As in the case of the Old Testament, so in that of the New Testament, when the books composing it came into the world they were not considered inspired. They were looked upon the same way other books are. No one thought of calling them the word of God. The Old Testament was considered by the early Christians as inspired, and for two or three centuries after Jesus it was their only Bible (Westcott, Canon, 55). The first instance of the canonization of any of the New Testament books was about 170 A.D., when, in the Second Epistle of Peter (2 Peter 3:16), Paul's epistles are regarded by some as if Scripture, and that was simply a bothersome recognition of Paul after the long quarrel between the friends of himself and of Peter (Davidson, Canon, 134). For a century and a quarter after the death of Jesus the New Testament was not recognized to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (Westcott, Canon, 179; Davidson, Canon 122). And when Paul said, "The Holy Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ" (2 Tim. 3:15), he meant exclusively the Old Testament (Westcott, Canon, 55.) Previous to the year 170 A.D., wherever the early Christian Fathers used the phrase "Scripture" or "It is written," they always meant the Old Testament (Davidson, Canon, 119). The name "New Testament" was first given to the collection by Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 15), about the year 210 A.D., and the collection then laced many books which are in it now. The word canon, as signifying a list of authoritative Scriptures, was not used till Origen's time (Davidson, Canon, 4). The word "canonical" was used first in the decree of the Council of Laodicea (Ibid., 5), about 363 A.D. The word "Bible" was first applied to the books collectively by St. Chrysostom in the firth century (Westcott, Canon, 438). New Testament copyists felt at liberty to change the language to suit their own ideas by taking out texts and inserting new ones (Tischendorf, "When Were Our Gospels Written?" Religious Tract Society's authorized edition, London, 1869, p. 15). Prof. Davidson says:
"Papias (150 A.D.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn, of a New Testament Canon…He had no conception of canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament. His language implies the opposite, in that he prefers unwritten tradition to the Gospel he speaks of. He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels" (Davidson, Canon, 123).
"It is clear that the earliest Church Fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred documents, clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted" (Ibid., 136).
"One thing appears from the early corruption of the sacred records spoken of by Irenaeus, Origen, and others, that they were not regarded with the veneration necessarily attaching to infallible documents" (Ibid., 161).
"The conception of a Catholic canon was realized about the same time as that of a Catholic Church. One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection of the New Testament books assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired" (Ibid., 136).
During the first half of the second century "the New Testament writing did not stand on the same level with the Old, and were not yet esteemed sacred and inspired like the Jewish Scriptures" (Ibid., 122).
"Justin Martyr's canon (150 A.D.), so far as divine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament….In his time none of the Gospels had been canonized, not even the synoptics, if, indeed, he knew them all. Oral tradition was the chief fountain of Christian knowledge, as it had been for a century. In his opinion this tradition was embodied in writing, but the documents in which he looked for all that related to Christ were not the Gospels alone. He used others freely, not looking upon any as inspired" (Ibid., 129).
"It is certain that they (the early Christians) believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered. The latter collection was not called Scripture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.)" (Ibid. 5).
Now the conditions are reversed. People in this age of the world believe the New Testament is inspired, but they do not believe the Old Testament is.
"Two things stand out most clearly-the comparatively late idea of a canonical New Testament literature, and the absence of critical principles in determining it. The former was not entertained till the latter part of the second century. The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching to the New Testament books did not exist till the time of Irenaeus" (Ibid. 163).
"Not until the latter half of the second century (180 A.D.) did the present Gospels assume a canonical position, superseding other works of a similar character and receiving a divine authority" (Davidson, Intro. N.T., ii 520).
"Along with this process (the union of Paulines, Petrines, and the other fractions, about the middle of the second century), and as an important element in it, the writings of the apostles and apostolic men were uncritically taken from tradition and elevated to the rank of divine documents. It was not the rise of new dissensions "within the church" which led to the formation of a Christian canon; rather the idea of a "Catholic Church" require a standard of appeal in apostolic writings, which were not invested with an authority that did not belong to them from the first" (Ibid., 168).
Tischendorf, the great orthodox scholar, in speaking of the period of canonization, says:
"It was at this time….that the Church…began to venerate and regard as sacred the writings which the apostles had left behind them" (When Were Our Gospels Written?" The Religious Tract Society's edition, London, 1869, p. 95).
The phrase "began to regard as sacred" indicates that before that time that regard had not existed. Canon Westcott says:
"It can not, however, be denied that the idea of the inspiration of the New Testament, in the sense in which it is maintained now, was the growth of time" (Westcott, Canon, 55).
One of the most curious intellectual phenomena presented to the student of religious history is that of men admitting that the idea of inspiration in a growth, and still not perceiving the absurdity of supposing that inspiration is a fact. And yet, thousands of Christian theologians present it.
We find, then, that, among the early disputing sects, it became necessary to have some authoritative court of appeal, and when the Catholic Church began to establish itself and to require such an authority, its officials, the Christian Fathers, asserted that these new books were inspired, and the word of God. But it was said simply to have authority for the new doctrines. The Fathers did not limit themselves to the books now in the New Testament, but selected such as agreed with their adopted views. The restrictions in the number of books were made later, and thus our present Bible was formed. But the Bible did not form the beliefs. The beliefs formed the Bible. Only such books were accepted in the New Testament as advocated the previously entertained dogmas. And the idea of inspiration passed over from the Old Testament to the New, by reason of associations, proximity, and similarity of use.