Most of us take it for granted to have a copy of Bible and do not bother to know how we got it. The question why the New Testament has twenty seven books, not more and not less, hardly comes to our mind. While all of us are unlikely to think that they just simply dropped from the sky, we may not realize the long process which took place before those twenty seven books were finally selected.
In the first place Jesus wrote no book and did not give any commandment to write down his teaching as testified by the four Gospels. Neither He nor His apostles (including Paul) gave us the list and approved any of the twenty seven New Testament books. They neither used nor introduced the terms Old and New Testaments. Those unbiblical terms were first used by Tertullian (c 170 CE). In fact our Lordís and the later apostolic teachings were first transmitted and taught orally. Bear in mind that the first Christians did not consider this oral transmission as inferior. In Gal 4:20, Paul wrote that he wished to be with Galatians, so they could hear his tone. Because it was impossible then a letter from him would be sufficient. In other occasion, Paul judged that a written communication would be more effective than anything he could say (2 Cor 1:23-2:4). In short both oral and written forms were considered authoritative by the first Christians and are known to them as tradition (the Greek word translated as "tradition" comes from the verb which means "to deliver"). When Paul and others mentioned Scripture what they meant exactly is the Old Testament books. For example, the scripture known to Timothy (2 Tim 3:15) since his childhood definitely refers to Old Testament books. The first Christians did consider Jesusís unwritten word as authoritative as Scripture. Thus in 1 Tim 5:18, Paul quoted as scripture, both Deut 25:4 and Jesus word, which now recorded in Luke 10:7 (note Gospel of Luke was written after Paulís epistles). In the same way, early Christian writers like Clement of Rome (c. 96 CE), Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 110 CE), Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c 110-120 CE) considered Jesus word as equal to those of Scriptures (Old Testament).
The word Gospel might be first used by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (5:1 and 7:2). Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c 125 CE) was known to know at least two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). A generation after Papias, Justin Martyr mentioned about memoirs of Peter (possible Gospel of Mark) and memoirs of the apostles, both of them he called as Gospels. His disciple, Tatian introduced Diatessaron, which are the four Gospels combined into one in a chronological order with Gospel of John as framework. Yet he quoted from Gospel according to the Hebrews when he referred to a light which shone around at Jesus baptism. This Diatessaron was in use in Syrian church until early fifth century when they gave up (reluctantly) for the four separate gospels. Among the four Gospels, that according to John took longer time to win acceptance, the earliest known quotation from it comes in the gnostic writer Basilides (c 130 CE). On the other hand, among Paulís 13 epistles (Hebrews not included), the three pastoral letters (Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy) were accepted later. The four Gospels and Paulís epistles were the first books of our present New Testament to be accepted.
The first collection of New Testament books was made by Marcion (c 150 CE). His "canon" consisted of Gospel of Luke and 10 Paulís epistles which he referred as Gospel and Apostle. However, he mutilated many of them to suit his belief. He declared that God of Old Testament was different with the One whom Jesus spoke. For this reason he rejected all Old Testament books. He broke away from Rome and established his own church. His counterpart, Valentinus also broke away from Rome and founded a gnostic school. He wrote The Gospel of Truth, which is not a rival gospel but a mediation on the true gospel of Christ. It alludes to Matthew and Luke (and possibly Acts), Gospel and first epistle of John, 10 Paulís epistles (minus the three Pastorals), Hebrews and Revelation. Both Marcion and Valentinus prompted the Church to define what belonged to written apostolic teaching, thus starting the collection of New Testament books.
The second known collection of New Testament books is 2nd century Muratorian canon, named after L.A. Muratori who published the list, copied from 7th century codex. The manuscript is mutilated in the beginning, but we can conclude that it has four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paulís epistles, Jude, 2 of Johnís letter, Apocalypse of John (Revelation) and of Peter, and Wisdom of Solomon. Apocalypse of Peter now does not belong to our New Testament, while Wisdom of Solomon is now part of (Catholic) Old Testament. The compiler mentioned about Shepherd of Hermas which can be read but not to be given to people. He also wrote about Paul epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which he claimed to be forged. Interestingly, Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170 CE) quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. In his two literary works (against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching), Iranaeus quoted from 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter and most likely knew all 13 Paulís epistles (except Philemon), and maybe James and Hebrews and Revelation. Close to the end of 2nd century, Tertullian of Carthage in his work mentioned the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paulís epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. He mentioned Hebrews as the work of Barnabas and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon. Origen (185 - 254 CE) distinguished the undisputed and the disputed books of New Testament. The former consisted of the four gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. The latter consisted of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, Didache and he referred Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all non Pauline seven epistles). He was the first known Christian writer to mention 2 Peter. He also considered Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and mentioned about Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul and some other books. Cyprian in the third century listed four Gospels, Acts, 9 Paulís epistles (minus Philemon), 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. He also cited Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and recognized Didache as apostolic quotations.
Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (314 - 339 CE) divided New Testament books into three categories: universally acknowledged, disputed and spurious. The first consisted of the four gospels, Acts, Pauline 14 epistles (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. The second category included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John; while books like Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, but also Revelation belonged to the third category. Note that Revelation was listed both as the first and the third category. It shows the two different opinions of the canonicity of Revelation, which was especially true among the eastern churches. He also mentioned Gospel of Peter, which was read and appreciated by Christians in the second century and quoted by Justin Martyr. Eusebius also mentioned as heretical books like Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias and groups of books of Acts bearing names of apostles (Paul, Peter, Andrew, John and Thomas). All these books and others which do not belong to our present New Testament canon are now known as New Testament apocrypha.
In 367 CE, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria gave the list of 27 New Testament books, for the first time without making any distinction of them and which now becomes our New Testament. Around the same time, Council of Laodicea (c 363 CE) gave the list of 26 New Testament books (Revelation was not included). The same list of 26 books was given by Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386 CE) and by Gregory of Nazianzen. At the same time, Amphilochius of Iconium gave the 27 books but mentioned that some of them (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation) as spurious. John of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinopel from 397 to 407 CE gave list which excluded 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation. He appeared to be the first who used the phrase "the books" (which later became "the Bible") to refer to both Old and New Testaments. The Syriac churchís earliest canon of New Testament consisted of either 4 gospels or Diatessaron, Acts and 14 Paulís epistles. From early fifth century it included also James, 1 Peter and 1 John. Not until 508 CE, the monophysite branch of Syriac church finally included the other five books while the other branch, Nestorians accepts only 22 books to this day.
At the order of pope Damasus I, Jerome translated the 27 books into Latin (Vulgate). Augustine in the fifth century listed the 27 books in his work, "On Christian Learning". Those 27 books were later declared at the Council of Hippo in 393 CE and at Third Council of Carthage in 397 CE. The same councils also declared the list of Old Testament books which now become Catholic Old Testament. The sixth Council of Carthage in 419 CE repromulgated the (same) canon of Bible. It can be said that the 27 books of New Testament (together with Catholic Old Testament books) were determined in the fourth century. Among the 27 books, seven (James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Revelation) books entered the list after some disputes. They are more or less the same as "deuterocanonical" books of Catholic Old Testament (which were dropped from most of Protestant Old Testament). The above councils also show the authority of the Church to define which books belong to Old and New Testaments. It is true that those councils were not ecumenical councils, hence they did not speak for the whole church. This fact was shown by the existence of different list of books in some of early manuscripts made in and after 4th century. The reason why no ecumenical council decided the canon in and before 4th century is because the issue of canon of scripture is not an issue which divided Christianity (compare to Arianism which prompted ecumenical council of Niceae in 325 CE).
There are a number of surviving manuscripts of early New Testament books. Codex Sinaiticus (4th Century) has all 27 books of our present New Testament, but also includes Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) was torn at the end, so does not reveal the whole list; the existing part consists of 21 books and part of Hebrews of our present New Testament. On the other hand Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) has the 27 books plus 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Claromontanus (6th century) has no Phil, 1 and 2 Thes and Heb but includes Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul and Revelation of Peter. Another 4th century list, now known as Cheltenham list has only 4 gospels, 13 Pauline epistles (minus Hebrews), Acts, Revelation, 1 John and 1 Peter.
The different status of some New Testament books resurfaced again during Reformation in sixteenth century. Martin Luther, although he included James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation in his list of New Testament, he considered them to have inferior status. He particularly disliked James which he labeled (in his 1522 German translation of New Testament) as "Epistle of Straw". In addition, he added the word "only" in Rom 4:28 to support his doctrine of "sola fide" or "salvation by faith alone". As a response to Reformation, Catholic Church reaffirmed the canonicity of 27 books of New Testament (and 45 books of Old Testament) at ecumenical Council of Trent. For Catholics, council of Trent gave the final list of books of the Bible; no one (not even Pope) can add or drop any book into or from the Bible.
Looking back at the long process (around three hundred years after our Lordís ascension) which took place to define what belongs to our New Testament, one may ask: what is the criteria of canonicity? Several criteria have been proposed, among them: apostolic authority (was it written by one of the apostles?), Antiquity (was it written in the first century?), orthodoxy (does it teach apostolic faith?), inspiration (did the writer claim inspiration?). Yet none of the above criteria can judge absolutely the canonicity of particular book. Unless the original manuscript of the book can be found (and be verified) no one can absolutely proof that it was written by the Paul or others. Some books like Acts and the third gospel are anonymous. By tradition most of us believed that they were written by Luke, a Syrian from Antioch mentioned in Col 4:14. Note that he is not one of the apostle and was not first generation of Christian. He composed the third Gospel from tradition he received from others (Luke 1:2). Even those bearing the name of the writer like 2 Peter and Revelation, may not be written by actual person. 2 Peter may be written in the second century. As for orthodoxy, Jude 9 and 14 quote from uncanonical Old Testament books. Revelation claims inspiration, yet it is one of the disputed books which entered the canon later. On the other hand, Philemon which does not claim inspiration and contains no prophecy was accepted earlier. Uncanonical book, 1 Clement claims inspiration (1 Clem 63:2) and was believed to be written by Clement, bishop of Rome in the first century and together with 2 Clement were included in 5th century Codex Alexandrinus. Thus by itself, none of New Testament books cannot prove its canonicity and if we rely on the testimony of the Christians in the first and second century, they too may have different opinion on particular book. As mentioned earlier, some (7 books) were accepted as canonical after some dispute. Thus we need the other and final criteria, the authority of the Church who has the final say regarding which book belongs to our Old and New Testaments. Catholics have no problem to accept this criteria, which is a historical fact and is even supported by a testimony of Paul himself, recorded in 1 Tim 3:15 which says: the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth.
While virtually most of Christians accept the same New Testament, they have different opinion of its relation with the Church. Anti Catholic writers try to reject Church authority in defining the books of the Bible. Former Catholic James McCarthy in his book, the Gospel according to Rome, page 348-349, wrote that the Bible was given by the Holy Spirit, not by the Church. It is not a big problem because Catholics believe through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church becomes the foundation and pillar of truth (not by human power) and thus defined the books of the Bible. Then he tried to proof that the process of writing and recognizing New Testament books began long before Catholic Church existed, by quoting John 15:26-27 and John 16:12-14. Yet those verses do not give any commandment to write, it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be sent to guide Jesus disciples. He also argued that councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, thus they did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church. Then why he accepts those 27 books?
Dave Hunt in his controversial book, A Woman Rides the Beast, page 335-336, wrote that council of Laodicea in 363 CE did not list the New Testament books. In fact, this council listed both Old and New Testament books; unfortunately (for him) their New Testament books did not include Revelation, the book which becomes the background of "A Woman Rides the Beast". He then tried to show that before 4th century, some Christians (i.e. Polycarp) quoted from most books of New Testament (page 336) and that Christians already accepted all 27 books since apostolic age (page 340). This is a typical example of anti Catholic writers who try to twist historical events to suit their needs. For obvious reason, he and other anti Catholic writers did not mention the different list of books and that some books like Shepherd of Hermas were once considered as scripture.
Former Catholic Robert M. Zins, also twisted history in his book (page 39-41) when he wrote that early Church fathers were in agreement in deciding which books belong to canon. To support his statement, he cleverly listed some statements from Church fathers which have the word "scripture", without bothering to define what they meant by scripture. Quoting from another anti Catholic writer (White) he claimed that the Christians already accepted most of 27 books as inspired before any councils and that the participants of Hippo and Carthage councils were not Catholics. The former claim is true, yet he forgot that it was the Church through the councils who had the final say to all disputed books (both Old and New Testaments). The second claim is false as Augustine who was behind those councils (and the councils themselves) gave the list of (Catholic) Old Testament books. He is also well known for his statement: "Rome has spoken, the dispute is at an end" and "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so". Other than Catholics, who would bother to say these words?
REFERENCE: