Irenaeus was the true founder of the New Testament canon. His date is from 180 to 200 A.D. Understand that before Irenaeus we find no mention of the Gospels by name by those who quote or reference passages which would later be included in them. Of our Gospels Luke was probably compiled or written about 170 A.D., Mark about 175 A.D., John about 178 A.D., and Matthew about 180 A.D. Irenaeus began to use them within a very short time after their origin, though it was probably not until the year 200 A.D. that he knew of them all. He used them exclusively, and his canon consisted of the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul (rejected Hebrews), First John, and Revelation (Davidson, The Canon Of The Bible, p. 138. In an appendix he placed as of less authority, Second John, First Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, 138). The Epistle to the Hebrews, Jude, James, Second Peter and Third John he ignored (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 138). You should take note that this is the first time we meet with anything like a recognition of our present canon; and Irenaeus rejected several books which we not call divine. As he is the earliest writer to mention the Four Gospels, orthodox theologians now assert that they must have been in use before, and recognized as sources of authority; because, they say, it would not have been possible if, as unbelievers assert, other Gospels had been in use before, to discard those others that to substitute a new series in their place. Ha! The reply to this is, that it was not only possible, but it is what occurred, as history testifies. Long before we received the "Four Gospels" hundreds of different "gospels" were in wide circulation through the empire. The intense rivalry between the different sects in the first two centuries, and especially between the Paulines, the Petrines, and the Johannines, had taught them that neither could master the other, and neither could hold exclusively to its sacred books, and insist on their adoption. The result was compromise, just as in a presidential convention, when the friends of the leading candidates find that neither of the favorites can be nominated, they unite on an entirely new man, one who before has hardly been mentioned. The Catholic Church was just forming (about 170 C.E.), by the union of the small sects and churches into one great body, and the necessity of some written source of authority, of a Bible recognized by all, was apparent; and it was this need which formed the canon (Davidson, The Canon Of The Bible, p. 134, 136, 164). The old books were discarded or suppressed, and the new ones took their place. In case you missed, it political necessity was the reason for the New Testament; to give credibility and authority for the new religion what was to go by the name of Jesus which would be centered in Rome. Sounds like God to me!
Previously no two sects had used entirely the same books, and many used only one; and this was true even for a long time after our Four Gospels came into use, and after the effort was made to form one universal canon. Diversity and confliction doctrines and dogma was everywhere. The Holy Spirit really had a problem to deal with. But did he?
Thus the Ebionites (Iren., Adv. Her. 1.26) and the Cerinthians (Epiph., Her., xxvii, 5; xxx, 3, 14) used only the St. Matthew; the Cordonians only Marcion's Gospel (Pseudo-Tert. Adv. Om. Her., vi). The Marcionites used, of course, only their own Gospel. The Theodotians rejected St. John, as did also the Alogi (Blunt, "Dictionary of Sects," Alogi); and the Petrine Christians naturally preferred Mark's Gospel, which was Petrine (Tert. Adv. Marc., iv. 5), just as the Paulists preferred Luke, which favored Paul (Tert. Adv. Marc., iv. 5). In the midst of these facts church strength could come only in union and in the adoption of books which should be acceptable to all. Unity was necessary at all costs. That the New Testament is such a compromise its contents attest to the critical eye (or should at least if you read deeply and with a critical eye). The Gospel according to Matthew is Petrine, it being there that Jesus is represented as saying to Peter, " Upon this rock will I build my church" (Matt. 16:18). Mark is also Petrine and Luke is Pauline, as the early Christian Fathers testify (Tert. Adv. Marc., iv. 5). The Epistles of Peter are Petrine, the Epistles of Paul are Pauline, and the Gospel according to John, the Epistles of John, and Revelation are, of course, Johannine. You should take note that history at this time records the suppression of the old Gospels and the substitution of the new.
Thus, Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190 A.D.), while on a visit to the church of Rnossus, in Cilicia, found them using the Gospel of Peter. Being appealed to, he permitted them to read it, notwithstanding the controversies it produced. Later he wrote: "But when I came to you I had supposed that all held to the true faith; and as I had not perused the Gospel presented by them under the name of Peter, I said, 'If this be the only thing that creates difference among you, let it be read.' But now having understood, from what was said to me, that their minds were enveloped in some heresy, I will make haste to come to you again" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi. 12). Eusebius has preserved this extract, and though he does not say in so many words that the Gospel was suppressed, he intimates it, and it is conceded by eminent writers that that was done (Lost and Hostile Gospels, S. B. Gould, p. 245).
Again, early in the fifth century there was a man named Theodoret who was actively engaged in superintending the establishment of churches. In his travels he found the Diatessaron, or Gospel of Tatian, in used in orthodox churches, and he wrote:
Answer for yourself: Did you notice that in the fifth century he refers to "churches" (plural) which, in place of the Four Gospels we are acquainted with as if written by the Apostles, had hundreds of others? Is there a message from God in these that the earliest believes understood that we have been deprived of today?
These churches had over two hundred different books and gospels which we don't have at present and were content with reading them instead of what we have today
Answer for yourself: What does that tell you? Evidently the Holy Spirit had not witnessed to them as well as thousands and thousands of others that they needed "new books" and were missing the only "four" gospels that really mattered! Oh by the way, they also had the Bible Jesus used....the Old Testament!!!!
As late as the fifth century one whose commission was the oversight and establishment of churches makes mention that there were over two hundred competing gospels accepted by the churches (plural) and they were at this time without the Four Gospels we think were from the beginning of the Apostolic movement. We could not be further wrong in our beliefs about the acceptance of the Canon even as late as the fifth century. Evidently the Holy Spirit had not witnessed this to all as of yet as we suppose!
Answer for yourself: Were these people "saved" without this New Testament message from these "new" books which we feel preach is crucial for salvation?
Dr. Westcott says that "from this statement it is clear that the Diatessaron was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity" (Westcott, Canon, p. 320).
Answer for yourself: Did you church read or study from the Diatessaron last Sunday as the early churches did?
The fact of displacement is also recognized by Prof. Davidson:
I should be quick to add such authority was attested to those who promoted these "Four Gospels" over all others which were then accepted and read in the vast majority of churches at that time. There was no standard at this time for everyone decided what was to be accepted as "divine oracles" and this varied by location and city. Everyone and every group was an authority unto themselves.
When, therefore, the orthodox clergy asks if it were possible that other Gospels could have been long in use in the early church and then have been suppressed and succeeded by our present Gospels, the reply is, "That is exactly what occurred."
Answer for yourself: But why should there be just four Gospel? Why not five, or six, or a dozen, or a hundred?
Irenaeus, who was, as I have said, the real founder of the canon, and who spent his life in endeavoring to establish the Catholic Church and the New Testament determined this matter for all, and the church has followed one man and his decision in this matter. Whatever reason he gives, therefore, for the present number of Gospels, will be the reason why we have that number. Fortunately, he is very explicit on this point, and we know exactly what decided him. As you read his answer again I wish to prompt you to ask yourself is this sound like the work of the Holy Spirit in determining for the church for all time the number of Gospels.
Believe it or not, Irenaeus said that there was four quarters on the earth, and four universal winds (north, south, east, west), and that animals were four-legged, or four-formed, and therefore there should be four Gospels. His words are exactly on this matter:
"It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh….Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things…For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform…These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those (I mean) who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer'" (Adv. Haer., iii. x. 8 & 9).
Answer for yourself: Do you now feel comforted in knowing that the Holy Spirit led Irenaeus to determine for all mankind the number of the Gospels of Divine revelation in relation to the number of feet that animals possess?
Answer for yourself: What if he wind was not out of the South but South-East…could we add another Gospel?
And Irenaeus has the audacity himself to call us "unlearned." That is like the pot calling the kettle black. It has never ceased to amaze me as to the superstition and darkness possessed by those who today are revered as spiritual giants like the early Gentile Church Father are in many circles. The more you read them and how they conflicted and disagreed with each other it is almost impossible to find the Holy Spirit's tracks in anything they did. A quick look at the doctrines they created that run parallel to their Council which determined the Canon is an eye-opening exercise to say the least. After reading the doctrines the these men created that run parallel with their selection of the Canon one find it almost to incredible to believe the Holy Spirit could have led them into all truth concerning the Canon but at the same time led them to develop and create blasphemous religious doctrines which Jesus neither believed nor his hand-picked followers taught.
There is no sadder spectacle in the intellectual world, than that of men possessed of really great mental possibilities, frittering away their time and their self respect in trying to make a superstition appear reasonable by explaining its absurdities in an illogical manner such as Irenaeus just did. He would have been better served by walking in the dignity of rational intellectualism rather than staggering alone in a blind stupor propelled by ignorant mysticism.
Those modern theologians who quote Irenaeus as a learned and great man, do not take kindly to his argument for the number of the Gospels; nor to the fact that he said that the ministry of Jesus lasted twenty years (Ibid., ii. 22). And at the same time he was endeavoring to establish as of divine authority Gospels which said that Jesus' ministry lasted but three years?
Answer for yourself: Was the Holy Spirit asleep in Irenaeus' case? Can we believe anything he said?
We will pick up study concerning the formation of the Canon of the New Testament with the Muratorian Canon in the next article.