The new testament:
It's a small collection, only 27 documents comprised of the four gospels
The Acts of the Apostles,
the Pauline, Pastoral and general Epistles
and the Book of Revelation.
but despite it's size,
It has laid the foundation
for the history, theology and traditions of over
2.2 Billion Christians worldwide
Christians from the very beginning had authoritative scriptures in the form of the Septuagint
The Greek translation of the Hebrew bible
not only does the apostle Paul consider it authoritative,
but the 4 gospels' writers frequently quote the Septuagint bible
as the antecedent for the prophecies about Jesus.
but as the Jesus movement started producing its own sacred writings,
We see the beginning of the Canon
The Greek transliteration for the word meaning "reed" or "measuring stick"
In other words, whatever document doesn't "measure up" to the standard is excluded.
Plenty of writings in the first few centuries of Christianity talked about the life and teachings of Jesus
So why did this collection gain sacred status?
When did it form?
and who decided what was "in"...
and what was "out"?
The earliest evidence we have for these 27 books being the ONLY 27 books in the Canon
come from the bishop Athanasius
- a bishop from the Egyptian city of Alexandria.
In 367 CE, Athanasius circulated a letter stipulating which books you were allowed to read...
and which ones could be considered "sacred"
In this collection, he lists the precise 27 books you will find in your modern New Testaments.
Some people think this is evidence of the church mandating what should be in the New Testament...
Claiming that the church or even Emperor Constantine controlled which books people could and could not read.
However, we shouldn't overstate the power of the church during this time:
although bishops often were powerful politicians in their own right,
scholars tend to agree that their actual power to control the daily lives of their people was actually quite limited.
This letter from Athanasius instead shows the opinion of 1 bishop, writing to a handful of churches in North Africa.
In other words; it is a Local Canon.
We find that other regional councils around this time stipulated their own Canon.
The council of Laodicea, for example: 3 years before Athanasius affirmed 26 of the 27 books we have in our modern New Testament
(only rejecting the book of Revelation as a fake).
Others, like the church historian Eusebius, rejected: 2nd Peter,
3rd John and Jude
While affirming the rest as canonical.
so even though Athanasius' Canon matches our modern New Testament
this doesn't mean the church was mandating what should be in the Canon,
nor does it mean that 27 books were settled by 367 CE.
Rather, the Canon was in flux for the first 4 hundred years of church history.
With Christian groups all over the Mediterranean arguing over what should and shouldn't be in the Canon.
... but is it fair to say this?
Sure, the Canon was in flux for the first 4 hundred years of church history...
but even by the third century the framework of the Canon was relatively stable.
Take for example the 4 Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Not everyone agreed on these 4 Gospels-
The bishop Marcion in 180 CE rejected all of them except for the book of Luke.
Others, like the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter had very popular followings...
but these never gained the same level of popularity as the 4 Gospels we see in the New Testament.
These 4 Gospels won the strongest fanbase,
either because of their complexity, antiquity or the fact that
Christians ascribed famous authors to them as early as the 2nd century.
Christian theologians like Irenaeus, Tatian and Justin Martyr were quoting these 4 Gospels as early as the 2nd century.
the Pauline Epistles also were accepted as sacred from a very early date- we have evidence that they circulated as a collection:
A papyrus collection titled P46, that dates to around 200 CE contains the entire Pauline corpus.
Also, the bishop Marcion (who we mentioned earlier) excluded almost all other books in the New Testament except for the Pauline Epistles.
So by the time that Athanasius wrote his letter in 367,
Two major divisions of the New Testament Canon (the 4 Gospels and the Pauline Epistles)
had already been settled.
The church wasn't mandating that people should read these instead of the Gospel of Thomas...
The fact is these books were already best-sellers.
So if the bishops weren't mandating what should be the New testament Canon, what historical or sociological process can we point to...
that would explain the development of what we have today?
Instead of an outside force commanding what should be in the New Testament Canon,
Canonisation can better be explained as an Organic process
Where certain books fizzled out of popularity while others gained popularity.
A process not unlike how videos go viral on YouTube today.
Without printing press technology, Christian documents could only circulate through manual word-for-word copying.
and then disseminating across the trade routes of the late Roman Empire.
If a book was considered special, then it was copied and circulated.
If it was controversial or considered heretical, then it wasn't copied and therefore had a smaller audience for it to then be published again.
The early Christian text "The Shepherd of Hermas" is a case in point:
The Shepherd of Hermas was an apocalyptic text from the 2nd century, that contained a collection
of visions and parables about moral living.
The early church historian Eusebius thought it was authored by one of Paul's companions,
and therefore considered it an early and authoritative text.
The Codex Sinaiticus also contains it alongside other canonical documents.
Others though, considered it a forgery and theref're rejected it.
Because of this controversy, the Shepherd of Hermas never gained traction.
Its uncertain authorship along with its late publication date prevented it from ever gaining canonical status.
We can use the Shepherd of Hermas to shed some light on the processes that might have led to canonisation.
Unlike the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas was never denounced by Church leaders as heretical
In fact, most Christians liked the book.
What led to its eventual exclusion was not so much authorities actively trying to keep this book out.
but rather, the book lacking the influence and popularity to gain that status in the first place.
So what we find is that the New Testament Canon developed out of two, not necessarily mutually exclusive forces.
On one hand, literate authorities like Athanasius, Eusebius and the church fathers copied certain books- thereby excluding others.
However, on the other hand we see a more organic process of popular consensus.
By the time the bishops started canonising certain books, the playing field was already dominated by the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles
(The framework of our modern New Testament).
The real debate's actually only centred on a few controversial books like Jude, 2nd Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Certain books slowly gained acceptance as authoritative and sacred,
While others fizzled out of the process.
In short, we cannot point to a single person, or motivating factor for the New Testament Canon.
Certainly it took centuries, and certainly bishops played an important role in shaping it,
but we should be careful to overemphasise the centralised power of the early church.
Because the early church, especially during the 1st and 2nd century CE when all of the New Testament books were authored,
was neither very powerful nor centralised.
Therefore, the 27 books we do have survived not through authority or accident, but through centuries of copying and debate.
Leading to a broad, general consensus.
Hey everyone!
Thanks for watching!
Now canonisation is a huge topic to cover,
So if you wanna go a little deeper check out my website:
ReligionForBreakfast
Otherwise, you can check out similar topics here with my
other videos.
and as always, please subscribe or follow me on Facebook.
Thanks for watching!
[Music fading out]