If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

Who Decided Which New Testament Books Should be Accepted as Scripture?

When Jesus taught it is clear that He did so in such a way that His words would be remembered. His preaching, and the ideas expressed, bear the marks of being in Hebrew poetic form and would be constantly repeated. This was the normal method by which teachers ensured the continuation of their teaching, and memories were highly acute in a way that is not necessary for us. Books were still an expensive luxury. Indeed Papias in early second century AD states his preference for oral teaching from those who had had first hand knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus, to the written word of the Gospels.

Yet early on the teaching and life of Jesus were put in written form, and in the light of Old Testament parallels (the teaching of the Prophets) this was to be expected, for while Jesus endorsed the Prophets, He made clear that His teachings advanced those of the Old Testament (Matthew 5.21 etc).

Many attempts were made to record some of His life and teaching (Luke 1.1 - possibly this included Mark), and it is therefore all the more remarkable that we have no trace of these other records in any of the early churches. (The so-called ‘Gospels’ that we know about were written in the second century). This suggests that the churches had carefully sifted what was available right from the beginning, and had authenticated what they felt was most reliable and acceptable.

These attempts spurred on Luke to write his Gospel to ensure a factual and true record which was extensive and reliable. He was an ideal person for the job, educated, historically knowledgeable and reliable, well acquainted through his contact with Paul with those who had known Jesus personally, and able to travel to gather his information from first hand sources. He stresses his use of eye-witness materials (Luke 1.2).

He must have known Mark personally and was probably acquainted with Mark’s own attempt to portray Jesus first hand. Indeed he used material in Mark’s Gospel widely in writing his own, while clearly having access to other, probably oral, sources.

Mark also, having travelled with both Paul and Peter, and especially the latter, constantly heard preaching by those who had walked with Jesus, and talked with them about His life and His teaching. His Gospel is a deliberate presentation of Jesus as the Messiah based on this, and while he included teaching, it was what Jesus revealed Himself to be, and His final death, which was his important message.

Both Mark and Luke must have spent years in gathering their material, so that while it may be true that Mark’s Gospel was finalised around 67 AD (although it may have been earlier depending on how we take later tradition), it was the product of many years research. Luke’s comes a little later but the same applies. It seems very probable that the churches had a great part in encouraging their efforts. Certainly when John writes his Gospel it is the church which adds its certification to its essential accuracy (John 21.24).

Matthew makes use of Mark, but adds material of his own, especially material related to the teaching of Jesus, and he presents his material in such a form as to confirm its relation to Old Testament Scripture (five long sayings passages parallelling the five books of Moses and the five books of Psalms). He also shows how Jesus’ ministry changed from a ministry to the Jews only, to a ministry to the world, with the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman as a turning point.

John’s Gospel bears many signs of an eyewitness, and is written by someone related to the high-priestly circles in Jerusalem, who also accompanied Jesus widely. He has an especial interest in theological controversy and the examples of Jesus teaching given to the more intellectual members of society, which his background clearly enabled him to appreciate. There is little real reason to doubt that it was written by the Apostle John. Certainly the church at Ephesus adds its seal to the Gospel.

It would appear probable that from the start each of these Gospels was treasured by groups of churches as accurate records, which explains why they gained their unique acceptance. Almost certainly by the mid-second century (Justin Martyr), and certainly by the late second century (Irenaeus) they were regarded as a unit as Scripture, to be read and expounded in all the churches.

This acceptance of these four, and only these, confirm their reliable backgrounds, for acceptance would only be given by the whole church without controversy where the backgrounds were unquestionable. The churches did not just accept anything. The rise of heresies made them especially suspicious. When they spoke of books they did so as ‘books accepted to be read in churches’, ‘disputed’, and so on, and this was because they differentiated those which were ‘universally’ acknowledged from those which were only used by some, probably as spiritual helps without final authority. In all this they were not just reflecting their own opinions, but general agreement based, not on Council statements, but on awareness of their acceptability by those who knew their sources.

It is clear that from the start Paul intended his letters to be read in churches, and to be copied and passed on (Colossians 4.16), and that he laid great stress on the words of Jesus, probably as passed down in oral tradition from the Apostles. The invention of the codex meant that his letters could be gathered as one body of texts, and it is quite clear that Clement of Rome ( c 90 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (died as a martyr 110 AD) knew and used them.

It was, however, later in the second century, partly as a result of the production of Gnostic 'gospels' and 'epistles', which the Gnostics claimed came from a hidden wisdom (gnosis), and partly as a result of the work of Marcion (about 150 AD), that the churches began to publicly list and differentiate the various ‘books’, but this was undoubtedly based on an already generally accepted position quite familiar to the churches, otherwise there would not have been the immediate unanimity worldwide.

It is apparent from the works of Justin Martyr (Rome c150 AD) that certain writings e.g. the Gospels, were already authorised to be read in churches as Scripture in his time, and Prologues to copies of the Gospels, copied in the late second century (the so-called anti-Marcionite prologues), testify to the acceptance of the four Gospels by the churches.

Papias, who came from the early part of the second century, was a little earlier than Marcion, and he had known ‘the Elder John’ (probably the Apostle, see 2 John 1), and had also known others who knew the Apostles. He testifies to the existence of Matthew and Mark, although he himself prefers the testimony of those who had personally known the Apostles, seeing them as more ‘alive’. Indeed he stresses that Mark obtained much of his information from Peter, whom Mark accompanied on his preaching ministry, and that Mark took great pains to ensure the accuracy of what he wrote.

Papias is one example of how carefully the early church sifted the information they received. Oral tradition was a recognised method of preserving the teaching of the great teachers, and memories were adapted to this method so that they were far more reliable than ours would be, and he ensured that he obtained it from first hand sources.

Justin Martyr in Rome in c.150 AD refers to 'the Apostles who in their memoirs called Gospels ---' and in a later passage refers to them as being read alongside the writings of the Old Testament prophets and commented on in the homily that followed in public worship (following the pattern of the Synagogues). He thus clearly looked on them as Scripture. From his citations he almost certainly knew all four Gospels.

Tatian in c.170 AD cites John's Gospel as Scripture, and he later combined all four Gospels into one integrated whole in Syriac, (the Diatessaron), a work which the Syrian church prized and used for centuries. Thus it is clear they were regarded as Scripture by the Syrian churches and by Tatian.

The earliest known actual list of New Testament books was by the heretic Marcion (c.150 AD) and he listed Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles. This was because he was combatting belief in the Old Testament which he rejected because of his particular views. But he did a service to the church in that his actions constrained others to write down the books which were accepted by the churches generally.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c180 AD) refers to the individual Gospels and speaks of 'the fourfold Gospel' and takes their acceptance by the churches for granted.

With regard to Paul’s epistles both Clement of Rome (c 90 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (died 110 AD) knew the writings of Paul as a collection. 2 Peter 3.16 refers to them as Scripture, while both Polycarp (early 2nd century) and the writer of the epistle of Barnabas (early 2nd century) treat them in the same way.

Irenaeus (late 2nd century) shows that the churches he was involved with accepted Paul's epistles as Scripture on a level with the Old Testament prophets, but sees both as inferior to the Gospels, which demonstrates the special authority now held by the Gospels. He also accepts 1 Peter and 1 & 2 John, Acts and Revelation as Scripture.

Thus it is clear that there was a recognised corpus of writings which had become from the earliest times universally accepted by the churches, a position established not by one particular individual (unless we suggest Paul), or by a council, but by a concensus in the churches, and these widespread around the world. It must be remembered that these churches were not one large dogmatic body but local groups of churches in different parts of the world, thus the fact that the acceptance was general, and by general agreement, was mainly because of the sources from which the writings came and their acceptance ‘from the beginning’ (no other explanation fits the facts of their wide acceptance, there was no centralising authorising authority).

The so-called Muratorian Fragment (named after Muratori, its discoverer) comes from the end of the second century AD. It appears to be the translation (into Latin) of an official Greek document emanating from Rome listing the books which are to be regarded as Apostolic and to be read in church. It accepts the four Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 & 2 John, Jude and Revelation. It also includes the Apocalypse of Peter, but states that many will not allow it to be read in churches. Thus it accepts there is doubt about it, underlining the fact that there is no doubt about the others. Tertullian in North Africa refers to the list of accepted books as the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude and Revelation.

Around the same time Clement of Alexandria (who was clearly very liberal) states the acceptance of the four Gospels, but is himself ready to accept the Gospels according to the Hebrews and the Egyptians as 'lesser works'. But note that even with him there is the distinction between authorised works and lesser works. He also accepts the Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, Hebrews (which he considers Pauline) , 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelation. To these he adds Clement's (of Rome) epistle, Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter.

So we can see from all this that while there are variations of books 'on the margins' accepted by a few, the main body is accepted by all. This demonstrates that differing areas were not directly influenced by a central body (which did not exist) so that they were acting independently, and yet that in spite of this there was a general concensus.

Origen (died 254BC), a very scholarly and highly respected church leader in his day, although somewhat strange in his views, specifically distinguishes 'acknowledged' from 'disputed' books. The 'acknowledged' books were the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. The 'disputed' were Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James and Jude. He would not allow Hermas, Barnabas or the Didache to be recognised as Scripture, nor even as disputed.

Eusebius (c 325 AD) specifically refers to 'acknowledged' books, the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation (the last one being disputed by some). He accepts Hebrews as Pauline but admits Rome does not. 'Disputed but known to the majority' are James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John.

By the time of Athanasius (367 AD) all the books in our New Testament are accepted as 'acknowledged'. Only in the Eastern churches do the books of Barnabas, Hermas, Clement and the Didache hover on the fringes in some areas, (but note not in Athanasius who is also Eastern), but they are finally refused acceptance when the churches begin to meet in universal councils because in the main the churches have already so decided.

So it should be noted that the acceptance of the books as Scripture is not the result of a Council statement, but of a concensus among the churches who knew their provenance from the beginning, and that their acceptance was discriminating and not thoughtless. It was based on an awareness of their sources and their acceptability by all through long established tradition.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

New,Testament,Canon,Holy,Bible,Jesus,Christ,Christian,
Christianity,Messiah,Baptism,After-life,Resurrection,Holy,Spirit,
John,Johannine,Matthew,Mark,Luke,Genesis,Creation,Abraham,
Sabbath,New,Testament,Revelation,faith,hope,trust,believe,
belief,salvation,redemption,sanctification,justification,
deliverance,second,coming,advent,millennium