The Canonization of the Bible
The canonization of the Bible is controversial. Beginning with the Enlightenment era and every day since then up to this present day the canonization of the Bible has been challenged. Atheists do not accept it. The Jesus Seminar (oddly named since they do not believe in the biblical Jesus) and other biblical minimalist scholars like them discount it and question it. Many Internet perusers who are looking for any reason to discredit Christianity and the Bible find scores of sites and opinions that speak definitively about the dubious canonization of the Bible and its untrustworthiness. One’s view of the validity of the canonization of the Bible is primarily due to two things: one’s presumption of the Bible and one’s belief or unbelief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Antagonists argue that canonization of the New Testament was created by the Church.[1] They place emphasis on “assumptions” in the process of canonization. “Biblical Literature” in the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church.”[2] Some opponents to the validity of the canonization of Scripture go as far as saying the Church did not decide unequivocally that the twenty-seven New Testament books were holy Scripture until the sixth century.[3] When opponents present definitively inaccurate statements like this they mislead people, especially those who will not take time to research the validity of such statements. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace note that the problem with misleading information like this is it “gives the impression that all the books were up for grabs until the sixth century”.[4]
The validity of the canonization of the Bible is well defended by proponents as not created by the Church but rather confirmed by the Church. The “canon of the New Testament” is a closed collection of authoritative writings as Holy Scripture;[5] not books determined as authoritative or created as such by the Church, but rather accepted by the Church as already authoritative Scripture from as early as the first century when the writings were originally penned.[6]
The first siting of a “canon”—a collection of authoritative writings—which would eventually become known as the New Testament, was put together by the second century heretic Marcion.[7] Daniel Lieuwen remarks that the birth of the New Testament canon came in response to Marcion’s list.[8] Marcion’s mid-second century collection, which rejected more than it accepted, was put together to promote his Docetist views[9] as authoritative and scriptural.[10] However, in order to make his heretical views acceptable he had to alter the writings he did use in his collection.[11] Nevertheless, what Marcion did was display a need for the Church to collect the authoritative writings of the first century so not to be confused with the heretical or apocryphal versions—of which there were many. Gnosticism played its part in this as well. The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth are clear examples of gnostic teachings that furthered the point for the Church to collect and make official the authoritative writings of the first century.[12]
Also during the mid-to-late second century was another heretic named Montanus. Montanus taught that he was speaking for the Holy Spirit and claimed inspiration for himself and his followers,[13] and subsequently that Jesus’ second coming would take place shortly in Phrygia.[14] Montanus, due to his wild claims, caused a similar canonical response from the Church as Marcion. While Montanus did not compile a canon list, he did misuse the writings from the first century to validate his message, which caused the Church to tighten its criterion of what was accepted as authoritative (and later on some proper bounds for doctrinal interpretation).[15] Thus, the early heretics actually help prove that the Church did not “create” the canon of the New Testament but rather “confirmed” what were already the authoritative writings from the first century. This was also evident in some different commentaries on the four Gospels and some other first century writings that were accepted and defended as authoritative from Papias of Hierapolis, Justin the Martyr, and Bishop Theophilus of Antioch during the early to late second century.[16]
There was another “canon” list compiled in the late second–early third century called the Muratorian Canon. This list mentioned twenty-one books of the New Testament—the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, 1John, Revelation.[17] Both Irenaeus and Tertullian, during the late second–early third century, also had canon lists with the same books as the Muratorian Canon.[18] By the end of the second–beginning of the third century, twenty-one to twenty-three of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament had been accepted unquestionably as canon.
It is not clear how the Muratorian Canon came to be. But what can be determined from this list is the books mentioned had commonality and helped to clarify the methodology of canonization. According to Komoszewski et al, “Three key criteria were used to assess the authority of these books—apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity.”[19] These three key criteria are seen in the earliest unofficial, non-heretical canon lists: the Muratorian list, Irenaeus’ list, and Tertullian’s list. Each book mentioned in these lists are either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle (apostolicity), each book was in agreement with the teachings in the other books written by an apostle or an apostle’s associate (orthodoxy), and each book had already been accepted by the Church at large (catholicity).[20] The other books of the now New Testament—Hebrews, James, 1Peter, 2Peter, 2John, 3John—were not rejected, but rather they were still being validated as authentically authoritative writings. It is on these three key criteria that led the Church to accept the twenty-seven books now contained in the closed canon of the New Testament.
As we approach the fourth century where the canon of the New Testament becomes official in the Church, more canon lists had been put together. With each list the same twenty-one to twenty-three books have shown up in every one of them. In the late-mid part of the fourth century, Athanasius of Alexandria declared the twenty-seven books of the now New Testament as canonical.[21] His list was the first with the twenty-seven books. After his list, there were several Church councils and the Church accepted the twenty-seven books as the New Testament by the end of the fourth century—with some churches in the east wading through some time with certain books though later concluding on the same twenty-seven.[22]
As mentioned in the beginning, one’s view of the validity of the canonization of the Bible is primarily due to two things: one’s presumption of the Bible and one’s belief or unbelief in the gospel of Jesus Christ. As a biblical minimalist the divine is removed from the equation. They only want to deal with what is empirical. Hence, they presuppose that how the Bible came to be should only be deduced through verifiable evidence and history. If it cannot be proven this way then it cannot be trusted. A biblical believer in Jesus Christ, on the other hand, includes the divine in the equation. We deal with both faith and reason. Hence, we presuppose that how the Bible came to be is largely dependent on the sovereignty of its Divine Author, and He has not left us without a witness to the formation and preservation of His written revelation—in this case the witness would be history. For biblical minimalists, canonization was created and crafted by the Church for the Church and is therefore slanted and untrustworthy. For biblical believers in Jesus Christ, canonization is nothing more than sovereign verification through the instrumentation of the early Church and is therefore most trustworthy and absolute because it is dependent on God not man.
_____
[1] Encyclopedia Britannica. www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Pesharim#toc73385
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica. www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-process-of-canonization
[3] Komoszewski, E., Sawyer, J., and Wallace, D. Reinventing Jesus, p 124
[4] Komoszewski, et al. Reinventing Jesus, p 124
[5] Kalin, E. Re-examining New Testament canon history: pt 1, the canon of Origen, p 276
[6] Komoszewski, et al. Reinventing Jesus, pp 123-124
[7] Ibid. pp 126
[8] Lieuwen, D. The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
[9] Docetism was a heresy about Jesus’ body not being fully physical/tangible, it just appeared to be real. According to this view, Jesus could not have been 100% man, which then rejects the Incarnation and the atonement.
[10] Voorwinde, S. The Formation of the New Testament Canon
[11] Komoszewski et al. Reinventing Jesus, pp 126
[12] Voorwinde. The Formation of the New Testament Canon
[13] Ibid.
[14] Baker, R., Landers, J. A Summary of Christian History, p 40; Voorwinde. The Formation of the New Testament Canon
[15] Lieuwen. The Emergence of the New Testament Canon; Grant, R. Literary criticism and the New Testament canon
[16] Grant. Literary criticism and the New Testament canon, pp 31-34
[17] Komoszewski et al. Reinventing Jesus, p 127
[18] Voorwinde. The Formation of the New Testament Canon
[19] Komoszewski et al. Reinventing Jesus, p 126
[20] Ibid. p 126
[21] Ibid. p 130
[22] Voorwinde. The Formation of the New Testament Canon
_____
Bibliography
Baker, Robert A., Landers, John M. (2005). A Summary of Christian History, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers)
Encyclopedia Britannica. Biblical literature. Retrieved July 16, 2015, http://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-process-of-canonization.
Grant, Robert M. (Robert McQueen). 1982. "Literary criticism and the New Testament canon." Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 16, 24-44. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 17, 2015).
Lieuwen, Daniel F. (1995). The Emergence of the New Testament Canon. (Conciliar Press). Retrieved July 16, 2015 from http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm
Kalin, Everett R. 1990. "Re-examining New Testament canon history: pt 1, the canon of Origen." Currents In Theology And Mission 17, no. 4: 274-282. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 17, 2015).
Komoszewski, J. Ed, Sawyer, M. James, and Wallace, Daniel B. (2006). Reinventing Jesus: How contemporary skeptics miss the real Jesus and mislead popular culture. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications).
Voorwinde, Stephen. “The Formation of the New Testament Canon.” Vox Reformata 60, 1995. Retrieved July 16, 2015, http://www.bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html.
July 16, 2015