Who decided what to include in the New Testament?

Matthew Huish
April 4, 2012

I recently submitted another book review as coursework for my MA studies. I was pleased to find out that I earned a 1st class provisional grade for this review, which I'm quite chuffed about especially since I had to rush it (again) and submitted the work just before the deadline, just as Natasha's contractions started, only hours before the birth of our fourth child in February! I hope you find it enlightening.

There is a mysterious romance about the constitution of the New Testament. Its contents have shaped Christian culture, with Biblical themes and ideas permeating throughout the arts, philosophy and even spoken language. How the various canonical writings came to be selected is a challenging yet necessary question to ask, especially for an open-minded believer who wishes to grow in faith while being able to justifiably reason the inclusion of particular scriptures as part of devotional study. The image of an Indiana Jones-like hero, discovering hitherto unseen manuscripts that may shed light on a possible heresy or controversy regarding the existing canon, was attractive to this reader, who was curious about apocryphal works and debate on the canonicity of the extant body. Perhaps this fantasy was farfetched, but the drama present in Bruce M. Metzger's book, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance, is equally suspending. The investigative journey led by Metzger through two millennia and spanning continents has revealed likely conclusions which, although may not be as surprising as expected, are nevertheless breathtaking in their elegance.

The Canon of the New Testament is a thorough textbook and, as such, can provide the starting point for anyone interested in learning about the history of the New Testament. This reader must admit, however, that the somewhat dense scholarly style of writing requires a sustained concentration. While Metzger presents a thorough exposition of detailed evidence, demonstrating that no minute detail of possible significance has been ignored, he balances this with human stories of the characters involved. The anecdotes retold sometimes reveal helpful insights and other times demonstrate some surprising ideas which border on the farcical, yet they help to bring to life the story of how Christian communities, mostly independently, decided what content they would adopt as canonical.

There was an organic spontaneity by which the early churches decided which narratives, prophecies and letters from the apostles and early church fathers had enough value to be read out aloud among congregations or shared with other churches. There was a process of natural selection, perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit, by which scriptures considered authoritative emerged through their repeated use and popularity. Church leaders, inheriting and bequeathing the acknowledged Christian faith, would intuitively be able to determine which works were faithful to the narrative of God's work through Jesus and his early followers.

It was not until the emergence of extremist ideas that the churches were challenged to consider closing the canon of the New Testament. It is worth noting that even the Old Testament had not been fully canonized at the time of early Christianity, with Christian writers adding their voices to affirm or deny the inspired authority of the various Old Testament scriptures. The movements that posed principal threat to the Christian community were the Gnostics, the Marcionites and the Montanists: The Gnostics were a variety of different sects using Christian scriptures in a corrupted fashion to promote philosophies that went against the true teaching of the Gospel; the followers of Marcion, a wealthy Christian who started his own splinter movement that rejected the Old Testament and promoted a narrow New Testament canon that disregarded many of the scriptures that disagreed with his ideas, challenged the Christian communities to consciously preserve the apostolic writings it had inherited in the face of the threat of works being lost due to rejection; the followers of Montanus presented the opposite problem, believing that the revelations of the Holy Spirit were continually being revealed by prophecy, and as such promoted the inclusion of a wider number of writings into their communal readings. The Montanists themselves did not seem to introduce any new writings to the extant New Testament, but the anti-Montanist movement reaction had the effect of casting doubt on all works of prophecy, including the Apocalypse of John.

It was in order to counteract the threat presented by corruptions or extreme points of view that the Christian authorities began to present authoritative lists of works that were included in the canon. Nevertheless, each regional church community concluded with different lists, influenced by the regional challenges faced by each community. Until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, there was no widespread agreed statement on the canonicity of the scriptures included in the New Testament, only the lists recommended by trusted church leaders who differed in exact details such as which specific books to include or reject or simply the order in which they are presented.

With a skepticism that grew out of the heresies and controversies of previous centuries, scholars examined critically the authorships and spiritual authority of various books. Did it matter that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not actually written by Paul, even though its content is trusted as spiritually authoritative? Was the Epistle of James to be included when it seems to contradict the theology of justification of grace alone expounded by Paul? Was the Epistle of Jude to be rejected on the basis that it quoted the apocryphal Old Testament book of Enoch? Also did it matter that the four Gospels contradict each other in some respects? And why are there four different narratives anyway? These were the kinds of questions being asked, quite sincerely, by scholars of the early centuries until and beyond the time of the Reformation. It is certainly not by accident that the list of works that make up the existing New Testament came together; there has been consistent, honest debate throughout Christian history in respect to the canon.

Metzger proposes a helpful paradigm regarding the New Testament, seeing it not as "an anthology of inspirational literature" but as "a collection of writings that bear witness to what God has wrought through the life and work, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through the founding of his Church by his Spirit." Considering this, what the Christian churches have bequeathed to Christians today is a body of works that present the core true teachings of the Gospel as well as viewpoints that help Christians critically develop their theology and worldview based on the recognition that differences of opinion exist. Thus respectful cooperation is necessary in order to flesh out the contemporary significance of what are ancient writings written by ancient authors with ancient audiences in mind.

In relation to The Canon of the New Testament, it is difficult to critique a book that presents evidence so meticulously and so objectively. Where Metzger presents his own opinions, they are balanced against competing theories and the reader is free to make independent conclusions from the presented evidence. Metzger's reasoning is, however, very convincing and while he is careful not to patronize nor preach, he asserts his beliefs with spiritual sensitivity. The differences of opinion that exist, as inferred from Metzger's concluding pages, can actually serve as something beneficial: "Unity will be achieved," Metzger writes, "not by an initial agreement on doctrine and practice, but by the willingness to grow together in the common search for a renewed understanding of the several traditions embodied within the entire range of the New Testament canon."

This reader has developed a renewed trust and love for the New Testament by discovering, through Metzger's book, how inspired its evolution has been. Rather than regarding the seemingly contradictory natures of some scriptures as threatening, the faith of any sincere and rational Christian can be strengthened through dialogue with other Christians about the various interpretations that exist. The New Testament canon, in its existing format, is thus an invitation to all Christians not to remain comfortable with certain viewpoints but to actively challenge concepts through mutually beneficial discussion and respectful debate.