The Formation of the New Testament

What we today call the New Testament is composed of a 27-document collection that Christians view as bearing unique authority—along with the Old Testament—as the Word of God. But the reason that this particular collection of documents—from among other Christian writings of the first century—came to be received and accepted by the church as the New Testament canon isn’t immediately clear.

It is necessary to begin with the definition of the word “canon.” A canon is a standard or norm, something against which other things are measured—and as such, it is used in reference to both the Old Testament and New Testament. When we hear the New Testament described as “canon,” it is an acknowledgment that this collection is limited and has authority for the Church.1

The study of the formation of the New Testament canon can be understood largely as an ever-narrowing definition of the term “canon” in reference to Christian writings. Confusion has resulted because not all canon historians understand the term in the same way. This can be seen in the three main answers to how the Church came to accept only the New Testament documents from among other first-century Christian writings.

The first answer was given by Theodore Zahn in the late 19th century, when he argued that the New Testament arose as a spontaneous occurrence. Zahn believed that once a New Testament document was cited by a church father, the document should be seen as canonical—citation proved canonicity. Thus, according to Zahn, by the end of the first century there was already a New Testament in existence that was not forced on the Church, but rather was a spontaneous creation that occurred in the life of the Church.2

Zahn’s position received an important qualification in the early 20th century from Adolf von Harnack, who developed answer number two. Harnack argued that citing a New Testament document as Scripture is very different from simply citing or alluding to New Testament documents; Harnack paid particular attention to the way a document was cited. Whether a citation was preceded by a formula referring to it as “Scripture” became the test for canonicity, because doing so gave the document at the same status as the Old Testament. The effect of this qualification was to move the emergence of a New Testament canon from the first century into the mid- to late second century, when documents attest to citations of New Testament documents as Scripture.3

The third answer to the question was offered by Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. Sundberg continued to narrow the definition of canon in light of his reassessment of the Old Testament canon in early Christianity.4 Sundberg observed that the church fathers cited documents as Scripture that are not known to us as canonical Scripture.5 He concluded that the Church did not receive a closed Old Testament canon but rather they received Scripture moving in the direction of being considered a canon. Because of this, Sundberg believed Harnack’s answer was difficult to sustain. The church fathers cited documents not in the closed Old Testament canon as Scripture. Thus, one cannot claim, as Harnack did, that citation of a document as Scripture proves canonicity. If the Church did not receive a closed Old Testament from Judaism, but rather Scripture on the way to canonization, then the comparison of the citations of Christian literature with Old Testament citations cannot establish canonicity for Christian writings.

Sundberg’s research has led some to agree that an essential distinction be made between the terms “Scripture” and “canon.”6 Sundberg thus argued that “Scripture” should be understood as writings that are held in some sense as authoritative for religion. “Canon,” on the other hand, should be understood as a defined collection that is to be held as exclusively authoritative with respect to all other documents. The issue here is one of anachronism: We should not refer to a document as “canon” that would historically have been referred to as “Scripture.” Thus, we cannot claim canonicity for a New Testament document that is cited with the same formula as an Old Testament document unless we are prepared to say that the church fathers had a larger Old Testament canon than we currently have. Based on these conclusions, Sundberg argues that a New Testament canon did not appear in Christianity until the latter half of the fourth century, when lists of canonical books begin to appear.

The definition of the term “canon”—which has become increasingly narrow—is influential in determining the date and therefore composition of the New Testament canon. Zahn and Harnack understand “canonical” as referring to a writing that functions authoritatively. If we accept this definition, then a canon emerges quite early (later first to the end of the second century). Sundberg, on the other hand, views “canon” in a stricter sense—as a closed list of writings. If we accept this definition, a canon emerges much later in the fourth century, when such lists began to appear.

These three answers are often viewed as mutually exclusive. However, as John Barton points out, when we look at the actual arguments, each position makes some good points.7 Zahn is correct that most New Testament documents did have authority in the late first and early second centuries; Harnack is correct that these books were discriminately added to in the second and third centuries; Sundberg is correct that it is only from the fourth century onward that authoritative rulings about the exact limits of the canon appear.

However, we could also call each position overstated. Zahn asserted that the New Testament books would one day form a canon, but it is an overstatement to claim that this was the intent of first-century Christians. Harnack does not give enough attention to the reality that, in the second century, there was still an openness to receive other books—that is, to add them to the “canon.” Sundberg states that the latter part of the fourth century is decisive because this is when strict canonical lists began to appear, but it is probable that these lists were documenting what were already accepted earlier lists.

The frequency with which a particular book was cited by church fathers appears to be a more helpful consideration. As Barton explains, “The picture that emerges is surprisingly clear. From the Apostolic Fathers onwards, the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matthew), the Fourth Gospel, and the major Pauline letters are cited much more often than one would predict, if one supposed that the whole of the New Testament we now have was equally ‘canonical’ or important. Correspondingly, the rest of the New Testament (including Acts) is manifestly less important. The third category, books scarcely cited at all, contains most of those which later decisions and decrees affirm to be noncanonical; even in the earliest period none of them is cited even so often as the books of the second class.”8

By focusing on how often books are cited, we can understand the three answers outlined above as three phases of New Testament canonicity that correspond to the chronological positions given by Zahn, Harnack, and Sundberg.9 The history of the New Testament canon framed in these phases focuses on the function of Scripture in the early church.

In the first phase, the core of the present New Testament was already beginning to be treated as the main Christian texts. The identification of these core texts was completed before the end of the first century. Technically speaking, it was not a fixed canon—but it would be equally inappropriate to say there was no core collection of writings.

In the second phase, during the second and third centuries, certain other documents began to be cited more often, suggesting—but not explicitly acknowledging—their addition to the core collection. In studying this phase, one still cannot clearly distinguish between those documents in the New Testament and those outside it. Instead, the distinction is between documents cited often, documents cited little, and books discouraged from use. While the core had ceased to grow, the thought of forming a fixed collection had still not appeared. (Thus, a canonical/noncanonical distinction is misguided at this point.)

In the third phase, during the fourth century, lists of canonical documents proliferated, giving very strong indication that the Church was thinking about a closed canon. But we must realize that to speak even here of a closed canon is difficult because some documents that appear on some of the lists are not in the present canon. Further, a few documents that are in our present canon are absent from some lists.10

Rather than conceiving of a closed New Testament in the second century, to which the Church appealed for its sole source of teaching, this three-phase paradigm forces us to consider how the Church judged and appropriated the writings it included in the New Testament canon. We can talk of an authoritative body of Christian Scripture in the first century, but we cannot claim that that collection of writings was closed even into the fifth century.

Consistent with this focus on the function of Scripture, New Testament canon historians have employed a rubric called the criteria of canonicity—that is, the qualifications that documents needed to meet for inclusion in the canon. This is not to say that there was an explicit list of criteria to which the early Church referred and through which each document was screened before being included in or rejected from the canon. The criteria are a retrospective means for us attempt to understand why certain documents came to be valued above other documents in the early church. This rubric derives from examining the writings of the church fathers and their use of these documents. We must avoid the temptation to view these criteria as hard and fast rules, and it is difficult to rank them in importance because they were not invoked with great consistency or rigor. Rather, they operated interdependently or concurrently—not independently or sequentially. Further, some churches and leaders gave different weight to certain criteria, which explains why some documents took longer to gain universal acceptance in the church.

The first criterion is apostolicity. While this could mean that a document was written by an apostle, it was not necessarily essential. Some of our New Testament documents were received as written by an apostle (e.g., Paul’s letters). But other documents gained wide acceptance because of a direct link to the apostles. Some documents experienced difficulty when it came to widespread acceptance by the church. The best-known example is the book of Hebrews—as Origen of Alexandria’s (ca. ad 184–253) comments illustrate: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the style and composition belong to someone who remembered the apostle’s teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this Epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this also. For it is not without reason that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the Epistle in truth, God knows.”11 Although Origen believed those who accept Hebrews as written by Paul to be mistaken, he did not dismiss Hebrews on that basis—rather, because it is apostolic in teaching, he accepted Hebrews.

The second criterion is orthodoxy. Orthodoxy indicates the congruity of a document with the apostolic faith. To see how this criterion functioned in the life of the church, it is helpful to see how Serapion of Antioch dealt with such a document in the early third century. Eusebius tells us that Serapion wrote a refutation of the Gospel of Peter, the content of which had led a parish in his jurisdiction astray.12 The church at Rhossus was using the Gospel of Peter in their teaching and worship. Initially, this did not trouble Serapion; he believed that they held “the true faith” and could discern this gospel’s doctrine. However, he soon came to learn that he was mistaken after securing a copy of the document. He found that it taught Docetism—which was viewed as a heresy by the orthodox church. Thus, the document denied “the true faith.”

This illustrates orthodoxy being applied as a criterion for a document’s acceptance. Serapion did not appeal to a New Testament canon to see if the Gospel of Peter was included; his appeal was to “the true faith” to discern its teaching. Serapion’s issue was not that the church was using a document outside of a canon, but that they did not discern the heterodoxy of the document. The “rule of faith” was used in this way in the early church as its standard of orthodoxy—something against which teaching and documents were measured. R. P. C Hanson calls it a “graph of the interpretation of the Bible by the Church of the second and third centuries.”13 Even the Christian writings that were eventually included in the New Testament canon were subjected to this rule of faith.14

The third criterion is catholicity (or universality) and traditional use. This criterion is best illustrated in Augustine (ad 354–430): “Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.”15

For Augustine, widespread use of a document carried considerable weight for its acceptance. Some churches—like Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople—were given preference over other churches concerning the documents they used. In the case of a writing that was accepted by all compared to a writing that some did not accept, preference was given to the writing accepted by all. When dealing with those documents not accepted by all, one was to accept those with the greater representation among the churches (with greater weight given to the more important churches). Augustine also references the improbable possibility where the majority of the churches use one document while the most important churches employ another document; if this should happen, Augustine’s counsel is to accept both.

Augustine reveals an important reality in the life of the early church: For a document to be received, it had to be accepted and valued as Scripture by a local church. Through gradual and more widespread recognition, that same document gained an even higher stature in the church catholic. But although the passage displays an explicit consideration of canon issues, the variety of canonical lists in the fourth and fifth centuries shows that even then, the issue was not settled for all churches.

Some have offered another criterion of canonicity: inspiration. Some claim this as the predominant criterion. Thus, R. Laird Harris states, “The test of canonicity is inspiration. The early church put into its canon, and we receive, those books which were regarded as inspired, and no others.”16 Harris argues that the Christian documents that came to form the New Testament were the only documents that the early church viewed as inspired.

From one perspective, it is accurate to say that inspiration was a criterion for canonicity; all documents considered orthodox by the early church were, by implication, believed to be inspired. But from another perspective, it is inaccurate to say that inspiration functioned as a criterion of canonicity if we mean that inspiration was believed to belong only to the documents that later became part of the New Testament. This does not mean that the fathers did not regard these New Testament documents as unique—their elevation to canonical status clearly indicates otherwise. It does mean, however, that it was not inspiration that determined their uniqueness above all other Scriptures.

If the argument of writers like Harris is correct and everything in the canon was considered inspired and everything outside it uninspired, one would expect this to be indicated somewhere by the leaders of the early church. But on the rare occasion when a father did declare a writing not to be inspired, he was not saying that it was not a canonical document, but rather that the document was heretical, that it lay outside the community of faith where the Spirit was at work. In other words, canonical versus noncanonical is not synonymous with inspired verses uninspired.

The assertion that the early church’s criteria for the New Testament canon included inspiration has one further problem—the church fathers’ references to noncanonical books as inspired.17 For example, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. ad 330–395) references his brother Basil’s commentary on creation as “an inspired [theopneustos] exposition … [admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself.”18 In addition, the second-century bishop Abercius Marcellus of Hierapolis composed an inscription that was placed over his future tomb. The Life of Abercius, which was written about this bishop in the fourth century, contains a text of this inscription and describes it as an “inspired inscription.”19 A further example is seen in a letter issued by the Council of Ephesus (ad 431) describing its condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired decision.”20

These three examples should give one pause when claiming that the early church reserved the term “inspired” for only the canonical documents—each example describes a noncanonical document as “inspired.” This would be very high praise for these documents if inspiration was a designation for only canonical documents. Thus, inspiration did not guarantee inclusion; inspiration was not viewed as the unique possession of only the documents that would come to be canonical.

It is important not to force a 21st-century perspective back onto the sources of the early church. Christianity had a somewhat fluid body of literature that the church used as authoritative. While certain documents rose to preeminence in the life of the church, that rise, in some cases, was not immediate. This is not meant to deny the providence of God in the process but, rather, to say that there were very practical reasons why certain documents came to be valued (and eventually canonized) by the church, and it is on this very practical road to canonization that God providentially led His people by His Spirit.

Craig D. Allert

Further Reading

New Testament Canon CLBD

Apostolic Fathers CLBD

The Formation of the Old Testament

Page 3

Page iii

Page 3