Answers to these questions will be sought using an historical medium. Accepting the New Testament as accurately depicting the suffering and risen Messiah Jesus is a matter of faith and extends beyond historical processes. However, the historical method for discovering how it is that these books came to be known as the New Testament is a viable (and perhaps only objective) means whereby one can piece together the struggles of the early Church as it sought a standard for its life and faith.

The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) was not officially identified until the councils of Jamnia (90, 118 A.D.). Although some question remains as to what exactly was determined at these councils, it is significant to note that several hundred years after the last book of the OT, the text was still awaiting an official stamp of approval. Yet in Jesus' day he could refer to the OT writings as "scripture" (Jn 10:35); "law and prophets" (Mt 7:12; 22:40); and "Law of Moses. . .Prophets. . .Psalms" (Lk 24:44). This indicates that recognition of God's Word precedes an official canonized list. Likewise, the early Church had a body of authoritative literature prior to it being recognized by any organized group or institution. Oral tradition regarding Jesus' teaching (e.g. I Cor 11:23; 15:3; also known as the kerygma), the Pauline epistles and the Synoptics were circulated throughout the Roman Empire by the middle of the second century. These sources were recognized as authoritative for the Church and began the process of a completed canon for the New Testament.

One of the forces behind the formation of the canon was the fact of so many different but similar writings being collected and circulated in the early Church. While these non-canonical writings were being read in Christian assemblies and/or being used for private reading, some shorter epistles (e.g. II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude) and Revelation were much later in being accepted. The Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 200), Origen's canon (c. A.D. 250), Eusebius' canon (c. A.D. 300), the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) all included the Shepherd of Hermas (c. A.D. 110) and the Codex Alexandrinus (c. 5th century) had I and II Clement (c. A.D. 100; A.D. 150 respectively). This material and others (viz. Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Gospel of Hebrews, Didache, Diatessaron) suggests the extent of non-canonical literature was immense. The Church was eventually faced with a decision as to what writings will be regarded authoritative for its faith and life.

Some of the post-apostolic fathers recognized most of Paul's epistles. Clement, the bishop of Rome (died c. A.D. 100), knew of Paul's letters to Corinth. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (executed c. A.D. 110-115), attests to other Pauline epistles. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (a contemporary of Ignatius, martyred c. A.D. 156-160) was familiar with all of Paul's epistles but three (I Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus). This strongly indicates that by the beginning of the 2nd century all of Paul's epistles had been circulated to a majority of churches.

The earliest list of books to be regarded as canonical came from Rome about A.D. 140. The heretic Marcion believed the god of the OT to be inferior to the god of the NT and sought to provide a list of Christian writings that removed as far as possible any Jewish overtones. His list consisted of an edited version of Luke (a "gentile" account of Jesus' life and ministry) and ten of Paul's epistles (excluding the Pastorals). This attempt to remove all Semitic influence and Jewish thought from Christianity provoked the need for a recognized canon.

Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 150) wrote in his Apology and Dialogue with Trypho that the Church reads the "memoirs of the apostles" (viz. the Gospels). Revelation is included in his canon as well as the Pauline epistles, Hebrews and Acts. Later his pupil Tatian (c. A.D. 170) formulated the Diatessaron (a harmony of the Gospels) using all four accounts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This suggests that Justin did know of the four Gospels.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. A.D. 177), cites twenty-two of the twenty-seven books of the NT. Those not included are Hebrews, James, II Peter, III John and Jude. Although he put the Shepherd of Hermas on par with the canonical books, Iranaeus' record indicates the early formation of the canon. His account alone shows the extent of recognition both geographically and authoritatively of most of the NT books before the close of the 2nd century.

The Muratorian Fragment was discovered by Cardinal L.A. Muratori, an Italian historian, and was published in 1740. It contains a list of books to be read publicly to the whole Church and which were deemed "apostolic" in origin. This document is dated c. A.D. 200. Twenty- two (possibly twenty-three if James is included; but, see Bruce New Testament Documents p. 22 and International Standard Bible Encycopedia Vol. I, p. 605) of the canonical NT books are included. Those not included are Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and III John. It has been speculated that Hippolytus of Rome (c. A.D. 217) is the author of the Muratorian Canon (ISBE Vol 1, p. 605). In his known writings he lists twenty-one canonical books; although those books which he includes or omits are different from the Fragment.

Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa left in his writings (c. A.D. 196-212) a canon of twenty-two books. Those not included were Hebrews, James, II Peter, and II, III John. His strong position against Marcion's canon and doctrine led him to establish an authoritative body of writings.

Clement of Alexandria in Egypt and his successor, Origen, attest to the process of a canon in the East. It is possible that Clement knew of all twenty-seven books of the NT, although he held that other non-canonical books were inspired as well. Origen, on the other hand, noted three classes of Scripture. In the first class were those books which were undisputed. In the second class were those books still disputed, viz. Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John and Jude. The third class consisted of "false" works.

Eusebius' canon (c. A.D. 260-340) was the same as Origen's but included Hebrews and not Revelation (but, see Erdman's Handbook pp. 95-96). His canon is significant as the Arian heresy was hotly disputed during his time under Constantine. Although both Arius and Athanasius held to the authority of the Scriptures, both turned to them in order to reach a settlement as to the meaning of Christ's deity and humanity. This clearly indicates the importance of a canon or means whereby truth and error can be discerned.

The most significant and complete canon was recognized by the Alexandrian theologian Athanasius in his thirty-ninth Easter letter in A.D. 367. All twenty-seven books were acknowledged as Scripture and fully authoritative. He insisted that the twenty-seven alone are to be canonical — nothing to be added nor taken away from them. Also at about this time(c. A.D. 386), Jerome was commissioned by Damascus, the bishop of Rome, to make a fresh translation of the Scriptures into Latin. In his translation he included all twenty-seven books of the NT.

The first official recognition of a complete NT canon consisting of all twenty-seven books by the Church in the West came at the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Augustine was present and gave his stamp of approval of the canon. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 419) reiterated that decision with the same list of twenty-seven books. Later (c. A.D. 508) the Church of the East recognized the remaining books in its canon (viz. II Peter, II, III John, Jude and Revelation). Thus, by the beginning of the sixth century the Church in all the known world had a completed canon of the NT.

This long historical/theological process of the complete and final authoritative Word of God has been scrutinized and questioned time and again by the scholarly world. Martin Luther placed certain books on a lower status (e.g. Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation). These did not fit well with his theological presuppositions and so were questioned. Many others have followed suit. The ultimate question to be asked by those who choose to question the authority of some NT books is "Is the New Testament canon fixed." Should modern Christianity accept the canon of the early Church?

To answer one must turn to the criteria the early Church used in its decision making processes on what books to include. Part of this criteria would, no doubt, include various social, theological, cultural and even geographical considerations. The Church did not exist in a vacuum. There were many forces that served to shape the completed canon of the NT. Many of these variables are difficult to weigh for obvious reasons. There are limited resources (such as antiquated writings, artifacts, excavations etc.) available to draw from. But a high degree of probability exists that what can be known regarding the NT documents will prove them trustworthy. This, in turn, would promote one to "cross the line" and trust the NT Scriptures as a reliable account of the historical Jesus, his apostles and the birth of the Church.

The first of many criterion for the NT canon would be the consistency of the message and its broad scope of application. Here it is plain that the four Gospels were, without question, regarded as accurate and authoritative. Had the Gospels been in question, those close enough to Jesus or his disciples could have made corrections before they were so widely circulated. There were means of sorting out the accuracy and therefore authority of the Gospel accounts using the kerygma (apostolic oral traditions about Jesus).

Likewise, the Pauline epistles were held to be authoritative. Many times Paul claimed a "word of the Lord" (I Thess 4:15; I Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23; Acts 20:35). Philemon may have been late in being acknowledged. This could be due to the fact that it was a personal letter and not meant to be circulated. Paul insists that his letter to the Thessalonians be read to all (I Thess 5:27). Likewise, Paul commanded the Colossians to send their letter to the church in Laodicea and in turn to read their letter from him in the Colossian church (Col 4:16). Also, the Apocalypse of John was to be sent to the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev 1:11).

The fact that these NT books were so widely accepted and applied indicates that there is a great deal of continuity inherent in the message they proclaimed. Had there been contradiction (apparent or explicit) in the early circulation of these accounts then it is doubtful the Church would have accepted them.

Apostolic origin was another criterion in determining authoritative writings for the Church. This was, in fact, the most important factor for the Church. Since Jesus granted to the apostles authority to proclaim the message of a risen Savior and endowed them with the Spirit of God to carry out this task, it was understood that the writings of the apostles were to be held in the highest regard.

The apostle Paul was acutely conscious of his authority. So much so that rejecting his teaching was tantamount to rejecting the teaching of God himself (I Thess 4:8). It is equally significant to note that Paul, being a contemporary of the other apostles, had not been challenged by them. In fact, he himself challenged Peter — one who walked with the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry (Gal 2:11). Shortly afterwards (c. 15-20 years) Peter affirms Paul's writings as "Scripture" (II Pt 3:16). This indicates a kind of internal consistency amongst the apostles and affirms their authority.

However, this is not to say that apostolic authorship was the sole criterion the Church used in determining the canon of the NT. It may have been the preferred way but could not be the only way as it does not explain the works of Mark, Luke-Acts, James, Jude and possibly Hebrews. The apostles themselves included the OT as canon for the Church and therefore did not insist that their writings alone be considered authoritative. Paul puts Luke's Gospel on par with Scripture in I Tim 5:18 where he quotes Lk 10:7. This strongly suggests that close association with an apostle was also a necessary criterion. In short, whatever books the apostles imposed as canon are those works which the Church included as canon (Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield pp. 415-416).

Another means of determining authoritative Scripture was the overall effect that these writings brought about in the lives of the people they reached. By way of contrast, the non-canonical books did not transform the moral and spiritual nature of the early Christians. This criterion may be highly subjective but its subjectivity does not remove the reality of virtuous and godly lives brought about as a result of the NT writings.

The Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 did not so much determine the canon as it recognized it. If apostolic authorship/association, internal consistency of the message and the moral change brought about as a result of these writings is the basis of canonicity, then all the Church could do was render a decision as to these book's authoritative nature. The rest was left to the test of time. Had there been substantial question regarding the Church's decision on the canon then one would think that history would reverse that decision. If anything, history has affirmed the early Church's conclusion.

What remains is a long history of the rise of Christianity based upon the writings of the New Testament. The canon of Scripture has never been the product of individual or institutional arbitration. Rather it came about as a result of many processes that contributed to its formation. Its own internal consistency of message, the Church's use of it in defense of orthodoxy, changed lives brought about by its dynamic and the test of time have all contributed to the recognition of its authority and inspiration from God. The final task is simply to understand and submit to the teachings and precepts of His Word under the guidance and influence of the Spirit.

The early Church had an immense responsibility in defining the parameters of the Christian faith. In an effort to defend orthodoxy, it was necessary to recognize an authoritative body of literature that carried with it the apostle's approval. While apostolic authorship (hence, authority) cannot be proven empirically, it is quite reasonable to believe, based upon the early Church witnesses, that the Christian message sprang from the risen Lord himself and was confirmed by his apostles (Heb 2:3b). This message corresponded to the historical Jesus and resulted in the twenty-seven books of the NT.