Scholar and Apologist Wessley Huff, whom I admire very much, recently cited J.I. Packer’s well-known analogy that the Church did not create the New Testament canon any more than Newton created gravity. Packer wrote, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity… Newton did not create gravity but recognized it” (as quoted in Kenneth J. Collins and Jerry L. Walls, Roman but not Catholic [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017], 21).
Huff then argues that since Paul’s writings were recognized as Scripture by Peter (2 Pet. 3:16) and Paul himself cites Luke alongside Deuteronomy as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18), the inspired books were evidently already recognized as Scripture within the first century. Here Wess Huff subscribes to the idea of a universally recognized canon. While it should be noted I disagree with Wess Huff, I do respect his right to have this opinion.
With that being said, in this rebuttal, I wish to highlight the profoundly anachronistic nature of interpreting the canon’s historical development through this lens.
To illustrate this, we need only look at two of the earliest lists in history.
- The Muratorian Fragment, which includes The Wisdom of Solomon, while also including The Apocalypse of Peter, and The Shepherd of Hermas, for private reading and omits several canonical books like Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and likely 3 John.( The Canon of The New Testament Its Origin, Development, and Significance Bruce M. Metzger Apendix IV).
- Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century) also reveals the unsettled state of the canon. In Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Eusebius distinguishes between universally acknowledged books (homologoumena) and disputed ones (antilegomena). Among the latter category, he includes James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, showing these books are still under serious scrutiny centuries after the apostolic age. (The Canon of The New Testament Its Origin, Development, and Significance Bruce M. Metzger Apendix IV).
Further complicating the notion of an early, universal canon is Harry Gamble, who writes that many writings outside the biblical books were highly esteemed and often even more widely used. The following excerpt should be noted:
“The letter known as 1 Clement was prominent among them. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3) spoke highly of it, Clement of Alexandria called it “a writing of the apostle Clement” (Strom. 4.17), and Eusebius underscores its long-standing use, probably in liturgical reading, from the earliest days up to his own time (Hist. eccl. 3.16). Similarly, Barnabas gained an early authority, especially in the East, and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.6, 7.5) considered it, too, an apostolic letter. More widely popular than either of these, however, was the Shepherd of Hermas, which was fully acknowledged as scripture by Irenaeus (Haer. 4.20.2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.17.29, 2.1.9, 12), and Tertullian (Or. 16). Its strong representation among early Christian papyri discovered in Egypt probably reflects its popularity.[97] One could go on to mention a far greater number of writings—the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Paul, among others, that were current in and valued by early Christian communities. What needs to be emphasized in respect of many of these documents, especially 1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd and the Didache, is that the esteem and use attaching to them was appreciably earlier, more continuous, and more widespread than to many of the writings that were finally accepted in the canon, including Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John. Some of them, indeed, continue to appear in canon lists and manuscripts of the fourth century.” (Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis in The Canon Debate Part 3, Ch 17. )
It must be noted that the notion of an early, universally recognized canon is difficult to grasp.
And if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the earliest Christians had a settled list of inspired writings, it would seem to complicate the matter. To presume that the Church could not exist or function without Scripture, how do we account for the fact that Paul repeatedly addresses actual, living churches, communities of believers sanctified in Christ, before the canon was ever finalized? On at least five separate occasions, Paul explicitly writes to the church.
See: 1 Corinthians 1:2 where he writes, “To the church of God in Corinth…”, 2 Corinthians 1:1 “To the church of God in Corinth..”, Galatians 1:2 “…To the churches in Galatia…”, 1 Thessalonians 1:1“To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…” and 2 Thessalonians 1:1 “To the church of the Thessalonians…”.
With this being said, Wess Huff has the right to stand by his position, but the evidence to the contrary should be considered.