Session 3 – Why the Books we have Pt.2
In this third session we will look at how we
got our New Testament
We will look at what New Testament books
were “debated” in the early church
And we will look at many of the books that
people will bring up today, but were never
considered in the Early Church
New Testament
Historical Books - 5 books
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts
Pauline Epistles - 13 books
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy,
Titus, Philemon
Non-Pauline Epistles - 9 books
Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation
Why are these the books that we have in
our New Testament?
Many people think the New Testament
writings were agreed upon at the Council of
Nicea. There were 20 canons (church rules)
voted on at Nicea - none dealt with
sacred writings.
It’s important to remember the idea of a
Canon pre-dates the New Testament, the
writers of the New Testament and the early
church who followed understood what the
Old Testament Canon was
Marcion (Beginning of 2nd
Century) Produced the first
“Canon” of New Testament
books (The OT Canon
obviously was complete)
Marcion included Paul’s writings as well as
Luke’s gospel (most of it)
This caused a reaction in the church that said
they needed to recognize what is scripture
and what isn’t
What was the process?
The Gospels were collected by A.D. 170 and
recognized as the four inspired gospels
It was important for these gospels to be
recognized with what the Gnostics were doing
They would pick one gospel and say it alone
has the truth (many of the Gnostic gospels)
Having four gospels agreeing was important
to the Early Church to combat the
Gnostic ideas
Early Confirmation of Gospel
The four gospels are confirmed by Irenaeus
of Lyons in Against the Heresies (cir. 175),
“From this it is clear that the Word, the
artificer of all things, being manifested to
men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but
held together by one Spirit.” A.H. III,11.8
The order of the books being laid out as
Gospels, then Epistles etc. came about
very early on
We often find
collections of writings
either Gospels, or
Pauline writings,
or others
“Collections” of books started early on
The first time we have a definitive list of the
27 books of the New Testament is with
Athanasius (born ~293 CE, -- died 373 CE)
A clear acknowledgment of the NT canon of
27 books appears in the 39th Festal Letter of
Athanasius. (He lists them all)
How did the early church recognize what
was inspired by God?
Apostolicity was the most important factors
that they considered for inspired books
They either had to be written by an
apostle, or by someone under the
guidance for an apostle
Many of the Gnostic gospels were forgeries
(falsely said to be written by an apostle)
because that was a definite requirement
Like with the Old Testament, the individuals
relationship to God (or Jesus in the NT case)
will have the most weight in this discussion
on the Canon
But that’s not all, other things were also
considered when looking at books
Are the books orthodox? Meaning do the
doctrines and sayings agree with known
scripture (including the OT)?
Do they have the properties of inerrancy? Do
they contradict each other? Do they have
facts (like historical) that are wrong?
Do they provide spiritual nourishment and
growth? Are they useful to the church
in that sense?
We believe that the early church was guided
by the Holy Spirit to recognize the books
which God had inspired
2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness,”
The Church does not decide what is scripture
(inspired by God) God does, the Church has
the job to recognize what God has done
There were books that were disputed
among some early Christians
James
Jude
2nd Peter
2nd, 3rd John
Hebrews
Revelation
Shepherd of Hermas
1 Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
The Muratorian canon is a
manuscript fragment that
represents the oldest
(incomplete) orthodox list
(or canon) of the NT
The document is dated by most scholars to
have been written around 170-200 AD. This
document was discovered in an Italian
library by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, a
famous historian of the time.
What books does it list?
- Matthew and Mark (we assume these were
named in the beginning of the fragment which
is missing - the writer mentions "four gospels")
- Luke and John
- Acts
- all 13 Pauline letters
- 1 and 2 John is assumed since the writer only
names two letters of John
- Jude
- the Revelation of John
This listing omits Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and
3 John. It also names a few documents that
do NOT appear in the orthodox NT.
Y = Scripture
N = Disputed
M = Could be
seen as
scripture
S = Not
mentioned
(implied
rejection)
X = Rejected
Even earlier on thought the Church Father’s
used the NT books as their authority
Within the first 50 years after the apostles
there were several writers who made
frequent appeal to the authority of what we
now know as the New Testament books.
Clement of Rome, in his Epistles to the
Corinthians (A.D. 95) makes reference to
Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1
Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians.
The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and
Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New
Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100165) made extensive appeal to the four
Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation.
Irenaeus mentions Paul's epistles over 200
times in his writings
A council was not required for these
Father’s to understand what was
inspired / authoritative
By the time we come to the end of the
second century and look at the citations
of Clement of Alexandria (writings cir. 195202) and Tertullian (writings cir. 205-225) we
find hundreds of references from almost
every NT document.
By the end of the second century most of the
27 documents in the orthodox New
Testament canon had already gained
widespread acceptance, especially the four
gospels and the Pauline writings.
An explosion of Christian literature comes in
the fourth century with Lactantius, Eusebius
of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and
the Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom,
Jerome, Rufinus, and the great Augustine of
Hippo (his Confessions was written in 396-97
AD). All of these writers illustrate how the
New Testament had become settled with
thousands of citations from the 27 "inspired"
writings and fewer citations outside that list.
Remember, God’s people (By his leading) had
already formed a canonical group of writings
called the Old Testament
It did not require the Church to decide what
would be in the OT for the OT to be formed
What were some of those other books trying
to make it into the Canon? And why were the
rejected in the end?
The “Orthodox” Competitors
Shepherd of Hermas
1 Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
These books were used by some church
fathers, although the great majority rejected
them as being inspired in the same way as
the other 27 books
Origin (around 250) adds Shepherd and 1
Clement to his Canon (but the next
generation get’s rid of them again)
The Shepherd of Hermas
This “book” is considerably long compared
to other NT books
It was probably written
over a period of the earlymid second century (some
think it may have been
written over many years)
The message of the book is focused heavily
on Christian living
Why didn’t it make the Canon in the end?
Some bring up bad doctrine contained in the
Shepherd of Hermas
The Holy Spirit identified as the Son of God,
Baptism for the dead, Baptism being
required for salvation, etc.
The main reason (as usual) is going to be the
lack of Apostolic authority for the text. It was
not written or overseen by an apostle
1 Clement
This is one of the earliest (if not the earliest)
non New Testament early church writing
The primary reason for not being considered
inspired will be the same, even if He had
contact with an Apostle, there is no evidence
it was written under the guidance of one, or
that Clement of Rome was a follower
(disciple) of Jesus or witness of the
resurrected Christ
One error some point out
1 Clem. 25:2 There is a bird, which is named
the phoenix. This, being the only one of its
kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when
it hath now reached the time of its
dissolution that it should die, it maketh for
itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and
the other spices, into the which in the
fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
Epistle of Barnabas
There is a huge difference between the
Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of
Barnabas (which was never in the running)
The main problem with the Epistle of
Barnabas is it wasn’t actually written by the
Barnabas talked about in the NT
If it was this might be a little trickier to
figure out, but the evidence is fairly strong
against him being the author
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that a
reference in the Epistle of Barnabas (in
chapter 4, verse 4) pertains to a command
given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the
reconstruction, in honor of Jupiter, of the
Temple at Jerusalem, which had been
destroyed by Titus.
The epistle must, consequently, have been
written in A.D. 130-131–long after the times
of the apostles
Doctrinal Errors
The Epistle of Barnabas alleges that the
dietary laws of the OT never were meant to
be taken literally and that they were never
binding, in their literal application, on anyone
(including the Jews)
The Epistle of Barnabas alleges that the
Seventh-Day Sabbath has been replaced by
the “eight day” Sunday, on which
“Jesus rose from the dead.”
The Gnostic Gospels
Some people today are looking at the newly
discovered Gnostic gospels and asking why
they are not part of scripture
They are often associated with apostles in
order to gain acceptance, but they were
written after the apostles (chronology didn’t
line up) and they were rejected by the early
church for that, and other reasons.
Understanding Gnosticism
Originally many skeptics said the church
fathers were exaggerating the Gnostic beliefs
Until the Nag Hammadi discovery
The Nag Hammadi
Library, a collection of
thirteen ancient codices
containing over fifty
texts, was discovered in
upper Egypt in 1945.
This discovery includes
a large number of
primary "Gnostic
Gospels" -- texts once
thought to have been
entirely destroyed.
Scriptures such as the
Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, and
the Gospel of Truth
were discovered.
They have a very
“New Age” feel
to them
Contents were one of the main reason for
their rejection
Some things within these (now called)
Gnostic gospels were just pure bizarre
Gospel of Thomas
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which the
man shall eat, and the lion become man;
and cursed is the man whom the lion shall
eat, and the lion become man.“ Thomas 7
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two
one, and when you make the inside as the
outside, and the outside as the inside, and
the upper side as the lower; and when you
make the male and the female into a single
one, that the male be not male and the
female female; when you make eyes in the
place of an eye, and a hand in place of a
hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image
in place of an image, then shall you enter
[the kingdom]." Thomas 22
More from Thomas
Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go
forth from among us, for women are not
worthy of the life." Jesus said: "Behold, I
shall lead her, that I may make her male, in
order that she also may become a living
spirit like you males. For every woman who
makes herself male shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven." Thomas 114
The Gospel of Philip
“Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did
not appear as he was, but in the manner in
which they would be able to see him. He
appeared to them all. He appeared to the
great as great. He appeared to the small as
small. He appeared to the angels as an
angel, and to men as a man. Because of this,
his word hid itself from everyone…”
…Some indeed saw him, thinking that they
were seeing themselves, but when he
appeared to his disciples in glory on the
mount, he was not small. He became great,
but he made the disciples great, that they
might be able to see him in his greatness.”
57,28 - 58,10
The next huge problem they had was the
dating of the Gospels put them in the
second century or later, showing they
couldn’t have Apostolicity
Creeds were important to the early church
We have several examples of “Creed” type
writing in the New Testament
1 Corinthians 15:1-7: “Moreover,
brethren, I declare to you the gospel
which I preached to you, which also you
received and in which you stand, 2 by
which also you are saved, if you hold fast
that word which I preached to you—
unless you believed in vain…
”For
I delivered to you first of all that which
I also received: that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He
was buried, and that He rose again the third
day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that
He was seen by Cephas, then by the
twelve.6 After that He was seen by over five
hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part remain to the present, but
some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was
seen by James, then by all the apostles.”
The Apostles Creed (below) is very close to
the Nicene Creed (which is less famous)
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten
Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was
crucified, dead and buried: He descended
into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the
right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the
communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
The final indicator of which books were
considered inspired (and important) to the
early church has to do with the number of
manuscripts we find of those books
The 27 books of the NT were avidly copied
by the early church, while these other
writings were not! We lost many of those
other writings until the past couple hundred
years when they were re-discovered
The copied what was most important
Memory Verse
Romans 15:4: “For whatever was written in
former days was written for our instruction,
that through endurance and through the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might
have hope.”