The NT Part 2: Selection Criteria

Introduction

I have discussed in previous blog posts how the New Testament Canon wasn’t selected at the Council of Nicaea and how the books that became the New Testament were written and in use very early. In this post I will discuss the stringent criteria used to discover which books were a part of the official New Testament Canon.

Related Posts

The Four Criteria

In determining which books would officially be considered a part of the canon, the church typically used four criteria: Apostolicity, Antiquity, Orthodoxy, and Ecclesiastical usage.¹

Apostolicity and Antiquity

Apostolicity refers to whether a book is written by or directly associated with an Apostle. Antiquity refers to a book having been written during the Apostolic era (during the lives of the Apostles) and thus goes hand in hand with Apostolicity.²

The Four Gospels

Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, considered to be Apostles. Mark has long been associated with Peter and used him as a source for his gospel. It can be gleaned from Eusebius’ references to the writings of Papias that he (Papias) had learned from John the Presbyter (John the Disciple) about Peter being the source for Mark’s construction of his Gospel.³

Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts, was an associate of Paul, who was the Apostle who encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).⁴ He’s also said to have used Peter and the women who followed Jesus as sources of his investigation into the eyewitness accounts.⁵

Acts and Hebrews

Roger Nicole also places the writing of Acts and Hebrews under the supervision of the Apostle Paul.⁶ Of course, the entire Pauline corpus would be considered both Apostolic and Early as many of Paul’s letters were written before any of the Gospels were written. 

The Brothers of Jesus

James and Jude were brothers of Jesus thus satisfying the proximity to Jesus and antiquity required.⁷ The canonicity of Revelation seemed to be debated for years; however, it too fulfills the criteria as both early church Fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus affirm that it was written by the Apostle John.⁸

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is whether the theology of a book “conformed to the church’s “rule of faith””.^[10] The “rule of faith” is not some church doctrine created in the first or second century nor is it some misinterpretation of the canonical books. It’s the teachings and central creed of the gospel of Jesus Christ that was also passed to the Apostles. Köstenberger asserts that the orthodoxy of the faith is tied to the declaration of the creed that Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:3-4.⁹ He goes on to assert that this is supported by Paul’s commending of Timothy to guard what had been given to him and to command those teaching false doctrine to cease (2 Tim. 1:13-14, 1 Tim. 1:3).¹⁰

Additionally, Paul wrote strongly against the teaching of “another gospel” which supports the idea that there is in fact only one true gospel. He also added that testimony that the early Christians dedicated themselves to “the Apostles’ teachings” indicated that there was at the beginning a unity around the doctrines and creeds of the faith (Acts 2:42).¹¹

The Teachings From the Beginning

So the early orthodoxy of the church was unified around a central message of the gospel. The books that became a part of the twenty-seven that comprise the New Testament canon adhere closely to the same central message that governed the faith of the first Christians. 

Many of the subsequent books, like the Gospel of Thomas found in the collection of books known as the Nag Hammadi Library discovered in 1945, are presumed later than the Apostolic age and are not known to be tied to the Apostles themselves.¹² The codex itself dates to around 350 CE.¹³

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is referred to as a Gnostic gospel because its theology tends more toward the Gnosticism of the second century. It deviates from the central gospel theme of the canonical texts and more toward “Gnostic thought” by rejecting “the authority of the OT (log. 52), the physical resurrection of the dead (log. 51)…“, etc.¹⁴

Ecclesiastical Usage

The final criterion is ecclesiastical usage. Ecclesiastical usage refers to whether a book was in regular use in the various churches. This is one of the more misunderstood or ignored facts that non-scholarly, and a few scholarly, skeptics have about the New Testament books. The accepted books were written very early and were also accepted and circulated widely very early on.

Early Origins

The books of the New Testament were written at various times by various authors, and they were also initially circulated separately. This can be easily understood with the New Testament letters because, even the ones written by the same author, were written at different times for different purposes. They were also each written to various churches or individuals in several locations. 

It’s interesting to note that the Gospels were also initially circulated separately. Holden and Geisler assert that there’s no evidence that, prior to about 180, any of the various churches used more than one Gospel.¹⁵ Yet, the evidence shows that the four Gospels of the NT were eventually bundled together and circulated. However, there is no evidence that any other Gospel outside the four NT Gospels were ever bundled and circulated with any of the NT Gospels.

Irenaeus’, Bishop of Lyons  (130-202 A.D.) View

Additionally, Köstenberger et al. asserts that there is no evidence that any other Gospel, including the Gnostic Gospels, were ever included in the canon or recognized as canonical.¹⁶ Irenaeus came to believe that there were four gospels, no less, no more. He was as adamant about there being no less than four as he was about there being no more than four.¹⁷

So the Gospels were in use individually throughout the church and over a relatively short period of time came together as a unit being used together by the churches.

The Letters of Paul

This is similarly true for the letters of Paul. Holden and Geisler believe that his letters were some of the first to be assembled.¹⁸ It’s clear that the letters of Paul, though written to specific churches and individuals, were circulated to other churches. This is first made evident by his instruction to the Colossians to share his letter with the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). However, this is also indicated by the references that can be seen in many of the early church Father’s writings. 

Earliest Church Father Writings

As early as 95 AD, Clement, in his own letter to the Corinthians, mentions Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church. As the earliest non-canonical Christian writing, 1 Clement also mentions the book of Hebrews and Paul’s letter to the Romans.¹⁹ Ignatius mentions the book of Ephesians and Polycarp references Paul’s letter to the Philippians and equates them to Scripture on par with the Old Testament.²⁰

Around 140 AD, Marcion created a list of ten of the Pauline books that were likely known and circulated in Rome.²¹ Holden and Geisler conclude, “One can infer from this that by this time the epistles of Paul had been collected and circulated among all the early churches.²²

Canonical Lists

It’s evident that the books of the New Testament were circulating and growing in use very early. Eventually, canonical lists made by church Fathers began to surface. One of the earliest, although its timing is debated by those who wish to uproot the current canon of the New Testament, is the Muratorian Canon. It’s an early second century canon list that contained twenty-two of the now twenty-seven books of the New Testament.²³ These lists demonstrate that very early on, the church was looking at a canon of specific books. 

This consideration of canon was not only inclusive but exclusive as well. There are several early Christian writings that didn’t end up in the New Testament. Eusebius, who lived from the late third to the mid-fourth century, grouped the New Testament books into three categories: those that were well accepted, those that were known and authentic but disputed, and finally those that were not genuine and were subsequently rejected.²⁴

His list of commonly accepted books included “the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation” while the debated books were “James, Jude, 2 Peter,  and 2-3 John”. Some of the rejected books on Eusebius’ list were “the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Revelation of Peter, and the (Pseudo-) Epistle of Barnabas. By 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, had a list of twenty-seven books that was the same as the New Testament today.²⁵

Addressing the NT Canon at Church Councils

It wasn’t until the late fourth century that the canon was addressed at any of the church councils. Only three early church councils addressed the New Testament canon, the Council of Laodicea, The Council of Hippo, and the Third Council of Carthage.²⁶

The Council of Laodicea was a local council that met around 363 AD at which they affirmed all the books of the current canon except for Revelation. In 393 AD The Council of Hippo met and affirmed all twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Finally, the Third Council of Carthage met in 397 AD and reaffirmed the twenty-seven books affirmed at the Council of Hippo.²⁷

Affirming the Books of the NT

Holden and Geisler explain that there’s a difference between a book becoming accepted as canonical and it being recognized by the church. They go on to say that “virtually all the New Testament books were recognized and cited by some Father or canon within the first century after the New Testament was completed.” They assert that every book of the New Testament except 3 John was accepted by the time of Irenaeus in the mid to late 180’s.²⁸

Conclusion

The books of the New Testament Canon were all completed by the end of the first century. They were also written by Apostles or those associated with the Apostles. This was significant because it was this group whom Jesus directly taught and instructed to spread the teachings that they had gotten directly from Him (Matt. 28:19-20, Acts 9:15, Gal. 1:11-12, Gal. 1:15-16). Acts 2:42 tells us that the early church committed itself to the teachings of the Apostles.

Therefore, the books that were to become the New Testament were inspired and put into place by God, and the churches used them from the beginning. The larger Church organization didn’t invent them or select them, but they signed off on those books that had already been selected and vetted and were commonly in use.

Blessings

1. Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2009), 8-10. ↩︎
2. Köstenberger, et. al, 10. ↩︎
3. Köstenberger, et. al, 231. ↩︎
4. Köstenberger, et. al, 9. ↩︎
5. Köstenberger, et. al, 257. ↩︎
6. Roger R. Nicole, “The Canon of the New Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 no. 2 (Jun 1997): 200, https://www-galaxie-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/article/jets40-2-03?highlight=criteria%20of%20canonicity. ↩︎
7. Köstenberger, et. al, 9. ↩︎
8. Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 173. ↩︎
9. Köstenberger, et. al, 9. ↩︎
10. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Of Professors and Madmen: Currents in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” Faith and Missions 23 no. 2 (Spring 2006): 9, https://www-galaxie-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/article/fm23-2-01?highlight=orthodoxy%20and%20%22gospel%20of%20thomas%22. ↩︎
11. Köstenberger, “Of Professors and Madmen”, 9. ↩︎
12. J.K. Elliott, “Extra-Canonical Early Christian Literature,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. Joseph Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1316. ↩︎
13. Köstenberger, “Of Professors and Madmen, 8. ↩︎
14. Joshua W. Jipp, “”Dating” Thoma “: Logion 53 As a Test Case for Dating the” Gospel of Thomas “Within an Early Christian Trajectory”,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20 no. 2 (NA 2010): 254, https://www-galaxie-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/article/bbr20-2-05?highlight=gospel%20of%20thomas. ↩︎
15. Holden and Norman Geisler, 172. ↩︎
16. Köstenberger, et. al, 875. ↩︎
17. Köstenberger, et. al, 19. ↩︎
18. Holden and Geisler, 172. ↩︎
19. Holden and Geisler, 172. ↩︎
20. Holden and Geisler, 173. ↩︎
21. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “The Making of the New Testament Canon,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971), 1219. ↩︎
22. Holden and Geisler, 173. ↩︎
23. Köstenberger, et. al, 7. ↩︎
24. Köstenberger, et. al, 11. ↩︎
25. Köstenberger, et. al, 11. ↩︎
26. Köstenberger, et. al, 12. ↩︎
27. Köstenberger, et. al, 12. ↩︎
28. Holden and Geisler, 174. ↩︎