New Testament Canon

   The “Article of Faith” protecting the post-Reformation compilation of the New Testament is ironic in light of the slow development of the compilation and its cautious usage in the first few centuries of Christianity, especially the first century and a half. It is ironic because, as an article of faith, belief in the Bible has become a requirement of salvation or, at the very least, a requirement for corporate Christianity. If it was the power of councils and creeds to adjust the requirements for salvation, then logically we must deduce that most of the Christians of Christianity’s first few hundred years will not inherit the resurrection or, as Christians put it, be “saved,” since not all the current NT books were accepted or even known. All early Christians must perish because, like righteous Stephen, they perished before any of the books were written.

   Obviously, that is not the case, and one is being intentionally extreme to highlight the underlying fallacy of the article of faith existing at all.  The early Christians had nothing but the Scripture and their love for and belief in Christ. This article here is to set forward the development of the New Testament as it stands today to show that salvation is not dependent on confessing every word or agreeing with the modern compilation. In doing so, we must unavoidably ask the rhetorical question: When was the day of salvation? In other words, when was the standard set? 350 years ago? 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? 1,975 years ago? Set by men or by God? The answer is obvious. Any deviation from the mark set by God, at the time he set it, shall be regarded here as the “liberal” deviation. That standard was set by God more than 1,975 years ago. Error and deviation from that standard and from that point shall be regarded here as falsehood.

   Some fundamentalist Christians may regard this as “an attack” upon or subterfuge of Christianity. We will leave such ideas to those who for whatever reason have the need to bolster their faith with the illusion it is constantly under attack— such is the essential companion for those who are sure their beliefs are so pure they must always be the worthy object of assailing. It is, however, more of an attack on a different companion— not their dubious outcropping of Christianity but its mythos that 17th century notions and expedience reflects original Christianity; and the ammo that is being used is factual. Even the most fundamental Christian is only a leaf on a very liberal branch which began to grow within the last 400 years. Christianity is not a new plant. It is firmly rooted in Jewry. God drew out Abraham, and not just drawing him out to make Abraham and his seed special but at the same time promising him that all nations would be blessed in what God would bring to fruition by that covenant with Abraham. When God drew out our fathers from Egypt, the nations came by mixed multitude as well. They heard at Horeb, they wandered for 40 years in the wilderness, and their descendants entered Canaan. They traveled with Israel as one. They did not lead. Those that parted no doubt perished. There is no difference with the fruition of this covenant. We waited for “that prophet,” and he came. Only a fraction of Israel heard; but, as it was written, the nations would hear and would seek him, and he would be given the nations as his inheritance. When Moses sang his departing song, singing of God who was to come among us, the nations were there. “Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him.” The nations have no excuse, and they cannot claim that they could go their own way from the root out of which their own fathers were grafted at Horeb and confirmed at Golgotha.       

   Let us begin:

   Most of the New Testament Canon is, when it comes right down to it, epistles, that is, letters written by leaders in the church to certain churches or individuals, exhorting them to remain based in the Scripture and not to fall prey to philosophical and worldly rationalizing (Gnosticism). That Gnosticism rose to become so dominant in the latter part of the 1st century and through the 2nd century shows how inadequate the early NT corpus was inasmuch as it was an entirely Jewish body in which certain Scriptural concepts were implicitly understood, though not always overtly stated. Adding to this was the fact that Jews had little care or contact with Greek philosophical principles— and it would be these that would underpin Gnosticism. Therefore, obviously, the genuine apostolic letters carried no direct opposition to this methodology and philosophy.

   This was a sore point that Christianity had to face. The early epistolary corpus of the NT had exhorted the Gentile believer to remain firmly based in Scripture, and not to err into idolatry again. It also spoke against Jewish/Gentile arguments.  Soon, however, Gnosticism arose from the Greek contingent of Christianity. It rode a wild pendulum. At one extreme were the Nicolaitans of Ephesus and Pergamum, from which came Cerinthus’ outcropping Gnosticism, which used the Scriptures almost as a type of handbook for extracting esoteric knowledge (gnosis) from which the term Gnosticism itself is derived. There was no idolatry involved. Gnosticism was a “knowledge game,” a Hellenizing of Jewish Messianic concepts.

   By applying metaphoric meanings and elastic interpretations to basic words, expressions and situations in the Scriptures, the Gnostics could come up with a plethora of interesting theories, and then insist these theories were doctrinal facts and that belief in them was required for salvation. Gnosticism was “Salvation by Knowledge.” This approach led to several varying theories within Gnosticism, such as Docetism and Dualism, even Quartinity and Trinity. Gnosticism remained a purely mental “knowledge game” religion with little application, charity, or graciousness. At the other extreme of the pendulum there was the purely Anti-Jewish Gnosticism of Marcion, who rejected the Scriptures completely. His Gnostic proselytizing was so industrious that his own brand of Christianity lasted until the 5th century, some 250 years after he founded it. Despite being excommunicated from the church at Rome in 144 AD for heresy, some of Marcion’s unbliblical views were merely an extreme within the growing Christian attitude. The paramount idea was that of the Scripture as the “Old Testament.” Marcion’s extreme, and the popularity of his movement, no doubt helped contribute to that general view in mainstream Christianity which remains even today.

   By 200 AD, however, it was clear that this view was not yet dominant. The Muratorian Canon, the list of books being used in Rome, still shows the books being divided according to 1. Scripture; 2. Gospels; 3. Apostles; that is, the Hebrew Testament, the Gospels and then the Epistles. This clearly still reflected the Jewish roots of Christianity and the Apostolic instructions as found in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Despite the fact that neither epistles to Timothy were regarded as purely Pauline in origin (and are separate in the Muratorian Canon from the Pauline corpus), Rome knew very well of the apostolic authority behind the instruction. The eastern churches also divided between the “Law and the Prophets” and the Gospels and Epistles, clearly testifying to the universal teachings of the apostles, passed on by preaching, to remain firmly based in Scripture.

   The Catch 22 for modern Christianity is, however, that Scripture meant the Hebrew writings, not the apostolic epistles. This is confirmed by Scripture’s use by such early churchmen as Clement and Ignatius, both of whom, although they show their familiarity with the major New Testament books, nevertheless refer to them with great paucity; and their quotations are general and imprecise, to be sure. However, anything from Scripture is introduced with “It is written”— the Jewish introduction for the words of God— and then quoted almost exactly.  Other contemporary Christian leaders, such as Polycarp (ca 150 AD), reveal their knowledge of certain NT books by their overall language and allusions, though he does not directly quote them.

   The NT inspired and was exemplary; but only the words of Christ, where definitely determined, were deemed the unchallenged words and teachings of God. The first instance of this is in 2 Clement (late 1st Century) where Christ’s words are called Scripture (2:4 “And another scripture saith, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”)

   The apostles’ instructions were indeed being carried out. But what no apostle could foresee was that their own writings would eventually gain an equal standing with the scriptures that they so jealously guarded and protected for their flocks. Nor could they see that the Scriptures would be largely cast aside as the “Old Testament.” Even today they are seldom referred to or preached from by basic established Christianity; and this, as stressed above, actually stole inspiration from heretical Gnosticism and its attempts to separate between the God of the Jews and the loving father of Jesus.

   Early-on, the works that were believed to be authentic apostolic writings were mixed equally with post apostolic works, including 1 and 2 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabus, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Many sayings of Jesus contained in the 5 books of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord), were taken as authentic and quoted by high ranking churchmen for generations. Other gospels were read, like the Gospel of the Hebrews, and also Alexandrians. The Canon (term used loosely) was actually in a state of flux. Books not in the Canon today were being used, and a number of books now deemed sacred were completely unknown, with a couple adamantly rejected. Various books achieved a mild form of local canonicity, including the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul, the latter exposed as having been written by a Presbyter in Asia Minor out of his “great love for Paul.”  Numerous other books had been written claiming apostolic origins, but it is hard to date them, primarily because by the mid 2nd century there was no doctrine firmly in place giving the apostolic word the exclusive authority of Scripture. Despite this, apostolicity and the proximity of succeeding churchmen to apostolic tutelage was still a high priority in judging a book’s soundness; therefore there was still reason before the mid 2nd century for heretical movements to forge books in the name of an apostle in order to give their points of view greater authority.

     Ironically, it was Marcion’s heresy, and the zeal with which he proselytized in the mid 2nd century, that convinced many in the Church that there had best be some form of terminus ad quem to books being used for inspiration and authority. Essentially, the Apostolic Doctrine was formed, stating that an apostle had to have authored or overseen the authoring of a book. Authority clearly lay within an eyewitness of Christ. This axed out Marcion and any other Gnostic heretic who wished to amend the books or write their own and start their own divergent Christianity.

   This doctrine only slowly took root in the far-flung churches of the Empire, as shown by the Muratorian Canon of 200 AD, which still contained the early books of the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas. However, something new was beginning: disputations on the authority of certain books. Since increasing authority for doctrine was being given to books that were once only used for inspiration and guidance, books previously held as suspicious were now being viewed as potentially dangerous if they should be allowed to be given apostolic authority. Moreover, forgeries were becoming a real problem, given now that books could have been penned and then claimed to be written post-date by an apostle. The purpose for this, of course, was for promoting Gnostic heresies by claiming they were actually apostolic in origin.

     Furthermore, there was also the fear that certain books existed that were written in response to the heresies, and that the apostolic claim made for these books was made in order to give weight to disputing the heresy. However laudable it might be to dispute the heresy, to write a pseudo-epigraphic work in order to give it authority was too dangerous in an age in which the books were beginning to be used for doctrine. The central thesis might indeed be completely correct, but there could be outlying and ephemeral thoughts and statements that aren’t entirely sound.

   Determining authorship became quite a problem. For the Acts of Paul it wasn’t so hard. In it there was contained the story of how Paul baptized a lion. That raised eyebrows, and the Elder who wrote it was tracked down, made to confess, and was then sacked. Other books were more difficult. The epistles I & II Peter were unknown in the Muratorian Canon, though it seems I Peter was known by some of the Christian writers of the late 2nd century. When II Peter finally turned up, it was clear it was written in a totally different style than I Peter, and it seemed too contemporary to hold the claim of being written by the Jewish apostle Peter over 150 years previously. This book, along with a few others, would become one of the antilogomena— the disputed books. (See Disputed Books)

   The collection of antilogomena was sometimes divided into “disputed” books and books that were outright “spurious.” Amazingly, for their long lasting in the loose canons of early Christianity, the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas would end up in the outright spurious books, whereas other questionable books would be elevated to the “disputed” level or bounce around between “disputed” and “spurious,” like today’s most popular apocalyptic book, the Book of Revelation. It bounced between spurious and disputed even close to 800 years after its supposed writing— 1,400 years if you count the renewed criticisms of it during the Reformation.

   Any work attributed to John the Apostle was also treated cautiously early-on because it seemed there was confusion between the existence of two Johns. One was clearly the Elder of Ephesus during the last decade of the 1st century and the early 2nd century, some Hellenized Jew who had nothing to do with the apostle at all. By 200 AD that made it extremely difficult to determine who wrote the gospel circulating under the name of John, plus the epistles attributed to John, and the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) circulating under the name of John. This was compounded by the fact that the epistles of 2 & 3 John were introduced as from the “elder.” The Apocalypse’s origin as from Ephesus in Asia Minor, plus some of the strange things contained within the book, convinced most that John the Elder wrote that book too. It was therefore easy to dismiss both 2 & 3 John and the Book of Revelation as being sub-apostolic and unworthy of the list of books being compiled as authoritative.

   The Gospel of John and the 1^st Epistle of John were, however, spared by an interesting turn of events. Irenaeus had said (180 AD) that John the Apostle was, amazingly, also at Ephesus. This was merely his mistake. Papias, the Bishop of nearby Heirapolis, was known to be particularly passionate about the Book of Revelation and the works of John. Irenaeus then made the assertion that Papias had been the main disciple of the Apostle, citing Papias’ own books to support this. This seemed to help others win support for the works of John. This included the semi-Gnostic elder Hippolytus who, around 200 AD, argued for the inclusion of the Gospel of John into the books being used at Rome. The fact he had to argue for it showed that there was still opposition to the book based on the belief that the Elder at Ephesus had written the book or even worse that the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus had written it. Since the late 1st century the Church was aware that most of the heresies and false books were indeed coming out of Asia Minor and Greece, and there was reason to worry about any book emanating from there, even from an Elder of a church, considering the foiblous Acts of Paul. Nevertheless, Hippolytus won.

   It is amazing that, although a pillar like Eusebius took on this notion in the 4th century and was able to show conclusively that Papias was the student of John the Elder (quoting Papias directly from the introduction of his own books), he would not take on the now-standard legend that John the Presbyter and John the Apostle were both at Ephesus. Therefore Eusebius was left to maintain the standard outlook that the Gospel of John and the 1st Epistle of John were written by the Apostle, and that 2 & 3 John and the odious Book of Revelation were written by the Presbyter John.

   By Eusebius’ time, the books in dispute and those undisputed were pretty much fixed by usage and legend. The disputed books were: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation . . .with Revelation being cast out now and again as completely spurious. Other disputed books were the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

   Key Christian apologists had a varying but influential outlook in both forming and reflecting usage. Hebrews was held in dispute because the claim that Paul wrote the book was not widely accepted. The learned Presbyter of Carthage, Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century when the formation of lists of books was becoming more commonplace,  followed Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in the idea that apostolicity was essential, positing logically that forgery must come after authenticity. Tertullian makes almost no use of Hebrews because he regarded it as by Barnabus.

   Tertullian also followed Irenaeus in accepting 4 gospels as authentic— Matthew, Mark, Luke and John— on the basis of Irenaeus’ assertions of apostolicity on the following accounts: Matthew was written by Matthew for the Jews; Mark wrote from the themes that Peter used in his preaching; Luke wrote down Paul’s gospel; and that John was the Apostle and published his gospel in Ephesus. Thus it was enough for Tertullian that Matthew spoke of his own witness, as did John, and that Luke and Mark could speak for their masters since a disciple could speak in the name of his master (although in the case of Hebrews he would not accept any Pauline authority to the book based on his belief that Barnabus, Paul’s disciple, wrote it).                    

   Irenaeus also proposed that 4 gospels were the extent that the Canon could achieve, using philosophical arguments of the 4 winds, the 4 quarters of the Earth, and the 4 covenants of God with mankind, arguments that at the most polite are called quaint and at the most accurate are called specious. He also proposed something else: that the witness of the 4 gospels was held together by the Spirit, one of the earliest inceptions of what would later become a major, if not the most crucial, Protestant gezeirah: “The Guidance of the Spirit,” the infamous “gift sanctifies the altar” of the Evangelicals.

   It is Irenaeus’ assertions that eventually paved the way for the undisputed inclusion of the Gospel of John into the canon and for the views that Paul was behind Luke’s gospel, an assertion that doesn’t even make sense since Paul had not been an eyewitness, and moreover odd because Luke’s gospel is clearly dependent on the gospels of Matthew and Mark.

   This became more poignant only later on. Contemporaneously, there were still key clerics who still didn’t attach too much argument to who wrote (or was behind) some of the favored books, since they still sought inspiration from a wide variety of books. Clement of Alexandria was a particularly educated and widely traveled Christian cleric of the same time as Tertullian and Irenaeus. His compilation of books was broader than theirs. He also quoted from the Gospel of the Hebrews and some other “non-canonical” gospels, though he does clarify they are not those “handed down.” Among other books, he held the Shepherd of Hermas and the Preaching of Peter in great esteem. He seemed to regard Hebrews as Pauline— but much of Clement’s works do not survive. Therefore it is not certain about his regard for 2 & 3 John, James and 2 Peter.  Eusebius says that Clement did comment on all of the books, including the disputed books. These not only included the above mentioned ones but also the Apocalypse of Peter and the Epistle of Barnabus.

     Origen, Clement’s successor as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, had a similar approach to the books that were becoming the NT, although he uses a broader range of books as well. He also mentions that some were in dispute, acknowledging  only that 2 Peter might be genuine, and 2 and 3 John might also be legitimate, although he noted others dispute this. There is some ambiguity whether he regards them as those of the Elder John or not, and this ambiguity extends to the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) since he says it was written by the John who wrote the epistles.

     One has to recall that this is all in the wake of Irenaeus’ assertions in about 180 AD that Papias was a disciple of John the Apostle. Although others obviously disputed this (such as the Presbyter Gaius who cautioned that the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus wrote the Gospel of John), it was not until the Church’s foremost early historian, Eusebius, started unraveling the early period that clarity came to the picture.  He even bothered to attain Papias’ own books, and proved from these that Papias never knew John the Apostle, but that he was a hearer of John the Presbyter. Since Eusebius kept to the legend that both Johns were at Ephesus, there had clearly been a protracted disagreement over the authorship of the books, with those who favored the gospel and the 1st epistle maintaining that the Apostle wrote them, and those who recognized a Presbyter’s hand behind the 2nd and 3rd epistles and the Apocalypse crediting the Elder (Presbyter) John. It was a happy compromise for everyone.

   But there is no denying that after Eusebius the Book of Revelation continued to spiral downward in the Church’s eye, being squarely robbed of apostolic authority by the exposure of Papias’ source as being the Elder John. Although Papias’ books were still extant at the time, few others tried to verify he was the Elder’s student, and also see to what extent that Papias used the language of the Book of Revelation in his own writings. Remarkably, the notion was born that he was a hearer of both John the Apostle and the Presbyter. Some even declared based on Papias’ own books that Papias’ had frankly said that he was John’s editor and scribe. Nevertheless, although the events that were to unfold in Revelation were incredibly ambiguous, they were also to happen “soon;” and the author of the book was not to “seal up” the vision since it was soon to take place. Despite not being “sealed up,” nobody understood what it was talking about, and by the time of the early 4th century “soon” had proven that the book was a false prophecy to many, and that John the Apostle could not be behind it. (See Irrelevant Revelation)

     Eusebius could draw on Origen’s successor, Dionysius of Alexandria, for evidence there had been continued dispute over the authorship of Revelation. It is from Dionysius that the attitude began to develop, or at least find an authoritative source that was responsive, that the Gospel of John and the 1st Epistle of John were written by a different source than 2 & 3 John and the Book of Revelation. He said that 2 and 3 John merely circulated under the name of John, and that the Book of Revelation could not be by John based on the entirely different style of writing in the gospel.

     The Muratorian Canon dates to near the time of the beginning of the 3rd century. It exists only in fragments, and the first part of the list begins with the “third gospel,” attributing it to Luke. The authority that went behind the compilation of the Muratorian Canon wrote in poor Latin and even included a fabulous account of how and why John wrote the 4th gospel. But the list does reflect the list of books being widely used around Rome. It is claimed that when John’s companions asked him to write about Jesus, he asked them to fast with him for 3 days to find out God’s will. That night, it is said, it was revealed to Andrew that John should write a gospel in his own name but that all should check it. John is said to be an eyewitness therefore, and 1 John 1:1 is cited to support this idea. This fanciful tale in itself shows how many puzzled over why the Gospel of John appears to have been written on the memory of an eyewitness, but nevertheless written by another person from his memories or on his behalf. This legend about the apostles fasting, etc., did not take root since most of the erudite in the 2nd century Church knew the book originated at Ephesus long after the apostles were dead. Later acceptance that it was by John the Apostle was based on the developed legend  that he was the last aged survivor.

     Equally dubious with this legendary claim is another interesting assertion of the early “Guidance of the Spirit” belief. The comment is made: “Though various ideas are taught in each of the gospels, it makes no difference to the believers, since in all of them all things are declared by one sovereign Spirit.” Reliance upon such statements by Gentile traditionalists is dangerous for sure, seeing upon what other fanciful logic those who held to this view built their rationale. By the time of the compilation of the Muratorian Canon, only Irenaeus had expressed a type of overall guiding by the “Spirit” to justify usage in lieu of careful study and compilation. Irenaeus also appealed to other “quaint” testimonies like the four winds.

   The fact is that the statement must have been made in reaction to the concerns various Christians were raising about the massive differences between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John. Instead of tackling the issues, the Church was already willing to try and justify the disharmony as being guided by the “Spirit,” and then ironing out the differences through “spiritual” interpretation.      

   What is further interesting is that Acts is mentioned as being written by Luke, of things “that fell under his notice;” and then the epistles of Paul are 7 in all in this order: Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans (combining both of the letters to Corinth into 1). Paul’s letter to Philemon follows; and then the Pastorals (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy) are mentioned separately and justified with the rider that these are “sanctioned by the ordinances of ecclesiastical discipline and honor of the catholic church”— a loaded statement since the implication is that they were known not to be by Paul. Today, they are some of the most disputed books, since it is argued that they represent a catholic church development that existed only long after Paul’s time. Had there been no early suspicions of this, it seems highly unlikely they would have been given separate distinction from Paul’s known letters.

   Comment then follows on certain letters attributed to Paul, like those to Laodicea and Alexandria, that are condemned as having been written by Marcion. Two epistles of John are referred to, without stating which ones; and the book of Jude is also included. Inclusion of this last book is an indication that the apocryphal Book of Enoch was still highly regarded, since it is a book which Jude openly quotes. The Book of Wisdom is mentioned as having been written by Solomon, and then the Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned and then the Apocalypse of John, though the writer notes that some do not allow Peter to be read in churches. The fragmentary Muratorian Canon ends with the Shepherd of Hermas, which is clarified to be recommended for private reading but is not used in churches. Despite its fragmentary nature, it is clear from the preserved text that there is no place where 1 & 2 Peter, James or Hebrews could have been entered, unless there was a separate place on the paper for spurious books.

     Despite the value of the Muratorian Canon, it represents only the churches centered on Rome. The only list of the mid 3rd century that may reflect the view of all the Latin churches is that of Cyprian. This contained the 4 gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse of John (Revelation). The others are not mentioned and probably not held as equal.

     In the 4th century, Eusebius of Caesarea would now play a major role. Although based in the east, he was a historian and researcher of great caliber, seeking evidence from the whole Roman Empire to record the practices of the various churches. He notes that Jude was mentioned by the ancients and is read in public in the churches in some locales, whereas James was not mentioned and is regarded as spurious by some churches. He notes that 1st Peter is unquestioned, but that 2nd Peter is not held as canonical, though it is still diligently read. Eusebius notes that Hebrews seems to be accorded to Paul, and that 1 John is also regarded as authentic. However, 2 & 3 John are disputed, so is the Apocalypse, James, and Jude. Moreover, under the designation “spurious” such formerly enjoyed books as the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve), Gospel of the Hebrews, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabus, and the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of John, and Acts of Paul are placed. It is clear that usage and disuse helped changed the canon, for the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas were once considered of high value and even quoted as authoritative by some towering early churchman like Clement. Eusebius notes that some accept the Apocalypse of John (Book of Revelation). There is another interesting thing in Eusebius’ classification: heretical books. Under this category he places the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Matthais, Acts of Andrew and Acts of John.  The Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter, however, he places in Spurious.

     Fortunately, Eusebius was as objective as he could be. He is not recording his own personal view, but those of a wide range of the churches of the Roman Empire. He personally placed the Apocalypse of John in the “Spurious.”

     In 367 AD an interesting letter was written and has survived. This is the Easter Letter of Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria. Although Easter letters were common, this one contained Athanasius’ views on what books should be regarded as authoritative. This is the first instance that there can be found all 27 books of the current New Testament classed as undisputed. They are called the “springs of salvation” and are “handed down and believed to be divine.” Furthermore, “in these alone is the good news of the teaching of true religion contained.”

     Well, Athanasius was probably influential to a certain extent, but his letter probably only reflected his usage of the books in circulation. His dogma was unique, however, and not reflected in the Western and Eastern Empire churches. The difference now, of course, was that Christianity was dominating the Empire after the emperor legalized it and it was on the way to becoming the State Religion. The result was that more authority was being exhibited. Notwithstanding the disputes, these 27 books were always at the top of the list, with others promoted as good for private reading and certain teachings by church members, such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Book of Wisdom and other apocryphal books. Modern assertions that Athanasius’ letter proves the modern canon was already “fixed” is far from accurate. It was, in fact, Athanasius’ liberal outlook but dogmatic stance that paved the way for the incorporation of the apocryphal Hebrew books into the Scriptures, which are still in Catholic bibles. Considering his liberal outlook on the Hebrew writings it is amazing in this light that traditionalists today use him as an authoritative source to prove that the present NT, as compiled in the Post-Reformation age, has been in long uncontested use.

   The Syriac Church, that is, the churches based on the church at Antioch, the most powerful NT Church after Jerusalem— indeed, the place where “Christian” was coined— was the slowest to develop. It was also the one church that tried to unite all 4 gospels into one reading, which invariably didn’t work. There dates to the second part of the 4th century a letter called the Doctrine of Addai, which refers to the books being used: “The Law and the Prophets, the Gospel, (meaning the Diatessaron, the 4 gospels lumped together) and the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles.” The rider with this list reads that these books are to be “read in the Church of God, and with these read no others.”

   In 400 AD there is an identical list except that the Diatessaron was broken up and the gospels are mentioned individually. At this time Hebrews is included as belonging to Paul. Syriac Church fathers like Aphraates and Ephraim still do not mentioned the “catholic epistles” (James, epistles of John and Peter, Jude.) When bishop Rabbula edited the Peshitta in the early 5th century in order to produce a revision of the Old Syriac, this became the standard version of the Syriac Church. This now contained 1 Peter and 1 John, plus James. The missing books were 2 and 3 John, Jude, 2nd Peter and Revelation (the Apocalypse). By 508 AD, when it was revised again, it contained all the books.

     The West, however, would not fully accept the 2nd & 3rd epistles of John, 2 Peter, Jude and the Book of Revelation. Added to this disputed list would be Hebrews, since the church at Rome had had much contact with Paul and had from the very beginning disputed that Paul could have written Hebrews. Independent clerics, however, did accept it, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrosiaster, Lucifer of Cagliari, Priscillian, most of whom regarded it as Paul’s work. On the other hand, Jerome (4th century) confirmed it was still not received by the church at Rome. Augustine mentions it as belonging to Paul, but then changes his mind, and when citing it does so anonymously. Hilary accepted only the three major catholic epistles of 1 John, 1 Peter, and James, whereas the others mention all 7, although Jude fell into disuse in many places because of its reliance on the Book of Enoch.

     Some of those trying to defend the “guidance of the spirit” gezeirah have gone to certain lengths to justify the Canon’s slower development in the West than in the East, and its less-than-dogmatic view of it, by saying that the Eastern churches, especially Antioch and Alexandria, were closer to the sources of the New Testament, and therefore closer to the original traditions than “their western brethren.” The logic is hard to find. It took some 450 years for the East to fully accept some of the minor epistles, certainly not a reflection of being closer to the fount that could verify their accuracy. The difference between East and West was one more of being critical: the hard thinking, less artistic attitude of Roman culture contrasting with the more free-flowing, metaphysical orient of the Eastern Roman Empire. Some books had real problems in application, and excessive interpretation couldn’t do away with these problems. As the concept of these books being divinely inspired grew, so did the problems of wording. Since they were no longer inspirational, but that an expression could lead, in a Pharisaical way, to a doctrine, clear language was crucial. Rome and the Western Christians were simply being more practical.

     It was, in fact, with the rise of Christianity to power in the Roman Empire that councils and creeds started to be formed. At the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD, a list of books was presented that was identical as today’s Canon, only sans the Apocalypse. Athanasius’ Easter Letter a few years later would include the Apocalypse. The Council of Hippo in 393 would agree to the list, and then in 397 the Council of Carthage would also agree, though expressing caution on the claim that Hebrews had been written by Paul. This council, at which even St. Augustine was present, “fixed” the Canon for the Middle Ages and up to the Reformation.

     “Fixed” is, however,  too dogmatic a word, and the canon of books after the Council of Carthage in 397 AD was clearly not an Article of Faith that any Christian had to swear to. The “old” Peshitta of 22 books was still being copied in the East, the Shepherd of Hermas was still being found in some compilations in the West, and the Ethiopic Church added some 8 books ascribed to Clement or to the Synodus. The 6th century traveling monk Cosmas reported that the Syrians only accepted 3 of the catholic epistles (1 John, 1 Peter, James), but that he personally regarded all of the catholic epistles as suspicious. And, indeed, the old dispute concerning the Apocalypse of John (Book of Revelation) was not over. In the 9th century, the list of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, places it in the “disputed” category.

   The deviations didn’t matter much in the West, since usage was not a factor anymore. The Canon was protected by the Roman hierarchy, most of whom didn’t know how it had become established by tradition. There had never been a formal decree. The councils referred to above were agreeing to certain books, but they were not ordaining them. It was actually at the Reformation where the biggest challenge to the Canon of the New Testament was raised, and this was actually ignited by a few sparks within the Catholic Church.

     Erasmus had sent off sparks in the introduction of his Greek New Testament in 1516, in which he made several comments on some of the books. He denied the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but maintained its authority nonetheless. He did the same with James, noting it does not have the gravity of an apostle. He gratuitously mentioned the doubts that had been expressed by Jerome concerning the books. He then raised the doubts that had been expressed over Jude and 2nd Peter. He also held the early view that 2 and 3 John were written by the Presbyter; and he also brought up the differences between the style of the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse (very apparent in Greek) and denied that the author of the gospel could have written it as well. Erasmus was true to his academic origins. He ponders over the conflict he has whether he should follow his own reflections or yield to accepted usage. Although he will dutifully yield to the authority of the church, he accepts that the spiritual man can make up his own mind.

   Until the Reformation there was little reaction to Erasmus’ implicit views of the Canon. But as the Reformation progressed, action was becoming necessary. This was no doubt delayed by the enormous position held by Cardinal Caietan, who also had a rather free attitude about the Canon. Although known for opposing Luther at Augsburg in 1518, he would agree with some of Luther’s skepticism on the use of the NT books. At the top of his lungs, a place where Luther’s voice was at ease, Luther had been deriding some of the books that the authoritative church had been issuing. This carried weight, of course, because out of all the Reformers Martin Luther had been a priest. He condemned the book of Hebrews as being full of “stubble, hay and wood;” James was a “right strawy epistle,” and the Apocalypse of John was “a dumb prophecy.” Caietan was less crass, but his ideas amounted to something similar. If Paul could not be verified as the author of Hebrews, he thought, it was questionable that the book should be used. He liked 2 Peter, but he was fine with dismissing the Apocalypse. He admitted that Jude and 2nd & 3rd John were of secondary value compared to the others.

     Then in 1522 the famous Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes was printed in which he actually separated the Apocrypha from the rest of the Old Testament books, a bold move. Amidst this growing furor the Theological Faculty of Paris finally condemned Erasmus in 1526 for disputing the authorship of books that the church had already agreed upon. It was for the church to determine who authored what book.

     In 1534 Caietan died. Things were now getting out of hand. The Reformation, begun in 1517, was now in full swing, sweeping through Europe. Luther had made his beliefs known, and no one in the church had a ready answer for why some of the books were being used. Now the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had something to say. He expressed no apparent opinion on the books that were in dispute . . . except the dreaded Apocalypse, which he outright said was not a Biblical book. Most of the Reformers came to individual arrangements in their own bibles. Oecolampadius, the Swiss Reformer, stated: “We do not compare the Apocalypse, the epistles of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2 and 3 John with the rest.” Andrew Bodenstein, who in 1520 had issued his work De canonicis Scripturis, in which he rejected any authority of councils to set canons, relied on the authority of scripture itself and its independent dignity. Bodenstein’s bible would place the books according to their “dignity:” the gospels first, then Paul’s epistles, then 1st Peter and 1st John. The rest of the books were placed in the back. Jean Calvin, however, was by far the most polite and liberal in his approach to the Canon. Even the Apostolic Doctrine of the 2nd century (which required that an Apostle had to have authored a book in order for it to be authoritative) wasn’t a great influence on him. He admitted that Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul and that 2nd Peter was not written by the apostle Peter but that it must have been written by disciples after his death. He liked the book very much, and used it in his own studies. However, at this time we must recall that there was no point of faith decree regarding the compilation of the New Testament. Had this been tried in his life, we don’t know if he would have objected to certain books being entered in as “inerrant.” By the time of Beza’s compilation and edition of the New Testament in 1564, Calvin didn’t seem particularly disturbed by the inclusion of books that had been historically opposed, such as the minor catholic epistles. He would, however, consider the Apocalypse to have been obviously sub-apostolic. If asked, he would say that if he were allowed to conjecture, he would offer John Mark as the author.

   Martin Luther was not so polite in his opinions. It is already noted that he condemned the Apocalypse as a “dumb prophecy.” He was, however, far more tolerant in application, and said that if anybody wished to regard it as by the Apostle John they should not be hindered. Despite Luther’s bluntness, he more or less reflected age old opinion. It is a tribute perhaps to Luther’s own spirituality that he really didn’t know the historical objections to these books. When he separated such books as 2nd Peter, the Apocalypse, James and Hebrews, he stated he knew that these books had been held as authoritative in the past— when actually they had frequently been contested. 

     The Catholic Church finally decided to make its own authoritative stance, and it convened the Council of Trent in 1546. That council actually did an admirable job of looking into the history of the Canon and its individual books. The result, however, was to only make explicit what had been implicit. The Council issued its famous edict setting the Canon and making it inviolable as an Article of Christian faith. But even its dispute was made explicit. The Council of Trent itself would not hold all the books to be equal, but reserved a section of books that were essentially deutero-canonical; in other words, a secondary Canon of New Testament Apocrypha, books that were to be used for private reading and inspiration but were not to be used for doctrine.

   Sixtus Senensis rendered the majority opinion of the Council based on the long held objections to these books. The books that they noted were none other than those that had always been held in dispute since the very beginning of their circulation, contested for doctrinal reasons or for the belief that they were inauthentic— pseudo-epigraphic. Some of these books, unfortunately, are a major source of Christian doctrine, outlook, and eschatology today, without any caution applied to their contents. But there was good reason why most were disputed. They are, of course: Book of Hebrews; Epistle of James; 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation (also called the Apocalypse of John); and the following passages: the Gospel of John, Chapter 7:53-8:11; Mark 16: 9-20; Luke 22: 43, 44. There the discussion ended. Once again, they only made explicit what had been implicit. (See Disputed Books)

   This meant nothing to the Reformers, of course. They had formed their own canons and, in Calvin’s case, stressed a certain individuality to its approach. But as time went by and the Reformation fathers died and the split between the Reformation and the Catholic hierarchy was unmendable, the Calvinists of the 17th century largely copied the Council of Trent’s edicts without knowing that certain books were still held to be deutero. Thus they canonized everything, and they were a major influence in setting what is the standard Christian bible of today. The Westminster Confession would also enforce this as an Article of Faith (1643), based on some Reformation conventions and their use of the NT books: e.g. the Canons of Dordt, the Belgic Confession (1561-1563), the Heidelberg Catechism, etc. After 1643, Protestant Christian communion was also based on agreeing that all the books were the inerrant word of God, faithfully guided and compiled by the Holy Spirit.

     As early as the Helvetic Confession of 1536 it is asserted that the Word of God is given by the Holy Spirit. However, like with the Reformers’ objections to the Catholic traditions, the decrees of councils can’t be reconciled with the work of the Holy Spirit. They are the decrees of men. Article 3 of the Westminster Confession puts it most lamely when it puts in order all the NT books and then says “All of which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.”  But those who compiled the Westminster Confession don’t add how they know these are the right books. If the acts of authority are decreed by the Holy Spirit, how can one explain that the Holy Spirit didn’t guide Christians for hundreds of years, nor, apparently, guide the Reformers, since many of the same books were still held in dispute through the Reformation?

   “The Guidance of the Spirit” also can’t explain such Scriptural passages as when Hilkiah comes before good King Josiah with a lost book of “the law” that was found when cleaning out the temple storage rooms. Josiah read it, rent his clothes and did what was written therein (Some believe the book was Deuteronomy.) If Josiah had the attitude of the Westminster Confession, and believed in the “Guidance of the Spirit” gezeirah, what should he have said? “Well, it was the will of God that it was lost. Throw it back.” The simple fact is the adherents to the “guidance of the spirit” cannot answer the simple question: “Was it the will of God that it was lost or that it was found?”

     In taking it as far as they did, post-Reformation Christianity slipped into a modern Christian Phariseeism which has helped promulgate a plethora of strange doctrines and apocalypticism based on books upon which the early and even medieval church would not be dogmatic. This has lead to bizarre elements in today’s transient apocalypticism. But worse it has lead to the judgment of those who dispute some of the books as “unsaved” or as “liberals” when, in fact, those who promote such Councils and Confessions are the ideological descendants of the 17th century liberals. They are adhering to a manmade tradition of only 350 + years old.  Jean Calvin could not be a member of a Calvinist church today because no doubt he would not swear to it that some of the books were completely “inerrant.” He would be classed as an apostate. All the Reformers actually would be so classed today.

   There is nothing “heretical” in the disputed books, and any use of them prior to the post -Reformation Phariseeism was harmless. It was after that that the Pharisaical lay element started to talmudicly approach the books and extract all sorts of gezeirah from them. To read any NT book is to be inspired and guided by dedicated believing men. But since unwarranted doctrines have been extracted from them in the last 350 or so years, it is necessary to draw the line, if not on the books than on the methodology now being employed to make them say something neither their original writers meant nor certainly the Holy Spirit of God would intend. But the modern challenging of the same (and a few other) books is being viewed as, and promoted by, so-called fundamentalists as a sign of a last days’ apostasy and heresy. Yet at the same time they do not consider that many of their gezeirah and minhags, that their entire methodology, reflect this even more so.

     The Jew, now believing, must simply remember that he is not obliged to take on recent Gentile traditions. One of the effects of the excessive interpretation by the gezeirous Post-Reformation laity is the “gentilizing” of the NT and with this the loss of the original purpose and usage of what is contained therein. The underlying knowledge that the foundation is the Torah and the Prophets has been completely lost. This is why so-called traditionalist fear criticism of the NT, for it is their foundation instead of their light. The books inspire in superb ways, guide and enlighten. But their use as sources of laws and Gnostic extractions requires that they be once again submitted to a searching criticism, the same criticism that godly men exercised for hundreds of years after Christ. It was an easy and essential thing to do, because they understood one thing remained: the Law and the Prophets— the Scriptures— held secure by the fact God had spoken and it had come to pass, the only true test that God instituted to prove he had spoken. At best, a searching criticism will only relegate a few questionable outlooks to a more cautious level; at worst, for the Christian liberals, reestablish the authority of the Torah as not being superseded, so that no excuse can be found for the rampant immorality they condone. It is removing the Pharisaical methodology that will unshackle the beauty of the NT more than anything, and reestablish the meaning of what its writers intended. See Disputed Books