1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
3. Does the message tell the truth about God?
4. Did it come with the power of God?
5. Was it accepted by God’s people?
Truth cannot contradict itself, so agreement with the other books of Scripture was only logical. As was historical accuracy. If the facts of a book were not accurate, it couldn’t have been from God.
Using this criteria, in 315 AD Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 books of the New Testament which was confirmed in 393 by the Synod of Hippo and again in 397 by the Council of Carthage.
So there was a method to their madness....
Yes, good summary. It is important to realize that at the time the NT books were being written the Christian church had spread to 3 different continents. Some books were distributed quicker and more widely than others, especially the Gospels, Acts and the epistles of Paul. We find many very early codex’ of these works bound together. The others took longer to be recognized and accepted as having an apostolic provenance because they were not as well know. Thus, developing the canon was a process which took a bit of time.
I think you are referring to the old testament, as today nobody even knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.
- The Epistle of James: Some early church fathers, such as Martin Luther, expressed reservations about its inclusion due to its emphasis on works and potential contradiction with Pauline teachings on faith.
- The Epistle of Jude: Its short length and references to non-canonical sources raised concerns among some early church fathers about its authority and authenticity.
- The Second Epistle of Peter: Doubts were raised by some early church fathers regarding its authorship, as well as its similarity to the Epistle of Jude.
- The Second and Third Epistles of John: These shorter letters faced reservations due to their personal nature and limited applicability to the wider Christian community.
- The Book of Revelation: Some early church fathers, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, questioned its canonicity due to its symbolic and apocalyptic nature, which led to different interpretations and concerns about its compatibility with other biblical texts. Martin Luther also included this in his disputed books of the Bible section.
- The Letter to the Hebrews: While widely accepted, its authorship and place within the New Testament canon were debated by early church fathers due to its anonymity and differences in style compared to other Pauline epistles.
- The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas: Although not included in the New Testament canon, these texts were highly regarded by some early church fathers and considered scriptural by certain Christian communities, indicating the fluidity and variability of the canon during the early centuries.
I do believe that the books that we have are the word of God, but I also find it humbling that I could be wrong and there is no overwhelming evidence that I am not..