HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
|
For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Jewish Bible canon.
For the Old Testament canon, see Development of the Old Testament canon.
The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Although the Early Church primarily used the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint or LXX, the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.
The development of the New Testament canon was, like that of the Old Testament, a gradual process. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.Canon of the New Testament.
A folio from P46, an early 3rd century collection of Pauline epistles.
The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD.Three forms are postulated, from The Canon Debate, chapter 18, page 300, note 21, attributed to Harry Y. Gamble: "(1) Marcion\'s collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last." Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3 A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301 cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8
By the early 200\'s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and RevelationBoth points taken from Mark A. Noll\'s Turning Points, (Baker Academic, 1997) pp 36–37, see also Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the 27-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003) p. 315 Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1). Cambridge University Press, p. 308.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing, 15. ISBN 1405110783. and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.Brakke, David. "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria\'s Thirty Ninth Festal Letter," in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419 The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canonThe Book of Revelation wasn\'t added till the 419 Synod of Carthage according to McDonald & Sanders\'s The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, page 595, note 19. together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8 Pope Damasus I\'s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing, 15. ISBN 1405110783. or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 234. Likewise, Damasus\'s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 225. In circa 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 237–238. Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 97.
Thus some claim, that from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 215. and that by the fifth century the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1). Cambridge University Press, p. 305. Canon of the New Testament Catholic Encyclopedia. Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
McDonald and Sanders\'s The Canon Debate, 2002, Appendix B, lists the following most important primary sources for the NT Canon.Eusebius\' Church History 3.25.1-7 (c.303-325), Codex Claramontanus (c.303-367), Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 4.33 (c.350), Muratorian Canon (c.350-375), Athanasius\' Ep.fest.39 (367), Mommsen [Cheltenham] (365-390), Epiphanius\' Pan.76.5 (374-377), Apostolic Canons (c.380), Gregory of Nazianius Carmen de veris scripturae libris 12.31 (383-390), African Canons (c.393-419), Jerome Epist.53 (c.394), Augustine\'s Doct.chr.2.18.12 (c.396-397), Amphilochius Iambi ad Seleucum 289-319 (c.396), Rufinus Commentary on the Apostle\'s Creed 36 (c.400), Pope Innocent Letter to Exsuperius (c.405), Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine\'s (c.400).
The Septuagint: A page from the Codex Vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Brenton\'s English translation.
Early Christianity relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by his apostles and disciples. These oral traditions were later written down as gospels. Oral Apostolic Tradition.
In the one-hundred-year period extending roughly from A.D. 50 to 150 a number of documents began to circulate among the churches. These included epistles, gospels, acts, apocalypses, homilies, and collections of teachings. While some of these documents were apostolic in origin, others drew upon the tradition the apostles and ministers of the word had utilized in their individual missions. Still others represented a summation of the teaching entrusted to a particular church center. Several of these writings sought to extend, interpret, and apply apostolic teaching to meet the needs of Christians in a given locality.
The period immediately following the passing of the Apostles is known as the period of the Apostolic Fathers. Many of these men walked with the Apostles and were taught directly by them. Polycarp and Papias, for instance, are considered to have been disciples of John the Apostle. Doctrinal authority during this period rested on two sources, the Old Testament and the notion of Apostolic Succession, being able to trace a direct association to one of the Apostles and thus to Christ. Although the New Testament canon was written, it was not yet seen as a separate body of books equivalent to the Old Testament. Six Apostolic Fathers are commonly referred to: Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius. Berkhof. The History of Christian Doctrines, 37.
Their concerns were more with practical and moral issues than with theological reflection. The works of these early Christian writers contain no formulated doctrine of Scripture or canon, and yet there is much that is suggestive of later development.
By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome (c. 96), Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna but they were not usually called scripture/graphe as the Septuagint was Metzger, Bruce (1987). Canon of the New Testament. and they weren\'t without critics. In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus Against Heresies 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament (against this rumor see Romans 3:8, 3:31). 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around "as they do with the other scriptures." In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius\'s Ecclesiastical History 6.38 says the Elchasai "made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely"; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul\'s Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul "did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thess 2:2; 3:17) it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries… In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his hand-writing may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."
Bruce Metzger in his Canon of the New Testament, 1987, draws the following conclusion about Clement:
| “ | Clement\'s Bible is the Old Testament, to which he refers repeatedly as Scripture (graphe), quoting it with more or less exactness. Clement also makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering \'the words\' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a \'gospel\'. He knows several of Paul\'s epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative \'Scripture\'. | ” |
| —page 43 | ||
Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles", which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3.
Between 140 and 220, both internal and external forces caused Proto-orthodox Christianity to begin to systematize both its doctrines and its view of revelation. Much of the systemization came about as a defense against the heresies that challenged emerging Proto-Orthodoxy. The early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong movements of faith deemed heretical by the church in Rome: Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism.
Marcion of Sinope, a bishop of Asia Minor, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique canon of Christian scriptures. (Though Ignatius did address Christian scriptureIgnatius, NT Canon., before Marcion, against the heresies of the Judaizers and Docetists, he did not publish a canon.) In his book Origin of the New Testamentvon Harnack, Adolf (1914). Origin of the New Testament. Adolf von Harnack argued that Marcion viewed the church at this time as largely an Old Testament church (one that "follows the Testament of the Creator-God") without a firmly established New Testament canon, and that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
Marcion rejected the theology of the Old Testament entirely and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior Being. He claimed that the theology of the Old Testament was incompatible with the teaching of Jesus regarding God and morality. Marcion believed that Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the authority of the God of the Old Testament and to reveal the superior God of goodness and mercy whom he called the Father. But this message had been obscured in the Gospel by Judaizing corruptions. Paul and Luke were the only ones to find favour with Marcion and even then only to a limited extent.
Marcion created a canon, a definite group of books which he regarded as fully authoritative, displacing all others. These comprised ten of the Pauline epistles (without the Pastorals and Hebrews) and Luke\'s Gospel. He seems to have edited these books, purging them of what did not accord with his views, or alternately his versions were the originals that were later modified by Proto-Orthodoxy against Marcionism.From the perspectives of Tertullian and Epiphanius (when the four gospels had largely canonical status, perhaps in reaction to the challenge created by Marcion), it appeared that Marcion rejected the non-Lukan gospels, however, in Marcion\'s time, it may be that the only gospel he was familiar with from Pontus was the gospel that would later be called Luke. It is also possible that Marcion\'s gospel was actually modified by his critics to became the gospel we know today as Luke, rather than the story from his critics that he changed a canonical gospel to get his version. For example, compare Luke 5:39 to Luke 5:36-38, did Marcion delete 5:39 from his Gospel or was it added later to counteract a Marcionist interpretation of 5:36-38? One must keep in mind that we only know of Marcion through his critics and they considered him a major threat to the form of Christianity that they knew. John Knox (the modern writer, not to be confused with John Knox the Protestant Reformer) in Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (ISBN 0-404-16183-9) was the first to propose that Marcion\'s Gospel may have preceded Luke\'s Gospel and Acts.[1]
The Gospel of Luke, which Marcion called simply the Gospel of the Lord, he edited to remove any passages that connected Jesus with the Old Testament, or as stated above, these passages were later added to the Gospel of Luke. This was because he believed that the god of the Jews, Yahweh, who gave them the Jewish Scriptures, was an entirely different god than the Supreme God who sent Jesus and inspired the New Testament. He used ten letters of Paul as well (excluding Hebrews and the Pastoral epistles) assuming his Epistle to the Laodiceans referred to canonical Ephesians and not the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans or another text no longer extant. He also edited these in a similar way, or at least they differ from the current received text. To these, which he called the Gospel and the Apostolicon, he added his Antithesis which contrasted the New Testament view of God and morality with the Old Testament view of God and morality, see also Expounding of the Law#Antithesis of the Law.
Marcion asserted that these changes removed judaizing corruptions and recovered the original inspired words of Jesus and Paul. He edited the ten epistles by Paul as well as the Gospel of Luke. Marcion\'s canon and theology were rejected as heretical by the early church; however, he forced other Christians to consider which texts were canonical and why. He spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism. In the introduction to his book "Early Christian Writings", Henry Wace stated: "A modern divine… could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author."Wace, Henry (1911). Early Christian Writings.. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 characterized Marcion as "perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known."
Everett Ferguson in chapter 18 of The Canon Debate quotes Tertullian\'s De praescriptione haereticorum 30:
| “ | Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation. | ” |
Note 61 of page 308 adds:
| “ | [Wolfram] Kinzig suggests that it was Marcion who usually called his Bible testamentum [Latin for testament]. | ” |
The Marcionites were thus the first to have a clearly defined canon. The compilation of this canon was a challenge and incentive to emerging Proto-orthodoxy, if they wished to deny that Marcion\'s canon was the true one, it was incumbent on them to define what the true one was. The expansion phase of the New Testament canon began in response to Marcion\'s proposed canon.
The so-called Muratorian CanonThe Muratorian Canon earlychristianwritings.com Accessed April 10, 2007 is the earliest known example of a canon list of mostly New Testament books.Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 425–426. It survives, damaged and thus incomplete, as a bad Latin translation of an original, no longer extant, Greek text that is usually dated in the late second century,E. Ferguson, ‘Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance’, Studia Patristica 17 (1982), 677–683; E. Ferguson, ‘The Muragorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon”, Journal of Theological Studues 44 (1993), 696; F. F. Bruce, "Some Thoughts on the Beginning of the New Testament Canon," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 65 (1983), 56–57; B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 193–194; P. Henne, La dation du Canon de Muratori”, Revenue Biblique 100 (1993), 54–75; W. Horbury, “The Wisdom of Solomon in the Muratorian Fragment”, Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994), 146–159; C. E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon”, Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995), Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 426. although a few scholars have preferred a fourth century date.G. M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), see also the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. McDonald and Sanders\'s The Canon Debate, 2002, page 595, note 17: "The Muratorian Fragment. While many scholars contend that this was a late second-century C.E. fragment originating in or around Rome, a growing number hold that it was produced around the middle of the fourth century (ca. 350-375) and that it originated somewhere in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, possibly in Syria." This is an excerpt from Metzger\'s translation:
| “ | The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke… The fourth… is that of John… the acts of all the apostles… As for the Epistles of Paul… To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh… once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians… one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy… to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul\'s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion… the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John… and [the book of] Wisdom… We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently… And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church. | ” |
| —pages 305-307 | ||
This is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book NT, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon", in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003), p. 315. Also in the early 200\'s it is claimed Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) was using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still lingering disputes over Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation.Both points taken from Mark A. Noll\'s Turning Points, pp. 36–37. See References on this page. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 160, who refers to it directly.Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8. He argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author.The Canon Debate, page 288, claims Acts was first "clearly and extensively" used by Irenaeus, though it seems to have been known by Justin (1 Apol. 50.12, cf. 2 Apol. 10.6) Marcion\'s canon did not include Acts, so perhaps he rejected it. It is unknown when Luke-Acts was separated. In Against Heresies 3.12.12Irinæus, Adversus Hæreses. Irenaeus ridiculed those who think they are wiser than the Apostles because the Apostles were still under Jewish influence. This was crucial to refuting Marcion\'s anti-Judaism, as Acts gives honor to James, Peter, John and Paul alike. At the time, Jewish Christians tended to honor James (a prominent Christian in Jerusalem described in the New Testament as an apostle and pillar, and by Eusebius and other church historians as the first Bishop of Jerusalem) but not Paul, while Pauline Christianity tended to honor Paul more than JamesThe Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur holds that in Early Christianity, there was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or Pillars of the Church although in many places Paul writes that he was an observant Jew, and that Christians should "uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31). The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, page 577, by James D. G. Dunn: "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked. John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and to Jesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity—though James the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [Italics original].
The first proto-orthodox Christian move toward canonization began outside Rome, in the Syrian church. Moreover, this canon was ultimately not in Greek, but was in the Syriac language. The man responsible was Tatian, who was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 A.D. and, after much instruction, returned to Syria in 172 to reform the church there. At some point (it is suggested c. 160 A.D.) he selected the four Gospels and composed a single harmonized "Gospel" by weaving them together, mainly following the chronology of John. This is called the Diatessaron ("That Which is Through the Four") and it became for a long time the official Gospel text of the Syraic church, centered in Edessa. Some believe that Acts was also used in Syrian churches alongside the Diatessaron, however, Eusebius\' Ecclesiastical History 4.29.5 states: "They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles." In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17-book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Syriac Doctrine of Addai (c. 400 A.D.) claims to record the oldest traditions of the Syrian church, and among these is the establishment of a canon: members of the church are to read only the Gospel (meaning the Diatessaron of Tatian), the Epistles of Paul (which are said to have been sent by Peter, from Rome), and the Book of Acts (which is said to have been sent by John the son of Zebedee, from Ephesus), and nothing else.
For centuries the Diatessaron, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books in the Syrian churches, meaning that Tatian\'s stricter views, resulting in the rejection in 1 Timothy, did not win out. Moreover, after the pronouncements of the 4th century on the proper content of the Bible, Tatian was declared a heretic and in the early 4th century Bishop Theodoretus of Cyrrhus and Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (both in Syria) rooted out all copies they could find of the Diatessaron and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels (M 215). As a result, no early copies of the Diatessaron survive--although a very early fragment suggests it would have been crucial evidence for the true state of the early Gospels (see IX).
By the fifth century the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, became formalized somehow into its present form: Philemon was accepted, along with James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but the remaining books are still expelled (2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation ). After the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the Eastern Syrian church, in turn divided between the Nestorian and the Syriac Orthodox Church, broke away, and retained this canon of only 22-books (the Peshitta) up to the present day.
In Against Heresies 3.11.8, Irenaeus wrote:
| “ | It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. ... For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom. | ” |
Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus\'s time.McDonald & Sanders, page 277 Against Heresies 3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four.McDonald & Sanders, page 280. Also page 310, summarizing 3.11.7: the Ebionites use Matthew\'s Gospel, Marcion mutilates Luke\'s, the Docetists use Mark\'s, the Valentinians use John\'s The success of Tatian\'s Diatessaron in about the same time period is "...a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized."ibid
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-1, lists the following canon for Irenaeus, based on Eusebius\' Church History 5.8.2-8, but notes that: "..it is probably nothing more than Eusebius\'s listing of the references made by Irenaeus.":
| “ | Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Rev, 1 John, 1 Peter, Hermas, Wisdom, Paul (mentioned but epistles not listed) | ” |
|
|
This paragraph does not cite any references or sources. (March 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
Irenaeus does quote from 21 of the New Testament books and names the author he thought wrote the text. He is known to have been connected to Polycarp and since Polycarp may have been connected to John the Apostle of Jesus, there is potentionally great authority to his tradition. This is debated though. He does not reference six texts that are accepted in Christianity as the New Testament: Philemon, Hebrews-he may quote, James-he may quote, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. He does think that the letter to the Romans, known now as 1 Clement, was of great worth but does not seem to believe that Clement of Rome was the one author and seems to have the same lower status as Polycarp\'s Epistle. He does refer to a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture, but this has some consistency problems on his part. Hermas believed that Jesus became the Son of God at the Baptism, a concept called adoptionism, but all of his work including his citing of the Gospel of John (Jn. 1:1) proves that he believed that Jesus was always God.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed "practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered." In addition to books that did not make it into the final 27-book NT but which had local canonicity (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than I Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.
There were those who rejected the Gospel of John (and possibly also Revelation) as either not apostolic or as written by the Gnostic Cerinthus or as not compatible with the Synoptic Gospels. Epiphanius of Salamis called these people the Alogi, because they rejected the Logos doctrine of John and because he claimed they were illogical. There may have also been a dispute over the doctrine of the Paraclete.Metzger, Bruce. Canon of the New Testament, p. 150. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 45.
Eusebius, circa 303-325, recorded this New Testament canon:Primary reference: Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV: The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not.. Secondary reference: The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 23 The New Testament Canon of Eusebius by Everett R. Kalin, pages 403-404: "Eusebius divides the writings he has been discussing into three categories, the homologoumena (the universally acknowledged writings), the antilegomena (the writings that have been spoken against and are thus disputed—or, in a certain sense, rejected, even though in wide use) and the heretical writings. Only the twenty-one or twenty-two books in the first category are in the church\'s New Testament (are canonical). It is the ancient church\'s tradition of what the apostles wrote and handed down that is the criterion for evaluating these writings from the apostolic era, and only these twenty-one or twenty-two pass the test. In important recent contributions on this passage both Robbins and Baum agree that for Eusebius the church\'s canon consists of these twenty-one or twenty-two books. ... Given what we see in Eusebius in the early fourth century it is virtually impossible to imagine that the church had settled upon a twenty-seven book collection, or even one that approximated that, in the late second century. Moreover, whatever the merits of David Trobisch\'s intriguing and important proposal that a twenty-seven book edition of the New Testament was produced in the second century, that notion seems hard to reconcile with what we have found in Eusebius regarding the church\'s acceptance of apostolic writings in earlier centuries."
| “ | 1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles… the epistles of Paul… the epistle of John… the epistle of Peter… After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings [Homologoumena]. | ” |
| “ | 3. Among the disputed writings , which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. 4. Among the rejected [Kirsopp. Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. 5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews… And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. | ” |
| “ | 6. … such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles … 7. … they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. | ” |
The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the Church Fathers, we know that it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity, see also EH 6.25.3=14 attributed to OrigenE. R. Kalin, "Re-examining New Testament Canon History: 1. The Canon of Origen," Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990): 274-82 and EH 3.24.17-18The Canon Debate, page 395 EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul\'s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style."
The Codex Claromontanus canonCodex Claromontanus, Bible Researcher., c. 303-367McDonald and Sanders, a page found inserted into a 6th century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the Old Testament, plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2,4 Maccabees, and the New Testament, plus 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and Hermas, but missing Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.
Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that the list had been draw up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighborhood ~300 CE. According to Jülicher the list belongs to the 4th century and is probably of western origin.[citation needed]
In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus are examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.The Canon Debate, pages 414-415, for the entire paragraph
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, notes the following canon of Cyril of Jerusalem (c.350) from his Catechetical Lectures 4.33:
| “ | Gospels (4), Acts, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude?, Paul\'s epistles (14), and Gospel of Thomas listed as pseudepigrapha. | ” |
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,Carter Lindberg, A Brief History of Christianity (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) p. 15. and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.David Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria\'s Thirty Ninth Festal Letter", in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419. He also listed a 22-book OT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Shepherd. This list is very similar to the modern Protestant canon (WCF); the only differences are his exclusion of Esther and his inclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah.
The Cheltenham Canon,The Cheltenham List. Bible Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-08.The Cheltenham Canon. ntcanon.org. Retrieved on 2007-07-08.; (also known as Mommsen\'s) c. 365-390, is a Latin list that was discovered by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th century manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in North Africa soon after the middle of the 4th century.
It has a 24-book Old TestamentFrom [2] which references Metzger: 1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Numbers, 4. Leviticus, 5. Deuteronomy, 6. Joshua, 7. Judges, 8. Ruth, 9. I Kingdoms, 10. II Kingdoms, 11. III Kingdoms, 12. IV Kingdoms, 13. Chronicles I, 14. Chronicles II, 15. Maccabees I, 16. Maccabees II, 17. Job, 18. Tobit, 19. Esther, 20. Judith, 21. Psalms, 22. Solomon (Probably to include the Wisdom of Solomon), 23. Major prophets, 24. Twelve Prophets and 24-book New Testament which provides syllable and line counts but omits Hebrews, Jude and James, and seems to question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first.
The Synod of Laodicea, c. 363, was one of the first synods that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60,Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, volume XIV sometimes attributed to the Synod of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22-book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following canon for Epiphanius of Salamis (c.374-377), from his Panarion 76.5:
| “ | Gospels (4), Paul\'s epistles (13), Acts, James, Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Rev, Wisdom, Sirach | ” |
In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselvesApostolic Canons as the 85th of his list of such apostolic decrees:
Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament …] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.—(From the Latin version.)
Some later Coptic and Arabic translations add Revelation.[citation needed]
In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianzus produced a canonThe Canon of Gregory of Nazianus (329-389 CE). in verse which agreed with that of his contemporary Athanasius, other than placing the "Catholic Epistles" after the Pauline Epistles and omitting Revelation. This list was ratified by the Synod of Trullo of 692.
Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for SeleucusThe Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium (after 394 CE). written some time after 394, discusses debate over the canonical inclusion of a number of books, and almost certainly rejects the later Epistles of Peter and John, Jude, and Revelation.The Canon Debate, page 400, note 78, translation attributed to Metzger\'s Canon of the NT page 314 ["/" indicates newline]: "And again the Revelation of John,/ Some approve, but the most/ Say it is spurious." and "Paul ... [wrote]/ Twice seven epistles:... But some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious, not saying well, for the grace is genuine." and on the Catholic Epistles: "Some say we must receive seven, but others say/ Only three [James, 1 Peter, 1 John] should be received..."
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following canon for Jerome, (c.394), from his Epistle 53:
| “ | "Lord\'s Four": Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul\'s Epistles (14), 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Rev. | ” |
Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). Of course, this whitewashes the fact that by "Catholic Churches" he means those whose opinion he accepts, since many Eastern Churches rejected some of the very books Augustine upheld as universally received. In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches."
Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: "nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures" except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Incidentally, these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.
The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (A.D. 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419.McDonald & Sanders\' The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage." These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230 cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8.
Pope Damasus\'s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 225. Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. Purporting to date from a "Council of Rome" under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called "Damasian list" appended to the pseudepigraphical Decretum GelasianumDecretum Gelasianum gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent,Lindberg (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing, p. 15. and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable sixth century compilation.Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press, p. 234. The "Damasian Canon" was published by C. H. Turner in JTS, vol. 1, 1900, pp. 554–560.
This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.
The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of the \'apocrypha\' and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the Catholic New Testament.
In c.405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse, which is most likely identical to TrentHenry Barclay Swete\'s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, page 211 shows Innocent\'s OT list; McDonald and Sander\'s The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, page 594, lists this NT canon: "Gospels (4), Paul\'s epistles (13) [Some add Hebrews to this and make it 14. It is uncertain.], 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, Jude, Jas, Acts, Rev; Repudiated: Matthias/, James the Less, Peter + John = Leucian (Andrew = Xenocharides & Leonidas), Gospel of Thomas. (without the distinction between protocanonicals and deuterocanonicals).
Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 215 and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon, at least for the New Testament.P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1). Cambridge University Press, p. 305.
This period marks the beginning of a more widely recognized canon, although the inclusion of some books was still debated: Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Grounds for debate included the question of authorship of these books (note that the so-called Damasian "Council at Rome" had already rejected John the Apostle\'s authorship of 2 and 3 John, while retaining the books), their suitability for use (Revelation at that time was already being interpreted in a wide variety of heretical ways), and how widely they were actually being used (2 Peter being amongst the most weakly attested of all the books in the Christian canon).
Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 237–238. Bruce, F. F. (1988 pages=p. 97). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press.
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-3, lists a canon for Cassiodorus of Rome, from his Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum, c.551-562, which is notable for its omission of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude and Hebrews.
The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.
For example, the Trullan Synod of 691-692 CE, which was rejected by Pope Constantine, endorsed these lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (~385 CE), the Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE ?) , the Third Synod of Carthage (~397 CE), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE). And yet these lists do not agree. The Synod of Hippo Regius (393 CE) and the Synod of Carthage (419 CE) also addressed the canon and are discussed here.
Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences.Metzger, Bruce M. (1987.). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.
The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox ChurchThe Development of the Canon of the New Testament. includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon)
McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine\'s, c.400:
