I had the amazing experience of attending a four-year theological studies program through Sewanee: The University of the South and sponsored by The Episcopal Church. It was a non-accredited, non-degree program and the studies were intense, eye-opening, and life changing. Among the most fascinating things I learned was how the Bible, as we know it today, came to be. I had always been taught that the Bible was the inspired, infallible, and inerrant “Word of God.” That may very well be, but defining those terms are important and something we can look at in a future post. For now, it suffices to say that the birth and evolution of the Bible was a little more messy, and convoluted, than I was first taught. The New Testament books were “canonized” right around 400AD, but how was it decided which writings would be considered “Biblical Canon”? And therefore, established as holy writ?

Apostalicity

Apostalicity means that the writings came directly from the disciples of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew and John are great examples of this. Both Matthew and John reportedly hung out with Jesus, so they are considered witnesses worthy of contributing to Biblical canon. (“Canon” means “officialized” or “accepted” Biblical writings). Even though Mark wasn’t a direct apostle, he was affiliated with Peter (who was a direct disciple of Jesus), so Mark’s writings were also considered worthy. This one degree of separation concept is how Luke was able to make a cameo appearance as well, but Luke’s connection was through Paul, and Paul wasn’t a direct disciple. And this is where we start to see that the “apostalicity rule” wasn’t really a firm rule; Paul was a major contributor to the New Testament as we know it today, but never hung with Jesus. It’s relevant to note that the books of Hebrews and Revelation also defy a connection to the apostles. So, given the blurry rule of apostalicity, let’s examine the other criteria that were used to determine the New Testament Canon.

Catholicity

Most of us, when we see this term, probably think of the Catholic Church, however in this context catholicity simply means “universal”. This particular criterion would have been looking for the universally accepted, or most used and time-tested, writings. There was a 350-year separation between the apostles and the gathering of the New Testament canon, and the writings that had survived this time test were heavily considered for canonization. In today’s terms we might consider the writings of Shakespeare, John Bunyan, or Dante Alighieri simply because they were written centuries ago and are still relatively popular today. This method of popularity is not without its challenges. The most popular isn’t always the best option. We learn this at a young age with our classmates, and we have seen the effects of choosing the popular politician in American politics. Sometimes it is the dissenting, or less popular, voice that carries the real wisdom. How are we to decide what is wisdom and what is folly? This leads us, and the those that formed the New Testament, to the third criterion of canonicity, which is orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy

The term “orthodox” comes from the Greek language and means, “of the right opinion”. This is troublesome right from the start, isn’t it? Who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? The most popular? The most powerful? You can be certain that it was men. There were many writings of the time that were studied and determined to be orthodox and yet did not appear in the New Testament canon. Many Christians at the time considered works such as the Didache, The Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene to be orthodoxy and yet none of these made the cut to New Testament canon. For me, this brings to question the motives of those making these decisions. Considering the place of women in society, it’s obvious why The Gospel of Mary Magdalene didn’t make it in, but I wonder what other political and power-driven motives might have influenced the decision-making processes.

To be sure, the entire process wasn’t wrought with deception. For the most part, the determination of New Testament canon was probably done by very intelligent, deeply caring, wanting-to-do-the-right-thing, men. But we can see that the process was not without flaws. It was a somewhat subjective and arbitrary process even when done with the best of intentions. 

What do we do with this knowledge? I think we approach the New Testament as books of wisdom and not of absolute truth, (I know- that makes me a heretic by most standards), and I think we recognize that New Testament “scripture” is bigger than just the 27 books placed before us today (again- heretical). Certainly, the 27 books handed down to us are worthy of consideration and study, but we can also realize that there are other writings that can be profitable for gaining wisdom, and understanding, of the enormity of God.