New Testament Canon

I. Introduction

“Canon is a word that originates from a Semitic root that means ‘reed’ and survives in English also as the word ‘cane’ [the English is cognate with the Latin canon= “rule” and the Greek kanon= “measuring rod” or “rule”]. It originally referred to a straight reed or stalk that served as a measuring rod or ruler. It has come to mean anything straight and firm like a reed that can be used as a rule, standard, or measure, and refers specifically to the standard of faith and practice in religion” (Wilke 10; see also Bruce 17 where canon is understood similarly but also as a “list” or “series”). 

The New Testament [1] Canon is the authoritative voice of Jehovah God. It reflects the standards of Christianity, as revealed by Jesus Christ personally, Himself the Author and Perfecter of the Christian faith (Hbr 2:10, 12:2), and by His inspired authors. It serves as the eternal guideline for human redemption and for subsequent Christian living [2]. 

Our New Testament Canon is communicated by its four literary forms, that is, Gospel, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation (Melton); it achieved canonical status in the aggregate as a function of the ecclesiastically esteemed creditworthiness of these, its parts. This summary-study is interested in three aspects of the New Testament Canon: 

1.)    Canonization history.

2.)    Transmission of the Canon in the centuries after canonization.

3.)    The Canon’s transition to the printed form we trust today.

II. New Testament Canonization

The canonization account unfolds quite elegantly when we study the production, reproduction, and transmission of its constituent corpora across time, and then consider them in the aggregate from the vantage point of the canonizing authorities of the early Christian Church. Let us therefore investigate the likely dates of composition of the New Testament documents—these dates will serve as our first temporal benchmark in the canonization account—and then move forward in time with an eye to the circumstances, persons, and processes which ultimately led to the manifestation of our canonical books of the New Testament. Table 1 depicts possible composition dates some scholars associate with the books of the New Testament (the sources were selected so as to reflect a range of conservative and liberal viewpoints). Note that exact dates cannot be determined. Importantly, the language of the original compositions was Greek.  

Each of the books listed in the table originated as unique, inspired articles of composition; each Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, each Epistle (Pauline and non-Pauline letters), and Revelation—these all first appeared as independent literary units (Aland 48). It is intuitively obvious that the various faith communities comprising the early Christian Church, such as those of Antioch in Syria, Thessalonica in Macedonia, Alexandria in Egypt, Corinth in Achaia, Rome in Italy, et al., likely had few guidelines by which to model their Christian walk. Hence the earliest writings to be exchanged, collected, and preserved were probably the Pauline letters (Aland 49), which were written to provide such guidelines. Churches with letters from Paul probably exchanged them with neighboring churches where they would have been used in worship services, or for general edification and exhortation. There are examples in the Epistles where reference is made to another letter from within a letter (1 Cor. 5:9, Col. 4:16, 2 Pet. 3:15-16), implying that letters were circulating amongst the churches and some semblance of a collection of the same probably existed at each church or faith community. Following table 1, the biblical references just cited correspond to a time frame as early as approximately the middle of the first-century; the date of these earliest evidences of circulation and probable collection and archiving will serve as the second temporal benchmark in our understanding of the canonization account [3]. Table 1 seems to suggest that while the Pauline letters were circulating and semblances of their collection and preservation were in progress, the gospels were either written or began to be written (either way, an oral Gospel tradition preceded the written tradition). In short, we suppose the Pauline letters were written and circulating (individually) by the middle or shortly after the middle of the first-century, and that an oral tradition of the Gospel in the years prior to the middle of the first-century, gave way to a written tradition in the years after the middle of the first-century (there was also a proliferation of apocryphal writings at this time that extended into the second-century [Cameron, The Gospel of Thomas, et al.] ). It is likely some of the variant readings found in the Greek text were introduced around this time (the end of the first-century and well into the second), since the text was in its formative stage, developing freely as a function of the differences between diocesan member churches, which were largely independent entities (at this point the word diocesan is used very loosely since the early Church lacked institutional organization). Computer-assisted collations of the great mass of surviving early manuscripts have revealed that alongside this free, “irregular” text of the early period, there developed and circulated a “normal” text which was very much representative of the base or kernel text [4]; the tenacity (“staying power”) of the New Testament text—from the early period through medieval times—has allowed modern textual critics to discover this “golden thread” in the tapestry of the New Testament text (Aland 56, 93-95); textual criticism is discussed below.

By approximately AD 140-145 there were apparently manuscripts containing collections of the Pauline letters and the gospels in existence, for it was then that a Gnostic-heretic named Marcion must have used such a manuscript in his canonization attempt. In his Canon he included the traditional thirteen Pauline letters minus the Pastorals; he rejected all of the gospels except the Gospel of Luke (which he believed Paul wrote—still he removed from it any references to the Old Testament) [5]. In the largely unclear waters of the New Testament canonization chronology, AD 140-145 serves as the first clear date of an explicit canonization attempt of the New Testament (Bruce, 134); AD 140-145 will thus serve as our third temporal benchmark in that history. In the interest of review, we have moved from composition, to (ungrouped) circulation and collection, to outright attempted canonization within the century following our Savior’s crucifixion and resurrection; implicit in this chronology is an oral Gospel tradition which preceded the Gospel’s written text, and the free/unconstrained development of the New Testament text in general during this period.  

In AD 180-200 the early Christian Church responded to the heresies evident in Marcion’s Canon with its first known attempt to canonize the aforementioned collections and archives of compositions in its possession. The discovery of the Muratorian Fragment in the eighteenth-century, named after its discoverer and first editor, L.A. Muratori (1672-1750, an Italian historian) is an important link in the history of the New Testament Canon—it represents the oldest known list of books of the New Testament. Concerning it J.P. Kirsch conveys the following observations:

The canon consists of no mere list of the Scriptures, but of a survey, which supplies at the same time historical and other information regarding each book. The beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul’s Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which ‘in catholica habentur‘, are cited the ‘Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta’, as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church. Then mention is made of the Pastor of Hermas, which may be read anywhere but not in the divine service; and, finally, there are rejected false Scriptures, which were used by heretics. In consequence of the barbarous Latin there is no complete understanding of the correct meaning of some of the sentences. As to the author, many conjectures were made (Papias, Hegesippus, Caius of Rome, Hippolytus of Rome, Rhodon, Melito of Sardis were proposed); but no well founded hypothesis has been adduced up to the present […] 

 Kirsch further relates that the manuscript containing this copy of the Muratorian Canon was probably written in the eighth-century, in Latin, though the original was probably written in Greek. See also “Muratorian Fragment” for the Latin and more background. 

The Fathers of the Roman Church which composed the Muratorian Canon utilized two important criteria to judge the canonical creditworthiness of a work under consideration for inclusion in the Canon. They insisted first that the work have general value for the Christian in living out his or her faith in Jesus Christ, and second that the work be derived from an apostle of Jesus Christ, that is, primary-source testimony (Melton).Oral transmission of supposed Jesus-traditions led to many written texts that were not accepted as canonical. These non-canonical texts, which sprang up in the first and second-centuries, oftentimes endeavored to fill in the times of Jesus’ youth and adolescence or other periods in His life left unrecorded in the canonical gospels. Archaeological discoveries at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, uncovered some such texts (“Nag Hammadi”). It is evident upon reading these and other apocryphal documents that they are very narrow in scope, of dubious provenance, and many are a deterrent rather than an encouragement and guide for the Christian. Their greatest value today is in supplying scholars clarity in their study of our Gospel tradition (Cameron 15). It can be seen by way of the aforementioned creditworthiness criteria which the Muratorian council required for a text’s inclusion in its Canon that awareness of, and concern for, the sacredness of the Jesus Tradition had begun to stir at that time [6]. The Church was by now aware of the extraordinary meaning of the documents in its possession. Importantly then, we see at this time a shortened version of our present-day Canon, as well as incipient cognizance of and zeal for the sacredness of the first-century apostolic Christian message. By this time it is apparent the Church has committed itself to the canonization of a New Testament. Clearly, this mindset of canonization meant that the text of the New Testament would no longer develop freely (multifarious expansion as a function of [theological] church differences like before), as Christianity focused thence more on the particulars of application (Church practice/mission), benchmarking, exegesis, and so forth, all of which tended to “groove” the text with respect to the given purpose at hand; thus with the advent of the third-century, the “normal” base/kernel Greek text of the New Testament was largely in place. AD 180-200 will thus serve as our fourth temporal benchmark.

In AD 367 the issue of New Testament canonization was finally settled. In that year the Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria set forth the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as we know them today in his Festal Letter Thirty-Nine (“Athanasius of Alexandria”—esp. section 4.4; see also Reid ); it is not known exactly how long before 367 the matter of canonization was resolved; that is, we do not know the degrees by which the matter came to conclusion, notwithstanding, the accession of Constantine (“The Great”) in 306 and his subsequent support of Christianity was no doubt a key dynamic toward that end. AD 367 then will serve as our fifth and final temporal benchmark in the New Testament canonization account.  

III. Transmission of the New Testament Text

It is evident that attending the exchange of documents amongst the churches came copying efforts of the same; before AD 200 (Aland 55) there were no scriptoria ( Huddleston); that is, professional copying centers—private hand-copying was the single means of transcription, hence it is very likely that copies of these documents were terribly rare up to that time, and continued to be so, but for a different reason. The persecution of Christians under the Roman emperors Decius (AD 249-251), Valerian (AD 253-256), and Diocletian (AD 284-305) obviously stifled such an overt act as mass production of Christian literature; in fact, the literature’s very preservation was untenable then as Church buildings, scrolls, and books were burned systematically. It was not until the reign of the converted Constantine I (306-337) that mass production of New Testament manuscripts began; with the support of Constantine behind it, Christianity flourished, and the Church grew accordingly [7]. With this surge in growth came an incredible need to supply manuscripts to the churches in the various provinces of the empire, but supplies had been depleted during the periods of persecution. Only the mass production of manuscripts could meet this demand, and under Constantine this was now possible. Toward that end, the text that would be copied and distributed took shape during the near thirty years of peace between Church and State which occurred between the end of the persecutions of Decius and Valerian (AD 256), and the beginning of the Diocletian persecutions (AD 284). Here the major textual types of the New Testament find their origin. Aland describes it so:  

This period of peace was critical for the development of the New Testament text. In Antioch the early form [of the text] was polished stylistically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Fourth-century tradition called it the text of Lucian […]

The major text types trace their beginnings to the Diocletian persecutions and the Age of Constantine which followed. This seems paradoxical but the period of persecution which lasted almost ten years in the West and much longer in the East was characterized by the systematic destruction of Church buildings (and church centers), and any manuscripts that were found in them were publicly burned. Church officials were further required to surrender for public burning all holy books in their possession or custody […]

The result was a widespread scarcity of New Testament manuscripts which became all the more acute when the persecutions ceased. For when Christianity could again engage freely in missionary activity there was a tremendous growth in both the size of the existing churches and the number of new churches. There also followed a sudden demand for large numbers of New Testament manuscripts in all provinces across the empire. Privately made copies contributed significantly, but they were inadequate to satisfy this growing need, which could be met only by large copying houses. Bishops were no longer prevented from opening their own scriptoria: any text used as an exemplar in such a production center would naturally be widely distributed and wield a dominant influence (Aland 64-65). 

Papyrus-based scroll and codex writing formats were utilized during the important formative years of the Greek New Testament text (codex, explained below, is a format distinctively characteristic of early Christian literature). Following Bre’hier, the preparation process may be related so: 

The tall (4 1/2- 6 meters) Cyperus Papyrus plant growing plenteous in the marshes of the Nile delta in Egypt was prepared by stripping the plant’s stem, then pasting together (in parallel) multiple strips to form a layer, then overlaying this layer with a second layer whose fibers ran at right angles to the first (the second layer was simply moistened and pressed on top of the first). Finally the layers were smoothed, trimmed, and sun-baked to make a sheet. Sheets were then pasted together to make a scroll. Alternatively, a sheet could be folded in two and serve as the page of a book. Four sheets equaled a book of eight folios called a quaternio, and all the books together formed a codex. Within the books two sides of the medium were now available for writing versus only one for the scroll, and the entire system could be bound and covered, rendering improved durability and transportability [the scroll was exclusively made of papyrus whereas the codex was made of both papyrus and parchment]. 

At the time of this writing the earliest discovered New Testament witness was written on papyrus, and dates to approximately AD 125 +/- 25 years according to papyrologists (Aland 85, “Papyrology”). It is a fragment of the original and contains John 18:31-33, 37-38. Taking into account statistical possibilities, the manuscript to which this fragment belonged may have been copied very soon after the original Gospel of John was written ( table 1).

Papyrus was supplanted by parchment, or membrane—the skin of sheep, or goats, or donkeys—near the end of the third-century. Though it is believed that paper was invented in China in approximately AD 150 (“Paper“), it was not introduced to Palestine until the eighth-century (Bre’hier), hence papyrus and parchment are the media upon which our original New Testament documents were written, as also subsequently copied.  

“From AD 180 up to the early part of the fourth-century, Asia Minor and the Aegean coast of Greece held the largest concentrations of Christians in early-Christendom. Additionally, There were large and thriving churches in North Africa, Gaul, possibly in southern Spain, in the regions around Alexandria in Egypt, those around Antioch of Syria, Edessa (present-day Urfa in southeast Turkey), and Rome in Italy. During this time frame the greater concentration of Christianity was in the East” (Aland 53-54).

This locale then is the environment in which the early manuscripts were circulating and being copied, giving rise to their textual types. Textual criticism (Prat) is a science that developed due to the rise of these textual types; it helps us recover as closely as possible a New Testament document’s original Greek text. There are no Greek New Testament originals extant at the time of this writing. It is therefore predominantly the attestation of the ancient manuscript tradition (the great papyri and uncials, the miniscules and lectionaries) that allow us to reach back and touch the New Testament age and reconstruct its kernel text. This is a form of external textual criticism that is itself corroborated by the examination of translations into other languages off known Greek bases for the New Testament passages under consideration,  the witness of patristic writings, and internal textual criticism (textual studies concerning recension, interpolation, consistency, historical integrity, etc.).  

Aland relates that by approximately AD 200 the predominant Greek manuscript tradition was supplanted as Latin came into use throughout the West alongside the Greek tradition; similarly Coptic manuscripts appeared in Egypt and Syriac manuscripts in Syria; “by AD 250 the Church in the West was a Latin Church, though there were Greek-speaking enclaves which continued to thrive and preserve their texts well into medieval periods” (Aland 68). Thus these locales were no longer a formative factor in the history of the Greek text (this shift was as a consequence of a growing Church with large numbers of believers no longer conversant in Greek). Notwithstanding, these non-Greek manuscripts are an important source of corroborative evidence for us today—across the centuries scribes resident in the various monasteries and elsewhere have singularly contributed to the preservation of the Greek manuscript tradition in the vernacular; we certainly owe these brethren in Christ a debt of gratitude [8], for it is the Greek manuscript tradition that is preeminently the touchstone for modern-day editors of our New Testament.  

IV. The New Testament in Print

We would like to uncover in this section the general chronology that relates the arrival of the current, predominant, edited Greek text of the New Testament—from which we realize many of today’s trusted versions and polyglots.  

The German printer Johannes Gutenberg (c. 1400-1468) is credited with the invention of movable type (“Gutenberg”). The Gutenberg Bible is believed to be the first book printed with such type (“Gutenberg Bible”). This Bible as also other early editions of the Christian Bible was printed in Latin— “The invention of printing inaugurated a new age, but not for the Greek New Testament. Before it was printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century, more than one hundred editions of the Latin Bible were published, at least three editions of the Hebrew Old Testament, several of the Greek Psalter, and many editions of the entire Bible in German, French, Italian, and other languages…anyone interested in the Greek text had to make use of a manuscript” (Aland 3). At the beginning of the sixteenth century printing was completed for the (Greek) New Testament part of the Complutensian Polyglot, and the Novum Instrumentum Omne of Desiderius Erasmus. Though Erasmus’ edition was later, he is credited with the production of the first edition of the Greek New Testament (Aland 3). Textus Receptus (“Received Text”) is the name by which Erasmus’ text came to be known. It was based on (only) five twelfth/thirteenth century Latin manuscripts, themselves representative of the Byzantine Imperial text, the poorest of the various New Testament text types [9]. Furthermore, his translation methodology introduced numerous errors into this Greek edition (Aland 4). Irrespective  of these serious disadvantages, this fledgling Greek edition of the New Testament was an important alternative to the predominant Latin Vulgate (The Vulgate was the prevailing Christian Bible from the fifth century through the sixteenth century “Vulgate”), representing together with the Complutensian the first text in the New Testament era vernacular (Greek, Aramaic, and to a lesser degree Hebrew were the languages of New Testament Palestine; Greek wielded its greatest influence in the Diaspora). Other editions followed, but the Textus Receptus remained the authoritative Greek text until the beginning of the nineteenth-century (some popular present-day versions of the New Testament are therefore based on it). At that time (nineteenth century) it is observed that a push was made to return to an earlier form of the text (recall that Textus Receptus relied on twelfth/thirteenth century Latin manuscripts that were themselves based on the post-early period, poorer Byzantine Imperial text). Such pioneers as Karl Lachmann, Constantin von Tischendorf (discoverer of the codex Sinaiticus, a complete fourth-century New Testament), Brooke Foss Westcott, John Anthony Hort, et al., were at the cutting-edge of this movement (Aland 11). An increase in the use of touchstone manuscripts and patristic writings accompanied this push [10]. Aland relates that the Greek New Testament editions of Tischendorf (Editio Octava Critica Maior, published 1869-1872) and Westcott-Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek, published 1881) “were sufficient to render the Textus Receptus obsolete for the scholarly world,” and that Eberhard Nestle’s edition, Novum Testamentum Graece, published in 1898, “signaled the retreat of Textus Receptus from church and school.” Erwin Nestle, following in the footsteps of his father, developed and matured the original format to “render a Greek text that reads like a scholarly manual established on the basis of manuscripts and patristic writings” (Aland 19-20). The Nestle-Aland text, in its twenty-seventh edition at the time of this writing, has arguably been the predominant edited Greek New Testament touchstone in the twentieth century [11] (Nestle-Aland, twenty-seventh edition). 

V. Concluding Comments

The New Testament books may be classified by their literary style: Gospel, Acts, Epistle, and Revelation. What sets them apart from academic, professional, or recreational secular literature is the fact that each of the books in a given class originated as divinely inspired writings—the Spirit of Jehovah God brought to the writers’ minds either the history of Jesus’ life and words, or explanations concerning the same. Moreover, He brought to their minds both forward (prophecy) and backward (history)-looking insights—always with respect to Jesus Christ, and, importantly, Christ’s ministry to mankind. Revelation of Christ’s place in the Godhead to these writers served to confirm our Lord’s deity both to the writers, and of course ultimately to their audience—which in turn served to focus all believing eyes on Christ and His ministry [12]. In this way our God popularized the salvific work He intended for Jesus Christ to shoulder. The books of the New Testament, together with those of the Old, are all about God’s purposes for humankind through our Savior Jesus Christ—Jesus Christ is the linchpin of Scripture (McGee, passim). By human thinking (which our God anticipated),  such a “narrowly focused design” necessitates the legitimizing of the authoritative nature of the texts that purport to relate God’s claims, plans, purposes, and requirements, seeing that these pivot on a single person, Jesus Christ—and we find this legitimization in the Canon of Scripture—here specifically the New Testament Canon. This legitimization (canonization) sanctions the text as the authoritative voice of Jehovah God. 

The Canon finds its design in the court of heaven, and its practical outworking in the court of man. This one-two step is logical and convenient—the canonical design (text and legitimization alike) originated in the mind of omniscience (Jehovah God) and then manifested itself in the ordinary language of the end-user (humankind) through the interactive, dynamic, revelatory agency of God’s Spirit. God will not be mocked here—His fulfilled prophecy then lends credence to both steps [13] (Payne—see particularly 665ff: “Prophecies with Personal Reference to Christ”; also “The Alpha and the Omega”). It is canonization’s job to filter through all the text that presents itself as authoritative (that is, God-given) so as to present by way of the Canon that text which actually is authoritative. Again, the creditworthiness metrics of section II—utility for Christian living and primary-source testimony—largely guide the process (creditworthiness with respect to the Christian mandate and mission on behalf of Jesus Christ; creditworthiness with respect to the witness regarding Jesus Christ). These metrics are a vital link in God’s canonical design, and it is probable that is why He kept them very simple for us. It is clear that the creditworthiness metrics must, as the texts which they adjudicate, be consistently aligned with respect to the person of Jesus Christ, and His ministry. 

Our God’s canonization account begins with an oral Gospel tradition which preceded the written tradition. This is not hard to understand; it is like most things on the human plane—we tend to talk things out, and in the process we reach back, especially when something dramatic has happened in our midst. To be sure, to the Roman/Gentile world, and largely to most of the Jews of Jesus’ day, His crucifixion was not terribly dramatic, but it certainly was to His apostles—the authors and/or information sources of our New Testament texts—who also conversed with and physically embraced our risen Lord 

Having later believing generations in mind, our God intended that this oral tradition be written down, and under divine guidance it was. Note hat it would have communicated as an oral tradition from roughly AD 33 or 34 to around the middle of the first century (figure 1, table 1), where AD 33/34 is a date representative of the Crucifixion, and Paul’s conversion just afterward (Niswonger 200 for the latter). 

The canonization account continued with a host of explanatory letters being written. Serving as Christian guidelines, the Pauline letters circulated individually already by the middle of the first century, and one suspects that there were collections (but not a grouping as we understand that corpus as a group today) of these in existence perhaps not long after the middle of the first century. These collections would have consisted of individual hand copies of Paul’s originals as also the originals proper at some of the churches and/or faith communities founded by him. We believe the catholic epistles and Acts followed a similar temporal trajectory as evidenced by the provenance dates in table 1, as also a similar circulation trajectory. Revelation was probably the latest of the New Testament books to follow the compose, then circulate/copy/collect, then group cycle. 

Marcion’s Canon of AD 140-145 is the first known explicit attempt to bring the writings together as a Canon. His Canon was highly selective; it penalized a writing by way of his theological perspectives concerning the Old Testament and true apostleship (one can see how his creditworthiness ideas influenced the Roman Fathers’ ideas regarding the same in their Muratorian Canon). In short, Marcion’s Canon may be viewed by today’s knowledge and standards as heretical. The Roman Church responded to Marcion’s Canon with its own (Muratorian) Canon in AD 180. Here, with minor exceptions, we see the mindset of New Testament canonization vectoring toward the twenty-seven books we know today. It is clear that by AD 180—roughly one-hundred and fifty years after the crucifixion and resurrection of our Savior—that our God’s Canon was on the cusp of completion, and  so ready to fulfill its purpose as the communicative vehicle of the God-given requirement/standard for human salvation/living. One-hundred and eighty-seven years later, in AD 367, our New Testament, as we know it today, was christened the authoritative voice of God. 

The transmission of the New Testament documents began with the exchange of the originals between the churches and faith communities largely established by Paul, and the hand-copying of the same. Up until the time of the Muratorian manuscript the texts so copied developed freely, and naturally introduced variant readings from manuscript to manuscript, but importantly, alongside this unconstrained textual tradition there circulated a text very much representative of the kernel Greek originals—which modern textual criticism has been able to deconvolute out of the largely convoluted textual tradition that naturally arose (God’s blessings inherent in the computer age have made this possible). Modern readers of our New Testament have available to them a text much closer to the originals than ever before—that is why we would contend for the use of modern translations whenever these are consistent with the best scholarly Greek touchstones, which touchstones are the topic of our section IV. 

 Just prior to the fourth century (approximately from AD 250 to 305) the Roman persecution of Christians made the mass reproduction of Christian documents impossible; in fact, many of the manuscripts on hand were destroyed. There was however a window of peace in the midst of this persecution (roughly from AD 256 to 284) during which documents were again copied and circulated—the text of this peaceful period became the normative text that was copied just later in the Age of Constantine [14] when mass production of manuscripts could really ramp up, relatively speaking, and which naturally gave rise to the major textual precursors of our New Testament’s text. 

Papyrus-based scroll and codex (papyrus or parchment-based) writing formats were utilized during the important formative years of the Greek New Testament text (papyrus was utilized early and parchment later—papyrus was supplanted by parchment near the end of the third century AD; papyrus-based manuscripts, because of their early dates, are highly important touchstones). 

By approximately AD 200 the predominant Greek manuscript tradition was supplanted by  Latin in the western Church (as also Coptic manuscripts appeared in Egypt and Syriac manuscripts in Syria)—particularly the  Latin shift occurred as growing numbers of believers were no longer conversant in Greek, seeing that world commerce and education had long before been conducted in Latin (Rome crushed the Carthaginians at Zama in 202 BC and defeated them less dramatically at Carthage in 149 BC, and defeated the Greeks in the Battle of Corinth in 146 BC, and from thence gradually became the dominant influence in the Mediterranean basin and largely in the Middle East;  “Battle of Zama” , “Battle of Carthage”, “Battle of Corinth”)—nevertheless, these non-Greek manuscripts are an important source of corroborative evidence for us today. Resident scribes and scholars and priests in the various monasteries and elsewhere across Europe and the Middle East must be credited with the preservation and transmission of the New Testament text across the centuries. 

The Greek New Testament came to print in the sixteenth century. Desiderius Erasmus’ Textus Receptus, based on a few twelfth/thirteenth century Latin manuscripts, themselves representative of the poorer Byzantine Imperial textual type (the Antiochian text of the long-standing Byzantine Church), became the authoritative Greek touchstone until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Notwithstanding some drawbacks, Textus Receptus represented an important break from the predominant Latin Vulgate of the day because it presented a text in the New Testament era’s vernacular. As said in our main section, the Nestle-Aland text was arguably the predominant Greek New Testament touchstone for most of the twentieth century.

It is clear that our New Testament is the result of hundreds of years of (God-directed) scholarship; even from a purely secular perspective it is anything but “just another set of books.” There are many religions, many with an attendant Canon, but not one of these has passed a primary-source creditworthiness criterion as has the New Testament Canon, or, more aptly, has primary-source testimony married to such a miraculously unique story. Perception of the Canon’s authority through the attestation of critical scholarship, the history of which we have attempted to convey in this study, takes a back seat to the attestation of the fulfilled prophecy inherent in the Canon, and greatly pales in comparison to the attestation that is written and sealed with the blood of the martyred witnesses who physically embraced, conversed with, and knew first-hand the divine Author of the New Testament Canon, and by countless others generations removed from them who, by the conviction of perhaps an even greater faith, welcomed their untimely deaths in His interest as well—for these to be willing to pay such a dear price in our Savior’s interest suggests that their faith in Him (and by association where appropriate their records concerning Him) must have had roots—roots grounded in fact (a threefold cord, as depicted by the red font attestations listed here, is not easily broken…).

Praised be your Name great savior God, thou Keynote of Scripture…