In the last post, we were concerned with looking at how the individual books of the Bible were written – as they come from different authors in different places, with God speaking through these writers who were often writing for specific, normal reasons. But how did these various writings come together so that we have the 66 books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament) in our Bibles?
There are some common myths about this process that it is good to address head up before looking at more of the details of the process. Many people think that a group of people got together and took “yes” and “no” votes at a specific time and place to determine what books were in the Bible – with some books “barely” getting in or being left out. This perspective is a myth, as when you examine the reality and the facts, it is clear that this was more of a gradual and organic process than an organized gathering and that consensus was large and early, and disputes were few and peripheral.
We will focus a bit on the collection of the New Testament first, as that is what more often has come under attack in recent years. What seems to have happened is that a specific church or community received a letter from Paul (e.g., Rome when they got the book of Romans) and read it, not just when they were gathering together informally, but in their formal worship services. In doing so, they were recognizing this book as Scripture, as an authoritative book for life in their community. Not only that, they seem to have copied the book and sent it to other churches – with other communities doing something similar and sending their letters to Rome. This seems to be the process through which Paul’s letters were collected. Similarly, the Gospels were likely written for a particular location or group but then started to circulate outward, with all Four Gospels coming together by the middle of the second century, as the early church leader Irenaeus (what a cool name!) stated that there were 4 Gospels, no more and no less (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 8). The early church leader Justin Martyr called the gospels the “memoirs” of the apostles and noted their use in the religious services (see First Apology 67), with his comments seeming to imply that there are four, two by apostles (Matthew and John) and two by followers of apostles (which would be Mark, who was a ministry companion of Peter, and Luke, a ministry partner of Paul). The writers of early church leaders (called church fathers) were quoting the various books that make up our New Testament as authoritative – as Scripture alongside of the books of the Jewish people (what we call the Old Testament), showing that these books functioned as the rule for faith and practice already.
Therefore, the gospels and letters of Paul were being used in the church as authoritative documents for the New Testament church at an early date. The church did not seem to have published a list of the exact books at this point for a couple of reasons. First, it was a highly dispersed church; there were no central authorities in the early church. Second, you often only need to clarify a rule once someone breaks it. Similarly, the first “list” of books actually comes from a guy named Marcion who preached a version of Christianity out of accord with Jesus and the historic faith, as he tried to take away any connection or reference to Jewish elements. Essentially, his list of books for the church were only the letters of Paul and portions of the book of Luke. As well, in the middle of the 2nd century and afterwards, new forgeries and accounts started to appear – including many of the so-called “lost” gospels that scholars find today and try to make sensational claims, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the fragment in which Jesus was said to have a wife (something which the proposed text might not even say, as it is highly fragmentary and missing key words and letters!). Therefore, because of “false” lists out there, church leaders then had a need to clarify what books had been functioning as authority for the church; they did not give these books authority, but they simply recognized the books that had essentially formed the church since they had been the guiding authority for the church.
These lists started to appear in the middle of the 2nd century. Our knowledge of this era is based on what texts have been preserved or what manuscripts have been found, so there is no way to know the whole picture, but we have a number of key documents that show us this clarifying process. First, we have something that is called the “Muratorian fragment,” a document whose origin dates from before 200 AD and lists the books that the church in Rome used in worship, which includes the 4 gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, James, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and the Revelation. Other books can be used in private but not public worship (the Shepherd of Hermas – as it notes that it had been written more recently), and a couple of books seem to be included that were not accepted by others (Revelation of Peter), recognizing that this was questioned by some. Around 300 AD, the church leader Eusebius noted that 22 of the books of the New Testament were accepted by all, with 5 of the books still “disputed” (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John). What was meant by “disputed” is essentially “the jury was still out,” with some accepting them and some not so sure. Other books were said to be “heretical” and should be excluded (such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter) and other books were deemed to be valuable but not Scripture, such as the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Letter of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. By the year 400, both the Eastern part of the church (found in the church leader Athanaisus’ Easter letter of 367) and the Western part of the church (as seen in the Synod of Hippo of 393 and the Council of Carthage of 397) listed the same 27 books as those that were authoritative for the community – the same books that we have today.
I know that was a lot of details, but there are a few things to note. First, the vast majority of books never had a question – the Gospels, Paul’s letter, etc. Moreover, there were other writings out there (including other books called gospels) that never vied for acceptance. In addition, the “disputed” books were often the small books towards the back of the New Testament, books that we don’t often use and books that did not seem to have as wide of a distribution as, say, the gospels and Paul’s letters. Finally, this was a decentralized process that produced the same results in different places and networks. How often can we get people in America to agree on something – but the early church all came to see the same 27 books as those that God had given them and that had been and should shape the life of the church, a truly remarkable feat!
Since there was never a particular council called to decide this issue and it was largely a ‘grass-roots’ sort of activity in which the church recognized what it was using, there was never a set criteria establishment to determine what books were recognized as Scripture, as authoritative guides for the church and Christians. The conversations among church leaders, however, highlights 3 major considerations – as (1) the books has to be written by or connected to an apostle, (2) teach the doctrine that the church believed and confessed in worship (thus the books that had shown them what to believe), and (3) that there had to be used and recognized widely, not just by a particular community. Books that did not match these criteria were excluded.
These books that were excluded include many of the gospels that people talk about, books that were written not by the apostles but by people who used the name of an apostle (thus, ancient forgery!). In addition, these books teach things that differ from the teachings of Jesus and the church – for example, the Gospel of Thomas teaches that one is saved by right knowledge (not faith in Christ’s work in his life and death) and that there world and physicality is essential bad, so we must escape through knowledge. The Gospel of Peter was another document out there that was rejected because it seemed to teach that Jesus was not a full human, contradicting what we see in the other gospels. If you read these other gospels out there, you will see that they do not read like the Gospels of the New Testament and teach a different version of the Christian faith than that found in the church throughout the past 2,000 years. Some scholars like these other gospels because it allows them to reject the orthodox doctrine that we are sinners in need of a Savior, but the rejection of the gospels we have in the New Testament doesn’t make sense, as these are the earliest and best witnesses we have of Jesus’ life; if we are going to trust anything, it should be the gospels that we have in the New Testament!
I’m not sure how hearing about the process of the collection of the New Testament makes you feel. I know that, at first, I was a bit uneasy about how slow, gradual, and decentralized it was. But then I pondered a little bit and wondered, “How would I have rather had it happen?” Would I rather it all come through one person in a revelation of God – but how could we know that this revelation was true? Would I have preferred a council to decide this issue – but couldn’t that council be wrong? I feel like the gradual process is more fitting, with the consensus that emerged something making me more, not less, confident – as I see God at work in this process to bring His people His Word.
I realized that we have only covered the New Testament in this lengthy post, so we will wait to deal with the Old Testament in the next post.
Questions related how we got the Bible or other theological issues? Contact Pastor Brian atTheology@faithchurchonline.org.
