A common question surrounding the Bible, particularly the New Testament, concerns its reliability and whether the collection of books we possess today accurately reflects the original writings and intentions from nearly two millennia ago. Some popular narratives suggest that the New Testament as a unified collection did not exist until centuries after Christ, perhaps decided upon by later church councils, and that the original authors were unaware they were composing scripture. This article seeks to examine the historical evidence surrounding the formation of the New Testament, challenging these notions by exploring the concept of "canon," the inherent authority recognized in the texts from the beginning, and the process by which these specific books came to be universally acknowledged by the early Christian church.
The term "canon," in this context, refers to the collection of books recognized as divinely inspired, authoritative, and thus constituting the official scripture. It acts as a standard or rule of faith. While numerous religious or historical texts existed in antiquity, including some that closely resembled biblical writings, only those deemed canonical were included in the Bible. Understanding how and why these specific 27 books form the New Testament canon is crucial.
The Nature of Scripture: Divine Authority or Human Decision?
An analogy can be drawn from Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, which presents a dilemma: Is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious? Applying this structure to the Bible yields a pertinent question: Are the books in the Bible considered scripture because they were included in the collection (implying human authority determined their status)? Or were they included in the Bible because they were inherently scripture (meaning their divine authority was recognized)?
The historical evidence leans strongly towards the latter interpretation. The New Testament is better understood not as an authoritative collection of books (where the authority rests with the collectors or councils) but as a collection of authoritative books (where the authority is inherent in the books themselves, stemming from their divine origin and apostolic authority). This understanding finds its roots in the earliest stages of the Christian faith.
The Expectation of New Scripture: The New Covenant
The very foundation of the New Testament is intrinsically linked to the concept of a "New Covenant" (or New Testament, as testamentum is Latin for covenant) inaugurated by Jesus Christ. Covenants in the ancient Near East, including those depicted in the Old Testament (like the Mosaic Covenant), were formal agreements often accompanied by written documents outlining terms, blessings, and curses. When Jesus, during the Last Supper, declared the establishment of a new covenant, it carried profound implications.
As recorded in the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 22:20 (KJV): "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
This declaration signaled a pivotal moment in redemptive history. Given the established precedent of covenants involving written records, it is historically plausible, even expected, that the participants in this New Covenant anticipated new, divinely authoritative writings to accompany it, documenting its fulfillment and implications through Christ and his appointed messengers, the Apostles. This expectation wasn't an afterthought imposed centuries later but was present from the inception of the church age.
Apostolic Awareness: Did the Writers Know They Were Writing Scripture?
Contrary to the idea that the New Testament authors were unaware of the status of their writings, the texts themselves contain evidence that the authors understood their work to be divinely inspired and authoritative. The Apostle Paul, for instance, explicitly asserts the divine origin of his instructions while writing to the Corinthian church:
1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (KJV): "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are
the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Paul directly claims his written words ("the things that I write unto you") are not mere advice but "commandments of the Lord." He understood his apostolic office granted him the authority to speak and write on behalf of Christ.
Furthermore, the Apostle Peter, a contemporary of Paul, explicitly refers to Paul's writings using the same term reserved for the Old Testament scriptures (graphē in Greek). While acknowledging some difficult passages in Paul's letters, Peter places them on par with existing scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV): "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
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."
Peter's phrase "as they do also the other scriptures" is a powerful indicator that, already during the apostolic era, Paul's letters were being recognized and circulated as scripture, possessing divine authority equal to the established Hebrew Bible. No church council was needed to bestow this status; it was inherently recognized based on apostolic authority and the "wisdom given unto him."
Early Recognition and Oral Tradition
Before the New Testament documents were widely circulated in written form, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were transmitted orally. This was common in the ancient world, particularly within Jewish tradition where meticulous memorization and careful transmission of sacred texts were paramount. Unlike the casual game of "telephone," this oral tradition was handled with utmost seriousness, viewed as sacred revelation to be preserved verbatim.
Evidence for the authority of this tradition, and its transition into written scripture recognized early on, appears within the New Testament itself. Paul, writing likely in the 50s AD, quotes from both the Old Testament and words attributed to Jesus found in Luke's Gospel, referring to both as "Scripture":
1 Timothy 5:17-18 (KJV): "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture
saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
The first quote, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," is from Deuteronomy 25:4 (KJV). The second quote, "The labourer is worthy of his reward," mirrors Jesus' words recorded in Luke 10:7 (KJV): "...for the labourer is worthy of his hire." Given that Paul's letter likely predates the wide circulation of Luke's finished Gospel, Paul is either quoting from an early written form of Luke or, more likely, from the well-established, authoritative oral tradition that Luke later meticulously documented. Either way, Paul treats these words of Jesus, transmitted orally or in early written form, as "Scripture" on par with Deuteronomy.
This aligns with Luke's own stated methodology in the prologue to his Gospel:
Luke 1:1-4 (KJV): "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed
among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
Luke confirms he is carefully compiling accounts based on established traditions delivered by eyewitnesses, indicating a process of preserving authoritative information that predates his own writing.
Defining the Boundaries: Canonical vs. Apocryphal Writings
The existence of other religious writings from the early centuries AD, sometimes called "apocryphal" (from a Greek word suggesting hidden or obscure, now often meaning 'of doubtful authenticity'), raises questions about why they were excluded from the New Testament canon. These include texts like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Philip, and Gospel of Mary.
Several key factors distinguish these from the canonical New Testament books:
- Late Dating: Most of these apocryphal gospels and writings date from the 2nd to 4th centuries AD, significantly later than the apostolic writings of the 1st century. While ancient historical sources are often non-contemporaneous, the canonical Gospels rely on much earlier source material traced back to eyewitnesses.
- Legendary Embellishments & Theological Deviance: Many apocryphal texts contain fantastical elements and theological ideas inconsistent with the core teachings found in the canonical Gospels and Epistles. A notable example is the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter, which depicts Jesus emerging from the tomb as a giant figure reaching the clouds, accompanied by angels, and followed by a walking, talking cross that engages in dialogue. Such legendary accretions stand in stark contrast to the sober, historically grounded accounts of the canonical Gospels, which notably lack any eyewitness description of the moment of resurrection itself, focusing instead on the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances of the resurrected Christ.
- Lack of Apostolic Origin: These texts cannot be reliably traced back to the Apostles or their close associates, unlike the canonical books.
The Old Testament Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals
A separate category often discussed alongside the New Testament canon is the Old Testament Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical books), comprising several texts included in the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments but generally excluded from Protestant Bibles. Key reasons for their exclusion from the Protestant canon include:
- Lack of NT Citation: Neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer quotes these books as authoritative scripture, despite frequent quotations from the recognized Hebrew Bible (the Protestant Old Testament).
- Jewish Non-Canonization: The Jewish authorities contemporary with Jesus and the early church did not recognize these books as part of their inspired canon, though they might have been read for historical or moral value.
- Later Canonization by the Catholic Church: While used to varying degrees throughout church history, these books were officially declared canonical for the Catholic Church relatively late, at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, largely in response to the Protestant Reformation.
While some early Church Fathers quoted from these books, they also quoted from non-canonical New Testament-era apocryphal works. However, the frequency and manner of citation show a clear distinction. Figures like Irenaeus or Origen quoted the accepted New Testament books thousands of times, clearly treating them as authoritative, while quoting apocryphal gospels far less frequently and often with reservations. Manuscript evidence also supports this distinction: the number of surviving ancient copies of canonical New Testament books vastly outweighs those of any apocryphal competitor, indicating far wider use, circulation, and acceptance in the early church.
The Role of Church Councils and Early Lists
While church councils did occur (the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD being a famous example), their primary role regarding the canon was generally one of affirmation rather than selection. Nicaea, for instance, primarily addressed the divinity of Christ in response to the Arian controversy, not the explicit definition of the biblical canon. Councils and prominent church leaders often produced lists of accepted books, but these largely reflected the consensus already established in the churches through widespread use and recognition of the texts' inherent apostolic authority.
The core of the New Testament (around 21-22 books, including the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's main epistles) was firmly established and recognized across the church very early, likely by the end of the 1st or early 2nd century. Early church figures like Origen (early 3rd century) discussed the canon and acknowledged virtually all 27 books, noting some regional discussion about a few. The first known list explicitly naming the 27 books we recognize today comes from Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter Festal Letter of 367 AD. This wasn't a novel declaration but a formal recognition of what had become the overwhelming consensus of the church. Origen's earlier references, acknowledging all 27 books within a sermon context as commonly known scripture, arguably push this widespread recognition back even further, perhaps into the late 2nd or early 3rd century.
Transmission, Preservation, and Contested Books
The process of copying and distributing these texts across the Roman Empire took time and involved normal historical means – manual copying onto papyrus or parchment, transportation, etc. This reality helps explain why a handful of New Testament books (sometimes called the Antilegomena, meaning "spoken against" or disputed) faced slower acceptance in certain regions or occasional questions. These typically included smaller epistles (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, James) and books where authorship was debated (Hebrews) or whose genre was unique (Revelation).
Their slower universal acceptance often stemmed from factors like:
- Limited Initial Circulation: Smaller letters or those addressed to individuals might have circulated less widely at first.
- Less Frequent Use: Books like 3 John were simply cited less often in church teaching.
- Authorship Questions: Anonymous works like Hebrews prompted discussion, though their intrinsic quality and apostolic teaching were recognized.
Crucially, the debates around these few books were vastly different from the church's wholesale rejection of Gnostic or clearly apocryphal writings. The core was never seriously in doubt, and eventually, the apostolic authenticity and coherence of these disputed books with the rest of the recognized canon led to their universal acceptance. The invention of the printing press centuries later, and eventually the photocopier, dramatically increased the accessibility and affordability of these texts, a privilege not enjoyed for most of church history.
Historical Reliability: Early Dating and Manuscript Evidence
From a historical perspective, the New Testament documents stand out for their remarkably early dating compared to other ancient texts. Paul's letters emerge from the 40s and 50s AD, merely 1-2 decades after Jesus' crucifixion (c. 30-33 AD). The Gospels, while written slightly later, rely on source material, both oral and written, dating back even earlier. Scholars identify creedal formulas and hymns embedded within the New Testament (like the resurrection account summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.) that likely originated within months or a few years of the events they describe.
1 Corinthians 15:3 (KJV): "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
(Paul goes on to list the burial, resurrection, and appearances)
This contrasts sharply with sources for figures like Alexander the Great, whose earliest biographies were written centuries after his death, with only a handful of primary source manuscripts existing. The New Testament boasts thousands of Greek manuscripts or fragments, some dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, providing unparalleled evidence for textual reliability and demonstrating the documents' early and widespread acceptance. The consistency across multiple, independent sources (Gospels, Paul, Peter, etc.) further strengthens the historical case.
The history of the New Testament canon is not one of arbitrary selection by late councils centuries removed from the events. Instead, it reveals a process rooted in the inherent authority of writings produced by Christ's apostles or their close associates. These texts were recognized as scripture remarkably early, driven by the understanding of a New Covenant and the self-attesting divine authority within the writings themselves. While oral tradition played a vital role initially, the need for a stable, written record became paramount as eyewitnesses passed away. The core of the canon was established quickly, with only a few smaller or unique books experiencing slower universal acceptance due to historical factors of circulation and use. Church councils and early lists primarily served to affirm the consensus already present in the believing community. The New Testament stands as a collection of books recognized because they were authoritative, not books made authoritative by collection. It remains the most scrutinized, copied, and historically well-attested collection of documents from antiquity.