The Making of the New Testament

If the church at the time of Paul's death be compared with the church of the year 200, two great changes will be noted. The first of these has just been discussed. It is the change from the simple brotherhood to the ecclesiastical institution, from the free guidance of the Spirit and its democracy to the single bishop in each church with his supreme authority. The second change came with the making of a Christian Scripture, our own New Testament. The church of the year 50 had its gospel, but it was not a writing or a book. The church of the year 200 had its collection of sacred writings which it placed by the side of the Old Testament.

No other deed of the early church was so important as this. We cannot conceive the history of Christianity without these Christian writings. Nor can we overestimate what the treasure is that has been thus bequeathed to us. We need only think of two of its parts—the Gospels and Paul. The great fact of Christianity is Christ. It is not some doctrine about him, nor some institution developed by his followers. The great creative fact from which all else sprang is the life and spirit and teaching of Jesus. That is what the Gospels bring us. They simply set Jesus before us, and let him walk and speak and work his great deeds. Next to him stands Paul, not the creator but the matchless interpreter. No one experienced the meaning of the new faith in such fullness and depth as he; no one set it forth with such clearness and power. Every religious movement undergoes change. It develops creeds and ceremonies and institutions, and it has need of these. But often the life itself dies beneath the weight of all this, or else its spirit is radically changed. Christianity has not escaped this danger, but it has always had its New Testament, the writings that set forth the great creative source in Jesus and the first and greatest interpretation in Paul. And so it has always kept the means for its own reformation.

The gaining of the New Testament as a fixed collection of sacred writings was not without its danger as well, as history has shown. There was the danger that men should worship the letter of these writings and lose the spirit which they were meant to preserve. There was the danger of the idea of the sacredness of the letter, a theory that was taken from Judaism. There was the possibility that the book and its words might take the place of the Christ and his gospel as Paul stood for them. But the making of the New Testament, in any case, was inevitable, and we have simply to ask how it came about. Here, again, we must go beyond the apostolic age into the second century in order to understand what the first century had begun.

There are two distinct questions to be considered: First, How did these writings come to be composed? Second, How did the church come to regard these writings as sacred, to form them into a collection, and to set them by the side of the Old Testament?

It was the living word that counted in the early church and not the writing. Jesus himself neither wrote nor ordered the writing of his sayings. When he sent his disciples forth it was to preach. They were to win men by the living word. They needed no authority of book. They had simply to bear the good news to men. It was the same with Paul as with the first disciples, and it remained the same for the first century and longer. It was a practical necessity that caused men to take the pen, and the writing was distinctly secondary to the spoken word. How this came about with Paul has already been seen. The apostle could not always be present with the various churches. Sometimes he sent special messengers. Often he wrote to them to say what he would otherwise have spoken face to face.

The story of the writing of the Gospels is largely hidden from us. What Luke tells us in his opening verses is very interesting. He says that many had undertaken to write the gospel story before him. He indicates that these, like himself, were not eyewitnesses, but had to depend upon what had been handed down by those who were, and he seems to imply that he had used all these accounts as well as other material to make a complete and ordered story. What these earliest accounts were we do not know. They probably precede all of our Gospels except, possibly, Mark. We have one ancient tradition coming indirectly from a church father named Papias, and dating about a century after Jesus' death. Papias says: "Matthew composed the oracles [or sayings] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could." He also tells us that Mark wrote down accurately, though not in order, everything that Peter related of the things said or done by Christ. In addition to this, scholars have carefully compared the Gospels themselves to gain what light they could. They have found evidence that at least two of these Gospels, Matthew and Luke, have used earlier writings, and not simply as sources, but by incorporating their materials with very little change. One of these sources was Mark's Gospel itself. Another seems to have been a collection of the sayings of Jesus.

With these suggestions we can outline the probable story of the forming of our present gospel accounts, dividing this into three stages:

1. The oral period came first. The disciples who had known Jesus told the story of his life and death in preaching to others, and repeated his teachings for the instruction and guidance of believers. Repeated over and over again, the parables of Jesus, his pointed sayings, and stories like those of his healings, would come to have fixed forms. There was no thought of writing and for two reasons: first, because the church would naturally prefer the living voice of one who had seen and heard Jesus; and, second, because all were expecting the speedy return of Christ and so had no thought of writings to preserve his words for the future. This may have lasted for years, but the need of writings soon appeared. The church was spreading rapidly. There were not enough of these eyewitnesses to go around. As the years passed too they began to diminish by death. What was more natural than to secure in writing brief collections of the sayings of Jesus, or stories of his deeds and particularly of his death? Before this individual believers had probably written down for their own use sayings or stories heard from a Peter, a John, or another first disciple.

2. Thus we have the period of the first writings. One of these was the collection of sayings of which Papias speaks, made by Matthew or by some disciple upon the basis of Matthew's teaching. Another was the simple story of Jesus' deeds as we have it in the Gospel of Mark, written probably by John Mark, with Peter as his sponsor. Other and briefer collections of sayings and accounts of incidents were made, but we have no individual knowledge of them.

3. As a third stage we have our present completed Gospels. It should be remembered that none of these gives in itself the name of the author. The names at the head of these writings in our English Bibles are simply the tradition of the church. Here, again, we can only speak of probabilities. Mark is probably the oldest Gospel and substantially the same as the story just referred to. Matthew, comes next, bearing this name because it contains the collection of sayings which came from the apostle. The compiler, however, used not only this collection, but large portions of Mark, and other materials as well. Luke also used these two sources, the sayings and Mark. He had other sources, however, in addition, as he indicates, and from these he gets such stories as those of Dives and Lazarus, the good Samaritan, and the prodigal son, which he alone gives. These three Gospels, in the order named, were probably written in the years between 50 and 90, such a source as Matthew's collection of sayings being still earlier.

It is quite probable that the other New Testament writings all had some special occasion for their composition, just as the letters of Paul. Revelation was written to strengthen the Christians against persecutions. First John was directed against particular heresies which it attacks specifically. The fourth Gospel had a similar practical and immediate purpose.

But the story of how these writings were composed does not answer our second and main question: How did the church come to make a special collection of them, to include these and no others, and to set them on a level with the Old Testament as sacred writings? Nothing was farther than this from the minds of the writers. The early church had two authorities. The first was the Old Testament, especially the prophets, which it interpreted from the Christian point of view. The Old Testament was the Bible of the early church, and for over a hundred years it was its only Bible. This alone was read in its worship as Sacred Scripture. To it the appeal was made in argument as we see from Paul. The second authority was the words of Jesus. This too was final, and stood even above the Old Testament. Nothing shows more the complete mastery that Jesus had over his disciples than this fact. These Jews, brought up from childhood to reverence the law and the prophets as the absolute and final word of God, yet retained and accepted the word of Jesus when he set himself above this and declared, "But I say unto you." Neither Paul nor any of the evangelists thought of putting their words as final authority for the church by the side of the Old Testament or the words of Jesus.

In a sense too the word about Jesus, the gospel, or good news, was authority. This was what they believed, the faith that made the Christians one. But this authority belongs to the gospel as a living word, not to any writing as such that brings it, whether the story according to Mark or the sermon according to Paul as given in his letters. For a century and more this remains true. The early writers are very careful to quote the exact words of the Old Testament. Not so with the writings of the New Testament. Here it is the thought that counts, not the words. It is not these writings that they hold sacred, but the gospel in these writings. "I delivered unto you first of all," Paul says, "that which I received" (1 Cor 15:3). These men were anxious to hand down the message that they had received, the pure gospel, and the writings were a help to this, but they had not made a Bible of the writings.

All this does not mean that the writers did not feel that they were inspired, that they were moved by the Spirit of God. They felt this just as truly as did the teachers and prophets at Corinth of whom we have studied. That faith was universal in the early church. Nor did it cease with our writings. Clement, who writes about 95 for the Roman church to the church at Corinth, makes the same kind of claim that the writer of Revelation makes (22.18, 19). But neither of these men would have put their writings on a level with the Old Testament. Such a declaration as that of 1 Tim 3:15-16 refers plainly to the Old Testament, the sacred writings which Timothy had studied from his youth. We see the same distinction in First Corinthians. Paul feels that he has the Spirit of God, but he distinguishes carefully between the Old Testament to which he appeals, the words of Jesus, and his own judgment (1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25, 40; 9:9). Aside from the sense of inspiration, there was a special respect given to the authority of the apostles from the beginning, and this grew with the passing years. Clement of Rome feels that he is speaking by the Spirit of God, but he does not think of placing himself beside an apostle like Paul.

The use of these writings in the worship of the church was the first step that prepared the way for their valuation as Scripture. Such a use must have been very early, and came about very naturally. When one of Paul's churches received a letter from him, they were certainly not contented with reading it once. It would be read again and again as they met for worship, till it was fixed in their minds. It would be referred to later to help settle questions that arose. Thus Clement in his letter from Rome advises the Corinthians to take up again Paul's letter to them. What Paul suggests to the Colossians (4:16), that they exchange letters with the Laodiceans, must have taken place between other churches. Small collections of Paul's letters would thus be made. In the absence of Paul these would be read to the congregation. In the same manner any church might count itself fortunate to possess one of the Gospels, so that they might hear the words of Jesus or stories of his deeds.

Such use does not imply that these writings were as yet regarded as "Bible." The Old Testament was the Bible and was read as such in the service. The epistles and Gospels came in the place of the sermon. They were not the sacred text from which men preached; they were rather the message itself, the gospel which was read when no one was present to give it with living voice. It was in the second century that the change took place. It was a gradual and natural change. Read so long by the side of the Old Testament, the writings began to share the position of the former. The church, moreover, began to see that her real message, the truth which justified her, lay in these Christian books; and more and more reverence was being attached to the men of the first age who wrote them.

It was another cause that hastened this process and compelled the church to take definite action. We have noted the rise of heresies in connection with the writings of John by which they were opposed. About the middle of the second century these began to seriously threaten the church. The most notable leader was Marcion. He joined an appreciation of Paul with a strange mixture of wild speculation. He claimed, of course, to represent the true Christian tradition. The Old Testament he threw out altogether. Then he set up a Christian collection, or canon, in its stead. This included the Gospel of Luke with ten epistles of Paul, omitting the pastoral letters. Even from these he cut out the passages that did not agree with his position.

The first Christian canon was thus made by a heretic. The word "canon" originally meant a rule for measuring. As applied to the Scriptures it means the collection made according to a given rule and including the writings that are held as sacred and authoritative. The church was thus compelled to face the question which for years had really been present: What are the writings that really represent the Christian tradition and authority? It needed a definite body of Scriptures to oppose to Marcion and others like him.

The first task of the church here was not to make a collection. That was already made, for the church possessed all these writings. The real problem was that of exclusion. There were many other writings current among the churches besides those of our present New Testament. Some of these had only local currency. Others were quite widely used. The epistle of Hermas and the Gospel of the Hebrews were among the latter. On the other hand, some of the books of our New Testament were not generally accepted. Such were Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, and Second and Third John. Two influences seem to have shaped the decision of the church in its selections. One was the extent to which these writings had been used in the worship of the church. The other was the apostolic character of the writings. What the church wanted was to state and to guard the true tradition. Marcion had appealed to one apostle. They wished to bring forward the authority of them all. The book of Acts aided in this, as it was held to set forth the acts of all the apostles. There were, of course, writings long held in high esteem and used in the worship of the church that did not come or claim to come from the apostles. In case of Mark the authority of Peter was called upon; in case of Luke and Acts the author was vouched for by his association with Paul.

We must not picture this work as being done at one time or by unanimous consent. It was not decided by some universal church council. The discussion and differences as to the books mentioned above continued for a matter of two centuries. The main work, however, was done within a period of fifty years. By the year 200 the large part of the church accepted the canon substantially as we have it now. Two great divisions were taken in without question: the four Gospels with Acts, and the thirteen letters of Paul. Of the other writings First John and First Peter were generally received. Revelation was opposed in some quarters because of its views on the second coming. Hebrews was not generally received until it was attributed to Paul. There was thus practically no question about the great and essential parts of our New Testament.

Looking back, one cannot but say that the church was guided in this work by the same Spirit by which the early church had felt itself controlled. It is our duty, it is true, to distinguish between the various writings in the New Testament. Some of these works, like James and Revelation, were criticized by the great reformers, especially Luther. But this was because they tried to apply one fixed standard to them all. The relative value of these books is suggested by the attitude of the early church. We place first, as they did, the Gospels and Paul, and in this order. Roughly speaking, the books about whose acceptance there was some question are those which are of lesser value today. An equally important question is often asked: Were not valuable writings omitted, writings that might have equal claim to be inspired? There were other Christian writings of value, some of them preserved for us, but there is not one of these which could command the support of scholars if the canon were being formed anew today.