By: Todd Lockwood
Did the early church
determine or recognize the canonical books that make up the New Testament? The
following article will prove that the early church had a consistent methodology
for “recognizing” canonical books. Furthermore, it will explain how early
heresies helped contribute to the discussion of canonicity and to help
accelerate the process. The history of the development of New Testament canon
can only be correctly understood by considering the historical and theological implications
of the early church.
The earliest Christians
never used the term “canon” to describe the Old Testament or the writings that
eventually became part of the New Testament. Athanasius (A.D. 367), bishop of
Alexandria, was the first writer known to have used the term to describe his
approved list of the Old and New Testament. The word “canon” comes from the
Greek word kanon and literally means
“a rod” used as a rule. Before the word “canon” was used by the church, the
phrase “rule of faith” was used to describe acceptable Christian doctrine.[1] No doubt, the early church was accustomed to receiving this phrase from the Apostle Paul in his letters (Gal 6:16; “rule” kanon). Early Christians enjoyed the
“living voice” of the teachings of Jesus through his apostles whether conveyed
by word of mouth or as written gospels.[2]
The word “canon” was a late development in the church but the concept of acceptable
teachings was not.
Athanasius, by making a
canon list, did not impose upon the New Testament inspiration. The former
bishop of Alexandria, along with the rest of the church involved in the
development of the New Testament, simply recognized what God had set in place.
Early Christianity birthed from the promises and prophecies of the Old
Testament through Jesus Christ; it was a fulfillment and continuation of God’s
“redemptive-history.” The early church was not ignorant of this fact and used
it for their advantage to recognize God’s “rule of faith” and “canon” that had
been handed down to them through Jesus Christ and the apostles. For this
reason, Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) was able to regard apostolic writings on par
with the writings of the prophets.[3]
Furthermore, this is why recent scholars like Michael J. Kruger can say that
the apostolic writings were “canon” immediately after they were written.[4]
Thus, New Testament canon development research involves the intrinsic theology
of the twenty-seven books just as much as it involves historical events in the
early church.
At this point, it is
necessary to stop and discuss some of the historical events that influenced the
development of the New Testament. The topic of New Testament canon development
would be oversimplified by ignoring the disagreements in the early church over
the canonicity of certain books. Early Christians did not agree unanimously on
the authority of every book found in the New Testament today. A few of the
shorter Epistles and the Book of Revelation took longer to be accepted by the
church as canonical. But the presence of disagreements did not mean that there
was not a common standard or limitation for orthodoxy.[5]
The response of the orthodox church towards heresies proves that there was a
working standard.
The earliest known list
of New Testament books was written by the heretic Marcion in Rome about A.D.
140. But Marcion’s list did not represent the redemptive-historical methodology
of the orthodox church. Marcion distinguished between the God of the Old
Testament and the Father of Jesus Christ. The theology of Marcion led him to
reject the entire Old Testament as well as parts of the New Testament that
resembled Judaism. Unlike the orthodox church, Marcion did not believe the Old
and New Testament spoke of the same redemptive-history. Marcion taught that the
God of the Old Testament was an inferior God of justice compared to the God of
goodness of the messenger Jesus Christ. According to Marcion, the apostle Paul
and his companion Luke were the only ones who preserved the true message of
Jesus Christ. Marcion edited the writings of Paul and the Gospel of Luke to rid
them of any references to the Old Testament. For his unorthodox actions,
Marcion was formally excommunicated from the church.[6]
Marcion’s list may be
the earliest known list of the New Testament books but he was reacting against
a theology that was already in practice by the orthodox church. The fact that
Marcion created his own list of New Testament books doesn’t mean that he was
the first to elevate the books to the status of scripture. Of course, Marcion
attacked more than just the New Testament but rejected the entire Old Testament,
which by itself would have led to his excommunication.[7]
What influence did Marcion have on the New Testament canon development? Marcion
did not present to the orthodox church a new concept but helped accelerate the
canon development by contributing to the discussion. The orthodox church may
have not had a New Testament canon list but there was still a fundamental idea
for canonicity.[8]
Another heresy that
influenced the development of the New Testament canon was Montanism. Montanism
was an enthusiastic and apocalyptic movement started by Montanus in the second
century. After converting to Christianity, Montanus went into a trance and
began speaking in tongues. Montanus taught that he was the leader of a new
outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Associated with Montanus were two woman who
uttered prophetic oracles with him. Montanism taught that the New Jerusalem was
arriving soon and that the prophecies spoken by the leaders were to be written
down as sacred documents.[9]
Montanism did the
opposite of what Marcion did and challenged the orthodox church by adding to
the redemptive-history of God handed down to them by the apostles. The orthodox
church was faced with the question of whether the message of the
redemptive-history of God was complete or ongoing. Montanism presented the
orthodox church with a new dilemma but it also led some within the church to
doubt the canonicity of books that contained apocalyptic passages. The orthodox
church rejected Montanism for not being consistent with the final authority of
apostolic writings but, just like Marcion, it contributed to the discussion of
canonicity and accelerated the development.[10]
Both heresies helped the orthodox church think more critically about
canonicity.
The orthodox church did
not autonomously judge against heresies or non-canonical books but depended on
the “redemptive-history” of God to guide their decisions. The history of the
development of New Testament canonicity doesn’t begin at the first instance of
heresy or the first church council; God established the framework for
canonicity before either. Scripture has internal qualities that make it
recognizably canonical. The early church did not accept books based on their
usefulness, universal acceptance, or any other outside criteria that could be
forced upon the books. For example, the church found some non-canonical books
to be more useful than the book of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John, or Philemon.
How else could the early church have accepted “under-utilized” books? The only
logical conclusion would be that the church did not believe that it had a
choice in the matter of canonicity.[11]
Early church documents
support the idea that the church was recognizing God’s canonicity, not their
own. The “Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, Serapion of Antioch speak of
‘receiving,’ ‘recognizing,’ or ‘confessing’ certain books and not ‘selecting’
or ‘choosing’ them.”[12] Furthermore, the church’s dependency
on God’s framework can be seen in the writings of Clement of Alexandria,
Serapion of Antioch, and Irenaeus when they describe how the four Gospels have
been handed down to the church.[13]
Clearly, the church would not have used this terminology if it believed that it
was the final judge of canonicity. The apostles, through the appointment of God
through Jesus Christ, were given authority and inspiration that the orthodox
church recognized.
The first
ecclesiastical councils to officially classify the New Testament canonical
books were both held in North Africa; the first in Hippo Regius (A.D. 393) and
the second in Carthage (A.D. 397). Members of the council did not impose upon
the New Testament inspiration but applied the general practices of the orthodox
community mentioned in this research.[14] Early
Christianity did not jettison the Old Testament and create its own criteria for
canonicity but depended on the redemptive-history of God to determine the
direction it should take. The apostolic writings were a continuation of the
redemptive-history found in the Old Testament. In the end, New Testament canon
development cannot be accredited to a heresy or church council, only to God.
[1] Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. (Downers Grove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 17-18, 77, 255.
[2] Metzger, Bruce.
The Canon of the New Testament: Its
Origin, Development, and Significance. (Clarendon Press, 1987), 52.
[3] Ibid., 6.
[4] Kruger,
Michael. The Canon Revisited:
Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books.
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 121.
[5] Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?
(Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity, 1981), 16-24.; Hill, C.E. “The New
Testament Canon: Deconstructio Ad Absurdum?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol 52.1(March
2009), 117.
[6] Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are they
Reliable? (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity, 1981), 16-24.; Metzger,
Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament:
Its Origin, Development, and Significance. (Clarendon Press, 1987), 90-94.
[7] Kruger,
Michael. The Canon Revisited:
Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books.
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2012), 137.
[8] Metzger, Bruce.
The Canon of the New Testament: Its
Origin, Development, and Significance. (Clarendon Press, 1987), 99.
[9] Ibid., 100.
[10] Ibid., 106.
[11] Hill, C.E. “The
New Testament Canon: Deconstructio Ad Absurdum?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol 52.1(March
2009), 118.
[12] Ibid., 118.
[13] Ibid., 118.
[14] Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are they
Reliable? (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity, 1981), 16-24.
