New Testament

==Development of the New Testament canon==
{{Main|Development of the New Testament canon}}
The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. In the initial centuries of [[early Christianity]], there were many books widely considered by the church to be inspired, but there was no single formally recognized New Testament canon.<ref>Eusebius. "Chapter 25". [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm ''Church History, Book III''].</ref> The process was characterized by a compilation of books that [[Sacred tradition|apostolic tradition]] considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gamble |first=Harry Y. |author-link=Harry Y. Gamble |date=1985 |title=The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning |url=https://archive.org/details/newtestamentcano0000gamb |url-access=registration |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Fortress |isbn=9780800604707 |oclc=1194914119}}</ref> Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the [[Early centers of Christianity|earliest Christian communities]] and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the [[Christianity in the 1st century|1st century AD]].<ref>Three forms are postulated, from ''The Canon Debate'', chapter 18, p. 300, note 21, attributed to Harry Y. Gamble: "(1) Marcion's collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last."</ref>

One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by [[Marcion]], {{circa|lk=no|140}} AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (the [[Gospel of Marcion]]) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was largely rejected by other groups of Christians, notably the [[Proto-orthodox Christianity|proto-orthodox Christians]], as was his theology, [[Marcionism]]. [[Adolf von Harnack]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Harnack |first=Adolf |chapter-url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/origin_nt.v.vi.html |title=Origin of the New Testament |chapter=Appendix VI |publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library}}</ref> John Knox,<ref name="knox">{{cite book | last = Knox | first = John | title = Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon | publisher = Chicago University Press | location = Chicago | date = 1942 | pages = 158ff | isbn = 978-0404161835}}</ref> and [[David Trobisch]],<ref name="trobisch-2007"/> among other scholars, have argued that the church formulated its New Testament canon partially in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.

[[Polycarp]],<ref>[[Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians]], [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm Chapter 12]</ref> [[Irenaeus]]<ref>''[[Against Heresies (Irenaeus)|Against Heresies]]'', inter alia, 3.12.12</ref> and [[Tertullian]]<ref>''Adversus Marcionem'', inter alia, V.14</ref> held the [[Pauline epistles|epistles of Paul]] to be divinely inspired "scripture". Other books were held in high esteem but were gradually relegated to the status of [[New Testament apocrypha]]. Justin Martyr, in the mid [[Christianity in the 2nd century|2nd century]], mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on Sunday alongside the [[Nevi'im|"writings of the prophets"]].<ref name="ReferenceA">Justin Martyr. [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm ''First Apology'']. Chapter 67.</ref>

The [[Muratorian fragment]], dated at between 170 and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the ''[[Anchor Bible Dictionary]]''), may be the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.

The oldest clear endorsement of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written {{circa|lk=no|180}} AD. A four gospel canon (the ''Tetramorph'') was asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly{{sfn|Ferguson|2002|p=301ff}}<ref name="AHIII8">Irenaeus. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html "Chapter XI"]. ''Against Heresies, Book III''. Section 8.</ref> in his [[polemic]] ''[[Against Heresies (Irenaeus)|Against Heresies]]'':
{{blockquote|{{em|It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.}} For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.<ref name=AHIII8/>|[[Irenaeus|Irenaeus of Lyon]] (emphasis added)}}
The books considered to be authoritative by Irenaeus included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul, although, based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.{{sfn|McDonald|Sanders|2002|p=277}}

===Origen (3rd century)===
By the early 200s, [[Origen]] may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation,<ref>Noll, Mark A. (1997). ''Turning Points''. Baker Academic. pp. 36–37.</ref> known as the [[Antilegomena]]. Likewise, the [[Muratorian fragment]] is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.<ref>de Jonge, H. J. (2003). "The New Testament Canon". In de Jonge, H. J.; Auwers, J. M (eds.). ''The Biblical Canons''. Leuven University Press. p. 315.</ref> Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the [[Early Church]] over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the [[Christianity in the 3rd century|3rd century]].{{sfn|Ackroyd|Evans|1970|p=308}}

Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts that became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-4th-century [[Easter Letter]], which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on the ''Ecclesiastical History'' (HE) of [[Eusebius of Caesarea]], wherein he uses the information passed on to him by Origen to create both his list at HE 3:25 and Origen's list at HE 6:25. Eusebius got his information about what texts were then accepted and what were then [[Antilegomena|disputed]], by the [[Early centers of Christianity|third-century churches throughout the known world]], a great deal of which Origen knew of firsthand from his extensive travels, from the library and writings of Origen.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bateman |first=C. G. |title=Origen's Role in the Formation of the New Testament Canon |date=3 August 2010 |ssrn=1653073}}</ref>

In fact, Origen would have possibly included in his list of "inspired writings" other texts kept out by the likes of Eusebius—including the [[Epistle of Barnabas]], [[Shepherd of Hermas]], and [[1 Clement]]. Notwithstanding these facts, "Origen is not the originator of the idea of biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary-interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion."<ref>McGuckin, John A. (2003). "Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition". In Perrone, L. (ed.). ''Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1''. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. Leuven: Leuven University Press. pp. 121–37.</ref>

===Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History===
[[Eusebius]], {{circa|lk=no|300}}, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his ''Ecclesiastical History'' [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_696002 Book 3], Chapter XXV:
: "1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Book of Revelation, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."

: "3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the [[Acts of Paul]], and the so-called [[Shepherd of Hermas|Shepherd]], and the [[Apocalypse of Peter]], and in addition to these the extant [[epistle of Barnabas]], and the so-called [[Didache|Teachings of the Apostles]]; and besides, as I said, the [[Book of Revelation|Apocalypse of John]], if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the [[Gospel of the Hebrews|Gospel according to the Hebrews]]... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."

: "6... such books as the [[Gospel of Peter|Gospels of Peter]], of [[Gospel of Thomas|Thomas]], of [[Gospel of Matthias|Matthias]], or of any others besides them, and the [[Acts of Andrew]] and [[Acts of John|John]] and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

The Book of Revelation is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the church fathers, it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the [[Diatessaron]]: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle Paul, in order to improve their style."

===4th century and later===
In his Easter letter of 367, [[Athanasius]], Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,<ref name="LindbergCarter"/> and he used the word "canonized" (''kanonizomena'') in regards to them.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Brakke |first=David |date=October 1994 |title=Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth ''Festal Letter'' |journal=Harvard Theological Review |volume=87 |issue=4 |pages=395–419 |doi=10.1017/S0017816000030200 |jstor=1509966|s2cid=161779697 }}</ref> The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the [[Synod of Hippo|Synod of Hippo Regius]] in North Africa (393 AD). The acts of this council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the [[Council of Carthage (397)]] and the [[Council of Carthage (419)]].{{sfn|McDonald|Sanders|2002|loc=Appendix D-2, note 19|ps=: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."}} These councils were under the authority of [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]], who regarded the canon as already closed.{{sfn|Ferguson|2002|p=320}}{{sfn|Bruce|1988|p=280}}<ref>Augustine. ''De Civitate Dei''. 22.8.</ref>

[[Pope Damasus I]]'s [[Council of Rome]] in 382, if the ''[[Decretum Gelasianum]]'' is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,<ref name="LindbergCarter" /> or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.{{sfn|Bruce|1988|p=234}} Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin [[Vulgate]] edition of the Bible, {{circa|383}}, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.{{sfn|Bruce|1988|p=225}} In {{circa|405}}, [[Pope Innocent I]] sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, [[Exuperius|Exsuperius of Toulouse]]. Christian scholars assert that, when these [[bishops]] and councils spoke on the matter, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."{{sfn|Ferguson|2002|p=320}}{{sfn|Metzger|1987|pp=237–238}}{{sfn|Bruce|1988|p=97}}

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by [[Athanasius of Alexandria|St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria]], in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, [http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm Festal Letter 39]. Also cited is the [[Council of Rome]], but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the [[Third Council of Carthage]] in 397 and 419. The [[Book of Revelation]] was not added till the [[Council of Carthage (419)]].<ref>{{harvnb|McDonald|Sanders|2002|loc=Appendix D-2, note 19}}</ref>

Even this council did not settle the matter. Certain books, referred to as [[Antilegomena]], continued to be questioned, especially [[Epistle of James|James]] and [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]]. Even as late as the 16th century, the Reformer [[Martin Luther]] questioned (but in the end did not reject) the [[Epistle of James]], the [[Epistle of Jude]], the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] and the [[Book of Revelation]]. To this day, German-language [[Luther Bible]]s are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than in their traditional order as in other editions of the Bible.

In light of this questioning of the canon of Scripture by Protestants in the 16th century, the (Roman Catholic) [[Council of Trent]] reaffirmed the traditional western canon (i.e., the canon accepted at the 4th-century [[Council of Rome]] and [[Council of Carthage]]), thus making the [[Canon of Trent]] and the [[Vulgate]] Bible [[Roman Catholic Dogma|dogma]] in the Catholic Church. Later, [[Pope Pius XI]] on 2 June 1927 decreed the [[Comma Johanneum]] was open to dispute and [[Pope Pius XII]] on 3 September 1943 issued the encyclical ''[[Divino afflante Spiritu]]'', which allowed translations based on other versions than just the Latin [[Vulgate]], notably in English the [[New American Bible]].

Thus, some claim that, from the [[Christianity in the 4th century#Defining scripture|4th century]], there existed unanimity in the [[Western Church|West]] concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),{{sfn|Bruce|1988|p=215}} and that, by the [[Christianity in the 5th century|5th century]], the [[Eastern Church]], with a few exceptions, had come to accept the [[Book of Revelation]] and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.{{sfn|Ackroyd|Evans|1970|p=305}} Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the [[Canon of Trent]] of 1546 for [[Roman Catholicism]], the [[Thirty-Nine Articles]] of 1563 for the [[Church of England]], the [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] of 1647 for [[Calvinism]], and the [[Synod of Jerusalem (1672)|Synod of Jerusalem]] of 1672 for the [[Greek Orthodox]].

On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:<ref>McDonald, Lee M. (1995). ''The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon''. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson. p. 116.</ref>
{{blockquote|
Although a number of Christians have thought that [[church council]]s determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.}}

According to the ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the [[Council of Trent|Tridentine Council]]."<ref>{{cite book |last=Reid |first=George |year=1908 |chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm |chapter=Canon of the New Testament |title=The Catholic Encyclopedia |location=New York |publisher=Robert Appleton Company}}</ref>

In 331, [[Constantine I and Christianity|Constantine I]] commissioned Eusebius to deliver [[Fifty Bibles of Constantine|fifty Bibles]] for the [[Church of Constantinople]]. [[Athanasius]] (''Apol. Const. 4'') recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for [[Constans]]. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]] and [[Codex Sinaiticus]] may be examples of these Bibles. Together with the [[Peshitta]] and [[Codex Alexandrinus]], these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.{{sfn|McDonald|Sanders|2002|pp=414–415}} There is no evidence among the [[First Council of Nicaea#Biblical canon|canons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon]].