FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.
1. Respecting the canon of the New Testament there are two distinct but
related fields of inquiry. The first has reference to the _origin and
gradual accumulation, of the materials_ which enter into the canon; the
second, to the _collection of these materials_ into a volume or series
of volumes possessing coördinate authority with the books of the Old
Testament, and constituting with them the sum of written revelation. The
first of these questions has been already discussed in great measure. In
Chs. 2-4, the genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, authenticity, and
credibility of the four gospels were shown at some length; in Ch. 5 the
same was done in respect to the Acts of the Apostles and the
acknowledged epistles; in Ch. 6 was considered the position of the
disputed books in respect to the canon; and in Ch. 7 the inspiration of
the canon was demonstrated. Connected with these inquiries were some
general notices respecting the date of the several books of the New
Testament; but the fuller consideration of this latter question is
reserved for the second division of the present Part--that of Particular
Introduction. It will be sufficient to state here in a general way that,
if we leave out of account the writings of the Apostle John, the
remaining books of the New Testament were written somewhere between A.D.
45-70 (according to the commonly received opinion, between A.D. 50-70);
while the most probable date of John's writings is A.D. 70-100. The
composition of the books of the New Testament, then, spreads itself over
a period of about half a century.
2. Turning our attention, now, to the second question, that of the
collection and arrangement of these writings in a volume or series of
volumes coördinate in authority with the books of the Old Testament, we
have a succession of periods, not sharply separated from each other, but
each of them possessing, nevertheless, its prominent characteristics in
relation to the canonical writings.
3. First in order is the _apostolic age_, extending to about A.D. 100,
especially the first half of it when many of the apostles still
survived. This is the period of the _composition_ of the books of the
New Testament, but we have no certain evidence that they were then
collected into a whole. The writings of apostles and apostolic men had
of course the same authority as their spoken word: that is, an authority
that was supreme and decisive, according to the principle laid down by
the Saviour: "He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth
me, receiveth him that sent me." Matt. 10:40. But so long as the
churches had the presence of the apostles they could not feel, as we do
now, the need of an authoritative written rule of faith and practice;
nor is there any proof that the apostles themselves understood in the
beginning of the gospel God's purpose to add, through them, a second
part to the canon of revelation that had been for so many centuries
closed. A considerable number of years elapsed after the ascension
before it was thought necessary to give to the churches under apostolic
sanction a written account of our Lord's life and teachings. The Acts of
the Apostles were not composed till about A.D. 61-63. The apostolic
epistles were for the most part written on special occasions and to meet
special exigencies, the greater number of them not till between A.D.
50-70, those of John still later. The Christians of this age drew their
knowledge of the gospel mainly from the same sources to which Luke
refers in the preface to his gospel; from oral tradition, namely,
received directly or indirectly from them "who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word."
4. After the death of the apostles came what may be called the _age of
the apostolic fathers_; men who, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and others
whose names have not come down to us, had been the disciples of the
apostles. Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome, A.D. 107 or 116. Polycarp
survived beyond the middle of the second century. The literary remains
of this period are very scanty, the genuine writings of the apostolic
fathers being confined to a few epistles--one of Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians, seven of Ignatius, one of Polycarp to the Philippians, to
which we may add the so-called epistle of Barnabas; since whoever was
the author, it does not date from later than the early part of the
second century. From these writings we gather in general that the
gospels and apostolic epistles were in current use in the churches, but
nothing definite in regard to the collection of these writings into a
whole.
"With the exception of the epistles of _Jude_, _2 Peter_ and _2,
3 John_, with which no coincidences occur, and 1, 2
Thessalonians, Colossians, Titus, and Philemon, with which the
coincidences are very questionable, all the other epistles were
clearly known, and used by them; but still they are not quoted
with the formulas which preface citations from the Old Testament
(The Scripture saith, It is written, &c.), nor is the famous
phrase of Ignatius (To the Philadelphians 5: Betaking myself to
the gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the apostles, as
the eldership of the church) sufficient to prove the existence
of a collection of apostolic records as distinct from the sum of
apostolic teaching. The coincidences with the gospels on the
other hand are numerous and interesting, but such as cannot be
referred to the exclusive use of our present written gospels."
Westcott, in Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Canon. The reason of
this, as the writer goes on to show, was that "the details of
the life of Christ were still too fresh to be sought for only in
written records." There is, however, one remarkable passage in
the epistle of Barnabas, the _Greek text_ of which has been
recently discovered appended to the Sinaitic manuscript, in
which he says (ch. 4): "Let us take care that we be not found as
it is written, many are called, but few are chosen." This
formula, "as it is written," distinguishes the gospel from which
it is quoted as a part of the inspired word; for it is the
customary formula employed by Christ and his apostles in
accordance with the usage of their age, when they appeal to the
Old Testament as of divine authority; and is never applied to
writings of mere human authority.
5. Next in order comes what may be called the _period of transition_
between the age of the apostolic and that of the early church fathers.
The most distinguished writer of this period is Justin Martyr. It is now
generally conceded that the "Memoirs" of which he so often speaks were
our canonical gospels. Chap. 2, No. 7. Besides the abundant use of these
he mentions the Apocalypse by name, and ascribes it expressly to the
apostle John--"a certain man among us named John, one of the apostles of
Christ, prophesied, in the revelation given him, that those who have
believed in our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem," etc.
Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 81. He has also some apparent allusions to
the Pauline epistles, but how far he possessed and used a collection of
the New Testament writings, we have no means of judging. Towards the
middle of the second century, however, events occurred which had a
powerful influence, not indeed, for establishing the _authority_ of the
apostolic writings (since that existed from the beginning), but for
bringing home to the consciousness of the churches their _supreme
importance_ as an authoritative rule of faith and practice, and also the
necessity of carefully defining their extent as well as their true
interpretation. Heretical teachers arose who sowed in the Christian
church the seeds of gnosticism. Of these some, as Marcion, rejected on
dogmatical grounds a portion of the apostolic writings, and mutilated
those which they retained; others, as Valentinus, sought by fanciful
principles of interpretation to explain away their true meaning. Chap.
2, No. 12. The reaction upon the churches was immediate and effectual.
They set themselves at once to define and defend the true apostolic
writings as well against Marcion's false and mutilated canon, if canon
it may be called, as against the false interpretations of Valentinus,
Heracleon and others. The _occasion_ had now come for the recognition of
a New Testament canon coördinate in authority with that of the Old
Testament, and from this time onward we find the idea of such a canon
clearly developed in the writings of the church fathers. What aided
essentially in this work was the execution, about this time, of
_versions_ of the New Testament books, such as the Old Latin and Syriac;
for the authors of these versions must of necessity have brought
together the writings, which, in their judgment, proceeded from the
apostles and their companions.
6. We find, accordingly, when the _age of the early church fathers_
opens, about A.D. 170, a clearly recognized canon--sometimes described
in two parts, the _gospels_ and the _apostles_--which is placed on a
level with that of the Old Testament as the inspired word of God, and
cited in common with it as _the Scriptures_, _the divine Scriptures_,
_the Scriptures of the Lord_, etc. Both canons are mentioned together as
_The entire Scriptures both prophetical and evangelical_; _The prophets,
the gospel, and the blessed apostles_; _the law and the prophets, with
the evangelical and apostolical writings_; _the Old and the New
Testament_; _the entire instrument of each Testament_, etc. _Irenæus_,
against heresies, 2. 46; 5. 20; _Letter to Florinus_ in Eusebius' Hist.
Eccl., 5. 20: _Clement of Alexandria_, Strom., 7, p. 757; _Tertullian_,
against heretics, chap. 30. 36: against Marcion, 4. 6, etc. The canon
was not, however, completed in its present form; for the right of
certain books--the so-called _antilegomena_, chap. 6. 6.--to a place in
it remained for a considerable time an open question, which, in its
application to particular books was answered differently in the East and
the West. See chap. 6. On the other hand, certain writings of the
apostolic fathers (as the so-called epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians), being read
in certain of the early churches, found their way into some codices of
the New Testament. Chap. 6, No. 4.
To the latter part of the second century belong two important
canons, that of the Syriac Peshito, and the Muratorian canon.
The former of these represents the judgment of the _Eastern_
churches; the latter apparently that of the _Western_.
The canon of the Peshito has, of the seven disputed books,
_Hebrews_ and _James_. It wants the other five, namely, _2
Peter_, _2, 3 John_, _Jude_, _Revelation_.
The Muratorian canon is in such an imperfect state that its
testimony on some points is doubtful. It contains _Jude_ and
_Revelation_; perhaps also _2, 3 John_. It wants _Hebrews_, and
_2 Peter_, and it adds the apocryphal book called the
_Apocalypse of Peter_.
Origen in the third century (as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,
6. 25) and Eusebius in the fourth, Hist. Eccl., 3. 25, give each
a review of the New Testament canon with a statement of the
differing judgments as to the disputed books. The details will
come up hereafter in connection with the books in question.
The Synodical Council of Loadicea, which was probably held
between A.D. 343-381, gives in its 60th canon (the genuineness
of which, however, has been called in question by some) a list
of the books of the Old and New Testaments. That of the New
Testament wants the _Apocalypse_.
The third Council of Carthage, held A.D. 397, contains all the
books of our present canon. So also the Latin fathers, as
Jerome, Rufinus, etc. But the Syrian churches still adhered to
the canon of the Peshito.
7. The history of Christian opinion in regard to the canon of the New
Testament, of which a very brief outline has been given, has all the
marks of naturalness and truthfulness. The Biblical student should
carefully remember the two following important considerations:
(1.) The books of the New Testament were not received as a whole, but
_separately_ upon the evidence that each gave of its apostolic origin.
Doubts in respect to certain books throw no shadow of suspicion upon the
rest, the genuineness and authenticity of which were acknowledged by all
from the beginning. The question, therefore, is not concerning the truth
of revelation, but simply concerning the claims of certain books to be a
part of the record of revelation. However it may be decided in
particular cases, the apostolic authority of the universally
acknowledged books, which constitute the main body of the New Testament,
remains perfectly sure.
(2.) The early diversities of judgment in respect to certain books
furnish satisfactory evidence of the freedom of thought and discussion
among the primitive Christians, and of the sincerity and earnestness of
their investigations. It was precisely because they would not accept any
book without full evidence of its apostolic authority, that these
diversities of judgment prevailed.