NTO 2

OK, in the last blog entry we looked at the question of why: why do we have a NT?  Now to the question of how the 27 texts which we call “the New Testament” were chosen?  Let’s answer this in 3 parts: who chose them, when did they choose them, and how did they choose them? 

Who determined which texts were in and which were out?  Church leaders who were widely recognized as important leaders in the early church, e.g., people like Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine.  Leading bishops like these men came together in church councils to discuss, debate, and determine which texts made the cut and which didn’t.

How about when: when were these texts chosen?  The compilation of an authoritative NT was a gradual process; it was not the case that a group of Christians pulled an all-nighter and figured the whole thing out all at once!  The NT was compiled over centuries.  Some texts were recognized as authoritative in certain geographical locales by the early 2^nd century AD; the 4 Gospels were recognized as authoritative in most regions by the mid 2^nd century; 22 of our 27 books were generally recognized by the early 4^th century; and all 27 books were recognized as authoritative by all regions by the late 4^th century.

So, let’s take, for example, the canonization of the 4 Gospels to get a sense of the process in terms of timeline.  Papias, a 2^nd-century bishop, is quoted by Eusebius (himself a 4^th century bishop) as assigning Matthean authorship to our Gospel of Matthew (since all Gospels were written anonymously, and not signed off like NT letters were), and as assigning Markan authorship (under the tutelage of Peter) to our Mark.  In his writings, Justin Martyr, a 2^nd-century apologist and defender of the faith, has a clear preference for the 4 Gospels which are in our bible.  That is to say, there were many Gospels in circulation by his day (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) but he elevates our 4 above the rest; and he also considers them historical records—not just fanciful stories about Jesus.  Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, did a harmony of our 4 Gospels in AD 170, thus narrowing the Gospel tradition to 4.  Further, Irenaeus, 2^nd-century bishop/apologist, defended this number of canonical Gospels (i.e., 4).  Finally, the Muratorian Fragment, which dates to AD 200, catalogues authoritative Christian texts, and assigns Lukan authorship to our Luke, and Johannine authorship to our John.

And now to the third question: how did these leading figures in the church determine which texts to include and which to exclude from the canon?  Scholars believe that there were 4 criteria for canonicity; the first was apostolicity: was the text written by an Apostle or by a close associate of an Apostle?  So, for example, Paul’s letters made the cut b/c they’re signed off by Paul the Apostle.  Mark and Luke weren’t Apostles, but Mark was believed to be a close associate of the Apostle Peter, while Luke was a close associate of Paul.  A second criterion was catholicity: was the text relevant to the “universal”—which is the meaning of “catholic”—church as a whole?  If a text was seen as too narrow in its application then it was not included.  A third criterion was orthodoxy: did the text agree with the “rule of faith,” i.e., apostolic tradition?  If a text contradicted apostolic traditions then it was excluded.  A fourth criterion was widespread church usage: was the text read or preached in early church worship services?  The more widely a text was used in this way, the more likely it belonged in the canon.  Conversely, if only the church that met in Joe’s house ever used a text, that text would not have been considered canonical.

All of this essentially constitutes how the texts of our NT were compiled into one sacred canon.  Thus, what the early church fathers were trying to do was assemble those early Christian writings that were to be added to the OT.  This is the how the NT as a book originated.

Now what about the order of books?  Why does the NT begin with Matthew and end with Revelation?  A few things can be said here.  There is a basic logic to the general order of books: the NT begins with the Gospels, which deal with the life of Jesus; they are followed by Acts, which begins where the Gospels left off, in terms of the ascension of Jesus to heaven and the story of the 11 Disciples after the resurrection of Jesus.  Acts is followed by the apostolic letters to different churches; Revelation seals the deal, focusing on the end times.  But more can be said about each of these subsections.

The early church fathers put the Gospels in their present order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) b/c they thought that this was the chronological order in which they were written (we now know, however, that Mark was actually written first).  Acts naturally follows the Gospels.  Then Paul’s letters—since he wrote most of the NT—were put after Acts.  Their order is based on size: Romans is the longest (in terms of Greek word count), then 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians . . . Philemon.  The Letter of Hebrews comes next b/c many early church fathers thought Paul wrote it—but many others believed he didn’t; hence, its authorship was disputed: so they put it next to the Pauline letters.  I’m less sure about the order of James—Peter—John—Jude.  I think it has to do with the order of their acceptance into the canon: first James was accepted as canonical, then Peter’s letters, then John’s then Jude.  As for Revelation, it was written later like these latter letters, but also, it seemed fitting that the end of the NT spoke definitively and extensively about the End.