1. The Problem
The Apostle Paul answers by stating that, “All Scripture is
God-breathed”[1], and is
thus ultimately useful to us. But what is to be regarded as Scripture? Does
Paul’s assertion concerning Scripture count as Scripture? Was this statement
even actually written by the Apostle Paul?
“Scripture” is defined in the American Heritage College
Dictionary as, “A sacred writing or book or a passage from such, a statement
regarded as authoritative”[2]. If
Scripture necessarily includes the idea of possessing authority, what qualifies
as such? Who has been endowed with the proper authority?
2. The Old Testament
The second most important reason that the early Church found
for re-canonizing the Hebrew Scriptures was that Christ and the Apostles
obviously regarded them as authoritative.[6] In
fact, ten percent of what we now recognize as the New Testament is composed of
direct quotes from, or clear allusions to, the Old Testament.[7] And
a survey of the New Testament shows that these quotes and allusions are taken
from all but five of the Old Testament books (Esther, Song of Solomon, Obadiah,
Zephaniah, Nahum).
Thus, the early Church retained the Hebrew canon,
interpreting any passages allegorically that did not directly apply to them.[8] Eusebius
quotes Philo, who wrote no later than A.D. 50, on this subject in regards to
some Christians in Egypt: “They read the sacred scriptures, and study their
ancestral wisdom philosophically, allegorizing it, since they regard the
literal sense as symbolic of a hidden reality revealed in figures.”[9]
3. The Criteria for New Testament Writings
With the Old Testament in place, let us now turn our attention to the documents produced in the Christian era. Because there were so many forged writings (The Gospel of Peter[10], The Revelation of Peter[11], The Epistle of Barnabas[12], and the epistles of Paul to Laodicea and Alexandria[13], among others) and people claiming to be able to edit authentic documents (Marcion’s canon consisted of abridged versions of The Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles[14]), “it seems desirable to consider the criteria by which the Church judged doctrines to be sound or erroneous, orthodox or heretical.”[15]The four Gospels, the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus, known by the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were among the most easily accepted books by the early Church. In all periods of Church history, it was nearly universally believed that these books were penned by the authors to whom they are attributed, thus passing the test for apostolic origination, and that they also contained nothing contrary to apostolic tradition if interpreted in the correct manner.
5. The Acts of the Apostles
The first blatant reference to the authority of the Book of
the Acts of the Apostles is found in the “Muratorian fragment,” dating from
170-180 A.D., where it is listed as one of those documents completely accepted
by the Church[42]. Secondly,
Eusebius records its supposedly universal recognition in the early 300’s.[43] As
with the Gospels, the final confirmation came in the year 367 with the Easter
letter of Athanasius.[44]
6. The Pauline Epistles, including Hebrews
Eusebius acknowledges that some Christians, at least in
Rome, did not think that Paul was the author of Hebrews,[46]
but he also gives us differing opinions and possible explanations for the
problem. He quotes Clement, who wrote no later than 215 A.D., as claiming
Pauline authorship for Hebrews and on the issue of the epistle’s anonymity, as
saying, “In writing to Hebrews already prejudiced against him and suspicious of
him, he was far too sensible to put them off at the start by naming himself.” Clement
apparently answered stylistic differences between Hebrews and Paul’s other epistles by saying that Paul originally
composed Hebrews in Hebrew and
then, allowed Luke to translate it into Greek, the form of which we now have.[47] Eusebius
also gives us a quotation by Origen, dating no later than 254, on the subject;
“In the epistle entitled To the Hebrews, the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or
phraseology admitted by the Apostle himself,
the construction of the sentences is closer to Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognizing differences of style
would agree. On the other hand the matter of the epistle is wonderful, and quite equal to the Apostle’s acknowledged writings: the truth of this would be admitted
by anyone who had read the Apostle carefully …If
I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the Apostle’s but the phraseology and construction
are those of someone who remembered the
Apostle’s teaching and wrote his own interpretation of what his master had said. So if any church regards this
epistle as Paul’s, it should be commended for so doing, for the primitive Church had every justification for handing it down as his. Who wrote the epistle
is known to God alone: the accounts that
have reached us suggest that it was either Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, or Luke, who wrote the gospel
and the Acts.”[48]
The thirteen epistles of Paul are accepted in the “Muratorian fragment,” written between 170 and 180 A.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, is not mentioned, either as an accepted book, a doubtful one, or a rejected writing.[49] Gaius, writing around the year 200, accepted the Pauline corpus with the exception of Hebrews.[50] Clement, however, writing no later than 215, accepted The Epistle to Hebrews as well as the rest of Paul’s letters.[51] Origen, by 254, also accepted Hebrews and the other known writings of Paul.[52] Eusebius himself also attests to the thirteen but is unwilling to either canonize or reject The Epistle to the Hebrews, reporting it simply as a “Disputed Writing.”[53] By 367, with the festal letter of Athanasius, it is clear that the Church as a whole was willing to accept Hebrews alongside the rest of the Pauline canon.[54]
The thirteen epistles of Paul are accepted in the “Muratorian fragment,” written between 170 and 180 A.D. The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, is not mentioned, either as an accepted book, a doubtful one, or a rejected writing.[49] Gaius, writing around the year 200, accepted the Pauline corpus with the exception of Hebrews.[50] Clement, however, writing no later than 215, accepted The Epistle to Hebrews as well as the rest of Paul’s letters.[51] Origen, by 254, also accepted Hebrews and the other known writings of Paul.[52] Eusebius himself also attests to the thirteen but is unwilling to either canonize or reject The Epistle to the Hebrews, reporting it simply as a “Disputed Writing.”[53] By 367, with the festal letter of Athanasius, it is clear that the Church as a whole was willing to accept Hebrews alongside the rest of the Pauline canon.[54]
7. The Petrine Epistles
There is not much to be said concerning the two Petrine epistles other than that they both owe their names to the prominent Apostle. They are both completely excluded from any classification in the “Muratorian fragment.”[55] The general consensus of the early Church fathers seems to be that First Peter was authentic, written by the Apostle, but that the document entitled Second Peter is doubtful at best. Irenaeus, writing no later than 200 A.D., apparently only accepted First Peter.[56] Origen, writing no later than 254, affirmed First Peter but found Second Peter doubtful.[57] Eusebius, in the early 300’s, regarded First Peter as canonical, but classified Second Peter among the “Disputed Writings.”[58] In 367, however, both documents gained canonization in the patriarchal letter of Athanasius.[59]The Gospel of John has already been discussed above, but the Johannine corpus that we recognize today also includes three epistles and The Book of Revelation. These four documents are the subject of this section. The First Epistle of John was universally accepted by the early Church as the work of the Apostle, but Second John and Third John, as well as Revelation, met with considerable difficulty concerning their authorship.
Dionysius went on to discuss the differences in styles
between Revelation and John’s Gospel and three epistles,
pointing out that the author of Revelation
repeatedly identifies himself by name, but that in the other writings, he is
anonymous. Dionysius, therefore, concluded that another John must be the author
of Revelation.[61] Eusebius,
writing in the early 300’s, suggests that another person by the name of John
could have been the author of the second and third epistles[62],
as well as The Revelation.[63]
First John
and Second John were accepted
in the “Muratorian fragment,” dating from 170-180 A.D. Third John, however, is not mentioned in that document, and The Book of Revelation is classified
as being doubtful.[64] Irenaeus
accepted First John and the Revelation by 200 A.D., but not the
second and third epistles.[65] Origen,
no later than 254, likewise recognized the first epistle and Revelation, but doubted Second John and Third John.[66] Dionysius,
no later than 264, while rejecting the authorship of Revelation, still accepted it as canonical as well as all three
epistles bearing the name of John.[67] Eusebius,
in the early 300’s reported First John
as being universally accepted but classifies the other two epistles and Revelation as being disputed.[68] The
Johannine corpus, then, met with a wide array of scholarly opinions throughout
early Church history, but all four books were finally acknowledged as being
fully authoritative in 367, by Athanasius.[69]
9. The Epistle of James
10. The Epistle of Jude
11. Uncanonical Writings
Others could be mentioned, about which might be said that,
“the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true
orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics. It follows
that…they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.”[89] Suffice
it to simply state that this is the reason why it was so important for the
Church to develop a universal canon. By the time of Athanasius[90],
the Protestant Christian canon was settled, providing the Church with an
indispensable tool with which to combat the pagan religions, Gnosticism, and
other Christian heretics throughout the centuries.[91] The
Church’s attitude concerning heretics came to be that, “Provided the Bible was taken as a whole, Its
teaching was self-evident. The heretics who misinterpreted it did so only
because, disregarding its underlying unity, the seized upon isolated passages
and rearranged them to suit their own ideas.”[92] Whereas
this strict reliance on the Scriptures may not be exactly true, it clearly
illustrates the Church’s need for a canon.
12. Lingering Debate
Bibliography
Bainton, Roland H. Early Christianity. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, 1984.The NIV Study Bible. Kenneth Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
[1] Second
Timothy 3:16
[2] The
American Heritage College Dictionary
[3] Bainton,
page 37
[4] Kelly,
page 29
[5] Kelly,
pages 31, 52, 65
[6] See
Geisler, pages 3-53
[7] Nicole,
page 137
[8] Bainton,
page 37, Kelly, pages 65-75
[9] Eusebius
2.17, page 51
[10]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66, 3.25, page 89, 6.12, page 190
[11]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66
[12]
Eusebius 3.25, page 89
[13] Bainton
page 133
[14]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 57
[15] Kelly,
page 29
[16]
Bainton, page 36, Kelly, page 60
[17]
Bainton, page 36
[18] Kelly,
page 48
[19] Kelly,
page 60
[20] Matthew
9:9, Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27-28, Euesebius 6.25, page 201, quoting Origen, 3.24,
page 86
[21]
Eusebius 5.8, page 154, quoting Irenaeus, 6.25, page 201, quoting Origen, 3.24,
page 86
[22] First
Peter 5:13, Eusebius 5.8, page 154, quoting Irenaeus, 6.25, page 201, quoting
Origen
[23]
Eusebius 2:14-15, pages 48-50, 6.14, page 192, paraphrasing Clement
[24]
Eusebius 3.39, pages 103-104
[25]
Colossians 4:14, Second Timothy 4:11, Philemon 24, Eusebius 5.8, page 154,
quoting Irenaeus, 6.25, page 201, quoting Origen, 3.4, page 67, 3.24, page 88
[26] Matthew
4.21, Mark 1:19, Luke 5:10
[27]
Citations too numerous to list, see Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
[28]
Revelation 1:9
[29]
Eusebius 5.8, page 154, quoting Irenaeus, 3.24, pages 86-88
[30]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[31]
Eusebius 5.8, page 154
[32]
Eusebius 6.14, page 192
[33]
Eusebius 1.7, pages 20-23
[34]
Eusebius 6.25, page 201
[35]
Eusebius 3.24-25, pages 86-88
[36]
Eusebius 3.39, pages 103-104
[37]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[38] Luke
1:3, Acts 1:1
[39] The
Gospel of Luke ends and the Book of Acts begins with Jesus’ post-resurrection
appearances to His disciples and His ascension into Heaven
[40]
Eusebius 6.25, page 202
[41]
Eusebius 2.2, page 57, 3.4, pages 66-67
[42]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[43]
Eusebius 2.2, page 57, 3.4, pages 66-67, 3.25, page 88
[44]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[45] Hebrews
13:23
[46]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66. 6.20, page 198
[47]
Eusebius 6.14, page 192
[48]
Eusebius 6.25, page 202, quoting Origen
[49] Bainton,
page 133, Kelly, page 59
[50]
Eusebius 6.20, page 198, commenting on Gaius
[51]
Eusebius 6.13-6.14, pages 191-192, on Clement
[52]
Eusebius 6.25, page 202, on Origen
[53]
Eusebius 3.25, pages 88-89
[54]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[55]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[56]
Eusebius 5.8, page 155, on Irenaeus
[57]
Eusebius 6.25, page 202, quoting Origen
[58]
Eusebius 3.3, pages 65-66, 3.25, pages 88-89
[59]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[60]
Eusebius 6.25, page 202, quoting Origen
[61]
Eusebius 7.25, pages 240-243
[62]
Eusebius 3.25, page 89
[63]
Eusebius 3.39, page 102
[64]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[65]
Eusebius 5.8, pages 154-155, on Irenaeus
[66]
Eusebius 6.25, page 201, quoting Origen
[67]
Eusebius 7.25, pages 240-243, quoting Dionysius
[68]
Eusebius 3.24-3.25, pages 88-89
[69]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[70] Matthew
13:55, Mark 6:3, 15:40, 16:1, Luke 24:10, Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18, Galatians
1:19, Jude 1
[71]
Eusebius 2.23, page 61
[72]
Eusebius 3.25, page 88
[73] Matthew
13:55, Mark 6:3, Jude 1
[74]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[75]
Eusebius 6.13-6.14, pages 191-192
[76]
Eusebius 2.23, page 61, 3.25, page 88
[77]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[78]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 57
[79]
Bainton, page 134
[80]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66
[81]
Eusebius 3.25, page 89
[82]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66, 3.25, page 89, Bainton, page 36
[83]
Eusebius 6.12, page 190, quoting Serapion, Bainton, page 36
[84]
Eusebius 6.14, page 192
[85]
Bainton, page 133, Kelly, page 59
[86]
Eusebius 3.3, page 66, 3.25, page 89
[87]
Eusebius 5.8, page 155, on Irenaeus
[88]
Eusebius 6.13-6.14, pages 191-192
[89]
Eusebius 3.25, page 89
[90]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
[91]
Bainton, page 35
[92] Kelly,
page 38
[93]
Bainton, page 37, Kelly, page 60
No comments:
Post a Comment