I am nearing the end of this thread on the formation of the canon of the New Testament. Rather than going into all the ins and outs of the process, I have been laying out the topics that I hope to address in a book on the matter down the road. I say down the road because it is not the very next book I plan to write, but the one *after* the one I now plan to write. I like to think ahead.
Here I talk about when the decisions were finalized (were they?) and what the major significance of “closing” the canon was.
A Final Consensus?
Many (most?) people imagine that the canon, in the end, was decided by a vote at one of the major church councils, such as the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE (as propounded by that inestimable authority, Dan Brown, in The Da Vinci Code). But the question of the canon was not even
Blog members get five posts like this every week. Memberships start at $2.99 a month. All the money goes to charity. So why not join? Click here for membership options on the agenda at Nicaea, or at any of the other major church councils.
Nor was the canon decided by a highly placed authority, for example a Pope or an Emperor (certainly not Constantine, who, so far as we know, who apparently never gave the matter a single thought). In fact, the canon never was “officially” decided at all – at least until long after it was a fait accompli. Apart from some minor church synods early on, no decisions were officially rendered until the counter-Reformation Council of Trent.
How did the church scrape by for all those centuries before? Not by formal process but by informal consensus. By the fifth century or so, nearly everyone in the orthodox communities simply agreed and did not debate the matter much more. This informal agreement came to be cemented by the reading, citation, and copying practices of Christian leaders and scribes. Some texts were acceptable and used as authorities for doctrinal disputes, spiritual insight, and practical decisions; other texts were not. Even so, there were other ancient texts that continued to be quoted, all the way through the Middle Ages; but these were normally thought of as helpful and insightful, but not divinely inspired Scripture. These texts include, for example, the Gospel of James, which gave an account of the parentage, birth, and young life of Mary, the mother of Jesus; and the Apocalypse of Paul, known to Dante, which described the glories of heaven and the agonies of hell (similar to its predecessor the discredited Apocalypse of Peter). But such books could never contend for a spot in the sacred canon of Scripture.
The Knock-on Effects of Canon Creation.
The creation of a new canon of Scripture played a major role in the history of the Christian tradition. For one thing, it circumscribed the options available to believers for what to believe and how to practice the faith. Certain theological views, behaviors, and rituals were ruled out of course – or at least made extremely difficult to promote — given the perspectives firmly embedded in a set of authoritative texts. It became very hard indeed to argue that there was more than one God, that Jesus was not human or not divine, that sexual license was permitted, or that women could become bishops. Since even divinely inspired texts have to be interpreted, of course, they can be understood in a wide variety of ways, and readers can always promote views that seem to run counter to what the words of a text actually say. But on the whole, views endorsed by second- and third-century Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, and others came to be thought heretical based on the authoritative texts of Scripture. To that extent, the creation of the canon was a magnificent success for orthodox church leaders.
But even canon books express different perspectives on major issues. Somewhat ironically, by putting all the books into the same canon, this diversity was not celebrated but tamed. All the books were read as if they were parts of one book – and therefore internally consistent.
The historical reality is that not even orthodox Christianity was ever a monolith. From earliest times it came in various forms, different authors promoting a variety of theological, practical, and ethical views within an acceptable range of options. But “acceptable” options were not always consistent with one another. There are four Gospels, each presenting a different understanding of Jesus’ words and deeds. The thirteen letters assigned to Paul contain inconsistencies and incoherencies (especially between the ones he actually wrote and those produced in his name later by others). The alleged writings of James, Peter, John, and Jude also present distinctive messages, sometimes at odds with the others.
But when all twenty-seven books were canonized into a single book, the statements of one writing came to be read in light of another, forcing readers (almost always unsuspectingly) to think they are saying the same thing….
I will develop this reflection in the next post. [/mepr-show
Excellent thread. Very informative.
How do we reconcile John 14:6 with John 10:30? When we come to God, we automatically get Jesus. Thought?
John’s understanding of Christ’s relationshiop with God is tricky. Jesus indicates that God is superior to him and has sent him, but he also indicates that they are “one” and that he himself pre-existed as a divine being before birth. Some scholars have thought that John used different sources for his stories, some with more exalted understandings of Christ than others. In any event, even when Jesus is said to be *equal* with God he is ever said to be “identical* to him (in the Gospel), so that he can still be the point of access with the Other divine being, his Father.
I very much look forward to this book.
If I may sugest, I think it would be helpful to try to clarify what it *meant* for ancient Christians to say that a book is part of the New Testament. It clearly means very different things today for Catholics, Liberal Protestants and Fundamentalists.
For instance, I understand that even very strict ancient Church Fathers did not invent complicated explanations trying to reconcile differences (or contradictions?) between gospels which were and are part of the NT.
Am I correct? I suspect they would not be amused by the explanations of modern Fundamentaists…
Thanks. IT’s a good idea. For my purposes, I’m saying that a book that was considered to be inspired by God as an authoritative revelation was considered part of the new Scriptures. As it turns out church fathers did come up with complicated ways to reconcile accounts between the Gospels, including Augustine who devoted an entire book to the project.
Dr. Ehrman,
Two-part question concerning the proto-orthodox (or even the orthodox) church’s realization of the finalization or “closure” of the NT canon:
1. Are there NT canon verses that make explicit or heavily-implicit statements or claims that scripture will be “closed”? What I mean by “closed” is that there will be a point at which all of God’s intended books will be written and no more books or letters will be allowed as God’s word.
2. Is there extra-biblical evidence (like early church fathers’ letters, or non-canon gospels) that would seem to indicate when the church started adopting the idea of “closure” of the canon?
As a matter of where I am coming from in my ignorance on this canon topic, I consider finalization of NT canon to be something that happens after closure of the NT canon. I could be wrong on this though but I feel like there are two ideas that need to be separated to help me navigate this mentally: namely, when did the church consider God to be done speaking (closure of the canon) versus when did the church stop their search for God’s speech (finalization of the canon).
1. No, not in the NT; 2. For parts of the canon, yes. Irenaeus in 185 CE says that there are four and only four Gospels. Also, when most people made lists of canonical books, they appear to have meant that these and only these were canonical; often, though, they point out (up through the fourth century) that there are books about which different churchpeople/churches disagree. 3. There continue to be debates about whether and in what sense the canon was officially “closed.”
THe church has never claimed that God has stopped speaking. The canon is not really meant to be the end of God communicating with people; it is a collection of apostolic books that provide direct access to divine revelation. Generally it was believed from antiquity that this collection of books ended with teh apostolic period. There was an informal agreement (widespread, but not universal) about which books would be included in the fifth century or so.
Hi Bart, I thank you for this post and the upcoming part 2 because I meet a few people who are convinced of what you refer to as the Dan Brown view, and I sometimes lack the patience to reply, and your reply is far more developed than any of my responses 🙂
Wouldn’t it be great if we could have a English translation of the bible that is secular in nature. Like a translation that caters to the unbelievers, atheists, etc. We could include in this bible the other books and gospels that didn’t make it to the Jewish/Christian canon of the bible.
If I were to publish a translation of the NT, there woudn’t be anything to make you think it was translated by an atheist. But I did publish a book called The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings (not my own translation of the NT), with just that point in mind. It’s used in college level courses on the NT.
1. Do you think there is any historicity behind Jesus having a close connection with Peter, James and John? Perhaps Peter being a leader of sorts out of the 12?
2. How much of an impact do you think Peter had on the early church? We don’t have any authentic writings from him, and Paul rarely speaks on him. Yet, all these traditions arose about him.
1. Yes, I think that’s right; 2. He was apparently the unofficial “head” of the disciples during Jesus’ lifetime and then the unofficial leader of the church right after his death, and so we would assume that he was very important early on and was always seen as a pivotal figure even if he didn’t write anything.
As an aside to the establishment of the canon, I wonder if you could devote a chapter on how the various ceremonies developed and became important. Just about every christian church from the Roman Catholics have hundreds of ceremonies throughout the year. But, why? Jesus only had one (or a couple) of key events in his life based on the canon — crucifixion, appearance, birth and baptism. It appears that the year long string of ceremonies follows The Life of Brian methodology.
Dr. Ehrman – In reading these posts, I can’t help but consider that nothing exists in a vacuum. Do you have any thoughts on how the socio-political milieu of the period, especially 4th & 5th century, may have influenced the “informal consensus” of the orthodox communities that resulted in the existing canon?
Yup, that’s what my book will be about. The whole point for me is that the formation of teh canon was being driven by debates and disagreements within the Christian communities and the need to establish authorities for what was the correct understanding about the doctrines and practices of the faith.
As is commonly known, the synoptic gospels have the gospel of Mark as their foundation. My questions surround the origins of that gospel. I think a good case can be made that satire played a founding role in the formation of that gospel (and possibly some astrological stuff as well). My reasoning behind that is explained in a couple of pages at the below website. I’m curious as to what people on this forum think of these possibilities.
https://ntstudies.godaddysites.com/f/menippean-satire-in-marks-gospel
I look forward to any comments here on ehrmanblog.
OR anyone feel free to write an email directly instead of on the blog.
The link has now changed to:
https://ntstudies.org/f/menippean-satire-in-marks-gospel
Can you answer an unrelated question for me, please. I noticed in Mark 7, verse 19 most modern translations have a sentence in parentheses stating something to the effect, (Thus, Jesus declared all food clean). This is not in the King James version and a christian friend who still observes Levitical rules concerning food informed me that the statement was added by scholars in the last century. Can you shed some light for me? Thanks.
No, it’s in the KJV, but it’s just translated weirdly (“purging all meats”). It is in all the manuscripts of Mark, so there’s no doubt that it’s original. It literally says “making clean/pure all foods.” The verb refers to ritual cleansing, and indicates that there are no longer any foods that defile a person or make them “impure” or “unclean” before God.
Dr. Ehrman,
Sorry, just saw the rules on asking only 1 question per comment. I figure that’s why it was still awaiting moderation. My question is concerning the proto-orthodox (or even the orthodox) church’s realization of the finalization or “closure” of the NT canon:
Is there any evidence (inside or outside of NT canon) that would seem to indicate that early Christians leaders had an understanding that God “closed” scripture and they just needed to find all of it spread out amongst the churches in order to finalize the canon?
As a matter of where I am coming from in my ignorance on this canon topic, I consider finalization of NT canon to be something that happens after closure of the NT canon. I could be wrong on this though but I feel like there are two ideas that need to be separated to help me navigate this mentally: namely, when did the church consider God to be done speaking (closure of the canon) versus when did the church stop their search for God’s speech (finalization of the canon).
My bad. I inadvertently missed a number of comments that came in a few days ago. I usually am able to get to comments a day or so after they are made, but sometimes I miss a few by oversight.
Hmm, didn’t the Eastern Church establish an official canon much sooner than Trent? The impression I get is that the 7th century Council in Trullo set the Eastern Orthodox canon:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm (Canon 85)
Of course, the real question is if the Eastern Church became a “monolith” sooner, or if that canon was more like a suggestion… did non-canonical works in the Greek-speaking East have as much influence as in the Latin-speaking pre-Trent West?
Yes, the Synod of Trullo affirmed the views of Athanasius’s 39th Festal letter on the canon. But it is not considered an “ecumenical council” whose decisions were binding on the church. (Earlier the letter was affirmed, e.g., at the Synod of Carthage). I’m not sure what it would meant to speak of the Eastern Church as a monolith; it too coninued on in a range of varieties.
Who was the first scholar to do a rigorous study of the New Testament that recognized that it was not a monolith?
It’s hard to say, but I suppose a good case could be made for Martin Luther. After that, one could argue that a truly historical approach to the NT was started at the end of the 17th c., by the French scholar Richard Simon.disabledupes{0a151500fc7382e199c99e9e22456794}disabledupes
The single thing that has most helped me appreciate the New Testament and see it in a new light is precisely learning to see the differences between these authors and their particular philosophies. Maybe it’s easier for me now as an agnostic atheist. But I really think it’s a shame the diversity of thought therein is ignored or intentionally obscured in the kind of faith communities I came from. What a disservice to these moving and thought provoking texts.
Hi Dr Ehrman, I have a question for you.
Could you make a post on the Gabriel’s revelation stone, discussed here on Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Revelation
I think this is really interesting, especially the potential Simon of Perea connection. Unfortunately all current discussion is at a very high scholarly level, not something a layman can easily investigate. As is frequently said, you have quite the gift for communicating scholarly results to the general public.
1.) Is the stone authentic?
2.) Is it referring to someone rising after three days?
3.) Is it about Simon of Perea?
4.) What, if any significance does it have to our understanding of Christian origins?
I think this stone is super interesting but I lack the expertise to tell what the actual experts are arguing and how reliable they are. Would love a post from you on this topic if you feel so inclined!
I probably should, but it’s a tricky business. My sense is that most experts think that it’s “authentic” in that it’s ancient, but that Kohl’s translation “In three days, live” is incorrect (or rather completely incorrect). (Ronald Hengel’s study is widely acknowledged as better; and Kohl ended up changing his mind). My sense is that it has about the same importance for Christian origins as other Jewish texts (Dead Sea Scrolls) would have — that is, nothing *directly* relevant.
Hi, Dr. Ehrman
I was just wondering if you’ve read the translation, The Gospels by Sarah Ruden. I found it interesting and revelatory, in that it lifts a lot of righteous sounding language of the KJV off, and makes it seem more authentically contemporary to the time. If you’ve read it, what did you think?
Nope, haven’t read it!
You should, it’s very good.
Are there any movements around today, any groups denominations that believe that the Canon should be added to? Added to in terms of both ancient and modern texts.
I know some *people* who would like to modify the canon but I don’t know of any denominatoins, etc.