Blog

See part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Thus far, in our efforts to understand the origins, development, and trustworthiness of the New Testament canon,[1] we have examined two key premises that refute the notion that Christians did not have a concept of the New Testament canon until the fourth century. In Article 2, we considered how the canonicity of the New Testament writings is proven by garnering a proper understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty over created reality, in supplementation to apprehending the interconnectedness between the New Testament canon and the redemptive-historical inauguration of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15). As such, we concluded that early Christians familiar with these realities would have likewise been very familiar with the concept of the New Testament canon. These convictions were further substantiated throughout Article 3, as we reflected on three evidences that demonstrate how first century Christians had a working knowledge of the authority of apostolic writings—and by direct extension—the concept of canon. But what about the 200-300 years after the first century? Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that Christians living during that period maintained a definitive awareness of the concept of a New Testament canon? Was anything “lost” in the generations immediately after the apostolic era of church history? It is these concerns that we will address throughout the remainder of this article, in keeping with the third premise articulated in this series’ overarching thesis.

As decreed from eternity past, the canonicity of the New Testament writings was… progressively received by the universal church over the second, third and fourth centuries.

One of the necessary byproducts of the absolute sovereignty of God is that He will always accomplish His purposes in the created order, for the eternal good of His people, and for His supreme glory (Isa. 46:8-13; Rom. 8:28). In the Bible, God has made it clear that one of His central desires is for His Word to be preserved throughout every period of redemptive history (Matt. 5:18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).[2] Consequently, because God has promised to sovereignly preserve His Word and has routinely proven Himself faithful in doing so, God likewise desires for His people to be diligent to know and share His Word with others (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:24-25). A cursory investigation into the example modeled by the earliest Christians illustrates how committed they were to ensure that God’s Word was readily available for distribution throughout the known world (Col. 4:13-17; 1 Thess. 5:27). In his article, Apologetics: How the New Testament Epistles Were Written, Timothy Paul Jones describes the manner whereby first century Christians made every effort to spread the New Testament writings as they were being developed.

Once a [New Testament] letter was finished, a trustworthy messenger carried the scroll to a local church and probably read the contents in a public assembly. Messengers    mentioned by name in the New Testament include Phoebe, Epaphroditus, and Tychicus    (Romans 16:1-2; Ephesians 6:21-22; Philippians 2:25; Colossians 4:7-9). Once a letter reached a church, it might be copied and shared with other churches (Colossians 4:16).    That’s how first-century churches began to gather and to preserve the epistles that we find in the New Testament today.[3]

As previously detailed in this series, the first-century church recognized the authoritative nature of the New Testament writings that were being produced under the authority of Christ’s apostles. This biblically derived observation indicates that the concept of a New Testament canon was functional during the first century and was operating in perfect accordance with God’s eternal purposes to create, copy, preserve, and share His New Covenant Word in every corner of the earth. It’s also evident from the testimony of the second, third and fourth centuries that Christians remained committed to making copies of the New Testament writings and taking those copies to churches that were being planted in various parts of the ancient world.[4] By recognizing the self-attesting and self-authenticating nature of the New Testament writings, in supplementation to their apostolic origins, the early church believed that the New Testament writings were qualitatively equivalent to the Old Testament writings.[5] Indeed, upon turning our attention to pertinent historical evidence, we find how overwhelmingly well-received the New Testament canon was by second, third, and fourth-century Christians.[6] For the purposes of this article, we will peruse just one relevant piece of evidence from the second, third, and fourth centuries, respectively.

Evidence For the Concept of a New Testament Canon During the Second Century AD–

The Muratorian Fragment is the earliest list of books that Christians deemed authoritative in the early church.[7] Although the dating of the Muratorian Fragment is disputed amongst scholars, it is widely held that its dating of authorship is near the end of the second century.[8] This document explicitly lists twenty-two of our twenty-seven New Testament books, although some scholars wonder if there may be 23 books referenced based on the way that the fragment structures its references to the literary corpus produced by John.[9] Although there are also two apocryphal (non-canonical) books included in the Muratorian Fragment, this observation does not affect the relevance of this line of evidence.[10] Our chief purpose in consulting the Muratorian Fragment is to simply emphasize the reality that the concept of canon was present in Christianity prior to the fourth century.[11] Although the details of canon were not universally solidified until later, the Muratorian Fragment showcases that the concept of canon was indeed present during the first and second centuries of church history.

Evidence For the Concept of a New Testament Canon During the Third Century AD–

Although he certainly espoused several disturbing theological aberrations during his lifetime, one of the strongest evidences for the concept of a New Testament canon during the third century comes from Origen (185-284).[12] Around 250, Origen produced a list of New Testament writings that he claimed were “undisputed” by third-century Christians.[13] According to Origen, only Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 2-3 John were subject to debate by the church in his day.[14] That is to say, per the testimony of Origen, some Christians affirmed the canonicity of those disputed writings, whereas others believed them to be canonical by the mid-third century.[15] As we noted with the Muratorian Fragment, despite the intramural conversations that were taking place during the second and third centuries, it is apparent that Christians had a definitive sense of the concept of a New Testament canon during this period of church history.

Evidence For the Concept of a New Testament Canon During the Fourth Century AD–

By way of drawing this article to a conclusion, we must briefly mention how the concept of a New Testament canon was understood by the church in the fourth century. In AD 367, we have the first appearance of a list of New Testament writings that corresponds exactly with the New Testament canon as it is known today.[16] This canonical list is documented in Athanasius’s Thirty-ninth (Easter) Letter, and this record of New Testament writings was officially endorsed by the universal church at two fourth-century councils: the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Third Council of Carthage (397 AD).[17] In God’s providence, between the middle of the third century and the middle of the fourth century, the church came to recognize the 27 book New Testament canon that He had decreed for Christians to embrace from eternity past. And by God’s grace, the church has cherished these precious writings—along with the Old Testament—as the ultimate authority for Christian theology, piety, and practice over the past two millennia (2 Thess. 2:15).

---

[1]           For a review of the definition of “canon” that will be employed throughout this series, see Footnote 4 in the first article.

[2]           For an explanation of the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, refer to Footnote 7 of Article 3.

[3]           The full article published by Timothy Paul Jones can be accessed here- https://www.timothypauljones.com/new-testament-epistles-were-written/#_ftn4.

[4]           In chapters seven and eight of Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson, eds., Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), the reader is introduced to a realistic picture of how the discipline of copying biblical manuscripts transpired prior to the fourth century AD. While it is outside of the scope of this series to get into the weeds of how this process transpired, it is nonetheless clear that early Christians (1) recognized the value and importance of accurately copying and preserving the New Testament writings for the continual edification of the church; (2) recognized the intrinsic authority embedded within the New Testament writings, which ultimately motivated them to allocate such care to the copying and preservation of those writings. If there was no concept of a New Testament canon prior to the fourth century, then why would there be such meticulous efforts delegated towards preserving these writings? While it is certainly true that there were other non-canonical writings that were valued—and by extension, copied and preserved—by the early church, the volume of attention directed to the New Testament writings vastly overshadows any other literature that was prevalent during the second-fourth centuries AD.

[5]           Michael J. Kruger is helpful in expounding the self-attesting and self-authenticating character of the New Testament writings in Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), Pages 125-133.

[6]           F.F. Bruce utilizes several chapters to survey the historical reception of the New Testament writings by the second, third and fourth-century church in The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1988). See chapters 8, 12-17 for a considerable amount of historical details regarding how the New Testament writings were progressively received by the church during this period of redemptive history. Some of the data cited by Bruce is referenced within this article. 

[7]           Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Page 158.  

[8]           In The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), Michael J. Kruger dates the Muratorian Fragment at ca. 180 AD. Conversely, in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, John D. Meade does not take a firm stance on the dating of the Muratorian Fragment. Instead, Meade concedes the prevalence of ongoing debates amongst scholars on the dating of the Muratorian Fragment, and in doing so, lists that its dating of authorship is either “second, third, or fourth century AD” (Page 255).

[9]           The following New Testament writings are explicitly referenced in the Muratorian Fragment- Each of the four Gospels; Acts; the thirteen epistles of Paul; Jude; 1 and 2 John; Revelation. As noted above, some scholars also wonder if there is a reference to 3 John included within the fragment based on the way that it structures the references to the literary corpus produced by John. For more on this thought, see Peter Katz, “The Johannine Epistles in the Muratorian Canon,” JTS 8 (1957): 273-274. The explicitly missing New Testament books from the Muratorian Fragment are Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter.

[10]         The two apocryphal, non-canonical books that are included in the Muratorian Fragment are Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.

[11]         Michael J. Kruger further elaborates on why the strengths of the Muratorian Fragment far outweigh the weaknesses when it comes to proving that the concept of a New Testament canon was present in the thinking of Christians prior to the fourth century AD- “The question… is whether Christians possessed a corpus of written Scriptures prior to the end of the second century, not whether there was complete unity about which books. We should not use lack of agreement over the edges of the canon as evidence for the lack of the existence of a canon,” The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Page 163).

[12]         Having been heavily influenced by Platonism and other aspects of Greek philosophy, Origen affirmed heretical doctrines such as the pre-existence of the soul and universalism. Origen would eventually go on to be branded as a heretic by a church council in Alexandria (400 AD) and the Synod of Constantinople (543 AD). For more on the heretical teachings of Origen, see Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Zondervan, 2011), Pages 704-705.

[13]         Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Page 192.

[14]         Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Page 43.

[15]         According to Gregory Allison in Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Page 43, it is possible that Origen affirmed the canonicity of 2 Peter despite it being in his list of “disputed writings.” Conversely, scholars also recognize that Origen mentioned there being some ambiguity by churches in the third century as to whether Jude was canonical (despite Jude being referenced in Origen’s list of canonical writings).

[16]         Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Page 45.

[17]         Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Page 46.