The Canon: Defining, Dating and Quoting - Sola Scriptura, Pt 4

I recently stumbled upon a debate between a Protestant apologist I’ve followed for years and a Catholic scholar, and I was surprised that this apologist would not defend one aspect of the Canon of Scripture in that debate. He made some good points, and overall I don’t believe the Catholic scholar made any serious headway in the debate, with the exception of the possible valid point that he was repeatedly denied. I knew where that Catholic scholar wanted to take the debate, but it surprised me that the Protestant apologist refused to ‘take the bait’, as they say.

I have always believed and taught that Christians should never fear a debate; we have the truth on our side, always have and always will. It’s why I would always let the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons into the house and sit down with them and try to show them in Scripture their errors. None ever converted that I know of, but I never personally shied away from the encounters as most people do. And for this same reason, I am not going to shy away from the “Canon of Scripture” topic now. In “Sola Scriptura” Parts 1, 2 and 3, I demonstrated on multiple fronts that “Sola Scriptura” is the most biblical belief that Christians could have, and we should believe it. But there must be an objective and testable basis for what it is we believe. It cannot be “because I said so.” Nor can it be because the Catholic church, or any church for that matter, said so. After all, if a bunch of men centuries removed from the writing of Scripture can add to central doctrines of a Gospel of Jesus Christ, like salvation, with no objective and testable basis for those additions, then how do we know what it is we are supposed to believe? Even if you grant that certain people within a church have some special knowledge or abilities as “bishops” of the church, how do we know what they say is “doctrinal truth” if there is no way to validate the source? How do we judge it for truthfulness? I say, “Scripture is the final authority.” But how do you judge what I say if you have no objective standard to base that judgment upon? 

The Catholic church will tell you that some council in the late 4th century decided what the Canon of Scripture was to be, and that will somehow demonstrate their rightful authority and show that it was the impact of tradition that the books of the Bible were selected. And yes, a council did enshrine what New Testament (NT) books were considered authentically Scripture, but they did not “decide” which books would be in the Bible. They simply acknowledged what the early church fathers already knew and accepted during their lifetimes. 

What I want to present to you is the historical facts about how and when the NT Scriptures became recognized as “Scripture”. And when I say “Scripture” I mean the inspired and infallible Word of God, the current 27 books of the NT. But there is some groundwork that needs to be laid for all of this to be properly understood. 

Definitions 

Most biblical scholars will state something like this, “The canon of Scripture was determined by God, not men.” Now, at first glance you might be saying, “Umm, excuse me, but it was ‘men’ that decided which books of the NT were in the canon of Scripture, right?” Well, yes, but not in the way that question would likely be meant. So let’s start with a definition.

So, what is the “Canon of Scripture”? There are a number of definitions out there, but they all boil down to this:

One of the terms used in describing the books that belong in Scripture is the word canon. This comes from the Greek word kanon, meaning reed or measurement. A canonical book is one that measures up to the standard of Holy Scripture. Thus, the canon of Scripture refers to the books that are considered the authoritative Word of God. The Canon of Scripture - What is the Canon of Scripture?

So, in a post-apostolic era, there must be some standard, some objective rule that is followed for the books of the OT and NT to be considered “Scripture”. That will be my focus, but I will only be focusing on the NT.

According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 

The first direct application of the term canon to the Scriptures seems to be in the verses of Amphilochius (cir. 380 A.D.), where the word indicates the rule by which the contents of the Bible must be determined, and thus secondarily an index of the constituent books. Smith's Bible Dictionary - the Canon of Scripture

What drove the creation of the NT books to be written? I believe there were two main reasons for this: 1) because the Apostles were aging and being killed as persecution of Christians ramped up in the last half of the 1st century, I believe the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wanted to preserve their inspired teachings of Christ so that they could be handed down to churches throughout the Roman empire, as well as until Jesus comes back to call us all home. And 2) from the very beginning there were cultic beliefs and heretical teachings that sprung up throughout the Roman empire, and the way to refute them was with the Apostles’ teachings in written form, since they could not be everywhere at once.

It is easy enough to pervert Scripture today when you have the writings readily available, as history has shown us time and time again. But it is also true that there is ‘nothing new under the sun.’ What’s old is always presented as ‘new’ again in a later age. And we see that the Apostles combatted the perversion of the Gospel message from the very beginning, as did the early church fathers. 

So let’s examine some evidence that supports this. There are a number of verses in the NT that speak about the Apostles correcting heretical teachings in the churches they had already established. For example:

• I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; (Gal 1:6)
• Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Act 15:1)
• As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; (Eph 4:14)
• You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, (2 Pet 3:17)
• Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, (Col 2:18)
• Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. (Rom 16:17)
• “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.” (Mat 24:24)
• But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Pet 2:1)
• for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. (Mark 13:22)
• For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4)

These verses demonstrate that the Apostles had to continually encourage and correct the early believers about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is really no different than what is done today by pastors and teachers in Christian churches all around the world, or at least that is what they should be doing instead of the social “gospel” BS that seems to have replaced it (i.e., a different gospel). We, as people, are easily ‘carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men’ and need to have our course readjusted, sometimes frequently and radically. So it would seem that writing down the Gospels was something that was needed to help the church and its leaders keep believers on the right path. These NT writings are in fact that objective standard that Christians should read, believe and pattern their lives after.

Dating of the Gospels

So, when were the books of the NT written? First, keep in mind that Jesus was born around 4-6 BC due to a math error by the Catholic monks re-dating the western world; they didn’t have all of the resources we do today. And Jesus was crucified around 28-30 AD. Second, there are no existing copies of the Gospels that date before 100 AD. The dating of these books comes from the writings of the early church fathers, along with the dates of historical events and whether these events are mentioned. Yes, there are questions as to when these books were written, but there is enough external evidence to give a very good approximation of those dates. Third, there are some that date these books much earlier than is likely historically possible, and others that date them much later than generally believed. I have rejected the extremes because each has religious and political reasons for their selected dates (i.e., their motives aren’t exactly pure). Some want to paint a rosy scenario that shows the NT books being immediately written after Jesus’ ascension (i.e., within the 5 to 10 yrs), something that would likely have been recorded in Acts. Others date them much later because of their religious (or a-religious) bias and unbelief in Jesus’ ability to foretell the future. As God, Jesus was limitless, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. So, the dates I choose to accept are those that have had serious study and investigation in all of the ancient documents available.

So, let’s start with Matthew. The best estimate for the writing of this book is sometime in the 60’s AD. Before you give into the temptation to think, “That wasn’t that close to Jesus”, keep in mind that it was only 30 years removed from walking and talking with Jesus Himself. And also keep in mind that after Jesus rose from the dead, He stayed with the apostles for a short time before ascending into Heaven. And as an Apostle, I doubt Matthew or any of the Apostles would forget anything they were taught, especially as they were uniquely gifted, like no other men since the OT prophets, to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

The dating of Mark is said to be in the late 40’s to early 50’s AD. Before you say it, Mark was not an Apostle, but Mark traveled with Peter, who was. So, in a sense, this could have been titled, “the Gospel According to Peter”. Peter was put to death by Nero in 67 AD, so it would make sense that Mark would have been written before that time period. Also, the Gospel of Mark seems to have been distributed sooner and more widely than the other Gospels, which also likely means it was written earlier and had more time to be copied and circulated. 

The dating of Luke is said to be in the late 50’s. Again, Luke was not an Apostle, but Paul was and Luke traveled with Paul. And, you would be correct if you were thinking that Paul didn’t actually walk and talk with Jesus in person. But we see in Acts that Paul spent time being taught after his conversion on the road to Damascus, and most of that was likely revealed to him directly by Jesus. Luke was a doctor and his Gospel is the most historical of the four. 

And lastly, we have John’s Gospel, which is generally dated between 50 and 95 AD, and most put the date between 70 and 85 AD. John was the only Apostle that was not put to death, dying in exile on the Island of Patmos around 98 AD. It makes sense that it was written some time after 80 AD, as 1 John, 2 John and 3 John were all written between 85 to 95 AD, and the book of Revelations was written around 94 to 96 AD, shortly before his death.

If you are interested, here are a couple of links to some good articles about this and other information:

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels

When was Each Book of the Bible Written

Quoting

Next, when does history record the NT books being used? In essence, as soon as they were available to churches. When a gospel or an epistle was written, it began to be immediately used, quoted, copied, and distributed to nearby churches. It wasn’t a matter of “tradition” that made them “Scripture”, as if mankind had the ability to randomly pick and choose what was considered Scripture. What we see is the near immediate acceptance of these writings by the early church fathers, as they began quoting them in their own letters. I say “near immediate acceptance” only because we do not have much of anything prior to 100 AD. but here are examples of how often these church fathers quoted the NT Scriptures:

• Clement of Rome (95 AD) - quoted from 12 of the 27 NT books
• Polycarp (110 AD) - quoted 17 NT books
• Muratorian Fragment (175 AD) and Irenaeous (180 AD) - each quoted from 23 NT books
• By 180 AD all but 2 Peter had been quoted 
• Origen (230 AD) - quoted from all 27 NT books
• The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (419 AD) both stated the 27 NT books

See: NT Books Quoted by Apostolic Fathers and Apologists

This doesn’t mean that certain books were not known or available, only that the specific church father did not quote from some of the books. This is a powerful testimony of the authenticity and the early acceptance of these books. Keep in mind that we likely do not have all of the writings of these early church fathers, which could mean they quoted more than we have records for. Here are other examples for seven early church fathers:

• Quoted the Gospels - 19,368 times
• Quoted Acts - 1352 times
• Quoted Paul’s epistles - 14,035 times
• Total NT quotes for just these 7 - 30,289 times 

See: The New Testament Canon

Although this is a smaller list of church fathers, it shows the number of times they quoted NT passages in their writings. Again, my point is simple, to show how accepted these NT writings were as “Scripture” so early after they were written. It wasn’t a matter of “tradition” or some church council that made them or accepted them as Scripture, once written they were immediately recognized as Scripture. 

The three earliest church fathers that we have are Clement of Rome (A.D. 96), Ignatius (A.D. 108), and Polycarp (A.D. 110). These three wrote between A.D. 96 and 110, and they quote 25 of the 27 New Testament books. This demonstrates that these were in circulation before their [the writer’s] time. Geisler and Nix write, “The apostolic Fathers may be cited as referring to all of the New Testament books within about a century of the time they were written.” The early Christians quoted the NT so much that they quoted all but eleven verses. (See: The New Testament Canon)

All of this shows that it was not “tradition” or some 4th century church council that “selected” the inspired books of the NT. They were accepted as inspired Scripture when they were written by all of the early church fathers!

The apostles, in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, have thus delivered to us what was enjoined upon them.

Justin Martyr (AD 150)