|
|
Introduction: In reference to the NT, the term
“canon” calls special attention both to its form, that is, a fixed collection
of precisely 27 early Christian documents, and to its function, that is,
literature that is normative for the faith and life of the Christian community.
The NT canon was the outcome of a process spanning the first through the fifth
centuries. This process was characterized by two movements: the growth of
Christian writings and their rise to scriptural status, which transpired mainly
in the first two centuries; and the limitation of those writings that were to
be regarded as Scripture, read in the church and considered authoritative for
its faith and life, which occurred mainly in the fourth and fifth centuries.
These two movements were not entirely separate and sequential, and the
development of the canon was not purely linear.[1]
The development of the canon
was inextricably bound up with the history of the ancient Church, both in its
literary and institutional aspects. For this reason it seemed necessary to provide,
particularly for readers something more than mere lists of the names of those
who in the early centuries made use of the several documents that eventually
came to be regarded as canonical Scripture. Therefore, in this paper, we shall make an attempt to make a
critique on the history of canonicity, starting with one of the problems of the
canonicity known as “canon within the canon”.
A.
1. The
“Canon within the Canon”: In this expression the two instances of the word ‘canon’
have different meanings. In the second instance ‘canon’ means the collection of
NT Scriptures, whereas in the first instance it means the standard or centre
within the twenty-seven books of the NT. To find the canon within the canon,
therefore, means to find in Scripture a principle of hermeneutic that enables
one to draw a line of demarcation between what is authoritative within the
canon and what is not. The current discussion thus renews attempts made at the
time of the Reformation to determine what is Christian within the NT.
Attempts to define the ‘canon within
the canon’ include the following proposals ―
Kümmel:
The ‘canon’ by which canonical books are to be judged is found in three areas:
(a) in the message and figure of Jesus,
as it meets us in the oldest form of the Synoptic tradition; (b) in the oldest
kerygma of the primitive church which explains the significance of the life and
death of Jesus and witnesses to the resurrection of Christ; and
(c) in the first theological
reflections on this kerygma in the theology of Paul.
For Braun, the ‘canon within the canon’
is located in the preaching of Jesus, in Paul, and in the Fourth Gospel.
Marxsen:
The ‘canon within the canon’ is much more restricted. In his view none of the NT
books can be said to be truly canonical, but ‘the real canon is prior to the NT,
and we are nearer to it in the sources the Synoptists used than in the Synoptic
Gospels themselves’. He further says, “No book in the NT aims to speak directly
to the present-day reader”, and “to use it in this way would be to use it
against the intentions of those who wrote it”. It is therefore not a question,
Marxsen concludes, the authors have something to say to me, but rather whether
what these writers sought to say to their readers can become something that is
addressed to me as well. In other words, the real test for discerning what is
authoritative is whether the kerygma existentially confronts me in my
situation.[2]
Harbsmeier, Vielhauer and Käsemann: The presence of contradictions between
NT books, or even within a given book, makes it necessary to establish a
critical canon within the canon. For example, the eschatology of Luke-Acts
cannot, it is said, be harmonized with Paul’s eschatology, and to attempt to do
so results in surrendering the heart of the Christian kerygma. Again, the outlook
on the Old Testament law in the Epistle to the Romans certainly appears to be
different from the outlook in Matt. 5:18 (Not one jot or title will pass from
the law till all is accomplished). Moreover, the Pauline rejection of the
Mosaic Law as a means of attaining a right standing in the sight of God is said
to be compromised in the Pastoral Epistles, which preserve the Pauline formula
of justification but, so to speak, ‘paralyse’ its effectiveness by introducing
moralism and the rationalization of faith. Furthermore, the Epistle of James
attacks the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone. For these and
similar reasons, it is argued, not only is there no unity within the canon, but
it is vain to expect that the Church can achieve unity on the basis of the
canon. It is thus necessary for both the individual Christian and the Church at
large to operate with a ‘canon within the canon’.[3]
Lønning:
The issue of a canon within the canon is whether and how the canon of scripture
can exercise a critical function over against the church and thus actually
serve as a norm in itself. It is clear enough that the concerns about the
external limits of the canon on the one hand and about the ‘center’ of the
canon on the other are closely related: when the outer boundary of the canon is
understood to be absolutely fixed, the theologically normative function of the
canon is correspondingly relativized; and when the critical function of the canon
is the primary theological concern, the significance of the external limits of
the canon is relativized. If the formal canon is to be effectively canonical,
that is, truly normative, the question of a canon within the canon can hardly
be avoided. At the same time, “as little as the program of a canon within the
canon can be accomplished by a revision of the external limits of the canon,
just as little can it be carried out once and for all by a theological formula”.[4]
Gamble: The specification of a "canon within
the canon” does not involve any literary reduction of the formal canon to a
smaller and more consistent collection of writings but aims to provide
hermeneutical criterion by which to discern the fundamental meaning of
scripture and to allow the meaning to operate as a theological standard. This,
a ‘canon within the canon’ signifies an actual canon (in the sense of
theological norm) within the formal
canon (in the sense of list or collection of writings.[5]
1.2
Interpretations of
Canon within the Canon: Once a formal, legal, and dogmatic
concept of the canon is given up in recognition of the historical evolution and
internal diversity of the canon, it becomes an open question how it is possible
for the canon to play a genuinely normative role. This question is usually
answered in Protestant (and especially Lutheran) circles by appealing to a
material principle or center. Here, of course, it is not a matter of any
literary reduction of the formal canon, but of the discovery of a hermeneutical
criterion by which to discern the ‘gospel’ in the canon.
While the necessity of such a material
principle-an actual canon (norm) within the formal canon (list)-is widely
acknowledged in Protestant scholarship, efforts to formulate it are various: the
justification of the ungodly, christologically interpreted (Käsemann); humanity
radically challenged and called into question (Braun); the central message of
Christ as found in the earliest witnesses (Kümmel); the irreducible primitive preaching
(Marxsen) etc. Most such formulations are not meant to be construed in literary
terms, as though the canon within the canon could or should be located in
particular documents, nor are they to be construed historically, as if historical
research could identify and certify an essential hermeneutical principle.
Catholic scholars have been predictably
critical of the effort to adduce a canon within the canon and regard it as a
symptom of the basic inadequacy of the sola
scriptura-(scripture alone) principle (which indeed is true so long as sola scriptura is understood in a merely
formal way). They have objected to the reductionism, selectivity, and arbitrary
subjectivity that it seems to involve and have emphasized to the contrary the
need to affirm the unity and normative character of the canon as a whole. Such
criticisms are understandable, but it remains questionable how pertinent such
reservations are, for generally they fail to take account of the dialectical
relationship between scripture and gospel posited by Protestant interpreters
and neglect the fact that it is not a matter of the whole and its parts but a
question of the proper interpretation of the whole, that is, a hermeneutical
question. Furthermore, Catholic criticisms fail to indicate just how it is possible,
once the theological diversity of the canon is granted, to give equal authority
to all the canonical literature, for this must mean either that historical
results are not taken seriously or that a perspective is discovered outside the
canon which determines how scripture is to be understood, in which case the
authority of the canon is effectively given up.
Nevertheless, on this issue one cannot speak simply of a
Protestant/Catholic division, since there are Catholic scholars who admit the
necessity of some form of intracanonical discrimination and likewise Protestant
scholars who, for various reasons, oppose the idea of a canon within the canon.
It should also be mentioned that some have found in the theological variety of
the NT not a need for a canon within the canon but a positive endorsement of
broad confessional pluralism, albeit within the perimeters of canonical
diversity.
1.3 A Critique on
Canon within the Canon:
(a) The approach of having a ‘canon within the canon’
indeed provides means for the attempt to determine what is truly authentic
among the writings within the canon.
(b) W. G. Kummel states that knowledge of the ‘canon
within the canon’ leads to the insight that a new delimitation of the NT canon
would be senseless, but it also frees us for an ever new answer to the question
of what is the NT ‘preaches and promotes Christ’.[6]
(c) The differences among the traditions within the NT
must be acknowledged and artificial attempts at harmonization should be
persisted.[7]
(d) the effort to erect any one principle or any
doctrine as the only valid rule by which to estimate the authority of this or
that book within the canon has been a controversial source of imbalance and
one-sidedness of the church, resulting in the poorness of Christian faith and
life.[8]
(e) The canon recognizes the validity of diversity of
theological expression, and marks the limits of acceptable diversity within the
Church.
(f) Twofold danger exists in setting
up a ‘canon within the canon’ – firstly, the concept is differently understood
by different persons and shifts from age to age, hence such a canon has a less
and unworthy impact. Secondly, operating with such a method will prevent all
elements within the NT from being unheard.[9]
B. A Brief History of
New Testament Canonicity and its formation:
2. Period of Preparation:
2.1. The Apostolic Fathers: The
Apostolic Fathers refer to a circle of authors who are supposed to have had
personal knowledge of some of the apostles, but do not actually belong to their
number. The period covers roughly between 95-150 C.E. During this period,
Christianity became an institution where the church leaders began placing
emphasis on ecclesiastical organization. The Apostolic Fathers made use of
several first century documents in their writings.
Clement: Clement was one of these presbyters and
may very well have been the leader of the group; hence his name's association
with the letter. Clement’s Bible is the Old Testament, to which he refers
repeatedly as Scripture 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’.[10]
Ignatius: He penned seven letters[11]
where the primary authority for him was the apostolic preaching about the life,
death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, though it made little difference to
him whether it was oral or written. He certainly knew a collection of Paul’s
Epistles, including (in the order of frequency of his use of them) 1 Corinthians,
Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and i Thessalonians. It
is probable that he knew the Gospels according to Matthew and John, and perhaps
also Luke. There is no evidence that he regarded any of these Gospels or
Epistles as ‘Scripture’.[12]
Polycarp to the Philippians: Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians
was apparently written shortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius, since Polycarp
evidently assumes that the bishop is dead (1:1; 9:1) but has received no final
word (13:2). In response to a written request (cf 3:1), Polycarp offers
encouragement and admonition to the Philippians. We found the combination of Mt
7:1-2; Lk 6:36-38 and with some elements outside the Gospels in the above
phrases. He also alludes to Pauline letters like Romans, 1 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, and 1 & 2 Timothy. He
might have also known Hebrews, thus calling Christ the eternal bright Priest
(12:2 cf. Heb. 6:20; 7:3).[13]
The Didache: The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, may have
been written as early as 70-80 C.E. It is a short manual of moral instruction
and church practice, dated to be in the first half of the 2nd
century C.E. There are two quotations from Matthew (Mt 7:6; Mt 6:5ff). Its Eucharist
prayer echoes the Eucharistic passages of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 6:25-58) and of
Jesus’ prayer in John 17. The writer of Didache might have also known the
epistle of 1 Corinthians. The author refers to the gospel, but he cites only
words of Jesus. This ‘gospel’ is not regarded as a necessary source from which
the words of the Lord, with indispensable warrants, come to the faithful, but
quite simply as a convenient collection of these words.[14]
Papias of Hierapolis: He was a bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a friend of
Polycarp (70-140 C.E.). He wrote a treatise in five books Expositions of the
Sayings of the Lord of which only small fragments survive today. From his
preface, it seems that Papias was eager to learn details of the life of Christ
from living tradition, transmitted by disciples of the Lord.[15]
He recognized two sources of Christian tradition: one was conveyed by word of
mouth, the other was embodied in written gospels. Besides such oral traditions,
which Papias delighted to collect, he also included in his Expositions two
brief accounts about the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew..[16]
Moreover, as suggested by Eusebius, Papias might have also known the Fourth
Gospel, 1 Peter, 1 John and the Apocalypse. On the whole, therefore, the
testimony of Papias concerning the development of the canon of the NT is
significant chiefly in reflecting the usage of a community in which devotion to
oral tradition hindered the development of a clear idea of canonicity.[17]
Hermas Of Rome: One of the most popular books produced in the early Church
was the Shepherd of Hermas. Not only was it frequently quoted and for a
time regarded as inspired, but more than twenty separate parchment or papyrus
fragments, dating from the second to the sixth centuries, have survived of the
Greek text, as well as portions of it in two Latin versions (of the second and
the fourth/fifth century respectively) and in two Coptic versions (Sahidic and
Achmimic). By way of summary, Hermas was not given to making quotations from
literature. Despite reminiscences from Matthew, Ephesians, and James, Hermas
makes no comment that would lead us to think that he regarded them as canonical
Scripture. From the testimony contained in the Shepherd, it can in any
case be observed how uneven during the course of the second century was the
development of the idea of the canon.[18]
The Epistle of Barnabas: The Epistle of Barnabas is a
theological tract and an epistle only in appearance. For Barnabas the
Scriptures are what we call the Old Testament, including several books outside
the Hebrew canon. Most of his contacts with Synoptic traditions involve simple
sentences that might well have been known to a Christian of that time from oral
tradition. As against the single instance of his using the formula, ‘it is
written’, in introducing the statement, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’,
must be placed his virtual neglect of the NT. If, on the other hand, he wrote
shortly before or after 130, the focus of his subject-matter would not The
Apostolic Fathers make it necessary to do much quoting from NT books—if
indeed he knew many of them. In either case he provides little or no evidence
for the development of the NT canon.[19]
2.2 Influences Bearing on Development of the
Canon:
Gnosticism: From the early 2nd century C.E., Gnosticism[20]
was already in progress, and they flourished for about four centuries alongside
early Christianity. They produced a number of Gnostic literatures; most of them
counter the canonical Gospels and epistles of the NT . For instance, Basilides
denied that Jesus really suffered on the cross.[21]
Carpocrates (or Carpocratians) taught that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and by
virtue of his knowledge of God, power came down from above. Valentinus, founder
of the sect of Valentinians, produced a variety of writings and he also made
use of another gospel called the gospel of truth. His teachings are popular
because he established a large school and spread his doctrines in the west (c.
140-165). In Nag Hamunadi tractates, out of 36 tractates, 20 tractates are
Gnostic Christians. The Gospel of Thomas is the most popular one. These Gnostic
writings extensively use the NT Gospels and epistles in support of their
teaching. The role played by Gnostics in the development of the Canon was
chiefly that of provoking a reaction among members of the Catholic Church, so
as to ascertain still more clearly which books and epistles conveyed the true
teaching of the Gospel.[22]
Marcion: Marcion drew up the earliest list of NT books at Rome about
140 C.E.[23] He was
greatly influenced by Paulinism and possibly Gnosticism. He made a sharp
distinction between a wrathful, inferior Creator God of the Jewish Scripture
(whom he rejected) and the Good Father of Christ. He preserved only ten letters
of Paul and an expurgated edition of the Third Gospel.[24]
So, his theological anti-Semitism made him reject not only the entire Old
Testament, but also of those parts of the NT which seemed to him to be infected
with Judaism. Marcion’s Canon was not accepted by the Great Church. However,
Marcion forced more Orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions
and to state more clearly what they already believed.
Montanism: Montanism was a prophetic movement from Asia Minor that
anticipated an imminent end of the world (c. 170-230 C.E.). The prophetic
pronouncements were written down and gathered together as sacred documents
similar to the words of Old Testament Prophets or sayings of Jesus. The new revelations of Montanism are regarded by the Great Church as
an attempt to add to the four Gospels and apostolic writings.[25]
Persecutions and the Scriptures: The pressures exerted by various
Gnostic and Montanist groups upon the Great Church to determine which books
should be regarded as authoritative; during periods of persecution, another set
of circumstances confronted believers, forcing them to be certain which books
were Scriptures and which were not. The persecution under Diocletian was said
to have given the touch by which previously somewhat unsettled elements of the
canon were further crystallized and fixed.[26]
Other Possible Influences:
(a) An aspect of ancient book-making
that at an early date may have had some bearing on the eventual gathering
together of the four Gospels in one document, or the Epistles of Paul in one
document, was the adoption among Christians by the end of the first century or
at the beginning of the second century of the codex or leaf-book, which
replaced the use of the time honoured roll.[27]
(b) Several significant collections of books and lists of
‘canonical’ authors were being drawn up by Jews and by pagans during the early
centuries of the Christian era. Although in most cases direct influence on the
Church is out of the question, at the same time one can observe that such
developments were taking place more or less contemporaneously with the
emergence of the NT canon.[28]
2.3 Development of the Canon:
2.3.1 In the East: Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Egypt.
Syria: We
have three works- Tatian, Theophilus and Serapion. In Tatian’s Oration, as also in the fragments of his other
works that later writers have quoted, there are allusions to several Pauline
Epistles.8 He alludes to or quotes passages from Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, as well as the Epistle to
the Hebrews. In Theophilus’ time the NT at Antioch consisted of at least three of
the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, a collection of Pauline Epistles,
and possibly the Apocalypse.[29]
Serapion accepts the writings of Peter and the other apostles as the words of
Christ, but he rejects writings falsely ascribed to them, since he knows that
they were not supported by acknowledged tradition.[30]
Asia Minor: We have two works- Martyrdom of Polycarp and Melito. The
author of the Martyrdom of Polycarp
appears to have some acquaintance with several of the apostolic
Epistles, from which he borrowed phrases (without acknowledgement) and wove
them into his narrative. This suggests that his mind was imbued with knowledge
of these texts, but we have no means of determining what authority he
attributed to them. The scanty remains of Melito’s literary output provide no
clear instance of a direct quotation from the NT as such. At the same time his
interest in developing allegorical exegesis of the Old Testament in accord with
the events of the earthly ministry of Jesus, as well as his care to ascertain
precisely the canon of the Old Testament, make it probable that he may well
have given similar attention to ascertaining authentic NT documents.[31]
Greece:
We have three works- Dionysius, Athenagoras and Aristides. Though we have fewer
than eighty lines preserved from what had been an extensive correspondence of
Dionysius, the sections that are extant provide us with the most ancient
testimony (though only by way of inference) to a periodic reading of the
Pauline Epistles. Dionysius seems also to know the malediction that stands at
the close of the Book of Revelation (xxii. 18, 19). Athenagoras did not see fit
to make frequent quotations from either Old or NT. Nevertheless, he makes tacit
references to Matthew, Mark, and John, and to several of Paul’s Epistles. The Apology
of Aristides was the earliest defence of Christianity that has come down to
who was a Christian philosopher of Athens. Though he makes no direct quotation
from any NT book, here and there his diction shows traces of the language of
apostolic writers. At the same time, however, it must be noted that nowhere
does he refer to these writings as canonical. Obviously they are useful as
providing information, but Christianity, in his view, is worthy of the emperor’s
attention because it is eminently reasonable, and gives an impulse and power to
live a good life.[32]
Egypt:
We have three works- Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Although none
of his writings have survived, we know the opinion of Pantaenus on a question
concerning the NT that was greatly disputed in the early Church: the authorship
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. According to Eusebius, Pantaenus claims it as
the work of the apostle Paul. This opinion of Pantaenus, which was later to be
adopted by both Clement of Alexandria and Origen, appears to be an attempt at
conciliation, made necessary by the existence of two types of the corpus
Paulinum, one with and the other without the Epistle to the Hebrews.[33]
Though Clement felt free to use unwritten tradition as well as to quote from a
broad spectrum of Christian and pagan literature, it was the fourfold Gospels
and the fourteen Epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), along with Acts, 1
Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse, that were regarded as authoritative
Scripture. As for the other
Catholic Epistles, Clement’s opinion vacillated. On the
whole one can say that, so far as his understanding of Scripture was concerned,
he had an ‘open’ canon.[34]
It can be said that Origen regarded the canon of the four Gospels as closed. He
accepted fourteen Epistles of Paul, as well as Acts,, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude,
and Revelation, but expressed reservation concerning James, 2 Peter, and 2 and
3 John. At other times Origen, like Clement before him, accepts as Christian
evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating such
writings on occasion as ‘divinely inspired’. Here and there a certain
development can be detected in Origen’s thinking, or at least in the way in
which he expressed himself. There is somewhat greater readiness to make use
affirmatively of non-canonical texts.[35]
The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of
selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer.[36]
2.3.2 In the West: Rome, Gaul and North Africa.
Rome:
We have two works- Justin Martyr and Hippolytus of Rome. Justin thought if the
Old Testament prophets have authority in themselves, the Gospels are of value
in so far as they are authorized witnesses to Jesus’ life and teaching. He
makes use of the Synoptics much more frequently than the Fourth Gospel. Justin
also alludes to various traditions bearing on the life of Jesus that came to be
incorporated in apocryphal gospels. These items resemble the Midrashic
additions that he sometimes includes in his Old Testament citations. In any
case, he does not generally attribute to them an authority comparable to that
of the Memoirs of the apostles; it is the latter that are read publicly on the
Lord’s Day in services of worship. Justin does not appeal to the authority of
Paul, but he considers the Apocalypse of John as both a prophetic and an
apostolic work. With Hippolytus the curtain falls upon Greek Christianity in
Rome. In taking leave of him as a landmark witness to the formation of the NT canon
in the first third of the third century, it is not without interest to observe
that this Father, in his description of the end of the world, says, ‘The public
service of God shall be extinguished, psalmody shall cease, the reading of the
Scriptures shall not be heard’ (Contra JVoetum, 9)—an unconscious
testimony to the place that the public reading of the apostolic writings had
come to fill in the minds of Christians.[37]
Gaul:
We have two works- Epistle of the Churches at Lyons and Vienne and Irenaeus of
Lyons. The Epistle of the Churches at Lyons and Vienne is remarkable for
the abundance and the precision of the reminiscences of NT texts that it
contains. We find echoes of phrases that are obviously borrowed from Acts,
Romans, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, and Hebrews. Furthermore, it
presents a saying of the Lord that we know only from the Gospel according to
John. Once there is even a direct and textual quotation, described as from Scripture;
this quotation, which is loose in form, is taken from the Book of Revelation.
In Irenaeus we have evidence that by the year 180 in southern France a
three-part NT of about twenty-two books was known. The total number will vary
depending on whether or not we include Philemon and Hermas (somewhat
doubtfully). Even more important than the number of books is the fact that
Irenaeus had a clearly defined collection of apostolic books that he regarded
as equal in significance to the Old Testament. His principle of canonicity was
double: apostolicity of the writings and testimony to the tradition maintained
by the Churches.[38]
North Africa: We have four works- Acts of the
Scillitan Martyrs, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage and ‘Against Dice- Players’.
The Scillitan Christians possessed at least the Epistles of Paul in a Latin
version. And if the Pauline Epistles were circulated in a Latin version by 180
C.E, there is little doubt that the Gospels were likewise available in Latin.[39]
Tertullian cites all the writings of the NT except 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3
John. The latter two Epistles, being rather brief and of minimal theological
importance, could have been omitted by Tertullian without implying that he did
not know of their existence. Tertullian regarded the Scriptures of the Old
Testament as divinely given, and he attributed to the four Gospels and the
apostolic Epistles an authority equal to that of the Law and the Prophets. The
orally transmitted ‘rule of faith’ and the written Scriptures were mutually
appealed to, and any writing that did not conform to the rule of faith could
not be accepted as Scripture. Cyprian makes a comment on the number of the
Gospels or the Epistles in the NT , which appear to him to have been determined
beforehand by mystical correspondence. The Gospels are four in number, he
declares, like the rivers of Paradise (Gen. 2:10). Paul and John wrote each to
seven churches, as was prefigured by the seven sons spoken of in the song of
Hannah. Apparently, as Irenaeus had done earlier, Cyprian derived a certain
satisfaction from such correspondence. Under the title Adversus aleatores (‘Against
Dice-Players’) there has been preserved in several manuscripts making seven
quotations from the Old Testament, twenty two from the New. The author makes
frequent citations from the Gospel according to Matthew, and a few from John.
Among the Pauline Epistles he knows and uses Roman, 1 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians (?), and 1 and 2 Timothy. He also shows acquaintance with 1 John and
the Apocalypse.[40]
3. Two Early Lists
of the Books of the New Testament:
3.1 The Muratorian Canon: The Muratorian Canon or Fragment was
discovered in 1740 by the librarian L. A. Muratori in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiani
in Milan. The beginning and the end of the Fragment was lost. It was preserved
in a wretched Latin and dating was to be of the late second century C.E.[41]
The fragment contains seventy six leaves (27 x 17 cm), on rather coarse
parchment. The list classifies books
under four categories. First, there are those books accepted universally,
namely the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, Jude, two (perhaps
three) Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Johannine Apocalypse.
Secondly, there is one disputed book, the Apocalypse of Peter, which some refuse to have read in church.
Thirdly, there is one book, the Shepherd of Hermas, which, though rejected, still ought to be read privately.
Fourthly, several heretical books are mentioned as totally rejected. Most
surprisingly, 1 & 2 Peter, James and Hebrews are not mentioned in the
Fragment. The terminology usually
employed in referring to those books that are regarded as canonical is recipere
(‘to recognize, or receive’);
other verbs that are also used are habere
(‘to accept’) and sanctificatae sunt (‘are held sacred’). Two other norms that indicate approval of a
book as authoritative for the Church are (a) the public reading in a service of worship (legere
in ecclesia or publicare
in ecclesia populo), and (6)
authorship by those who were eye- and
earwitnesses, i.e. apostles.[42]
7.2 Eusebius’ Classification of the New
Testament Books: In
his Ecclesiasticus History, Eusebius of Caesarea provides a list of Christian
Scriptures. He divides his canonical list into three categories – acknowledged,
disputed and heretical. The acknowledged/accepted writings are – the four
Gospels, Acts, epistles of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John. He has reservations about
Revelation. They are canonical. The disputed letters are divided into two: i)
disputed letters known to many. They are epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2
and 3 John. ii) The second one is spurious letters as – the Acts of Paul,
Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas and Didache. The third
category comprises of such heretical writings as, the Gospels of Peter, Thomas,
Matthias, Andrew, John and other apostles. They are completely senseless and
impious. Revelation is put both in the first and second categories, either to
be accepted or spurious writing. His criteria for the books of the NT are – (i)
acceptance by all the churches, (ii) apostolic and Orthodox contents, and (iii)
apostolic authorship or origin.[43]
4. Attempts at Closing the NT Canon:
4.1 In the East: Though the ancient church had not yet pronounced the canon
of the NT , prominent church writers had more or less defined the canon of the NT
. In Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) in the 59th canon of the Synod of
Laodicea and in Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 390), we get a list of 26 books
(excluding Revelation) in the fourth century C.E. Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus
(c. 403), however, admits Revelation as the last book of the NT . Codex
Sinaiticus (4th century C.E.) adds Barnabas and Hermas besides the
27 books, and Codex Alexandrianus (5th century C.E.) includes 1
& 2 Clement and ‘Concerning Virginity’.[44]
The uncertainty concerning the limits of the NT Canon was
brought to an end for the Church in the East by the 39th Easter
festival letter of Athanasius from the year 367. In this pastoral letter,
Athanasius for the first time presented a firmly accepted canon of the Old
Testament and the NT as the only canonical ones. They are four Gospels, Acts, seven
Catholic epistles (James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, Jude), fourteen
Pauline letters (Hebrews is placed after 2 Thessalonians before the Pastorals
and Philemon), and Revelation. According to this letter, no one is to add
anything to these, and no one is to take anything away. Athanasius was the
first to name this ecclesiastically fixed collection of Holy Scriptures as kanon. On the other hand, the position
concerning Revelation remained generally divided. It was said that Chrysostom,
Theodoret and the three Greek Cappadocians were against it. Thus, the 27
canonical writings of the NT in the Greek Church finally prevailed for the
first time in the tenth century C.E.[45]
4.2 In the West: During his stay in Rome (382-285), Jerome used the standard
of Athanasius for the NT in his revision of the Latin NT. However, he had
doubts on the Pauline authorship of Hebrews and also on the apostolic origin of
2 Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. In 352 C.E., a Roman Synod
influenced Jerome, proclaimed under Pope Damasus the Canon of Athanasius as the
Canon of the NT for the Roman Church.[46]
By 393, in the African Synod of Hippo Regius, the Canon of Athanasius was
accepted as the Canon of the NT.
During Reformation period, Erasmus, Cardinal Catjetan and
Martin Luther (despite about their theology differences) shared doubts about
the apostolic origins of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude and 2 & 3 John.
Luther ascribed a special status to certain NT books like Romans, Galatians,
Ephesians, John, 1 John and 1 Peter, and the secondary status to the Old
Testament books the Latin Vulgate, besides Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
In response to lingering doubts about the status of certain NT books and other
important factors, the Roman Catholic Church issued a decree on the Canon of
the Scripture at the Council of Trent (1546). The decision at Trent maintains
that the book of the Latin Vulgate are Sacred and canonical in their entirety,
with all their parts. It affirmed the 27 books of the NT with equal authority
and broader canon of the Old Testament (Deutero-canonical/apocrypha). After the
Council of Trent, concerning the Canon of the NT, Christianity at large reached
general agreement on the canonical status of the 27 books of the NT.[47]
5. Problems concerning the Canon:
In recent years, there was a growing
dissatisfaction with the approaches, methods and findings of the historical
critical method of interpreting the Bible. Since this method emerged in the
period of the rise of rationalism in the seventeen century and the
Enlightenment as well, some of the contemporary dissatisfaction may develop as
the outcome of the influence of rationalism on its origin and that these
rationalist tendencies are inappropriate analytical tools for theology. Recent
attempts have been made to resolve impossible link between historical and
sociological approaches to the Bible and theological treatment of it. The
attempted resolution of the problem has focussed on the canon of the Scripture.
Thus, canonical criticism emerged and its concern was with the interpretation
of the Bible in a canonical context to meet the current debate about ways of
understanding the Bible.[48]
5.1 Theological Problems: The concept of the Canon raises a number of problems which
belong to the sources of Christian doctrine rather than to the NT introduction,
that is, the nature of Biblical norm for Christian doctrine and preaching, and
the relation between Scripture and tradition. The NT contains not a single
dogmatic system, but many different proclamation of Christian faith (kerygmata). For instance, in Pauline
letters, there are variations between his earliest kerygma and his latest (1
Thessalonians & Romans and Colossians). Its solution must be found by
enquiring into the basic unity which underlies all these varieties of kerygma,
that is, in the proclamation of his final redemptive act in the end of history.
Keeping this in mind, some scholars recognized the presence of “early
Catholicism”[49] in
several writings of the NT canon. For Käsemann, the Pauline doctrine of
justification by faith alone is postulated as the true canon within the Canon,
and all other NT writings are measured by this norm. The Pauline doctrine of
justification is one application of the core kerygma. Likewise, early
Catholicism is accepted as an integral part of the Canon. Yet, early
Catholicism is not the whole of the Canon. It stands open to balance and
correction from other parts of the canon, like Pauline writings themselves.[50]
B.S Childs gives highly controversial theological
issues regarding the NT canon. The following are some of them-
(a) How is one to handle the great diversity of
perspectives represented within the NTcanon? How one to decide what is actually
the authentic gospel among the many conflicting voices?
(b) Is it useful and necessary to speak of levels of
canonical authority?
(c) How much theological authority
can be attributed to the canonical decisions of the early church? If many of
the criteria by which canonicity was decided, such as apostolicity, have been
shown to be historically questionable, how can the results of such decisions
have any lasting authoritative role for the modern church? [51]
5.2 Criteria for Determining
Canonicity: The early
Christians would sometimes appeal in a more or less reasoned manner to specific
criteria bearing on canonicity. One of them involved theological appreciation
of the content of a given book, while the other two were based on historical
considerations bearing on its authorship and general acceptance among the
churches.
(a) A basic prerequisite for
canonicity was conformity to what was called the ‘rule of faith’, that is, the
congruity of a given document with the basic Christian tradition recognized as
normative by the Church. The writings which came with any claim to be
authoritative were judged by the nature of their content.[52]
(b) Another test that was applied
to a given book to determine whether it deserved to belong in the NTwas
apostolicity. The apostolic origin, real or putative, of a book provided a
presumption of authority, for clearly an epistle attributed to the apostle Paul
stood a greater likelihood of acceptance.
(c) Another obvious test of
authority for a book was its continuous acceptance and usage by the Church at
large. This was, of course, based on the principle that a book that had enjoyed
acceptance by many churches over a long period of time was in a stronger
position than one accepted by only a few churches, and then only recently.[53]
These three criteria (orthodoxy,
apostolicity, and consensus among the churches) for ascertaining which books
should be regarded as authoritative for the Church came to be generally adopted
during the course of the second century and were never modified thereafter. At
the same time, however, we find much variation in the manner in which the
criteria were applied. Certainly they were not appealed to in any mechanical
fashion. There were different opinions as to which criterion should be allowed
chief weight. The determination of the canon rested upon a dialectical
combination of historical and theological criteria. It is, therefore, not
surprising that for several generations the precise status of a few books
remained doubtful. Though the fringes of the NT canon remained unsettled for
centuries, surprisingly a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part
of the NT was attained within the first two centuries among the very diverse
and scattered congregations not only throughout the Mediterranean world but
also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.[54]
5.3
Inspiration and the Canon: When the Church
Fathers again and again use the concept of inspiration in reference to the
Scriptures, they seldom describe non-Scriptural writings as non-inspired. When,
in fact, such a distinction is made, the designation 'non-inspired' is found to
be applied to false and heretical writings, not to orthodox products of the
Church's life. In other words, the concept of inspiration was not used in the
early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical
orthodox Christian writings.
In short, the Scriptures,
according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason
they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because
they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic
witness on which the later witness of the Church depends. As time went on,
however, theologians of the Church began give attention to the special
character of the inspiration of the Biblical writers. According to modern
theologians, the canonical books are one and the same as the inspired books. At
the same time, however, there is also truth in what another Reformed
theologian, Auguste Lecerf, acknowledges: “We do not deny that God inspired
other writings than those which constitute the canon.”[55]
Thus, while it is true that the Biblical authors were inspired by God, this
does not mean that inspiration is a criterion of canonicity. A writing is not
canonical because the author was inspired, but rather an author is considered
to be inspired because what he has written is recognized as canonical, that is,
is recognized as authoritative in the Church.[56]
5.4
The Plurality of the Gospels and the Epistles: This arose from the consideration that if it
is necessary to have not one but several accounts of the one life of Jesus
(which, in fact, must be the foundation of all Christian belief), this is as
good as admitting that none of them is perfect. While the trend toward a
multiplicity of Gospels existed from the very beginning (Luke 1:1-3), it was
accompanied by an opposite tendency to reduce them all to a single Gospel.
Tatian's Diatesseron, by which the four separate Gospels were replaced by
one harmonized account, was not the only attempt made in the early Church to
overcome the offence of the plurality of Gospels. The best-known example of the
attempt to confer exclusive authority on one of the Gospels was that of
Marcion, who singled out the Gospel according to Luke as the one exclusively
valid Gospel. There is also a reason to believe that only one Gospel was in use
in some churches long before the canon was finally settled. It appears that
only the Gospel according to Matthew was at all widely read in Palestine, that
there were churches in Asia Minor which used only the Gospel according to John
from the outset, and so with Mark and Luke in their special areas.
Unlike the problem occasioned by
the plurality of the Gospels in the early Church, the plurality of the Epistles
caused no difficulty. In this case, however, as Dahl has pointed out in a
perceptive essay, it was not equally easy to see why Epistles written to
particular churches on particular occasions should be regarded as universally
authoritative and read in all churches.[57] The
particularity of the Pauline Epistles was felt as a problem until it had been
incorporated into a complete canon of NT Scripture. Later on, the problem was
no longer felt, but the tendency towards generalizing has remained, not only
when the Epistles were used as dogmatic proof-texts, but also when they served
as sources for reconstruction of a general 'biblical theology' or a system of
‘Paulinism' ... [Yet] to the apostle himself, letters to particular churches
written on special occasions were the proper literary form for making
theological statements. Of this fact both exegesis and theology, not to mention
preaching, have to take account. The particularity of the Pauline epistles
points to the historicalness of all theology, even that of the apostle.[58]
5.5
Value of Patristic Citations:
Indeed, patristic citations and lists of books are the two main criteria for
judgment of the canon. Yet neither criterion is totally satisfactory. For
instance, when Clement of Rome, or Ignatius, or Polycarp cited a book that
ultimately was recognized as canonical, just what authority was he giving to
this book, since the concept of either a NT or a canon was yet formulated? It
could be assumed that these early Fathers had a concept of canonical and
noncanonical. And, indeed, even later when there was a concept of a NT, there
were strange phenomena in patristic citations. Origen cited 2 Peter at least
six times; yet in his canonical list he doubted whether 2 Peter should be
included. In other words, even a 3rd century Patristic citation of a
book ultimately accepted as canonical does not mean that the Father thought it
canonical. On the other hand, absence of a citation of a NT book (e.g., during
the 2nd cent.) does not necessarily mean that the Fathers did not
know the book or did not consider it of value. There would be little occasion
to cite some of the shorter NT works like Philemon and 2-3 John. It is also
important to note that the subapostolic writings (like 1-2.Clem., Did., Herm.,
and Barn.) continued to be considered Scripture even into the 4th
and 5th centuries. The Alexandrian Fathers seem to have thought of 1
Clement as Scripture. The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus contained,
along with the books we consider canonical, Barnabas and Hermas. The 5th
century Codex Alexandrinus had 1-2 Clem. The real difficulty is not why such
works were thought of as canonical, but why the church did not finally accept them
as canonical.[59]
5.6
Authorship and Pseudonymity: Modern
scholarship agrees that the Fathers were often quite wrong in identifying the
writers of biblical books. The issue of who wrote a book is a historical
question to be settled by scientific criteria of style and content; it is not a
religious question in the same way that inspiration and canonicity are. Thus the church has wisely refrained
from dogmatic statements about the authorship or writing of biblical books.
Pseudonymity, i.e., using a false name, is a term employed to describe the
self-attribution of a book to someone (usually of renowned) who actually did
not write it. When there are cases which match the definition of pseudonymity,
that term should be applied with serious reservation to the biblical books. The
claim in Jewish and Christian sacred books to authorship by famous figures who
did not write them was made without any intention to deceive; rather it reflected
a belief that the books were written faithfully in the tradition or school of
the named "authors."[60] Some
distinctions should be made in the concept of authorship as applied to biblical
books, especially in regard to the relationship of authority to writing.
(a) An author could write a book
with his own hand-perhaps the author of Luke-Acts.
(b) An author could dictate a book
or letter to a scribe who copied slavishly. This was not a popular way of
composing since it was tiring.[61]
(c) An author could supply ideas
and statements to another who would write the work. Some who do not think that
1 Peter is pseudonymous have argued that Peter, a Galilean fisherman, composed
this well-written Greek letter by thus using Silvanus (5:12). These first three
categories would merit the designation "author" in modern parlance
too.
(d) In antiquity one could be
considered an author if a work was written by disciples whose thought was
guided by both the master's past words and by his spirit (even a long time
after his death). Such authorship is exemplified probably in 2 Peter and in the Pastorals.
(e) In the broader sense, someone
could be considered an author if a work was written in the literary tradition
for which he was famous. The whole Law (Pentateuch) could be attributed to
Moses the law-giver as author, even though the final writing of parts did not
take place until 800 years after his death. The Davidic authorship of the Psalms
and the Solomonic authorship of the Wisdom literature fall into this category.
In modern estimation, these last
two classifications (4 and 5, which clearly involve pseudonymity) do not meet
the standards of authorship; the fourth is an issue of authority; the fifth is
an issue of patronage.[62]
5.7
Recent Reactions to the Canon:
A challenge came from a use of the canonical writings to reconstruct an earlier
style of Christianity judged preferable to that reflected in the canonical
writings themselves, so that the NT writings might be seen as distorting an
earlier Christianity. The following are some examples of theories that had the
effect of moving in that direction: G.
Theissen (The Social Setting of
Pauline Christianity [Phl, 1982]) argued that, because the ethical
radicalism of Jesus did not serve the organized Pauline congregations, Paul
suppressed that radicalism by not quoting Jesus' words. W. Kelber (The Oral and the
Written Gospel [Phl, 1983]) proposed that Mark's written Gospel narrowed
the much wider range of oral presentation about Jesus and indeed discredited the
most plausible tradents of the Gospel oral tradition, i.e., the disciples and
the family, including Jesus' mother. For L.
Schottroff, the pre-Lucan Magnificat and Beatitudes represented a theology in
which the rich were truly cast down, and Jesus functioned as a would-be
destroyer of the existing social order, radically reversing the inequities of
wealth and power. Luke spiritualized all this.
Another type of challenge to the
canon came from an appeal to the apocryphal gospels as a witness to a Christianity
that antedated in time or spirit what is found in the canonical writings. H. Koester, followed by J. D. Crossan (Four Other Gospels [Minneapolis, 1985]), suggested that works like
Secret Mark and Gospel of Thomas belong to so early a stage in the development
of gospel literature that in whole or in part they antedated the canonical
Gospels. Since the Apocrypha sometimes show little interest in the death and
resurrection of Jesus or in the role of the Twelve, but much interest in the fantastically
marvelous, their claimed anteriority has been used to reconstruct a primitive
Christianity with a theology and ecclesiology very different from that of much
of the NT.[63]
5.8 The canon: collection of
authoritative books or authoritative collection of books: In the former case, the books within the
collection are regarded as possessing an intrinsic worth prior to their having
been assembled, and their authority is grounded in their nature and source. In
the latter case, the collection itself is regarded as giving the books an
authority they did not possess before they were designated as belonging to the
collection. That is to say, the canon is invested with dogmatic significance
arising from the activity of canonization. In one case the Church recognizes the
inherent authority of the Scriptures; in the other she creates their authority
by collecting them and placing on the collection the label of canonicity.[64]
If
the authority of the NT books resides not in the circumstance of their
inclusion within a collection made by the Church, but in the source from which
they came, then the NT was in principle complete when the various elements
coming from this source had been written. That is to say, when once the
principle of the canon has been determined, then ideally its extent is fixed
and the canon is complete when the books which by principle belong to it have
been written.[65]
6.
The canon- open or
closed: To say that the
canon is open implies that it is possible for the Church today either to add
one or more books to the canon, or to remove one or more books that have
hitherto been regarded as canonical. First, how far is it possible to consider
adding a book to the NT canon? The discovery some years ago at Nag Hammadi of
several dozen texts from the early Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Epistle of Peter to Philip, and the Apocryphon of John,
has greatly increased the number of candidates for possible inclusion in a
revised form of the canon. Each deserves to be assessed as to its external and
internal credentials - of apostolicity and orthodoxy, however narrowly or
broadly one defines these elusive standards? Will the presence within such a
document of possibly genuine agrapha
(that is, sayings attributed to Jesus that are not preserved in the canonical
Gospels) not be weighed over against the presence also of Gnostic and
semi-pantheistic elements?[66]
On
the other hand, the question may be raised as to the possibility and
desirability of removing one or more of the twenty-seven books from the NT canon.
Is the Church today bound by the decisions of the early Church as to the number
and identity of the books of the New Testament? Or apart from the heat of
theological controversy, however, the question has been raised whether, in
fact, the deletion of several books of the NT canon would not be advantageous
in promoting the unity of the Church. On the surface, such a proposal may
appear to have something to commend it. But one must also acknowledge that it
is exceedingly doubtful whether the proposal would really be conducive to the
welfare of the Church. To remove one or more books from the NT canon as hitherto
defined would sever bonds that have united groups of believers, and thus would
almost certainly result in still greater fragmentation of the Church. Thus, the
NT canon should, from a theoretical point of view, be regarded as open in
principle for either the addition or the deletion of one or more books, from a
practical point of view such a modification can scarcely be contemplated as
either possible or desirable. To say that the canon may be revised is not the
same as saying it must be revised. The canon by which the Church has lived over
the centuries emerged in history, the result of a slow and gradual process. To
be sure, in this canon there are documents less firmly attested by external
criteria than others. But the several parts have all been cemented together by
usage and by general acceptance in the Church, which has recognized, and
recognizes, that God has spoken and is speaking to her in and through this body
of early Christian literature. As regards this social fact, nothing can be
changed; the Church has received the canon of the NT as it is today. In short,
the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be
remade.[67]
Conclusion: The recognition of the canonical status of
the several books of the NT was the result of a long and gradual process, in
the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated
from a much larger body of early Christian literature. Although this was one of
the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early Church,
history is virtually silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. The process of canonical formation was
also complex, being indebted to a variety of factors, including the composition
and dissemination of Christian writings, the history of their use and
interpretation, theological conflicts in early Christianity, judgments of
scholars, promulgations of bishops and councils and even the diverse standard
and value within the canon itself. On one hand, the process of canonization can
in general terms be summarized as ‘the process by which texts are made binding
for a group by a particular elite’. In view of their content, the NT texts are not
canon by themselves. Rather, they become canon where they are interpretationally
grasped as the original texts of the Christian church and as the necessary
reference texts for Christians. Therefore, Metzger[68]
sounds reasonable as he concludes - the manner in which God’s word is contained
in Scripture must not be envisaged statically as a material content, but dynamically
as a spiritual charge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown,
Raymond E. “Canonicity” in The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A.
Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India,
2009.
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are
they Reliable? Secuderabad: OM Books, 2004.
Carrol, Dr. Robert P. “Canonical Criticism: A Recent
Trend in Biblical Studies?” in The
Expository Times, Dec. 1980-92.
Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM Press Ltd.,
1984.
Dahl,
Nils A. The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as
a Problem in the Ancient Church. Leiden: J.C.B Mohr, 1962.
Evans, Craig A. Ancient
Texts for New Testament
Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2005.
Fuller, Reginald H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. Hertfordshire:
Duckworth, 1966.
Gamble, Harry Y. “The Literature of the New
Testamnet” in The New Testament and its
Modern Interpreters, edited by Eldon Jay Epp & George W. Macrae. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989.
Gamble,
Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its making and
Meaning. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985
Kummel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament, (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1966),
358.
Kümmel, W. G. Introduction
to the New Testament, Revised Edition, Translated by H. C. Kee. London: SCM
Press Ltd., 1975.
Lecerf, Auguste. An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics. London:
Grand Rapids, 1949 reprinted, 1981.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Noel, Freedman, David ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New
York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992.
Puskas, Charles B. An Introduction to the New Testament. Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1989.
NOTES
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[2] Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987), 266-267.
[3] Bruce M. Metzger, 267.
[4] Harry Y. Gamble, “The
Literature of the New Testamnet” in The
New Testament and its Modern Interpreters, edited by Eldon Jay Epp &
George W. Macrae (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 228.
[5]
Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon:
Its making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 86.
[6] W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament,
(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1966), 358.
[7] Bruce M. Metzger, 278.
[8] Ibid., 279.
[9] Ibid.,, 281-282.
[10] Ibid., 42.
[11] Craig A. Evans., Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background
Literature (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2005), 270.
[12] Bruce M. Metzger, 46.
[13] Ibid., 59.
[14] Ibid., 49-50.
[15] Ibid., 52.
[16] This ‘Mathew’ might be Aramaic
Version of Mt or one of the sources of the present Gospel of Mathew.
[17] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 54-55.
[18]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 67.
[19]Ibid.,58.
[20] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament., 76. The Gnostics believed that
elect souls, being divine sparks temporarily imprisoned in physical bodies as a
result of a precosmic catastrophe, can obtain salvation by means of a special
gnosis of their origin and destiny.
[21] Ibid., 79. Basilides (130s) wrote at least 24 books.
[22] Ibid., 80-90.
[23] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (Secuderabad: OM Books, 2004), 27.
[24] Charles B. Puskas, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Peabody , Massachusetts
[25] Charles B. Puskas, An Introduction to the New Testament., 258.
[26] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 106-107.
[27] Ibid.,108.
[28] Ibid.,109.
[29] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament.,117.
[30] Ibid.,120.
[31] Ibid., 123.
[32] Ibid., 125-128.
[33] Ibid., 130.
[34] Ibid., 135.
[35] It is evident
while he was a teacher at the catechetical school of Alexandria, as compared
with a certain caution and circumspection observable later in the context of
giving Biblical expositions from the pulpit at Caesarea.
[36] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testamenti., 141.
[37] Ibid.,151.
[38] Ibid., 153- 156.
[39] Ibid., 157.
[40] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testamenti., 160-164.
[41] W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, Revised
Edition, Translated by H. C. Kee (London :
SCM Press Ltd., 1975), 492.
[42] Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 195-199.
[43] Puskas, An Introduction to the New Testament, 263.
[44] Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 498.
[45] Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 498-499.
[46] Ibid., 500-501. This proclamation of the Canon of the New Testament
is also debatable especially of Hebrews and Revelation, and thus fixed the date
in the beginning of the fifth century C.E.
[47] Puskas, An Introduction to the New Testament, 264-265.
[48] Dr. Robert P. Carrol,
“Canonical Criticism: A Recent Trend in Biblical Studies?” in The Expository Times, Dec. 1980-92, 73
in http://ext.sagepub.com/content/92/3/73.extract (28-11-2011).
[49] 2 Peter is the clearest example
in the canon of early Catholicism. Its main features are – the formation of the
NT canon as the norm of Christian faith, and the concept of the Church as
guardian and authorized expositor of the once-for-all revelation in the Christ
event attested by the apostolic witnesses.
[50] Reginald H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament
(Hertfordshire: Duckworth, 1966), 195-197.
[51] Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament Canon: An Introduction,
(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1984), 20-21.
[52]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 252.
[53]
Ibid., 253.
[54]
Ibid., 254.
[55]
Auguste Lecerf, An Introduction to
Reformed Dogmatics (London: Grand Rapids, 1949 reprinted, 1981), 318.
[56]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 257.
[57]
Nils A. Dahl, The Particularity of the
Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church (Leiden: J.C.B Mohr,
1962), 261.
[58]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 266.
[59]
Raymond E. Brown, “Canonicity” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy (Bangalore: Theological Publications in
India, 2009), 1050.
[60]
Granted that reservation, the OT certainly contains pseudonymous works: Moses
did not write all of Deuteronomy (despite 1:1); Solomon did not write
Ecclesiastes (despite 1:1), or Wisdom (despite chap. 7).
[61]
Raymond E. Brown, “Canonicity” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
1051.
[62]
Ibid., 1052.
[63]
Raymond E. Brown, “Canonicity” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
1054.
[64]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 282.
[65]
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 283.
[66]
Ibid., 272.
[67]
Ibid., 275.
[68]
Ibid., 288.
No comments:
Post a Comment