Establishment of the New Testament Canon

We know from the scriptures that letters of Paul were circulated among the churches: (Col 4:16)  "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."  We know also that as eyewitnesses of Jesus grew older, the need grew for the accounts to be written.  It was this recognition that caused Luke to say: (Luke 1:1-4)  "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, {2} just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, {3} it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, {4} that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."

(From "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, pg 84)  “Soon inspired men came to put in writing divine regulations directed both to churches and individuals.  It was inevitable that these regulations would become normative, for Christians could not have less respect for them than for their Christ. Thus Paul's letters were carefully gathered into a single whole; next came a collection of the Four Gospels, and then all the others followed.  Because these collections were made at different times and places, the contents of the various collections were not always the same.  This helps to explain why not all of the New Testament books were at first received without hesitation; while in other instances uncertainty for a book's authorship, as in the case of Hebrews, presented temporary obstacles to universal acceptance.  This was the exception, however, rather than the rule; and gradually each book on its own merit -- not without, Christians believe, a guiding Providence -- took its place in the accepted canon of New Testament Scripture.”

About the middle of the second century a Christian writer, Justin Martyr, stated that on Sundays in the Christian worship assemblies the "memoirs of the apostles" were read together with the "writings of the prophets." ... If it is no later than the middle of the second century when the apostles' letters became widely read in public meetings, it is no later than the last half of that century when substantial lists of the New Testament books appear.  In the third century Origen names all of the New Testament book, but says that Hebrews, James, II and III John, and Jude were questioned by some. Eusebius of the fourth century likewise names all of the New Testament books.  He says, however, that some books (James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude) were suspected, but that they were accepted by the majority.  In 367 A.D. Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of 27 New Testament books which were accepted in his time, and these are the same twenty-seven which are recognized today. The Bible had grown in relative proportion to its divine revelation -- gradually -- and its books likewise had gradually assumed the roles which their inherent authority demanded.

What about the extra books ( the Apocrypha )?

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 92)  “These books [ the Old Testament Apocrypha ] were not accepted as Scripture by such Jewish writers of the first century as Philo and Josephus; the Jewish council at Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.); and by such eminent Christian writers as Origen and Jerome.  About 400 A.D. the great Christian scholar Jerome, whose translation of the Latin Vulgate remains the basis of the official Roman Catholic Bible, strongly maintained that these books were "Apocryphal" and were not to be included in the canon of Scripture.”

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 93) “On April 8, 1546, in the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Old Testament Apocrypha (except I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) as authoritative and canonical Scripture.”

Historical Testimony of their exclusion

(From "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", by Josh McDowell, Volume I, pg 35)

Geisler and Nix give a succession of 10 testimonies of antiquity against accepting the Apocrypha:

1.   "Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C. - A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically and even recognized the threefold division, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

2.   "Josephus (A.D. 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22. Neither does he quote these books as Scripture.

3.   "Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

4.   "The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

5.   "No canon or council of the Christian church for the first four centuries recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.

6.   "Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.

7.   "Jerome (340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.  He disputed across the Mediterranean with Augustine on this point.  He at first refused even to translate the Apocryphal books into Latin, but later his made a hurried translation of a few of them.  After his death, and literally ‘over his dead body,’ the Apocrypha books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

8.   "Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

9.   "Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

10. "Not until A.D. 1546, in a polemical action at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent, did the Apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church" 32/173

Reliability of Textual Evidences

Comparison to secular literature

(From "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", by Josh McDowell, Volume I, pg 39)
”There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early version (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.

No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century. ...”

Kenyon [Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum and second to none in authority for issuing statements about MSS ...] continues in The Bible and Archaeology: "The interval then between the dates or original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.  Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

(From "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", by Josh McDowell, Volume I, pg 46)
”The editors of the Revised Standard Version say: ‘It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946, as in 1881 and 1901, no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine.’ "

Evidence of church fathers

(From "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", by Josh McDowell, Volume I, pg 50)
”J. Harold Greenlee says that the quotations of the Scripture in the works of the early Christian writers ‘are so extensive that the N. T. could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.’ ...

Sir David Dalrymple was wondering about the preponderance of Scripture in early writing when someone asked him, ‘Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the third century, could it have been collected together again from the writings of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?’

After a great deal of investigation Dalrymple concluded:  ‘Look at those books. You remember the question about the New Testament and the Fathers? That question roused my curiosity, and as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to the time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.’

The Old Testament Text

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 76)  "The earliest Hebrew manuscripts are known as the Cairo Codex and the Leningrad Codex of the Prophets.  The Cairo Codex includes the Former and Latter Prophets and is dated at A.D. 895. The Leningrad Codex of the Prophets is slightly later, dating from A.D. 916.  Another early Hebrew manuscript is the British Museum Codex of the Pentateuch. It has proved to be a very important witness on the Old Testament text, yet it comes from the tenth or eleventh century. The oldest known manuscript of the entire Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex which was completed in 1008 A.D.  … The latest edition of the current Hebrew Bible (Kittel's Biblia Hebraica) is based on these four Hebrew manuscripts, in particular the Leningrad Codex of the complete Old Testament."

"Recognizing the ever present possibility of scribal mistakes, and possessed with an almost inherent obsession to guard the letter of the law, there sprang up at an early date various circles of Jewish scholars dedicated to the preservation of the Old Testament text. At the head of the list was a group of scribes centered at Tiberias, who are generally known as the Massoretes. Their school was not by any means the earliest, since it did not come into being until about 500 A.D., but it is the most important one for the history of the Hebrew text. The Massoretes are so named because of their acknowledged dependence on the authoritative traditions (Massorah) concerning the text.  Their labors are spread out over a period of four or five centuries and their contributions are many. They are perhaps best known for their system of vowels and accents which they devised for the Hebrew text. It will be remembered that all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet are consonants. Thus the Old Testament was first written without vowels. … the Massoretes, on the basis of their well kept traditions, inserted vowel points above and below the lines of the text. It must be emphasized, however, that they did not bother the text itself -- they only added a means by which to insure the correct pronunciation of the text."

The Dead Sea Scrolls

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 76-79) "In March of 1948 the discovery of some ancient manuscripts found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea was first reported."  "The most important of these manuscripts are two scrolls of the book of Isaiah. One is complete, except for a few words, and is known as Isaiah A … Isaiah A dates back to 100 B.C. or earlier … Here are scrolls that are a thousand years earlier than the oldest of our previous Hebrew manuscripts! … These scrolls tell us much, but chiefly that there has scarcely been, at least since the first or second centuries B.C., a major change in the form of the Hebrew text. As Professor F.F. Bruce expresses it, 'The new evidence confirms what we had already good reason to believe -- that the Jewish scribes of the early Christian centuries copied and recopied the text of the Hebrew Bible with the utmost fidelity.'"  With the Isaiah A scroll available in time to be considered by the revision committee for the Revised Standard Version of 1952, only 13 variant reading were adopted from the Isaiah A in contrast with the Massoretic text. 

"The Biblical documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls are nothing short of sensational. The most important are the two Isaiah scrolls which, although they exhibit many minor differences, confirm beyond doubt the accuracy of our present Hebrew text."

Septuagint

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 73) ‘According to Jewish Tradition, seventy men took part in a translation of the Pentateuch after being summoned to Alexandria by the Egyptian king to make a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek for the famed library at Alexandria.  The term "Septuagint" is derived from the Latin "Septuaginta", meaning "Seventy". "At a later date, time and circumstances unknown, the remaining books of the Old Testament were translated into Greek. … the Septuagint translation will always hold interest among Christians. For a while it was the only Bible for the early church. It was the text most often quoted by the apostles and inspired writers of the New Testament. Yet beyond these prevailing attachments, the Septuagint version is an extremely valuable authority on the Old Testament text." ’

History of New Testament Textual Revisions

The difference in the Greek Texts

History of Greek Texts

(From "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, pg 30) “By and large the most important copies of the Scriptures are the oldest ones. Fortunately, our oldest vellum manuscripts are complete or almost complete copies of the New Testament. These old copies are three in number and are known as the Vatican, the Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. ...

1. Vatican Manuscript. ... it is located in the Vatican Library at Rome.  It has resided here at least since 1481, the date of a catalog in which it is listed.  ... Not until the close of the last century did the exact contents of the manuscript become available. ... it contains in Greek practically all of the Old and New Testaments.  The beginning has been lost, as far as Genesis 46:28; some of the Psalms are also missing (Psalms 106-138); and the ending likewise has dropped off (Hebrews 9:14 to the close, and the letters of Timothy and Titus, and Revelation.) ... It is distressing that the Vatican Manuscript is not entirely complete, yet in spite of its gaps it is considered to be the most exact copy of the New Testament known. ... The printed texts of the Greek New Testament today rely heavily on the Vatican Codex.

2. The Sinaitic Manuscript. Of almost equal importance to the Vatican Manuscript is the Sinaitic Codex.  It is known as the Sinaitic Manuscript because it was "discovered" by the great text-critic Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catharine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. ... Fortunately, the New Testament portion is intact, and includes also two other non-canonical books known as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Tischendorf's first impression as to its antiquity has proved true, and it is generally conceded that it should be dated from the middle of the fourth century. ... Extensive textual studies have classed it in type with the Vatican manuscript, all of which means that the two most important witnesses for the Greek New Testament are the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices.

3. The Alexandrian Codex.  ... Only ten leaves are missing from the Old Testament, but twenty-five leaves have dropped off from the beginning of Matthew, two leaves from John, and three from II Corinthians.  As to the quality of its contents, it does not quite measure up to the high standard set by the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.”

(From "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, pg 62) “But all manuscripts are not of equal weight, and therefore some may be classified as good, others as better, and a few as best.  Further study of these manuscripts shows that some habitually agree in their readings.  They are evidently derived from a common ancestor and are called a "family." These families of manuscripts have arisen at different times and under varying conditions. Within certain limits, their origins can be traced back to different quarters of the world: some to Alexandria in Egypt and are known as "Alexandrian"; others to Antioch of Syria, designated as "Syrian" or "Byzantine"; and still others to Western Europe, which are termed "Western"; and so on. Since these various groups represent the wide range of textual variants, it is safe to conclude that whenever several important families agree on a given reading, this amounts to textual certainty.”

Source of Textus Receptus

(From "The History of the King James Bible" - appendix to 1982 printing of NKJV) This text was largely preserved in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia.  Over 85% of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type.  Also, from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there is a greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text type.  The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type Greek text.

(From "Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary")  After the official recognition of Christianity in the fourth century, with more opportunity to compare manuscripts, these "local texts" were gradually displaced by a type of text which tended to smooth out rough constructions, harmonize parallel passages, and to make for ease of understanding.  This text-type, known as "Byzantine," was dominant by the eighth century.  It remained the accepted text, becoming known as the "Textus Receptus" after the invention of printing, and was the text which principally underlay the King James version.

Westcott-Hort Text

(From "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, pg 62) “In the year 1881 two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, jointly published a completely revised edition of the New Testament text.  This publication was in two volumes; one contained the text itself and the other comprised various notes on selected textual readings, together with a monumental discussion of the principles underlying their work.

It is scarcely possible to overstate the significance of this new text. Thirty years of exacting labor had been given by Westcott and Hort to this project. Their achievement was revolutionary not so much because of new ideas, but rather because of the deliberate thoroughness of their work and the unquestioned soundness of the principles which backed it up. No piece of evidence had been passed over unnoticed, no authority had not been brought into proper perspective. Basically, the Westcott-Hort text represented a wholesale rejection of mass authorities and an acknowledged dependence on the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, particularly the Vatican. Time has but confirmed their immense contribution to the status of our New Testament text.

In the same year of 1881 the English Revised Version of the New Testament appeared.  The deserved attention given to the great revision brought added acclaim to the Westcott-Hort text.  While the new translation was not strictly based on the Westcott-Hort edition, nevertheless Westcott and Hort had served as the best-informed textual scholars on the Revision Committee. Naturally their influence on the Committee was a dominant factor in determining the final form of the text, as is shown by the new kind of text in the revision. The Westcott-Hort text, along with the new translation, dealt the final blow to the old type of text (Received Text) upon which the King James Version is based.”

Which is the better text?

Obviously, not all scholars agree on this, some making arguments that the "better" manuscripts are those that have a greater "homogeneity" than the others (reference the section above on the "Source of the Textus Receptus", the quote from the "The History of the King James Bible"), indicating that the copies are more reliable, while others argue that the manuscripts that are closer to the original in time are to be more trusted.

(From "How We Got The Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, pg 108) “What can be said in favor of the American revision? First, the revision of 1901 is based on a Greek text which is far superior to that employed by the King James translators.  It will be remembered that this shortcoming of the King James presented one urgent need for revision. Many of the earlier and most important New Testament manuscripts which were not known in 1611 were accessible to the revision committee, and accordingly its translation was based on these manuscripts.  Of all the advantages of recent revisions and translations, this one is chief: an improved textual base underlying the more recent translations.”

H. E. Phillips (in "Searching the Scriptures", August, 1984) said "B.F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, two professors at Cambridge University, worked 28 years on their work for a Greek text of the New Testament, and completed in May 17, 1881.  Their work is one of the most accurate and accepted standard Greek texts known. Not one acceptable Greek text published since Westcott and Hort Text has materially differed from it.

Catholic Bible

(From "Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary") “The NT must have been translated into Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire, very shortly after the books were written and certainly before the second century had passed.  The 40 or so extant mss. of this Old Latin differ extensively among themselves, and it is not clear whether they represent one or several translations.  As a result of these variations, in 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to undertake a revision of the Latin Bible.  In the NT Jerome worked cautiously, making changes only where he felt they were absolutely necessary.  This revision, the Latin Vulgate, became the official Bible of the Western Church and remains the official Roman Catholic Bible.  Probably 8,000 mss. are is existence. ... The Douay Version, translated from the Vulgate, is the authorized Roman Catholic Bible in English.”

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 43) “Eventually, Jerome's Vulgate was made the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and so it remains today.  The Roman Catholic Bible in English is actually a translation of a translation, and is not as the Protestant Bible a translation from the original Greek language.”

(From "How We Got the Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot, 1963, pg 42) “By the time of the fourth century the Old Latin version had been widely copied and circulated in the West. But all of the copies had not been carefully made, and it was obvious that something had to be done in order to keep the Western Bible free from corruption. Somehow a revision had to be made which thereafter would be recognized as an authoritative standard for the Latin-speaking churches.  In 382 Damasus, bishop of Rome, was able to gain the services of Jerome for this undertaking. ... Within a few years, however, Jerome's edition of the Latin Bible had become the standard authority that Damasus had sought to create.  What followed amounted to a thousand years' reign of the Vulgate in the West.  ... there are extant more copies of the New Testament in the Latin Vulgate (perhaps 10,000) than of the original Greek tongue.

(pg 74) The Old Latin dates back to A.D. 150, but it has definite limitations because it is a translation based on the Septuagint.  The Latin Vulgate, on the other hand, even though later, is a valuable text-authority. It was the work of the knowledgeable Jerome, who spent the years of 390-405 translating directly from the Hebrew into the Latin.”

A summary of some major differences in the Bible text

Acts 8:37 (Ethiopian Eunuch)

Note: NKJV contains this verse with a footnote, NASV brackets this verse with a footnote, NIV omits.

(From "How We Got Our Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot pg 57) “These are familiar words, stressing the importance of faith in Jesus Christ. Yet these words are not found in either the American Standard or the Revised Standard Versions. These recent translations, on the basis of the evidence, are compelled to omit this verse from the book of Acts. It is true that a seventh century uncial, some good cursive manuscripts and the Old Latin Version support the verse, but practically all the other manuscripts and versions stand opposed to it. Because no Greek manuscript earlier than the seventh century knows of this reading, beyond doubt it could not have formed a part of the original account of Acts.”

1 John 5:7 (Trinity)

Note: NKJV has this verse footnoted, NASV omits a portion and places it in a footnote, NIV omits a portion and places it in a footnote.

(From "How We Got Our Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot pg 57) “The textual evidence is all against I John 5:7. Of all the Greek manuscripts, there are only two which contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Both clearly show this verse to be translated from the Latin. [contained in the late Latin copies]”

Mark 16:9-20 (last 12 verses of Mark)

Note: NKJV contain these verses with a footnote, NASV has these verses marked with brackets and a explanatory footnote, NIV contains them with a line separating them from the rest of the text and a footnote.

(From "How We Got Our Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot pg 58) “The problem of Mark 16 is rather unique.  ... The evidence against Mark 16:9-20 mostly rests on the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts. These two uncials of the fourth century are our very best manuscripts, and as textual witnesses are acknowledged as being in a class by themselves. We are thus confronted with the problem that the two manuscripts which we rely upon most do not have these closing verses of Mark. There is additional significant evidence against Mark 16, including the witness of the earliest known manuscript of the Old Syriac.

In favor of Mark 16:9-20 there are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all late uncials and cursives, five old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, one Old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version , and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus (early Christian writer) which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author. (pg 32) ... the Vatican Manuscript does not include Mark 16:9-20. For some strange reason, however, its scribe left at this point more than a column of space blank in his manuscript. This seems to indicate that he knew of the existence of these questioned verses, but was undecided as to whether he should include them or not.”

(From "How We Got Our Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot pg 59) “Whatever the correct view, it is important to note that the truthfulness of this passage is not in dispute. The main events of Mark 16:9-20 are recorded elsewhere, so at any rate we are not in danger of forfeiting heavenly treasure. The variant reading in the manuscripts are not of such a nature that threaten to overthrow our faith. Except for a few rare instances we have an unquestioned text, and even then one principle of faith or command of the Lord is not involved.”

John 5:4 (Pool of Bethsaida)

Note: This text is footnoted in the NKJV, marked off by brackets in the NASV, omitted from the NIV with the text in a footnote.

One of the earliest Papyri, the Papyrus Bodmer II (P⁶⁶) is dated about A.D. 200 and published as late as 1956 does not contain this verse. This text is remarkably like the great uncials, the Sinaitic and the Vatican.  In agreement with the ASV and the RSV based on the Westcott-Hort type of text, it does not have the verse about the angel troubling the water.

John 7:53-8:11 (Woman caught in adultery)

Note: This text is marked off by brackets in the NASV, footnoted in the NKJV along with the note that this text is in over 900 manuscripts.

(From "How We Got Our Bible", by Neil R. Lightfoot pg 56) “The story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) involves a number of verses and clearly represents a substantial variation. Almost all recent translations do not include this account in the main body of their texts. The American Standard Version separates it from the main narrative and encloses it in brackets, indicating doubt in the minds of the translators concerning it. The Revised Standard version puts this story in a footnote. Both translations briefly explain to their readers the reasons for their actions.

Why have these later translations looked with suspicion on these verses? The answer is simple: no early manuscript, except one, and practically none of the early versions have the story of the adulterous woman in them. ... Otherwise, it is necessary to come down to manuscripts of the eighth century and later before the story is found again. In addition, some of the manuscripts that have it also have notes of doubt in the margin concerning it; ... Our early manuscripts do not deny the truthfulness of the story -- its truthfulness is an open question -- but attest that the story was not an original part of John's Gospel.”

Summary

It cannot be denied that there is some doubt about a small number of verses summarized above. However, it should be noted that the number is small and in none of these is there any doubt about any of the doctrines of Christianity.  Even if all of the verses about which there is any doubt were removed, it would not change any of the teachings, nor is any doctrine jeopardized.  Our faith is secure, documented, and better attested by far than any other document of antiquity.

David.A.Duncan