Hello Justin, I trust you are well. My father, George Grace, asked me to try and give you some direction concerning some questions you had pertaining to the canon of the Bible and I am delighted to help. The questions you raise are wonderfully difficult questions, ones that have interested me for some time now. I appreciate the opportunity to interact here since it is good for me to think through this a bit myself and put this into writing in a concise fashion. At least I will try. My father tells me you are British? I have always wanted to visit Great Britain, maybe because somehow I feel a sense of origin there given my Scotch-Irish heritage.
If I may, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Scott Grace. I am Pastor Grace’s youngest son. I am currently 28 years old and live in Dallas, Texas. Some exciting news though is that after a long time away from home at school I am planning on moving back to Rochester, NY in the middle of this coming May. I have been away for almost 9 years now. I graduated from college in 2004 and just graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in May, 2008 with a Masters of Theology. I am hoping to begin teaching at Northstar Christian Academy, the same high school from which I graduated, this coming fall.
Since you asked where you may go to find information first let me start off by saying that there are some very helpful books that could walk with you through your questions in a detailed and accurate way, in a way that I cannot simply because of my lack of insight. My understanding and knowledge of the issues related to the canon of the Christian Scriptures is limited to a couple Historical Theology classes I took in Seminary, and even then, we only touched on the issue. Thankfully, there are a few books I would recommend if you were interested in more detailed research and explanation. F.F. Bruce, a British evangelical scholar who taught at several Universities in Britain including the University of Edinburgh, Leeds, and Sheffield, has written heavily on the topic and would be a great place to start. I would suggest a couple of his books. The Canon of Scripture, and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Bruce Metzger, an American scholar has written a book called The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. This book may be a little more detailed. A well-done layman’s guide to the issues may found in a book called The Origin of the Bible by F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, C.F.H. Henry, and Philip Comfort. Also, J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines will be very informative. Any one of these resources will be able to help you in greater depth and detail than I could in a brief email. I have only completely read J.N.D. Kelly’s work, but because I have interacted with every one of theses authors in various other areas of study I can soundly recommend their work. Any one of those places would be a great place to jump in. I am sure you will find their work informative, accurate, and helpful. Of course their bias will be toward maintaining a high-view of the Scriptures since they are believers themselves. However, though they are predisposed to a certain view, they will not ignore opposing views, but rather will engage them.
You raise what I believe are very natural questions about the canon of the Christian Scriptures. Even as a child I wondered how books were included in the Bible. It was not until later on that I wondered why other books were not included, such as the Apocrypha.
First, let me start off by saying that there has been very little question/debate in the Christian Church as to what should and should not be included in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Old Testament was at one time the only “Bible” Christians had, in fact, the Hebrew Scriptures was the Bible for the early church. Following in the footsteps of the Apostles and Christ the early church fathers assumed the divine authorship of the Hebrews Scriptures. The Christian Church simply adopted Old Testament without taking issue. Some even took it to an extreme stating the Old Testament was written for the Church. The Christian Church as you know was born out of Judaism and simply saw Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Judaic system, the promised Messiah. Christ had come, fulfilled the Law and had brought salvation to all peoples. Nonetheless, since Christ regarded the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law, Writings, and Prophets) as authoritative, so also did the Church. There is, then, very little discussion as to what should comprise 2/3 of the canon of the Bible. The development of the New Testament or Christian Scriptures, the other 1/3, is a bit more involved and debated, as it seems you understand.
As to how the canon of the New Testament developed modern popular critical theory is, in my opinion reductionist. Modern critical theory simply suggests that orthodoxy and canonicity was not so much a matter of right belief and divine revelation, but a matter of one group dominating the other primarily because of political size and influence. Essentially, the little guys lost and the big guys won. In a sense, modern critical theory suggests that there are “lost Christianities” in the texts that were excluded because they had very little political “power.” However, it is demonstrable that there was wide range agreement on what New Testament books were authoritative from a very early stage, though it is not certain that they were viewed with the same authority as the divinely inspired Old Testament books. It can be demonstrated that there is a sense of “new authoritative books” held even in the late 1st century. 2 Peter 3:15-16 seems to suggest this. That the early church was not highly organized and developed is certainly true in the sense that they were primitive like every human organization that has a humble beginning. Communication limited them in regards to unification at points. They didn’t have email, global networks, computers, etc. They were limited to very expensive books and relying on literate individuals to copy and read the letters and faithful teachers to teach them. Communication was slow, but to say that the big guys beat out the little guys in the race for canon and orthodoxy is overstating the case, I believe.
Many of the authoritative books were intended to be circular letters; that is, they were to be read in the churches in various regions (Romans, Galatians, or James are a case in point). The church received them, recognized their apostolicity, and as a result their authority. As the Christian canon began to expand beyond the Old Testament the primary criterion or test for canonicity in the early church was the writing’s apostolicity. Christ promised that he would, by the Spirit, guide the Apostles into “all truth” (John 16:13). And with this apostolicity was included a tradition, or a rule of faith, as expressed in what is known as the Apostle’s Creed; the earliest known creedal formula. It is true, there is no formally solidified New Testament canon in the early church before the 4th century, (in fact the Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox canons - each being different were not completely finalized until the 16th century during the time of the Reformation) though there certainly was a view of authoritative New Testament books during the earliest centuries of Christianity. Many of the Apostolic Fathers (prior to the 4th century) allude to several of the New Testament books in their sermons and letters as being authoritative, if not divinely inspired.
The early church counted on the apostolic tradition as the guide of orthodoxy and finally canonicity. The idea of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession was very important in the early church. By the 4th century, around the time when the formation of the canon was a heavy issue in the church, the authority of the bishop rested not so much upon his position as a bishop, but rather upon his succession, or being in line with the Apostles. Take for instance, the early church father Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Irenaeus is a very important church father in the fight for orthodoxy in his famed work Against Heresies, a book exposing the heretical teaching of Gnosticism.
The question of authority had to be raised. The reason for this was the presence of false teachers and those who would earn the title “heretic” given their heterodox teachings. The Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas fall into this category. The church did not ultimately recognize these books as authoritative because they did not fall in line with the rule of faith established in the teachings of the Apostles and thus they were rejected. Not only were false teachers present but it was also very common in that time for writings to be forgeries or falsities; books written in the name of another person were common. There were also people like the second century man named Montanus who claimed to speak as God directly through the Spirit. He was a fringe prophet and did not have the authority of the Apostles on his side and thus was rejected. The texts and teachers had to be tested for validity since the church faced so many different obstacles to the truth. Very early in the church there is a sense of gravity towards what is read and what is not read as authoritative. Bishops, whose jobs were not only to teach, but also to protect truth, were very interested in what should and what should not be publically read in the churches. Books that were agreed upon as to be genuine authoritative were to be read in the churches. Some books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, were considered helpful but were not recognized as authoritative and did not earn the designation of “to be read in the church,” rather they were delegated to the use of personal edification, much like inspirational Christian literature today. Writings that were determined to be forgeries, heretical, or unorthodox were labeled so and were “not to be read” in the churches because they were not authoritative.
So you ask in your email, Why were Paul’s books and James’ books included and not others? I am not sure what “others” you have in mind, but it seems that the church, following the teachings of the bishops, Apostles, and Christ did not recognize them as authoritative and thus not inspired. Some books were recognized as helpful, but not authoritative; others were recognized as down right heretical because their teaching was contrary to that of the Apostle’s and ultimately Christ - Christ being the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
In summary, the succession of apostolic authority was important in the early days of Christianity. The prophets of the Old Testament foretold of Christ and the apostles recorded Christ’s teachings. The Apostles then passed the tradition to faithful men (2 Timothy 2:1-2). The line of canonicity of New Testament books develops out of the Apostles and was recognized by the Church as authoritative because of its adherence to the rule of faith and its apostolicity and ultimately to the divine oversight of the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth. Did the teaching or the text come from one whom had been taught by Christ? If not, did the teaching or the text fall in line with the apostolic tradition found in the rule of faith set forth by the Apostles? These questions were tests of authority, and ultimately canonicity. Though the early church does not have a formalized canon, there is a sense of authority placed upon many of the New Testament books by the mid-2nd century and definitely by the 4th century. The first official document that prescribes the 27 books (excluding Revelation) of our New Testament as alone canonical is Athanasius’s Easter Letter written in the year 367 A.D., but the process was not everywhere complete until at least a century and a half later.
Your other question regarding the Apocrypha is of a similar nature. The Apocrypha is not given canonical status in the Roman Catholic Church until the 16th century at the Council of Trent, I believe. Much of the difficulty regarding the Apocryphal works has to do with St. Jerome who appended a list of books to the end of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate being the preferred Roman Catholic “version” of the Bible. Jerome added them because, it seems, he thought them helpful for the use of edification, but not necessarily for the formulation of doctrine. The sixty-six books of the accepted Christian canon were intact in the Latin Vulgate, but then there appeared an appendices. Jerome, it is believed, did not include the appendices because he thought them inspired and authoritative, but because they were helpful works written between the period of time of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Apocryphal works are pre-apostolic works and for that the Protestant church does not accept the Apocrypha as part of the Christian canon because it falls between the period of time when the Old Testament Canon closed and when the Christian New Testament canon opened. The early church fathers recognized the Apocryphal literature as helpful, but never authoritative as they did the 27 books of the New Testament.
Your last question regarding the harmony of the Gospels is indeed another lengthy one. Suffice it to say, there are a number of helpful books dealing with the difficulties there. I believe part 4 of Bishop N.T. Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God would have much to say on the issues at hand. I will have to look into the issues further before I could honestly provide you with some helpful information. I would read 1 Corinthians 15 as a opening to the issue. If Christ is not raised then, Paul says, we are of all men to be pitied, and are still in our sins. A most unfortunate situation, so surely if Christ is not raised from the dead as Christ said he would, then we Christians believe something very futile.
I hope I have been able to help you with some of the questions, and if not, I know the books I have suggested will answer your questions in a much clearer and detailed fashion. Thank you for the opportunity to work through this myself a bit. If you have additional questions I would be happy to help point you in a direction that I believe is in line with Christian teaching and belief.
All my best,
If I may, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Scott Grace. I am Pastor Grace’s youngest son. I am currently 28 years old and live in Dallas, Texas. Some exciting news though is that after a long time away from home at school I am planning on moving back to Rochester, NY in the middle of this coming May. I have been away for almost 9 years now. I graduated from college in 2004 and just graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in May, 2008 with a Masters of Theology. I am hoping to begin teaching at Northstar Christian Academy, the same high school from which I graduated, this coming fall.
Since you asked where you may go to find information first let me start off by saying that there are some very helpful books that could walk with you through your questions in a detailed and accurate way, in a way that I cannot simply because of my lack of insight. My understanding and knowledge of the issues related to the canon of the Christian Scriptures is limited to a couple Historical Theology classes I took in Seminary, and even then, we only touched on the issue. Thankfully, there are a few books I would recommend if you were interested in more detailed research and explanation. F.F. Bruce, a British evangelical scholar who taught at several Universities in Britain including the University of Edinburgh, Leeds, and Sheffield, has written heavily on the topic and would be a great place to start. I would suggest a couple of his books. The Canon of Scripture, and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Bruce Metzger, an American scholar has written a book called The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. This book may be a little more detailed. A well-done layman’s guide to the issues may found in a book called The Origin of the Bible by F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, C.F.H. Henry, and Philip Comfort. Also, J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines will be very informative. Any one of these resources will be able to help you in greater depth and detail than I could in a brief email. I have only completely read J.N.D. Kelly’s work, but because I have interacted with every one of theses authors in various other areas of study I can soundly recommend their work. Any one of those places would be a great place to jump in. I am sure you will find their work informative, accurate, and helpful. Of course their bias will be toward maintaining a high-view of the Scriptures since they are believers themselves. However, though they are predisposed to a certain view, they will not ignore opposing views, but rather will engage them.
You raise what I believe are very natural questions about the canon of the Christian Scriptures. Even as a child I wondered how books were included in the Bible. It was not until later on that I wondered why other books were not included, such as the Apocrypha.
First, let me start off by saying that there has been very little question/debate in the Christian Church as to what should and should not be included in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Old Testament was at one time the only “Bible” Christians had, in fact, the Hebrew Scriptures was the Bible for the early church. Following in the footsteps of the Apostles and Christ the early church fathers assumed the divine authorship of the Hebrews Scriptures. The Christian Church simply adopted Old Testament without taking issue. Some even took it to an extreme stating the Old Testament was written for the Church. The Christian Church as you know was born out of Judaism and simply saw Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Judaic system, the promised Messiah. Christ had come, fulfilled the Law and had brought salvation to all peoples. Nonetheless, since Christ regarded the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law, Writings, and Prophets) as authoritative, so also did the Church. There is, then, very little discussion as to what should comprise 2/3 of the canon of the Bible. The development of the New Testament or Christian Scriptures, the other 1/3, is a bit more involved and debated, as it seems you understand.
As to how the canon of the New Testament developed modern popular critical theory is, in my opinion reductionist. Modern critical theory simply suggests that orthodoxy and canonicity was not so much a matter of right belief and divine revelation, but a matter of one group dominating the other primarily because of political size and influence. Essentially, the little guys lost and the big guys won. In a sense, modern critical theory suggests that there are “lost Christianities” in the texts that were excluded because they had very little political “power.” However, it is demonstrable that there was wide range agreement on what New Testament books were authoritative from a very early stage, though it is not certain that they were viewed with the same authority as the divinely inspired Old Testament books. It can be demonstrated that there is a sense of “new authoritative books” held even in the late 1st century. 2 Peter 3:15-16 seems to suggest this. That the early church was not highly organized and developed is certainly true in the sense that they were primitive like every human organization that has a humble beginning. Communication limited them in regards to unification at points. They didn’t have email, global networks, computers, etc. They were limited to very expensive books and relying on literate individuals to copy and read the letters and faithful teachers to teach them. Communication was slow, but to say that the big guys beat out the little guys in the race for canon and orthodoxy is overstating the case, I believe.
Many of the authoritative books were intended to be circular letters; that is, they were to be read in the churches in various regions (Romans, Galatians, or James are a case in point). The church received them, recognized their apostolicity, and as a result their authority. As the Christian canon began to expand beyond the Old Testament the primary criterion or test for canonicity in the early church was the writing’s apostolicity. Christ promised that he would, by the Spirit, guide the Apostles into “all truth” (John 16:13). And with this apostolicity was included a tradition, or a rule of faith, as expressed in what is known as the Apostle’s Creed; the earliest known creedal formula. It is true, there is no formally solidified New Testament canon in the early church before the 4th century, (in fact the Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox canons - each being different were not completely finalized until the 16th century during the time of the Reformation) though there certainly was a view of authoritative New Testament books during the earliest centuries of Christianity. Many of the Apostolic Fathers (prior to the 4th century) allude to several of the New Testament books in their sermons and letters as being authoritative, if not divinely inspired.
The early church counted on the apostolic tradition as the guide of orthodoxy and finally canonicity. The idea of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession was very important in the early church. By the 4th century, around the time when the formation of the canon was a heavy issue in the church, the authority of the bishop rested not so much upon his position as a bishop, but rather upon his succession, or being in line with the Apostles. Take for instance, the early church father Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. Irenaeus is a very important church father in the fight for orthodoxy in his famed work Against Heresies, a book exposing the heretical teaching of Gnosticism.
The question of authority had to be raised. The reason for this was the presence of false teachers and those who would earn the title “heretic” given their heterodox teachings. The Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas fall into this category. The church did not ultimately recognize these books as authoritative because they did not fall in line with the rule of faith established in the teachings of the Apostles and thus they were rejected. Not only were false teachers present but it was also very common in that time for writings to be forgeries or falsities; books written in the name of another person were common. There were also people like the second century man named Montanus who claimed to speak as God directly through the Spirit. He was a fringe prophet and did not have the authority of the Apostles on his side and thus was rejected. The texts and teachers had to be tested for validity since the church faced so many different obstacles to the truth. Very early in the church there is a sense of gravity towards what is read and what is not read as authoritative. Bishops, whose jobs were not only to teach, but also to protect truth, were very interested in what should and what should not be publically read in the churches. Books that were agreed upon as to be genuine authoritative were to be read in the churches. Some books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, were considered helpful but were not recognized as authoritative and did not earn the designation of “to be read in the church,” rather they were delegated to the use of personal edification, much like inspirational Christian literature today. Writings that were determined to be forgeries, heretical, or unorthodox were labeled so and were “not to be read” in the churches because they were not authoritative.
So you ask in your email, Why were Paul’s books and James’ books included and not others? I am not sure what “others” you have in mind, but it seems that the church, following the teachings of the bishops, Apostles, and Christ did not recognize them as authoritative and thus not inspired. Some books were recognized as helpful, but not authoritative; others were recognized as down right heretical because their teaching was contrary to that of the Apostle’s and ultimately Christ - Christ being the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
In summary, the succession of apostolic authority was important in the early days of Christianity. The prophets of the Old Testament foretold of Christ and the apostles recorded Christ’s teachings. The Apostles then passed the tradition to faithful men (2 Timothy 2:1-2). The line of canonicity of New Testament books develops out of the Apostles and was recognized by the Church as authoritative because of its adherence to the rule of faith and its apostolicity and ultimately to the divine oversight of the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth. Did the teaching or the text come from one whom had been taught by Christ? If not, did the teaching or the text fall in line with the apostolic tradition found in the rule of faith set forth by the Apostles? These questions were tests of authority, and ultimately canonicity. Though the early church does not have a formalized canon, there is a sense of authority placed upon many of the New Testament books by the mid-2nd century and definitely by the 4th century. The first official document that prescribes the 27 books (excluding Revelation) of our New Testament as alone canonical is Athanasius’s Easter Letter written in the year 367 A.D., but the process was not everywhere complete until at least a century and a half later.
Your other question regarding the Apocrypha is of a similar nature. The Apocrypha is not given canonical status in the Roman Catholic Church until the 16th century at the Council of Trent, I believe. Much of the difficulty regarding the Apocryphal works has to do with St. Jerome who appended a list of books to the end of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate being the preferred Roman Catholic “version” of the Bible. Jerome added them because, it seems, he thought them helpful for the use of edification, but not necessarily for the formulation of doctrine. The sixty-six books of the accepted Christian canon were intact in the Latin Vulgate, but then there appeared an appendices. Jerome, it is believed, did not include the appendices because he thought them inspired and authoritative, but because they were helpful works written between the period of time of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Apocryphal works are pre-apostolic works and for that the Protestant church does not accept the Apocrypha as part of the Christian canon because it falls between the period of time when the Old Testament Canon closed and when the Christian New Testament canon opened. The early church fathers recognized the Apocryphal literature as helpful, but never authoritative as they did the 27 books of the New Testament.
Your last question regarding the harmony of the Gospels is indeed another lengthy one. Suffice it to say, there are a number of helpful books dealing with the difficulties there. I believe part 4 of Bishop N.T. Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God would have much to say on the issues at hand. I will have to look into the issues further before I could honestly provide you with some helpful information. I would read 1 Corinthians 15 as a opening to the issue. If Christ is not raised then, Paul says, we are of all men to be pitied, and are still in our sins. A most unfortunate situation, so surely if Christ is not raised from the dead as Christ said he would, then we Christians believe something very futile.
I hope I have been able to help you with some of the questions, and if not, I know the books I have suggested will answer your questions in a much clearer and detailed fashion. Thank you for the opportunity to work through this myself a bit. If you have additional questions I would be happy to help point you in a direction that I believe is in line with Christian teaching and belief.
All my best,