Canonization of Scripture

How the Canon of Scripture came to be recognized by the Church.

It is true that the second writings, today called the New Testament (NT) canon did not drop from heaven, it is also true that the church did not play a determinative role in the formation of the NT canon on it’s own either. Rather, the church received what was handed down to them from the Apostles.

So we must be careful not to overemphasize the idea that the criteria used for canonicity is the only factor that created the Scripture’s second writings (NT Canon). Rather we should say that this is historical evidence of a supernatural event which took place when the Apostles handed down the writings to the church.

In the writings of the church fathers, we see that the books they considered canonical shared common attributes. The church focus was on books that contained the teaching passed on by The Messiah, the Lord and King Jesus Christ, passed on to the Apostles, who then in turn passed it on to the church.

The Canonization process, or how the church came to recognize the canon is critical to answering skeptics who view the canonization process as a mere human decisions. This process is better thought of as recognizing features for which books were inspired as Scripture, as apposed to rigid criteria of the books themselves.

The Scriptures did not become canonical, but rather the Word Of God is written down and the Church was given the privilege of preserving it, through the guiding of the Holy Ghost. In this preservation, is included the verification process and this is what I’ll be discussing here.

I said earlier that the canon was not handed down to us by God in a physical sense. However, the words in the scriptures today are as reliable as if God Himself blew the roof off of the church and spoke to us right now. Put another way, if God Himself blew the roof off the church right now and spoke to us with a revelation, that revelation would be considered on par with the scriptures that we have today, not more.

Apostolicity

Jesus gave the disciples the authority to be His representatives, that is what we call His Apostles; they are the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). The church recognized the Apostle’s authority as Christ’s representatives very early, immediately even.

To be considered an Apostle, one had to be:

An eyewitness to the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22);

Directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Gal. 1:1);

Able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous sign (Heb. 2:3-4).

This is further evidenced by the fact that the church fathers, who came immediately after the Apostles, did not consider themselves Apostles. They saw the Apostles as a distinct group with a singular and very specific authority that was given to them by God.

Since it is not possible for anyone after the apostles’ time to have that authority, it is not possible for their writings to be canonical. So whatever the discussion of the canonization process, it must be said that the books in the canon cannot be older then then Apostles.

Therefore, books accepted by the church had to be written by an apostle or an associate who was sanctioned by an apostle.

The early church had no doubt over the authority of the apostles to write the second writings, which we call the New Testament today.

When the apostolic period ended, the discussion in later periods became that of authenticity of the writings as coming from the Apostles and not whether the Apostles writings were to be considered inspired or canonical.

Although the canonical Gospels are anonymous, the church knew who wrote them and they attributed them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Ironically, the apocryphal gospels (Thomas, and Judas) were not anonymous, and the writers put an apostle name on them to try and give them authority.

Since the post-apostolic church fathers did not have access to the writers of a NT books nor direct evidence of their supernatural confirmation, they had to rely on historical testimony. Not unlike today.

Once they were convinced of the book’s authenticity, they accepted that book.

The early church rejected many books because they were not authentic while confirming the authenticity of other books including the Gospels.

The Apostles Knew They Were Writing Scripture

The apostle Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, refers to Paul’s writing as Scripture (“as they do all the other scriptures”).

2 Peter 3:15–16 KJV 1900

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, quotes Luke as Scripture (“the labourer is worthy of his reward.”)

1 Timothy 5:18 KJV 1900

For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Not only did the NT books harmonize with each other but also with the first writings, or Old Testament (OT) books, as we call them today.

Common acceptance of a book, was always insufficient for a writing to be considered Scripture; the church didn’t accept a book, even if it was widely popular, if it could not trace its origin to an apostle so books such as The Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement were rejected as a result.

Jesus Also attested to The Second Writings in John 14:26 when He said “The Holy Ghost...bring all things to your remembrance”

John 14:26 KJV 1900

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

What those things that will be brought to remembrance are, are also attested to by Jesus, again, in John 16:12-15 where He says “He” that is the Holy Ghost, “shall not speak of Himself… He shall glorify Me.”

The Scriptures Attest Authority Of The Scriptures

As we’ve seen in John 16:12-15 The Holy Ghost attested to the words of Jesus by bringing these words to the remembrance of the Apostle John.

You’ve probably heard it said before “The Bible is the authoritative Word of God, because the Bible says it is the Authoritative Word of God.”

While this logic seems circular on the surface, there are a few nuances to this position that would help clarify it for the average person.

The Scriptures, or the canon, attests of it’s own authority is better thought of as the canon possessing within itself the evidence necessary for it’s own authority or divinity.

Who can witness about God but God Himself?

Who is in Heaven to attest to us for who God is except God Himself?

So when God speaks that Word attests of God and of itself just as God attests of Himself and of His Own Word.

Of course, the theology student will be quick to point out that all high things are circular in reason. Why should we listen to Wisdom, because Wisdom says we should listen to Wisdom.

When was the NT canon widely received by the Church?

In less than a century, that’s right possibly before the eye witnesses were dead.

In less than 100 years after the last NT book was written, a widespread and significant agreement was present in the church on which books were canonical.

This consensus grew and by the end of the fourth century was virtually unanimous.

Some critics argue that the canon was established in the early church councils of the fourth and firth century. Often pointing to the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) or perhaps Constantine. But this view skips over the fact that the all the councils did was remove any doubt of the authenticity of the books the church was already using. None of the church councils established any of the books in the canon as canonical, but rather they simply affirmed what was already knows by the church. Not to mention the eye witness accounts of the councils (Athanasius and Eusebius) show no mention of any discussion to establish the canon.

The very early church didn’ have a reason to consider the authenticity of The Second Writings because they were still speaking with eye witnesses, and even the Apostles themselves.. As time went on however, and the eye witnesses became older and fewer, the church became filled with people who were new converts and who’s parents and grandparents were the eye witnesses.

Still, the questions about the authenticity of The Second Writings revolved around which books are to be considered authentic writings of the Apostles, and not if all of the Second Writings were to be. In other words, the Church in the second and third century was trying to answer the questions of what book was written by the apostles, knowing full well that these books should be set apart into the canon.

The pressure on the church continued to build as false religions began to grow around it, false religions from the east which blended with Christianity and which we now know as Gnosticism.

While we know the early church fathers all used the canonical books, these books did not become established as canonical officially by the church until the firth century.

The Old Testament Books

The Apocrypha, even though it’s claimed by the Catholic church today as Scripture was never accepted by the Jews, and were only included the Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 404 AD. It still strikes me as odd that the Roman Catholic Church calls the Apocrypha Scripture even though Jerome himself said they were not “books of the cannon” but merely “Books of the church” that might be helpful and useful for believers.

The Latin Vulgate spread the Apocrypha books through out time, but the lac of any Jewish writings of the Apocrypha nor any mention in Jewish history of these books, nor any quotations from the NT of any of the passages of the Apocrypha should have been enough for the Roman Catholic Church to dismiss these books as not inspired, as the Protestant church did.

In 170 AD Melito, a Bishop of Sardis writes about the books of the the Old Testament, mentions all of our current OT books and none of the Apocrypha books.

The church father Origen (254) also wrote of each of the books of the OT that we have today, missing from his writings are any of the Apocrypha books, and Origen specifically mentions the book of Maccabees as “outside of these” that is to say canonical books.

In 367, Athanasius wrote a letter to the bishop of Alexandria where he mentioned every book of the canon, OT and NT (except Esther), and specifically mentioned “Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit” and said these are “not indeed included in the cannon, but appointed by the fathers to be read by those who newly join us and who wish for instruction.”

The Apocrypha should not be considered as scripture for a handful of reasons:

They do not themselves claim to be Scripture

They are not regarded as God’s word by the Jewish people, from whom they originated.

They were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the Apostles

They contain teachings that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

They make salvation to depend upon works

Inculcate a morality based upon expediency

Teaches the creation of the world out of pre-existent matter

Say that the God hears the prayers of the dead.

Conclusion

“The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us

the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly, He gave

us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.” - J. I. Packer

And the church kept the scriptures safe through time, through the power of the Holy Ghost.