II. The Growth of the New Testament Canon

1. EARLY COLLECTIONS—SECOND CENTURY

Gradually the collections of Pauline Epistles, and later the Gospels, came to be ranked along with the Old Testament as inspired Scriptures; then other books were added. Five well-defined groups were recognized by the close of the second century: (1) the four Gospels, (2) the Acts of the Apostles, (3) the general Epistles, (4) the Pauline Epistles, and (5) the Apocalypse. Let us note the chronological aspects of the various collections and the acceptance of (not the writing of) individual books or groups.PFF1 925.3

There is evidence that the four Gospels had been brought together by Christian leaders in Asia Minor as early as the second century, and the author of the early Epistle ascribed to Clement of Rome alludes to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as passages in various other New Testament writings, such as Hebrews, Romans, Corinthians, First Timothy, Titus, James, and Ephesians. This list is extended by Ignatius, a little later (John, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon), and by Polycarp, Papias, and others, ^{8Westcott, op. cit., pp. 22-40, 48, 76.} till we come to the period of the more voluminous writers. In fact, an uninterrupted series of such writings from this early period onward contains allusions to, or quotations from, each of the twenty-seven New Testament books. So, in the first half of the second century there is general recognition of the importance and acknowledged status of the various apostolic writings, crystallizing the idea that the Gospels and the Epistles parallel the law and the prophets.PFF1 925.4

The early apologists recognized the canonicity of the apostolic writings. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) was evidently the first ecclesiastic, of whom there is record in this early period, to place the apostolic writings definitely on a level with the Old Testament, which was a foundational step in the formation of an authoritative New Testament canon. ^{9Justin, Apology, chap. 67, in ANF, vol. 1, p. 186; Westcott, op. cit., pp. 108, 109, 165; J. S. Riggs, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 1, p. 564.} Aristides, Melito, and Theophilus of Antioch were likewise active. ^{10Riggs, op. cit., p. 564.} But these early champions, in setting forth their teachings, drew also upon other than apostolic writings in defending the faith.PFF1 925.5

In the subapostolic age these apocryphal books struggled for inclusion in the accepted collections. The leaders in the church, according to their best knowledge, sifted the accepted works from those they rejected, and may have published lists of those regarded as apostolic, such as the Muratorian list. Thus the standard began to be fixed. A New Testament Apocrypha possibly had begun to appear even before the close of the apostolic era. ^{11“Every unprejudiced mind must be imprest with the fact that the canonical gospel narratives differ almost as much from these nearly contemporaneous documents as Jesus differed from other men. The difference is that between a religious history and a religious novel. Secondly, all of these apocryphal narratives are demonstrably later, most of them centuries later, than our four gospels, and rest upon the written or oral gospel teaching as their basis.
The discovery of these apocryphal writings only confirms the good judgment of the early Church which set apart these calm, candid, judicious documents as distinctively ‘Holy Writings’ as distinguished from all others. As early as the second century they were accepted as par excellence the authoritative memoirs and stood without rivals (Harnack).” (Camden M. Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the New Testament, pp. 242-245.)}PFF1 926.1

The Gnostics, placing an alleged secret tradition above the apostolic writings, compelled a renewed study of the accepted writings. Marcion arbitrarily mutilated the canon of the time, and the Valentinians sought to gain the same results by dubious exposition. ^{12Zahn, op. cit., p. 395.}PFF1 926.2

The heretic Marcion, a contemporary of Justin Martyr, made up his canon from a modification of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles (minus First and Second Timothy and Titus, and the Epistle to the Hebrews). ^{13Davidson, op. cit., p. 61; Zahn, op. cit., pp. 395, 396; see Westcott, op. cit., pp. 309-314.} But he gave valuable testimony to the collection of Paul’s writings and to the acceptance of a majority of them by a heretic. The issue brought the question of canonicity sharply to the forefront, and the controversy raged for years, with the result of forging the canon under the blows of the disputants.PFF1 926.3

Up to the middle of the second century we have found: (1) increasing recognition of the apostolic writings by the church at large; (2) separate circulation and gradual collection. From 170 to the end of the second century: (1) the first individual collection approximating the New Testament; (2) incomplete collections of apostolic writings firmly established in different sections of the church. From approximately 140 to 225 there was a struggle with the church’s internal foe, Gnosticism, and later with the Roman government. Heresy’s appeals to the Apocryphal writings, and its fantastic interpretations of the genuine, induced leaders of the church to insist on apostolic origin, or authorship, as the test of the writings. In this period the term “New Testament” appears to have been first applied to the sacred writings of the new dispensation by an unknown writer against Montanism. ^{14Riggs, op. cit., p. 565.}PFF1 926.4

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170) gives the first list of any length, ^{15Westcott, op. cit., pp. 213-215.} embracing the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, Second and Third John and Jude (omitting mention of Hebrews, First and Second Peter, First John, and James). The First Epistle of John is quoted earlier in the fragment, and there is no evidence that the First Epistle of Peter was ever contested. So, by the close of the second century we see the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and a more or less closely defined body of other apostolic writings recognized. ^{16Ibid., pp. 208-218; for full text of the Muratorian canon, see pp. 514-530; Davidson, op. cit., pp. 75, 104.} Local difficulty continued, but from Irenaeus on the church had virtually the whole canon.PFF1 927.1

2. THE THIRD CENTURY

The church’s responsibility toward the Sacred Writings was to discern the canonicity of the books, and to recognize their apostolicity; not to make them authoritative by ecclesiastical action. The writings were not made more sacred than before. Their canonicity was simply recognized and proclaimed. The time came—about the end of the second century—when the church as a whole was so thoroughly settled on most of the books of the New Testament that no further objection was raised to them. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Ter-tullian are typical, representing Gaul, Egypt, and North Africa, voicing sentiments that by this time are already clearly crystallized. The concept of a New Testament canon was rather sharp and clear, and the authority of the apostolic Scriptures acknowledged. ^{17Westcott, op. cit., p. 342.} The three prominent church leaders just named stress the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, most of the general Epistles, and the Apocalypse, which group of writings they regarded as Scripture as fully as the Old Testament. Yet, although there is general agreement on the body of writings, there is still some diversity as to a few specific items in the canon. ^{18Ibid., pp. 334-346.}PFF1 927.2

Thus the East accepted Hebrews as Paul’s writing and as canonical, but the West admitted it somewhat later, just as, conversely, the Apocalypse was accepted by the West, while the East hesitated. ^{19Ibid., pp. 367-371.}PFF1 927.3

The Second and Third Epistles of John, the Second Epistle of Peter, James, and Jude were variously treated up to the close of the third century. These (except James) and the Apocalypse were not accepted by the Syrian church, although they were received by Alexandria and the West. The Syriac Peshitta was less complete than the Eastern or Western canon. There was not complete unanimity, but the principle of placing the New Testament beside the Old Testament was now firmly established. ^{20Ibid., pp. 347-350, 345.}PFF1 927.4

Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Cyprian accept practically all of the twenty-seven books, ^{21Ibid., pp. 354-371; Alexander, op. cit., pp. 126-131; Eusebius, Church History, book 6, chap. 25, in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 1. pp. 272, 273.} but the general Epistles were recognized more slowly in the West than in the East. ^{22An alternate term, “Catholic Epistles,” appearing constantly in the writings of authorities in this field, simply means general, or universal epistles. The parallel expression “Ancient Catholic Church,” used of the first two or three centuries, is not to be confused with the later Roman Catholic Church. As used by church historians, it simply means the ancient undivided, universal—and hence catholic—Christian church that existed from the apostolic days until the time of Constantine.} Origen accepts the Epistle of James and that of Jude, but alludes to existing doubts by some in regard to both. ^{23Davidson, op. cit., pp. 77, 78; Westcott, op. cit., p. 359.}PFF1 927.5