Continue reading " Who decided which books to include in the New Testament , when, and why? Terry Mattingly. Douglas LeBlanc. Richard Ostling. Bobby Ross Jr. Julia Duin. Ryan Burge. Clemente Lisi.
We know, from the writings of St. Irenaeus and others, and from actual textual discoveries, that the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were being bound together in codices and utilized exclusively in churches by the middle part of the second century, i. Irenaeus points out that this is the case in cities like Rome and Antioch, no proffering at that early point that those cities had some special authorities, but rather pointing out that at that early date, there was still a living memory in those Christian communities of the proclamation of the Apostles themselves to those communities, and this verified that these were the books which they had received from those same Apostles.
This language will remain important for centuries, as the Fathers do not speak about which books wield some authority, or show some sign of divine inspiration, but rather speak about the books which they have received.
It is also important to note that even at this early date, the Gospel codices contain precisely these four, and this is true across the world. It is not the case that individual communities used individual gospels, for example, and when they eventually came together, they combined the four. Nor do we have a single instance of any other gospels being included in these codices.
In fact, the earliest of the Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, was being written in the early to mid-second century, and so could not have possibly been included, let alone those composed later. Its is also now broadly accepted by scholars that by the year A. One of our earliest manuscripts of St. This collection includes the Epistle to the Hebrews, directly after the Epistle to the Romans, but that is a subject for another time. There is very good historical evidence, much of it from the controversy with Marcion at the very dawn of the second century, that already these two books, the codex of the Gospels and the codex of St.
In fact, 2 Peter identifies St. This means that 19 of the 27 books were agreed upon as scripture by the entirety of Christian communities in the earliest period, the beginning of the second century, to which we have historical access in terms of evidence.
This gives the impression that there were arguments going on, for centuries, debates about these books, again based on some external criteria. Again, however, this is a myth. In the earliest centuries of the history of the Church, there was no central authority or overarching authority structure beyond the local bishops in their cities. While bishops in various regions, at various times in these centuries, gathered together in local councils to discuss issues pertinent to them all, the findings of these councils, at the time they were held, held no authority or power over other bishops who were not involved.
Lastly, the book of Revelation is an account of a dream of the beloved apostle, John. In this dream, or revelation, John explains his vision about the apocalypse or the end of times.
The book of Revelation is understood as the most notoriously difficult to interpret, due to its symbolic and metaphorical complexity. As Catherine Cory explains in her book, A Voyage through the New Testament , there are four inclusion criteria that affected the development of the New Testament canon: 1 apostolic origin 2 theological correctness 3 authority of the church leaders and 4 widespread appropriation of the churches. For now, let us examine each of the four criteria.
The first, apostolic origin, is in regards to the authorship of each letter or narrative. In order for the book to be considered for inclusion in the canon it had to be written by one of the twelve apostles or someone who was a close disciple of the twelve apostles. Clearly, someone who lived and ministered in close proximity to Christ himself would have a narrative most aptly reflecting the actual events.
What was the right teaching? Did the narrative in question reflect the right teaching or did it clash with the teaching of the apostles? Further, was the narrative or letter a hindrance to perpetuating belief in the Gospel or did it serve as a reinforcement for maintaining the faith? As one can see, this criterion was largely dependent upon a pre-existing tradition, which determined the right teaching.
The third criterion, authority of the church leaders, was not only influential in determining the orthodox teaching but also in picking the actual books which would be included in the canon.
The books which are now in the New Testament were not voted in by the Christian populous most Christians during this time were not even literate!
0コメント