The New Testament Canon

The New Testament canon is a document composed of a collection of documents written at different times, by different people, for different audiences, and for different reasons, yet all these works have been gathered in one place and revered for centuries as the authoritative word of God. In order for a Christian writing to be inducted into this exclusive club, it had to meet certain criteria: apostolicity, catholicity, traditional use, orthodoxy, and inspiration. Not all works accepted into the canon strictly met this criteria, but they did satisfy the criteria in certain combinations. These criteria are not without their problems; therefore, neither is the canon. The canon has become the basis for much theological dispute between the differing sects of Christianity that exist today. Although the canon did serve an important function for the church in the past, the canon’s purpose has been called into question and challenged. These challenges to the canon call for a colder investigation into why the canon is, what the canon has done for Christianity, and what the future holds for the canon.
Works that stayed within the traditional teachings of the church were obvious candidates for canonization. If a work strayed from the teachings that were held by the majority of apostles, church fathers, and body of believers, it did not have a place alongside the works that had been determined as orthodox. The glaring differences between heterodox and orthodox would undermine the authority of the canon and call into question the divinely inspired nature of not just the heterodox work but all other works found in the canon. It seems simple that only orthodox documents would be accepted into the canon, but the criteria for what is orthodox are hardly simple. What constituted a certain belief as orthodox? Apostolic authority is one measure for determining the orthodoxy of the work. The opinions of prominent church fathers also serves as a measure for the orthodoxy of a work.
This criterion for canonization seems to be one that is secondary to other criteria. There are works within the canon that have no claim to authorship even within the text itself, but still were able to rise above works that did claim apostolic authorship. The Proto-Gospel of James which was claimed to be written by James the Just, step-brother of Jesus, was rejected for canonization, but the book of Hebrews whose authorship is highly dubious was recognized in the earlier canons and ultimately accepted to this day. Apostolicity does not denote that a work is written directly by an apostle but a contemporary of the apostle or it may simply be that the work reflects the teachings that are typical to the apostolic period. Apostolicity is not a criterion that makes or breaks a document to be canonized, but if a work is traditionally believed to be written by an apostle or follower of an apostle, it certainly gains clout.
The criterion of catholicity seems to be problematic for many of the epistles that have been accepted into the New Testament. For canonization into the canon that is to be used by the universal church, a work must address the church as whole and not specific communities. The ideal focus of a canonized work should transcend region, language, and special circumstance; however, this ideal is not always met. As evident in the Pauline epistles, Paul addressed churches for specific instances that may be causing strife within that specific community. The epistle of Timothy contains personal advice for a young pastor not necessarily advice to be taken by the universal church. Clearly catholicity is not a criterion that ultimately determines the fate of a document, but much like apostolicity, it is an attribute that adds effectiveness to the document making an easier induction into the canon. Closely tied to this concept is the criterion of traditional usage. If the church found a certain work to be catholic, it tended to gain a wide audience resulting in the multiplication of the document and references made in other documents.
If a work met all of a few of these criteria to the satisfaction of the church, it was believed to be inspired. This attribute is not measurable like the date of a document, the name of an author, or the number of manuscripts found. Inspiration is more inferred rather than discovered. By meeting the other criteria the inspiration of a document was easy to accept as inspired. This criteria seems weak to be used since it the result of the other criteria mentioned.
By canonizing a work, the problematic attributes that face a document seem to be cleared. For example, a document that has no determined author is accepted to be just as authoritative as a document strongly believed to be written directly by the apostle Paul. It cannot be ignored that certain works had much more trouble making it into the canon than other documents that virtually granted a spot in the canon. Is a hotly disputed work like Revelations to be just as regarded as the Gospel of Luke? For centuries the church has created dogma assuming the authority of the scriptures found in the canon, but these documents at one time may have been rejected by early church fathers or seen as dubious for admission into the canon. When theological differences arise within the canon, the church must offer an explanation of the occurrence since all canonized works are authoritative and divinely inspired.
The 20th century was an exciting period for biblical studies. During this century documents such as The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel of Judas have been discovered, studied, and considered by the church and scholars. If the canon has been closed, what is to be done with these works, especially if these works fit the criteria that other works met or barely met for their own canonization? Actual events in the early past have caused much deliberation over scripture and the seemingly untouchable canon, but what about the hypothetical? It is well known that Paul authored numerous letters that are not included with the canonized epistles of Paul that are found in the current New Testament canon. The reason for the exclusion of these letters is not due to heterodox or questions of inspiration. The reason is simply that these documents have not been discovered. Their existence is evidenced by references to these letters in the Pauline epistles that have been discovered. If these letters were to be discovered like The Dead Sea Scrolls or Gospel of Judas, would the church throw them out as authoritative scripture and deny them acceptance into the canon? Some of Paul’s work barely meets the criteria that have determined canonicity in the past, so if new works by Paul were discovered that were more catholic or somehow more inspired would these works be excluded?
Discovering previously undiscovered works by Paul would certainly be an exciting event for biblical scholarship and the church. It would be a challenging ordeal for proponents of a strictly guarded canon. It’s hard to imagine a writer who would cause a bigger stir that Paul, but not too hard. What if locked away in a dusty old library in Jerusalem or hidden away in a clay jar deep in a desert cave of the Palestinian wilderness was a document penned by the most prominent teacher in Christianity: Jesus? Such a thrilling discovery would certainly whip the world of biblical scholarship into a frenzy of enthusiasm and excitement. If the canon has been closed and strictly protected, would the writing of Jesus be regarded as apocryphal? If authorship of a document were undeniably Jesus, the canon must be reconsidered. Denying the canon work by the very figure the canon is centered on would be ludicrous. While this situation is strictly hypothetical it brings to light the problem with closing the canon and defending the final draft regardless of the knowledge gained by biblical scholarship. By closing the canon newly discovered documents, regardless of authorship or orthodoxy, are denied canonical status and therefore do not enjoy the authoritative status of the canonized scriptures. The possibility of the future for new works is shut off.
The status of the canonized works is equal when placed in the canon. If the canon itself is highly authoritative then so are the works found within it. The Gospel of Matthew holds just as much authority as the Gospel of Luke. The Acts of the Apostles is on the same authoritative level as Revelations. When disputes rise within the church, often proof-texting is the preferred method by which to fix the problem. Here comes the issue. What happens when two theological contradictions can both be defended by using the same canon? The Catholics defended infant baptism by scripture while the Anabaptists declared the practice as wrong by using scripture. Some defend absolute abstinence from alcohol by the teaching of Paul while others defend the moderate use of alcohol by the teaching of Paul. These positions are developed from and defended by the same scriptures. If these works had not been canonized, but left as separate works, how would that affect the use of scripture? By throwing out canonicity but still using criteria to determine the authority of certain scriptures, certain disputes between sects could possibly face some resolve. If a document perfectly met the criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, catholicity, and traditional use then it could be easily argued that the teachings found within that document should be regarded as more authoritative than a work that barely passed apostolicity, had no catholicity, and limited traditional use.
The canon raises many issues for Christianity. Already the canon has suffered major blows throughout the history of the church. For example, before the Protestant Reformation, the canon was the accepted scriptures of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church used the community’s interpretation of scripture to validate and justify the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the church. There was no one to challenge the canon or the level of authority found within the collection. Then came Martin Luther who began to take a different approach to the canon. The Protestant Reformation eventually led to the idea of sola scriptura, the idea that authority only lies in the scriptures. Every sect of Christianity after this first major split has defended their particular interpretation of the faith by using the authority of scripture, albeit from different documents and verses.
The need for the canon rose out of the many varying forms of Christianity that were developing throughout the Roman Empire. Gamble downplays the importance that Gnosticism, Docetism, or Arianism had on the early church, but these movements did pose threats to the church that is now recognized as orthodox. The canonization of certain works set clear guidelines for right belief and right practice among a sea of varying beliefs and practices. The canon formed a uniform religion that read the same scriptures and came to the same conclusion according to the community’s interpretation. This unity lasted for many years until the Protestant Reformation which lead to even further diversity within Christianity. The diversity of beliefs and sects within Christianity seem to make the canon obsolete. Regardless of the canonization the Christian faith still grew into a complex web of various groups and systems. The beliefs of certain groups are indications that the equal authority of canonized scriptures is waning. This is evidenced by the many movements that exist today, showing that once Christians began looking at canonized scripture as the ultimate authority, they came to differing interpretations. In order for these various interpretations to stand firm, the interpreter must rely on the teaching of a certain work more than the work that may contradict the interpretation. If a passage contradicts a more favored passage, the less favored passage is reinterpreted in light of the interpretation of the favored passage. This attempt to make the passages agree shows a preference and acknowledgement of greater authority.
As Christianity continues to divide and vary, the use of a canon that makes all selected scriptures equal seems to be obsolete. Although Christians may not acknowledge the recognition of some texts within the canon as more authoritative than others, it certainly shows in the many differing exegetical approaches. The criteria of orthodoxy, apostolicity, catholicity, and traditional use are good criteria for determining the validity and authority of the scriptures for Christianity, but these criteria are not without their own problems and limitations. Since inspiration is immeasurable it is often assumed that meeting all four of the previous criteria is satisfactory to suggest that a work is inspired. The canon served as a rallying document within the early church that battled many fringe groups, but eventually became the “orthodox” approach to Christianity. As Christianity changed following the Reformation, the authority of the canon as both collective and its individual components raised new challenges to the canon. These challenges have resulted in the many different groups that exist today within Christianity. The canon seems to have become an obstacle to get around rather than a unifying document. The canon is still revered in belief, but this reverence does not seem to be evident on practice. The canon has grown increasingly obsolete in modern Christianity. The current canon should not be a closed book (no pun intended), but should be open to the possibility of new discoveries that may occur in the future.