The Canon of the New Testament wasn’t decided as much as it was always primarily accepted. It was only a few of these books that were disputed and many were rejected. We will look at why and by whom. I believe strongly (and even stronger, as I have studied the development of the New Testament Canon) that these books are the inspired Word’s of God.
Before we get started, it is important to look at what written works we are talking about that make up the commonly accepted Canon of the New Testament. I would note that it is important to know who wrote these books and their place in history. For those who might not be aware, below are a few definitions that will help us understand what is being reported:
Apostle: A person called directly by Christ, the Greek is apostolos meaning “one sent forth”, or a missionary
Disciple: A follower, a learner, a pupil of a teacher
Apostolic Witness: A disciple of an Apostle
Gospel: Greek word euaggelion for “good news.” Christians use the word to designate the message and story of God’s saving activity through the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of God’s unique Son Jesus.
Epistle: Letter written by an Apostle
Apocalypse: Writings from God that employ symbolic language to tell of a divine intervention soon to take place.
What we call the “New Testament” is made up of 27 books:
BOOK AUTHOR DATE WRITTEN
GOSPELS:
Matthew The Apostle Matthew ~80-85 AD
Mark John Mark ~65-70 AD
(an Apostolic witness and disciple of the Apostle Peter)
Luke Luke ~85-90 AD
(an Apostolic witness and disciple of the Apostle Paul)
John The Apostle John ~90-100 AD
Acts of the Apostles (a treatise):
Acts Luke ~85-90 AD
(an Apostolic witness and disciple of the Apostle Paul)
Epistles:
Romans The Apostle Paul ~50-57 AD
1 Corinthians The Apostle Paul ~50-56 AD
2 Corinthians The Apostle Paul ~50-56 AD
Galatians The Apostle Paul ~50-56 AD
Ephesians The Apostle Paul ~ 80-100 AD
Philippians The Apostle Paul ~50-60 AD
Colossians The Apostle Paul ~50-80 AD
1 Thessalonians The Apostle Paul ~50-60 AD
2 Thessalonians The Apostle Paul ~50-60 AD
1 Timothy The Apostle Paul ~100-130 AD
2 Timothy The Apostle Paul ~100-130 AD
Titus The Apostle Paul ~100-130 AD
Philemon The Apostle Paul ~50-60 AD
Hebrews unknown ~50-90 AD
(The Apostle Paul, or disciples of Paul: Clement, Barnabas…?)
James The Apostle James ~70-100 AD
(half brother of Jesus)
1 Peter The Apostle Peter ~80-100 AD
2 Peter The Apostle Peter ~100-150 AD
1 John The Apostle John ~90-110 AD
2 John The Apostle John ~90-110 AD
(or one of his disciples)
3 John The Apostle John ~90-110 AD
(or one of his disciples)
Jude Jude ~90-120 AD
(half brother of Jesus)
Apocalypse:
Revelation The Apostle John ~95 AD
The information above will be very important as we look at the formation of the New Testament Canon. This journey and will touch on many subjects. The Canon of the New Testament wasn’t decided in as much as it was always primarily accepted. It was only a few of these books that were disputed and many were rejected. We will look at why and by whom. I believe strongly (and even stronger, as I have studied the development of the New Testament Canon) that these books are the inspired Word’s of God.
RonLawHouston commented: Going to have to get out the books on this one. One of the things I can point to right away is that John was a simple fisherman. He most likely was not a highly literate person. I really don’t think he wrote the beautiful and poetic Gospel of John. I know also “most scholars” would greatly disagree with your dates. Are you going to write anything on the Q source?
Gledsome commented: If God can speak thru babes & donkeys…I’m sure he can speak thru a fisherman……
RonLawHouston commented: It’s really not a matter of “speaking through,” it’s who wrote it. God may have spoken through John but he may not have done the actual writing of his book. The early church fathers (Ireneus and Eusebius) argued about whether this was written by the Apostle John. So, this dispute goes back to pre-cannon days. I think a lot of people would agree that this is a gospel according to John. It just then becomes a question of whether he was really the “author” of it.
.
The Council of Rome in 382 does not attribute 2 John or 3 John to John the apostle. They attribute it to John “the priest.”
.
The book of Revelation has been so disputed that it’s authorship is uncertain. The early church fathers were very split on this book. Martin Luther rejected Revelations saying he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” It was beyond a doubt the book that barely made it into the modern canon.
.
I noticed that you did put the question mark by Hebrews. What about 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus? I think these are hotly disputed. The style and vocabulary are unlike Paul’s other writings. It was also very common back in that time to write something in someone’s name. It was almost like a dedication to that person. Back then, it wasn’t seen as forgery or something that was unethical.
.
You could really break Paul’s part of the new testament into confirmed and disputed. There were also other works penned in Paul’s name that were rejected.
.
To me, the whole cannonization process was very haphazard and fraught with disagreements.
I commented: Thank you for your comments
Ron: I appreciate your comments I am humbled to be in a position to be able to look at these things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First I would like to address the “dates” attributed to the books of the New Testament: You said “I know also “most scholars” would greatly disagree with your dates.”
.
While it is true that the dating of each of these books could fit in a wider spectrum (both earlier in many cases as well as later), I chose the dates that were aligned more in the center, not choosing the earliest nor the latest dates that different and varying scholars have been compelled to declare as correct. The exact date of the writing of these ancient documents is near impossible to pinpoint and is often determined by the study of the textual information as well as at times archeological information. While the dating of these works is important, It is not a key to cannonicity as all these were written in the first century. I contend that these dates are well within the scholarly possibility for dating these works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You asked the question, “Are you going to write anything on the Q source?”
.
As I see it, the hypothetical existence of a common source document containing sayings of Jesus, used by the authors of the synoptic Gospels Matthew and Luke, is not really relevant to cannonicity. If you believe that it is relevant to the subject at hand, please tell me and we will look closer at it.
.
I would note that I find it interesting that people always are looking for ways to criticize the Scriptures (I am not speaking directly to you here, but to a much wider audience). You mention “Q”, this is part of a bigger question called “The Synoptic Problem”. Well, let’s slice and dice. The Synoptic problem is used to describe the fact that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have some very close similarities. To me, it would make sense that they do as they are all writing about and quoting the same person….Jesus. However, on the other side of the coin the writers of these Gospels are also criticized for “differences” in their stories, which in every case can be explained by the differences in how people view the same thing (from a different angle), among other things. It seems the world wants to be critical coming and going. What about the notion that these writers wrote what that saw, what they remembered and what they experienced or knew to be fact? Would that be to easy an explanation? As I have said before many times, these things do not affect the message that God shared with us through the Scriptures. I guess it makes for good talk around the cooler. I’m game, let’s continue on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s talk about John as you raised quite a few questions here.
.
You said, “One of the things I can point to right away is that John was a simple fisherman. He most likely was not a highly literate person. I really don’t think he wrote the beautiful and poetic Gospel of John. ”
.
Let’s take a look at John, son of Zebedee, a fisherman that Christ called a “fisher of men”. Besides that fact that as I read the Scriptures I see often that God uses men and women that are not from the “educated” class of society to accomplish great things, John was more than a “simple” fisherman. It is reasonable to assume that his father was a man of considerable wealth because of the that he had “hired servants” with him. Look at the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 1, verse 20: “Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.” This tells me that it is well within the realm of possibility that he was educated in some way. However, I certainly will admit that I am unable to base that on fact just as you are unable to demonstrate that he could not have written these ancient documents.
.
Additionally, John and his brothers were partners with Simon. The Gospel of Luke chapter 5, verse 10 tells us that “and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will catch men.” ” This suggest to me that these men were quite intelligent and were more than just “simple” fishermen. Of course you can take this any way you like.
.
I would note that at least one other fisherman…….Peter…….produced refined Greek with the help of a friend. Listen to what Peter tells us in his Epistle, 1 Peter, chapter 5, verse 12: “With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.”
.
I am sure you are aware that even today that most people who have a story to tell (and write books) engage editors to help them put their story in written form. Does this take away from the message they have? Or does this enhance their ability to get the story or message out in an understandable way for their audience?
.
Essentially though, I see God using choosing people of ordinary means to accomplish extraordinary task. I belive that John was chosen by Jesus and he wrote, or at the very least, had help writing through one of his own disciples, these text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said, “God may have spoken through John but he may not have done the actual writing of his book. The early church fathers (Ireneus and Eusebius) argued about whether this was written by the Apostle John. So, this dispute goes back to pre-cannon days. I think a lot of people would agree that this is a gospel according to John. It just then becomes a question of whether he was really the “author” of it.”
.
(NOTE for those who do not know who Ireneus is: He lived apx 102-220 AD and was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ireneus is one of the early church fathers.)
.
You are correct that Ireneus mentioned John’s Gospel in his writings “Against Heresies”, Chapter I of book III “Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. ”
.
And then also in Book III, Chapter XI is titled: “Proofs in Continuation, Extracted from St. John’s Gospel. The Gospels Are Four in Number, Neither More Nor Less. Mystic Reasons for This.”
.
In Book IV, Chapter II, Ireneus tells us, “…..as John has recorded in the Gospel: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, neither will ye believe My words.” This is of course from the Gospel of John, chapter 5, verses 46 and 47.
.
I haven’t been able to find an argument yet. There are many other references. By the way, Ireneus quotes the Gospel of John extensively throughout his writings.
.
Clement of Alexandria (apx 153-217 AD), who was a distinguished teacher in the church at Alexandria tells us in his writing called “The Instructor”, Chapter VI, “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ?Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;….? This verse comes from the Gospel of John, chapter 6, verse 54.
.
Regarding Eusebius, I have read his writing, “Ecclesiastical History”, but can find no mention of The Gospel of John. Maybe I’m missing something here. Is this the same Eusebius of Caesarea? He was born (apx. 260 AD) after Ireneus died (apx 220 AD). Can you point me to the correct writing or the correct Eusebius?
.
If this is the same Eusebius that you speak of, he was instrumental in the development of the canon. He accepted fully all four Gospels and 1 John and considered 2nd and 3rd John as “disputed” and considered the Apocrypha of John as “spurious”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You mentioned, ” The Council of Rome in 382 does not attribute 2 John or 3 John to John the apostle. They attribute it to John “the priest.” ”
.
I am aware that some have thought that John the Apostle was John the Presbyter (Priest). However, I reject the notion based on the preponderance of the evidence. John Chapman, who is thought to be one of the greatest of the patristic scholars, believed the evidence pointed to them being one and the same. He arrived at this conclusion after studying all 378 volumes by Migne of the works of the church fathers (he studied both the Greek and Latin text).
.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that John did not write these epistles (or anything else for that matter). As I have stated above, I believe that even if he used an editor to write the words for him, they were his thoughts, clearly from the content of the text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding the book of Revelation you said, “The book of Revelation has been so disputed that it’s authorship is uncertain. The early church fathers were very split on this book. Martin Luther rejected Revelations saying he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” It was beyond a doubt the book that barely made it into the modern canon.”
.
I revert to the same belief as above regarding an editor, however, I believe that John did author this book.
.
— Justin does not quote the Revelation, but appeals to it as proof of the existence of prophetic power in the Christian Church.
— Irenaeus, in “Adversus Haereses”, quotes 29 times from the Revelation of John.
— According to Bruce Metzger in his book, ” The cannon of the New Testament”, “Several times he [Tertullian] refers to the Apocalypse of John in ways that prove that, for Tertullian, there is no other Apocalypse than that by the apostle John”
— Clement of Alexandria accepted the Apocalypse of John.
— Perhaps one of the oldest know list of books of the New Testament is the Muratorian Canon also known as the Muratorian Fragment. It list the Revelations of John.
— Origen accepted all the books by John.
— One of the oldest Greek Codexes we have found, the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century contains all the books of John.
— Athanasius of Alexandria (293-3773 AD) accepted all 27 books of the New Testament.
— and there are others, but it’s getting late and I’m getting tired my friend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the questions and comments. Much of this above will show up in the further installments of this current writing series, “The Development of the New Testament Canon-The Rest of the Story”. We may disagree on much but at least we know why
RonLawHouston commented: Jan- I don’t know that we disagree so much as there are a lot of issues that are very big unknowns. People make a lot of assumptions about the Bible in the effort to support certain positions like inerrancy. One of the things I found interesting is that sometimes you use the early church fathers as support for your position while at other times rejecting their position.
.
As to Q, it is just a theory. However, it does have a lot more credence after the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas.
.
As to John, he did own his own boat, so he must have had a certain level of sophistication. It’s also possible that he travelled and studied in his days following Christ’s crucifixtion.
.
I’m not so much debating as trying to show that many “facts” are just theories. There is a whole lot of uncertainty around the Bible. Uncertainty makes many people very uncomfortable.
.
My understanding of Eusebius was that he believed John the Presbyter to have written the Gospel of John. I’ll have to look up the reference. Regardless, he did accept it as canonical. We’re talking about the same guy for certain!
I replied: Hi Ron. I respect your position that there are a lot of issues that are big unknowns. But I have found that there are allot of “known’s”…that people have dedicated their lives to understanding over the centuries. I believe that God is who He is, not who we make Him. No matter how hard we try, we can try to characterize God in a way that suites us but the bottom line is, God is God. While I do belive that “people” have taken advantage of “religion” and used it for power and control, I believe that by going back to the basics, the Scriptures, that we constantly keep ourselves in check. Martin Luther did that by exposing the unbiblical methods of the church at that time. Indeed, it is happening somewhat now as we speak. The beauty is that we can always go back to the written word of God as it remains relatively unchanged.
.
Even as we look into the formation of the New Testament Canon, I will agree that there are questions. But as I look around every corner, the picture becomes clearer. There is a difference in something questionable that would affect the final outcome of the quest and one that would not. For example, the question of John writing the Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, whether it was John’s “hand” that pushed the pen or whether it was just his thoughts, it makes no real difference. I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that concerning the apostles and early church fathers it was not some grand conspiracy to control people. It was extremely important to convey the Word of God as revealed through the teachings of Jesus Christ. Who better to tell us what He wanted us to know than those specific persons He commissioned to do so? Then, once they did, I see the importance of allowing others to change or adulterate the message. Anyway, discussions on this are to come as the development of the canon unfolds.
.
You said, “One of the things I found interesting is that sometimes you use the early church fathers as support for your position while at other times rejecting their position.”
Please point this out specifically. My intent is not to debate a position as much as it is to discover truth (for me, as much of this is a learning experience for me). I can’t have it both ways. Now, depending on what you point out, I may have an explanation, but then, I may not in which case I will certainly admit it. I am fallible and human also Please do point out specific instances. Thanks.
.
As to “Q”, this is something maybe we could look at closer later or maybe sooner if we determine that it had an impact on canonicity.
.
I would agree somewhat with you position about debating “theories”. However, I would point out that people are often uncomfortable with the truth. It doesn’t take uncertainty to make people feel uncomfortable
.
Ron, I appreciate or communications. Have a very Happy New Year! BTW, what years were you in Palm Bay? I grew up in Eau Gallie and lived there from 1961 to 1968 then moved to Palm Bay by FIT (Florida Institute of Technology) in 1969. We only lived there for a year (as my parents were ending their marriage) before we moved to Indiana. I moved back to Florida with my mother in 1971 but left for Virginia to live with my father and finish High School in 1972-1974. I didn’t come back to Florida until 1979 after my first stint in the Army and a failed marriage. I left again to go back in the Army in 1983 and didn’t come back to Florida until 1997 when I retired and moved to Sanford, outside Orlando. I would be interested to know if our paths ever crossed It’s a small world friend! Have a great day!
RonLawHouston commented: Jan – please forgive me, but I think I’m going to do this in pieces.
.
Who is the God of the scriptures?
.
In Exodus 15:3, God is a God of War yet in Romans 15:33 he is a god of peace.
.
Does he punish for the sins of our fathers as in Isiah 14:21 or does he only views us as individuals as in Deutoronomy 24:16?
.
Is he a God of destruction as in Jeremiah 13:14 or is he “good to all, and his mercies are over all his works” as in Psalm 145:9
.
Which of these statements is truth? Are the all truth? Is God this schizophrenic being? (JK, but you get the point!)
.
You hold to a truth that you filter from the Bible. I don’t believe you can say it is an absolute truth. Only God knows the absolute truths.
.
On authorship and the Canon:
.
Part of the canonization process was that certain books were deemed to be from the Apostles. Hebrews made it in, but it is highly doubtful that Paul wrote it. So, is Hebrews the “Word” of God? If it wasn’t written by Paul then it shouldn’t have made it into the Bible. It was another one of those ones that almost didn’t make it. So, it appears that this book was made the “Word” of God by a consensus of a bunch of Catholic bishops and not by Apostolic authorship.
.
As to the whole canonization process, the Episcopal church met together and prayerfully asked God for guidance through the holy spirit. This is pretty much what also happened in determining which books made it into the Bible. The Episcopal Church voted to consecrate a practicing homoesexual as a Bishop. Is this act any less inspired by God than the Biblical canonization process?
.
On the church fathers:
.
You look at there writings to help support certain arguments, yet, you choose to reject the Council of Rome’s decisions on 2 John, etc. You want these books to be authored by John so you reject the testimony of those close in time to the event and go with a weight of the evidence rule.
.
I am curious about the arguments for John’s authorship. Being an Episcopalian I shouldn’t argue too much with an Anglican scholar, should I?
.
On truth:
.
There is a Catholic truth. There is a Protestant truth. There is a Jewish truth. There is an Islamic truth. There is a dispensationalist truth. There is Jan’s truth. There is Ron’s truth (whatever that might be!).
.
God alone is the absolute truth. Should people be afraid of him? In my relative truth, no. Is that an absolute truth? Absolutely not. Maybe we do need more “fear and trembling.”
.
The Buddhists say “I can use my finger to point to the moon, but it is not the moon.” You can use the Bible to point to God, but it is not God. God is truth, the Bible is just a pointer.