Some of the most common questions about Christianity concern its sacred and divine text: the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is the most printed book in the history of mankind; it is also the most disputed. Sixty-six books written from the time of Moses all the way through to almost a century after the birth of Jesus Christ. How did this specific collection of writings survive the test of time? Who chose the books that were classified as canonical? Were the scriptures inspired or strategically pieced together to tell a story? Questions rush through the minds of those who seek answers, and sometimes even to those who have already placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Many years have passed since the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and no one has all the answers and details surrounding the complete history of the Holy Bible. However, there are key people, events, and movements throughout history that have influenced the recognition of the canonical books of the New Testament.
The First Call for New Testament Canon
Marcion is one of the most important people who shaped the beliefs, structures, and collection of scriptural writings of the early church. Marcion was a ship owner and merchant, a son of the Bishop of the church of Asia Minor.[1] Marcion proposed that the church reject the Jewish scriptures and embrace a new canon, or rule, of its own. Marcion’s thesis was based on his reading of Paul. Marcion concluded that the Jewish scriptures concerned only the covenant God made with Israel, therefore it was not valid for Christians.[2] Marcion’s proposed canon consisted of one gospel, Luke, and the writing of one apostle, Paul.[3] Even these writings were edited and manipulated by Marcion himself to fit his specific set of beliefs. Marcion believed Luke and Paul’s references to the Jewish God in their writings were corruptions of what had been originally recorded.[4]
When assembling his canon, Marcion “selected a group of texts which he saw as exemplifying his own belief in the disjunction between the evil creator God of the Jewish scriptures, and the previously unknown God revealed through Jesus Christ.”[5] Marcion was the first to propose a specific new canon for the early church, his proposal was considered a radical move to many in his day, but his actions led to the church finally addressing the question of canon. Marcion’s proposal forced a response from the church, it forced the early church to defend the value of adopted Jewish scriptures, and it forced the church to review its scriptural writings and to decide which writings should be regarded as canonical.[6]
The First Canonical Lists
Muratorian Fragment The church, having now to address the questions and concerns surrounding which scriptural writings should be regarded as canonical, began to organize among themselves and debate scriptures. These ongoing debates produced lists (unofficial in these early days) with agreed upon canonical books of divinity. One of the earliest lists found was recorded on the Muratorian Fragment, it is dated close to the end of the second century AD 170-200, and is known as the Muratorian Canon.[7] Though the Muratorian fragment lists several books of the New Testament, specifically the letters of Paul in chronological order, that were eventually acknowledged as inspired and divine, many scholars have doubts about the clarity and authority of the Muratorian Canon. Others question the actual dating of the artifact, the Muratorian fragment, itself and date it later than the next earliest list written by Eusebius.[8]
Regardless of its authority, the Muratorian Canon gives plausible proof for the open debate and discussion by early church bishops of which writings the early church possessed that were divine and inspired and should be considered canonical.
~Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius
The proof of discussion concerning which writings should be considered canonical is evident in the works of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France). In Irenaeus’ works, dated about 185 C.E., twenty-two books were recognized as canonical, however, only twenty of those books would agree with later lists.[9] Early in the next century, Origen of Alexandria produced a list of twenty-two books that he endorsed as canonical.[10] Origen’s list of books was nearly identical to Irenaeus’ list of canonical books. The most complete list of eventual canonical books (even at this point the list is still speculative) was compiled by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his multi-volume history of the church published in 325 C.E.[11] Eusebius’ list is proof that in his time there was an active discussion, and a consensus, concerning at least twenty books that would eventually be included in the writings of the New Testament.
Eusebius divided the writings (books) into three categories: acknowledged, disputed, and rejected.[12] When Eusebius produced his list he used a less strict set of guidelines than was used by Irenaeus more than a century earlier.[13] “Eusebius asks whether writings had been mentioned by earlier generations of church leaders, whether their style comports well with writings known to have been written early in the history of the church, and whether their content is consistent with established orthodoxy. If writings proclaiming to represent the faith do not meet these criteria, he labels them "the forgeries of heretical men."”[14] It is interesting to note, that Eusebius would later be categorized himself as a heretic, even though his endorsement of early church writings that should be considered canonical were consistent with other church bishops.[15]
Eusebius’ role in Constantine’s combining of church and state, along with a few doctrinal compromises made along the way, tarnished this Christian historians’ reputation, even though he had to pioneer a political Christian relationship with the first “Christian” emperor of the Roman Empire.[16] Despite his reputation, Eusebius was accurate when he created his list on canonical books. Marcion was the man who sparked the discussion and forced a response from the church, and it was no more than twenty-five to thirty years after Marcion first proposed his radical canon that Irenaeus had proposed an “orthodox” list of twenty books as being divine, inspired, and canonical.[17]
Irenaeus’ list, dated 185 C.E., may be the most impressive list, as books were later added to the list but never taken off the list. This may not come as surprise considering Irenaeus’ reputation as, “an author for whom Scripture is the primary and motivating factor in his theology.”[18] Nevertheless, God was able to inspire through the Holy Spirit in order to preserve his Word.
One Gospel or Four
It is clear there was discussion and debate among early church bishops concerning which writings the church possessed that should be considered canonical. Every bishop likely had a mental list of personally accepted canon and then a mental list of generally accepted canon that they used for the edification of the saints. However, before the first Bible was assembled, a question that the church faced as it was considering which books were canonical was, are there four gospels or one?
Marcion had proposed a single gospel, Luke, which gave the church the advantage of avoiding any contradictions, discrepancies, or inconsistencies.[19] Furthermore, in 165 C.E. a man in Syria named Tatian produced the Diatessaron, which literally means “one through four,” it was a work that harmonized all the gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.[20] The early church rejected the argument for unity within the gospels and chose to view the four gospels as four testimonies to “one gospel story, one saving message.”[21]
“Irenaeus embellished the point by arguing that just as there are four regions of the world and four directions of the wind, so there are four pillars of the gospel God had given the world. The number four Irenaeus took to be direct evidence of the authenticity of the gospels: the world-wide church could possess neither more nor less than a four-fold gospel.”[22] Early church bishops defended this viewpoint, no doubt being led by the Holy Spirit, in perhaps one of the most important decisions in the history of generally accepted canonical books of the Holy Bible, as the four gospels would become foundational testimonies to the truth of the life and works of Jesus Christ.
The Emergence of the Canonical Books
The earliest list with all twenty-seven canonical books we see in today’s Holy Bible is found in an Easter letter published in 367 C.E. by a man named Athanasius.[23] Athanasius’ list comes 182 years after Irenaeus’ list and 42 years after Eusebius’ list. From the time of Eusebius’ list to Athanasius’ list, the six books that were categorized as “disputed” or “rejected” had made their way, by the will of God, into the “acknowledged” category.[24]
Today, almost two millennia later, there is not much information regarding the discussions, or even debates, that took place between the church bishops and the canonical books. One thing is for sure, heretics and their twisted doctrines tried their best to distort the Word of God. Early church bishops had to go on the defense, no doubt led by the Holy Spirit, to defend the truth and expose the false doctrines. How and when did the church officially decide on the twenty-seven canonical books? “The Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. did not address the question, and neither Eusebius or Athanasius nor any other writer from the period tells us how this came about.”[25]
It is accepted by some as a plausible explanation that in the year 331 C.E. the Emperor Constantine sent a letter, which has survived, to Eusebius asking for the production of fifty bibles for use in the churches of the new capital of the empire, Constantinople.[26] “Eusebius knew that Constantine was concerned about the unity of the church and the unity of the state. Eusebius also knew that these new bibles prepared for the capital city would play an important role in the unity of the church. The inclusiveness of Athanasius' list has the look of political accommodation. It resolves the disagreement about the canonical status of Hebrews and Revelation by including both. It therefore seems plausible to conjecture that the addition of the last six books to the canonical list was not the result of historical or theological argument, but was prompted by the needs of the state.”[27]
It may have been Constantine’s deadline for the fifty Bibles and the push for unity in the church and in the empire that led to the publishing of the twenty-seven canonical books. Their publication was an evidence of the unity of the church, and, the empire.[28] The scriptures tell us in 2 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”[29] The scriptures were divinely inspired by God himself. The scriptures also tell us in Psalms 12: 6-7, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”[30]
God preserves his Word for us, and the evidence is found between the lines of history and within the Spirit-filled bishops who fought off heretical teachings and doctrines that tried to work their way into the Holy Bible. Evidence shows there were key people, events, and movements throughout history that have influenced the recognition of the canonical books of the New Testament. God was able to work through these key people, events, and movements to preserve His word from generation to generation. Praise be to God!
Bibliography
Briggman, Anthony. "Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen". Vigiliae Christianae 65, no. 2 (2011): 115-124.
Foster, P. "Marcion: His Life, Works, Beliefs, And Impact". The Expository Times 121, no. 6 (2010): 269-280, http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0014524609357509
Gutzman, K. R. Constantine. ""Church History" Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and His "Life of Constantine": A Heretic's Legacy." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, no. 3 (Fall, 1997): 351-358, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1518331712?accountid=12085.
Holy Bible: King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1989.
Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). Accessed June 3, 2017. https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-the-canon-was-formed/.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. "The Maturation Fragment: The State of Research.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 2 (06, 2014): 231-264, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1545898853?accountid=12085.
[1] P. Foster, "Marcion: His Life, Works, Beliefs, And Impact", The Expository Times 121, no. 6 (2010): 269.
[2] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). [3] Ibid.
[4] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992).
[5] P. Foster, "Marcion: His Life, Works, Beliefs, And Impact", The Expository Times 121, no. 6 (2010): 273.
[6] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992).
[7] Schnabel, Eckhard J. "The Maturation Fragment: The State of Research.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 2 (06, 2014): 231-264.
[8] Schnabel, Eckhard J. "The Maturation Fragment: The State of Research.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 2 (06, 2014): 231-264.
[9] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid.
[12] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992).
[13] Gutzman, K. R. Constantine. ""Church History" Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and His "Life of Constantine": A Heretic's Legacy." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, no. 3 (Fall, 1997): 351-358
[14]Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992).
[15] Gutzman, K. R. Constantine. ""Church History" Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and His "Life of Constantine": A Heretic's Legacy." The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, no. 3 (Fall, 1997): 351-358 [16] Ibid.
[17] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992).
[18] Briggman, Anthony. "Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen". Vigiliae Christianae 65, no. 2 (2011): 115.
[19] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid.
[23] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). [24] Ibid. [25] ibid. [26] Ibid.
[27] Hoover, Roy. "How The Canon Was Formed". The Fourth R 5, no. 1 (1992). [28] Ibid.
[29] Holy Bible: King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1989. [30] Ibid.