JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

115
The Easter letter ("Festal Letter") of Athanasius, the Alexandrian theologian (A.D. 367),
for the first time provides a list in which the 27 books of the present New Testament canon are
declared to be the canonical collection. Here he distinguished sharply between "God-inspired
Scripture . . . handed down to our fathers by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the
word from the beginning"74 and the "so-called secret writings" of heretics. In referring to the
New Testament books Athanasius stated, "These are springs of salvation . . . let no one add to
them or take away from them."75
This decree was very influential in fixing opinion in the Eastern Church. Jerome's
translation of the Greek Scripture into Latin at the request of the Roman bishop Damasus
included the canonical 27 books. In Africa the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), of which
Augustine was an influential member, also acknowledged the present 27 books as the canon. The
Council of Hippo reiterated the same decision in A.D. 419.76
At approximately the same time, churches throughout the empire formed a unified
decision by fixing the limits and contents of the canon.
It would be a mistake, however, to see this as conferring canonicity. The decisions of the
church were merely the recognition or acknowledgement of the intrinsic authority and power
of these writings. As J. I. Packer put it,
"The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave
us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly
he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make
it up."77
Voices have been raised, and are being raised, that suggest that the New Testament canon
should be reopened for church evaluation. Should the church accept the legacy of the historical
development of canonicity or should she call this history into question?
Some point to the seeming reluctance with which certain books like Philemon, Hebrews,
James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were taken into the canon as evidence that these were spurious
and thus canonicity was not so certain. Rather because Philemon, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are all
so brief they would seldom be quoted and thus did not seem to carry as much weight.
Also, these writings were directed at individuals whose location may have been obscure.
Unlike the larger letters that were sent to sizable churches or that were circulated throughout the
provinces, these smaller epistles did not get the attention unless there was a demand for them or
until the persons or groups to which they belonged called them to public attention. In the case of
the book of Hebrews, the uncertainty of its authorship initially brought its authenticity into
question.