Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

One cannot discuss the issue of the NT canon today without acknowledging a diversity of evaluations on the part of scholars who approach it from diverse starting points. The following account assumes the permanent validity of the traditional NT canon but is written in dialogue with other views, particularly those which, from the historical evidence, would question its legitimacy.

Prophetic Foundation of the Gospel

The germ of a NT canon can be regarded as implicit in the consummation of redemption which we know as the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. This is already postulated in the OT, in places such as Jer. 31:31-34, which predicts a new covenant between God and his people. The author of Hebrews, who explicitly appropriates Jeremiah’s prophecy, utilizes other OT texts as well which stress the incompleteness or temporary nature of the old covenant modes and point forward to something better to be realized in Christ (Heb. 7:17, 20; 8:8-13; 10:5-10, 16-18). It was a fundamental conviction of the early Church that the OT Scriptures themselves anticipated a greater redemption, and an addendum of divine revelation cannot be seen as an unnatural consequence of the realized prophetic hope once it came. In the words of Jesus in Luke 24:47 it is seen that not only “the Christ event” but even the mission and message of Jesus’ first followers were predicted by the prophets: “thus it is written. . .that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Isaiah had foretold a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6); a new law and word of the Lord was to break forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:4-5 = Mic. 4:1- 3). The prophets predicted not only a Messiah, but a message to accompany him (Rom. 1:1-2; 15:16-22; Isa. 66:18-21). Therefore, inasmuch as the eventual NT canon is the crystallization of the message of the original apostolic mission, it has its authorization in principle in the OT Scriptures themselves.

Authorization and Message of the Apostles

This authorization receives it highest validation in Jesus, as can be observed in two ways. First, the original apostolic mission was grounded in a special commission from Jesus. As his representatives the apostles stand and speak for Jesus (Matt. 10:40; cf. John 13:20; 20:21). Alongside him they constitute the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). They are uniquely endowed for their work by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 10:18-20; Mark 13:11; Acts 1:8; John 14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:13, 15). The concept of the “witness” in 1 Peter and Luke-Acts and the “eye-witness” appeal of John 1:1-3 correspond to this. The unique authority of the apostles, set apart from that of the continuing offices in the Church, is plainly observed in early, nonapostolic writers (1 Clem. 44:1-4; Ignatius Rom. 4.3; Magn. 6.1; Trall. 7.1; 12.2; Polycarp Phil. 3.2; 6.3).

Second, the mission of the apostles is presented in the NT as the mission of Jesus himself. In Isa. 49:6 the commission to bright light to the Gentiles belongs to the Messiah. But the mission of Paul is the mission of Jesus (Rom. 15:18-20), so Isaiah’s prophecy relates directly to Paul’s own calling (Acts 13:47). Throughout the book of Acts the apostles’ work in evangelizing the nations is represented as the work of the ascended Christ (2:33; 14:3), and their preaching is the word of the Lord (6:7; 12:24; 19:20). The form of the gospel message was given by the Lord himself (Gal. 1:12) and by the Lord through his apostles (1 Cor. 11:23; 15:8; 2 Pet. 3:2). Jesus will bring his “other sheep,” and they will heed his voice (John 10:16), but that voice they can hear only through his chosen apostles (17:18, 20). The apostolic testimony will be the means to transport sinners from unbelief to faith (John 20:31).

From the NT point of view, then, the apostolic mission is uniquely the mission of Jesus himself and is part and parcel of his own redemptive work as predicted by the prophets.

Consciousness of Apostolic Authority

It is often asserted that the 1st-century Church had only the OT, and some words of Jesus orally transmitted, as its authority. Yet in the writings of the NT it is often perceptible that the authors regarded their teachings as the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) in no way inferior, and in important respects superior, to the Word of God they knew as the Law, Prophets, and Writings (1 Pet. 1:10-12; Tit. 1:3; Heb. 1:1-2). Nor did this evaluation of the divine sanction of their message disappear when that message was committed to writing. Paul equates his written word by letter with his spoken word (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14), and his spoken word of instruction and proclamation with the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 3:1, 6, 14; cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). In Eph. 3:4 Paul anticipates that his readers will recognize his insight into the mystery of Christ not only by hearing him but by reading his epistle. That Paul perceived his epistolary activity, though addressed to many particular concerns of individual churches, as having more than merely local validity is seen in his instructions to exchange letters (Col. 4:16) and probably in the character of Ephesians, which seems to have been sent as a circular letter to several churches initially. The collecting and publishing of Paul’s letters, at any rate, mark a time when they were perceived as valid for the entire Church, and likely as perpetually valid. There is now good evidence from the contemporary practice of letter publishing and from the stability of the Pauline corpus in the manuscript tradition for believing that it was Paul himself who first collected and published an edition of his letters for distribution among the churches. A collection of Paul’s letters is generally available in the congregations and known as Scripture at least by the time of 2 Pet. 3:16. And throughout the NT one discerns the deliberate construction of a legacy, a deposit, a body of teaching to be left to succeeding generations (1 Cor. 11:2; 15:1-8; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14; 2:2; Luke 1:1-3; 2 Pet. 1:12-15; 1 John 1:1-4; Jude 3, 17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19).

Extent of the NT Canon

The authorization of a new installment of revelation implicit in the redemption accomplished by Jesus did not of course mark out beforehand the precise number or identity of the documents which would eventually embody that revelation. From the theological point of view, canonicity, or scriptural status, is first of all a divine judgment, though its human echo be imperfect and not immediately unanimous.

It would be the end of the 4th century (Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter, 369; the councils of Hippo Regius, 393, and Carthage, 397) before the churches of East and West could concur on the full 27 books which since that time have been commonly confessed in all major branches of Christendom (portions of the Syriac and Ethiopian churches never did conform completely to the rest). Yet it has been widely recognized that by the end of the 2nd century a “core canon” of 20 or more books was generally acknowledged throughout the churches. This has been strenuously challenged, however, by scholars who maintain that the Church was unconcerned with canonicity, or the boundaries of its collections of scriptural literature, until the 4th century.

It is true that in the period of the Apostolic Fathers (ca. 90-140) the apostolic Gospels and Letters are cited along with some occasional oral traditions of Jesus’ words — both used matter-of-factly, as if accepted by all Christians. Oral tradition already growing less reliable, however, the Church even at this time was depending with increasing exclusivity upon its written deposit.

Some have held that the continued production of apostolic pseudepigrapha in some circles in the early centuries demonstrates the openness of the Church to receiving new books. But the preponderant use of the names of apostles for such works shows instead where authority in the Church was perceived by all to lie. Serapion of Antioch (fl. 180s) is often cited for his willingness to accept the Gospel of Peter as a scriptural document. However, it was not a matter of scriptural status, but of fitness for edificatory reading, as can be seen from his words, “we receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us” (Eusebius HE 6.12.3-6). Serapion, like others of his generation, did not conceive of the Church as authorized to choose the documents it pleased, but as bound to use and preserve what had been delivered to it.

It is customary to speak of “criteria” such as apostolicity, catholicity, use by the majority of churches, and orthodoxy, as used by the churches of the 2nd through 4th centuries in determining their canonical documents. Whereas these did function negatively to exclude certain books, we do not, however, read of others finding acceptance because they “passed” the tests. Such books simply functioned as they had from the beginning, as authoritative documents handed down to the Church by its apostles and prophets. Most were indeed believed to have been authored by apostles, but “apostolicity” extended also to works by the apostles’ immediate co-workers involved with them in the original apostolic mission. By the end of the 2nd century, when church leaders began to reckon with the problem of differing collections, there could have been no serious question about the reception of the bulk of the books (four Gospels, Acts, 13 or 14 Pauline Epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John), and these “agreed” books set the stage, in terms of apostolic orthodoxy, for the acceptance of the rest. Whatever “criteria” might have been employed were scarcely relevant for any but Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Of those books about which some controversy existed, Hebrews and Revelation suffered subsequently after an early recognition. In the case of Hebrews, which was used by Clement of Rome in the 1st century, the uncertainties concerned authorship, with residual doubts about a perceived penitential rigorism (Heb. 6:4-6). With Revelation, conversely, the initial attacks in the 3rd century were based on an alleged support for Montanism and then chiliasm, prompting further questions about authorship. These problems prevented unanimity in the 2nd and 3rd centuries as Hebrews was doubted in the West, and Revelation in the East even through the 4th century. Eusebius relates that besides Hebrews and Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and James, though “known to most,” were disputed by some (Eusebius HE 3.25.3). We read of no theological objections to these five short epistles; the doubts concerned authorship and were due in great part to a lack of citation in earlier writers (HE 2.23.25). All these books were known and used by the church in Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, until Revelation was temporarily eclipsed.

Despite the impression sometimes given, there are only a handful of documents outside the traditional 27 which might have enjoyed temporary, local prestige approaching that of the others. Surveying the Church’s history at the beginning of the 4th century, Eusebius (HE 3.25) lists five such works which he judges must be considered spurious: the Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Barnabas, and Teachings of the Apostles. In addition 1 Clement should perhaps be mentioned. The first of these was known to Tertullian, who says it was written recently by an Asian presbyter out of the love for Paul, though it got him defrocked (De bapt. 17).

The Shepherd of Hermas was cited sparingly but quite favorably by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Though he rejects it, Eusebius tells us it was “read publicly” in many churches (HE 3.3.6). It was specifically excluded, however, by the Muratorian Fragment, the earliest surviving NT canon list, from ca. the end of the 2nd century, as neither apostolic nor prophetic, and late. It was sharply criticized by Tertullian, who also relates that both orthodox and Montanist councils had by then rejected it (De pudicitia 10).

Clement of Alexandria cited the Apocalypse of Peter, as if by Peter, though he was not followed in this by Origen. The Muratorian Fragment says it is accepted by the Church, “although some of us do not want it to be read in the church.” It is absent from the 4th-century canon lists.

The Letter of Barnabas was also used by Clement of Alexandria, though this was predicated on the mistaken notion that it was written by the companion of Paul and was therefore quasi-apostolic. Origen also regarded it highly, though he did not write any commentary or homily on it. Neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian seems to know it, and it was practically unknown in the West.

The Didache, a church manual not later than the early 2nd century, was also cited favorably by both Clement and Origen. It is not mentioned by the Muratorian Fragment or evidently used by other early Fathers, though its “two ways” doctrine may be the source of the same teaching in Barnabas. It is listed by Athanasius as a catechetical document, but not canonical.

The epistle of the Roman church to the Corinthians, commonly known as 1 Clement, was universally beloved, though clearly placed by Irenaeus in a category with Polycarp’s epistles, and not with the apostles. It is absent from the Muratorian Fragment and from all but the most eccentric of the 4th-century canon lists (the Apostolic Canons).

Current attempts to promote the 2nd-century Gospel of Thomas do so in the face of the unified aversion of the patristic sources. Hippolytus (ca. 235) says a book of this name belonged to the Naassene Gnostics (Ref. 5.7.20). Origen criticized it as spurious (Hom. Lk. 1), and Eusebius advised that it be “shunned as altogether wicked and impious” (HE 3.25.6).

Athanasius’ Festal Letter of 369 is probably the first extant list of the present 27 books and them alone, though there is one disputed text in Origen. From the end of the 4th century there is virtual unanimity among East and West on the NT canon. Luther launched a well-known attack on the Epistle of James, and to a lesser extent Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation, but not even his most devoted successors followed suit. Calvin saw no conflict in these books with the doctrine of justification by faith, found nothing in them unworthy of apostles, and accepted their self-testimony and the testimony of the early Church. The Protestant churches have confirmed this judgment, adding their voices to the confession of Orthdoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Bibliography. H. Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon (Minneapolis, 1985); G. M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford, 1992); C. E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” WTJ 57 (1995): 437-52; B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford, 1987); H. N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J., 1988); D. Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection (Minneapolis, 1994).

Charles E. Hill

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)