This is the final post in this series [see Part 1] | Part 2]. Before I begin, however, I wanted to alert readers to a newsflash. NPR has reported that documents from 1881 were recently discovered in a storage closet in the Arizona Cochise County courthouse showing an original eyewitness account of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral! Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday….they’re all REAL HISTORICAL FIGURES! Arizona state librarian is claiming this is a “huge discovery!” (View them here.) This is historiography at work. “Ya’ll git my drift?” Now…back to your regularly scheduled post.
The long historical/theological process to recognize the New Testament as the authoritative Word of God has been scrutinized and questioned time and again by the scholarly world. Martin Luther, for instance, placed certain books on a lower status (e.g. Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), since they did not fit well with his theological presuppositions. Many others have followed suit. Those who question the authority of some NT books may ask “Why accept the New Testament canon as authoritative?” Should modern Christianity accept these writings as canon?
To answer it’s important to understand the criteria used by the early Church when deciding on what books to recognize as God’s Word. Part of this criteria would no doubt include various social, theological, cultural, and even geographical considerations. After all, the Church did not exist in a vacuum. There were many forces that shaped the completed canon of the NT and these variables are difficult to weigh due to the time gap. There are limited available resources (such as antiquated writings, artifacts, excavations etc.) from which to draw. But a high degree of probability exists that what can be known regarding the NT documents will show it reasonable to accept their trustworthiness. Given this probability it’s not a far distance to travel in trusting the NT Scriptures as a reliable account of the historical Jesus, his apostles, and the birth of the Church.
The first of many criterion for the NT canon would be the consistency of the message and its broad scope of application. Here it is plain that the four Gospels were regarded as accurate and authoritative. Had the Gospels been in question, those close enough to Jesus or his disciples could have made corrections before they were so widely circulated. The kerygma (apostolic oral traditions about Jesus) was one of the means used for sorting out the accuracy and therefore authority of the Gospel accounts.
Likewise, the Pauline epistles were widely circulated and believed authoritative. Many times Paul claimed a “word of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15; 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23; Acts 20:35). Philemon may have been late in being acknowledged but this could be due to the fact that it was a personal letter and not meant to be circulated. Paul insists that his letter to the Thessalonians be read to all (1 Thess 5:27). Likewise, Paul commanded the Colossians to send their letter to the church in Laodicea and in turn to read their letter from him in the Colossian church (Col 4:16). Also, the Apocalypse of John was to be sent to the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev 1:11).
The fact that these NT books were circulated and accepted by so many indicates that there is a great deal of continuity inherent in the message they proclaimed. Had there been contradiction (apparent or explicit) in the early circulation of these accounts, then it is doubtful the Church would have accepted them.
Apostolic origin was another criterion in determining authoritative writings for the Church. This was, in fact, the most important factor for the Church. Since Jesus granted authority to the apostles to proclaim the message of a risen Savior and endowed them with the Spirit of God to carry out this task, it was understood that the writings of the apostles were to be held in the highest regard.
The apostle Paul was acutely conscious of his authority. So much so that rejecting his teaching was tantamount to rejecting the teaching of God himself (1 Thess 4:8). It is equally significant that Paul, being a contemporary of the other apostles, had not been challenged by them. In fact, he himself challenged Peter — one who walked with the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry (Gal 2:11). Shortly afterwards (c. 15-20 years) Peter affirms Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (2 Pt 3:16). This intimates a kind of internal consistency amongst the apostles and affirms their authority.
While apostolic authorship was the preferred means for determining NT authoritative writings, it does not explain the acceptance of Mark, Luke-Acts, James, Jude, and possibly Hebrews. The apostles themselves included the OT as canon for the Church and, therefore, did not insist that their writings alone be considered authoritative. In 1 Tim 5:18 where Paul quotes Lk 10:7 he puts Luke’s Gospel on par with Scripture. This illustrates close association with an apostle as a possible criterion. In short, whatever books the apostles imposed as canon are those works which the Church included as canon (see Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield pp. 415-416).
Another means of determining authoritative Scripture was the overall effect that these writings brought about in the lives of the people they reached. By way of contrast, the non-canonical books did not transform the moral and spiritual nature of the early Christians. This criterion may be highly subjective but its subjectivity does not remove the reality of virtuous and godly lives brought about as a result of the ethical injunctions found in NT writings.
The Council of Carthage in 397CE did not so much determine the canon as recognized it. If apostolic authorship/association, internal consistency of the message, and the moral change brought about as a result of these writings makes up the primary foundation for canonicity, then all the Church could do was render a decision as to these books’ authoritative nature. The rest was left to time. Had there been substantial question regarding the Church’s decision on the canon, then one would think that history would reverse that decision. If anything, history has affirmed the early Church’s conclusion.
What remains is the rise of Christianity that has stood the test of time based upon the writings of the New Testament. The canon of Scripture has never been the product of individual or institutional arbitration. Rather, it came about as a result of many processes that contributed to its formation. Its own internal consistency of message, the Church’s use of it in defense of orthodoxy, the changed lives brought about by its dynamic, and the test of time have all contributed to the recognition of the NT documents’ authority and inspiration from God. The final task is simply to understand and submit to the teachings and precepts of His Word under the guidance and influence of the Spirit.
The early Church had an immense responsibility in defining the parameters of the Christian faith. In an effort to defend orthodoxy, it was necessary to recognize an authoritative body of literature that carried with it the apostle’s approval. While apostolic authorship (hence, authority) cannot be proven empirically, it is quite reasonable to believe, based upon the early Church witnesses, that the Christian message sprang from the risen Lord himself and was confirmed by his apostles (Heb 2:3b). This message corresponded to the activities of the historical Jesus and resulted in the twenty-seven books of the NT, which believers call the Word of God.
Download the entire series in one article.
Suggested Resources
Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts (Read first two chapters)
The New Testament Docuements: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce
Is the New Testament Reliable? by Peter Head
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Eerdmans Handbook To The History Of Christianity. S.v. “How the New Testament has come down to us,” by Larry W. Hurtado
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. S.v. “The Canon of the New Testament,” by Andrew F. Walls
A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix
New Testament Survey by Merril C. Tenney
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by Benjamin B. Warfield
1 Comment