In this article I would like to address certain aspects of the formation of The New Testament "Canon."
Before I proceed I would like to share with the readers the view to which I have come after diligently studying the formation of the New Testament Canon over the last fifteen years of Bible Study. First of all the traditional Christian today is not aware how the New Testament was put together. Often I hear many say that the New Testament is infallible and inerrant. Sadly, nothing could be farther from the truth as I will quickly show you. In the absence of a written authority such as the Hebrew Bible which the Jews possessed (consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings) which verified their faith in God and without a written document to which the anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic early Gentile Church could appeal for their authority in rejecting, altering, and distorting the then existing expression of faith in God as handed down by the Jewish Church in Jerusalem, we find the Gentile Church in the later part of the fourth century making a concerted effort in collecting and editing the then existing documents (gospels and epistles) to suit their man-made theologies. This is quite a mouthful I know, but the facts when examined with an open mind will reveal to the reader the same pictures I saw upon examining the facts for myself. The conclusion is inescapable….that reason and rationalization by Gentile authorities in the early Gentile Church was foundational in the formation and acceptance of man-made religious doctrines which often conflicted and contradicted the then existing expression of faith in God as seen in Judaism and which can be seen went into all the world in the Great Commission in the earliest years of the "church" before Rome's domination. What is startling for the educated Christian to see is how the creation of the New Testament see-sawed back and forth through centuries and a consensus of opinion as to what was to be deemed authoritative for them could not be agreed upon. I have taken special pains in these series of articles to carefully chronicle for you the formation process of the documents to which we have heard our whole life are infallible and inerrant. It is amazing to me, as I am sure it will be for you, after having seen for yourself how these documents were disagreed upon for centuries by church authorities, and then to realize that we have been taught by others not possessing this information that the Holy Spirit somehow led in the selection and canonization of these documents. With this information in this article to which most Christians do not possess, it is impossible to see God Spirit behind such confusion. You will have to be the judge and come to an intelligent decision, but such a decision is impossible without the facts. The facts are not at you disposal.
One last thing. Often when discussing the Bible with others I refer to the contradictions or additions made to the documents by the early Catholic Church. This might be surprising to you but good Study Bibles today like the Companion Bible, and others like it documents the same things to which I refer. Many jump to conclusions that I must be a heretic because I don't believe everything in the New Testament as if “God breathed” as Paul states in 2 Tim. 3:16. The glaring problem to which they fall victim is that the very “scriptures” to which Paul refers in his epistle is the Old Testament and not the New Testament for the majority of the writings and documents which would later become the Catholic Canon were not in existence when Paul said this. The irony of the whole matter is that rather than I, but others who hold to the infallibility and inerrancy of the New Testament are in reality the heretics, for the facts of the matter discredit their positions. Emotionalism is a poor substitute for truth and facts.
Now, as I close this part of this article, please understand that for me the New Testament is very important in spite of its problems for it is a record of the events surrounding the first advent and ministry of Yeshua as well as revealing how Gentiles become part of God’s people through belief in God through Yeshua's ministry. The problems in our New Testaments come not only in the documents which were selected which the early Jewish Church headed by James did not use, and would never dream of calling “Scripture” on par with the Old Testament writings, or which the early Jewish Church disavowed such as some of the epistles written by Paul and others written by others in his name, but the later additions and alterations to these written documents by the anti-Semitic Gentile Church which came in step with the latest Catholic Church Councils and their theological decisions throughout the first several centuries of the Gentile Church are flagrant attempts to de-Judaize the Yeshua's Early Church and the faith which was once given to the saints. The facts concerning the formation of the New Testament Canon tell a different picture form what we have been told my our pastors and denominations, but when examined by an open minded believer whose faith is in God and not in corrupted documents and who desires to please Him, will be forced in honest evaluation to see exactly what I also have discovered. To this we now give our attention.
The word "Canon" literally means "Cane," or "Rod of Measurement." In Christian use it came to mean for the early Gentile Christian Church of the fourth century the "Written Rule of Faith," that is, the list of Original and Authoritative Books that was for them God's Inspired Word. The Canonical New Testament Books were those which came to be generally recognized by the Gentile Churches as the Genuine and Authentic Writings of Apostolic Authority (regardless if they were or not). In other words the link to the Apostles was not always maintained as a criteria for acceptance.
In the days of Christ there was in the literature of the Jew nation a group of Writings called "The Scriptures," now called the Old Testament, which the people commonly regarded as having come from God at Mount Sinai. They called it THE WORD OF G-D. Yeshua himself so recognized it. It was read publicly taught regularly in the synagogues. Acts 15:21, one of many examples, reveals this to us when it records for us
“For Moses (first 5 books of Bible) of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”
Christian Churches, from the very first, accepted these Jewish scriptures as God's Word, and gave them, in their assemblies, same place they had had in the synagogues. It was at this time both Jew and Gentile believers had only one Bible; the Bible used by Yeshua's church!
As the supposed writings of the Apostles appeared having necessary instruction for both the Messianic Community as well as newly converted Gentile believers, they were added to the readings of Moses in the churches along with these other Jewish Scriptures of the Prophets and Writings, and came to be held in the same sacred regard as the Old Testament by each Gentile Church over time. This is when the tragic mistake occurred by the Gentiles by them equating these writings which supposedly came from the pen of the Apostles and Paul on par with the writings of Moses and the Prophets. Many will say to that statement that I am wrong in my perspective but they don't have all the facts necessary to understand the succeeding events as a mistake. What you need to know is that these later writings, the vast majority not from the pen of the Apostles but falsely reported to be such (pseudo-epigrapha), would later be held up with equal authority as did the writings of Moses and the Prophets. Please don't misunderstand my thoughts on this issue. I am not against the reading of the writings of the Apostles or Paul in the churches for Acts 15 declares such readings be done, however, to equate such later writings for sources other than the Apostles with the Torah, or even more, revere them above the writings of Moses and the Prophets as has been done in the creation of a “New” testament, is a grievous error. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, that is what was done!
There are hints, both in and outside the New Testament writings themselves that, while the Apostles were yet living, and under their own supervision, collections of their writings began to be made for the Churches, and intended to be read alongside the Old Testament which was at that time considered the ONLY Word of God. The reading of their writings was not understood by the speakers or hearers at that time to be the “Word of God” on par with their existing writings of Moses and the Prophets. The readings of such Apostolic writings to the Gentile Churches is quite understandable since the Gentile audience attending the synagogues had a very limited background in the Bible having from the most-part recently departed from Paganism. Eph. 2:2 addresses the problem quite well:
“Wherein in time past ye (Gentiles) walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.”
Let us also look to Eph. 2:12:
“That at that time ye were without Messiah, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”
In other words the Gentiles were Biblically ignorant. So it was necessary to “tailor” the message of God’s love and forgiveness and required obedience to His laws and commandments for all men just for the Gentiles. Again such a decision can be seen in the decision of the Acts 15 Council to write letters and deliver them to the Gentile churches instructing them in matters of faith and practice concerning adherence and obedience to the Laws of Noah for acceptance into the Yeshua Movement.
Many look to I Timothy 5:18 where Paul quoted as "Scripture" Deut. 25:4 and particularly the phrase “The laborer is worthy of his reward.” Many say that Paul was considering “the laborer is worthy of his reward” as Scripture as he spoke or wrote it. Such a comments reveals their lack of understanding of the teaching methods of the Jewish people in the first century. Anyone familiar with such methods of Jewish instruction would understand such a comment as “rehmez” whereby the speaker is referring backwards to what has already been said to affirm a principle or teaching. Understanding that the two clauses are separated with an “and,” and adding to that the understanding that Paul, using a midrash on Scriptures such as Lev. 19:13 and Deut. 24:15 we actually see Paul stating a truthful principle in the last part of the verse, but to force the matter and say that Paul was calling what he was saying or writings Scripture does injustice to the actual fact and reveals our lack of understanding of the teaching methods of the Jews.
In depth study on my part, as well as others for over 15 years, have led us to the inescapable conclusion that the New Testament writings were never to be understood as Scripture on par with the Old Testament, the Law, the Prophets, or the Writings. I have taken a lot of heat for this from many who have failed to study deeply enough to see the truths to which I bow my knee. Let me exonerate myself and others from the slander of many because we recognize that the ONLY Word of God is the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings….the Bible Yeshua used.
In many attacks upon myself by other Christians they inevitably get around to quoting Peter where he classes Paul's Epistles with "Other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Taken at face value as read in the English my opponents seem to have a good case…that Peter considered Paul’s writings as Scripture.
Answer for yourself: Did the writer of Second Peter intend to say Paul's writings were Scripture? Lets go a little deeper than the English shall we?
2 Pet 3:16 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (KJV)
Let us examine the word for “other” in the Greek: First from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
3062 loipoy- remaining, the rest
Notice the ideas of "contrast, distinction from, and not belonging to a specific class. The word carries the idea of separation and not inclusion. Since the word carries the idea of "separation" then the idea of identification of both being contrasted as the "same" is impossible. Thus the verse, instead of saying both Scripture and Pauline writings are "the same" it says just the opposite; they are not the same because one is not in the same "class of documents" as the other. Since there is no doubt that the Jewish Scriptures are "NOT Scripture" then the other must be by definition of the word. Simply said the Pauline writings were not understood in the first century to be on par with the Jewish Scriptures; in fact much in them was vehemently opposed by the Apostles and the Jerusalem Church.
If we are to be truthful to the word used in the New Testament writings of Peter we should now clearly see that he was referring to a group of writings in CONTRAST to Paul’s writings. No where in the understanding of the word are we to force the precept that both writings [Jewish Scriptures & Pauline literature] are to be considered the “same.” The contrast in the intent of the word is very important in this regard. The idea from the word used in the Greek is the contrast of Scripture to documents "NOT" of the same class..see the definition above!
Notice also the concept within the word to things that “remain." Inherent in Peter’s idea is a contrast to a fixed set of documents which remain in his day and are identifiable. In referring to “the rest” of something it is apparent that the knowledge of them and their identity are known and the contents of them identifiable. Such cannot be said for the writings which comprise our New Testament today for at the time of Peter’s comments about Paul’s writings the four Gospels had not been written, nor had Hebrews, Revelation, and many other books which are in our Bibles today. What I am saying is that to interpret Peter to mean that Paul’s writings are considered “other Scriptures” is a violation of the truth behind the words. The complete set of writings had to exist and be recognized in order to speak about the “rest” of them which completes the whole of them. Obviously such cannot be said about the documents comprising our New Testaments today as about half of the New Testament had not been written at this time, nor would be it be considered “Scripture” officially until early in the fourth century.
Let us now examine the word for “scripture” from 2 Peter 3:16 as well. Having demonstrated above that the only “set” of existing Scriptures at the time of Peter’s comments to which he referred to the “rest of them” was the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, let us continue.
The Greek word for “scripture” is as follows as taken from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
1124 graphe-
Let us never forget that we read the Bible today from hindsight, a terrific advantage today, but also a great liability as I hope to show you. We must understand that it was not until the fourth century that we have an official New Testament Canon. Up until that time we have oral traditions, many varying from place to place which was circulated among the peoples. In times these oral traditions were written down, many varying to some degrees. These were not books by any means, but small parchments or vellum that contained such oral traditions put in writing to preserve them. It would be much later before we would have codexes or books whereby all the writings recovered could be chronicled in somewhat of an order as we are accustomed to day.
Having said that, please understand that when the writer of 2nd Peter referred to “scripture” he was not referring to a “book” as given in the definitions above, but rather the collection of parchments containing references to the oral traditions which had by that time been committed to writing.
At the time Peter spoke what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:16 the canon of the official canon of the New Testament was over 300 years away in the making. He had no idea at all of “other Scriptures” as we understand the concept today. His reference, as determined by the wording, as well as the absence of recognized “Scripture” other than the Law, the Prophets, and the Writing, reveal to us the only conclusion plausible considering the time and the facts…that he was referring to other “written things.”
Let us re-read the verse understanding that the more correct understanding of the word “graphe” would be “written things.”
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other WRITINGS, unto their own destruction.
As you can now see such an interpretation is just as credible as saying “other Scripture.” To force the translation to say “other Scripture” must necessitate the completed set of New Testament writings be in existence (“the rest”) [which completes the whole]; they dear child of God the vast majority of them were not existence when Peter referred to Paul in 2 Pet. 3:16.
This may be hard for you to swallow, but in the context of 2 Peter 3:16 Peter could easily have been referring to and CONTRASTING Jewish Scriptures (Law, Prophets, Writings) with Paul’s “other writings” which were hard to understand and had no intention of calling Paul's writing "Scripture" or hold any notion that Paul's writings were on the par with the Jewish Scriptures.
So, I hope you have seen for yourself that to force the conclusion that “other Scriptures” in English must refer to our New Testament is not only in error, but an impossibility owing to the lack of their existence at the time Peter spoke. Shalom
Answer for yourself: What is the tragic implication of this for the Christian to finally realize?
Simply that our Bibles should be what they always were in the days of Jesus....a collection of the Law, Prophets, and Writings ONLY and any other such "writings" are secondary to say the least and when these "secondary" writings contradict or conflict with the Law, Prophets, and Writings (as they often do) then they are to be discarded and neglected as spurious documents and frauds. This is a major problem for the New Testament and those who understand the context and wording of 2 Peter 3:16.