Church History: How Did Christians Decide Which Books Belonged in the New Testament?
Video courtesy of Christianity.com
To learn more about how Christians determined which texts were true and authoritative, read these articles: Who Decided Which Books Belong in My Bible? and Why No Baptized Lions or Talking Crosses Made It Into Your Bible.
30 Days through Church History: Day 8
9 Responses to Church History: How Did Christians Decide Which Books Belonged in the New Testament?
Leave a Reply
What I’m Thinking
What I’m Writing
- Family Ministry: The Centrality of Womanhood in Redemption
- Family Ministry: Shaping a Child’s Soul, a Task Too Important to Be Turned Over to the Professionals
- Culture: Why Does the IRS Still Get My Taxes Even When Jesus Has My Heart?
- Proclamation: “Don’t Worry. I Read the Book. He Doesn’t Stay Dead.”
- Apologetics: What Are the Chances That Jesus’ Body Was Left On the Cross?
Where I’m Serving and Leading
Where to Find Me
Copyright © Timothy Paul Jones. All Rights Reserved.
Pingback: HOW DID WE DECIDE WHAT BOOKS SHOULD BE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? | Pastor Kyle Huber
4:17 pm
Nick
It seems to me there is a problem with this approach because if nobody outside of Scripture is infallible, then logically the Muratorian Fragment and Church Fathers, etc, could have been mistaken, and thus in listing any given book were actually passing on a “tradition of men”. We know that the early Christians who mentioned books of Scripture were also people who taught doctrines like Baptismal Regeneration, salvation by works, etc. If teaching doctrine X makes them a heretic or dubious, then we should hardly trust them to pass on the correct canon. And in fact sources like the Muratorian Fragment don’t align with our current canon, omitting some books and including others, which means to appeal to this source would be special-pleading.
The only real options on the table that I can discern are the Catholic view (in which infallible tradition must be affirmed, including trusting the Church Fathers as a whole) or John Calvin’s view (in which one discerns the canon not by historical means but only the individual’s inward illumination by the Holy Spirit). I don’t see any evidence the early Christians went about discerning the canon using Calvin’s method.
2:24 am
Joseph
Our of curiosity, then how does the book of Hebrews fit into all of this? Since the author is not definitively stated, why was it included? Was it more widespread in the church?
2:39 pm
Peter
In the case of Hebrews, we can know that the historical facts are traced to eye witnesses even without knowing who, exactly the author is because the unique historical facts contained within Hebrews would have been known empirically to the recipients.
The criteria for Canon weren’t air tight and digital, but can be described in a sort of two prong test: Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation.
Why Divine Inspiration is obvious. To be called the Word of God it had to be the Word of God. Obviously, it had to be inerrant: completely jiving with what they knew to be true from reality and the other books. As such, when something contained historical facts unique to a particular book, it was very helpful to know the author in order to establish credibility, but not entirely necessary. Hebrews (1) contains a relatively small amount of unique historical facts and (2) those which it does would have been known empirically to the original recipients. The fact that they didn’t reject it (as a normal person would flatly reject testimony about his experiences that contradicts his experiences) speaks to its credibility in that regard. Bottom line: authorship was a big deal, but not a strict litmus test. The totality of the circumstances had to be considered.
Why Divine Preservation is probably less obvious, but nonetheless important. Those who established Canon worked on a basic assumption in this regard: if God intended for this document to be important and authoritative, He would, in His sovereignty, ensure propagation of the book throughout Christendom with little to no deviation. Those who copied and distributed the book wouldn’t inject their own beliefs and opinions on matters or change facts because God wouldn’t let them. And God would ensure widespread distribution throughout the Church catholic.
Hebrews apparently passed the second test with such flying colors that those who compiled the Bible were willing to overlook the possible shortcoming of authorship, especially considering the totality of the circumstances with regard to Divine Inspiration.
7:21 pm
John
Good talk.
A few questions:
Who developed these three selection criteria? What are their sources? Where are they recorded in church history? If a scroll was widely available (e.g., Maccabees), does this validate it as a canonical Bible book?
Thanks.
7:34 pm
Timothy Jones
There is no extant list of these criteria per se. They are inferred by looking at what early Christians actually did and said.
The central criterion was connection to an apostolic eyewitness or close associate of an apostle who saw the risen Lord Jesus. That is quite clear, for example, from the Muratorian Fragment, as well as many references throughout the church fathers.
This central criterion was in once sense the sole criterion, because the other two criteria were dependent on this first and central one.
In the case of the second criterion, if a writing came from a trustworthy and truthful eyewitness, it should not contradict the writings of other similar witnesses in any significant way. Thus, if any question existed regarding a pedigree that reaches back to eyewitnesses, one might compare the text to other texts that unquestionably represent true and authoritative testimony. This is what Serapion of Antioch did around the year 200 when someone brought him a text that supposedly represented the words of Simon Peter. He rejected the text because it contradicted other texts that could be traced without doubt to apostolic witnesses or close associates of these witnesses.
The final criterion represents Christians’ recognition that their authoritative texts should be widely known to be traceable to reliable witnesses—not merely conjectured by a few congregations in a single area.
So, no, wide distribution alone of a particular text would not in any way cause it to be considered canonical. That was apparently what some second-century Christians thought concerning Shepherd of Hermas, and the Muratorian Fragment gives a glimpse of the process by which this text was understood not to be authoritative for Christians.
8:12 pm
Elizabeth
Fascinating! I agree with Scott that “…it’s good to have the truth brought to light.” I first encountered Professor Bart Ehrman’s writing in my required text for a New Testament class at a “Christian” University. Unfortunately, I had not been prepared for his arguments, however, God strengthened my faith in Him and His Word in spite of that class.
I would be interested to know which Christian leader you quoted when you wrote: “Hermas composed The Shepherd quite recently—in our times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius the overseer served as overseer of the city of Rome. So, while it should indeed be read, it cannot be read publicly for the people of the church—it is counted neither among the prophets (for their number has been completed) nor among the apostles (for it is after their time).” (Since I do not yet have your book.
9:00 pm
Timothy Jones
That is a quotation from the Muratorian Fragment, written somewhere near Rome sometime around AD 160.
9:54 am
Scott
And here I thought it was just “eenie, meenie, miney…” Seriously, so many “experts” have filled folks’ minds with so much garbage concerning this process, it’s good to have the truth brought to light. Thanks.