THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
What we today call the New Testament is composed of a 27-document collection that Chris tians view as bearing unique authority — along with the Old Testament — as the Word of God . But the reason that this particular collection of documents — from among other Chris tian writings of the first century — came to be received and accepted by the church as the New Testament Canon isn ’ t immediately clear .
It is necessary to begin with the definition of the word “ canon .” A canon is a standard or norm , something against which other things are measured — and as such , it is used in reference to both the Old Testament and New Testament . When we hear the New Testament described as “ Canon ,” it is an acknowledgment that this collection is limited and has authority for the church . 1
The study of the formation of the New Testament Canon can be understood largely as an evernarrowing definition of the term “ Canon ” in reference to Chris tian writings . Confusion has resulted because not all Canon historians understand the term in the same way . This can be seen in the three main answers to how the church came to accept only the New Testament documents from among other first-century Chris tian writings .
The first answer was given by Theodore Zahn in the late 19th century when he argued that the New Testament arose as a spontaneous occurrence . Zahn believed that once a New Testament document was cited by a church father , the document should be seen as canonical — citation proved canonicity . Thus , according to Zahn , by the end of the first century there was already a New Testament in existence that was not forced on the church but rather was a spontaneous creation that occurred in the life of the church . 2
Zahn ’ s position received an important qualification in the early 20th century from Adolf von Harnack , who developed answer number two . Harnack argued that citing a New Testament document as Scripture is very different from simply citing or alluding to New Testament documents ; Harnack paid particular attention to the way a document was cited . Whether a citation was preceded by a formula referring to it as “ Scripture ” became the test for canonicity because doing so gave the document at the same status as the Old Testament . The effect of this qualification was to move the emergence of a New Testament Canon from the first century into the mid- to late second century , when documents attest to citations of New Testament documents as Scripture . 3
The third answer to the question was offered by Albert C . Sundberg , Jr . Sundberg continued to narrow the definition of Canon in light of his reassessment of the Old Testament Canon in early Christianity . 4 Sundberg observed that the church fathers cited documents as Scripture that are not known to us as canonical Scripture . 5 He concluded that the church did not receive a closed
1 Bruce Metzger , The Canon of the New Testament ( Oxford : Clarendon Press , 1997 ), 289 – 93 . 2 Craig D . Allert , A High View of Scripture ?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon ( Grand Rapids : Baker Academic , 2007 ), 41 – 42 . 3 Craig D . Allert , A High View of Scripture ?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon ( Grand Rapids : Baker Academic , 2007 ), 42 – 44 . 4 A . C . Sundberg , Jr ., “ Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon ,” Studia evangelica 4 , no . 1 ( 1968 ): 452 – 61 ; “ The Making of the New Testament Canon ,” in The Interpreter ’ s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible , ed . C . M . Laymon ( Nashville : Abingdon Press , 1971 ), 1216 – 24 ; Craig D . Allert , A High View of Scripture ?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon ( Grand Rapids : Baker Academic , 2007 ), 45 . 5 Craig D . Allert , A High View of Scripture ?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon ( Grand Rapids : Baker Academic , 2007 ), 177 – 85 .