Introduction
If I were to write a letter to Bill, and Bill wanted to know if I really wrote it, then the first thing he should do is ask me! If Bill asked Joe, who didn’t have first-hand knowledge of my letter, whether I had written the letter to Bill, is that satisfactory? No. The best person to ask is me.
This
illustration applies to our question. If anyone knows what God wrote to the human race, it is God.
There is no greater self-authenticating voice than that of the True One who
created all things. Self-authentication is commonplace among all of us: if you
want to know what I think about something, or dreamt about last night, there is
only one person in the world you can ask for certainty.
Some people
who believe God doesn’t exist say that God’s Word shouldn’t be consulted to see
if the Bible is from Him or not. But on what basis
is such a claim valid? It is illogical to assume that the letter written by me
to Bill is off limits for study. In such a situation, these people are trying
to get you to trust their reasoning over God’s.
But don’t be
led astray by such a fallacy: one should check God’s Word regardless of such a
claim. Nothing can fully authenticate God’s Word other than God Himself;
otherwise, there is an authority greater than or equal to God, and if that were
so, then God wouldn’t be God—the supreme authority. So, when looking at the
Bible, one should not lay it aside, but rather stand firm on it as their
foundation for looking at the question: did the Bible come from God?
Can the
canon of Scripture (what God has written to man) be placed in the judgment seat
of fallible man to determine if it came from God or not? If so, then God is no
longer the authority, nor is His Word, but, instead, fallible, autonomous human
reasoning. Man, in essence, is sitting in judgment of God. This is called humanism, where man is seen as the
greatest of all things and determiner of truth, as opposed to God.
By
disregarding the Word of God, one is forced to accept the presupposition of
humanistic thinking when looking at God and His Word. One should not give the
Bible away and play by man-made humanistic rules. Sadly, many Christians fall
for this line of reasoning, and in doing so they give up a biblical foundation
for one based on humanism (man is the final authority).
Rather, we
should start with the Word of God as the axiom (absolute beginning) and verify
that God’s Word will “self authenticate” itself (although, being truth,
naturally it will not be proven wrong—even by outside sources). In other words,
let God be the judge whether or not the Bible is His Word.
This stance
(a presuppositional perspective), starts with the Word of God and uses it authoritatively
as its own Words as a confirmation that the books are indeed from God. With
this perspective, Jesus Christ, being God, will be used as the beginning of the
analysis for both the Old and New Testament books of the canon.
What about the 39 Books of
the Old Testament?
Regarding
the 39 books of the Old Testament, God in the flesh—Jesus Christ—confirmed
these books. He never indicated or suggested that any be removed or added. In
fact, He used them. For example, when Satan tried tempting Jesus in Matthew 4, Jesus
three times quoted from Moses’ books.
The overall
Hebrew breakdown of the Old Testament books is in three major categories:1
1. The Law (Torah): Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
2. The Prophets (Nebhim):
1. Early prophets:
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings
2. Later prophets:
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (minor Prophets)
3. The Psalms/Writings
(Kethubhim):
1. Poetic books: Psalms,
Proverbs, and Job
2. Five Rolls: Songs of
Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, and Ecclesiastes
3. Historical books:
Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles
The Jewish
canon includes exactly what was in the Protestant Bible and was what was used
in the early churches. The number of books is different, but it is the same
text. Where Protestants and early Catholics divided Kings, Samuel, and
Chronicles into two books apiece, the Jews had them as one. The books of Ezra
and Nehemiah were also compiled as one book in the Jewish list. The twelve
Minor Prophets were also accumulated into one book.
Jesus
confirms all three divisions in the Old Testament in Luke 24:44, showing that
they were authoritative.
Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I
was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the
Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
(NKJV)
Jesus also
gives further confirmation by mentioning the extent of prophets—from Abel to
Zechariah:
Matthew 23:35
“that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood
of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you
murdered between the temple and the altar. (NKJV)
This is from
Genesis to Chronicles—the first and last books in the typical listing of the
Hebrew Old Testament that Jesus used. Even other New Testament authors openly
confirmed the Old Testament. For example, Paul affirms them as oracles of God (Romans 3:1–2).
What about the Apocrypha?
The
Apocrypha (meaning “hidden” or “unknown”) are books written prior to the time
of Christ, many during the 400 years of silence prior to Christ’s entrance into
the world.2 These books provide some history and
insight of the times. These books were seen as valuable but not as Scripture.
However,
some of these books have been “canonized” by the Roman and Eastern Orthodox
Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Church has some that are distinct from the Roman
Catholic Church. So, the number of apocryphal books vary to some degree. In
particular, the more popular ones are:
1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. 1 Maccabees
4. 2 Maccabees
5. Wisdom of Solomon
6. Ecclesiasticus (Book
of Sirach)
7. 1 Esdras
8. 2 Esdras
9. Baruch
10.Letter of Jeremiah
11.Additions to Esther
12.Prayer of Azariah
13.Suzanna (often
inserted as Daniel 13)
14.Bel and the Dragon
15.Prayer of Manasseh
The books of
the Apocrypha were never classed as Scripture by Christ or the Jews, nor did
the writers of the New Testament use them. However, they appear in the Latin
Vulgate in the 5th century A.D. and the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures about 250 B.C. and denoted as the LXX). However, the earliest
extant copies of the LXX are from the 5th century A.D. and that does not tell
us whether or not the original LXX contained the Apocrypha.
The
Apocrypha were also at the end of a biblical manuscript called Codex
Sinaiticus about the 4th century A.D., but the presence of the Apocrypha in
any of these documents does not necessarily mean that they were regarded as
Scripture). Regardless, modern Catholic Bibles now contain the Apocrypha—as did
the KJV in 1611 A.D. (first edition of the King James Version) and early
editions of the Geneva Bible.
Jerome, the
translator of the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century made it abundantly clear
that the Apocrypha were not
Scripture, even though they were included with the Vulgate. But like many other
ancient pieces of literature, Jerome felt it worthy to be translated into
Latin, the common tongue of the day. Even many early Church Fathers such as
Melito, Origin, Athanasius, Cyril, and others rejected the Apocrypha.
Jews, before
and during the time of Christ, often used the Septuagint (whether it contained
the Apocrypha or not) but never classed the Apocrypha as Scripture for various
reasons.3 One such reason is that it never
claimed to be Scripture, unlike other books of the Bible that claim such
things. Even one of the apocryphal books affirms there was no one speaking on
God’s behalf at that time (1 Maccabees 9:27) when it says: “There had not been
such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among
the people.”
Today, the
Roman Church views 12 of the Apocryphal books as Scripture and has included
them in their Bible translations (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The
books that are excluded are 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. This
happened in A.D. 1546 at the Council of Trent. Some have claimed that
apocryphal books were recognized as full scriptural canon by the Church as far
back as the First Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 with Augustine. There are no
extant records of this Synod, so no one can say exactly what was decided,
though the summary offered by the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 is assumed to
be generally accurate. However, the Synod of Hippo was regional, as was the
following Council at Carthage where this new canon was approved; hence, it
didn’t hold authority over the whole of the Roman Church.
It wasn’t
until A.D. 405 that Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha—after the Council of
Carthage—even though Jerome (who translated the Bible and Apocrypha into Latin
and was also Catholic) strictly opposed it as Scripture. Catholic Cardinal
Cajetan around the time of the Reformation in the 16th century A.D. reveals
that there were two different levels of canon in the Roman Church (a strict
canon and non-official canon that was still useful for teaching in the church)
in regards to this council he says in his commentary:
“Here we close our
commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that
is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of
the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed,
like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred
councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the
words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of
Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops
Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon
of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for
confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the
nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and
authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction
thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is
written in the provincial council of Carthage.”4
This was
presumably the real difference between the Deuterocanonical (“second canon,” or
books that were useful but not fully canonical) and Protocanonical (fully
inspired). Up to the Council of Trent in 1546, the view of Jerome dominated
that Apocryphal books were not classed as fully inspired canon, but were
“second canon,” and the Catholic Polyglot Bible even left the Apocrypha out
after the Council of Florence in 1451.
This shows
that the official fully inspired Old Testament canon accepted by the Roman
Church was the same as the canon being used by the Protestants and Jews until
the Council of Trent; at this point in time the second canon books were fully
promoted to the position of inspired canon by the Roman Church.
This is why
1546 is the official date of additions because it was then that the Apocrypha
were officially classed as full canon by the Roman Church, even though the
listing at Carthage (397) and Florence (1445) included the Apocrypha. Of
course, there were Catholic leaders on both sides of the issue between Pope
Innocent I and the Council of Trent. But at the Council of Trent, there was no
longer a real distinction between Apocryphal books and the rest of Scripture in
Catholicism.
Brief Overview in History
of the View of the Apocrypha
|
Date |
Event |
Apocrypha
considered fully inspired? |
|
c.
400 B.C. |
Malachi
ends the O.T. Scripture. |
N/A |
|
c.
100 BC–c. A.D. 100 |
The
community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to the Apocrypha as
“It is Written” or “God Says” as they did with other canon books. |
No |
|
c.
A.D. 30 |
Jesus
never rejected the Jewish Canon (which was the same as the Protestant O.T.);
Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture. |
No |
|
A.D.
40 |
Philo,
Jewish philosopher, refers to all but 5 O.T. books and never quotes from the
Apocrypha. |
No |
|
c.
A.D. 40–90 |
The
New Testament writers do not quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture. |
No |
|
A.D.
90 |
The
Council of Jamnia drew up a list of canonical books for Judaism at the
time—the Apocrypha are excluded. |
No |
|
A.D.
80–100 |
Josephus,
Jewish Historian, never lists the Apocrypha as Scripture. |
No |
|
A.D.
170 |
The
first verifiable canon listing from the Church Fathers was found in the
writings of Melito of Sardis and the Apocrypha are missing. |
No |
|
A.D.
320s |
Another
listing by Athanasius lists canon books, but the Apocrypha are missing. |
No |
|
A.D.
382–405 |
Jerome,
who translated the Bible into Latin, opposed the Apocrypha as Scripture,
though he translated it. |
No |
|
c.
A.D. 350–370 |
Rufinius
lists the Canon books, and the Apocryphal books are not among them. |
No |
|
c.
A.D. 350–370 |
Cyril
of Jerusalem rejected the Apocrypha. |
No |
|
c.
A.D. 343-381 |
Council
of Laodicea rejects most of the Apocrypha except Baruch. |
No
(except 1) |
|
A.D.
393 |
Regional
Synod of Hippo, influenced by Augustine, is the first listing of the
Apocrypha as Scripture and approved at the regional Council of Carthage
(397). See the discussion above on Hippo. |
Yes |
|
A.D.
590–604 |
Gregory
the Great, Pope of Rome, in his writings denies Maccabees as canonical but
still says it is useful according to Roman Catholic patristics scholar,
William Jurgens. |
Openly
denies 1 |
|
A.D.
1445 |
Council
of Florence declares the Apocryphal books are canonical. |
Yes |
|
c.
early A.D. 1500 |
Catholic
Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of
inspiration, and the Apocrypha, Judith, Tobit, books of Maccabees, Wisdom,
and Ecclesiasticus were the lesser of inspiration and seen as non-canon
books. |
No
(Secondary canon) |
|
A.D.
1520 |
Polyglot
Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (approved by Pope Leo X) published. |
No |
|
A.D.
1517–1520s |
Protestant
Reformation retains the Jewish canon and that of Jerome and many others with
no Apocrypha. |
No |
|
A.D.
1546 |
The
Council of Trent finalized the Roman Church additions of the Apocrypha as
full canon. |
Yes |
Protestants
today would say that the Apocryphal books are useful for many reasons
(historical and so on) but not attribute them as Scripture. This was the view
of the Reformers and Puritans. The early editions of the Geneva Bible and KJV
(1611) contained the Apocrypha. It was dropped, presumably, when it was
realized that some readers might not understand the distinction. This view is
very similar to the dominant Catholic view up until the Council of Trent.
What about the 27 Books of
the New Testament?
The 27 books
of the New Testament require some deeper thinking because they were written
after Christ ascended, and therefore some may think that we do not have His
authority for them. Did Christ give any hints that there would be more books of
the Bible or hints as to how and by whom they may arrive?
In John 14,
Jesus is speaking with his disciples. He claimed that the Holy Spirit would
remind them of things that had happened.
John 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to
you. (NKJV)
Bringing “to your remembrance ”
implies that we should expect one or more complementary accounts of Jesus’
life—gospel accounts. Since the Holy Spirit helped them to remember, they had
first-hand knowledge of Christ. In the following chapter, Jesus says that the
Holy Spirit will testify about Jesus and that they (the disciples) will also
testify.
John 15:26–27
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. “And you
also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
(NKJV)
“You will testify also” shows that we should expect some teachings from the disciples for future generations, perhaps in the form of letters, books, sermons, and so on. This is significant, as Jesus points out that they will have the Spirit of truth, and Jesus is the truth (John 14:6).
These
disciples were also called apostles, which means “messengers” or “delegates” in
Greek. Apostles are ones who have seen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1)
and are appointed by Christ as messengers. The apostles were also given special
gifts such as working miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12).
Luke 11:48–49
“In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they
indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. “Therefore the wisdom of God
also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them
they will kill and persecute,’ Because the Jews hadn’t listened to the
prophets, Jesus says that God in His wisdom also conferred “apostles.” And in a
like manner as the prophets, apostles would speak for God. (NKJV)
In other
words, apostles were confirmed to be able to speak the very Word of God by the
Spirit. In the past, no prophet was able to do things on their own but as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), so
apostles were able to do things in the same fashion as prophets in the Old
Testament. Unlike Apocryphal books, New Testament books have similar statements
to those in the Old Testament claiming to be from God. For example, see the
verses below:
1 Peter 1:12
To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were
ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who
have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from
heaven — things which angels desire to look into. (NKJV)
1 Corinthians 2:12–13
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from
God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which
the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (NKJV)
1 Thessalonians 4:1–2
Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should
abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to
please God; for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
(NKJV)
Colossians 4:16–18
Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church
of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
And say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the
Lord, that you may fulfill it.” This salutation by my own
hand — Paul. Remember my chains. Grace be with you. Amen.
(NKJV)
John 16:7–15 speaks further on this subject confirming expected writings. However, there is no reason to assume they all wrote something or that everything they wrote is Scripture. But they knew what was Scripture and what wasn't. Thus, they imposed what was God's Word on to the church.
Many prophets of the Old Testament have no written documents. Also, there is no reason to assume that the eleven remaining disciples were the only ones able or gifted to do such things. God called other apostles, such as Paul, who saw the resurrected Christ and became His messenger specifically to the gentiles.
There were New Testament prophets as well, but the apostles were given the duty above prophets in the New Testament and this would include the authority of imposing Scripture on the church. It would be naive to think the apostles didn't know what was Scripture. Of course they did. So, this brings up the question of who were the apostles listed in Scripture?
Who Were the Apostles?
This
discussion is relevant to determine who had apostolic authority, and therefore,
who would have authority to write or oversee the newly written Scripture of the
New Testament.5 In a greater sense of the word,
apostle means one who is sent and is derived from the Greek word apostello.
The 12
Disciples were listed as apostles (Matthew 10:2–4; Luke 6:13).
They are as follows:
1. Simon Peter
2. Andrew, Peter’s
brother
3. James, the son of
Zebedee
4. John, the son of
Zebedee and brother of James
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew, the tax
collector
9. James, the son of
Alphaeus
10.Lebbaeus Thaddaeus
11.Simon the Canaanite
12.Judas Iscariot, who
betrayed Christ
Judas
betrayal of Christ and subsequent death thereafter eliminated him from this
eminent position of authority.
Scripture says: Matthias
was an Apostle
After Judas
death, the apostles cast lots to replace him, and it the lot fell on Matthias.
He was now counted as the 12 and placed in the position of apostolic authority.
The 12 apostles do have a special distinction as revealed in Revelation:
Revelation 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of
the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (NKJV)
This special
distinction, though, doesn’t mean that other apostles listed in Scripture are
not authoritative in their writings or oversight, as Paul made exceptionally
clear in his defense of being an apostle in several places.
Scripture Says: Paul Is an
Apostle
Paul was
often declared as an apostle in Scripture (e.g. Acts 14:14; Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1
Corinthians 1:1, etc.) Paul was not relegated as less than the 12
eminent apostles. Consider:
2 Corinthians 11:5
For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.
(NKJV)
2 Corinthians 12:11
I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have
been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles,
though I am nothing. (NKJV)
Paul penned
an extensive amount of the New Testament. When one is denoted in Scripture as
an apostle, then there should be no question whether their writings can be
classed as Scripture. Paul points out that he was the last to see Christ and
hence the last of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:8.
This seems to imply that there would be no apostles after him. Note that those
in Scripture, other than Paul and the 12, who are called apostles would have
been designated as such prior to Paul becoming an apostle.
Scripture Says: Barnabas Is
an Apostle
Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and
ran in among the multitude, crying out. (NKJV)
Scripture Says: James Is an
Apostle
Galatians 1:19
But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (NKJV)
A deeper discussion regarding James’
apostleship will be dealt with later in this article.
Scripture Says: Jesus Is the Apostle
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the
Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus. (NKJV)
Jesus is of
course unique among the other apostles as indicated in John 13:16 where
Jesus says “no servant is
greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.”
Being that the apostles are the messengers of Christ, they are not as great as
Christ.
Though some
try to argue that the 12 and Paul were elevated in authority, there is no
biblical basis for this. Scripture calls James an apostle (Galatians 1:19), so
who are we to say he wasn’t? Just because one isn’t listed among the 12,
doesn’t mean that they have no authority. By the sheer fact that they are
listed by the Holy Spirit with this unique title is of significance.
Paul shared
that there is no such thing as a tier of apostleship when some argued that he
was in a lower tier (2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11).
This means that when Scripture calls someone an apostle, they are one—not in a
caste-type system—and they have the same authority. Hence, Paul and James had
the authority to write in the same way John and Peter did.
Apostolic Connection of New
Testament Books
Apostle John: 5 of the 27 books of the New
Testament
1. Gospel of John
2. 1 John
3. 2 John
4. 3 John
5. Revelation
Apostle Peter: 3 of the 27 books of the New
Testament
1. 1 Peter
2. 2 Peter
3. Gospel of Mark
Two books
were directly written by Peter (1 and 2 Peter). The Gospel of Mark was written
by John Mark, who was under the guidance of Peter. Mark likely recorded much of
Peter’s teachings, and the Gospel of Mark follows similar outlines to Peter’s
sermons, such as Acts 10:34–43 from
John the Baptist to the resurrection. Mark was acting as a scribe under Peter’s
guidance. For example, Papias who learned from John the apostle and wrote early
in the 2nd century A.D. said:
“For information on
these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now,
to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary
importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias]
has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he
remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or
deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But
afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions
to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular
narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing
some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not
to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
statements.”6
Also
Tertullian quotes at much the same time as Papias:
“The same authority
of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which
we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the
Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to
be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”7
Other Church
Fathers comment on this but these early Apostolic Fathers share the initial
view on these teachings. Apologist and researcher Brian Edwards sums it up
nicely:
“Papias and
Tertullian, both of whom lived early in the second century AD, claimed that
Mark wrote his Gospel in partnership with the apostle Peter.”8
Is the fact
that Mark acted as a scribe acceptable? There is precedence in the Old
Testament for someone else writing down things for a prophet, for example,
Baruch the scribe for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:4–32).
So, there should be no problem with apostles having such writers under their
oversight.
Apostle Matthew: 1 of the 27 books of the New
Testament
1. Gospel of Matthew
Only one
book was attributed to Matthew. Matthew was one of Christ’s disciples, so his
gospel was also Scripture.
Apostle Paul: 15 of the 27 books of the New
Testament
1. Romans
2. 1 Corinthians
3. 2 Corinthians
4. 1 Thessalonians
5. 2 Thessalonians
6. 1 Timothy
7. 2 Timothy
8. Ephesians
9. Galatians
10. Philemon
11. Titus
12. Philippians
13. Colossians
14. Gospel of Luke
15. Acts of the Apostles
It is worth
noting that from the earliest records that few, if any, doubted that thirteen
letters (fourteen if we count Hebrews, as many did), and no more, came from the
hand of Paul. Why were Paul’s writings classed as Scripture? There are two
reasons. First, Jesus selected Paul to become his apostle (Acts 9), and so, Paul
was in the position of honor like the other disciples. Paul defended his
apostleship when people questioned it.
The second
reason is that the apostle Peter claimed that Paul’s writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:14–16). So,
this accounts for at least 13 books of the New Testament.
Turning
attention to the two books penned by Luke, we find that Luke spent considerable
time with the apostle Paul—even being called a co-laborer by Paul in Philemon 1:24. Why is
this significant? Because Luke is recording what he is learning from Paul. In
the same way that Mark was under Peter’s guidance, Luke was under Paul’s
guidance as he extensively traveled with him and would no doubt be involved in
the account.
In fact,
Luke’s gospel account follows after Paul’s teachings, going back to the
beginning with Adam and being directed toward Gentiles. Paul was the messenger
from Christ to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Romans 15:15–16).
So, Luke’s writing was under the guidance of Paul, and early Church Fathers
also speak of this. Irenaeus, who was a disciple of the apostle John, said:
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and
interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been
preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the
Gospel preached by him.9
So, not only
did he confirm that Luke wrote as Paul instructed, but he also concurs with
Mark writing what Peter instructed. Tertullian further builds on the Irenaeus
comments:
For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men
usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples
publish belong to their masters.10
This would
account for both of Luke’s books: the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts.
Apostle Paul/Other Apostle? 1 of the
27 books of the New Testament
1.
Hebrews
There have
been many authors suggested for the book of Hebrews. Many claim Paul for
various reasons—even many early Church Fathers such as Eusebius when he refers
to Clement writing in the 1st Century:
“. . . Clement in his
epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church
of Rome to the church of Corinth. In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn
from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions,
thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.
Wherefore it has
seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as
Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the
evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.”11
Eusebius
continues:
“He says that the
Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the
Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and
published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in
this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the words, Paul the apostle,
were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were
prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the
very beginning by giving his name.”12
Eusebius
explains the deviation from the normal Pauline style of introduction. If this
is the case, then this translation into Greek was overseen by the apostle Paul.
One further biblical reason for Pauline authorship, or at least guidance, is
that Peter mentioned that Paul wrote to the Hebrews/Jews (to whom Peter was
also writing in 2 Peter 3:15–16).
However,
according to Hebrews 2:3, the
writers (plural) speaking of salvation appear to not have had direct contact
with the Lord Jesus Christ, as other apostles did, but it has been confirmed to
them through others who did have contact with the Lord regarding salvation.
This gives
support to the view of Luke and others’ involvement. It opens up the
possibility of one or more of the following being involved: Apollos, Silas,
Barnabas, Clement, or others (e.g., New Testament prophets); but it is not
likely Timothy, since he is mentioned in Hebrews 13:23.
Apollos, Clement, and Barnabas are the more likely candidates. Whoever it was,
the recipients of the book of Hebrews knew who it was and were to be in prayer
for the author(s) (Hebrews 13:18).
However,
since the authors speak of direct contact with an apostle regarding salvation
as it had been confirmed to them, then it was indeed under the supervision of
an apostle (likely Paul according to Church fathers). Regardless, if we ever
find out with certainty which apostle, Hebrews would still be included as
Scripture from the Holy Spirit, since this book would have been under the
guidance of an apostle.
As we’ve
seen, the most likely candidate is Paul, and early Church Fathers seemed to
believe this. There is also a hint that it may have come from Italy (Hebrews 13:24), where
Paul was.
Apostle and brother of Jesus, James: 2 of the
27 books of the New Testament
1.
James
2.
Jude
Of all the
books of the New Testament, James and Jude do not have a direct connection with
one of the 12 disciples or the apostle Paul. But recall that Jesus confirmed
the 11 disciples (leaving out Judas Iscariot), but He didn’t limit it to just
them. As noted previously, Paul and Matthias were raised up as apostles later.
James and
Jude are brothers of Jesus the Christ, sons of Mary and Joseph (Matthew 13:55). Some
have claimed that the author of James was not the brother of Christ but John’s
brother. However, that James died early in AD 44 (Acts 12:1–2), giving
good reason that it was not him. Skeptics often attack James for other reasons,
but they are beyond the scope of this paper.13
Of all
people, though, James (and Jude) being Jesus’ brothers, would have known Jesus
better than many of the disciples, with the exception of his years of ministry
where he was closer to the disciples (although with the help of the Holy
Spirit, any apostle could relay first-person events). Their books do not try to
give an account of Jesus’ ministry but are more for instructing the church.
Paul
considered seeing the risen Christ an important part of his defense of
apostleship (1 Corinthians 9:1).
And if one hadn’t seen Christ, that person could not be an apostle. After
Jesus’ resurrection, these brothers of Jesus were among the disciples and in
one mind (Acts 1:13–14). Thus,
James and Jude had in mind to be messengers of the Good News also.
Jesus even
visited James at another point (1 Corinthians 15:7)
prior to the other apostles, showing the importance that Christ held for him.
Scripture clearly reveals that James the brother of Jesus is classed as an
apostle:
Galatians 1:19
But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (NKJV)
Some have
argued that the rendering of this verse could leave James excluded from
apostleship. Commentaries overwhelmingly view this particular James as an
apostle in Galatians 1:19; for
example, a few are John Gill14, John Calvin15, John Lightfoot16, and even more recently Henry Morris17. Church Fathers also acknowledged
James as an apostle, such as Papias, but the better witness is the context in
which Paul writes to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:7–9
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had
been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He
who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also
worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and
John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me,
they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to
the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
James,
Cephas (Peter), and John are seen as pillars, and with James being equated with
these other great apostles by Paul, there should be no doubt as to the
reference by Paul in Galatians 1:19 about
James being an apostle.
James
mentioned in Galatians 1 and 2 was not one of the original disciples (James the
son of Alphaeus or James the son of Zebedee) since Scripture reveals that
during Christ’s ministry, none of his brothers believed in Him (John 7:5).
James’
authority was further shown among the apostles when his comments held final
sway regarding the gentile believers in Acts 15:13–21. With
all this, James, the brother of Jesus, is an apostle that comes with imposition
on the church power of an apostle; and thus, his book should be classed as
Scripture by Apostolic imposition as well.
Jude, the
author of the book of Jude, is short for Judas (not the betrayer of Christ),
the brother of James (and Jesus), as we learn from Matthew 13:55. It
makes sense after Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ that such a name probably
wasn’t a pleasant one in Christian circles, hence why Christians today use the
shortened version “Jude.”
Two of Jesus
disciples were named Judas—why wasn’t this book written by one of them or some
other “Judas”? Let’s do a short analysis to see if any other Judases are even
valid candidates.
Judas of
Galilee is mentioned in Scripture, but just as quick as he is mentioned, he
perished (Acts 5:37). So, the
author could not have been this Judas (I’m aware of no one who would suggest it
was this Judas anyway).
Another
Judas is mentioned who is likely the son of Joseph Barsabbas, a candidate for
discipleship by the other disciples (Acts 1:23). This
particular Judas—as well as Silas—was classed as a prophet in Acts 15:22–32. Silas
spent time with Paul, but there are no recorded books with him.
Acts 15:32
Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened
the brethren with many words. (NKJV)
This potential author of Jude was a prophet
and that would theoretically qualify his book as Scripture if it were written
by him. However, there is no hint that this person had a brother named James (Jude 1:1). James must
have been someone of significance to be important enough for Jude to mention
him in the first line of the book. So, this argues against this Judas as the
author of the book.
Two more
Judases are mentioned in one verse and were disciples of Jesus:
Luke 6:16
Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
(NKJV)
Jude, the author, was not the son of James, nor was he the betrayer who died prior to Christ’s resurrection. The author of Jude was the brother of James.
Jude 1:1
Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are
called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. (NKJV)
The only
mention of Judas being a brother of James is in Matthew 13:35 and Mark 6:3, both being
the brothers of Jesus. Why wouldn’t James or Jude say they were brothers of
Jesus when they introduced their books? Jesus is the Holy One of God, and it
was likely simple humility that they wouldn’t want people thinking they were
equal to God, and so rightly stated that they were “bond servants” of Christ.
Having Jude
mention that he is the brother of James implies that he was “lesser known” than
James who was “well known” and was at the time the head of the Church at
Jerusalem. This would explain why he puts this into the first line of his short
book.
However,
there may be more to this mention of James than merely to give us an idea of
his heritage. At this point of the study, Jude seems to be the only author of a
New Testament book that was not written by an apostle or under the guidance of
an apostle. James was called an apostle in Galatians 1:19. And
Jude seems to indicate that he was not among the apostles when he stated:
Jude 1:17
But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles
of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV)
The more
likely reason James, who was an apostle, was mentioned was to show the church
that this letter by Jude was under the guidance and approval of James, hence it
was authoritative for the church. If we look back at many of Paul’s letters,
they were co-written, but the fact that Paul was giving them guidance and even
penning much of it himself give little reason to doubt their authority. In like
fashion, with James’ oversight and approval, there is little reason to doubt
the books authority, and for clarification his name was added as an
“acknowledgement” for its authority.
Therefore,
the book of Jude also has apostolic guidance and is authoritative. Jude’s
letter was quickly seen by the early church as authoritative, and this may very
well be the reason.
So, in
conclusion, all 27 books of the New Testament are self-authenticated within
Scripture by an apostle whom Christ (who is God) commissioned, along with the
39 books of the Old Testament which Christ confirmed.
The apostles
had the power to impose a Scriptural book on the church as that authority was
given to them. Are we so naïve as to think that the apostles, who hold an
office above prophets, didn’t know what was God-breathed by the Holy Spirit to
impose it on the church? Of course, the apostles knew—the same way the Old
Testament prophets knew what was inspired Scripture.
The unity of
the 66 books, being without contradiction, is a further confirmation that each
book indeed deserves its place, pointing to a God who cannot lie, hence cannot
contradict or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18).
Recognition by the Early
Church—Is That Significant?
Another
aspect is that the New Testament books were commonly used. It was this
widespread use that further indicated they were authoritative. This was common
with Old Testament books with the Jews, so a similar extension should have been
expected.
Many Church
Fathers recognized and quoted from New Testament books as authoritative early
on. In short some are:18
1. Polycarp (disciple of
John)
2. Ignatius (before A.D.
150)
3. Tertullian (b. c.
155–d. 230)
4. Clement of Alexandria
(b. c. 150–d. 215)
5. Justin Martyr
(mid-second century)
Recognized
lists of authoritative books appeared to reduce confusion with many other
writings that were in circulation by Gnostics and others. There was the
Muratorian Canon about A.D. 150 that was damaged but still listed all but about
five books of the New Testament. Also, Eusebius in the 4th century lists all
but about five, but doesn’t outright reject any other New Testament book.19
Many lists
have followed since then. Such references reveal significant confirmation of
the canon. One would expect that Christians, who have the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit who is God (2 Timothy 1:14),
would be able to recognize God’s writings to man and use them—but at the same
time recognize that man doesn’t set the canon but merely discovers what God has
done. Any time one is dealing with fallible man, caution should be exercised,
which is why a presuppositional approach should be the deciding factor; lists
are merely a good confirmation.
A Brief Introduction: Are
More Books Ever Going to Come?
John 21:25
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written
one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books
that would be written. Amen. (NKJV)
The point of
the Bible was not to record all things but to record what was sufficient. It is
sad that people are often looking to add books or materials at the level of
Scripture (e.g., Book of Mormon, Watchtower publications, false gospels, hidden
books, the Koran, and so on), and yet few have ever really read and understood
what is already written in the 66 books of the Bible.
The Book
of Life, mentioned in Scripture though, is from God, but other books
mentioned or quoted in Scripture are not inerrant Scripture. Among these are
the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 10:18),
Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Book of
Enoch (quoted by Jude 1:15), and so
on. If quoted, then that particular passage can be seen as Scripture but not
the rest of the book.
The fact
remains that the Scriptures have been preserved just as the Scriptures said
they would (Psalm 12:6–7). And
the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). God
cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), so His
writings will not contradict themselves. Thus, any book that is in
contradiction with the 66 books of the Bible is not from God. This quickly
eliminates many alleged holy books right from the start, even if they claim
inspiration from God.20
Some models
of progressive creationism have tried adding
to Scripture as well. Leading progressive creationist Dr Hugh Ross has made the
claim in one of his books that nature is “likened unto the 67th book
of the Bible.”21 He has reiterated this more
recently.22
Since the
creation is under a curse (Genesis 3; Romans 8)
and a new heavens and new earth are needed (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1)
and the Curse has not been removed yet (Revelation 22:3),
then it is appropriate to say that this alleged 67th book of the
Bible (which, many times, is more the secular interpretation of it) is
not valid Scripture. Besides, heaven and earth will pass away as have many of
the secular interpretations of it already but God’s Word will never pass away,
giving further indication that it is not Scripture (Mark 13:31; Matthew 24:35; Luke
21:33).
The book of
Revelation gives hints to the sealing of the canon.[1]
Revelation 22:18–19
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If
anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written
in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy
city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)
Revelation
was recognized by the early church to be among the last of the Scriptures
written. If one tries to add another book centuries or millennia later, they
must deal correctly with Revelation and what is said in the book in the same
way the New Testament authors dealt with Old Testament prophecy.
Conclusion
By starting
with the Bible, God self-authenticates His Word (Hebrews 6:13). God openly
signed it (with many passages saying it was from Him) and confirmed it. So now,
it is a matter of taking the time to read and trust what God says in His Word.
In summary, one can rightly state:
The 66 books of the Bible are the written
Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its
assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme
authority in everything it teaches.23
If this article has been a blessing, please consider a tax-deductible
donation.
Originally published here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon; (Updated) and Reprinted by Permission
Footnotes
1. Josh McDowell, A
Ready Defense (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), p.
35.
2. Although some may
view this discussion of the Apocrypha as an aggression on their particular
church (which may have raised up some of the Apocrypha to a higher level), it
is not meant to be. When dealing with canon, the Apocrypha must be addressed,
and my hope is that it is done in a God honoring fashion.
3. For more on this
subject, please see Brian Edwards’s books Nothing But the Truth and Why 27?
4. From: Cardinal
Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical
Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther; taken from William
Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge University, 1849),
p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon
of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.
5. Apostles being
referred to in this article are specifically those who were called such in the
Scriptures and not to be confused with those who are called apostles today.
6. Papias, Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) 1:154–155.
7. Tertullian, Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) 3:350.
8. Brian Edwards, Nothing
But The Truth (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2006), p. 210.
9. Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) 1:414.
10. Tertullian, Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994) 3:350.
11. Eusebius, “The
Epistle of Clement and the Writings Falsely Ascribed to Him,” adapted from the Online
Bible.
12. Eusebius, Church
History, adapted from the Online
Bible.
13. J.P. Holding, “On the
Authorship of the Book of James,” Tekton Apologetic Ministry, http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jamesauth.html.
14. John Gill, Commentary
on the Whole Bible, notes on Galatians 1:19.
15. John Calvin, Commentary
on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Notes on Galatians 1:19, 2:9
16. John Lightfoot, Bible
Commentary, Notes on Galatians 1:19.
17. Henry Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible (Iowa falls,
Iowa: World Bible Publishers, Inc., 1995) p. 1294 (notes on Galatians 1:19).
18. Brian Edwards, Why
27? (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007), pp. 46–48.
19. Brian Edwards, Why
27? (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007), p. 47. Glenn Davis,
“The Development of Canon of the New Testament,” The Development of the Canon
of the New Testament, http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml#disputed.
20. Bodie Hodge, “Other
Religious Writings” Answers, October–December 2007, pp. 36–38.
21. H.N. Ross, Creation
and Time (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1994), p. 56.
22. Andy Butcher, “He
Sees God in the Stars,” Charisma, June 2003, p. 40.
23. For more see: BAM,
“Statement of Faith,” https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/p/blog-page.html.
[1] An
entire article could be written on this and this verse in Revelation is but a
small piece of this puzzle, but the canon closes in the first century when the New
Testament was complete.
