| content | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| “ | 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.[1] | ” |
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.[2] 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.[3][4] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[5][6]
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 Revelation[7], 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.[8] 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.[9]
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,[10] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[11] The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the 27-book NT canon[12] 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.[13][14] 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,[15] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[16] 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.[17] 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."[18][19][20]
Thus some claim, that from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[21] 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.[22][23] Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[23] 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.[24]
Early Christianity
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.[25]
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 Apostolic Fathers
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. [26]
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.
Clement of Rome
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 [27] 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."[28]
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
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.[29][30]
Early Christian diversity
- See also: Christian heresy
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 diverse Christian viewpoints that competed with 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
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 scripture[31], before Marcion, against the perceived heresies of the Judaizers and Docetists, he did not publish a canon.) In his book Origin of the New Testament[32] 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.[33]
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."[34] 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]. | ” |
Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Drew University, considers the Pauline canon problem[35]: how, when, and who collected Paul's epistles to the various churches as a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to collect Paul's writings to various churches together as a canon, the Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes, "But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly."[36] If this is correct, then Marcion's role in the formation and development of Christianity is pivotal.
The Proto-orthodox response to early Christian heresies
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.
Muratorian Canon
The so-called Muratorian Canon[37] is the earliest known example of a canon list of mostly New Testament books.[38] 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,[39] although a few scholars have preferred a fourth century date.[40] 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.[41] 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.[42] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[43] 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.[44] Marcion's canon did not include Acts, so perhaps he rejected it. It is unknown when Luke-Acts was separated. In Against Heresies 3.12.12[45] 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"[46], 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 James[47].
Diatessaron
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.
- See also: Aramaic primacy
Irenaeus
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.[48] 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.[49] 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."[50]
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) | ” |
 |
The references used in this section may be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. This article has been tagged since July 2008. |
Irenaeus apparently quotes from 21 of the New Testament books and names the author he thought wrote the text.citation needed 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. Irenaeus quotes from the Gospels of Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16), Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10), Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14) and John (Book 3, Chapter 11); the Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14); the Letters of Paul to the Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16), 1&2 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3 & Book 3, Chapter 7), Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22), Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2), Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18), Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3), 1&2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6 & Book 5, Chapter 25), 1&2 Timothy (Book 1, Preface & Book 3, Chapter 14) and Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3); the letters of 1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9), 1 John(Book 3, Chapter 16), 2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16), and the Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20). He may refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not site Philemon, 3 John or 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 (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3) and seems to have the same lower status as Polycarp's Epistle (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3). He does refer to a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (Mandate 1 or First Commandment), but this has some consistency problems on his part. Hermas believed that Jesus became the Son of God at the Baptism (Parable 5 of Shepherd; Chapter 59, verses 4-6), 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
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.
The Alogi
There were those who rejected the Gospel of John (and possibly also Revelation and the Epistles of John) 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.[51][52] Gaius or Caius, presbyter of Rome, was apparently associated with this movement.[53]
Eusebius
Eusebius, circa 303-325, recorded this New Testament canon:[54]
| “ | 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 Antilegomena, 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 Origen[55] and EH 3.24.17-18[56] 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."
Claromontanus Canon
The Codex Claromontanus canon[57], c. 303-367[58], 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
Constantine the Great
- See also: Constantine I and Christianity
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.[59]
Cyril of Jerusalem
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. | ” |
Athanasius
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,[60] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[61] 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.
Cheltenham/Mommsen Canon
The Cheltenham Canon,[62][63] 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 Testament[64] 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.
Synod of Laodicea?
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,[65] 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).
Epiphanius
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 | ” |
Apostolic Canon #85
In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselves[66] 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
Gregory of Nazianzus
In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianzus produced a canon[67] 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.
Amphilochius of Iconium
Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus[68] 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.[69]
The Vulgate Bible
Jerome
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 and the North African canons
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.[70] These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[71][72][73]
Pope Damasus I
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.[74] 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 Gelasianum[75] gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent,[76] and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable sixth century compilation.[77][78]
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.
Pope Innocent I
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 Trent[79] (without the distinction between protocanonicals and deuterocanonicals).
A consensus emerges?
Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[80] 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.[81]
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".[82][83][84]
Cassiodorus
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.
Eastern canons
- See also: Orthodox Christianity
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.[85] 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.
Peshitta
The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox Church[86] 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:
| “ | Gospels (4): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Gal, Rom, Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, 1-2 Thess, 1-2 Tim, Titus, Phlm. | ” |
The Syriac Peshitta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22-books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347–407) and Theodoret (393–466) from the School of Antioch). It also includes Psalm 151 and Psalm 152–155 and 2 Baruch. Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22-books of the original Peshitta.[87]
Armenian canon
The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, also found in the Acts of Paul, which became canonized in the Armenian Church, but is not part of the Armenian Bible today. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200 A.D. when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text[88]. Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 A.D. to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas.
The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in its Old Testament and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books.
East African canons
The Coptic Bible (adopted by the Egyptian Church) includes the two Epistles of Clement, and the Ethiopic Bible includes books nowhere else found: the Sinodos (a collection of prayers and instructions supposedly written by Clement of Rome), the Octateuch (a book supposedly written by Peter to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (in two parts, the first details rules of church order, the second relates instructions from Jesus to the disciples given between the resurrection and the ascension), and the Didascalia (with more rules of church order, similar to the Apostolic Constitutions).
The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.[88] The canon of the Tewahedo Churches is somewhat looser than for other traditional Christian groups, and the order, naming, and chapter/verse division of some of the books is also slightly different. The Ethiopian "narrow" canon includes 81 books altogether: The 27 book New Testament; those Old Testament books found in the Septuagint and accepted by the Orthodox; as well as Enoch, Jubilees, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, and 3 books of Maccabees; however, the three Ethiopian books of Maccabees are entirely different in content from the four Books of Maccabees known elsewhere.
The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia" (Apostolic Church-Ordinances). However, these books have never been printed or widely studied. This "broader" canon is also sometimes said to include, with the Old Testament, an eight part history of the Jews based on the writings of Flavius Josephus, and known as "Pseudo-Josephus" or "Joseph ben Gurion" (Yosēf walda Koryon).[89][90]
Reformation era
- See also: Protestant Reformation
Until the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had never officially drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. Doing so had not been considered necessary because the authority of the Scriptures was not considered to be much higher than that of Sacred Tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils. Rejecting these, Luther and other reformers focused on the Protestant doctrine of the Five solas.
It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone (the doctrine of sola scriptura) that it became necessary to establish a definitive canon which would include a decision on the 'disputed books'.
Martin Luther
Martin Luther was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing the Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon[91] [92], echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[93][94]
In his book, Canon of the New Testament Bruce Metzger notes that in 1596 Jacob Lucius published a Bible at Hamburg which labeled Luther's four as "Apocrypha"; David Wolder the pastor of Hamburg's Church of St. Peter published in the same year a triglot Bible which labeled them as "non canonical"; J. Vogt published a Bible at Goslar in 1614 similar to Lucius'; Gustavus Adolphus of Stockholm in 1618 published a Bible with them labeled as "Apocr(yphal) New Testament."[95]
Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[96] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Old Testament to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God. As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament and the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament.
Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the annotations to his 1516 Greek New Testament. Their canonicity had also been doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg.