What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Twenty Seven?: How Can We Be Sure That We Have the Right Books in the New Testament?
One of the greatest influences that forced the early church to identify the books of the New Testament canon was the spread of deviant cults in the first two centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ. The literature of these cults, more often than not claiming to be authentic sayings from the apostles, compelled the church leaders to establish the parameters for what properly belonged to the body of accepted literature the New Testament canon. In recent days the composition of the New Testament has again been questioned. From the false accusations found in 'The Da Vinci Code' book and film and the widely reported Gospel according to Judas, it is clear there is a need for believers to know why there are only 27 books in the New Testament.
253 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
1 person is currently reading
11 people want to read
About the author
Brian H. Edwards
58 books4 followersBrian H. Edwards is a retired pastor, writer, lecturer, and editor.
Edwards began his career as an Assistant Pastor in London. He then moved to Hook Evangelical Church in Surbiton, south-west London, where he stayed for almost thirty years. He resigned to become President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.
Edwards began his career as an Assistant Pastor in London. He then moved to Hook Evangelical Church in Surbiton, south-west London, where he stayed for almost thirty years. He resigned to become President of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 27, 2015
I read this book because having lent a book on the New Testament’s formation and ideas in the Classical Era (not a religious text, but an academic introduction – Halvor MoxnesA Short History of the New Testament) to one of my brightest students he responded by lending me this evangelical tract and it seemed rude not to give it a fair whirl.
I don’t have a dog in the fight of how the Canon was formed as regardless of who wrote which books they remain strictly human writings, but I am aware that there is controversy regarding the historical timing of the canon’s formation and whether all the books that might have been were included and conversely whether all those that were ought to have been.
I started reading in a favourable mood: the book opens by claiming that rather than dogmatic returns to authority, it will defend its positions in an academically rigorous mode, and who could ask more than that?
Sadly it rapidly shifted in tone. Before 3 pages had passed Edwards had descended to labelling those with whom he disagrees “an unaware and gullible public…[not those in the church of course!]…[deluded by] crude heresies and loose life styles”(pp.12-13) and on p.15 he groups those who question aspects of the Bible’s composition with “Holocaust deniers” in their revisionism. This rather set the tone for the remainder of the book’s appalling ad hominem attacks on opponents and hagiographic veneration of anyone whose theology agrees with Edwards’. This extend to quoting with approval (p.45) Polycarp describing dissenters as “anti-Christ”, “of the devil” and “first born of Satan”.
The logic in much of the argumentation is sophistic:
He will accept an authority e.g. of the Jews for the Old Testament canon in one passage (p.31 inter alia) and reject it elsewhere as being irrelevant when once it collides with the New Testament.
He creates an insidious argument form:
1. I will show that true believers all think the current 27 are canonical
2. True believers think the current 27 are canonical
3. Those who argue for other books or against any of the 27 are heretics (“modern critics are successors of…deviants…choosing among the books is the task not of orthodox leaders but of heretics”p.52)
4. Heretics are not true believers (who are defined largely by 1)
5. Therefore all true believers buy the 27
The appealing opening, with its appeal to non-dogmatic authority also rapidly withered into religious blind faith (this is after all a book from the Evangelical Press) “even if a text from the hand of Paul was discovered we would not add it…the canon of scripture is closed” (p.55) and “God, who by his Holy Spirit has put his seal upon the New Testament”(p.26)
He reminds his readers that books of the New Testament for which late dates have been argued do not mention the fall of Jerusalem and so cannot be late. He gives three options only (p.21):
a. “the writers had not heard about the fall of Jerusalem” – odd as he says
b. There was a conspiracy of silence for “reasons completely unknown” and “beyond imagination”
c. The gospels were pre 70CE
Now Edwards doesn't read like an author with a dreadful absence of knowledge, just a polemical axe to grind, so I reckon he probably does know of option d. (the silent option), which is that it was a core exercise in classical scholarship to write letters in the voice of dead writers and omitting key later events was one of the things even school boys were taught (witness the various spurious letters and dialogues of Plato inter alia). Does that mean Edwards is wrong in his dating? Not necessarily, but it does bring his credibility into question.
Through his chapters setting out to show that the canon was not a process of dialogue, negotiation and debate, but a divinely inspired and accurate act, Edwards manages to note the dissenting voices of Luther (p.36) an occasional voice; Eusebius (p.120) another voice; Revelation and Hebrews were questioned because they supported the thoughts of, or were co-opted by, Monatists (p.148) another set of voices; Clement omitted books from his 3000+ quotations (p.115) another voice; Tatian (p.103) another; Irenaeus included the Shepherd of Hermas and fails to quote from some (p.110); Cyprian (p.113); Origen as late as 253CE (p.118) is another in this list of minor voices. This all speaks of a process of negotiation and powerbrokering, as do recorded instances of churches and leaders being compelled to adhere to the texts of more influential centres (p.103). To add to this any “errors” as Edwards sees them, such as quoting from non-canonical books are merely “errors made and copied”(p40) or the result of “imprecise terminology” (p.41).
The possibility also exists of course that those Edwards etc. believe were divine voices “oracles” wrote an awful lot that is lost (this would be true of every other ancient author, including the divine Aristotle) and indeed there is reference in the existing books to letters no longer held (Paul to Laodicea). Perhaps those missing books questioned the slavery the NT so sadly fails to do, or established the equality of women, or encouraged writers like Edwards not to label critics in as intolerant a way as he does.
Other errors of classical scholarship abound. We are told that ancients had great memories as is shown by stories of people learning the texts of Homer by heart (p.50), but if Edwards wants to use Homeric canon formation as his model for process, he needs to do some reading on the forms of negotiation happening in Alexandria as critics put variant forms together.
We are shown that many more copies of the Bible exist than do those of other ancient texts cited as authorities (pp.176-9 ff) and this is true, but in fact the analogy plays against him. We know there are gaps in these ancient texts; that there are variant forms; that there are spurious and apocryphal texts and this is the purpose of the apparatus criticus and of edited versions; following the analogy across we should query the biblical canon and discuss it. The claim that readers of Josephus are unaware of lacunae (p.176) is just a flat error to be charitable (look at footnotes in a Loeb or just Google "Josephus lacuna").
Some of the material on the papyrus fragments seemed pretty convincing (but I can’t comment on how experts might disagree). I actually found the core thesis that much of the canon was accepted pretty early fairly convincing, but not the claim that there was divinely inspired unanimity on the entire 27 both omissions and exceptions under the “superintendence of the spirit”(p.54)!
I appreciate why people who live and die by the text have to convince themselves that there were no errors of memory, that all the right books and no wrong ones were included, that scribal errors were all minor and meaningless (your and our are almost synonyms of minimal importance (p.174) avers Edwards – hmmm?) and that none of it was written to bolster personal authority (as Paul’s often was) or is just as “wacky philosophy” as any other ancient material (Revelation springs to mind).
On the whole I enjoyed reading this book and to be honest I think Edwards is probably not wrong to think that the canon was established on the whole pretty early (indeed he chimes with the reading of Moxnes on this, but the latter is more urbane, more academic, more open to value in alternative readings, and less likely to label you a heretic or deviant), but I really found the polemic and sophistic reasoning difficult.
I don’t have a dog in the fight of how the Canon was formed as regardless of who wrote which books they remain strictly human writings, but I am aware that there is controversy regarding the historical timing of the canon’s formation and whether all the books that might have been were included and conversely whether all those that were ought to have been.
I started reading in a favourable mood: the book opens by claiming that rather than dogmatic returns to authority, it will defend its positions in an academically rigorous mode, and who could ask more than that?
Sadly it rapidly shifted in tone. Before 3 pages had passed Edwards had descended to labelling those with whom he disagrees “an unaware and gullible public…[not those in the church of course!]…[deluded by] crude heresies and loose life styles”(pp.12-13) and on p.15 he groups those who question aspects of the Bible’s composition with “Holocaust deniers” in their revisionism. This rather set the tone for the remainder of the book’s appalling ad hominem attacks on opponents and hagiographic veneration of anyone whose theology agrees with Edwards’. This extend to quoting with approval (p.45) Polycarp describing dissenters as “anti-Christ”, “of the devil” and “first born of Satan”.
The logic in much of the argumentation is sophistic:
He will accept an authority e.g. of the Jews for the Old Testament canon in one passage (p.31 inter alia) and reject it elsewhere as being irrelevant when once it collides with the New Testament.
He creates an insidious argument form:
1. I will show that true believers all think the current 27 are canonical
2. True believers think the current 27 are canonical
3. Those who argue for other books or against any of the 27 are heretics (“modern critics are successors of…deviants…choosing among the books is the task not of orthodox leaders but of heretics”p.52)
4. Heretics are not true believers (who are defined largely by 1)
5. Therefore all true believers buy the 27
The appealing opening, with its appeal to non-dogmatic authority also rapidly withered into religious blind faith (this is after all a book from the Evangelical Press) “even if a text from the hand of Paul was discovered we would not add it…the canon of scripture is closed” (p.55) and “God, who by his Holy Spirit has put his seal upon the New Testament”(p.26)
He reminds his readers that books of the New Testament for which late dates have been argued do not mention the fall of Jerusalem and so cannot be late. He gives three options only (p.21):
a. “the writers had not heard about the fall of Jerusalem” – odd as he says
b. There was a conspiracy of silence for “reasons completely unknown” and “beyond imagination”
c. The gospels were pre 70CE
Now Edwards doesn't read like an author with a dreadful absence of knowledge, just a polemical axe to grind, so I reckon he probably does know of option d. (the silent option), which is that it was a core exercise in classical scholarship to write letters in the voice of dead writers and omitting key later events was one of the things even school boys were taught (witness the various spurious letters and dialogues of Plato inter alia). Does that mean Edwards is wrong in his dating? Not necessarily, but it does bring his credibility into question.
Through his chapters setting out to show that the canon was not a process of dialogue, negotiation and debate, but a divinely inspired and accurate act, Edwards manages to note the dissenting voices of Luther (p.36) an occasional voice; Eusebius (p.120) another voice; Revelation and Hebrews were questioned because they supported the thoughts of, or were co-opted by, Monatists (p.148) another set of voices; Clement omitted books from his 3000+ quotations (p.115) another voice; Tatian (p.103) another; Irenaeus included the Shepherd of Hermas and fails to quote from some (p.110); Cyprian (p.113); Origen as late as 253CE (p.118) is another in this list of minor voices. This all speaks of a process of negotiation and powerbrokering, as do recorded instances of churches and leaders being compelled to adhere to the texts of more influential centres (p.103). To add to this any “errors” as Edwards sees them, such as quoting from non-canonical books are merely “errors made and copied”(p40) or the result of “imprecise terminology” (p.41).
The possibility also exists of course that those Edwards etc. believe were divine voices “oracles” wrote an awful lot that is lost (this would be true of every other ancient author, including the divine Aristotle) and indeed there is reference in the existing books to letters no longer held (Paul to Laodicea). Perhaps those missing books questioned the slavery the NT so sadly fails to do, or established the equality of women, or encouraged writers like Edwards not to label critics in as intolerant a way as he does.
Other errors of classical scholarship abound. We are told that ancients had great memories as is shown by stories of people learning the texts of Homer by heart (p.50), but if Edwards wants to use Homeric canon formation as his model for process, he needs to do some reading on the forms of negotiation happening in Alexandria as critics put variant forms together.
We are shown that many more copies of the Bible exist than do those of other ancient texts cited as authorities (pp.176-9 ff) and this is true, but in fact the analogy plays against him. We know there are gaps in these ancient texts; that there are variant forms; that there are spurious and apocryphal texts and this is the purpose of the apparatus criticus and of edited versions; following the analogy across we should query the biblical canon and discuss it. The claim that readers of Josephus are unaware of lacunae (p.176) is just a flat error to be charitable (look at footnotes in a Loeb or just Google "Josephus lacuna").
Some of the material on the papyrus fragments seemed pretty convincing (but I can’t comment on how experts might disagree). I actually found the core thesis that much of the canon was accepted pretty early fairly convincing, but not the claim that there was divinely inspired unanimity on the entire 27 both omissions and exceptions under the “superintendence of the spirit”(p.54)!
I appreciate why people who live and die by the text have to convince themselves that there were no errors of memory, that all the right books and no wrong ones were included, that scribal errors were all minor and meaningless (your and our are almost synonyms of minimal importance (p.174) avers Edwards – hmmm?) and that none of it was written to bolster personal authority (as Paul’s often was) or is just as “wacky philosophy” as any other ancient material (Revelation springs to mind).
On the whole I enjoyed reading this book and to be honest I think Edwards is probably not wrong to think that the canon was established on the whole pretty early (indeed he chimes with the reading of Moxnes on this, but the latter is more urbane, more academic, more open to value in alternative readings, and less likely to label you a heretic or deviant), but I really found the polemic and sophistic reasoning difficult.
June 4, 2021
This book will give you a great insight into why there are only 27 books in the New Testament and no others, covering some of the debate - ancient and modern - as to why other writings (especially the pseudepigrapha) were not included.
As a Christian, this book will boost your confidence in the New Testament (and, to a degree, the Old). If you aren’t, and you approach this with the world view that the writings are debatable and the arguments for the inclusion in the canon of 27 books are spurious, then you will no doubt find the evidence that Edwards presents equally debatable because if you don’t, then your world view is exploded and the alternative conclusion - that the Bible is true and inspired by God, and that that affects your entire thinking - is to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately the latter means that you will not approach this book with an open mind and so will prefer to stick with the arguments that suit you, no matter how false this book shows them to be.
As a Christian, this book will boost your confidence in the New Testament (and, to a degree, the Old). If you aren’t, and you approach this with the world view that the writings are debatable and the arguments for the inclusion in the canon of 27 books are spurious, then you will no doubt find the evidence that Edwards presents equally debatable because if you don’t, then your world view is exploded and the alternative conclusion - that the Bible is true and inspired by God, and that that affects your entire thinking - is to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately the latter means that you will not approach this book with an open mind and so will prefer to stick with the arguments that suit you, no matter how false this book shows them to be.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews