The Development of the New Testament Canon

The New Testament is a collection of 27 documents from at least ten writers (following the traditional view) and possibly as many as sixteen (following the academic approach). The time span of their composition may be from around 50 A.D. to perhaps 125 A.D. It seems clear that they held variant positions and perspectives, and read critically appear to actually be in disagreement and heated argument one with another. So how did these 27 pieces end up as a single book?

That development owes everything to one of the most non-Apostolic thinkers of all Christian history: Marcion. Marcion lived in the first half of the second century, and was excommunicated from the church at Rome by the bishop in 144. The official reason was his rejection of the Old Testament. But that was not Marcion's ultimate disagreement. Marcion took Paul's argument to its fullest extent: if the Law of Moses does not apply to Christians, then a wedge was driven between Jesus Christ and the God of Israel who gave that Law and declared that all nations would delight in it. It was a problem to which the Christian could only respond by rejecting the God of Israel. That god, with his wrath and jealousy, was incompatible with the god of Jesus Christ, with his mercy and compassion and willingness to suffer for his people. Marcion had recognized the foundational antithesis between Pauline Christianity and Judaism.

In order to establish his point, Marcion collected a body of writings that rivalled the Old Testament (remember: there IS no New Testament in existence, so the "official" scripture of the Apostolic Church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Marcion's collection included ten letters of Paul (he did not include the letters to Timothy or Titus), and one gospel. We do not have marcion's gospel. All we have is what his enemies say: Tertullian (in his 4th book Against Marcion says

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel .... Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

It has been suggested that Marcion had a gospel he believed to have been written by Paul. It has also been suggested that Marcion's gospel was actually that which we know as Mark. Since Mark's perspective is very close to Paul's, and Mark was (it is generally held) written in Rome, and Marcion "published" his canon in Rome, the pieces could add up. At any rate, Marcion's canon prompted both a response of excommunication, and other canons.

In the 18th century, L. A. Muratori found an 8th century fragment of a document wich scholars nearly unanimously accept as a translation of an original Greek text from the second century (its Latin is dated to the 8th century itself). The writer of that document lived after Pius of Rome had died (154 A.D.) but seems vividly aware of Marcion. Thus a date around 155 is frequently suggested.

The Muratorian Canon

... at which however he was present and so he has set it down. The third Gospel book, that according to Luke. This physician Luke after Christ's ascension (resurrection?), since Paul had taken him with him as an expert in the way (of the teaching), composed it in his own name according to (his) thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain it, so he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, (one) of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, whilst all were to go over (it), John in his own name should write everything down. And therefore, though various rudiments (or: tendencies?) are taught in the several Gospel books, yet that matters nothing for the faith of believers, since by the one and guiding (original?) Spirit everything is declared in all: concerning the birth, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning the intercourse with his disciples and concerning his two comings, the first despised in lowliness, which has come to pass, the second glorious in kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder then if John, being thus always true to himself, adduces particular points in his epistles also, where he says of himself: What we have seen with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our hands have handled, that have we written to you. For so he confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.

But the acts of all apostles are written in one book. For the 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke summarizes the several things that in his own presence have come to pass, as also by the omission of the passion of Peter he makes quite clear, and equally by (the omission) of the journey of Paul, who from the city (of Rome) proceeded to Spain.

The epistles, however, of Paul themselves make clear to those who wish to know it which there are (i.e. from Paul), from what place and for what cause they were written. First of all to the Corinthians (to whom) he forbids the heresy of schism, then to the Galatians (to whom he forbids) circumcision, and then to the Romans, (to whom) he explains that Christ is the rule of the scriptures and moreover their principle, he has written at considerable length. We must deal with these severally, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes by name only to seven churches in the following order: to the Corinthians the first (epistle), to the Ephesians the second, to the Philippians the third, to the Colossians the fourth, to the Galatians the fifth, to the Thessalonians the sixth, to the Romans the seventh. Although he wrote to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians once more for their reproof, it is yet clearly recognizable that over the whole earth one church is spread. For John also in the Revelation writes indeed to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But to Philemon one, and to Titus one, and to Timothy two, (written) out of goodwill and love, are yet held sacred to the glory of the catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also (an epistle) to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged in Paul's name for the sect of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received in the catholic Church; for it will not do to mix gall with honey.

Further an epistle of Jude and two with the title (or: two of the above mentioned) John are accepted in the catholic Church, and the Wisdom written by friends of Solomon in his honour. Also of the revelations we accept only those of John and Peter, which (latter) some of our people do not want to have read in the Church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite lately in our time in the city of Rome, when on the throne of the church of the city of Rome the bishop Pius, his brother, was seated. And therefore it ought indeed to be read, but it cannot be read publicly in the Church to the other people either among the prophets, whose number is settled, or among the apostles to the end of time. But we accept nothing whatever from Arsinous or Valentinus and Miltiades(?), who have also composed a new psalm book for Marcion, together with Basilides of Asia Minor, the founder of the Cataphrygians.

The fragment begins in mid-sentence, so we can't be absolutely certain that the first two gospels were Matthew and Mark, but it seems likely. (In 165 the Diatessaron is published, blending Matthew, Mark, Luke and John into one narrative; that assumes that the four were popularly read already.) Included are the documents Shepherd of Hermas, Wisdom "written by friends of Solomon", and a Revelation (=Apocalypse) of Peter. But notice also what is NOT included: Hebrews, the letters of Peter, and the letter of James.

Many different lists were generated after this. Among those we have are the list inserted in codex Claromontanus (4th century?); the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 350); the Cheltenham Canon (ca. 360); the Canon approved by the Synod of Laodicea (ca. 363?). The first to list the same 27 books as are now found in the New Testament is part of the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, published on Easter Sunday, 367.

The New Testament Text

The establishment of a canon, even had it been immediately accepted by all, would not have eliminated the problem of textual transmission. Remember that the printing press was not created until the late 15th century. Until then, every document ever passed from one person to another, from letters to lists to lawas to stories, was handwritten. If it was not the author's original manuscript, it was a handwritten copy -- and as time went on and the author's original disintegrated or was lost, the handwritten copies were made from other handwritten copies. Each time the text was copied, human error figured in. Today, we have several hundred of the handwritten copies of the New Testament documents -- some dating to the early 100s C.E., and more and more from each ensuing century. No two copies of any New Testament work are exactly the same. Sometimes a word was changed by the use of one different letter. Sometimes one sentence was altered in one gospel to make it match a statement in one of the other gospels. Sometimes words were accidentally skipped as the eye moved from the original to the copy in progress and back. Sometimes a phrase was repeated when the copier's eye shifted back to the original one line too high. And sometimes the story is just plain changed. The differneces are myriad.

And that applies to the period after the books had come to be seen as scripture. Before that, we have no manuscripts to compare. But the Secret Gospel of Mark presents us with an almost unbelievable window into that time. Clement of Alexandria, one of the key figures of the Christianity between the New Testament time period and the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) wrote a letter in response to a man named Theodore, in which he answers Theodore's questions about the text of the Gospel of Mark. Apparently, some who disagreed with Theodore had quoted Mark as proof of their position -- but the lines they quoted were nowhere in Theodore's own copy of the Gospel of Mark. His opponents told him that the lines they quoted were in Mark's original gospel, but certain people since had removed them from the text.

Clement's response to Theodore is a blatant admission that the opponents told the truth. Lines were indeed removed, said Clement, because the opponents were using them to prove their point. He lays upon Theodore the obligation never to admit this to anyone, even under threat. But he proceeds to quote an example of what was removed.

And they came into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

The Critical New Testament

None of this was noted during nearly 1100 years after Nicea. But in the very early 1500s, Erasmus of Rotterdam published a Greek New Testament, and forever changed Christianity. Although the documents had all been written in Greek, western Christianity had not needed a Greek text since the 400s when Jerome translated the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament into Latin, the language of the everyday people of the Roman Empire. The Vulgate, as it was called, became the norm in the west until the 1500s when movements in Germany, Bohemia, England and elsewhere sought again to put the Bible into the everyday language of the people, which had long since ceased to be Latin. Joined with this idea was an increasing sense that something was lost with every translation, and the emerging Renaissance scholarship began studying the original languages so as to remove the middleman, so to speak. Erasmus' New Testament would meet both those interests.

Erasmus sought the oldest copies of the Greek New Testament documents he could find in order to put his NT together. Unfortunately, the oldest manuscripts he could find were just a couple of centuries old -- Erasmus had no idea that "out there"somewhere were manuscripts far older. Several of the manuscripts he located were damaged or incomplete. He compared various copies of a particular book, and filled in the gaps of one copy with the pieces from another. In this way he almost had 100% of the text. But not quite. In a couple of places, he just did not have the underlying Greek text for a line that he could see full well in his Vulgate, so Erasmus translated the Latin translation back into Greek in those spots, and finished off his Greek New Testament. This text later came to be known as Textus Receptus, since it was the latest part of the tradition. The Textus Receptus would be used (and continues to be used) as the basis for the translation authorized by King James in England a century later.

In the last 250 years, many other manuscripts have been discovered, including Vaticanus (found in the archives at the Vatican) and Sinaiticus (found in the storage room of a monastery on Mt. Sinai) -- both of which may have been among the 50 complete Greek bibles that the emperor Constantine ordered made and distributed throughout the empire in 325 C.E. The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament has, through 27 editions, incorporated all the known manuscropts, and striven to make judgments about whether this copy or that copy is the most likely to reflect the original in a particular interest. Ironically, the Nestle-Aland NT does not match any of the hundreds of manuscripts exactly. Whether it matches the originals will never be known.

There are some shocking surprises here. The last verses of Mark (16:9-20), for instance, are in the Erasmus text and therefore in the KJV. But when the earlier manuscripts were found, they were not part of the gospel. The same is true for the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 -- the story with the great line, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone" was not originally in the Gospel of John. There are many, many such discoveries.

The Bible in English

When written, the KJV was authorized because in a scant century of English reformation and upheaval in the church, many differing English translations had been produced, including the Bishop's Bibel and ... insert other English Bibles here. The KJV was an attempt to end the bickering and infighting with one finallyaccepted translation. It didn't work, but the KJV has ever since cast its shadow on English translation. Its language was intentionally archaic, even in its own day, in order to give the Bible majesty and awe. And certain choices for translation are so entrenched in the English-speaking world, that it is nearly impossible to shake them, even when the evidence is overwhelming that it is not accurate.

Still, there have always been those who felt the Bible needed to be accessible to an everyday world. In the 19th century, the Revised Version was created -- using the KJV as its model, it only sought to correct misunderstandings that had come to the surface as the English language continued to change and grow. That itself was revised in the 1950s, and the Revised Standard Version was produced -- itself revised again in the 1980s with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

 

by Thomas P. Shoemaker (copyright 2003).