century. Others failed that test and were rejected.
Point Six
It is interesting to look through old Bibles. They sometimes have little pieces of history in them. This is a second case of that. A 6th-century Greek-Latin manuscript contained a list of OT and NT books. It must have been originally prepared to help scribes in copying text because it gave the number of lines each book contained. Opinions vary as to its exact age, but it has been dated to the end of the 3rd century or the 4th century. 23 of the 27 NT books are on the list. (http://ntcanon.org/codex_Claromontanus.shtml). Spacing suggests that three more were originally on the list. The church did not yet have universal agreement. The book of Hebrews was left off, perhaps as an oversight. Near the last of the list are four books that are not part of the NT. Their position on the list suggests that there were some questions regarding them. We have no way of knowing what this list was based on, but notice that most of the NT continued to be accepted and was placed with the OT scriptures.
Point Seven
Early in the 4th century, a Christian scholar came along who was perhaps one of the most learned men of his time. Eusebius was a bishop in Caesaria Marittima, ancient Palestine. He is reported to have had an amazing library of documents. He was a careful scholar and is known as the “father of church history”. He would have had access to much data that is lost to us now. Today, we have only a small part of what he probably wrote, let alone other sources that he used. Eusebius provided a list of books for the churches. He considered 22 as totally accepted. He considered five to be disputed. Some churches were not sure about them, perhaps because they were not as universally available. Later, these came to be included in the NT. He considered 11 rejected. No serious scholars today claim that any of these were authentic.
When we compare the lists of NT books from the Muratorian fragment to the time of Eusebius, we can see that there were just a few books that the church had not totally agreed about. The four books that Eusebius considered disputed do contain valuable teachings. From an apologetics standpoint however, the story of Jesus and the good news that His gospel presented is complete without them.
Point Eight
The next point on this progression comes when Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt made a list of the canon recognized in his day. His list from 367 AD matches our current NT. Athanasius used the chain of testimony coming through Eusebius to recognize the books that were authoritative. (https://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html). He didn’t say that no other books could be read but these are different. He wrote,
“These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them.”
Point Nine
Finally, we come to the point that some skeptics have pointed to as when the NT was born. Actually, two church councils were held to make formal what the church had recognized. In the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, a group of leaders from around what was Christendom at the time. They recognized the 27 books that we know as the New Testament as the authoritative set. This was further formalized in 397 by the Synod of Carthage.
From its records we read,
“It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.” https://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
The selection of what was to be considered scripture wasn’t smooth like some think it should have been. It took prayer, discussion and, no doubt, arguing to recognize what God wanted to be included. I think it is very important to realize that books like the 4 gospels, Acts and the letters of Paul were accepted early and never questioned. Very early, the gospels were named for the authors recognized and no other names were ever suggested. The linked evidence or the chain of custody shows that the gospel of Jesus as it reads today dates all the way back to Christianity’s beginning.
Recent Comments