Essay About New Testament Canonization And Different Books

New Testament Canonization – Canonization’s Criteria
Canonization’s Criteria     Today, the New Testament canon consists of twenty-seven different books. However, scholars have long had to address the issue of the Apocryphal texts and contemplate why these books were not included when the canon was being developed. Throughout the years, several different criteria have been determined that would have played a crucial role in the determination of whether or not a book was considered Scripture. In order to gain a greater appreciation of the New Testament and acquire a more informed notion about the nature of the Bible as a whole, it is necessary to understand the requirements that were considered when these books were being put together for the first time. The requirements that were in place when texts were being considered for canonization were traditional usage, apostolicity, catholicity, orthodoxy, and inspiration.[1]     Traditional usage refers to the regularity the document in question was used within the Christian community prior to the formation of the New Testament canon. If, prior to establishing the canon, a text had been widely used in worship or read in services, then it would have most likely become part of the canon. This particular criterion is unique because, unlike apostolicity or orthodoxy, it was based upon standing church practices instead of the intrinsic nature of the text itself.[2] While this criterion did not necessarily dictate whether or not a document was ‘scriptural,’ it did grant the text a certain level of authority; plus, it already had a reputation of usefulness when the canon was being determined. However, traditional usage was not always the defining quality; certain apocryphal works, such as 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas,[3] had been in usage among the Christian community since an early period, yet other works, such as James and 2 Peter, did not have a history of such long usage.[4] The fact that James and 2 Peter now comprise part of our New Testament canon confirm that traditional usage, while useful, was not always the deciding factor when determining canonicity.      The second criterion used to determine canonicity was apostolicity; this factor was determined by authorship. If a text claimed to have been written by an apostle or someone who had a known connection to an apostle, it naturally held more clout than works of unknown or doubtable authorship. When determining apostolicity, the church was not necessarily looking for texts that had been personally authored by an apostle. Rather, they were looking for apostolic authority; examples of this issue are the books of Luke and Mark, both of which are obviously not authored by Paul or Peter. Yet, because the two books’ authors supposedly received their authority from those apostles, these books are considered to fulfill the requirements of apostolicity.[5] When a text did not have any connection to an apostle, such as the apocryphal work The Shepherd of Hermas, it was not included into the canon.[6] However, it would be erroneous to assume that apostolicity was irrefutable proof that a book should or should not be included within the canon. For example, the Gospel of Peter is an apocryphal book that quite plainly claims apostolic authorship; yet, it is not considered canonical.[7] There are also cases where books whose apostolicity is doubtful are included within our modern New Testament; examples of this would be the books of Hebrews and Revelation. Also, when the canon was originally being formed, apostolicity was a much broader term than most people perceive it to be. Apostolicity was not limited to authorship by an apostle or close associate; rather, apostolicity often included authorship by an apostle’s disciples and even authorship that the church agreed was apostolic in nature or tone. In many cases, this criterion would have simply referred to what the compilers of the New Testament canon would have taken to be characteristic of the early church.[8] As important as this factor was in determining canonicity, it is important to acknowledge that no book achieved canonical status on the basis of apostolicity alone.