Two weeks ago
I wrote up a whirlwind tour of the books of the New Testament (NT) and just barely
scratched the surface of who wrote these texts and when. The big question that
has often been asked of me, though, is Who
decided what got in? How did these 27 books become the NT? I'll be honest,
the answer to these and similar questions is complex, but, since I'm ready to
move on from this "Where did the Bible come from?" series, I'll try
to be as succinct as possible. (I hear a sigh of relief.)
First, a
couple of things to keep in mind:
1.) Faith in Jesus Christ preceded
the writings of the NT.
2.) The Church, (i.e. the community of believers and followers
of Christ) existed before the
Christian Scriptures were composed.
3.) Most, if not all of the books of the NT were written for
audiences that already believed that
Jesus was the Christ – albeit, these audiences probably needed some theological
clarification about their beliefs and how they should live, which is what prompted
many of the NT writings to begin with.
A fine example
of some of the above points are the early Christian hymns and creedal
statements that were incorporated into the Scriptures. If you take a look at Philippians 2:6-11 (one of my favorite passages in Scripture, by the way) you have what
appears to be a hymn about Christ that was possibly used in community worship. What
it says about Jesus is so fitting and true, that Paul integrates it into his
letter to the Philippians. Whether it was sung or not is beside the point, but
try to imagine this as a song, short and catchy enough for people to learn it
and sing it by memory. Of course, memories were probably a lot more adept back
then because people didn't have buttons, phones, and Google remembering everything
for them. Thus a profound truth about Christ issued from the community of
believers and was passed down orally through this lyrical poem before it ever
became "Scripture" as we know it today. In effect, this Truth was
handed down to believers through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by means of
*drum roll* Sacred Tradition.
 |
| GIF from www.yorehistory.wordpress.com |
The Catholic
rebuttal to Martin Luther's insistence on "Scripture alone" is that
both Scripture and Tradition "form
one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church."[1]
But what is Sacred Tradition anyway? Let me be quite clear that it is not customs or disciplines in the Church
–like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Those things are
"traditions" with a lower-case 't' and have little to do with essential
beliefs and teachings of the Church. Just remember that if you accidently eat
meat on Friday this Lent. Rather, Sacred Tradition is that "living
transmission" of the word of God "accomplished in the Holy
Spirit" through the Apostles and their successors, which "includes
everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith
of the peoples of God."[2]
Basically, it's the faith and Truth in which the Church believes that has been
passed down orally by the Apostles and their successors.
Why this
lengthy – and somewhat boring – tangent about Sacred Tradition? (Bless you, by
the way, if you're still reading.) It's because the composition of the NT and
the selection of which books became canonized rests on this issue of Tradition.
Sacred Scripture and Tradition are not opposed to or in competition with one
another. That would be ridiculous! Rather the two inform and complement one
another. Tradition is informed by the written Word, and Scripture was written
as a result of oral transmissions of the faith and is interpreted in light of
Tradition. It's like love and marriage... that go together like a horse and
carriage. This I tell you brother: you can't have one without the other. Thank
you Frank Sinatra.
So as I
mentioned in the last post, the earliest NT writings were the letters of Paul.
Such writings, though some were intended for particular audiences, were shared
among many other local church communities. Moreover, like the Torah and
Prophets, which were obviously considered sacred by the early Church, these
Christian writings were read aloud in liturgy when the community came together
for worship. Likewise, the Gospels and the other NT writings were used in this
way, and many of them were cited by leaders in the early Church in their own
letters.
According to
Luke Timothy Johnson – without whose book, The
Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, this post would not be
possible (gotta give props where props are due, folks), "As writings were
exchanged, local churches began to build collections that were more extensive
than those written specifically to them."[3] Eventually, local churches within the
catholic (and by catholic I mean universal)
Church had collections of Christian writings; some books of which were common
to most local churches, but other books were favored by a minority. So while
some of these collections agreed on certain books, like the letters of Paul,
they differed on others.
Surprisingly,
however, evidence shows that within the early Church there was actually a great
deal of agreement on which Christian writings were considered sacred. An early
Latin document known as the Muratorian Fragment
contains a list of canonical books that includes the four Gospels and Acts, the
letters of Paul, the first two letters of John, the letter of Jude, and
Revelation. While it leaves out some books from today's canon (3 John, 1 &
2 Peter, James, and Hebrews), it also included some books that are not in our
NT: for example, the Apocalypse of Peter
and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Ever hear of these books?) However, it
concedes that the Shepherd of Hermas
should not be read in worship, and it was debatable as to whether the Apocalypse of Peter should be or not.[4]
 |
| Image from http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html |
In a
roundabout way I have so far hinted at some of the criteria the early Church
deferred to in the complex and lengthy process of selecting which Christian
writings would be part of Scripture. Here are some of the standards that influenced
the canonization process.
1.) Did it have
apostolic historicity? Did it seem to derive from the apostles or at least
those who knew them? Again, much like the books of the Jewish canon, the older
a text was the more authority it carried. Books written too late would not make
the cut.
2.) Did it conform to
the tradition of faith that had been handed down to them? That is, did it
reflect the faith they had come to believe and know to be true, or did it
reflect a heretical teaching? Thus, my lengthy tangent about Sacred Tradition.
3.) Was it read
publicly in liturgy? Or better yet, should
it be read in liturgy? It seems like the Shepherd
of Hermas was a popular, early Christian text and not a bad one to read,
but it apparently didn't have the authority to be read in church.
4.) Was it used widely
among the universal Church, or was it only accepted or rejected by a handful of
local churches?
5.) Did it have
"universal pertinence"?[5]
In other words, was it applicable to all of the Church in every place and
in all times?
I don't want
to over-simplify this complex process of canonization. It is not like the early
Church fathers got around a poker table with this list of criteria and a deck
of potential NT books, folding if the text didn't meet enough standards and
laying down royal flushes if it did. That would have been rather entertaining
if it had been the case, though, I must say. And to that end I would love to
see a tapestry much like the one of dogs playing poker with Athanasius,
Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Origen seated around the table instead.* In any case, as the
early Church discerned which books ought to be considered Scripture alongside
those writings inherited from their Jewish ancestry, these standards were
surely factors that guided this organic process of canonization.
 |
| It's not how it happened, but it's funny to imagine nonetheless |
It should be
noted that not every book we have in the NT was readily agreed upon by every
local church. There was much debate concerning the inclusion of the Book of
Revelation (not surprisingly, as that book's trippy) and even some hesitancy
around the Gospel of John. These books obviously made it in, but some were
vehemently rejected. The Muratorian
Fragment is adamant that certain letters attributed to Paul which actually
derived from a heretic named Marcion as well as the Gnostic writings of
Valentinus and Basilides should be not be accepted at all.[6] Early
Church fathers like Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Athanasius all railed against
writings considered heretical.
How I would
love to say a few things about the heresy of Gnosticism and its writings, but
I'm running long as it is. I will say, however, that if you're wondering about such
texts like the so-called Gospels of Peter,
Mary Magdalene, or Judas, I will tell you straight up right
now. Those and other such "gospels" were A.) not written by those to
whom they were attributed, for, as I mentioned in my last post, writing under a different name was quite common back then. B.) These books were written much
later than the NT writings, probably in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries. And C.) they derived from heretical Gnostic beliefs and teachings
that ran contrary to the orthodox Tradition that had been passed down in the
early Church. I hope to devote a post to Gnosticism and their writings in the
future, because it's a sick and twisted heretical movement, though admittedly
quite fascinating, but let's just leave it there for now.
So okay, some
books were readily accepted, some debated, and some unequivocally nixed. At
what point, then, did the early Church have a canonical list of the 27 books of
the NT that we know and love today? In his Paschal
Letter (367 CE) the bishop of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, includes those 27
books and even refers to them as the "springs of salvation." In 397 the North African Council of Carthage
decided on such a list that included those 27 and no more, stating that these "are to be read in church as divine Scripture." These 27 books for
the most part went unchallenged until the Reformation of the 16th
century, but the Council of Trent in 1546, as well as the Church of England
shortly thereafter, reaffirmed the authority and canonicity of these books.[7]
So
there you have it. As I mentioned in the last post, the books of the NT were composed within about a hundred years
after Jesus' death and resurrection. And then less than three hundred years after
that it was pretty much decided which Christian Scriptures would be part of the
biblical canon. Ain't that something?
For this
week, since much of this post had to do with the complementary nature of Sacred
Scripture and Tradition, I suggest reading 2 Timothy 2:1-26 and 3:10-17. In
these passages we hear Paul writing from prison to encourage one of his
successors, Timothy, to remain steadfast to the Gospel he has preached and is
now in chains for proclaiming. He urges him to resist false teaching but not to
engage in useless and quarrelsome debates, correcting opponents instead with
kindness. He affirms Timothy's life of faith, love, patience, and endurance in
suffering and reminds him to remain faithful to what he has learned and what he
knows from Scripture. As you read this passage, considered what you have come
to know and believe from the faith that has been handed onto you. What do you know to be true – about God, Jesus Christ,
life in the Spirit, our relationship with God and one another? How has it
"trained you for righteousness," made you more loving, peaceful, patient,
or less quarrelsome? How has it brought you into conflict, and how have you
responded? What about the Christian faith and Gospel message challenges you,
and how might you pray to God for perseverance?
I will be
taking another hiatus from blogging for the next couple of weeks in order to
work on some other things for this project, but I greatly appreciate your
readership and spreading the word about Bible Codega. It has been a tremendous
help as I complete the practicum for my M.A. I still encourage questions and
comments via e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, or the comment box below. And while I
might not put up a new post for some time, I'll still be responding to
questions. Until next time, may you have a blessed remainder of the Lenten
season and happy reading of Scripture.
Peace and all good!
[1] Dei Verbum, 10 §1.
[2]
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
78. and Dei Verbum, 8 §1.
[3] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An
Interpretation, Rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 597.
[4] Ibib., 600-601
[5] Johnson, 600.
[6] Ibid., 601.
[7] Ibid., 603.
* For the record, I'm pretty sure Athanasius, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Origen were never even in the same room altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment