How was it decided that only certain books would be in the New Testament?
The study of canonical manuscripts is not a simple one, so perhaps this brief response will spark a larger study of the issue on your part.
Historically, the church met on many occasions to examine documents which were considered for possible inclusion in the canon of Scripture. Some were accepted as canonical and some weren’t. Take, for example, the epistles of Clement, the bishop of Rome (circa 95 AD). His letters to Corinth were not considered canonical by the early church, yet Paul’s letters to Corinth were. Interestingly, Clement, himself, acknowledged in his letters the superiority of the apostles’ writings.
And that leads us to one of the reasons for the inclusion of some manuscripts. They were of apostolic origin. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul are examples of apostles whose manuscripts were included in the canon. They were accepted as authentic very early on, certainly before 70 A.D. (with the exception of the apostle John who continued writing some twenty years later).
Mark, on the other hand, was not an apostle, but was a close associate of Peter. Many scholars believe Mark was Peter’s personal assistant. So in a certain sense, Peter’s authority stood behind Mark’s writing.
Luke, Paul’s physician and missionary companion, authored Luke and Acts. Once again, an apostle’s authority stood behind his writings.
James and Jude, though not apostles, were none other than the half brothers of Jesus.
The early church also required internal unity among the canonical books. There were many books rejected from the canon because the content contradicted what was already established as Scripture.
Two books I recommend on the subject are: The Origin of the Bible, J. I. Packer, F. F. Bruce, Philip Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry (contributing authors), Tyndale Press and A General Introduction to the Bible, Norm F. Geisler and William E Nix, Moody Publishers. Both of these books, while scholarly, are not difficult to read.
The study of canonical manuscripts is not a simple one, so perhaps this brief response will spark a larger study of the issue on your part.
Historically, the church met on many occasions to examine documents which were considered for possible inclusion in the canon of Scripture. Some were accepted as canonical and some weren’t. Take, for example, the epistles of Clement, the bishop of Rome (circa 95 AD). His letters to Corinth were not considered canonical by the early church, yet Paul’s letters to Corinth were. Interestingly, Clement, himself, acknowledged in his letters the superiority of the apostles’ writings.
And that leads us to one of the reasons for the inclusion of some manuscripts. They were of apostolic origin. Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul are examples of apostles whose manuscripts were included in the canon. They were accepted as authentic very early on, certainly before 70 A.D. (with the exception of the apostle John who continued writing some twenty years later).
Mark, on the other hand, was not an apostle, but was a close associate of Peter. Many scholars believe Mark was Peter’s personal assistant. So in a certain sense, Peter’s authority stood behind Mark’s writing.
Luke, Paul’s physician and missionary companion, authored Luke and Acts. Once again, an apostle’s authority stood behind his writings.
James and Jude, though not apostles, were none other than the half brothers of Jesus.
The early church also required internal unity among the canonical books. There were many books rejected from the canon because the content contradicted what was already established as Scripture.
Two books I recommend on the subject are: The Origin of the Bible, J. I. Packer, F. F. Bruce, Philip Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry (contributing authors), Tyndale Press and A General Introduction to the Bible, Norm F. Geisler and William E Nix, Moody Publishers. Both of these books, while scholarly, are not difficult to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment