The Canonicity of the Bible


The subject of Bible inspiration cannot be separated from its canon. The word “canon” comes from the Greek word kanon which signifies a “measuring rod.” Bible canon therefore signifies standards by which books were measured to determine whether or not they were inspired.

Canonical books refer to a catalogue of inspired books of the Bible. It must be noted that no church or council caused books to be inspired; rather, they simply recognized that which God had inspired at the exact moment the books were written.

The Old Testament began with the writings of Moses (c. 1513 BC) consisting of God’s laws to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Mosaic laws.

God commanded Moses, “Write down these words” and “After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end” he commanded the priests known as Levites, “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain a witness against you.” (Ex. 34:27; Deut. 31:24-26)

The Levites preserved the Pentateuch in the Ark of the Covenant. The writings of prophets after Moses – Joshua, Samuel, Nathan – were added based on the criteria of true prophethood God had laid down through Moses (Dt. 18:15-19; Jer. 26:8-15).

God raised up the institution of prophecy to continue revealing Himself to His people and these prophets also recorded their revelation (Jos. 24:26; Is. 8:1).

A scholar stated, “succeeding prophets were received upon due authentication, and their written works were received with the same respect, being received therefore as the Word of God. As far as the witness contained in the books themselves is concerned, this reception was immediate” (Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 1969, p. 156).

The OT was traditionally divided into 3 sections – the Law, Prophets and the Writings or Hagiographa. Criteria used to recognize the canon were:

(a) if the books reflect divine authorship.

(b) if the human writer was a spokesman of God

(c) if he was a prophet or had a prophetic gift and if the book was historically accurate or a record of actual facts.

A scholar informs us that: “The 24 books of the Hebrew canon are equivalent to the 39 books of the Greek canon (since Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and the twelve minor prophets counted as one book each in the Hebrew list).” (The Lion Handbook to the Bible, ed. Pat Alexander, London, 1983, 71).

The OT was recognized as Scripture as Jesus and His apostles severally quoted from it in the NT (Mt. 22:29, Jn. 10:34; Acts 18:24; Rom. 1:2 etc).

The New Testament canon was also recognised very early. Just as the Spirit of God inspired the OT prophets, He also inspired the NT apostles.

Paul includes Luke’s writing “the Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18 cf. Dt. 25:4, Lk. 10:7). Peter also recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The letters of the apostles were directed to be circulated and read in the churches (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:17).

These writings were recognized on the basis of:

Apostolicity – the author being an apostle or having a connection with an apostle (for example, Mark wrote under Peter’s authority while Luke wrote under Paul’s).

Inspiration – the book reflecting the quality of inspiration.

Content – its consistency with the overall teaching of the apostles and acceptance among Christians.

Historical Evidence for the Canon

Bible critics of different stripes claim that the Gospel books were not written by the people whose names they bear but written centuries after their deaths, hence they have little historical value.

Most of them put this at 4th century A.D. But this lame argument folds on itself based on internal evidences, here I intend to present the historical aspect:

1. From the writings of Christians in the post-apostolic era, it can be seen that they appealed to the NT as the inspired Word of God and quoted the Gospels quite familiarly.

Tatian the Syrian (110-180) completed his work, the Diatessaron (a Greek term meaning “through [the] four”) about 170 AD based on only the four canonical Gospels.

Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it have been discovered in Arabic, Armenian, Greek and Latin. This proves that the four Gospel books were already well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the 2nd century AD.

One of the key Bible manuscripts used in translations is the Codex Vaticanus (4th century). The Bodmer 14, 15 manuscripts dated to 175-225 AD is, according to scholars, textually very close to the Vaticanus.

Therefore, if the Bible was changed in the 4th century as some critics claim, then these changes would have reflected in these manuscripts.

There is simply no evidence – whether documented or otherwise – proving that the Gospel books were altered in the 4th century.

2. Many in the post-apostolic era were very familiar with the NT books.

A reference work says that “near the close of the first century, Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth.

After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of Pauline letters by the second decade of the second century” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1988, 1:603).

In his Stromata, Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority” that is “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel” (The Ante Nicene Fathers, 1962, 2:409).

Among others, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho used the expression “it is written” when quoting from the book of Matthew (ANF, 1:220).

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd cent.) also wrote:

“Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” As support, he quoted Matthew 5:28, 32, 44, 46 and Romans 13:7 (ANF 2: 114-115).

Irenaeus makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Hippolytus (170-235) also recognized 22 books of the NT. That is not to say these men didn’t recognise more letters as canonical, but these are the ones they mentioned in their correspondence.

3. The canonicity of the books of James, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John and 2nd Peter were initially disputed on the grounds that these books were quoted very little by early writers. This is probably because they were small books, making up only one-sixth of the NT so they were less likely to be referred to.

The book of Revelation was also rejected by some, but early church writers like Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito and Irenaeus quoted from it. The historical and geographical accuracy of the contents of the Gospel books were also considered.

“In general, these [non-canonical] gospels show far less knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs than do the canonical Gospels … Even the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may preserve scraps of independent tradition, are obviously inferior theologically and historically to the four accounts that eventually came to be regarded as the only Canonical Gospels” (Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Oxford Press, 1997, pp. 167, 174).

4. The witness of the Muratorian Fragment – the oldest compilation of the NT canon (dated 170-200 AD) – is also important.

It seems the codex was produced in the 8th century in Italy due to the Latin text from which it was translated from its original Greek. It contains a list of the books of the NT books as well as their respective writers and warns against false books circulating in its time.

5. Can the witness of the early Christians for the Bible canon be trusted? Yes. Christians of the first 2 centuries had easy access to a large number and variety of Bible manuscripts far more than we possess today.

Martin Hengel observes that “of the second-century Christian writings known to us by title, around 85% have been lost. The real loss must be substantially higher” (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, Trinity Press, 2000, 55).

Men like Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Ireneaus would have regularly come in contact with manuscripts predating the ones we have today, and even the ones contemporary with the apostles or their disciples.

Irenaeus wrote that “there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles” during the lifetime of Clement of Rome (Against Heresies 3:3:3). He also makes reference to “ancient copies” of the book of Revelation and the testimony of those who “saw John face to face” (5:301).

Bruce Metzger, noted that some of the original copies of the NT writings were mentioned in some patristic works. He cites Tertullian who said that the church of Thessalonia still possessed the original copies of the letters Paul sent them (The Canon of the NT, n.4 on 4-5).

6. The early Christians relied on much evidence. As Jason Engwer documents, Justin Martyr refers to the importance of evidence including hostile corroboration (First Apology, 20).

Tatian speaks of the value of firsthand knowledge (Address to the Gospel, 31), Tertullian appeals to information in the registers of apostolic churches (The Prescription Against Heretics, 32) and Eusebius appeals to internal evidence of these records (Church History, 3:25).

These are the principles used today in determining the validity of a document. Hence, the development of the Bible canon cannot be separated from church history and God’s leading of His people to recognise the books He had inspired.

How Auricular Confession Developed

download (1)

The Council of Trent Canon 6 states:

If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema.”

Here, a curse (anathema is the strongest word used in Greek) is placed on those – Protestants – who denied that private confession to priest was divine; was necessary to be saved; observed from the beginning and was never altered.

History, however, proves that these four assertions are patently false and misleading.

Though Catholics have attempted to “find” the sacrament of penance in the New Testament (to no avail), the writings of the church fathers indicate that such a practice was unknown in their time.

Clement of Rome: “The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of any one, except to confess unto him. For the elect, David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs” (First Clement, 52).

John Chrysostom: “We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellowmen, but only to God … You need no witnesses of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you” (De Paenitentia 4:901).

Basil: “I have not come before the world to make a confession with my lips. But I close my eyes, and confess my sins in the secret of my heart. Before thee, O God, I pour out my sighs, and thou alone art the witness” (Commentary on Psalm, 37).

Augustine: “What have I to do with men that they should hear my confessions, as if they were able to heal my infirmities? The human race is very curious to know another person’s life, but very lazy to correct it” (Confessions, Ch. 3).

The earliest work mentioning anything resembling penance (originally called a “second plank”) can be found in Tertuillan’s work, De Paenitentia (or On Repentance). However, it was not a universal practice at the time and it is vastly different from what Roman Catholicism practices today. Here is how he described it:

This act which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken under a Greek name, is exomologesis whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased.

“And thus exomolegesis is a discipline for man’s prostration and humiliation enjoining a demeanor calculated to move mercy … it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning, to lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he has committed; moreover, to know no food and drink… to groan, to weep and make outcries unto the Lord your God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters and to kneel to God’s dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his deprecatory supplication before God” (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, VIII).

This confession was to God, not to a priest, and the gestures were severe and public.

A Catholic work agrees that in the early church, “There [was] no private sacramental penance as we know it, even though the public character of the canonical penance may vary. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and the reception of the eucharist seem to have been the normal remedies for the daily sins of Christians” (The New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Joseph Chomonchak, India, 2006, p. 833).

It was also recorded that:

“At the close of the fourth century in the great churches of the Orient, 60,000 Christians received the Eucharistic communion, in one day, in both kinds, with no other than their private confessions to Almighty God” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:48)

In Roman Catholicism, a person who has committed a mortal sin and has not confessed it to a priest is forbidden from receiving the Eucharist under the pain of eternal punishment.

This is one more proof that early Christians were not Catholics, because this would have implied that these 60,000 people were without mortal sins, to have received the communion in one day.

The only private confession they made was to God and they were reconciled to Him – without any priestly medium involved.

The term “exomologesis” used by Tertullian refers to a public confession, as an author stated:

“When one studies the question, with the document before his eyes, it is impossible not to confess that the Primitive discipline of the Church exhibits not a vestige of the auricular [private] confession afterwards introduced” (L’Abbe, Le Confesseur, 1866, 15).

Patrologist, J. N. D. Kelly enunciates:

“Inspite of the ingenious arguments of certain scholars, there are still no signs of a sacrament of private penance (i.e confession to a priest followed by absolution and the imposition of penance) such as Catholic Christendom knows today. The system which seems to have existed in the Church at this time [i.e. the 3rd century], and for centuries afterwards, was wholly public, involving confession, a period of penance and exclusion from communion and formal absolution and restoration- the whole process being called exomologesis” (Early Christian Doctrines, Harper Collins, 1978, 216).

When one compares what Tertullian (and the early church) describes with what the Council of Trent says about this issue, one must conclude that, either Tertullian misunderstood and misinterpreted what Jesus meant when He (allegedly) instituted the sacrament of penance, OR the Roman Catholic institution in the later centuries had a “superior insight” into what Christ taught than the early church as a whole.

Either way, Roman Catholicism’s doctrinal continuity is shown to be a hoax.

Church history showed that private confession was stopped in the Eastern Church around 400 AD.

But in the West, scholars “trace the origin of private penance as a normal discipline to the churches of Ireland, Wales and Britain, where the Sacraments, including Penance, were administered usually by the abbot of a monastery and his priest-monks… However it was not until the 11th century that secret sins were absolved at the time of confession and before the fulfillment of penance” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, XI: 75).

In the 8th century, regular confession to a superior at least once a year was recommended. Confession and penance before each mass was allowed.

In the 9th century, the classification of sins made up by Gregory the Great in the 6th century was incorporated into the penitential system of Catholicism and this made private confession to a priest acceptable.

Notwithstanding, “there was no general agreement upon the necessity of sacerdotal confession. In the twelfth century for example, the [Peter] Aberlardian school rejected its necessity, while the Victorine school insisted upon it.” It was not until the Fourth Lateran council of 1215 that penance officially became obligatory and a sacrament (Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2005, 117-121).

Another work says:

“At the close of the twelfth century a complete change was made in the doctrine of penance … The first elements added by the medieval system were that confession to the priest and absolution by the priest are necessary for pardon. Peter the Lombard did not make mediation of the priest a requirement, but declared that confession to God was sufficient. In his time [12th century], he says there was no agreement on three aspects of penance … The opinions handed down from the fathers, he asserts, were diverse, if not antagonistic” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 5, pp. 573-4).

So Medieval Catholicism purportedly had the “power” to change the penance into a doctrine unknown in the early centuries. Yet the Council of Trent had the effrontery to call this concoction of men in the cauldron of delusion a “divine law…observed from the beginning.” Such deceit!

When Fr. Mitch Pacwa, a notable Catholic apologist was confronted with these facts replied:

Christ didn’t give us formats how the sacrament of confession should be done thereby we are open to the necessity of the Church and so the Holy Spirit leads the Church in every age. He lets the people use one form in one age and then as we continue to learn the different things that needs to be applied in different cultures and ages, the sacrament itself changes. The Church is still learning.”

This is typical Jesuit logic. He implicitly admits that his church has changed her doctrines, but quickly blames it on the Holy Spirit.

By diving into this relativistic theory, he contradicts the position of the Council of Trent and the hoary canard of Rome that: “the Church never changes” (semper eadem). If such “changes” were acceptable for Roman Catholicism, then Protestantism’s Biblical stance on confessing to God remains valid.

Why the switch from public to private confessionals? Some scholars said it was because of the scandals that public confessions created.

That may be true, but it also seems that it was done to mimic the old pagan mystery rites in which secret confessions were mandatory. For example:

“The ritual texts show that both public and private confession was practiced in Babylonia. Indeed, private confession seems to have been the older and more usual method” (A. H. Sayce, The Religion of Ancient Egypt and Babylon, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 497).

The Greeks were also not far behind:

“All the Greeks from Delphi to Thermopylae, were initiated in the mysteries of the temple of Delphi. Their silence in regard to everything they were commanded to keep secret was secured by the general confession exacted of the aspirants after initiations” (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, [first published in 1856] 2007 edition, p. 9).

Among the Aztecs, confession rites were made to their fertility goddess, Tlazolteutl:

“The ‘sinner’ would appear before the priest and list all misdeeds. Wrong-doing would include disobeying the gods, deviating from the mores of the community, cowardice during battle, and neglect of sacrifices. Offerings were made to the gods, and absolution was granted by Tlazolteutl’s priest. If the confession was honest, Tlazoteutl would absorb the sins of the confessor, and purify the soul” (Turner Patricia and Coulter Russell, Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities, 2000, p. 88).

The confessional has long been Satan’s weapon of control and seduction. It has created a suitable environment for perversions in the hearts of father confessors to burn and many women, girls and boys have been consumed.

A Dominican priest candidly wrote:

“With the advent of the private confession of sins came the abuse known as solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession. Unscrupulous priests began to use the intimacy of confession as an opportunity to seduce the penitent into some form of sexual contact. This abuse is particularly heinous because it takes advantage of a person when he or she is most vulnerable and susceptible to the abuse of priestly power” (Thomas Doyle, O. P., Crimen Solicitationis Promulgated by the Vatican, March 4, 2010).

This pattern of sexual abuse through the booth has been a huge scandal right down to this day.

Perhaps this is why the Catholic Encyclopedia (11:628) discreetly wrote:

“If at the Reformation or since the Church could have surrendered a doctrine or abandoned a practice for the sake of peace and to soften a ‘hard saying,’ confession would have been the first to disappear!”

So why has Catholicism not given up the confessional seeing the bad fruitage it has borne?

From 1561 to 2001, popes and bishops have handed down disciplinary laws against solicitation for sex during confession, but why has the unbiblical practice itself been maintained? Because it serves their purpose – to wield a system of control over Catholics!

This is what happens when a religious system is more concerned with its public image than addressing the evil being meted out to its adherents.

On March 16, 1962, the Congregation of the Holy Office issued a document Crimen Solicitationis (approved by pope John XXIII). It was sent to all bishops worldwide, yet they were strangely told to maintain a strict confidentiality about the document and to never allow it to be reproduced.

It was not until 2001 that the Vatican publicly mentioned this document. Most bishops were not even aware of its existence. This, as Fr. Doyle said, is due to Romanism’s “culture of secrecy, clericalism and institutional self-preservation.”

They make their own laws, write down the penalty and then do everything in their power to hide it from even the culprits! This is reprehensible.

Technically, most of the documents the Vatican releases against sexual abuse are mere public relations stunts. Their primary aim is to keep the scandals buried in a rat’s nest. All these prove without doubt that Roman Catholicism is a religious system of falsehood and spiritual bondage.



The Inspiration of the New Testament


The authenticity and divine inspiration of the New Testament is a crucial area that is often attacked by those who intend to discredit or displace the Bible. This ranges from Muslim apologists to liberal Bible critics.

The common thread that runs through these folks is the claim that nowhere in the entire New Testament does it state that it’s the inspired Word of God or that the Gospels were formulated centuries after the apostles of Christ had died.

Some even allege that the Catholic church “infallibly declared” the NT as inspired in the 4th century. The logical deduction is that the New Testament was merely a collection of human traditions which until the 4th century weren’t regarded as God’s Word. These claims are without substance.

The word “inspiration” means God-breathed (Greek: theopneustos). It is that special influence in the lives of holy men, which qualified and enabled them to make an infallible record of divine truth concerning the will of God to man.

This is the nature of both the Old and New Testaments. To what degree were the writers inspired? Let’s break it down:

(a) Some parts of Scripture give the exact words of God (e.g Mt. 3:17)
(b) Some words were put into the mouths of the speakers who spoke as the Spirit inspired them (e.g Acts 3:21)
(c) Some words were written as the Spirit moved men (Ex. 34:27)
(d) In some parts of the Scripture, the writers chose their own words to relate truth by the guidance of the Spirit (e.g Jn. 20:30-31).

The purpose of inspiration is to secure truth and unity in record and not sameness of words or statements. This fact is crucial, because some critics, due to prejudice or ignorance, claim the NT couldn’t have been inspired because the Gospels have 4 differing accounts.

These differences are supplementary, not contradictory. Each writer was emphasizing different things; the accounts are from two different viewpoints; the intent and the audience of the authors also differed

Internal Evidence

I. An inspired record

2 Timothy 3:15-16 “[A]nd how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”

Here, Paul was emphasizing that Holy Scripture originates from God and is therefore able to accomplish God’s purpose of equipping the saints.

Essentially, this applies to all the books inspired by God which of course, includes the books of the NT penned by the Apostles of Christ.

An objection to this says that Paul was referring only to the Scriptures Timothy knew from childhood which were the Old Testament books. This is false.

First of all, Timothy had more than the OT. This was Paul’s second epistle to him, so he has at least 2 epistles from Paul in addition to the OT.

Paul also goes on to say he is about to be martyred (2Tim. 4:6-8), which shows that this was the last epistle Paul wrote. So Timothy, obviously has all of Paul’s 13 epistles. The date is probably around 66 A.D., and that implies that he also had the first three Gospels as well.

Evidence indicate that the NT was regarded as inspired even then:

“For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The labourer deserves his wages” (1Tim. 5:18).

Here, Paul groups two texts together as Scripture. The first part was taken from Deut. 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” while the second passage was taken from Luke 10:7 “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the labourer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.”

So you can see here that Paul placed Luke’s Gospel account on the same level as Moses’ writings and termed them as inspired Scriptures. He didn’t limit inspiration to the OT only.

When Paul says “all Scripture,” it’s clear that he means the entire Bible, and not merely that which has been written up to that time. He was speaking of the origin and function of Scripture, not the canon.

Similar expressions are used in the Bible. Solomon writes “every word of God is pure” (Pro. 30:5), the Psalmist wrote “the word of the Lord is right” (Ps. 33:.4) and Jesus said “blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk. 11:28) etc.

No one would conclude that these references are made only to the Scriptures which had been written up to that time.

II. A record of Eye-witnesses

Another evidence of the inspiration and reliability of the NT is that its writers testified to recording what they and their contemporaries saw and heard.

Luke testified to have carefully investigated everything handed down to him from the eyewitnesses “therefore it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you” (Lk. 1:3).

Luke also knew Mark (Acts 12:12) and indicated his travels with Paul:

After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Cos … When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present” (Acts 21:1, 17-18).

Peter could appeal to the knowledge of his audience “as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22) and declare: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories” about Jesus Christ “but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).

Apostle John too wrote: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked at our hands have touched …We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard…” (1 John 1:1-3).

From these internal evidence, the idea that some men made up the NT centuries after the apostles died is a cheap myth.

III. A record of men guided by the Holy Spirit

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20-21)

This text is establishing the nature of prophecy in general, as not originating from the holy men who wrote it, but from God through His Spirit.

This applies to all the books of Scripture, both the OT and the NT. The apostles ministered by the same Holy Spirit by which the prophets of old spoke:

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit…” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:4-5)

By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:14)

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating…” (1 Peter 1:10-12).

It was on this basis that Peter could classify Paul’s writings as part of “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). New Testament scholar, Douglas J. Moo points out that:

“The word ‘other’ (loipos) shows that Peter considers the letter of Paul to belong to the category of ‘Scripture.’ Some scholars think that this means no more than Peter considered Paul’s writings to be authoritative. But the word ‘Scriptures’ (graphai) always refers in the New Testament to those writings considered not only authoritative but canonical…” (The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan, 1996, 212)

Even a Catholic work states: “2 Pet. 3:15 indicates that a group of Pauline letters were being read on the same level as ‘the other Scriptures’; but 2 Pet. is notoriously hard to date” (Brown, Fitzmyer and Murphy, The New Jerome Commentary, 1990, 1046)

IV. A record by the authority of Christ

Specific NT writers claimed to speak with the divine Authority of Jesus Christ. The argument that the Lord Jesus didn’t write a single book of the New Testament has been dealt with in another post.

For this reason I write these things while I am away from you…in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not tearing down.” (2 Cor. 13:10)

Now we command you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (2 Thess. 3:6)

This is the second letter that I am writing to you … stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles.” (2 Pet. 3:2)

“For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus … For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord…” (1Thess. 4: 2,16).

Since these expressions are also used by Old Testament prophets through whom God spoke, there is no reason to discard the New Testament and cleave to the OT alone as inspired.

External Evidence

I. History

Luke wrote that the time of the baptism of Christ (29 A.D), Tiberius Caesar reigned, as well as Pilate over Judea and Herod over Galilee. He also mentioned 4 important Roman officials (Lk 3:1-3, 21). All these names have been corroborated by secular historians.

The reference to the decree of Caesar Augustus for the census at the time of Christ’s birth (Luke 2:1-3) was recorded by Josephus and the edict is preserved in the British Library.

The “great famine” in Acts 11:28 was also recorded by historian Josephus. He also recorded the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:21-33) and noted that he gave his speech in “a garment made wholly of silver” and died of a severe pain in his belly.

II. Archaeology

The city treasurer, Erastus, whom Paul spoke about has been confirmed by a 1929 excavation in Corinth with the name “Erastvs” (Romans 16:23).

The theatre in Ephesus where Luke wrote that a riot broke out (Acts 19:23-41) has also been excavated.

The incident of the Jews banning a Gentile from the temple when Paul was accused of defiling the temple (Acts 21) has been confirmed by a 1871 discovery of a Greek inscription found on the wall banning foreigners.

III. Manuscript evidence

There are 5,300 known Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and 9,300 other early versions (MSS) making a total of 24,000 manuscript copies of the NT in existence today.

There are even those like Magdalene Ms (dated 50-60AD), John Rylands (90-10AD), Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 AD), Chester Beatty Papyri (200 AD) dating very early, showing that the Bible had been accepted as inspired and had spread over distances.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former curator of the British Museum admits:

“The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] … is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text” (The Bible and Modern Scholarship, cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 49).

IV. Early Christian writings

Contrary to the myth that the canon of the NT books was not settled until the Roman Catholic church stepped in, there are many references to the NT books being quoted by many early church fathers as God’s Word.

Christian scholar, Norman Geisler wrote:

“Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria … 9231 by Origen (185-254), 3822 by Tertullian … Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97 …

“This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1999, pp. 529-530).

Let me quote only two out of these church fathers.

Clement of Rome (95 AD): “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he first write you in the ‘beginning of the gospel’? Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.” (The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, 47)

Ignatius of Antioch (107-112): “…I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave…” (The Letters of Ignatius to the Romans, 4:1)

Bible scholar, Roger Beckwith states that “probably all these books were accepted as Scripture from an early period in some quarter of the church, even those whose acceptance was not recorded. Otherwise we would have to suppose that, at the end of the 4C, some of them sprang up suddenly from being canonical nowhere to being canonical everywhere, an implausible supposition” (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 2000, 31).

Therefore, it can be concluded that the New Testament we have today is a God-breathed revelation of Jesus Christ penned by holy men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.