The Canon of the New Testament (Bruce Metzger)

The canon of Scripture is the list of writings the Church holds as authoritative and therefore should be used to determine what Christians should believe and how we should behave.  Many scholars over the years have studied this important topic.  As F.F. Bruce did for the entire Bible, here Bruce Metzger looks at the canon of the New Testament- how the list of 27 books Christians recognize today as canonical became so.  Let's start with a book summary; the myriad quotes below are Metzger's.

Summary

What is the New Testament?
The New Testament "is a collection of writings that bear witness to what God has wrought through the life and work, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through the founding of his Church by his Spirit."  But let's start at the beginning.

The Initial Scriptures
Though this book focuses on the New Testament (NT), it rightly begins with the Old Testament (OT), which was known as the Jewish (or Hebrew) Scriptures during Jesus' day.  These Scriptures were considered canon to Jews and Christians alike.  So "from the first day of its existence the Christian Church possessed a canon of sacred writings- the Jewish Scriptures."  "Jesus accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as the word of God and frequently argued from them in his teaching and controversies."  Nowhere do we see Jesus and his opponents debate the authority of OT books- the collection was largely established.  (I say largely because 3 OT books may have been in question- Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon- but the debate concerning them wasn't about whether to accept them into the OT canon, but rather "the right to remain there."  Indeed, "the precise limits of the Jewish Scriptures seem to have been settled by about the end of the first Christian century.")  So Christians had a starting point.

If Christians already had sacred writings, why add to them?  
Because a new authority "had taken its place alongside the Jewish Scriptures"- the words of Jesus, who "claimed to speak with an authority in no way inferior to that of the ancient law."  Eventually, "narratives were compiled recording the remembered words, along with recollections of his deeds of mercy and healing."  These narratives would result in Gospels.

In addition, we have Jesus' apostles, who interpreted the significance of Christ's "person and work for the lives of believers."  They, too, claimed authority as direct followers of Jesus during his earthly ministry, and issued precepts and directives through letters sent to new congregations (or individuals).  These were called Epistles.  "It is natural that such Epistles were cherished and read again and again by the congregations that had first received them, and by others who came to appreciate copies of such valued testimonies from the apostolic age."

"As time went on, a Christian literature grew in volume and was circulated throughout different congregations."  "In the collections that were gradually formed, a place was found beside the Gospels and the Epistles for two other kinds of books- the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse of John [Revelation]."  "Thus, side by side with the old Jewish canon . . . there sprung up a new, Christian canon."  Today, this is what we call the NT.

How quickly was the NT canon formed?
It formed very slowly- it was a long and gradual process, and "many questions and problems confront the investigation of the canonization of the New Testament."  There's a lot we don't know; below is what we do.

"At first Jesus' teachings circulated orally from hearer to hearer . . . [and] the circulation of Paul's letters began already during his lifetime."  (Aside: it appears that "devotion to oral tradition hindered development of a clear idea of canonicity."  More on this later.)  Early church fathers (like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias) do appear familiar with both written documents and oral traditions, using phrases found in the gospels and Pauline letters.  Initially, however, these were allusions or casual statements- there was little talk of which writings were considered authoritative, perhaps because of the preference given to the oral tradition.

Over time, "tastes begin to shift from oral to written sources."  "By the close of the second century lists begin to be drawn up of books that had come to be regarded as authoritative Christian Scriptures."  These lists were "judgments purposely delivered in order to delineate the limits of the canon."  Even so, there's a lot we don't know.  "Opinions differ as to which part of the NT was first in attaining general recognition as authoritative in the Church . . . [but it] seems to be that the Gospel was recognized first, then Pauline Epistles."

Many in the church had much of the NT and considered it authoritative from ~170 AD.  "By the close of the second century ... we can see the outline of what may be described as the nucleus of the New Testament . . . by the end of the third century and beginning of the fourth century, the great majority of the 27 books that still later came to be widely regarded as the canonical NT were almost universally acknowledged to be authoritative."  Later (in 367 AD), Athanasius was first to list the exact 27 books of our NT.  Jerome would agree and help produce the Vulgate- a Latin translation of the Bible- in the 380s, and Augustine further cemented the list through synods in subsequent decades.  At that point the canon was considered closed and seldom discussed until the Reformation, where "there was an awakening of earlier uncertainties concerning the authenticity of several books of the NT."  Ultimately, though, the canon would be unchanged by the Reformers, and it remains today as it has stood for centuries.

Why did it take so long to form?
As previously mentioned, oral tradition may have slowed the process, and of course the challenges of the age (posed by communication and travel limitations) meant things didn't happen quickly.  Remember, too, that this was a different culture with a different mindset: ". . . there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation . . . consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of the second century."

From the early church fathers, we find "a knowledge of the existence of certain books that later will comprise the New Testament, and more than once they express their thoughts through phrases drawn from these writings.  These reminiscences tend to show that an implicit authority of such writings was sensed before a theory of their authority had been developed- in fact, before there was even a consciousness of their authority."

Interestingly, the formation of the canon got some help from unexpected places- several internal and external trials spurred the process.  Heretical people or movements (like Marcion, Gnosticism, and Montanism) "stimulated the process of canonization" by "provoking a reaction among members of the Great Church so as to ascertain still more clearly which books and epistles conveyed the true teaching of the Gospel."  Additionally, periods of persecution (like Diocletian's edict to burn Christian Scriptures in 303) forced believers "to be certain which books were Scripture and which were not."  These factors had other interesting effects, including "devaluation of oral tradition," "a mistrust of apocalyptic literature," more frequent listings of sacred books, and the Church's emphasis on "the final authority of apostolic writings as the rule of faith."

How were books included (or excluded) from the canon?
To be clear, at first there were no councils that formally made such decisions.  Instead, early church fathers recorded their thoughts on authoritative writings in correspondence to their congregations and other leaders, and later church authorities used this data in refining their own conclusions.  From them we see that, broadly speaking, the canon developed based on three criteria, which were a "combination of historical and theological criteria:"

1. Apostolicity
This is the historical component.  "The superior standing of apostolic writers, living so close to the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus, more and more set the earlier documents apart . . . and helped to consolidate them as a distinct body of literature."  "In the age that followed that of the apostles, the expression 'the Lord and the apostles' represented the standard of appeal to which reference was made in all matters of faith and practice."  Apostolic authorship could be direct (like Matthew and John) or indirect (like Luke and Mark, companions of the apostles).  Ultimately, apostolicity was "established by historically verified testimonies of patristic writers of the early Christian centuries."

2. Orthodoxy
This is the theological component.  A book should agree with the sacred writings the church already acknowledged.  They had to conform to the 'rule of faith,' "that is, the congruity of a given document with the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the Church."

3.  Consensus among the churches
This is a cultural component (or a combination of historical and theological).  "Another test of authority for a book was its continuous acceptance and usage of the Church at large."

"These three criteria (orthodoxy, apostolicity, and consensus among the churches) for ascertaining which books should be regarded as authoritative for the Church came to be generally adopted during the course of the second century and were never modified thereafter."

It's interesting to note that "the concept of inspiration was not used in the early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical orthodox Christian writings."  To clarify, "the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative.  They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends."

Which canonical books were questioned, and why?
As stated above, the bulk of the canon was never in serious question, and was set by late in the second century.  Of the 27 NT books, 20 fell in this category.  The remaining 7 were disputed in the early Church (and opened to renewed investigation during the Reformation): Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Hebrews was received in eastern churches, but the authorship was questioned (was it by Paul, or Barnabas, or Clement?).  Theologically, Martin Luther didn't like some of its teachings.
James was claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name.  Luther didn't like the emphasis on justification by works.
2 Peter appeared different in style from 1 Peter; this could be due to the apostle having employed different amanuenses (secretaries).
2 & 3 John were disputed because of authorship- was it John the Apostle or John the Elder?
Jude was rejected by a great many because it appeals to the apocryphal book of Enoch.
Revelation was received in western churches, but some distrusted apocalyptic literature (as a backlash against Montanism) and others (like Luther) felt the book didn't show Christ clearly.

In each of these cases, though, the aforementioned criteria eventually led to their widespread acceptance and inclusion in the NT canon.  Or, put a better way, "it is the simple truth to say that the NT books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so."

Why were some books excluded?
Some books "possessed temporary and local canonicity, but during the following generations the limits of the canon became progressively clarified."  The criteria mentioned above excluded these writings, which are called 'apocryphal.'

Some of the apocryphal books are considered edifying but not authoritative.  In general, apocryphal works are clearly inferior theologically and historically to the canonical accounts.  Some have obvious problems like late authorship or false teachings (like denying or twisting the OT).  Others are simply amalgamations of verses from canonical works.  Some are even antagonistic, perhaps due to competing philosophical influences of the day.  In short, "certain books excluded themselves from the canon."

Can I trust the NT canon?
It's a good question!  From above, it's clear that "the status of canonicity is not an objectively demonstrable claim, but is a statement of Christian belief."  As Christians believe the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit when writing individual books of the Bible, so too we believe that the collecting of books was inspired.  In short, the Church does not have authority over the Scriptures- the Scriptures have authority over the Church.  This is not a new idea; John Calvin argued during the Reformation that "the authority of the Scriptures is based, not on the pronouncement of the Church, but on the interior witness of the Holy Spirit."  This internal testimony "is the means by which believers come to acknowledge" the authority of Scripture.  "From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church."

Before dismissing this concept, remember the OT was formed in much the same way- gradually, over centuries- and Jesus held it as authoritative.  Yes, " the Church has received the canon of the New Testament as it is today, in the same way as the Synagogue has had bequeathed to it the Hebrew canon."  Therefore, we can accept with confidence the NT canon as it stands today, and we would do well to learn from the experience of the Reformation, as the desires of some "to set aside certain books that proved to be awkward or embarrassing in ecclesiastical controversy" showed the human tendency to put personal preference (with associated biases) above the word of God.  This "should make us exceedingly wary in assessing our own motives and standards in evaluating the canonical status of the several books in the New Testament."

Does the NT canon contain contradictions?
I've heard this argument before- that the Bible in general (or NT specifically) contains contradictions.  Such statements fail to recognize that "the rich diversity of early Christian thought, preserving insights both Jewish and Greek, is reflected in the spectrum of the twenty-seven books in our canon today."  "As long as the chief doctrines and patterns of Christian life and thought within the New Testament at least point in the same direction, and not away from one another, they can coexist in the same canon.  The homogeneity of the canon is not jeopardized even in the face of tensions that exist within the New Testament.  These tensions, however, must not be exaggerated into contradictions as a result of giving inadequate consideration to the divergent situations in the early Church to which the writers addressed themselves.  To propose, therefore, to trim the dimensions of the canon in accord with an arbitrarily chosen 'canon within the canon' would result only in muting certain voices in the choir of witnesses that the Church has long found to be normative."  Indeed, some tensions have served to guard "against the extremes of misinterpretation."  "In short, the canon recognizes the validity of diversity of theological expression, and marks the limits of acceptable diversity within the Church."


I end the summary with this thought:

What is really remarkable is that, though the fringes of the New Testament canon remained unsettled for centuries, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained within the first two centuries among the very diverse and scattered congregations not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.

Review

When you pick up a book intending to skim select portions and end up reading the whole thing, you know you have a winner.  Well-written, educational, thorough but concise, scholarly yet accessible . . . this is a good book.  Heavily annotated with references to other scholarly works, I recommend this resource heartily as a valuable reference to those interested in the formation of the Bible.

Rating: A