The apostolic complement to the Hebrew Scriptures was to include only the carefully selected works of the apostles. It was not to be a repository of all their works but rather a compendium of their important writings to be preserved. At this point Peter and his associates had in their possession the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, James� epistle, the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, and, undoubtedly, numerous other manuscripts as well.

Paul was not the only apostle to receive letters, such as the letter sent to him by brethren in Corinth, or to send letters to churches or individuals. This was normal practice in the early church. In fact, correspondence constantly flowed back and forth across the reaches of the empire and beyond as one of the benefits of Roman administration. Peter did not choose to preserve any of his previous correspondence in the Scriptures nor the correspondence of the other original twelve apostles. But, when he wrote his epistles of I and II Peter, he may have intended to include them in the New Testament.

As Paul had to face months earlier, the decision confronting Peter was the appropriate order of the books to be set out in the Scriptures. Presumably elected to continue their order based upon the nature of their subject matter as Paul had done. The rationale of progression in the presentation of Christian history and doctrine formed the basis for the order of Paul�s epistles.

Peter evidently decided that the gospel of Matthew was a basic, a natural introduction to the life and teachings of Jesus, and that it would effectively introduce the reader Jesus� teachings. The gospel of Luke, which expands on the precepts and teachings presented by Matthew, would follow naturally. The Acts of the Apostles was a sequel to Luke�s gospel account and therefore logically followed immediately thereafter.

Peter then had to determine where he would place the epistle of James and his own two epistles. He needed a suitable link between the Acts of the Apostles and Paul�s epistles, which he realized were in such doctrinal depth that they would be hard to understand in some situations (II Peter 3:16).

The message of James was broad and general in style, comprising a gentle introduction to the first principles of the way of God. It not only included a clear showing of the need for obedience to the Law of Christ, but it explicitly denounced the heretical concept of vicarious righteousness^F1 and all forms of lawlessness. Therefore it explicitly prepared the reader for the deeper doctrinal understanding to follow in Paul�s writings. The epistle of James ends abruptly without the usual "amen" suggesting editing for its inclusion in scripture. 

Peter evidently decided that by placing his two epistles immediately after James� in its edited form, and before Paul�s, he would further prepare the reader for the Pauline corpus and would warn of the difficulty some would have in understanding them. He chose to place Mark�s gospel, a summary of his own sermons as recorded by John Mark, between Matthew�s gospel and Luke�s gospel presumably to avoid breaking the continuity between Luke and as a natural supplement and confirmation of Matthew�s gospel.

In the fourth century Eusebius states that in the Byzantine churches the epistles of James, Jude, II Peter, II John, and III John were in dispute. He further wrote that,

As to the writings of Peter, one of his epistles, called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. For this was anciently used by the ancient fathers in their writings, as an undoubted work of the apostle. But that which is called the second, we have not, indeed understood to be embodied with the sacred books, endiaqhcon, yet as it appeared useful to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3, Boyle 1955:83.)

It is no wonder they were in dispute. These writings condemned the very individuals who founded the movement leading to Byzantine Christianity. These people broke from the Judeo-Christian congregations at the time of writing of these documents and they did not find their way into these Gentile churches until brought in by later Christians breaking with the Judeo-Christian Church of God.

^F1Vicarious righteousness refers to the state of mind of some professing Christians who live a life of doing basically what they please and deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. At times this heresy appears as a belief that simply attests that "once saved always saved" and at other times by a philosophy that it is God's responsibility to save me. In both cases, which is certainly not an exhaustive list, these deceived Christians believe they are saved while they are not. Perhaps the greatest deception in this heresy is the teaching that all one has to do to be saved is to accept Christ. Nevertheless, simply believing that Jesus of Nazareth is one's Saviour and attesting to a fact or set of facts about Jesus is insufficient. God requires both faith and behavior change.

Taken from The First Christians by Michael P. Germano and edited for the worldwide web.
Copyright �1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000 by Michael P. Germano. All Rights Reserved.

Page last edited: 01/26/06 07:12 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often