Note: Full blog series can be found here.
For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD—under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book.
The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine). Nicea was concerned with how Christians should articulate their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. Thus it was the birthplace of the Nicean creed.
When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right?
This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.
Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that was already there.
This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”[1]
This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.
The same was true for the Old Testament canon. Jesus himself used and cited the Old Testament writings with no indication anywhere that there was uncertainty about which books belonged. Indeed, he held his audience accountable for knowing these books. But, in all of this, there was no Old Testament church council that officially picked them (not even Jamnia). They too were the result of ancient and widespread consensus.
In the end, we can certainly acknowledge that humans played a role in the canonical process. But, not the role that is so commonly attributed to them. Humans did not determine the canon, they responded to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon really chose itself.
Devin Rose says
June 4, 2013 at 2:50 pmI don’t recall if you address this point in your book, but one of the reasons (perhaps _the_ reason), people think that Nicaea I said something about the biblical canon, is St. Jerome’s prologue to the book of Judith: “But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures…” You can read the rest (and other prologues) here: http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
It seems probable that Nicaea I did include discussion of the biblical canon, but we have lost the records of that discussion.
God bless,
Devin
David says
June 4, 2013 at 8:31 pmDid the Nicean council decide upon any of the gnostic gospels as not being canonical? Someone brought this up to me as proof that the Nicean council was part of the great cabal of power hungry church leaders trying to get rid of certain books so they could shore up power for themselves. Their source they cited? Why, Wikipedia of course!
roscoe74 says
June 4, 2013 at 11:52 pmThe last time I thought about this issue was during a recent discussion with an Islamic street evangelist. I said the same things as you say here.
MF says
June 5, 2013 at 12:00 pmDr. Kruger says, “Humans did not determine the canon, they responded to it. In this sense, we can say that the canon really chose itself.”
But if, as you have argued elsewhere, Paul was the first collector of his own letters, doesn’t that make Paul the chooser of that part of the canon (omitting 0th and 3rd Corinthians, for instance)?
As for most of the other books, it seems to me that they were accepted/recognized based on claims of authority. E.g., “John wrote this gospel and letter. He’s one of the apostles. What he says goes. Dump the docetist junk; they’re not apostles.”
Neil says
June 7, 2013 at 1:52 pmBe thankful that the early Christians did not need the New Testament to get saved, they got the message out f the Pentateuch! The foundation of all scripture. So if there were any doubt over the new testament Paul himself wrote all scripture is suitable for teaching…… 2 Tim 3:16-17 and that was before the New Testament canon saw the light. Our God always ahead of the curve. 🙂
Joel Settecase says
June 8, 2013 at 2:54 pmCool point. Though, they did have the oral Christological tradition. Right?
Neil says
June 9, 2013 at 4:05 pmRight, of which the letter to Timothy was a written testament. Right?
Joel Settecase says
June 15, 2013 at 8:15 pmNo, I’m talking about the oral Gospels, not the epistles. Right.
Joel Settecase says
June 15, 2013 at 8:17 pmThat is, I think your reference to Paul’s letters to Timothy being a reference to the oral Christological tradition is accurate, but insufficiently related to merit mention, with regard to the original thrust of the comment which sparked this little mini-debate. Let’s just follow the advice of Proverbs 26:4 and call it a day 🙂
texas tig says
June 17, 2013 at 2:25 pmOne thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).