Beyond the Hebrew Bible:
The Formation of the New Testament Canon

By Nigel Watson

A Long Process

When the writers of the New Testament refer to "the scriptures", they, almost without exception, mean the Hebrew Scriptures. The only exception I know of is 2 Peter 3:15f, where the writer implies that "the scriptures" include the letters of Paul. The process that culminated in the official recognition of a collection of Christian sacred writings, to be honoured alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, was a lengthy one, lasting over 300 years. This process is often described as the formation of the "New Testament Canon". Among the meanings listed in dictionaries of Ancient Greek for the Greek word kanon we find the following: a straight rod, bar; a rule, straight-edge; metaphorically, a rule, standard. The process of "canonising", or accepting as a rule of faith, certain early Christian writings was stimulated by events both inside and outside the church.

Internal Stimuli – The Collection of the Pauline Letters

It appears that, by the end of the first century of the common era, the letters of Paul were being collected together to form a kind of anthology. When Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians in 95, he can quote 1 Corinthians as readily as Romans and appears to know Ephesians and Philippians as well.

The Recognition of Four Gospels

There were a number of Gospels written in the first two centuries after Christ, some of which, like the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, came to light at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1945-46. Gospels like Thomas competed with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the early church, but the latter rapidly gained an ascendancy, which they never lost. By the end of the second century it was generally recognised that only these four were serious contenders for inclusion in a collection of Christian sacred scriptures.

External Stimuli – Marcion

The movement to set apart four Gospels was accelerated by the activity of Marcion (excommunicated in 144). Marcion"s central thesis was that the Christian gospel was wholly a gospel of love, to the absolute exclusion of law. This conviction led him to reject the Hebrew Scriptures completely. The Creator God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures had nothing in common with the God of Jesus Christ. So, for Marcion, the only authoritative scriptures were the letters of Paul, plus an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. The effect of Marcion"s narrow canon would have been the complete rejection of Christianity"s roots in Judaism.

Gnostics and Montanists

While Marcion sought to reduce the body of authoritative writings, others, particularly Gnostics and Montanists, sought to enlarge it. These were different movements, but both of them claimed to possess a plus of divine revelation.

The combined pressure of all these movements created an acute problem for the mainstream churches in the late second century. Which of the growing mass of Christian writings were to be recognised as authoritative? What were the criteria that should be used?

In practice, the main criteria that appear to have been used were (1) apostolic origin; (2) orthodoxy of content; and (3) general acceptance by the churches. We should not suppose, however, that these criteria were carefully articulated, formally accepted and then consciously applied. We are dealing with something more like instinctive reactions on the part of church members.

To comment briefly on these criteria: apostolic origin commended itself as a counter to claims by Gnostics and Montanists to have access to a direct revelation not open to others. Thus it was argued that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were each the work either of an apostle or of a companion of an apostle. Many modern scholars seriously doubt whether, in fact, any one of the four meets that criterion.

In a letter written by Jerome to Dardanus in 414 , we see a church father applying all three of the criteria mentioned above. Jerome is discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews, regarded by some as Pauline but not by others. For his own part, along with the Greek-speaking churches, he accepts it, on balance, as Pauline, but then adds: "And it does not matter whose it is, since it is the work of a churchman and honoured daily by being read in the churches." Thus, for Jerome, the question of apostolic origin is relevant, but not decisive. Hebrews is the work of a churchman, not a heretic. And it has proved to be the sort of book that church people want to hear read and expounded regularly.

Growth from the Bottom Upwards

Jerome"s last comment on Hebrews illustrates an important truth about the formation of the canon. In eventually establishing the canon, church authorities were only subsequently ratifying decisions which had already been reached by the Christian communities. Church leaders did not create the canon, they recognised the canon which had already been created.

A Firm Core with Controversial Edges

For some 200 years, however, there was a fuzziness about the edges of the canon. That is clear from the variations in the lists of authoritative books that were proposed in the late second and early third centuries. The so-called Muratorian canon shows us what books were accepted and what books were rejected in Rome towards the end of the second century. This list comprises the following books: the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, 1 and 2 John, Wisdom, Revelation and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Tertullian (c. 160-220), the first writer to speak of the "New Testament", accepts the following: the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Nevertheless, the number of books that were "acknowledged" was considerably larger than the number of those that were "disputed". By the year 200, the canon of the New Testament was already five-sixths complete, and accepted without debate in the entire Eastern and Western church.

A Certain Closure

The process of canonisation reached something like closure at Easter, 367, when Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, circulated a festal letter, listing twenty-seven books as constituting the scriptures of the New Testament. Athanasius was followed by Jerome, by the Council of Hippo in 393 and the third Council of Cartage in 397. Nevertheless, centuries passed, before the twenty-seven book canon prevailed everywhere.

Luther and a "Canon Within the Canon"

The most important challenge to the consensus reached in the fourth century came from the reformer, Martin Luther, in the early sixteenth century. Luther had problems with four books, in particular: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. While he included these books in his Bible, he clearly regarded them as marginal. Without denying the traditional canon, Luther raised the issue of a "canon within a canon".

Do the Churches have the Right to Revise the Canon?

The view is sometimes expressed that the New Testament canon would be enriched by the addition of some modern spiritual classics, like, for example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer"s Letters and Papers from Prison. But, apart from the practical difficulty of securing consensus among the churches over which modern books to include, there is the obvious objection that such books have not been used and accepted by the churches for almost two thousand years, however inspiring and theological they may be.

But what if an ancient book turned up with strong claims for inclusion? For example, most New Testament scholars believe that Matthew and Luke drew on a collection of sayings of Jesus generally referred to as Q [Q stands for Source]. If Q existed, it has been lost. But what if a copy of Q were to turn up in the sands of Egypt?

Again, we can be sure that we do not have all of the letters that Paul wrote to his churches. In 1 Cor. 5:9, for example, in his earliest extant letter to the Corinthians, Paul refers to an earlier letter. What if this "Previous Letter" were to turn up?

My own opinion is that the churches today would have to apply the same criteria that were used in the early church, particularly the third, namely, use and acceptance by the churches. In other words, the newly discovered writing would have to prove itself over time, just as the writings eventually included in the New Testament proved themselves over time.

To approach the problem from another angle: the view is expressed from time to time that the churches would be better served, if this or that part of the New Testament canon were excluded. Some have proposed, for example, that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) be omitted, because of their hierarchical-patriarchal pattern of thought. Others have proposed that the anti-Jewish passages in John"s Gospel be omitted.

It is highly unlikely, however, that anything will come of these or similar proposals. In practice, the churches do marginalise parts of some New Testament books, by simply not including them in their lectionaries. The Common Lectionary is a very effective mute button. Besides, publications like Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth provide clergy with prefaces with which they can introduce any problematical passages.

A Product of Sanctified Commonsense?

Few scholars would deny that, on the whole, the early church decided well. I do not see how one could maintain that the New Testament would not have played the part that it has played in the life of the

Christian community and in the lives of its individual members, if it had included some early writings which it does not now include, such as, say, the letters of Ignatius (35-107). Nor do I see how one could maintain that the New Testament would not have played the part it has played, if it had excluded some early writings that were regarded as "disputed", such as, say, 2 Peter or Jude. The distinctiveness and indispensability of what lies centrally and solidly within the boundaries of the New Testament canon is undeniable.

For Further Reading:

Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon (London: Mowbray, 1962).
John Barton, Making the Christian Bible (Oxford: OUP, 1998).
Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., "Introduction to the Canon", in Leander E. Keck and others (eds.), The New Interpreter"s Bible, Volume 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) pp.7-21.
B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its origin, Development and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).

Nigel Watson was Professor of New Testament Studies in Ormond College within the University of Melbourne from 1965 to 1993. He has published books and numerous articles in the field of New Testament studies.
Source: Gesher.