Loading...In my post yesterday I discussed the factors that motivated Christians to come up with a canon of the New Testament. Now I can talk about how they decided which books should belong and how the process played itself out as leaders debated the issues over time.
******************************
The Criteria Used
The “orthodox” church fathers who decided on the shape and content of the canon applied several criteria to determine whether a book should be included or not. Four criteria were especially important.
- A book had to go back to the very beginning of the Christian movement or it could not be accepted. If a really good and important book that was fully informed and “true” were written, say, last year, that would not be good enough for it to be part of Scripture. The canon of Scripture contained books from
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Learn More!
Bart,
What are the sources for the debates over canonical inclusion/exclusion? I am only aware of the various group notes recorded from the many councils (as discussed in MacMullen’s “Voting About God”). Were there other recorded times and places where these early had debates occurred?
In Tertullian’s book Against Marcion, book 1 chapter 15 there is this: “But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar,” which disagrees with Luke 3:1 “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”.
Could that be evidence that Tertullian had a different version of Luke that what we have today?
It thought he said “fifteenth year”? I’m on the road, away from my books, but the online translation I consulted said fifteen. Which translation are you using.
A website newadvent.org https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm
Hello Dr. Bart Erhman
N.T Wright has said that you are the predominant scholar in the field of textual criticism, i think he ment that you were because you dont publish that much nowadays but that dosent mean that you are not a good scholar any more i think your focus has shifted and now you study early chrsitanity more.
I understand why historians don’t want to label later movements “heresies” (because that’s a theological judgment) but recognizing them as secondary developments is a historical one.
In other words, Orthodoxy didn’t just survive, it was inherited.
Early Christianity was diverse, yes. But it was not a flat marketplace of equally ancient options. Plus canon formation was not random, it reflects what communities were already using, trusting, and transmitting. Moreover, proto-orthodox Christianity shows an early and remarkable coherence across regions, centered on shared convictions about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and lordship, as well as a strong concern for apostolic continuity and public teaching.
Many texts later labeled “heretical,” particularly Gnostic writings, appear significantly later and often depend on or reinterpret earlier canonical traditions. This chronological and literary dependence challenges the notion that these movements represent equally early or alternative origins of Christianity.
So wouldn’t you agree that the historical evidence supports the conclusion that orthodox traditions did not merely survive by chance but endured because they were early, widespread, and deeply rooted in the apostolic past?
The problem isn’t just the term “heresy” — though it is a theological rather than historical evaluation. The problem is that what we call “orthodoxy” is a development within Christianity just as much as the various alternative forms of Christianity were. Of course many later views (Gnosticism, Marcionism, etc.) were not the oldest views of the Christians. But neither wwere the views embodied in the Nicene Creed. (The NT has to be *interpreted* to yield the views of hte Council of Nicea; it can be interpreted to yield the views of the Arians as well!)
How the canon should be interpreted (and how it has been interpreted) has always been a contested issue. But when the discussion turns specifically to canon formation, the picture looks different. On that front, the “orthodox” church appears to have done a remarkably careful job of preserving the earliest and most foundational sources.
Although the bishops at Nicaea interpreted the biblical texts differently from Arius, they largely shared the same authoritative Scriptures. The controversy at Nicaea was not driven by competing canons, nor by Arius appealing to alternative writings, but by fundamentally different theological readings of the same biblical sources.
It is certainly reasonable to note that writings such as 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp are also very early and might have warranted greater consideration. Yet these texts largely demonstrate strong continuity with the New Testament writings and were generally received with respect within orthodox Christian communities.
If Paul’s letters are the earliest NT “books”, why aren’t they first? Did Athanasius determine the final order of the books in his Easter letter? If so, any idea as to his reasoning?
They are listed first in all of our ancient lists; none of them lists the books chronologically — going back to our first list, the Muratorian canon. The lists all start with the Gospels probably because they tell the story of Jesus and it makes best sense to begin the Christian scriptures with the accounts of Jesus teachings, death, and resurrection to moving into books dealing with issues involving faith in him.
I’ve just read several–certainly not all–translations of Mark 3:21, including that of the NRSVUE. Not shocked am I that the “they” who opine that Jesus is crazy/out of his mind is for some translations the “people” or the crowd (including the NRSVUE), while others (including the Catholic bible) indicate that it’s J’s family which considers him nuts.
What opine you and has your opinion changed over the years? Thanks.
It’s pretty clear in the context and in the Greek that it is Jesus’s family (the closest antecedent) (“they” refers to the closest plural substantive; there is no word for “people” or “crowd” in the verse; translators have added it because they are nervous about the implications of his family thinkibng he had gone out of his mind)
Even though this subject is tremendously fascinating, may I ask something unrelated?
How can you be so efficient? How is it possible do so many things? You run this blog answering every question, you post 5 times a week, you read books, you write books, you give lectures and talks and interviews. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you talk about efficiency or making the most of our time. It just feels like you are so excellent at not wasting time, and I really envy that. I wish I didn’t waste time. Do you have any advice for that?
(This might have been a pretty good question for a Q&A setting, but I’ve already submitted a different one!😄)
I think I”ve actually posted on that on the blog. I’ll have to look. But yes, I’m very focused and don’t waste a lot of time. I almost never watch TV except sports and put in a lot of concentrated hours, mainly becayuse I love doing the work….
Is there any knowledge of how long the various gospels circulated anonymously before different groups started attaching apostolic names to them? Also, is it possible some gospels may have been known by the original name of the writer, or was it common to just release a text anonymously?
The first to attach names to the Gospels is Irenaeus, around 180 CE. Before that either Jesus’s words are quoted woithout naming a source or, by one author (Justin, around 150 CE), the Gospels are simply called “memoirs of the apostles” without any names attached. After Irenaeus they are almost always discussed under the names we still use today.
Is there an article on the erhmanblog site that identifies exactly which “orthodox” church fathers decided on the shape and content of the canon? I’m thinking Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Tertullian. (What about Origen?) Did they climb up to pulpits to rally support for their specific versions of Christianity? Did various and sundry church fathers get together at a retreat somewhere and hammer this out, like at the councils? Did they write letters back and forth? How long did the process to cement their version of Christianity take, 30 or 300 years?
It wasn’t decided by an individual, or even the vote of a church council. It was a consensus that eventually emerged and was reinforced by Christian leaders who would use only some texts as authoritative and scribes who would copy only some texts as Scripture. There were ,of course, extensive discussions and debates leading up to the eventual emergence of a consensus, pretty much in the ealry 5th c. or so.
oops lwoodville again — I found the answer to my question above by reading the article more carefully! Marcion put together a collection of writings while in Rome in the second century (though I imagine there were others). His choice of Luke-only lit a fire under some other Orthodox-ians who, after Marcion’s death, said there were four gospels + Paul’s letters. Then everybody argued, pulled out soap boxes, claimed their choices were best, though the primary sources that document all this brouhaha are scarce. But we know by AD 367 the Alexandrian Bishop Athanasius refers to 27 books. Is this sort of what happened?
THere are debates among experts concerning how influential Marcion’s canon was on nudging other church leaders to create a fuller canon of their own.
Thank you for clarifying! Plus I just found some great reading for tonight: Marko Marina’s June 2024 article, “Marcion and (Marcionism): The Untold Story of an Early Christian Heresy.” Early Christianity is so rich and complicated; I am looking forward to A.I. telling us where to find more ancient manuscripts presently hidden under the sands.
Yeah, good luck with that one!
I have just finished reading the RSV Bible, including the Old and New Testaments and the Deuterocanonical books. It took me three years!