Why does the New Testament have a basic set list of documents?

Question

While there is a basically set list of documents, it is surprising that there is no list per se anywhere within it. It seems to have a regular theme and purpose, so there would seem to be a stated organising purpose or even a list of documents, but none appear to be there.

Answer 1

What your question really pertains to is the issue of Canonicity, specifically why is there a closed Canon of 27 Books in the New Testament when nowhere in the New Testament are any conditions or a set standard provided. I will give you several scholarly opinions and answers to this issue, followed by my answer.

A) Community Authentication/Development: This perspective argues for a direct connection between Canon and the Church. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both share a common opinion that ultimately what is in the Canon is what the Church (i.e. in Roman Catholicisms case, The Roman Church) has deemed to be divinely inspired and therefore canonized. In Roman Catholicism, Scripture is generally placed on an even footing with the magisterium, which is an ecclesial body that establishes a set of laws or "Canons" which coincide and Scripture. But ultimately, Canon is whatever the Communion of Saints deem it to be.

Problems: There are a couple of Problems with this perspective. First and foremost, there is the historical issue that until the Council of Trent 1563 A.D., there is no formal and most importantly, no Ecumenical Declaration of Canon by the Church. There certainly were regional councils throughout the 3rd - 5th centuries which provided their Canon lists (e.g. Council of Rome 382 A.D.); however, these were generally varied and only applied to a regional attendance of Bishops. Ecumenical Councils, such as Nicaea (325 A.D.) certainly debated the authenticity of books such as 2nd Peter and Jude. Nevertheless, a full Canon list was never provided or discussed at the Council. Considering that the "Church" defined and organized the Canon, this is a major problem for this perspective, because it means that for nearly 1500 years, there was no official Canon. A second issue with this perspective was pointed out by several Reformers, notably John Calvin in his Institutes, that Ephesians 2:20 states that the Church is built on the foundation of Scripture. This would then question how the Church can establish that which serves as its foundation.

B) Athanasius Theory: New Testament scholar and Textual Critic Barth Erhman argues that Athanasius's Canon which he wrote about established the Canon of the New Testament (c. late 4th century).

Problems: While it is true that Athanasius did write a Canonical list, this theory ultimately runs into the same problem that the Community Authentication theory possesses. There is no historical evidence that there was any ecumenical acceptance of his Canon in particular. Furthermore, it would seem that this theory fallaciously suggests that Canon in Christianity, with its multiple regional lists, suddenly, without any discussion whatsoever, agreed on Athanasius's Canon. Again, there is zero evidence to support this claim.

C) Vulgate Theory: This theory was presented to me by one of my professors at seminary. It argues that the translation of the Vulgate, which translated only the set 27 books in its New Testament portion as marking the Closed Canon. This theory, similar to that of the Athanasius Theory, is dependent upon Jerome (main translator of the Vulgate) for its authentication.

Problems: Same problem as the Athanasius's Theory.

D) Self-Authentication/Neo-Foundational Theory: Michael Kruger in his book , Canon Revisited, makes an argument that ultimately, The New Testament Canon is a self-authenticating text, which provides declarative statements concerning its own inspiration and authenticity. In this perspective, the connection between Church and Canon is not one of creation/authentication, but rather of recognition. The Church's role in Canon is that it recognized the 27 Books to be Canon, but did not create or establish it. This perspective has invaluable support in various passages of the New Testament. Furthermore, this perspective is dependent upon an epistemological school known as Neo-Foundationalism, which argues that any foundational belief must ultimately be grounded in faith and not on anything, else whatever it is grounded on makes it no longer foundational. This theory therefore reinforces the "faith" aspects of believing the Canon to be closed and established, providing its own internal proofs, not dependent upon external reasons. Thus, Canon is established as its own foundation of authentication.

Problems: The most obvious problem rests in its dependence on Neo-Foundationalism, which is a highly questioned/debated system of epistemology. Furthermore, this is a highly complex theory which requires major exegesis of passages and bringing everything together. Obviously, self-authentication requires an audience which must respond to the declarations of the passage. The question then is, does the dialectic between the NT Canon and its audience necessitate a sense of "creation" by its audience. Put differently, by the audience recognizing the Canon to be, does it not then perform some function of authentication?

Personal View: Personally, I tend to agree with The Self-AuthenticationTheory for a couple of reasons. First, while the Community Authenticating approach certainly has some merits, it is ultimately historically inconsistent with Church History. Notably, up until the late 4th century, there is no real argument by early Church Fathers for the Authentication of the New Testament as dependent upon the Church. An example of the opposite perspective is provided by St. Augustine of Hippo, who generally provided more power to the Church and its ability to perform various mediation roles, he interestingly grounds regional and ecumenical councils in Scripture. This is contradictory to this approach. The Jerome & Athanasius Theories give far to much weight to Jerome's and Athanasius's role in Church History and the Canon. Not only is there not any historical evidence that either provided a foundational role for Canonicity, but in the case of Jerome, his translation/text was highly debated during his lifetime. The Self-Authentication theory is helpful in that, it is the only approach that makes sense of Historical and Biblical data, which seems to all point towards a relationship, but nevertheless a separation between the authenticity of the Canon and the Church. Most of the passages which later bishops looks to for authenticating various books were dependent upon other books and authors in the New Testament. Thus, it seems that historically, the approach to Canon has always been that of self-authentication.

I know that this is a long answer, but the issue of Canon unfortunately requires verbose responses. Hopefully this provides some food for thought and guidance on future study.

~Cameron Brock