The First New Testament and Christianity's Reactionary Tendencies

The New Testament we have today, as most Christians recognize, was not formally conceived of as a "canon" until around the fouth century AD. There were earlier collections of our NT letters, but none of them looked like they do now. The earliest New Testament we know of would be considered outside of "orthdoxy."

Marcion, in the mid-second century, wanted to have a legitimate collection of texts containing the uncorrupted, true Christianity presented by Christ and the Apostles. The overtly anti-Jewish gnostic (believing that the material or flesh was evil) rejected the thought of the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT as we know it) being used by Christians for instruction and guidance in the true way. He ultimately settled on a compilation of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Of course all OT references in those texts were rejected, considered later Jewish infusions to corrupt the truth. With this New Testament, he preached his message of the uncorrupted gospel of Christ.

Some of the early Church Fathers prior to Marcion definitely display knowledge of many texts we would include in our NT's today. They even present passages, e.g. from Paul's epistles, as authoritative, along side the Gospels. An example that enters my mind is Ignatius of Antioch (m. c. AD 107), who quotes and paraphrases passages from many of the letters of Paul, as well as the Gospels of Matthew and John. The difference, though, is Ignatius did not have a compilation available of those letters and manuscripts. In the early second century, there was the Old Testament--whether in Hebrew of the Septuagint--but nothing like even that of Marcion. Here is where the reactionary tendencies of Christianity is exemplified yet again.

The Church had to respond to Marcion. This was a challenge they needed to deal with. This was the spark that began the formation of the canon of accepted Christian Scripture. Leaders of the Church, all over, began to create lists and make collections. Gnosticism was constantly being refuted and dealt with, but the idea of the canon had not been a concern to the Church yet. Once the concern was raised, they took up the task and did what they believed was necessary.

This is truly no different than the typical way Christianity handled controversy in the early centuries; nor is it in any way a problem. The councils and creeds were created in reaction to pervasive and immensly challenging heresies or abhorrent teachings that were seeping into the local churches. The very construction and explaining of the nature of God as a Trinity was a reaction to extremely horrendous and detrimental doctrines that grabbed hold of churchmen; especially leaders. That does not mean the Trinity was created or simply did not exist before the fourth century. The explanation of the Trinity is a reaction to teachings that Jesus was not divine or the Son of God; His divinity was explicitly portrayed in the Gospels and Paul's letters.

The Church reacts to what is going on in the world and within her body. The Church will continue to do so until the Lord returns. When challenges come and the Church has to defend, we are not talking about creating something that was not there originally (well, let's not get into the RCC and such teachings as Purgatory and how we treat Mary; I'm not RCC and am speaking of the Church in general). The teachings are there, grounded in the truth of Christ. Certain challenges just help us bring to light some of the things we have not yet realized.