The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Guides to Biblical Scholarship New Testament Series)

The New Testament Canon Its Making and Meaning

by Harry Y. Gamble

Fortress Press

Philadelphia

Contents

EDITOR'S

FOREWORD

ABBREVIATIONS

I.

7

. , ,

,

, , , , , ,

INTRODUCTION

, .

···········

The Problem of the New Testament Canon Some Important Terms Canon, Scripture

,

. .

·.···············

. .

New Testament. . II.

.

COPYRIGHT

© 1985

BY FORTRESS

PRESS

reserved. No part of this '. s~oredIII a retrieval system or t publication may be reproduced e ectronic, mechanical ph~tocora~smlttedin any form Or by any means' the prior permission of the cop p~mhg, recording, Or otherwise without yng towner. '

L'b I rary Cambl H

Includes index. L Bible. N T --{';

BS2320C36 " anon. I. Title. ISBN o:.sOO6-0~~i.-9 225.1'2 85·4509

1729B85 P

rinted in the United States

of A

.

menca

1-470

HISTORY

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

III.

FACTORS

IN THE FORMATION

Intrinsic Factors Extrinsic Factors Marcionism Gnosticism Montanism

, ,

.

,

~ ~

Other Factors Criteria of Canonicity .................•..........

,

", "

43 46 50

.

57 57

. , . .

59 59 62 63

.

65

, .. -

18 19

. . 35 . 36 . 41

OF THE CANON

'"'

11 11 15 15

23 24 24

CANON.

The Second Century . The Gospels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Letters of Paul. The Early History of Paul's Letters Early Editions of the "Corpus Paulinum" The Use of Paul's Letters in the Second Century Other Writings _ ...•... The Third and Fourth Centuries ..............•...

~nrights

of Congress Catalo' . gmg m Publication Data e, arry Y., 1941-0 The New Testament canon.

THE

.

9

67

CONTENTS

Apostolicity ... , . , . , ... Catholicity. . . . . .

,,,

Orthodoxy , , : : : : : : : : .. , . , Traditional Usage . , . . .. ., Inspiration ,

.......

IV.

.

,

, ,,,

.

.,

,

"

68

69 69 . 70 , 71

Editor's Foreword

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON

73

~e

ganon as a Hermeneutj~~l' C~~'t~~; . 73 e anon as a Theological Prohlem ,,,,,., 82 The Scope of the Canon .. .. " .... -- . 83 The Nature of the Canon a; No;~' , , ....•.. , 85 Scripture and Tradition .. , , .. , .....

.......

"

. .. .. . .

89

. . .. . . . . . . ..

93

. . . .. . . ,

Appendix: Text of the Muratorian Canon List,

,

The volumes in this series have dealt with issues of method and of form. They have described and analyzed various critical procedures for understanding NT texts (form and redaction criticism, literary criticism, structural exegesis, etc.). They also have attempted to define a number of the formal patterns which shape the materials of the New Testament (gospel, letter, proverb, apocalypse, etc.). The volume on NT theology was not a departure from this direction because it dealt with such formal questiuns as the definition of NT theology, the motives which have generated its pursuit, and its relationship to other theological disciplines. The focus of the series has been on the formal and the critical, with attention to both the linguisticliterary and the historical paradigms for the critical study of the NT, as well as to the dimension of meaning. The present volume on the canon continues this tradition. It is a historical analysis of a fundamentally theological phenomenon. Professor Gamble deals historically with the development of the canon and the factors which generated its formation. But this development was composed of confessional decisions. The variety of forms in the NT, which can be interpreted with a multiplicity of methods, became a closed collection which a believing community regarded as religiously authoritative, Thus, as Professor Gamble well demonstrates, a historical study of the canon's formation cannot be truly critical without paying due attention to the theological factors in the historical process and the theological implications of the church's decision to have a canon. It is necessary to deal with such issues as the context which the canon provides for interpretation and the qnestion of how the canon can exercise normative authority for Christianity. DAN O. VIA

6

The Divinity School Duke University

7

Abbreviations

Adv. Marc. A.H. Apol. ATR BA B.C.E.

BHT Bib BJRL CBQ C.E.

CTM Dial. Ep. EvTh fl. H.E. HBT HeyJ HTR HTS IDBSup. Int JBC JBL JTS JSQT

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem [Against Marcion] Irenaeus, Adversus haereses [Against Heresies] Justin, Apology Anglican Theological Review Biblical Archaeologist Before the Common Era Beitriige zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Catholic Biblical Quarterly Common Era Concordia Theological Monthly Justin, Dialogus cum Trypho [Dialogue with Trypho] Epistle( s) Evangelische Theologie floruit [flourished] Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica [Ecclesiastical History] Horizons in Biblical Theology Heythrop Journal Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible supplementary volume Interpretatian The Jerome Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Theological Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9

ABBREVIATIONS

KBANT IUS(S) , MThz NT NTS NovTSup OT RBen RHPR SBLMS SBS SBT SD SPAW,PH StEv StPat StTh Strom, TDNT TS

KolUmentareund Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen T estament manuscript(s) Munchener theologische Zeitschrijt New Testament New Testament Studies Noldvum Testamentum, Supplement O Testament Revue benedictine Revae d'histoire et de hil I Society of Bibli I ' p 'osop lie religieuses I ICa LIterature M h S ' Stuttgarte B'b I' ' onograp enes r

1

e studren

Studies in Biblical Theology Studies and Documents Sltzungsberichte der W h preusSlSchen Akademie der issenso aften-Ph -I hStudia I' 10SOP isch-historische Klasse evange'lea

TV VC

WMANT

Studia patristica Stadia theologica Clement of Ale dri Th I' xan na, Stromatets eo ogica! Dietionar ., h Theological Stadies Y oJ t e New Testament Texte . . . und V n tersuc h ungen Vlg,ltae christianae Wissenschaftliche Mo ' Neuen Testa nographlen zum Alten und ment

WVNT

Wissenschaftliche V

Testament

ZKG

ntersuchungen

' ZUlli

Neuen

Zeitschrijt fur K' h Zeitsch ift ,__ IrC engeschichte , n Jar die neatesta I' h Zel/schrift fur Th I " ment iSC e Wissenschaft eo ogle and Kirche

ZNW

ZTK

Introduction

THE PROBLEM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON Even a CurS9!Y glance at its contents

reveals that what we

know a;-"'ihe N';; Testament" is not a book at all in the usual sense ut a co~ection of ea!ly_Christ!an"'"\vritings. twenty-seven- in-all, It is a~. moreover, which has hlstorically.J:>~ s~t....a~rt as possessing a distinctive and in eed unique authority for the faith and p;:;;,ctice-ofth~ Christian cllUrch. As a fixed collection of religiously - 'J!!tt>oritati.Y.ej;tera~, the'"'N-r{;o'nstitutes the ...fanon of Christian scriptures. 1 The purpos;Q[1:llISVo1ume is to assess the NT as canon and thus-to comprehend the fundamental form of the NT itself, NT scholarship has been progressively sensitive to the importance of form as a component-along with content-s-of meaning, and the NT has been greatly illuminated through the formal analysis of the traditions and documents contained in it. But all too little attention has been paid to the form of the NT as a whole, although an understanding of that form is indispensable to a full appreciation of the meaning and function of the NT. An evaluation of the NT as canon entails historical, literary, and theological questions:.!.'ow ~d thi!. coll~ of writings come into being? What assumptions

and intentions con-

b-ibuted to its fo;:;;;atio~? Who or what de!Jrmined il:§..£9~ts? On I what basis did special authority come to be attached to these writingS? How does the character of this collection bear upon its interpretation? In what ways does this collection claim or exercise reli , gious authoritv? ' -Such questions are rarely raised by the ordinary .:~.:dei)even the

i

L On the term "canon," see further below, 15-18.

10

11

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Christian reader who si I tak th Christianit ' is s mp y es e NT for granted. Its place within nenrly -im;~ssiblo ~ro~me~t and Jo~gstarlding that most will find.J! foth"---; --_,e 0 imagms a Chnstranity without a NT. But just r IS reason it needs to be hasi d h original or -emp asrze t at the NT was not an the NT'-d evlen ad_p.'!!.!icularlyearly feature of Christianity, Rather eve 0l'.e onll::,..g d all ' ries, as the-;:-;'ulLJ I - ra Iu y over.: the course of several ~nJu"y"life of th~ci~~t ~h~~~ne; v:,net of c~nditioning factor ..iJLt/re know it until tl I r' - - dId not attam the form in which we _~ _ I te ate fourth c t D' ------the seC;;;;t . -- - ~n _ury. unng the first and most of cen ury, It would hav b ' , such a collection w Id e een impossible to foresee that ou emerge Th £. • h sumed that the exist f h ' . ere ore, It oug t not to be as0 fact. Nothing dictat e~c;h t he NT IS a necessary or self-explanatory more, even when t~ 'dat t ere should be a NT at al]. Furthermained for a long tel ea of such a collection took hold, it retrue uncertain wh t 't b tak a I s su stance and shape would b e, and It might h ave en any b f diff one it ultimately a . d num er 0 irterent forms than the cqurre Many p ib I' . as th e existence f NT aSSI I tries were open.f So, just o a was _not for eor dai d tents. And OUr famih arne , neither were its conI ranty WIth th NT h Id genuine peculianties of t b e s ou not blind us to the £.OUrGIS ospels instead of I su stance . for examp Ie, that it contams so similar and the c. th°ny one (especially when the first three are so differe t) h Ietters of Paul but rour f f n ; or t at it contains so many so ew 0 any othe it One prophetrc book (Re I " r wri er, or that it contains ouly -) )~'?t obyious wh ~: a~~n) and only one historical book (Acts). (_not others-when th ---emhraces Just these documents and '-1-""'" ~e - were many mc uueu-{)r -why 0th ers - w h'lOh could have been ,conversely 't -\.. ~nts as it jo~s. ~ ~1 L'Ontams as _ffii!ny and various doC; While the format' d" ,th . IOnan slgmfica f I e mterest of NT schol . h nCe 0 t Ie NT canon have attracted pro bl ems have not had ars,mtefild h' e 0fN T studies as a whole these NT has traditionally bee~ery Igh billing.3 The scholarly study of the which belong to the cano:reodcchuPiedwith the individual documents an as dealt pnman ' '1y with questions of 2

.f

. For a review of th I developmentin early~h~~~lat!ves. each of which Wa ;ork: Macmillan Co., 1925),~6~:'Jee Adolfvon Harr:ackt;h[Yds~ible but had some embryonic Th The most fertile period fl. ' e rigm of the New Testament (New cot~or Zahn, Geschic1tte des c:11011 studies was the late IIi 1889/J G;;~ra{d Survey of the ;;;;::ta~;'tlichen Kanons jnd early twentieth centuries: s Origi~ ~fth\~T t, Gesc1tichte des ne~ OJ the Canon of tJu~Ne " T r angell, 188&-92); B. F, Weste . All these remain s~ eda'''dTTlentlichenKatlons ~. iSla(me~t,. 6th ed. (Cambridge, n r work.~. ' \0 s. LeipZIg, 1907-8); Hamack,

2~~etl(~

INTRODUCTION

their authorship, historical and religious background, literary character, theological ideas and purposes, By comparison with this concentration on the discrete contents of the NT, relatively little attention has been paid to the canon itself, and to tJllsextent- the-canon has b.ten !ilki'n-for grante ev';;-i;;NT scholarship.'Recently, h~w~ th-;; canon has eme;:ged as a focal point .of scholarly concern, and it is not much of an exaggeration to say that today the canon is among the leading topics of NT studies, This renewed interest in the canon is due to manv factors. These include modern discoveries of early Christian literat~re previously unknown or known only at secondhand, new appraisals of the history of the OT canon and its bearing on the formation of the NT canon, and a heightened awareness of the variegations and conflicts of early Christianity.

Some stimulus has come also from modern ecumenical

discussion, which has brought into clearer focus the divergent conceptions and uses of the canon in the various branches of Christianity, But above all, questions about the canon have been posed by. the interpretation of the NT writings themselves, Ironically, the rrwre fully the individual documents of the NT have been understood, the less intelligible the NT as a whole has become, both historically and theologically, On the historical side, exegesis has emphasized the highly occasional character of the writings contained in the NT: each emerged in a particular historical setting, dealt with specific issues of the moment, and was directed to a limited and often strictly local readership, This recognition poses very sharply the questions of how, why, and with what results these writings were detached from their generative contexts, brought together in a collection, and ascribed a general relevance and timeless authority for Christianity as a whole. FlIlther, the historical study of the NT has steadily undermined the traditional legitimations of the canon (e.g., that these writings were composed by apostles, or that they are distinguished by their inspiration). Examined within the full context of early Christian literature, the documents which came to constitute the NT canon are not, as a group, recognizably unique, 4. This results partly from increasing disciplinary specialization which has led to an unfortunate separation between NT studies and early church history. It is no act:ident that the two most recent major studies are by scholars better known as church historians than as NT specialists: Robert Grant. The Formation of the New Testament (New York Harper & How, 1965) and Hans von Campe~hausen, The Fonnation of the Christian Bible (Phtladelphla: li'ortress Press, 1972). S"rnptomancally, many NT "Introductions" contain no discussion of the fonnation or si,ltnificance of the canon.

13

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

On the theological side, the NT canon has become, if anything, still more problematical. The religio-historical interpretation of the NT has led inexorably to the insight that among its contents there is an astonishing variety of theological assumptions and perspectives. This inner diversity manifests itself in fundamental tensions and, some would say, outright contradictions of a theological sort within the boundaries of the NT. This state of affairs must not be given a hasty or facile explanation, as though it were a matter merely of different idioms or of natural (and thus negligible) results of situational differences. Rather, one must reckon with the fact that the NT incorporates various independent and to some extent heterogeneous conceptions of the very meaning of Christianity. Like the recognition of historical diversity within the NT, sensitivity to its theological diversity stirs interest in the history of the canon, but it also raises far-reaching questions about the nature of the canon as a theological norm. In particular, how can the NT possess and exercise the religious authority traditionally vested in it when it increasingly seems to lack theological consistency among its Own contents? ',en -l ,.t-

~

•

Finally, the historical-critical exegesis of the NT has resulted 10 a highly ambiguous relationship between the phenomenon of the canon and the tasks of exegesis. On the one hand, the essential and traditional subject matter of exegesis has been stipulated by the canon. It is precisely their presence in the canon which has not only insured that these writings have survived and can still be studied but has also endowed them with the religious authority which has constituted their special intcrest as objects nf detailed and specialized interpretation. In these ways exegesis presupposes the canon. But on the other hand, so far as the aim of exegesis has been to gain a fully historical Comprehension of the NT literature, the canon is only an obstacle to be overcome because it serves to obscure the original historical contexts and relationships to which its contents first belonged. Consequently, the interpreter of the NT is driven outside the canOn in order to make Sense of the documents within the canon, and this suggests that the canon as such has little bearing on the interpretation of its contents .. This awkward situation_in which the canOn sets the agenda for exegesis yet exercises slight influence on exegesis-points up the need to reconsider the hermeneutical function of the canon and to c1arilY the relationship between the canon, the contents of the canon, and the tasks of exegesis.

INTRODUCTION

SOME IMPORTANT TERMS Canon'

"". transliteration of the Greek kanon, The English word ca.non IS a e both secular and early Chris-. which had a rich history 10 ancient usa a thoritative collection of tian. Its meaning as a designation. 0 t a~.s Ubackground. The Greek writings can be estimated only aga~ns d the Semitic root kane, th . t was rorme on kanon, along wi Its cogna es, .. .f English "cane"). Kanon meaning a "reed" (of bulrush or papyruds, c . tool for measure~r ' ifi d d s ecially the ree '!' a . h d-" also Sl III e a ree , e -""'cl-h~ bask';ense of" strrog: t ro . alignment, and there~ore acquire t -. the field of craftsh d h d a special currency 10 h In .this sense t e war a '. d" "ruler" or any ot er h it t "measuring 10 or , manship, were I mean bli h to test straightness (e.g., a tool whose purpose was to c.sta. IS 1 or there arose meta horical level a plumb line), From thIS htera sense aalsoa" a "norm" an ideal ) k - came to mean ~ '"'d ~lications of the_~: ~-,-;"'"h thina could be evaluate it . azainst wmc some 0..: __ ~_ standard a firm cn enon = . al the word kanon was =+"-"7" -h' b d metaphonc sense, h' and judged. In t IS roa er, di t USI'C literature, et ICS, f t t . c1u mg ar ,m , used in a variety a con ex s, 10 m le Pliny the Elder spoke of Dolaw, and philosophy. So, for exa p A' . t tl regarded the good man h . sculpture, ns 0 e f ryphoros as t e canon in s , .d d I gie as the canon true as the canon in ethics; Epicurus cons l ere ,0 se of kantm as "norm" t knowledge. In these cases Iit Iis the a b strach sen rd kiLnQn also ha d an"st d d" which is uppermost.. 'antiquity But t e wo ..... -I "I' t " "cataor S an ar name Y IS, __ other and rather distinct meamng III 1 t have been derived from 1llgiIe." This sense of the word seedl~,sbaStOha~its point of departure in -bits asic meanmg 'f" a me asurmg rc 1 uhi h gave rise to tel h ldea 0fa

1,

°

the calibrated marks on such a too , bl IC atalogue of astronomical fixed series. Hence, an arithmehtic tal e: a ~vents might be called a observations, or an ou tlim e of c rona .ogica l

kanon in the sense of an established hst' " " in its metaphorical fi t t k up the ward canon Early Christianity 1'5 00 . 'th written materials. Its ear, tee hItters sense of " norm ., bu t no t I'n connectIOn WI • t\: a passages III

. Ch' tian usage are III v liest occurrences In TIS b d' tion "Peace an d mer cy of Paul. In Gal. 6: 16 Pau I prono uuces _a ene "IC)that is, this ,. rn I"e or be Upon all who walk by thIS kanon .... , hich Paul holds out as ,_ I . . the gospel message w "norm" and clear y It IS B deutungsgeschkht.e ~s ' ". es H. Oppel, KANON: Z~r eus sup. 30. 4 (LeipZig. 5. For full discussions ,01,tlhlS t~n;~;~:hu~gm (regula, norma), :;~%~~~gKanolls(Leipzig, 19(4), W(Jrtes tmd Sel,le,. lalelmsc e~ s deT Ceschichte des neutestamen u: 1937); Theodor Zah~1 Crun4. 3 (1965): 596--602, 1-14; H. W. Beyer,Kanon, YDNT ,

15

THE NEW TESTAMENT

.cANON

a standard ofliving. In the second passage, 2 Cor. 10:13-16, the word kanon OCcurs three times, but here its precise sense is not easy to determine. The following translation is given by the RSV: But we will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits [to metron tau kanonos] God has apportioned us, to reach even to you, For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach YOU; we were the first to Come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

We do not boast beyond

limit, in other men's labors; but our hope is that as your faith increases, our field [ton kanona] among you may be greatly enlarged, so that we may prea~h the gospel in lands beyond

you, without

anothers field [en allotrio kananij.

boasting

of work already

done

In

Like the RSV, many translators and commentators take the word kanon here as a geographical reference to the region of missionary work allotted to Paul. Although this Seems to yield an adequate sense, such a meaning of the word is very poorly evidenced elsewhere. 6 Therefore, it is better to take the term in this context as a reference to Paul's mandate as apostle to the Gentiles, understood as the "norm" of his missionary work. This interpretation

gives a greater

consistency

to

Paul's use of the term, since both here and in Gal. 6:16 it would designate as the fundamental norm the gospel as it is actualized in the Pauline missionary preaching.' Apart from these Pauline texts, the word kanon is found elsewhere in first-century Christian literature only in 1 Clement, composed about 96, where it refers to "rules" governing moral behavior and ecclesiastical practice.

8

In the late second centu , however,_the_Christian use of the term ~ecam;;;;;;~,~ore com!lli',.n.It regularly app;;,;s ii);;;ci, phrases as the rule of truth (ho kanon tes aletheias, or the Latin equivalent, re6~nd the "rule of faith" (ho kanon tes pisteos; regula fidei), ~rases which tyPi~~ sunu!l'l!:Xfo.rmulations of QQristian belief, un. ersto as the no~ or stand!.ird_to [email protected]~ng, f~h, an practJ~':.ght to COnorm. More comprehenSive still are the phrases the rule of the Churc (ho kanon tes ekklesias) or "the ecclesiastical rule" (ho ekklesiastikos kanon), which refer to the whole of Christian teaching together with such authorities, regulations, and actions as are prescrihed by and effective within the church." Thus.

~%'

6, see J. F. Strange. BA But 46 (1983) 167-68.

--~,

"2 Corinthians 10:13--16 IUuminated by a Reeently Published Inscription", .

hrfJ~I~I~~)~7i' "Die Legtttmat d~~ Apost~,1s. Eine 'Untersuchung do ., esp. 56--61; Beyer, Kanon, 599; ana see 1. wnning,

zu 2 Korinther

10-13,"

Kanon im Kanan: Zum

~tischen GrundkJg~probletn des neutestamentlichen Kanans, Forschungen zur Geschichte Lehre des Protestantismus 43 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 1972), 17-23. 8. The passages are 1 ClemEnt 1.3; 4.1; ana 7.2.

UII

~e ~: ..'·:j~~s l::~~~,

l~/:fle' 1.9.4,; sl.,1O·1; ,5·j20'901D ; emo. nstratia .3; Tertullian, PraeSCripUo d Eusebfus, H.E. 6.13.3. , men. rom,. .5 an In

13, 27;

17

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

INTRODUCTION

widely inacknowledged place the list of boask authe dntiIC an d authoritative and could find a stituting "scri ture." Religious authority was not sim Iy intrinsic to/ U s use In Wor h-. h d ....." --------general recognition of thei h s rp precisely because of this t e ocuments themse ves, it emerged within and was contingent on inally intended b), speaki~lf C farjacter, Hence, even if it was not eng- ~tIie church's recognition of th~ir creative and corrective effects --;;;-its ng 0 these doc" -I·r·--sense of being "in the 1- t." h . uments as canonical" in the own ire. . IS, t e Idea of their' came to be connoted by the term" ,?orrnahve status mevitably previous Christian usa th canon, and all the more since in New Testament " norm ""Or standard," ge albeit e inword oth had co nsrs. t ent Iy h ad the sense of It remains to examine the term "New Testament," by which the 16 er connecnons entirely.14 canon of early Christian literature is traditionally titled. "New TesScripture ~ment" is a JatiIili\eQ reude.ri!.lg.of the.£ireek "new cov",n;mJ:" (kaini! If in connection with Christ' . . had t~e specific sense of a fixI:~ ~::hngS the word "canon" originally term scripture" designates iti of authontative documents, the authoritative and are used :~I ~:I~e which are taken to be religiously th)'Jr systematic enurnerar] I' d as such, yet WIthout regard to ea non presupposes the existence IOn or of lmltatio scrt n. Wh ereas the concept of does not necessarily entail th . rptures, the concept of scripture \!2.possess scriptures witho te Inohhon?f a canon. It is entirely oossible . - in the fi.rst sevu a Iso-_=~'l9n, avmz _th e silt uation and this was<:.:;0 fact B Ut h-' ' -_. lOWdoes a do~umtb era centun es 0f Ch nstianity.15 which belong to the NT was ecome scripture? None of the writings ce~~ury, specifically Christi: composed as scripture, for in the first of:, .-the'" scnptures n scnptures for earliest Ch ',' . w ere scarcely even thought ~r.!l2.tures, The doc';-;ents who h nstIamty were invariably the Jewish hvely Christian scriphlres we Ie w~re eventually to become distinc~~ purposes Within the early ch re wntten for immediate and practi I to. be v a Iue d and to be spokeUrc hf'" es and onl y gra d ua IIy did they come ca tlsdel ve opment was qUite' noasscrt" I Ip ure. Ihe-eRlGiaLfactor' h' nst' y ' the ,u til'It yo f thesewritingswith'm" Ch , ,lan communities,,sImp That. m s~elclallYhelpful t;'sustaillinO' IS, ?ebrtam writings Were f~d t-o b ellnc mg'~ ~~n& _f:aJtI I a n d I'e l!e 0 f the --'=' churches A-'~ and directinv tl. e. va ued and 'd I _' s a result th . . "d WI e Yemployed' Ch" ' OSe wntmgs came =_1.'!J.. t b 51 e the JeWIS . h scriptures and'm . nstlan WOrsh'Ip and teaching al 0 e t h an, the J ewIS . h scriptures ongIt In some w ays proved even more f j penence f h ' .. Was on th b ,useu' ~ a t eIr usefulness ih- t 'h~ e aSlS of this sustained 14 see Lon,~ing, .. ate cbur c h' recogmzed them as . exor'th Kano im & n e ,term canon" ("n "nD:-!,. 27-29. The am' . COn-. OO'dlfusmgresults. The' o:bm . vs, list') has bee ,bl~~lry between the fun t' I an formal sense f' au. ontativt.' citation f n carned Over into mod C I~na and formal senses berg, Jr., "Tow 0d mc1us~onin a filled Ii t ona d~cument does not.' el~ discussions, often with 1968) 452-ar a ReVised H'. s. e dl.~till f' signa Its cano ' 't . h ' 15' 61. a.nd idem, IDES Istory of the New Te~t~on IS properl~,emphasize:n: y~n t e stYlet . See]. Barr. TheS

18

up, S.v, Canon oft/Ie copr: and Aullwrity of the B'ble I

NT~nt Canon,

.. (Philadelphia' Wes

.

StEv 4

(o:TD 102; . C.Berlin, Su~d-

. tmlnster Press, 1980). 120.

diatheke). As employed in earliest Christianity, "new covenant" did ~!:...!o a...£2!kction of Christian writings. Insteady it served to ent _ charactICme the. new order of salvation inaugyratedJl¥ ••th.e Christj,x , in cor~elation and contrast ":~th the "old co~;nant" of God with Israel. While the concept of a new covenant of God WIth hIS people .. d in . Israelite . prophecy (Is~. 55:3, 61:8; [er, 31:31, 32:40; Ezek, ongmate 16:60), Its application to the Christian revelation seems to have emerged in connection with the death of Jesus, understood as a sacrificial spilltna of mg 0 .bl ood to seal a covenant relationship (cf. Exod. 24:8). In the ' us, Paul attributes to Jesus ear I'lest eucharistic tradition available to the saying, "This cup is tbe new covenant in my blood" (1 Cor, 11:25), and words to a similar effect occur in the Gospel accounts of the last . th e supper (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Lu k e 22:20, b ut on Iy Lu k e gIves adjective "new"), Paul also uses the phrase in 2 Cor, 3:6, describing the apostles as "ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life," The , , aSSOClatIon to which Paul alludes between the " a Id covenant "d an a ",wntten code" recurS in the following context as Pau IIIa eges t h at when [the Jews] read the old covenant, that same veil [which Moses Wore (Exod. 34:29-35)] remains unlifted, because only through Christ . taken away" (2 Cor, 3:14, italics added). Here Pau I spea k sot f h e IS It Id 3 5 " w h enever M oses 0 covenant as something written an d rea d (ef ,:1, 'IS read ..), but what he has in mind is not the OT as a woe h lb' ut SImp Iy h t e law of Moses the reading from which was a fixe d part 0f t h e ' synagogue service, But if the old covenant was thus seen as h avmg a I'lterary component d this was not true of the new covenant, an P au I ".' .,. . IS concerned to emphaSIze precIsely thIS dISSImIlarIty, among at hers, h h "I b dd d w en he contrasts the written code and t e SpInto t may e a e ' that in the only other early Christian text where the conception 0f 16, See the discussions by W, C. van Urmik, "He Kaine Diatheke-A Problem in the ~arly History of the Canon," StPat 4 (=TU 79; Berlin, 1961), 212-27, and Campenhausen, FomUltwn, 262-68.

19

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Christianity as a new covenant receives any elaboration-namely, the Epistle to the Hebrews-it is apparent that the phrase does not entail any thought of written materials. This absence of any association between the idea of a new covenant and Christian writings persisted for a long time.!? Even in the late second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who made very full use of the covenant concept and had the highest appreciation of Christian scriptures, did not make a close correlation between the two. For him, covenant remains a purely theological concept which cannot be reduced to or reserved for documents. Still, the application of covenant terminology to Christian writings must have begun in the late second century. According to Eusebius (H.E. 4.26.14), Melito, bishop ofSardis (ca. 170-90) spoke of a list of "the books of the old covenant," referring in this way to Jewish scriptures. But this does not necessarily imply that he had a parallel concept of "books of the new covenant," 'as has sometimes been supposed, The purpose of a list of "books of the old covenant" was to assure that proof texts drawn by Christians from the Jewish scriptures would be taken from writings recognized as authoritative by Jews, for otherwise the proofs would carry no weight. But this purpose had no relevance to Christian writings. Some importance has occasionally been seen also in the remarks of a late second-century, anti-Montanist writer who, according to Eusebius (H,E, 5,16.3), expressed his reluctance to compose a treatise against the Montanists from timidity and scruples, lest I might seem to be adding to the writings or mjunctions of the word of the new covenant of the gospel, to which no one who has chosen to live according to the gospel itself can add, and from which he cannot take away.

Some have seen here the earliest application of the title "new covenant" to a fixed collection of Christian writings,18 but this is neither' clear nor probable. 19 Rather, it is first with Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200) that the term "covenant" is brought into a strict relation with authoritative Jewish and Christian scnptures.w His Successor, Origen, 17. E. Fer~usoll! "The Covenant Idea in the Second CentUJ)'," in Texts and Testaments: Critical Fa~her$, ed. W. E. March (San Antonio , Tex.' ' Trinity

E$$~!lson BIble135-62. and Early Chri8tiarl Umv. Press,t e1980),

18. 'N. C. van Unnik, "Dc la regie mete PTosthei.nai mete aphelein dans l'histoire du canoll " VC 3 (l94~): 1-36, followed by Campenhausell, Formation, 265. , 19. Van Unnik himself has Withdrawn the suggestion 20, Strom. 1.9.44; 3. U. 71; 4.21.134; 5.13.85, etc.

in "He Kaine Diatll(~ke," 217-18.

INTRODUCTION

icitl bout "the divine scriptures of the so-called speaks still more explici ya "21 th gh Ortgen's phraseology here old and so-called new ~:~:::~\ermi:~Ogy

as novel and perhaps

~;~I~;t:~~:~I:e ~:~a;t is eVide~t also tha~~~: :~t~:~::~ selves the covenant; they mere y pertam

not

~~~~:ee:;

it. The effort of Latin Christianity to adoptt hiIS concep 'I' 10n of scriptures , d f God with his people was accornpame as testimony to the covenant 0 11' t 1 by a distortion of meaning. by a va~iation of translation and ~h:n;.:s~ Ltin Christian writer to use Tertulllan of Carthage (ca. 200), d h G ek diatMke (covenant) h . 1 . ettmes ren ers t e re d sue terrnino ogy, som ' but he himself apparently preferre with the Latin word testamentum, 22 N th less it was the Latin ' ·th' t mentum ever e , to translate It WI tnS ru h' k h Id d persisted in Western t hie too 0 an .. phrase novum testamen um WIt' of "new covenant by I I 'a! t ms the trans a IOn usage. In pure y exic er tum. I'Sthe Latin equiv. t since testamen novum testamentum IS correc " h meant "[last] will alent of the Greek diatheke: in ordlO~ry usage eac for in biblical " t ally this was a mrs take , and testament. But concep u . thi sense but with the meaning Greek diatheke had not ~,een used 10 IShs H brew berith, for which " "" t representing tee h covenant or compact, ld have been syntheke rather t an the normal Greek equivalent wou t misses entirely the fund· h-kIt the Latin testamen um d iat e e. As a resu , . f the biblical notion of covenant an damental theological meaning 0 . t 1 ritings to it. The ruling 1· f the scnp ura w th miSconstrues the re ation 0 e the scriptures that pertain to e idea is no longer that these ar stitute God's testamenth scriptures con h covenant but rather t h at t ese t f the divine will, on t e lt ti e state men 0 . h that is, the final and aut on a IV t" f a human person, This shift order of the "last will and testamen " °t . g a wooden and juridica! ence 0f IDS erm d had the unfortunate consequ II it ry of revelation and the e' , the fu repoSJ 0 vIe,,: of the scnptures as .' e will. " fillItive expression of the divin d 1 ent the title New Testafit ctua! eve opm , h Viewed in terms 0 I S a "b ks pertaining to t e new ment" should be understood to mean 00 D rincipiis 4.1.1, etc. ntl Yet he was aware that 21. Commentary on John 5.8; e P'n but ins/nmwntum very ~{\~eFo:Tertullian these. wo~ds 22, Tertullian uses testarrumtum iP~ WroYpularterm (Adll. ·~Tla~09--i1). For a thorough .examJna~lOl le8famentumwas tbe more usua a (Origin of the ro. , h h ~ Ie t;ocabuiUlTe doctnna ownchris~janorom. '·Ree erc essu, was a Iega I term ~.or \l."erenot synonymous, as H amac khass"Deus rumentum ofTertullian's usage, see R. Braun, ., s 1962), 463-73. I~st. ltings it suggested that they de TerruUian (Paris: Etudes AUlustmf~~~~in reference .to.Cnh~s:~~n; dOClimentcomposed Were

fundamental

in properly egalh position of ClmstLa and decisive for t e ex

.

20

21

THE

covenant." The writings themselves

witnesses to it F th

'

are n

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

h

at t e covenant but only "new ~, ~r ermore, smce the phrases "old covenant" and covenant did not acquire a litera I" , second century 11 ft h ' I)' app tcation until the late begun to take ;h:pee ~t er t e cOhllectlO~ of Christian scriptures had , I IS C lear t at III Its a igi th II nothing to do with th e bibli I ,n ms e co ection had 1 lea covenant Idea. 23

II The History of The New Testament Canon

23. Philip Vielhauer • Gesch·u:h te der 14rchrntlichen Literatur (Berlin: \" I 777. , . va ter de Gruyter, 1975),

Since the ancient church left no remrd of how and why ~ NT was formed, .the histol)' of the canon must b0ec~r~ on ~~~~vil~a measure o~ c~nJecture. There are, generally speaking ~~'!I...~yj,?> Cdenc" The. firs consists of the use of early Christian documents by C ristian writers of the second through the fifth centuries. From the frequency and manner of their citations of and allusions to early Christian writings, it is possible to infer the value they attached to them. Uncertain and unsatisfactory

as this procedure

often is, such evidence

is the hest we have up to the end of the second century.' The second type of evidence is comprised by explicit discussions and judg~ents, either by individual writers or by eeclesiastical councils, about documents whose authority is either aeeepted or rejected. This evidence is vel)' helpful but, with a few exceptions, belongs mostly to the fourth l\Ild fifth centuries, The ~d sort of evidence is provided by the contents of ancient manuscripts of the NT, together with some "scriptural aids" (concordances, prologues, etc.) variously included in them. This evidence, too, comes mostly from the fourth century and later,

,

since not many extensive manuscripts have been preserved from the

earlier period. _The_avflilabkevidence, jnterprete.cLcarefully.and with a view to the broader history of the ancient church, yields a coh~rent,

.!...'!.otp!!rticula~ly detailed, mnceptiono(the

process ~_which theE

w~f2r~ed.2 1. The mere fact that a document is quoted or alluded to by an early writer does not mean it had aln;;~dyattained canonical standing, even if it is called "scripture" or cited with some such formula as It is written." See above 18 with 'n. 14 and, in addition, the remarks of Campen hansen, For""'10:'1<>"011,103, and R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition ill the Early Church (Philadelphia: Weshninster Press, ov2), 205-8. 2. Useful collections of evidence are: E. Preuschen. Ana/ecta: Kiir,,£re Texte zur Geschichte der ,.\/ten Kirche und d.e3 Knnons 2, Zur Kaocosgcscbtchte. 2d ed. (Tubingen, 1910; rcpr. Frankfurt, 1968);E. Hennccke and W. Schneemekher, ed., NT ApocrlJPha, l:4z.-.60; D. J. Theron, Evidence uf Tmditio.tl (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 195;); Souter, Text and Canon, 188-220.

23

22

• THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

THE SECOND CENTURY The Gospels How, when and why the ancient church came to acknowledge four and only four Gospels is at many points obscure. Though it has sometimes been claimed that only these Gospels ever enjoyed general esteem and use in early Christianity, the evidence shows that the Cosl'~which eventually hecame.canonical did not a~!,-cl<2.ar llrQminenc~ until late in the second.centnry, and that "Yen_the!l..their pre-emilli'!!.ce was neitheLillLi.Xcr!illLnor exclyslve. Furthermore, the Gospels did not become part of the NT canon individually. They were first shaped into a collection and then achieved canonical standing as a group. But the emergence of a four-Gospel collection was only the last stage of a long history of gospel traditions in the early church, and its significance can be appreciated only against that background. !t is uncertain just when traditions about Jesus, which were origi~( nally preserved by memory and transmittedby word of mouth, began ~ to be committed to writing. The Gospel of Mark, written about appears to have been the first full-blown narrative gospel, but its author undoubtedly drew on small written SOurces as well as on the fund of oral traditions. The authors of Matthew and Luke, besides making heavy appropriations from Mark and a written collection of sayings of Jesus (Q), also drew on other traditions, Some of which were surely in written form. Beyond those represented in the Synoptic Gospels, others still were used by the author of John's Gospel, Thus, the last half of the century witnessed a rapid proliferation of documents embodying traditions about Jesus.

65-;-

Some insights pertinent to the history of the canon can be gained from the very composition of these early Gospels. Source criticism has shown that the Gospel \VTiters not only used existing written SOUrces but also exercised great editorial freedom in adapting them. This makes .t plam that the Gospel writers did not attach any special sanctity or ev.en adequacy their sources and that each meant to provide somethmg better. ThIS must have been the attitude of the authors of Matthew and Luke even toward the Gospel of Mark. Indeed it was apparently th~ aim of each Gospel writer to offer an 'adequately comprehenSIve document which would stand on its own 3 F thO t'll . rom IS van age po~nt, a co ection of Gospels is somewhat at odds with the 3lm~ of theIr authorsJurther, redaction criticism has shown that each

t?

3. ThlS seems to be explicit a;t:;; Rcrollnt. '

24

in th fL k e case 0 u e (1:1-4): he aimed to compose the definitive

THE HISTORY OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

t roduced in and directed of the Gospels is an occasional docu;en , ~enting a particular theotoward a limited circle of readers an dretPre tailored to its own im. f the Jes us tra • IOns logical interpretation 0 I t fi tthe gospel document ch Gospe was a rs Th mediate context. us, ea . I hi light the later estimate Chri . rnunity ntis I , for an individua I risttan com . d relevant to ChrisII mplementary au of these Gospels as mutua ~ co .. all articular purposes and settendom at large ignores their ongm y P lings. Although our canonical

on gthe earliest to be writGOS{!els~re.mlJ d thr-ough much of the -.... . 1 . d t be compose . ten, ne~ /:l0sRe s continue . 0 f h nd centurv refer to many Ch . t" riters 0 t e seco _. "" . second century. .""\.ns .la"n:ff 4 odern manuscript discoveries have .9t1:ter gospels besides these four. ~.~ r ~o\!{n bv name only (e.g., furnished us with texts of gospels P!]..?OUS Y)' d ha've-'brought to light ~ -~d G el OJ Peter an tne L;ospe of Thomas an osp I k (e g the Dialogue . us y un nown .-, other gospel-type documents prevlO ohn found among the Nag Hamof the Savior and the Apocryphon o~J k Gospel [Papyrus Egermadi codices in 1945, or the so-calle Un townntioned by second- and ton] published in 1935). Still other gospe s =(e g rr;;, of the . nge extalh e. . , third-century wnters are....?o~~) nd it is plausible that a ~~-G - ct "the Egypttans , a Hebrews and t e ospe OJ h t: '1 d to survive even in name her zosoel hich ave 131 e . f fair number of ot er gospe s w I h h This rich multiplicatIOn 0 were known and used in the ea; Y c eu~~s~ hiJf of the second century gosl"'1literature. indicates that 10 tho 1 re not recognizably unique -the Gospels - w hilC h we k now as canoruca we . At least their availabi '1'ity did 1 • . d ial authority, and had not acourre speer . '1 documents. TI,e currency .;,;;1 d f of SlIDI ar ..-... not i;;hibit the ongoing pro uc IOn h entual development of a ·h that t e ev aI so sows of so many.gqspels h It of a selective process. . 1£ Gnelswasteresu .""~ l' ..collection of on Y .2'.!~ 'Is.... h h . Id hono'r precisely four vospe s, Nptbjng dictated tha~ the ~hurc s ou .

r:o;p;r

o~:...the"~fourjn parhcu~ar". of external testimony about the early and interestmg pIece . b' 'hop of Hierapolis in . ks of Paplas, IS pels is found m the remar d tury which have d of the secon cen , Minor in the early deca es 3 39 15...16): preserved by Eusebms (H.E. . . d

'><. An

GosASIa b een t

. ark became Peter' s interhTete~ an ~o o~ And the r,resbyter used to saybth'esd:Mnot indeed in order'hofdthe ~hl'lno~edhim aIlth the remem er , L d or a elo , accurate yah h d at heard the or, n. h' g as necessity

it

done by the Lord. ~or £ aednpeter, who used to give teac m but later on, as I satd. 0 ow 1 "HTR

73 (1980): 101-12.

anddCS:~~~~eYch: ~T Apocrypha,

4. See H. Koester, "APOCTYPhr of the extant texts, see Hennec e an

vol. 1.

F llection or a co

THE HISTORY OF THE

\\ demanded,

THE NEW TESTAMENT

but not making

.

so that Mark did nothing '::o~

wt:;e'h an an~~gementof the Lord's sayings,

tt· h

remembered them Fur to one us wntmg down single points as he of what he had heard and to ak mg tel gave attention, to leave out nothing m e no a se statements in them

To this quotation from Pant E b' . . "Matthew collected the o~;~~~; l~s~ I~S unmediately adds another: each interpreted [translated?] th[e';':; ~: th~ Hebre,,:.language, and tation of these statements f p . '. st e could. The interprepoints are in dispute 5 P 0 apras IS Immensely difficult, and many . . apias seems cI I t h b WIththe Gospel of Ma k A h ear y 0 ave een acquainted rk. t t e same time th d £. . remarks implies that M' k h ' e erensrve tenor of his ar was t e obieot f .. , to the effect that it was' I ,0 some criticism, perhaps mcomp ete or Iacki ' Such criticisms might h ' ng appropriate arrangement. ave ansen wh M k anotber Gospel but whi h? Pani en ar was compared with , h hiIS reference -' IC. apiasb would wit to Matth .. see m t0 provi ld e the answer thinking of our Matthe hich ' ut It IS uncertain whether he was of logia and which wasw,wrt IC IS not aptly described as a collection ceamynotI dr can be safely said on the b " f h compose In Hebrew." All that aSlS 0 t ese com ts t h Mark and at least 0 th men s IS t at Papias knew ne 0 er gospel-t d comparative and criti I di _ ype ocument and that some ica ISCUSSlon of th h d k E qually interesting h . em a ta en place. Ib ' owever IS anoth t t attn utes to Papias (H.E. 3.39,4): er s a ernent which Eusebius If anyone ever came who h d £ 11

~oJ~tl~~~h~~;ilibyters,wh:t

A~d~::do;h;ef::~~Y;h~l: I iothired about the

1\ ~s:~n and the ~er\;;b;h~';)oh~eili~r~er~ord's diSci~I~;,ohad;a~d~sao;J~h:: ( of a li~~gos:~at Information frdm books w~u~dchP~es, were saying. For I did

\

n survIVIngVoice,

e p me so much as the word

Jo, although Papias knew written ~ expressed a decided . £ gospels, he did not defer to them . t plelerence fo I d"" was 00 well established t b r ora tra l!Jon. This tradition terials, and it continued to 0 e completely displaced by written ma'It mamtam a 'd b WI! en gospels well into the d COnSIera Ie authority alongside ( ~ther Christian literature of ;;:,~oe:lcentury. This i~~vid_ent.!!lsolr.o.m 5. The P'P~' frn y second century h' h ' II Polycarp Ma..... gments are convcnienl:Jy coil I d W Ie IS co ecTh

• , .ynlom. of Poly omas Nelson & Sons, 1967t!Jttragments

C<:

e

and

n:

full d A )'. iS,cussed

---

of Papias, by W. R. Schaedel, 6. Some have therefore taken P .3? postolJCFathers 5 (Camden. N.j.: as on t.he assumption that it ill'y h 'P'h s statement as a re'e collJectural d" ave ad so l' rence to th . 109-10) A' aa:: IS quite possible that p~~ connection with the nam~ ~nt~hc sayings source (Q) thiS ~hat he bt~wothe~ ~e proI blem Whether mi:.allt OUf Gospel of Matth~w BS"'h is wholly NTS 1 (1954): 130- ospc.s as well. R. G. He: Ill?,w.o~r!"Iatthew,ithasb us.c oedcl, ibid., Synoptic Gospels. 34, pomb, out that PaPias:' P.IPlaS Quotations frome~h vNanouslysUPPose(}, Dllot be shoVrn to ha d e ew Testament, ve epended on any of the

fu:

Pa~~

(~h'

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

CANON

tively known as the "Apostolic Fathers." It has been shown that the citations of as e -type traditions amo~g the Apostolic FatlieI'S"are !!!l!£1u:u\lre)ikely to have been drawn from the ongoing stream of oral tradition than to be free uotations from written gos els to which no explicit app~ls are made." .!J«nc","--the relianc on :l;!'l\radition atteste by Papias was not peculiar to him but was broadly typical in ~ih?1trst lialf of the second ,century, even though written gospelsincluding those which eventually became canonical-were already a\:.ailable. If the stuhborn longevity ana persistent authority of oral tradition checked the popularity of early written gospels, it also furnished a rich resource from which new gospel writings were derived. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Unknown Gospel are independent redactions of oral tradition which owe nothing by way of form or content to the canonical Cospels," and this may also be true for other gospel documents such as the Gospel of Peter and the Dialogue of the Savior?

s oral tradition began to dissipate and grow wild, written gospels came increasingly into use. Originally, they circulated individually, and normally only one such document was valued and used in any given Christian community, Traces of this are still preserved, Some old manuscripts contain only one Gospel:!O The textual tradition of Mark exhibits a much larger number of scribal corrections than those of other Gospels, and this may be due to a lengthier period of its individual circulaticn.f ' Marcion employed only one Gospel (Luke, or a form of Luke) in his collection of Christian scriptures, and although this is often set down to Marcions theological bias, it probably reflects a common practic..-e.12 In any case, it was by no means assumed in the

early second century that there was a need for ,more than one Gospel. 7; H. Koester, S!lnoptische Oberli.eferol'lg bei den apostolischen ViJtem, (= TV 65; Berlin: Akademie verlag, 1957). 8. For the Gospel of Thoffillli, see H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Go~p~ls," HTR.61 (1968):203-47 (= J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories Through Early Chnstwnit!l [PhIladelphia: Fortress Press, 1911], 158-2(4) and H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists, SBT 35 (London: SCM Press, 1962). For the Unknown G.0SJ!el, see. G. Mayeda,

pas

l..eben-jesu-Fragment

Papyrus

Egerton

2 lind seine Stellung

in d£Turchristlichen

Ltter-aturgeschr.chte

(Bern: Haupt, 1946).

9. See Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels." 10. p5!! and p66 are the remains of second.-{;entury codices which contained only the Gos~el of John. On the fonner ~ee C H Roberts "An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel 10 the John Rylands Libra~y," B]RL 20 (1936); 45-55, and on the latter, see V. Martin, Papyrus '~I~~ II (Geneva: Bibliotheque Bodmer, 1956) and Papyrus Bodmer II, Supplement (Geneva: 81 to eque Bodmer, 1958). . 11. ~. D. Kilpatrick, The Transmi~'sion of the New Testament fllid its ReliabilitlJ, Proceedmgs of the VICtoria Institute 89 (1957), 96. 12. Cf. John Knox Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1942), 163-64. '

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Even when written gospels came into customary use, their authority was not absolute; indeed, their texts were not beyond substantial alteration, For example, Mark originally ended at 16:8 and so lacked any narrative of postresurrection appearances _ofJ-.£~_us. -But at early 'lime, probably in the first decades of the second century, longer end, ings were variously added to the Gospel in order to remedy what was felt to be a deficiency, and the most common of these endings added twelve verses (vv, 9-20) which were subsequently taken up into most manuscripts and represented as integral to the text of Mark. Again, what we know as chap, 21 of John was not composed by thesaine p-erson who wrote the rest of this Oospel, John 20:30;31 must have ,Sonstituted the original conclusion, and chap, 21.was later added on, although this must have happened early-probably even before this Gospel entered general circulation, since no manuscript is known which does not contain chap, 21. Furthermore, the story of the woman taken in adultery which is ordinarily found in John as 7:53-8:11 was certainly no original part of the Gospel. Here is an instance where the text of a written Gospel has been expanded by the inclusion of a piece of oral tradition. 13 ~are ~ml striking illustrations of a mo~eneral tendency in the second century not to regard the texts of GosRels as sacrosanct but to subject them to revisions of various tyj)es.14 ~ Through the circulation of individual Gospels, Christian communi, ties gradually became acquainted with multiple documents of this type, I The first evidence of a knowledge and use of several Gospels comes from the middle of the second century in the writings of Justin Martyr, who taught in Rome between 150 and 165, Justin was acquainted with Matthew and Luke and probably with Mark as well, (Although it has often been supposed that Justin also used John, this is at best uncertain and On the whole unlikely,)" JJ!s~eld these Gospels in high regard, Interestingly, he regularly desigllates them as "memoirs" or "remi, , niscences" (apomnemoneumata) of the apostles and those who followed

an

l~. Fo~ th~ longer endings of Mark and the interpolatiOll of Juhn 7:53--8:11, see the concise dlSCusslOns In Bru(.'C Metzger, A Tertuo./ Commentary on the Greek New Te t t (Lond . U 't d , Bible 1971); Jobn 21 is fully discllssed R E BrOWn Th ~""nel An d' On. Jm , • XIII Societies, XXI A _L B-hl (G ' C· ", e YUspe '~';1Jor "I ~ amen Ity, N.Y.: Dou leday & Co" 1970), 1077-82.ceOr Ing to 0 hn, 14. See O. Linton, EVidences of.a Second-Century Revised Edition of St. Mark's Cos el " NTS 13,(1967); 321--55, also M. Smith, Clemerlt of Alexandria and (j Secret G el oj M~,..k'(Cam~n tAfit,e bas~s .of.a reeently disoovero:J1letter of Clement ill usc lri exalluna III the late second century. 15. l N. Sandens, The Fourth Gospel in the E I Ch h J 0" Cambridge Univ. Press, 1943) 31 and re (j~ YtI tS' ngm"and Influence (Cambridge: 1 Second Century" (Ph.D. diss. 'Ha~ard VOiv reccll y . . ':Illmer, The Gospel of John in the

bb

a.nd

lh~1~ :~;d~dUv:[~·i::~f\.1~r3~a~r~ing

MeR

is no lim] evidence lor any reiauonship

~tw"

19(6))t.51-7~·h R Illmer argues persuasively that there In anu t e Gospel of John.

een us

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TE STAMENT CANON

" f tures of Justin's attitude tothem.!" With this characterization two ea tol in origin (but hW ds them as apos 0 ICI .e: ; ward the Gospels stand out.:... e reg~ d M k) an e values them"",", in th ase of Lu e an ar, _ only indirect Iy so III e c ,_ d rinture 17 Justin also ' hi 'cal d.s ...,,-ot.-as inspire sc "" d chIefly as ist n - ~rem~, " , - f h - lt was oustomary to rea remarks that in Christian services 0 wjors IPdIf the "compilations" " ," f the apost es an rom from both the memoirs 0 th t the Gospels 67 3) This does not mean a I of the prophets (Apo ,1. , , the prophetic writing'; . . . . t th same sense as were author-itative III JUs e heti iti g are inspired he does , hi k th prop etic wn m s ' , for whereas justin t In. s ~ 18 But his comment at least poi~ts not value the Gospels m this way" f J tsh scripture and Chrisup the context in which the correlation 0 ewis tian writings gradually developedj- his knowledge of several Gospels, It is noteworthy that m spite 0 hi h do not occur in these diti bout [esus w IC Justin often cites tra I Ions a ", tth broader body of maa familiarity WI a b b t tl Gospels and rere y e rays E' hI'S citations of sayings h esilt a te to use '1 ven terials which he did 1 not th me are some remarka bl e of jesus which do occur in these Cospe dS"d er quote written Gospels - , d th st that JII
lOP·~~

1)

2}ies

the

THE HISTORY OF THE THE NEW TESTAMENT

Gospe"~s.!. doubt oll.1kad~uacy of any, 20 This problem ~as compouniled by the fact that the Gospels differ signil1cantlY among themselves, an insight that was by no means lost on the early chui;i;b, Though some accounting might be given for tbese differences, to accept more than one Gospel was to be burdened with justifying their divergences') Finally, the very word "gospel" had originally been a theological rather than a literary term in Christianity, designating the message of salvation, and in this sense it was obvious that there is only one gospel, This usage was so longstanding that when the word came to be secondarily applied to documents of a certain type-a development which occurred about the middle of the second centurythere was understandable hesitancy to think in terms of numerous Gospels, All these considerations help to explain one of the most notable phenomena in the early church's treatment of Gospel literature, Tatian's Diatessaron,22 Tatian, a Syrian Christian who had studie,ll with Justin in Rome, undertoo ahout 170 to-w;;-aYll seRi!!:at~ Gospels into mle consecutive narrative. ~o!" this-P!:!!pose Thti~J>~ maiulJ( the GosI'els of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he ig.,th~ - earliest-known w~ss for'the use of all four .of these Go~pels. Tatian', reliance especially On these may mean that by his time they were acquiring a special prominence within the larger field of gospel documents, They had not, however, attained fully authoritative standing, This is shown, on the one hand, by the fact that the Diatessaron emhodies some traditions which are not derived from OUr Gospels, so that Tatian hardly regarded these four as uniquely or exclUSively valuable,23 On the other hand, Tatian's very free handling of these texts, which led him to destroy their literary integrity and freely recast their suhstance through transpositions, additions, and omissions, shows that he did not value these documents as indiVidual-let alone sacrosanct20.

o. cun~an,"'J!tePlurali~

of the GOSI>e!s as a Theological

Problem

in Antiquity,"

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

CANON

this cullection deserves

to be quoted

at leng

,

. be either more or fewer, in number It is not possible that the Gospels can [ the world in which we live, than they are. For, s~nce there ~re zOhe~ch is scattered throughout the and four principal winds, an? smce e oort of the church is the Gos~el and whole world, and since th~ pillar an~ SUfP Id have four pillars breathing t the Spirit of Lite, it is fitting ,t~at. s e s ou From this it is evident that t IT immortality all over and revivifying .men. n the cherubim and controls a \Vord the Artificer of all, He that Jlts £oupoaspects but bound together by thing;, has given us the Oospel un ~rw~~: four-fac~d, and their faces one spirit. . , . For the cherubim a ls f God For the Scripture say,s, . images of the dispensation of the S~~0 b [i: tng his effective working,. hiS first liVing creature was like a H.on, (r:as lil~e a calf, signifying his sact;J;fi: leadership and roval power; the secan d °t were the face of a man, and sacerdotal order: "but the third ha , as 1 b' '. "the fourth was like a t asf th a human emg, 'gs over evident description 0 f h'IS a d venifi Spirit hovering wit h h'IS ,wm flying eagle .. pointing out the g toe . accord with these thmgs amana the church,' And therefore the Go;pel:h~li~?ng creatures are quadrt°';' which Jesus Christ is seated. . .. or se 'allowed by the Lor. 0br c . also t he COUT the Cospells' qua dr itorm, as IS • tol'the human race, 01leh' Clore h' d reasOn were four principal covenacitsJ'v:~he flood, under No~; t e t lfnd the Rood, under Adam; the se con · '. th: fourth, that which re:,lves ~ho the giVing of the Law, under Muses, I These things bemg ~o, sums up all things by means of the Go~pe~~l~~rned and also a~daclOb' destroy the fann of the Gospel are vam , b 'ng either more In num er f th Gaspe l as el . who .represent the or, aspectsho hand, fewer. (A .H . 3,11.8-9) preVIOuslystated, on t e ot er

fOili

0h

~Th:

:hiS

m~l

t~h~~

h

in The Early

, sly adduces an allegorical interIrenaeus's argument, which ingemou tioned in Rev. 4:6-9 and pretation of the four living creat":;'s ~~nthat toward the end_of the alludes to four divine covenants, JE lca..!: I as becoming current III , f£ ou rGospesW . Iy t hta second century a collect!oll--O B h' remarks also Imp ' 'I. 't' 'ty ut IS G I the western region of C flS Iam '. U'on for if a four- ospe ',. ;;Th' g of an mnOva, h 1 ethis must nave eell somet III d lly acknowledged, t en r bl' h d an genera collection had been esta IS eEl Ver8jDIl.~.10-25,

Church (Phllade(p~a: Westm~nster Press, 1956), 39-54. For a useful collection of relevant texts see also H. Merkel, Die Lang, Pluralitilt der Evangelien als theologisches und exegetiaches Problem in der allen Kirche (Berne: 1978). 21. For disc~ssion of this p~blem in the ancient church, see H. Merkel, Die WidersprUche zwiscMn den Eti(mgelu:~ ..1hre POk7n~c~e und apologetische Behandlung in der alten Kirchc his :;::u AugllStin, WUNT 13 (Tublllgen: Mohr Slebeek, 1971), and Grant. Earliest Lives of Jesus, 14-37, 52-62. 22"u.On t~e DiaJessamn generally, see B. M. Metzger, The Early Versioll.\",oj the New Testament (0 ord: elaren au Press, 1977), IG--36, with reference to most of the rel~Mant literature 23. On the .use of .ot?er mat~rials than Our four Gospels. see G. Messin~, Diatessaro~ Persiano (Rome: ~<;mtifical Blbbcal Institute, 1951) XXXv-Iii; G. Quispt:;1, "L'evangile scion Thomas et Ie Diat~s~aro~; VC 13 (1959): 87-117; J .. H. C.harle.sworth, "'TaUan's Dependence 11 on A hal Tra4 ~ti~hS, HclYl l~ (197 ); 5--17i While Tattan dId not rely exclusively on Our Gos~ls ~?:gt certain a e rna e ex ellSlVe use 0 another gospel-type dOCUment,as has often been supposed,

, d I in their contents, Thus, the Diates· writings but was mtereste on y , h' I Itiple Gospels were 'II II id it ation 1Il w icn mu saron attests a sti UI Sl u . still felt as problem. hei ate existence was. b known and used, ut.t elf separ , entl encountered n~~atical. It is a telling fac.uhat Tatian apPJl!:illll, y-ed r-;'at opularity. ~ k . d d th Dlatessaron en)£)' "-" _ _ cism for his wor ; in ee, e bld by a multiplicity - --. th t the pro ems pose Its widespread use suggests a f the ancient church, 0 of gospel documents were s:,e It iin many areas£~"-G I the first s: II ti n of our ww-. Q~Pl;ll.S, _ ~ The first evidence 10r~ ec _10 • ld d by Irenaeus bishop - ' I' th rity lSprOV] e , attempt to assert its exc USlVeau 0 '. k bl ~nt about - Lyons in- Gaul, -.. of writing a b ourt 180 uov. HIS remar th: a e

'"

24. Its far-reaching

influence

. docum ented

IS

by Metzger,

ar Y

J

THE NEW TESTAMENT

naeus would not have offered such a tortured macy.

insistence

CANON ~

on its legiti-

~her y>itness to the currency of a four-Gospel collection i'!. the west is the M uratorian canon list, an annotated catalogue of authontative books ~la""'.;;;'ms to have been composed in the very late second or early third century, 25 The list is only partially preserved; it began with comments on each of the four Gospels, but the statements about Matthew and Mark are lost, What remains of its treatment of the Gospels may be quoted: .. , at which however he was present and so he has set it down. The third Gospel hook, that according to Luke. This physician Luke after Christ's ascension, since Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his travels composed it in his own name according to his thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh, and thus as he was able to ascertain it, so he also begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

I

r ~

(

( ~

t

Lin~s 16-26 of this statement oller a defense of th~Gospel collectIOn, Specifically, It IS urged that although the GojPels are indeed 25. The date and location have been recently d's ~ . Put edb y A . C . S un.db erg, J~.) A Fourth Century List," 8TH 66 (L973)' 1-41 Canon Murat.or!: ing. For criticism see E F ,;. s argu.ments, though mterestm~, are not conVlnC·

lli

677-83. See Appe~dix tor' th:~iisM'

~a~oll Muratl?n:( Date aTld Provenance, . SWat 18 (1982): ura onan canon 1St au. trails.).

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

. I ' t' ach one and this as a different everything essentia IS p~ _in...!' -'. ~--~ f h di "re"s:!!u~lt.:o~f~' ~e:..£gu~I~a:;n~c:.:.e:..-"ofTth'7e::d:i:-;V1t·ne S_ 'rit. The admission 0 t e .1versity among t e Gospels, toget h er WIIth th e c laim that this diversity h d " matters nothing for the f:ait. h 0F beli that some a e levers, "uggests s indeed found discrepancies. trou bl esorne an d , perhaps for that reason, , h ompanying claim t at continued to prefer only one G osper.I Th e aL"C f . hat i ti I y well be a retort to a pre each Gospel contains W at IS essen ia rna ibl erence for one of the fuller Gospels (Matthew?), and/or pass) ~ toda critical attitude toward Mark. 26 But if such issues still had to e abdressed then the four-Gospel collection had not yet become esta lished beyond all objection, This is apparent especially from thfietreatment given here to the Gospe I0 f Jo hn . Th ever; ' elaborate justi cations offered on its behalf (lines 9-16 and 2&-34) cannot have been sup~ri thi rord fluous. Special pleading was require, d in IS cas e , and the , reasons h this can be found in the peculiar

The fourth of the Cospels, that of John [one] of the disciples. W,hcI?-. his fel~owdisciples and bishops urged him he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another." In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that, while all were to go over [it], John in his own name should writ? everything down: And therefore, though varIOUSrudiments arc taught In the several . Gospel books, yet that matters nothing.for .the faith ofbelievers, since by the one guiding Spirit everythmg IS declared In all: concerning the birth concerning the passion, ('oncerning the resurrecti~n concerning the intercourse with his disciples ' and concerning his two comings, the first despised in humility, which has come to pass the second glorious in r:oyal power ' which is yet to come, W'hat wonder then if John so constantly adduces particular points in his epi.stles also where he says of himself: ''\fhat we have see'n with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you For so he professes [himself] not merely an eye and ear witn~ss but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order. '

THE HISTORY OF THE

history

of this Gospel m t e secon

century. d by most The Gospel of John seems not to ~ ~n known2r use-Ii t _ -, d t 0 a IL appearan.ces was rs em secono-century Cliristian writers, an -. - h ': AI-=> --., a gnostic teac Ployed among gnostic Christians. 27 B as!llides I, . . er 111 ti ---."""" .,~ -11h it d it and the Valentinian gnos IC exanuria (ca. 1301 may we ave CI e I, b h t xpositions teachers Ptolemaeus and Heracleon (160-170) ot wro e e the on of this Gospel2s Theirs are t~ar.liest-kn!!w1!..cmum.eJlta1J,edS h c- t 'I Chn ti writing) an t e rae Gospel of John (or indeed on any ear y ns ': d h iws that John tliat they c;';;idered it worthy of such detaIieChstu tY '.tOy by the midi gnostlc ns lam h ad acquired considera bl e stan dtnz mg m 'd 't"c circles there trast OutSl e gnos I dl e 0f th e secon d century. B Y con , d' to the late second was scant knowle d ge 0 f· or mteres t 1'n John , an pnor, "hie that the . f 't authority It lS pOSSl century no broad recognitIOn 0 1 S h' 'G I through IllOSt of · ance of t IS ospe aImost exclusive Iy gnostiC proven al acceptance.,.,..ll,e. t 'ts more gener t h e secoud century militate d agams I d f "t by the so-called 0" df theusema eo I ' yon d t h at, John also sUll~re E.0m~_ ~. , t;;;:;is~ which Ilour,.... h" t al 0 known as on, d !!ew pr~--!~y ~o~e~~ S . tu 1ts adherents claime ished in the latter naif of the second cen ,ryJ' h (14'26 15:26, etc.) Ollllse d III on ., h t ha t the mming of the Parac Ite e pr the founder of t e on of MontanuS, h ad actually occurred in th e pers . th Muratorian Fragment," Eh hardt "The Gospels met Stories [Man26. ?nt~eseand related questions, seeA(:The rFra~work of the New Testamen Ortkirchl'che Studien 2 (1953): 121-38 -36) " I of John.'" chester: Manchester Univ. PreSS, 1964J, 11· h Go.,.,.,el aod Hillmer, Gospe ed b S ders Four't Vt'"' I rh Intedfretu.IOH 27. The evidence is fully canva~s y an 'F W'(es The sr.·ritual G~ p: e 1960 aDd E. 00 " f J h soo M. . 1, . U jverslty ress. '73) "'0. For gnostic appropnatlons 0 \0, h (Cambridge; Cambrl ge 1 ~~J1. Abingdon P-ress, 19 . of the Fourth Gospel in the Early C I)~C E gesis SBLMS 17 (Nas lH e. Pagels, The ]ohannint! Gospel in Gnostic XI' , -I'

I,

(

33

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON I

movement, and that the new Jerusalem foreseen in Revelation (21:2) would soon descend to earth. Opposition to the" new prophecy" some. times entailed a critical attitude toward John. This is exemplified by l the learned Roman churchman Gaius who, early in the third century, as a result of his distaste for Montanism, rejected both the Gospel and Bevelation.P But perhaps the strongest reservations about John arose ~ from the perception of its extensive differences from the other Gospels '. in both outline and substance. These discrepancies were problematical , enough that some, rather than trying to rationalize them, found it easier simply to dismiss John from consideration altogether." Against this background it is not surprising that the author of the Muratorian list thought it necessary to give especially strong endorsements of John. These are offered in two claims. The first is emhodied in an implausible legend about the origin of the Gospel (lines 9-16), the point of which is to assert that its authority is not of one apostle only but of all the apostles together!" The second is the insistence, based On an appeal to the letter known as 1 John (1:1-3), that the author of the Gospel was a reliable eyewitness (lines 26-34).32 By such means this Gospel is defended against its detractors. Yet so far as this r was necessary, the four-Gospel collection itself could not be taken for granted.

I

~though in the western regions of Christianity a four-Gospel collection was corning into its own near the end of the second ';;'ntuJ:)', ( ,the situation was not so fully developed elsewhere. In the same period, Clement of Alexandria, who knew and valued our four Gospels, still granted a good measure of authority to the Gospel of the Hebrews and r the Gospel of the Egyptians and so did not hold exclusively to a collection of four Cospels.P From Syria there is a fascinating report pre29. See below. 51 with n. 73. 30. See the ~tudie~cUed in n. 21 above. The idea, first attested by Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, H.E. 6)4.7) but Widely found thereafter (Wiles, Spiritual Gospel, 11-12), that John is the "spiritual Gospel ,:,'bere~ the other Gospels deal only with the "outward facts" must have been conceived IthargeJ)' Wtt~ ~ View to th~ great differences between John and the Syn~pucs aEldin all effort to give em a positive explanatIon. '; 31. Thih.le~e~d (perhaps ~ased on John 21:24) originally must have aimed to suggest that only John was aht Onba ve am,ong e Gospels because it alone had the backing of all the apostles. If so, it :~htea~heoth:' deVised when the Gospels were circulating individually and stood in competition

If

32, On this passage see the remarks of Eh h dt "TIt G l' h " 26-36. For the possibl i po t· of h ~r? e. ospe s In t e Muratorian Fragment, John see R Br \ m r ance. teo nnIne epistles for the reception of the Gospel of 145-&1. . own, T e CommUnity of t e Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979),

~

r

34

CANON

. ( 6 12 2) concerning Serapion, bishop of A~served by Eusebius H.E. .. h hi h lay in Serapion s h unity of R OSSUS, w lC tioch (ca. 190). In t e comm . d Serapion expressed jurisdiction, the Gospel of Peter was m use, an t ally brought to his . b hi B t when It was even u no reservation a out this, U h d ideas Serapion . ht tain etero ox I , I attention that this Gospe mig con thot a four-Cnspe] col' id nt i ustrates a n ll banned its further use. Th e mCI e d £ several centuries lection had not become normative in the east, aln IIor ti which held it was Tatian's Diatessaron, not a J:lour- Gospe co ec ion, the field in the Syrian church. . s els did 1I0t begin to acquire CIn summary, our four canonical Go p th wr[tten gospels ~ d 1t d T on or among 0 er clear prominence beyon ora ra I 1 f t i the western area until the second half of the second century, rs lEn t the end of ' d I I . the eastern. ven a of Chnstianfty, an more sow y m h C -. G pel collection was d I th est t e rour- os the second century an 10 e w: b th ght and problems .h d h times een Oll , not so firmly estabhs e as as some. I ) that given the circentered especially around JO~lll.It IS i~s::'de:~e lux~riant variety of cumstances of second-cent~ry Chrtsuan 1Y which were current during gospel traditions, both written and oral' 11 tion was neither a nee. C • f £ -Gospecoec that time, the formation 0 a our f h history of gospel literacssary nor an entirely natural outcome 0 t e ,1 mpromise striking 1 be seenasaco h h I ture in the early c urc . t can on y . bl ltiplicity of gospels managea e mu a precarious balance b etween an un. os e1 on the other. The onthe one hand and a single, self-conSJSte~~g t:rminology applied to nature of this compromise can be seen ~n e 11' sources. Writers of t the four-Gospel collection in late secon U gular) and in this way this period tend still to speak of the gospe .s~nallYa theological con. hath preserve tbe Idea t hat at " gospe I" was ongm tial unity of the gaspe.I hasi e the essen I d cept and not a book an emp a51Z h allow that this essen. connection .. WIt h speer s lfic documents, t ey These ideas are h e Id Yet In , . .. . ibu d g fonr witnesses. d' t tial unity 15 dlstn ute amon I' "the Gospel accor 109 a together and expr~ssed by the formu alIOn't . tl s eaking, four G2ss nc 'on between the nee d Mark," and so forth. T h us, t h ere are notthc:L= I thO way e tensl I. I pels but a fourfold g~e. n IS the actual presence of mil tip e felt for a single and unitary gospel a~:t erpetuated in the collection gospel documents is not overcome P of four Gospels.'

-c~(

I"

eltOn

~6s~~~~~C~mcf~':J~~~tl~rie: desecritures et apocryphes, n Bib 29 (1948): 77-99; (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1~3s). ,an E. Mo and, The Concept of the Gospel in Alexandrian Tlleowgy

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

\

f

The Letters of Paul k the NT almost half t which rna e up " . II d Of the twenty-seven ocumen s I H ever large Paul s m uence stle Pau. ow are letters ascribed to t h e apo

35

-

_.

~.._,."

._~

.... _.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

_.~

0-

,,..~

"':-_0

•

,

••

_~......

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

may have been in earliest Ch . tiani hi canon is dispro ortio t I TIS raruty, IS prominence in the NT not be overlook~d P n~ e y larger. The peculiarity of this fact should after he became a Chau tiwas not a historical disciple ofJ esus, and even with the leading fig ns anfaPhostlehe stood in an oblique relationship ures 0 t e prtrrutive ch h M oreover , Paul's letters were practical expe dirents of his mi . urcn, k specific churches th issronary wor : addressed to~ , ey are narrowly parr I . b pose and mak ICU ar III su stance and pure no pretense of gener I . t How and why did th . a merest or timeless relevance. ey attain their standing in the NT? • The Early History of Paul's Letters The early history of Paul's Ie . were collected are very ob tter~ ~nd the process by which they evidence several tbe ti sal cure, an in the absence of any conclusive I ore IC reconstructi h b review of these' will point u h " ous ave een proposed. A A traditional and widel pte mam ISsues. ball theory." On this Vie: ~eld explanation may be called the "snow, outset by the communin ' t aulhs.letters were highly valued from the ies 0 w ICh the a tl was an authoritative fig t th pos e wrote. After all, Paul h e tak es note that Someure 0 d ed churches I' hi f d hi 0 IS oun ing, and even ) (2 Cor. 10:10). If during hregar e 1.~1~ letters as "weighty and strong" uettm P I' I h.IS congregations this rnaIS own II h e au s etters were valued in , y we ave led t h ---among such communitie 0 an exc ange of his letters . I s as possessed an d h 1 crrcu ation of them outside the y, an . t us to an ever wider r dressed. In this haphazard wa churches to which they were first adhave emerged in differe t I y'IPartIal collections of the letters could c ti II th n oca ities until fi all b re_ on, a e letters would have b .!' y, y a proce~f acIIslied as a group. een brought together and pubThis explanan htl r hi ion, w I e plausible in th b IOns w .IChmay not be justified S. e a stract, ~ests on assump- ~ ad hoc piece of corresponde '. mce each of Paul s letters was an with imme . d iate and local .nee written to a speer'fic ch urch and dealing valu e wou ld h ave been seenISSUes in th it is not 0 bvi VI0us that an enduring much less by other churches In e;; even by their original recipients, reserved at all (cf.I Cor. 5:9; 2 C~:' ~ome I~tters of Paul were not been preserved only fragmentaril ~4J.. while others seem to have e made up of such fragments) y d hiormthians is often thought to ;:;e ~~ ~ways immediately ~p~:ec~at:~ndicates that Paul's letters f y a. een m such early d or carefully treasured. If alleges, It would be odd that th an thgeneral circulation as this th';ory e au oroI' Act .. s, wntmg several decades "-

(2

36

~.,._... , __

'

~-

CANON

after Paul's time, shows no knowledge of any letters of Paul and seems unaware that Paul even wrote letters. In view of such problems, another theory was offered by E. J. Goodspeed." He assumed that precisely because Paul's letters were occasional pieces of real correspondence they were not scrupulously preserved hut, like all letters, were read and then laid aside only to be forgotten. In this way the silence of Acts about Paul's letters becomes explicable: according to Goodspeed, the letters, having fallen into disuse, were rescued from obscurity only after Acts was written, and indeed only because Acts was written. He conjectured that the publication of Acts, with its rehearsal of Paul's itinerary, prompted someone who was already acquainted with one or two of Paul's letters (Colossians and Philemon) to search out other letters of Paul among the Pauline churches mentioned in Acts. Having successfully retrieved these, the collector then wrote what we know as the letter to the Ephesians, intending it to be a summation of Paul's thought and an introduction to the collected letters. In this way Goodspeed accounted for the peculiar character of Ephesians, including its general cast, its resonance of other letters of Paul, its close literary relationship with Colossians, and its apparent pseudonymity. On Goodspeed's view, then, it was only through the labors of an ardent admirer of Paul that the apostle's letters escaped oblivion and were gathered up into a collection of nine authentic letters plus the pseudonymous Ephesians. Despite its ingenuity, Goodspeed's theory has not been widely accepted, and for good reasons.35 That Paul's letters immediately fell into obscurity is no less an assumption than the contrary view that they were continuously ssteemed.i" Also, it is a romantic notion that a single individual moved by personal admiration of Paul should have gone on an odyssey in search of "lost" letters of the apostle, and it seems unlikely that Acts played any role in this, since Acts nowhere intimates that Paul was a writer of letters. Further, recent studies of Ephesians, though granting that it is not an authentic letter of Paul, have shown that it is not merely a pastiche of themes from the genuine 34. Goodspeed,

New Solutions to New Te~.tllmefd Problems (Chicago: Untv. ofCbicago

Press, 1921),

1-64; idem, TM Meaning of Ephesians (Chieugo; Onlv. ofCbicago Press, 1933); and many other publications.

35. The theory has heen variously adopted and adapted mainly by Goodspeed's students: ef. john Knox,Philef1l(ln Among the Lettef"S of Paul re\'o ed. (Na.~hville: Abingdoopress),1~9tA~f.ttBam~~ Pa~l Becomes a Literary Influence (Chi~gO: Uni". of Chicago Press, 1941~ . p' .11;51) d Epistle 'to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and purpose (Oxford: CJ%5)on ress, an The Fonnation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters {London: Epworth Press, 1. . 36. L. Mowry "The Early Circulation of Paul's Letters," J BL 63 (1944): 73-86. Cf. Knox, philemon, 71-72.

'

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

THE HISTORY OF THE

letters but must have its Own specific historical setting and purpose. If Goodspeed Were right about the introductory purpose of Ephesians, I we would expect evidence that this letter once stood at the head of the collection, but the earliest known arrangements of the letters show nothing of the sort. 37 Still another and no less ingenious explanation has been advanced 38 by W. Schmithals. He too supposes that the collector-editor of the Pauline-jetters was a single individual, but Schmithals attributes to him a very different motive: the purpose of the collector was to furnish the church at large with a useful weapon in its struggle against the gnostic tendencies which threatened Christianity in the late first and early second centnry. To this end he not only collected the letters but also edited them in order to depict the apostle as a constant and ) implacable foe of gnostic ideas. Schmithals is led to this conclusion by his supposition that virtually all the authentic letters of Paul (Galatians and Philemon excepted) are literary composites which have been ed- ~ itorially pieced together from diverse smaller letters and letter fragments. His theory about the origin of the Pauline collecti~n is an effort to provide a historical context and unity of motive for the kind of thoroughgoing editorial work he detects in the letters. According to Schmithals, the editorial reworking of Pauline texts had two specific aims. First, it Was necessary that each of Paul's letters be made to contain an element of anti-gnostic polemic, and since this was not ) always present it was supplied by combining different pieces of cor-, respondence into new literary units. Second, the editor wished to consolidate the many fragments of Paul's correspondence into seven letters, so as to make clear by the symbolism of the number (seven ee wholeness) that Paul's teaching was meant for the entire church. Thus, he fashioned a collection which was anti-gnostic in substance and catholic in shape. Hence, Schmithals reconstructs an original collection ., containiI,lg 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1-2 Thessalo. nians, and Romans. Since Schmithals's theory is so fully predicated on his views about the composite character of individual letters, it must stand or fall witb the plausibility of those views.39 While most scholars are prepared to

)

I

~L4~ ..

H. Buck, "The Early Order of the Pall]ine Corpus," ]BL 68 (1949): 351-57; see also below, 38 Sch . hal "0 h .. and the ~~lJS~ t~~s eJCs~Pjlti(~nahodUEarlibc.stCollection of the Major Epistles of Paul," in Paul . " s redactional '. ee Y thea'as VI e: A p mgdon 1972), 239-74. 39. For Schmlthals ul d Press, h

J.

E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon

38

Pre;~~si9S;t).

Q

an

t e Gnostics and Gnosis in Corinth, trans.

f

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

.. h as affected some of the, letters, grant that secondary editoria I reVlSlOn 1 arbi y Schmithals's analyses are suspect for their mmlPdlexlt , seelt~I~~ esti: I . I' ty and few wou agree w trariness, and sheer mu tip iciry, . ng the Pauline letters mates of the nature or extent of redaction a~~h collection ever conFurthermore, there is nu good evidence th.a th t the stood in the tained only the seven letters ~e asslgnsht~ I~ or ka ow/and used beproposed order. 40 And if Paul s letters a een nine that an editor forehand, as Schmithals allows, It IS difficult to -ecasti g as he alleges III could have succeeded WIt. h sue h a prorm scuous recas discover an occa-' Both Goodspeed and Schmithals ha;e t~ the Pauline letter d I've for the torma ion 0 sion, an agent, an a mo I . I t the collection (pseudocollection hy relying on features mtema 0 ba ic to yet another d ) Th e features are s nyrnity and re action. e sam II H M Schenke has h .. of the co ection . f th modern t eory 0 e ongm the work of a "Pauline suggested that the collection.of.Paul's ~et~ers was d valued Paul's teachschool," that is, a group of persons. ~ ,0 ~~~:: continuation of Paul's ing and who assumed the responsl~:l~~henke attnbutes to this group work after the death of the apostle. . f then tic letters of Paul not only the gathering and presorvatton fOpa~, correspondence, the but also the editorial reworking of some 0 au s Ephesians 2 Thes-f " "P]' e letters (Co 1ossians, , composition 0 new au m bli I' on of the whole corsalomans, 1-2 TImothy, Titus), and the pu ICt~lng extending, and ' imed at sus aim , pus. These various e florts were a . . field after his death. d I, hi his histone rrussron k I eveloping Pau s teac mg m herit gradually too Slape, Under this Impetus the Pauline literaryd' en agfeteaching it remained . g tra ition .0 _ , but since it was a matter 0fl'a ivm The silence of Acts t P line oommuntttes-tr d I pertinent for a time on y 0 au h t hen Acts was compose about letters of Paul is due to the fact t a;; t generally known. the collection was still in ItS early stages an no It recognizes that~the h . . many ways d ' This is an attractive hypot esis milt' must be understoo not development of the Pauline letter co ec th theological history of merely in literary terms but as an asPhect °b e preserved chiefly out , I ust ave een early Christianity' Paul setters m . F ther this theory can P I' ur, along with aut h en ti c of a persistent devotIon to au s, teachmg. ta'ns k < , rna e sense of the tact t h a t the collectIOn . . con d Iletters whic h h ave been letters, both pseudonymous compOSItIOns an the dubious idea that a .. ed itorially reworke d , ye t WI tI,out relymg on t f the Paulme Corpus,

z:

10;

. ]. e Letters and the Formu lon 0 40. H. Gamhle, "The Redaction 01 the Pau In d' P Iuss<:hule," NTS 21 f8t 94 (1975);403--18. d d' p/I ge seines Erbs durch Ie au . 41. "Das Weiterwirken des Paulus un Ie e (1975), 505-18.

39

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORY OF THE

CANON ~

Paul along with new developments and application to new circumstances, cannot be easily understood on any other basis. And since

Paul had gathered around himself a group of associates who were in his missionary work, conversant

with his thinking,

and.

active in the supervision of his churches, it may be that such a group' (or its successors) took up Paul's work after his death and sought all the more to preserve and extend his legacy,42 The mere presence within the collection of inauthentic and edltcrially revised letters shows that its formation

was a creative

en~eavor,

not merely a conservative one. It also has to be assumed that the history of the individual letters of Paul up to the formation of the collection was diverse. While some of the letters were lost, others were valued and circulated at any early time, Romans and 1 Corintluans were among these; the textual tradition shows that their original specific addresses were generalized early on, a change that must have bee.n calculated to suggest their broader relevance and to promote their WIder use.43 It lS probably not accidental that these two letters, along with Ephesians (which had no originally exclusive address), were the most widely known and cited in the early postapostolic period, Certainly the composition of pseudonymous letters after Paul's time'

r

t

t

presupposes that some of the authentic letters were in circulation, since otherwise a pseudonymous author could not expect that his

"Pauline" letter would find ready acknowledgment and not seem anomalous in the circumstances;" Other letters of Paul, however, seem to have come into use only later.

This was perhaps

.

true of

A satisfactory theory must give an accountuf

r

"The Particular'ty r th P I' E' I " .. \ N . ' '. I? e au me plsdes as a Problem in the Ancient churc 1, III f eotestam~flllca et Patrnttca, Nov1Sup 6 (Leidcn: E. J. Brill, 1962) 261-71' and If Gamble, Th' of Ihe Letter the Romans, SD 12 (Grand Hapids; Wm.' B. Ee~rnans, 1971),

43. N. A. Dahl

to

44. N. Brox, Frl4che VerJasserangabe . Z Eo klL f "h . . . SBS 79(Stuttgart: Katholisehes S'bel k ~975)urd' r ilrtmg r-u chn.'ltllchen Pscudepigraphle, Writings. 1 wer. ,1SCUsses condItions for the reception of pseudollYJIlOUS ...

L1K:.

.

t istic wr-iter's, an pa n b id Marcion's,

there were

time.48

42. For the l..'Qncept of a "Pauline school," see H. Conzelmann, "Paulus und die Weisheit," JVfS 12 (1965):}21-44; but sec ~lso th? criticism orB. Pearson. "Hellenistic-jewish Wisdom Speculation \ ~~ ~l,. mArspects ofWmlom mJtldai8rn and Early Christianity, ed. R. L. Wilken (Notre Dame, n .: . my. 0 Notre pame PEess, 1975), 43--66. For Paul's associates, consult E. E. Ellis, "Paul ~d hIS ~()-Workers, NT.S 1/ (1971): 437--52; and W.-H. 01lrog, Paulus Wid seine Mitar-heiter: N',"kir.SUCh ungeV""l Th'1907"') u rc coer er ag, 9 . and PraxiJ der pQulinfschell Mission, \VMANT 50 (Neukirchen-VluytJ:

i~;llItstOry

Early Editions of the "Corpus Paulinum" il bl b the late It h ve been avat a e y f The collected letters 0 Pau mus a h fi t olid evidence of an first century or early in the second. But t. e rs s the middle of the , ..' d d by MarclOn near extensive collection IS provi e I h t 'I cion is also thc first di , . cidentu t a Mar second century, an It ISnot com 1 ith a deep theological inChristian thinker of the second century WI . .t d of ten letters in the " s co11ec ron debtedness to Paul. Marcion 1 consrs e 1 2 Thessa. 1 2 C rinthians, Romans, following order: Galatians, 0 "L d'ceans") Colossians, , ( hi h M . knew as ao 1 " lonians, Ephesians w IC arcron th ght that Marcion was hilinni d hil 45 Some have ou P ilippians, an P 1emon. f Paul's letters"6 or at least t h at himself the first systemahc collectoro liar tlleoloaical view-0 hilt hIS own pecu I 0his arrangement of t em re ec s h d t emphasize the contrast point, Galatians being placed at the . ea nd Judaism47 But neither and discontinuity between Chnshamty a an existing edition of . pro bab \y too k over conjectnre is likely. Marcion t , . I' its arrange men . the collection Without a tenng even L h P line collection can be diti ote aun The nature of other ear 1y e I ions. . d canon lists of a someinferred from manuscripts,

2 Corinthians, and this would be comprehensible if, as many think, } this letter was pieced together from smaller Iragments of Paul's Co' rinthian correspondence,

CANON

served some extensively edited, why some letters were lost, some pre 't eallstic context in and some newly composed. It must al.'o sugges ~:all codified in a which Paul's literary legacy was cUlh~ate10:~~iS lay :'ith a Pauline formalcollection. That the respons1b, ity h ' t the sort of constits: h p [urnis es ]us schoolis proba bl e, ror sue a grou st and the capacity for the task, uencywhich could have had the mtere h di ity and the coherand which would make intelli,,
particular person was single-handedly responsible for all this. Of course, the existence of a "Pauline school" is an inference, but the continuing \ production of "Pauline letters," which show a deep indebtedness to

instrumental

NEW TESTAMENT

what later These indicate that, e:~ ~:th of these the letters two very old editions of the collectIOn, , length but the same . . 1 of decreasmg , were arranged on the prmClp e wh the letters to the same ·", t results en principle yielded two d 1lleren' 5 ' Adv Marc .. . ' collection is Teftu II Ian" 1911) for knowledge of M~~lOnC'hri~rumir" (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, ' inEaf,~e8r ''''' " dH 46. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy an ercsy . tt 2d cd. rev., {=TU 221-22. . D' Evangelill1l"l vomfremden Gu , Fonnatwn, 153 n. " Ad lr on Harnack, MarclOn, as . . 45-46; Campenhausen, 47. lb'd I., ,liSO 0 V * 69*' Knox Marcwfl, 45; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 168 -, ' f the Pauline Collec22. Finegan "The Original '~fc wird yom lOurato48. '{be most important recent studieD a :Welchc Onlnung d~r uO:dnllng des Paulusbricfe ti.on,u HTR 49 (1956): 85-1~;, ~~ 52(1961): 39--53i.~... J. Fret:,. a.1hie Res/e def" altlateinis~td nschen Kanan vorausgesetzt.. us PaulinullI. lfi Vetus tlll d r 1969) 290--303; an . unddie Platz des Kolosserbflcfs 1m Corp t Colossenses (Freiburg; Her ~"SC7fleia' 12 (1978): 233-77, Bibel 24/2, Epistlllae ad PhhiliPpenl~eSt ~roiogu~s to the Paulil\e Letters, N. A. Dahl, "The Origin of t c Ear leS esp. 262-63.

15. The primary

source

hl

1

:'D~~urb

41 40

~

•..

-

- ~.

~-"'2:'~'-~-"--"""'"

THE NEW TESTAMENT

community (Corinthians, Thessalonians) were counted together as one length-unit, the resulting order was 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephe'l sians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians (Phlle. man?). But when the letters to the same community were counted separately, the resulting order was virtually the one with which we are familiar: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philip. I pians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians (Philemon?). The former arrangement is probably the earlier. 11 seems to be based on the idea that Paul wrote to precisely seven churches, and a collection of that sort would, by the symbolism of the number, suggest its relevance to the church at large. If this was the underlying rationale, this edition did not contain the letters to Timothy and Titus and must have con. strued Philemon, another personal letter, as a companion to Colos- f sians. The second arrangement was conceivably an independent early edition which simply offered thirteen letters of Paul without reference to the seven-churches concept; more probably it was derived from the seven-churches edition but departed from its rationale by counting , separately letters to the same church and by adding the letters to , Timothy and Titus.v' 11 remains uncertain whether the collection attested for Marcion was another early, independent edition or was derived from the seven-churches edition. But in either case, the un, usual order of the letters in Marcton's edition (with Galatians at the beginning) is better understood as an effort to present the letters chronologically than as the product of a dogmatic bias. 51) Thus, there ' J is no good reason to think this arrangement had a Marcionite origin. One traditional component of the Pauline collection was not regu- , larly present in its early editions: namely, the pseudonymous letters to Timothy and Titns.P! The first explicit witness to their presence in the collectiou is Irenaeus late in the second century. Prior to that time i their status is unclear. They formed no part of Marcicn's edition, doubtless because Marcion did uot know them and not, as Tertullian alleged (Adv. Marc, 5.21), because he rejected them. Tliey were not mcluded m the old seven-churches edition of the letters, and they are not present m tlie earliest extant ms. of the Pauline corpus, P", which dates from the early third century. 52 Even in the Muratorian Frag-

I >

r

'7h

42

-

-",

THE HISTORY OF THE

CANON f

e Origin of the Earliest Prologues," 262-63. 49. Dahl, 50. Frede, Die Ordnung der Paulusbriefe." 295-96. 51. On Hebrews. see below, 47, 50, 52, 52. Some leaves u.re lost from the rns b h' . . Pastorals. See F. G. Kenyon The C~ter ~ t elrB?btJ.ber IS Insufficient to have contained the Emery Walker, 1936), x-lti. ' eatty leal Papyri, Fasc. 3, Supplement {LondoIl;

-,~

f

,-

NEW TESTAMENT

ment, these letters are describe.

d al

t .

CANON

appendix to the collec-

. .mos. as a~esitanc

about the au-

tion and are given a separate JuslIficatlOn.. h y e addressed thority of these letters is understandablhe: Ismchet .ehYw:;reven harder hei I to the woe c urc to individua Is, t elf re evance ti I .hurches Here the to perceive than that of Paul's letters p~ ~cu;,; was ac~te. This is problem of particularity, or a lack a cat a~c:ho'ugh it seems to have also true of the little letter of Philemon,. eve bahl in association belonged to the collection from the beginning, PalroltteYrswere part of , Th h all f of these person e with Colossians. aug our d t y the legitimacy the Pauline collection by the e~d of the ;econ ~~; :O~;th century. 53 of this could be and was questioned as ate as

/?

The Use of Paul's Letters in the Second Century . I ditions early I tlable in severa e 1 The collected letters of Pau wer.: avai II 'denced until late t th . use IS not we eVI in the second century, b u elf. b I . g to the early decades . d 54 S ral wnters e ongm I m the secon century. eve . t d with letters of Pau . h ver acquam e , of the second century w~re, ~we isho of Antioch (ca. 110), Polycarp, 'Clement of Rome)ca. 96), Ignatius, b : f 2 Peter (ca. 140?) a~ hishop of Smyrna (d. 155), and the a~ Or a letters each knew or to them, but it is impossible to tell ow many collection 55 Only ~ . d lth an extensive . whether they were acquamte WI . f Paul Still none of rr I quotations rom . , Polycarp among them orrers C ear . ti fdistinctively Paul. or apprecia IOn 0 d these writers shows an awareness h Paul's letters-an • C them is not so muc I' me teaching. What counts ror . If exemplary aposto 1C , h P I himse , as an even less Paul s thong t-as au fi t three-quarters of the secfigure.56 Other Christian writers of the rfs k I dge of Paul or his . ocent 0 a nowie th ond century seem even more Inn. h writings constitute e letters. Among the Christian apologists w ose , 53. Dahl "The Particularity of the Pauline E~is~les." 2.63-~~e A. LiIldemann,. P~u~_s im..~l:he~~ , ht h to slmllar resu s11 a h Th logUl tn lL"r fro,", • 54. Recent detailed surveys W R~zeption derpaulinisc -E:) D K. Rensberger, : A;: Chri.rtentun. Das Bild des ApOS~T (T"biflgen: Mohr Sieheek, 19./ S an ad Century Christiamty lichen Li!eratur his Marcion, B t [the Use of Paul's Letters I'll ceo the Apostle Teaches: The Developmen 0 . D A H at The (Ph.D, diss.• yale Univ., 1981). II' --e quite various. See, e;g., E' I' B~ 1'973), . . a ustons ~ elden: ., • . 55, Inferences based on theIr presu~eclClement of Rome, NovTS.ut?34(_~U 99; Ber in: AkademlcUse of the Old and New Testaments In. h'en und die PalllusbneJe" ATR 47 (l965): 199-216. All 179-237; H. Rathke, Ignatius ~on ~~twc Paul, and the Scriptures. . Much more umited acVerlag, 1967): C. M. Nielsen, pol}ca~~rs letters among !~ese WI?ter~r riechischen Kirche des argue for an e:densivB knowl~dge ofb W Schneemelcher, Plll,lus/,l e8~ 216--21. Rensberger, qUaintance with Paul's letters IS seer ~ .d Bauer Orthodoxy e[ Corinthians and Romansd. ~. Jahrhunderts," ZKG 7,f?.(1964): -: c' i;T~laiming 'that Cleme~ t carp lmew these three an As the Apostle Teaches, IS rersua.'id,v ssibly EphesiaIls, but a a y that Ignatius knew 1 CorinthlllTlS an po flve other letters besides. 56. Lindemann, Pallltls, 71-97, 177~232.

~t

lis c::ldie

Sa

am:"1

43

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

I

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

no;ls.;a~

bulk of second-centuIT Ch . ti I' by name, his letters a;e rterature, ~aul is never mentioned thought. 57As a rule th Ch e '. and there IS no appropriation of his , · d lr ' en, rtstian writers of thi . d I ' m iuerentto Paul's lell B hi IS peno are simp y · ers. ut t IS rule knows some stri king excephans. The most important of these is 1\1 . middle of the s d arclon,lwho was active near the econ century M ., , Christianity was ostensib] b arcion s entire understanding of only true apostle of Ch . tY Faseh.on Paul, whom he esteemed as the ns. or im the lett fP I a version of the Gospel of L k ( hi ers 0 au, together with derived from Paul) u e w ich Marcion may have thought was l exclusivel . ' were the thori rtsttan truth and th basi y au ontative repository of Ch , On e asis of th d ' pounded and defended hi I . ese ocurnents Marcion exTh ISteaching won many IS U tra-Paulme . f dh concephon 0 Christianity. 58 by the late second centu~ er';;'ts but also evoked sharp criticism and theless, with Marcion fo thwasfiroadly repudtated as heretical. NeverPau I's Ietters are extensiv ' r Ie rst Itime in secon d -century Christianity, support of Christian teach~~e~Pa~~ed as the scriptural resource and Chnstian teachers of the . d I1l0n to Marcion, various gnostiC' f CI . . . secon century adva d tl . . o mstianity with the aid f P I' nee rerr mterpretaffon c Alexandna during the rei; OfH a~ s lelters Basilides, who taught in probably came from Egyp~ ~ t n~n (117-138), and Valentinus;--who both made use of Paul's I tt u alug t m Rome between 135 a;:;J 165 . e ers a ong ·th h ' mgs Among the followers fV I . Wl ot er early Chlistian wlit~~ Paul's lelters, especiall~ b;,~~t;nus a rbatherrich appeal was made eodotus.59 Apparently . 0 emy ut also by H=cleari and auth On't ahve, . yet not excl' gnosllc . I Christians COnsl'd ere d the apostle mgs t·0 a Similar effect. USlve v., so si nce th ey employed other writ-

church they first of all had to be rescued from the heretics.P" On this view, Paul's ecclesiastical rehabilitation was accomplished in two ways: first, by adding to the Panline collection the letters to Timothy and Titus, which depict an episcopal Paul concerned to establish authoritative teaching and to secure its proper transmission in the church;

and second, by employing the Book of Acts, 'which integrates and indeed subordinates Panl in the larger apostolic ranks and so deprives him of ~utonomy and pre-eminence. But although the letters to Timothy and Titus and the Book of Acts do manifest these tendencies, it is difficult to imagine that they were composed with the intent of redeeming Paul from heretical use, however helpful they may have '\ been in contextualizing the significance of Paul for the church. Despite Paul's popularity among heterodox groups, it is not plausible that for this reason hi§....!etters were abandoned and only later

r

d

I ~

reclaimed for general use.:;'(No Christian writer of the second century---!

). Ghows any explicit animus toward Pa~cept in Jewish Chrfstianiry.j \ which was a heterodox movement. Tbe fact that Paul's letters were ! ' ,not much used in second-century Chlistianity can be explained ade, Aua\ely on other gronnds. The particnlarity of his letters was not easily overcome, lor it was obvious that Paul had written to individual con,g!egations and did notaddress Christians everywhere. Even at the end of the second century, this problem still had to be met. Thus, Tertullian reasoned, "What significance have the titles [of the letters]? f What he says to one; he says to all" (Adv. Marc. 5.17). The author of \ the Muratorian fragment similarly urged the catholic relevance of Paul On the basis of the fact that Paul wrote to seven churches, "following .. the rule of his predecessor [I] John" who in Revelation "writes indeed to seven churcbes, yet speaks to all" (lines 48-9, 57_9).62 Further, the The appeals made to Paul's letters b . general difficulty of understanding Paul, which is observed with some of the second century furnish d . y MarClonand the gnostic groups frustration in 2 Peter, coupled with the fact that man" of Paul's conby other Christian writers d a eC;ded contrast to the neglect of Paul cerns were not lively issues in second-century Christianity, must hav,e has evoked the opinion_ udnngt Ie same period. This state of affairs posed strict limitalions to Paul's usefulness. Also, indifference to Paul s bec ause 0f t h e extensive aWI respread am ang rna d ern scholars-that, '. letters in this period may be more apparent tban real. Most of the ~he gnostics, Paul Iell into opnatlOn of his lelters by Marcion and 60. See, e.g., Bauer, Orthodoxy and He.,.esy, 212--28; Schneemelche~1 "r~lus in der gri<:chi.schen efore Paul's lellers could brepute among other Christians and that lGrche"; Campenhauscn, Formation, 144-45, 177-81; C. ~. Barrett, raulme_~ntro"er~,,:~ m .the 57 ecome useful d ' Post-Pauline Period," NTS 20 (1974): 229-45; G. Strecker,. Paul.us in nachpauhmsch~,r ~elt, Kmros · Jllstin is a striki an authoritati r th hhood that· R ng example becau f h ve rOr e 12(1970); Knox, Marciotl, 114-39. For an etiology of this Vlewpomt, see Rensberger. A:;the Apostle

t

~fs

Teach .. 10 ome he would have .se 0 t e larger OOdvof hi Linde:~16;-9r' finds the eviden~n~ knowledge o(the letSt:r~esRrvet writin~s and the like58. See th' ~u .US, 353-67, thinks he ~Hd equate to decide wheth~r er~er, 'As th.e Apostle Mardo 3e9-cSSIC.study by Harnack .. us m new Paul s leUers. n, 76; Lmde ,MoTown F M . , 59 Li d malin, Paulus 378-90 . d or aTClOlI s USe of P r I · n emann, Paulw, 298-308.' ; an Rensberger "As h au s etters, see esp. Knox, , Rensberger, "As th A ' t e Apostle Teaches" 149-62. e postle Teaches" 134-40 ' 44 . . 221-51.

Teaches," 1-45. 61. It is a major contribution of Rensberger, "As the Apostle Teaches," to have S.Mwnthis by careful examination of the source. Linoemann (Paulus, 402) is led to the same conclUSIOn. 62. See Dahl "The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles," and K. Stendahl, "The Apocalypse of John and the 'Epistles of Paul in the Muratorian Fragmeut," in Current ISS!l~~~)N::~tamellt Interpretation, ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder (New York: Harper & Row, , .

j~.

t

45

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON ~

THE HISTORY OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Christian . apo Iogetical, . bishop of Sardis (ca. 190), wrote a commentary on this book (HE. and in' thi literaturethof thi s era IS addressed to outsiders 4.26.2), an effort presuming its authority, and Theophilus, bishop of IS genre e use of speciflcall Chri ti h ' altogether suitable With thi . y ns Ian aut orities was not > Antioch (ca. 185), quoted it (HE. 4.24.1, cf. Ad Autolyous 2.28), but the same writers d IS It must be remembered that many of otherwise we can be certain only that Clement of Alexandria used it. to other Ch . ti w o. 0 not appeal to Paul do not appeal much more ns an wntmgs Fi 11 f P I' I Later, however, Revelation came under dispute both in the west and / tently disdained within the b na y, I au s etters had been consis\n the east (see helow, 51-52):..-> . most of the d roader stream of Chnstian thought for I secon cen tury th .t Id b I The Epistle to the Hehrews appears to have been used (though became suddenly well kno';'n e~ I wou e. very puzzling that they, - ;;Overnamed) by Clem~nt of Rome in the last years of the first century, decades of that t B an widely honored during the last two but during the second century it ~ommanded almost no interest in thex, esteemed b I cen ury. ut the fact that Paul's letters are highly western church. Tertullian knew Hebrews and thought it was written y renaeus, Tertullian CI fIr author of the Murat' F ' ement 0 A exandria, and the .. by Barnabas, but he made scant use of it, appealing once to its teaching onan ragment geogra h- II di h "Witnesses are, implies that Paul's Ii ' plea y iverse as t ese ~ against a second repentance (De pudicitia 20)_'iNeither Irenaeus nor continuously and broadly valued d terary legacy had been more or less \ \I!h~ Muratorian list shows any awareness of this letter. In the east, by r: even if this is not dil urmg the preceding period as well, r contrast, Hehrews must have been mor<{COnsistentlypopular. By the \... preservad.w rea I y apparent in the evidence that has been ' late second century Clement of Alexandria maintained its scriptural and thought that it was written by Paul: and in 1"", \he > I authority Other W riUngs earliest extant codex of Paul's letters (early third century), Hebrews Many other Christian writin . stand firmly within the Pauline collection- 66 ployed during the seco d gs were also widely valued and em} \ The Acts of the Apostles" although composed as a comR\'nion piece n century but only f h tua IIy to find their w . I' some 0 t ese were evento the Gospel of Luke, had a separate history from Lnke and did not d ay into t ie NT' Th Ii ocuments illuminate the d I canon, e ortunes of these ?,o~e into any hroad currency until later.67 [ustin Martyr,' near the of those documents whi h eve opment of the canon, even in the case -mtd-second century, is th~r~!.-'Yfiter_to show an knowledge of A~ Although Revelat' IC were not finally included in it. (Apol. 2.50.12), but it was later still that any real importance was . IOnwas written about 96 th of Its use in the first h If f h ' ere are no clear traces , attached to Acts, possibly as a consequence of the conflicts with Mar. a 0 t e second tu 64 wttness to it is Justin Martyr (Dial cen ry. Our first direct cion and gnostic groups. Something of the sort is suggested by the end of the second century R 1 .. 81.15). In the west and nearer the manner in wbich Irenaeus appeals to Acts as a proof of the unity of ' eve - Iy by Irenae- f Us , an d· Its currency' G I' ation was cit e d extensive the apostles and their preaching. The authority of Acts for Irenaeus churches of Lyons and maulssh v. Own aIb so y the letter from the rests on the belief that its author was an inseparable companioo. of by Eusebius (HE. 5 1) T,entnelltothe churches of Asia Minor preserved Paul and a disciple of the other apostles.~e esteem acquired by Acts. , M . . . er u lan qu t d . d amon-who did not accept't hoe It an knew of none besides , at the end of the second century is con1irmed by the Muratonan hst} Afr' Th e Muratorian list II , t us show'mg 1't S currency in Nor th ~ lea. (lines 34-39), Tertu11ian, and Clement of Alexandria. , Sumes 0 . s authority to a SOhapproves Revelation and even preThe so-called "catholic epistles" (James, 1 and 2.Peter, 1, 2, and 3 in the ~s e ions of~~::~a e .catholicity of Paul's letters. 65 Thus, John, and Jude) were little used in the second century:-Dnly 1 Peter much used by the late d mty, Revelation was well known and and 1 John had much currency. Eusebius reports that Papias knew .ger, was somewhaL':~~:'~I;'~ ce"antury.Its':C;rr~th~ howand 'used these two letters (HE. 3.39.17) and that polycarp used ~d A d' . ~-~"'-~ 63. Rensbcr er " ~ ceor lUg to Eusebius, Melito, 1 Peter (HE. 4.14.9, confirmed by Polycarp's letter to the Philippians).

h

-

=

I

~ ~

= ~

was toward ~ , As the Apostle Teaches" 330-5 64' e ever greater and m 'I" 9, shows that th t d . . Still helpful for the histo ore. exp lCit use of Paul's letter: en eney m the second centUry' Apocalypse m the Ancient Ch~/t ~IS ~ocument in early Christ: . . . ?S. hTI1eopinion of SundLe "'c ( oes. Oosterbann & Le Coint Ulnlih2'9')N. B. Stonehouse, The In t e MuratOJian list. rg, anon Muratori" 21 2' fe, . , IS surely wrong . , - 6, that Revelation has on Iy marginal status

66. C. P. Anderson "The Epistle to the .Hebrews and the Pauline ~ttr co~ec~n:" ~TRb~~ (1966):429--38, argu~s that Hebrews may have been part of the collectIOn rom t e gmnmg, there is almost nothing to be said for this. /es A C 67. See the excellent survey of the evidence by E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apost. Q11l'" mentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 3-14.

47

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Nevertheless, even~t e ~--1he~econd ce~ry, the use of these two letters remaine sarin , Irenaeus and Tertullian make few appeals to them, while the uratorian list observes that "two epistles with the title John are accepted in the catholic church" (lines 68-69) but says absolutely nothing about any letters of Peter.f" Clement of

f t

THE HISTORY OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

in churches of the cast. Clement of Alexandria regarded it as a letter of the apostle Barnabas (Strom, 2.6; 7.5) and apparently discussed it in his'Hypotyposeis, a fragmentarily preserved commentary on vanous writings, including some of the catholic epistles (Euseblus, HE 6.14,1), The early popularity of Barnabas was sustained long enough for It to appear in some eastern canon lists from the fourth century. The Shepherd of Hermes, an apocalypse composed in Rome about

Alexandria offers several allusions to 1 Peter and one direct quotation, { and he also cites 1 John but no other Johannine letters, though when he refers to I John as the "larger epistle" (Strom. 2.15.66) he shows

the middle of the second century, rapidly gained respect as author~; an acquaintance with at least one other, Jude seems to have been still tative scripture by reason of its claim to be an inspired revelatIOn, less known. This little letter was used heavily but witbout acknowlIt was acknowledged without reservation as scripture by Irenaeus edgr,nent by the author of 2 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1-18 and Jude 4-16), 4,20.2; cf. Eusebius, H,E. 5.8.7), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. wntmg around 140(?), Otherwise, Jude is attested only late in the 1-. 1.17,29; 2.1.9,12) and Tertullian (De oratione 16). About this work the se,,-,nd century by Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, HE. 6.14. I), Terl'huratorian list comments that since The Shepherd was composed reo tulhan (De cultu feminarum 1.3) and the Muratorian list (line 68), but cently "it ought indeed to be read, but it cannot be read publicly m the geographical diversity of tbese witnesses suggests that Jude must \ the church to the people either among the proph~ts, ,:-vhose n;;:;~r have had some broad cu~rency in the preceding period, For the reo I)" is settled, or among the apostles to the end of tIme. (hnes . . mamIng catholic epistles-James, 3 [ohn, and 2 Peter-there is simply Although The Shepherd is here excluded from the lccttonarv, tts popn.o evidence for their use in the second century. They came into can' ularity is conceded, The appeal of this writing consisted especIall~e;n sideration as authoritative documents only later, and then with diffi- '\ its teaching of the possibility of repentance after baptIsm, a reladb dY culty. ,. d b Y m any in the secon . an. lenient position which was appreCIate

..:J:*'1i'

I

But just as some ~ritings which were eventually to become part of: \ the canon had not gained much, if any, notice by the end of the second ) century: other Christian writings enjoyed a large measure of early' t pop 1 ty btl \ 1 u an u u ttmately failed to gain canonical standing. . Clement: a letter from the Roman church to the Corinthian church written late In the fi t rs century, was widely known and valued in the secondhcentury and later. Irenaeus spoke of its author as one who "had' sehenthte blessed apostles and had been conversant with them" and w 0 erefore could be ld "t h h 'h hoi '. SOl a ave t e preaching of the apostles still ec omg m hIS ears and their traditions before his eyes" (AH 3,3.3). Hence, Irenaeus considered th I tt f: -th' teachi Th lee er a al lUI SOurce of apostolic even ~is 't~' etter was also esteemed by Clement of Alexandria, who It' E b'· a wnting of the apostle Clement" (Strom. 4.17), Much a er use HIS confirms the po I 'ty f 1 CI "th· I tt bli pu an 0 ement by remarking that IS e erwaspu clyreadinth in the old d d . e <'Dmmon assembly in many churches ays an m OUI'Own time" (HE 3 16) The Epistle of Bamaha I . d " . , s a so acqUire an early authority, especially _ 438, P. Katz, "TIle Johanoine E istles' h :~: ~~ Greek Original me[jtio~ecl all ilir~ee S IOn.

I

\

t

, (

third centuries, though for the same reason Christians of a more ngorist stripe found The Shepherd objectionable, .' thi The Apocalypse oi Peter was also used as Christian scnpture In ~s " d .' hi HypotYPOSe1S period. Clement of Alexandria commente on It In ~s, toned (Eusebius H,E. 6.14. I), and in the Muratorian list It iS mhen~:one 'I' th gh it I'Salso note dt at some with approval along with Reve atton, ou h" (I' 72--73) in the churc ines ' a f Our peop Ie d 0 not want' 't t 0 bead er . . of authoritative But it found its way into several later eastern lists h h s b t lnly in the eastern c ore e . ooks and seems to have een curren mal hi h h d orne early Without discussing several other documents IW 'Ac atl s The Gos. ( he Tta h' ,. the Twe ve pos es, currency as scripture T ac mg uJ ) 70 't' clear that a pel of the Hebrews, licts of various apo~~es, et~r~ v~I~:d as author· very larg~mber of early Christian wntings w h thebest known . b h d f h d celZZtu ,Am.ong t ese ,tative y teen 0 t e secon _ . s els and the letters of Paul. d b dl d 0 r our Go p an mosLIoa y use were u .' was a large step toward the d h ' f th t"l0 collectlOns an t e ,ormation 0 ese.. ' ture Yet plainly no such canon formation of a canon of ChnstIan scnp· hadwick "'The New E
69. See the remark;; on the history The Shepherd by H, C

.

'

h the ITS 8 (1957): 274-80 I d d use of these docurnent.~ in the ancient chure , see 70. For evidence on the knowe ge ani h NT A""""f'!/pha, 2 \lois. discussions in Hennecke and Schneemc c cr, ~--

J~~~:t~ni Canonb,"ITS 8 (1957): 273-74. conjectured IUne etters ut that this is obscured in the Latin

l

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORY OF THE

CANON

existed by the end of the second c collections there was wid ... entury, for beyond these basic e variation In oth ' . .. Only Acts, 1 Peter, and 1 John h d ' er writings. similarly valued, the idea and the shape of a Ch ,a . gamed a really firm foothold, Both THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES

'

The evidence for the histo of . .' \ sh~but fascinating A ' firy the canon m the third century is is 'QJ:i~ of Alexa!2aria(~~~2~~re for the ~rst half of the third century ancient church <0ri . h )k'the greatest scnpture scholar of the . ~ neit er new no dId c aut h oritative Christia .' 71 I' eve ope a formal list of conversant with th n scnptfures, but he traveled widely and was e usages 0 many church I hi c ' . . es. n IS protuse writings he 0 ft en commented abo t d cr U vanous pieces of e ar Iy Chrinsttan I'iterature an offered his reasoned . d these comments JU gments about their authority. Most of . were summanzed b E bi . Y use IUS in a lengthy section f his Ecclesiastical HisJor (H index of Origen's views 72~ . .E. 6.25,1-14), which provides a good four G~spels, Matth 'M ngen gave full acknowledgment to only . ew, ark, Luke and J h "whi h \ questIOnable in the ell h f G d ,on, w IC alone m-e UI't also accepted the"retter~';;p'hl(~ ;mder ~eaven" (H ,E. 6.25.4). He 'one acknowledged lette "0' : .6.25,,1), Further, ~'has left r. ngen was. aware aIso 0 f a second letter
f

I

fI\

50

•

~(sy~tomizes a state of affairs that was-stillrather fluid, though slightl)) \!!oredeveloped than in the time of his predecessor, Clemente>' 'Evidence about usages in the west in the first part of the third century can be' gleaned from Orfgen's neal' contemporary,<1liPpolytus' (17(}"'235), a presbyter in the Roman church, He employed as scripture .Jibe four Gospels, Paul's letters (excluding Hebrews), Acts, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation. Hippolytus' also valued various other documents, including Hebrews, The Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Paul, James, Jude, and 2 Peter (of this last Hippolytus is the first writer to show aQYknowledge at all): But Hippolytus's chief importance for the history of the canon lies in his authorship of a treatise • entitled "P2!!!!sAgainst Caius." This work was occasioned by the learned ~oman churchman Gaius, who early in the third century composed a Qialogue with Proclus' in order to refute Montanist teachings, of WhichProclus was a leading spokesman, Cains's "Dialogue with Proclus' consisted at least in,part of a close literary and historical criticism lof the Gospel of John and Revelation, on the baSIS of which GalUS) denied the authenticity and authority of both documents. This repudiation of John and Revelation was of a piece with Gaius's atta,*- on Montanism, for the Montanists appealed to both. writings)n support of their'own claims' but it shows nevertheless that neither John nor Rev\lation was so ;ecurely fixed in the church's esteem even jn the ,..earl~ird century that it could.nQ!:.berejected by an orthodox thinker.:\ In hIS Points Against Gaius," Hippolytus set about to neutrahze GaIUSs X I criticisms of these books, and in this he succeeded well enoug~ that V ve , after his time John and Revelatio~re firmly held as au.!.hontatI

':

?

72. FQTa fuller revl:~ ~e~ S Z:octrine of Tradition (Lo d dans les Cl'!vresd'o . e 0 ~ngen s judgment '. Don: SPCK, 1954) 133-45 ng ne, Bib 23 (1942); If:~~ee ibid., 127-56, and J. Ru~t ' "y -," an t'jlegomena • 1...A;:

CANON

ditions from unknown sources and also put some stock in the Gospel ?iPeter and the Gospel of the Hebrews. On the whole, _the~rigen\

ristian canon remained indeterminate.

ct

NEW TESTAMENT

I '\

I•,\ ,

IV

I

~

IJ

r

il\..the wg/ In the east, however, the authority oLRevelation remained a point of contention, While Origen had apparently accepted the book(though he interpreted it allegorically), it came iocreasingly into questIOn later on, mainly under the influence of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandna, about the middle of the third century, His concern witb Revelation was prompted by Nepos of Arsinoe, who wrote a treatise entitled "Refutation of the Allegorists" in which he rejected the allegoncal d" rt interpretation of Revelation and insisted on a litera I rea mg III suPp.° of millennial ideas. Dionysius responded with a work named On 73 ' d f h' dl t is J D Smith '·Caius.and the . The most comprehensive and instructl'"e stu y 0 t is IspIIUe. '1979) , Controversy Over the Johannine Literature," (Ph.D. diss., yale nJV., . •

THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

CANON

th t of the most im ortant rePromises," and from this Eusebius (HE. 7.25) has preserved some~ It will have become 0b vious a one . the cclesiastica t: . th history of the canon IS interesting excerpts.?" Here Dionys!,us remarked that he would n?t sources.!.orJ!l ovenng e . P I I' e (ca 265-340). In ')')t, himself reject the book Revelation since many brethren hold It In ~ btEnsebiu bishop of Caesarea~a ~~:~biUS' inquired into esteem," but he confessed that Revelation was incomprehensible to composing this work, completed about~h h d recorded mcov him (HE. 7.25.4-5). He proceeded to make many acute observations earlier usages of Christian wn itiIn g s in the c urc, .an tion of Eu-' ' t ' But here It IS a ques about the language, style, and thought of Revelation which decisively ( useful bits of evidence on t h IS 0pIC. tous d t ' the churches differentiate it from the Gospel of John and 1 John (HE. 7.25.17-27), th latus of vanous acumen s m b t sebius's statements a au es 1 bl it ess He provides a Since these insights compelled Dionysius to deny that Revelation was hi h h " Iso a va ua e WI n . =:r-, ofhis)l!Y.nday for w IC e IS a . E 3 25.1-7Cacknowledge\-"'an , " sius's hesitancy toward Revelation was not merely or even mainly a 'bDD, :l.--\ omo ogO,umenOl , f " kuowledged books _ result of his doubts about authorship. Rather, he was tronbled by the tha), and IWretical works. 76 In the category ~ ac Eusebius includes use being made of it by millennialists who gave the work a literal that is those receive d as aut horit on aI've I scnpture-" bl . [udiug He, h I tt s of Paul (presuma Y me interpretation and conjured up expectations about an earthly kingdom the four Gospels, Acts, tee er 11 th t Revelation may be (HE. 7.25,1-5). Thus, the basic considerations were doctrinal and her' f b ) 1J h d 1 P ter He also a ows a rews ,on, an ".:' . blc." In the larger category 0 meneutical, and the question of authorship was ancillary to these, In placed in this group if It seem desu~ P t 2 and 3 John, and any case, Dionysius's criticisms eroded what standing Revelation had "disputed books" he places James, J~ e f ~:~mas, Apocalypse of gained in the east, and later on, eastern Christian writers generally in addition, Acts of Paul, ~he Shep ;~el~e Apostles. Then he adds, rejected it. Peter, Barnabas, and Teaching of the bid among the disputed th h tR lation may e c asse k 1n the<;.,,~st he fate o~ was in Some respects comparable, , ra er remar kabl y, t a e':,e th that some would rec on It was more or less eOnsis.lentlv_neclecte(j..th~re until the late fourth books "if this view prevail, and fur hermokre ledged books, Judging (centu-o IS "._~ ''''~ ~ This was due in no small part to the very teaching this the Gospel of t he He brews am ongteacnow , th t I'ttle development h~a document which had appealed to Tertullian and other moral rigorists ~fram Euse b'ius s presen ta tiron, It seemsth a itiI gs placed in the " acsuch as the Montanists: namely, that sins committed after baptism taken place during the third century: hewrhIm come to be generally I " . Iythosew IC h a d t from 1 Peter an d could not be forgiven (6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:14-17), This was completely J knowledged group are precise ,. out of step with the rapidly developing penitential ideas and practices th econd century. par ~nized by the en d 0f e,' " not ained general recogmtlOn of the western church, In addition, the west had well-founded doubts ) 1John the other "catholic epIStles had g I' ed to be in an equiv, , , 77 d Revelation con mu h about the anthorship of Hebrews and lacked any inclination to attrib, even by Eusebius s tIme ; an b t Eusebius refiects ere 'd H b in the west, u th "d' ute it to Paul, as the east had done. As in the case of Revelation in ocal position (as dl e rews ber of writings fall into e ISt~e east, it was perhaps first of all the problem of content not au' the eastern bias); and a large num f h pe of Christian scnpture t ors~ip, which made Hebrews suspect. Theological reservati~ns drew puted" category. T h us, t h e qu estion . 0 t e sco questIons of authorship in their wake. As a result Hebrews was not was still a lively one with EuseblUs. b in earnest to draw up valued as scri tu . th ' Later in the fourt h cen t u ry , efforts eganf the earliest 0f th ese I.s an . p re m e western church throughout the third cen- t ~u2ryO' 3O dthm"the ) early fourth century Eusebius could remark (IlE. , definitive lists of Christian ScriP~ O~~, °gual Greek-Latin ms, of '. at even to this da h h d '. y among t e Romans there are some w 0 preserved inq;;ooe,zc~ . ah ~:ver is much earlier than o not conSIder It to be the apostle's," It was only late in the fourth the sixth century. The list it contams, 0 , century, m fuct that H b b ' t h'e west. e rews egan to enjoy general use and aUnes' acknowledged. dIsth on't Y III

2

I

or

d

r

I

vA-

I

74. C( Stonehouse, APocalypse, 123-28. 75_. It is not mentioned in the MuratOria \' ~£. 5.26), neither he nor Hippolytm sen lsti although Ire~aeus may have used it (Eusebius, S ows 110knOWledgeof it at aJl. ems 0 ave regarded It as Pauline. Cyprian of Carthage

ahd

vldes nol three but four cat~~ ument from InspJrll.llOn Most have supposed that EuseblUs1 pro f the passage by E Kalin, 1&'7) 141--55. shows that puted., Spunous, and heretical The ana: ys:! (Ph D diss., Harvard Ut;h'ree dL~SIOn.s are ill view to the Canonaahon of ~e Nt;~ Test8IJ!-~~resynonymouS, so that on y "(HE 2 23 25), he himself for Eusebiu!>"diSputed and spunous ak f "the. seven calbolic epistles 77 Though EuseblUs 15 the first t~ 3 J~hn makes no use or Jude, 2 Peter, or

i6

,t

:e

53

THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANO~

the ms. itself and wo/,:;".nbokl, f . \i?turY~)ThiS list s ~y ormulated m the east in the fourth ul th Phclfies, 10 order, the four GospelS-ten letters of Shep'h de sfevHencat olic epistles, Barnabas, Revelation Acts 'Th; er 0 ermas the A t .r PI' , The omission of Ph' 1.' . C s oJ au, and the Apocalypse of Peter. of Paul certai 1 I IPPldansand 1 and 2 Thessalonians from the letters but the l' ler am yfaccl eutal (perhaps this is true of Hebrews also) should beDC usion t d h0 the oth er documents is typical of the period." It' Paul, and ~~eeA' o~;ever, that Barnabas, The Shepherd, the Acts of ' which must indi~ate ;:~: of Peter each has a scribal ma~k before it, original list the b 1 hesitation about these Items, If not in the Claromonta~us o~ y ~ ,ater copyist. Nevertheless, the catalogue in tures." ers urty d ocumc:nts .as comprising "the holy scrip-

is

r

h

'

I

_ wntersfffce () en 0 ree. New Te;talllcnt; Codex Al=tUTJ:) mcludes both the tle ndnnus (fifth century) incfuit Barnabas and The Shepherd in 54 es Clement and 2 Clement.

e .

t

ognize Revelation, and in this his acquaintaince with western habits must have been influential. I" Alhanasius's definition of the canon for Egypt was not decisive fo-;: other I»gions of the eastern church,2"rThe practice of"SY';:;anChriSli-,/ anID, which was highly conservative, persisted on a different course. The popularity of-:tatian s i'JiateSsgrgitFontinued tbere during the fourth century, ,even when ~ separate Gospels were known. In addition to the Gospels, Syrian Christianity normally recognized only Acts and the letters of Paul, and nothing more. There was a growing tendency, probably under' Alexandrian influence, to admit Hebrews among the letters of Paul, and for a while the pseudonymous 3 Corinthians was also acknowledged, whereas the undoubtedly genuine Philemon wa~ot recognized until quite late. None of the catholic epistles had anl'-.currency in the Syrian church until the late fourth and early fifth centuries" ,and then only James, 1 Peter, and 1 John secured any standing. Tbe traditional Syrian preference for only the Gospels, Acts, and' Paul's Jetters 'is still to be seen in Ephraem (d. 373), the'-llQCtrine of Ad4>.ij35Q-400), a \;:anon list of ca. 400, and Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (d. 428). The recognition orJames, tPeter,' and 1 j..!{n is attested by' Chrysostom (fl. 380), the ~ac ~hitta list\ca. 410) and Theodoret(fl, 440), Thus, even into. the early two fifth century, the Syri~n chur-ch typically admitted.ol)ly nveniY.:.. ., r books' . The-final resolutiOl; of the many variations we have noted begall to take place in the-late fourth ce~primarily tbrough the actions of ~1,SiaStical council~ One of the earliest conciliar pronouncements is associated with the Council of Laodicea, held in 363, It apparently specified as suitable for reading in the church "only the canonical _ books," of which'.J.'Venty-silLwere enumerated, This list agrees with _Our NT except that-it omits Revelation, which is probably due to the influence of Eusebius and Syrian tradition, Somewhat less certainty about the scope of the canon in the east is indicated by Amphilochus of lconium (fl, 380), who included Hebrews in his list but noted that "so';'e mistakenly reject i't," and wbo -observe? that regarding the catholic epistles" some say seven, byt others only three, one of J,~mes, Oneof Peter and one ofJohn." As for Revelation, he noted that some receive it, but the majority call in uncanonical." In the west two North African synods of the late fourth century

t

Another early list is the so-call dC ably originated about '360 in e C eltenham- canon, which prob· Christian scriptures with th North Af;'ICa" It introduces the list of ofJohn 'I saw twe t r- e sltatement: As It IS said in the Apocalypse t hrone' [Rev 4, 10J n y-rour fe clers presen ti109 t heir crowns before the , , th ,so Our .athers ap prove d t h at t h ese books are canonieal and that e men of old have said thi "Th r , twenty-four writings' 1 .. , I IS. us, a collection 0 IS egltllTIlzedl) Ib h d statement of Revelati (II ' y an appea ot to an inspire on -lis a egoncally mt of tra d itional usage Th . erpre t e d) an d to t h e aut h orily of Pan1, Acts, Reveiatioe t~ mc:udes the four Gospels, thirteen letters too, there are interestn, ~ee etters2.fJohn, and two of Peter: Here, omitted, and after th 109 eatures. Hebrews, James, and Jud; are the mention of two le~tementf,opn of three lett~'of JDhn and again after "1 rs 0 eter the h' ' one on y," This suggests a decid' re occurs t e notation una sqla, 1 Peter, and this is' I' '. ed preference for only 1 John and , ,lOme ogmtIon to only thes tw d'wIth the ear Iy ten d ency to grant full ree' A " e 0 ocuments a h ' ,n Important document am mong t e catholic epistles, scriptures is the flii'rt' ong fourth-century lists of 6risti'l" AIe~and"na, Issued Iif, y::or;mthFestal L e tt er 0f AthanaslUs' . 367 T bishop 0r Eg yp t-dan to disenfranch' . horegul' h ' . anze t e usages of churches in rio~s d ocuments Athan Ise c. . ~ eretIcal t eac h'lugS supported from spu' "GIl....!>y tradition ~nd belaslUsdsetforth a list.'of those writin.gs "banded dl d '. leve to be div' " ' ". y ,Detnne IS proclaimed" H" me, and m which alone the uthoTltative exactly the t' IS ISthe first'list to narrie-as ex~e1Y At anaslus was---'--~ wenty-seven booh..which k M ~ '0' U
7~'C'..oclexSimLiticus (fQurth

CANON

}

decisi ....e even for Egypt, as shown by 8. Ehrmall. l'he Test3.Inent Canon of Didymm th,e Blind," VC 37 (1983): 1-21. 79, Athanasius's list was not altogether

55

New

-,

I;r

III

I

Factors in the Formation of the Canon

promulgated lists of authoritative boo:sH::eE:o::::Ao:::p:A~:~ an 2- d the Council of Carthage (397) both named the twenty-seven books of our NT. But they still distinguished Hebrews from the letters of Paul, speaking first of "thirteen letters of the apostle Paul" and then adding, "of the same, one to the Hebrews."80 The way for the admis- > sian of Hebrews in the west had been paved by Hilary of Poitiers (d. 366), Ambrose of Milan (d. 397), and Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), all of whom used it as canonical while nevertheless regarding it as anon' ymous. Clearly, the western recognition of Hebrews did not depend on a persuasion of Pauline authorship. But with the Council of Car, thage in 418, Hebrews was finally fully integrated into the Pauline collection; and its approval by Jerome, who was much under eastern II influence, insured that it would no longer be challenged in the west. \ '" In sum, the writings which found the least and most hesitating '\, recognition in the ancient church were James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Their status was almost everywhere questionable before , the middle of the fourth century But also the acknowledgment of I Hebrews and Revelation was fitful and uneven, and the acceptance of Hebrews in the west and of'ilevelation in the east did not become (~ _ firm until the late'fourth century. A broad uniformity of usagewhicifl ,. \ closely apllroxirriat~s Our NT cannot therefore be dated before tbe close of the fourth century, and even then tbe-sy"i-ian church lagged , r.t"elimd. . It needs to be emphasized " however- that this emergent uni-' /.U Orrrutv was fundamentally de facto, for no ecumenical authority of the ancient church ever rendered a formal decision for the church at large as to the exact contents of Christian scripture.

f

80. On tile varying

W H P Hat h "Tb

133....si. .

A

regard

~

p '. or

H b

e rews an

c. ' e OSition of Hebrews concIse summary or the evi(]ence

d !

I

Its p acement relative to the Pauline

I

etters,

'"

]

in the Canon of the New Teshment " lITR 29 (1936: is given by B. Metzger, Text~;l Com;nentatlj, 661--61-.

f \

. circumstances, and historical A complex interplay of Ideas, f of Christian scripth ncept a a canon forces conspired, to create e co, . [' its development, aud to d direction a I h tures, to influence tl ie pace an th the existence and the c ardetermine its contents, Apart from ese, d acter of the NT are hardly to be understoo . INTRINSIC FACTORS .' Th [, ith of tbe , Ipturul relIgIOn. e a Christianity did not begin as a send c 1 'd on a person, Jesus of , , k rl by an tdcuse . th earliest Christians was eva eq, d t I written texts but 10 e no Nazareth aud he was apprehende d d,n n Messiah and in the ~ '. 'fi an nse , . preaching- about him .as the eruct e . The immediacy of Chrisf Chri (" n commumty. d charismatic life a the rts la, h t I gical hopes rna e super. d h [' of Its esc a 0 0 here han experience an t e ervor .' ltings and t ere :IS. DO . ' f Christian wn I hri ' fluous even the composmon 0 , d the idea of C ristian .hurch entertame h I intimation at all that t e ear y c f h Therefore the NT as we ' a tern. , , scriptures much less a coIIocnon '-d f ""e first generations , fJ the mill s 0 til think of it was utterly remote rom L'

of Christian believers, Ch ' ("anity had called into service -OCcourse, almost from the start . n'h' as the propbetic witness · . terpretmg t em h J wish the scriptnres of Ju d alsm, m fulfillment.' Even so, t ese e of which the Christian fmth was the d th Christian message; they eate expreSSion. 'Thus scriptures only suppa rt e d and confirme .' d , the ' uwe It a equ , 'ty was did not constitnte its baslS or did t mean that Chri'llam .h 'ptures no Christian use of J eWlS sen . . The Sub-Slrndun
odd According 10 the Scnpt~d~ New Testament 1 Among many treatments. see C. H. ~ N~bet & Co., 195~); SCM Press, 196~ r:1 New Testament Theology (~n on:l:r:;eOIdTtsfamentq.u~¥hensuse of old TUt4=t iN.c.: Apologetic: The Doctrinal Sflgthm)'~I'dT~stal)1entin the !'Jew,.~ ed. J. M. Efird (Ihtr , D. M. Smith, 'The Use o.J.e . Hono,. of W. F. Slinespn , New and Other Essays: StuaU1S In Duke Dnlv. Press, 1972), 3-65.

esX'

f t

'h.o~doJ):

57

FACfORS IN THE FORMATION

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

OF THE CANON

l'

sociated use of these different bodies of religious literature led over or would become a scri t I I" aft that there should also be ura re igion er the pattern of Judaism, nor timeto a scriptural estimate of Christian writings and to their grouping did it suggest the ti e d,fstmchvely Christian scriptures-just as little as a counterpart to Jewish scripture. Eventually it promoted the belief L no ion 0 a canon of Ch . ti . -b--l' scriptures of J d t., h ns ian writings, ecause tne t~t these two groups of scriptures,' however different in origin and . finitive and clo~e~smllt e.mseJves had not yet been shaped into ade· ~nt; shared the same authoritative value for Christian faith, But co ectton The appeal t J . h scri h - gh very important in earl Christtani 0 ewrs scnptures, t ou these were gradual perceptions, and they took effect only in conjunctian needs. The I rtstianity, could not finally suffice for Chris~on with other influences on the formation of the NT canon, Jewish writings w egi of the Christian interpretation of these could not be take a: c a engedd and repudiated by Judaism itself and EXTRINSIC FACTORS n ror grante ev itlu th h a its missionary effo ts . d en WI III e c urch. Moreover, as [ Amongthe varied forces which impinged on the history of the canon, . r s carne it well bey d th fi . dai found it on e con nes of Ju aism, Ch nstianity a special significance has usually heen found in the theological contromost responsi ve constituency ' wh0IS Were often ill' among Gentiles versies which engaged the church during the second century-namely, immediately presu acquthalntedwith the Jewish scriptures and did not Marcionism, Gnosticism, and Montanism. These need to be carefully eir authority I thi to present Christi met hi . n is context it was diffi . cutI assessed. and appeals to SP":ci~;~1m~hon the basis of Jewish scriptures alone, needed. y rtstian writings were more and more S' h ~aTcionism mce t ine aChristian meaning partie I communit hi . y I0d ged revelatory and redemptive i/ Marcion was one of the most imposing figures of second-century . d, it was essentialu th ar t istorical Christianity." A native of Sinope, a city of northern Asia Minor on th e no th h person an d' a specific historical pofigure of Jesus and th a e c urch should always hark back to the coast of the Black Sea and the son of a well-to-do shipowner, Marcion 'ndispensable reco e events of his life, death, and resurrection. This ~came to RQwe ,bout'140 and there became a teacher and lienef;;-tor urse was ~1' theRoman cburch. of apostolic preaching . d provid I' i e d at first through the direct-WitQfss When about 144 a dispute arose over Marcion's"r ti me, t h e demise of theana os a ively oral t ra diti t hing, he and his followers separated from t h e Roman ch urc h and i on. But t h e pa~s~~ f , ~ac both led to the cornu 'tI! tles; and the dissipation of oral tradition ( !'t~b1Tshed a vigorous movement based on his own particular concep. of . .' . d an lmportance as mean""OSIIOn -f ~. Christ' Ian wntmgs and elevated their ~n of Christianity. Marcion taught that Christianity compme. d " ,fr , ~\Siy.e event:i..!lf..it:s 0., sustammg th e ch urc h' s relationship - ~tq,..t)1e utterly new and unparalleled revelation given by a dillerent and h Igh er ~ CO uId b e maintaineds olJlQ!!s.After a p om, , t h owever, this relationshi~ God than the God of Israel. The Christian Go,d h e mamtame .' d , was reliabl stood relatively close to the y ~nly through written testimony which] a god oflove and mercy, whereas the God ofIsrael was a god of justice besaid that the valuati'on Pfenod of revelation, 4 To this extent it may and vengeance. As the former had nothing to do with the latter, so . e ve1Opment of a canOn of 0 certal C th e h' n wn 't'mgs and even the eventual aIso Christianity had nothing to do with Judaism, an d t h erelore d herent' m t h e very nature ofaut ontativ 't' h h M . I ted the Ch' . .e wn mgs were .tendencies inscripture of Judaism had no place in the cure '_ arClon oca ChThu~, ~e sCriptures of Juda7:lIamty, . ~ue Christian teaching in the.letters of Paul and the GOSl!-el of Luke, .nsdihamtywere read togeth . m hand hterature produced within believing that Pa!!!J1lon_ewasa f~ful apostle of C.!Y'stand bad alone IS -a n0 t presume Or impler thIn t e co nt ext 0f Ch ristian worship, d· .. _. I H fully edIted these Th '. ll!Epe the essence of the new reve ation. e care mspIred an d oracu Iar charact Y fathChr,'st'Ian wntmgs ,. ' . ~"""lt' possessed the wntings, removlllg supposedly Jewls aau tera lOns, an d set them up 2 A C er 0 t e JeWish scriptures but the asas the exclusive resource and standard of Christian belief. Thus, the on

.t~~rCY

• = ~ • ~

•

..'2L

I

r

~26P;~}~01!l6.1' !:;;.~~~,~:tT~~""nt oftheE." Ch ili:~

'

rr

,1/" first known

3. See'th ·tundberg, "The 'Old res~e O.Jd Testarneni of ~TS 10(Ca~bridge: Harvard 4 W e scussion by Campe ha ent: A Christian Ca .. tfBy C urch, HTR 51 (l955): "77' 'i,G. Kummel, "NO"_"gkn Format;~ "i-I........ non, Q 30 (1968): 143-65. ... -..;> . • .. ,,001 elt. usen, und Gov,., '" ~ v:.:.. rem:c des ncutesta . rnenthchen Kanolls, ZTK 41 (1950}; n

I

t

canon af Christian writings was the creation of Marc, a twofold structure: Gospel Bterature an

d

and It was characterized by

5 In d BI km ·I.,~.n and H5SInfluence (Londoil <.'-' ClOer neuen In terpre -ti" SPCKa dl'-'O ~,n t0 Harnac k' s M arcton, ,e e ,1'0 E d C"M a.c an," V such .... on, ZTK > 1948), the recent appraISals by,~ Al~ n , A ;~st.Hanl.ack Perspective," in Tnta 70 (1973). 420-47. and D Balas. MarctO Revlslte 4nd Testaments, 95-108.

aIClit

M u',";:

THE NEW TESTAMENT

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

CANON

r

apostolic letters. ~ugh Marcion and his teaching~re_guid!v" ypud,ated as heterodox,historianS-of the canon nave often, supposed that.Marciog. had a.decisive impact on the .forrnationof the NT. In) '\ particular, It has been argued that Marcion was the first to conceiv,! and develop the ,d~a of a collection of authoritative Christian wri,tin~ an~ that the catholic NT came into being as a reaction to Marcion an III tmitation of him: «The NT is an anti-marcionite creation on a mar- cionite basts.:" Is this high esti;;;ate of Murcion's role warrantetIr The chronological priority of Marcion's canon is of cours ::rudiS' putable: nothing like this precedes him. But the cimmt5logic~1pre<- ( edence of Ma ., h -. ~ .. rcion s..canon as to be distinguished from the.questica _of Its mfluence on the church. This influence has been seen in several ways' ' th oug h t to h ave posed an inescapable neces. . Marcion's cano n IS sity for the church to counter him by fixing a canon of its own' Marcioa supposedly provided the stmctura! principle of Cospel-Apostleon which the .' s use 0 f' Paul s letters IS . seen as , th cathohc canon is b Ul'It ~ M arcion

!~

OF THE CANON

result of historic usages in the church. Thus, the evidence ior Marcion's influence on the history of the canon, so f~r as it is merely ~umstantial, is not very strong. But evidence of a documentary sort as also been suggested, This consists of the so-called Marcionite pro-

logues to the Pauline letters and the so-called anti·Marcionite prologues to the Gospels. '!1>~old prologues to Paul's letters have commonly b~e~ regarded as Marcionite n-tliegrounds that they presuppose Marcion s arrang~men of th,; letters and reBect Marcionite theologicandeas" Their prese~ce in- ~ number of Vulgate mss. of the NT is often alleged as proof of Marcion's impact on the catholic canon." ,!Jut this argument has become increasingly tenuous. Marcion was not the only one III the ancient churc who had Paul'S letters in this arrangement, and the peculiarity of this arrangement, which consists chiefly in putting Galatians first is more likely to result from an effort to offer the letters in chronological order than from a dogmatic bias of Marcio~ in favor of Oalatians." In that case, a major argument fOTa Marciomte ongm e I~ause of the prominence of Paul in the canon of the church (which of the prologues is lost, In terms of their ideology, the prologues cou not afford to honor Paul less than Marcion had)' and the church was compelled to co mpensate M'arcron ,s one-sided emphasis , I b . on Pau -, contain elements which seem typically Marcionite but nothing that IS . defimtely y mCBorp~ratinga larger and more diverse number of apostolic writ- [ Marcionite. That they ca11Pau I" t h e apos tle" (as if he were ings. ut m none of th ti I " , the only one) is due simply to the fact th at th e pro Ia gues are concerned I " fu . h d h ese par ICUars IS It clear that Marcion s canon rms e t e cause or h d . fl only with his letters, And the stereotyped references in the pro ogues by M . did even a any in uence. The fixation of a canon . h d ot necessarIly betray a 1h e :cI~n I not in fact lead to an immediate or concerted effortTv (' to Paul,s opponents as Judaizlllg teac ers 0 n . . II as compo-f eturc t°aldelimit its OWnauthoritative literature and the numiW' M arclOnite mind-set; they may Just as we b e un derstood d" tt't de O ." d ti-J alzmg a I u " WrI Ings v ued conti d J '. Slhonsof a catholic writer who assuredly ha an an u k I h t th Furth lth h - nue lor a long time to be large and flUId, . 10 't " st unli e y t a ese er, a oug the lit ". ' but no Marcionite sympathies. Hence, 1 IS rno ,- fl first cl 1 . erary conJunClIon of Gospel and apostle IS . 'fy Marcion 5 in uence on ear y seen WIth Ma' h d al th rolo ues are Marcionite product§, o~ ~Ignl apostle " rClOn, t e u appeal to "the Lord and e s was current well b f, h' . d the shapinl£ of the cano)). -;---", G I have someexpression in th h" .e ore IS tIme and had already wun The so-called nti- arcionite prolog'!J'S t? the ';',spe!t Marcion the collection fep ~aluallon of the traditions about Jesus and i' . ., to. oner in the catholi a au s etters. Also, the prominence of Paul's letters times been regarde as e'!1'Y composItIOns '!Lme d~ J -Gospel h b h fashlOne Its ,our c canon probably --.., "I'-I' -th h' . h-s been disfact that they h db. OweClItt e Or nothing to Marcion; 3 ~ l\!IdJhus also as evidence tbat t e_c urc . b' I B u t 'S VIeW a I Marcion thel"raab edenavaIlable in a widely known- colle;,tion before c~lection in direct opposition to 1m. -' un anceand' d" ~ -----. de dently alleged hyp, de_1kufr:;" "Pro: ative P;lUcity.elf otller a .m "putable au~~city, and ilie.n+ ( 8, The ~arcionite. character of th.ese.,prologues was7)l~ l~ and P. Corssen, Zllr Uber fi ~~d would be esteemed . d P2st~'.s WrItmgs ios..w:edlba Paul's letters logues blbliques dorigin marciomte, RBen 24 (100. 36--45- 1he case has beep.fa n - k . 7 geschichte des Romerbriefes:' Zl\T\V 10 (l~l: 1-45. eSPio den Paulusbriefen, K1)~that the catholic ca m epen ently of Mardon And finally, the fact restated by K. Th. Schafer, "Marcion und dIe altesten ~n 7Mtinster: AschendorfJ, L973),.1 nOn came to have b d, .

r

r

'f.

C 1.U

no more adequately ex I'

6 HarnackM .

P ame

d

rDa

er scope than Marcion s IS

,

as a reaction against Marcion than as a

~er~\ a;lOll. 444·, ef, 210--15 and 0 ' . les origines dJ ca::~Jl;,~arcion, 1~; 'and the NT, 30-35, 57-60_ Similar conclusi()ll5 7. See above, 41_~1.n otestamentaire," MPH 46 (l~~~':W~Hon,148-63, and "MarciOIlel

c~t:J

1II

Festschrift). Quasten, cd. P. Granfcld and J. A. J~ngrn~ in Vetus Lanna. Aus der ~esc~~te~" 9. H. J. Frede "Altlateinischen Paulus-Handschriften'd "D-e Oronung der Paulusbnefe, 295- wteini.rehen Blbel4 (Freiburg: Herder, 1964). 171-78, a~, d-77 10. N. A. Dahl "The Origin of the Earliest prologues, '"l" RBen 40 (192B): 193-21~i ll. D. de Bru~e, "Les plus anciens prologul_es des Neuen Testaments,

I~ilr~:~~:df:fiid~ng

fIl:1dAdolf SPAW.PH

Harnack, "Die altesten 24 (1928); 322--41.

Von

Evange

lCD-

00

61

r

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

r

esoteric traditions

credited in recent years, Unlike the prologues to Paul's letters, these Gospel prologues do not constitute a unified set but were composed at different times and from different perspectives; they do not collectively possess a specifically anti-Marcionite intention; and it now appears that these prologues derive not from the second but from the fourth century, by which time the controversy with Marcion had anI antiquarian interest. 12 Therefore, the alleged "documenfary evidence for Marcion's . /I 0'1 contributes ---. . III uence actual y__ nothing to the circum-

-

-

stantial evidence

canon was created

is not yet any unantnury . . among rna d ern scholars about the . There unportancs of Marcion for the canon of the NT. Instead oTiheYiew that he originated the idea of a canon and provided both the stimulus and structure of the ea th 0I'ic canon, SOme have expressed the more moderate opinion that , th DUg h M arcron . was not a crucial factor, he nevderthelesshastened the development of the canon causing the church to 0 more . wou Id eventually have done ' . quickly wh at it anyway. 13 But ( even this modest trib t b ' . t k u e may not e Justified since it is not POSSI lble .at nd~: whether the process of canon forma~ion would have moved a a inerent. pace had th ere never b een a Mareion. In the absen£1i0 f

i

..... istronger th hi evidence ,ISIt i gratUItous to see In Marcion e tstory of the NT canon.

_n

OF THE CANON

not accessible

outside gnostic communities.

It may

b;u:,mjectured, then, that the fonnation ~e canon was a calculated effortto oppose these tendencies, on the onejIand by rejecting gnostic !iJy~ture, and on the other hand by affirming the sole authority of l.!2.adlyrecognized.apd publicly ;U;cessible,documents embodying aI!ostolic and catholic teaching. In fact, anti-heretical writers of the late second century do make this sort of appeal to Christian scriptures. '5 As useful as this appeal may have been, it does not show that the

-

.

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

a decisive factor (

~

Gnosticism

with this end in view, or even that it was entirely

serviceable for this purpose. While gnostic groups did produce their own literature, they also made full and free use of those early Christian writings which were in general esteem, The difference between ~ostic Christianitl( and the church at large lay less in appeals to different ~ngs th;rt';n different hermene;;tiCalapRroaches toI;;uch of the same literature.l" -For this reason the anti-heretical writers were seldom in a Position to reject the authority of the writings used by the gnostics but were constrained instead to urge an alternative interpretation of it, Consequently, the formation of the canon could not by itself have been an effective anti-gnostic stratagem- But having said this, it also has to be noted that exegetical recourse to Christian writings in support of theological argument was early practiced by gnostic Christians and possibly even originated with them, 11 Tbis gave positive stimulus to the valuation of this literature and so at least indirectly to the process of shaping the canon.

Beyond Marcion aI t th h h ( was engag mas roug out the second century the churc illustrious e -mhcontr.oversy willi gnostic types of Christianity and Leir teac ers. Although g t' Montanism .. almost as old Ch nos IC varieties of Christianity were Along with Marcion and the Gnostics, ~~m_has also been as ristianity itself th d C chised and II II . ' -!'.Y were progressively ise)ll@" seen as a provocation to the formation,.of the NT 18 This movement an "orthod ~athYriepudlllted as Christianity became consolidated into llow~ in.As"Ia Minor soon after the middle of the secon_ century _ ox eo ogy It has oft b was forged .'. en een supposed that the N canon under the leadership of Montanus,' who claimed that the Paraclete <, _ as a weapon IlL the /I' .h ~ consiCleratio . CO~ let Wit Gnosticism. Her twO promised by Jesus in the Gospel of John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:12-15) -. ill come into play F' and valued . ...., Irst, many writings were produce ~ -III gnostIc circles d t~h h-~ no~ come and..!..through Montanus him~ If an d h'ls~p-rophetic asliterary resoorces of ,u mg t e second century, so that the gnostic Christia 't d h t h ase of more conve t' I h m y were mOre abun ant t an 15. Irenaeus is an excellent example. See Cllmpcnhausen, Formation, 185-209. hASt d ' t'" 16 h P tt if Christian Trot: u Ym n lona c urches 14 S ""'d' ' . t1c . C:rant, Formation, 121-30. H. E. W. :rumer, Tea em(~ndon; Mowbray, 1954), 180-86, o f gnostic Christians t .' ~, It was charactens Relations between Orthodoxy and Heresy the Early Church h nature and results of gnostic a support thelT teachings by appeals to special, 232-3~; Hanson, Tradition jn, tre Early Church. 197-zgl. ~/TheGno8ticPaul(Philadelphia:

a.

' '"

tIC

In

12. J. Regul, "Die antimar' .. der latei'li8chen Bib I 6 ( C!OnLhschenEvangeli I ". 13 E ·BL 1m e Fretburg: Herder 1969)enpro age, In Vetus Latina. Aus tier Geschichte . .g., laC Ian Ma . ,. ClO Westminster Pres '19Si 'l. 39; F. V. Filson Who h . 14. For gIlOr C~ . . ' 120; Kiimmel, "Notw'end'; .~OO~ Belong ,~o the Bible? (Philade(ph~ and J. M. R~b%s nstlim literature, see Henneclc: 1 el un CreOle, 23S. on, The Nag Ho.mmadi Libran an~/chlleemelcher, NT Apocrypha, 1:231-62, .I. e.... ark: Harper & Row, 1977).

iN

62

r l

r

in

Fr

;:egeSlS, see esp. the studies of E. Pagels, The !ohannme f ~spel a ee the careful discussion ill Rens~rtress Press, 1975). But f6r the ~nostjc interpretation 0 au, s rger, "As the Apostle Tea'ches," 134--49, 218--63. 17. Grant, formation, 121-24. ha Fonnotion 210--42· H. 18 S h k a ., .1' the NT 34-39- Campen usen, C· 32 (UhSI P , 1 ee, ~m?ng at ers, Harnac, ngJ',l OJ fij' J: H ~usbilaung des Kanons," V : au sen, Ole Bedeutung des Montamsmus r Ie e 19-52.

63

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

l

CANON

sociates, with chanwas offering ti thnewan d final revelations to the church, Speaking isrna ic au ortty th -were at hand ad' , d' -e_mo~ment announced that the lastdays n mststc on a st . -I' . - view . of impending( judgment a d I' nngent mora ity in _had been tyn, ;.atlOn, Such apocalyptic fervor and moral rfgiirlsm the lat PlCda eatures of primitive Christianity but the churchnf e secon century h d dId ' elements and t a eve ope well beyond these aborigind ( moun ed an ti , teachings This energe ICcampaign to discredit Montanis

s;

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

OF THE CANON

to have been focused in the problems of written versus unwritten authority or of old versus new writings, Furthermore, the church did not as a result of the Montanist

crisis confine inspired revelation to

the apostolic past. Both during and after the heyday of Montanism, the activity of the Spirit in the church was fully affirmed, and even anti-Montanist writers laid positive emphasis on the prophetic charisma and so did not think that ecstatic prophecy and authoritative writings were mutually exclusive sources of Christian teaching." For

, . with the ea I' was t h no heas'y task, smce Montamsm claimed continuities these reasons Montanism cannot be deemed a crucial factor in the mesr cnurc dr I' no new doctrt , d' ew upon ear y Chnstian writings, declared ~IDng.2f the canon, It highlighted some re ated issues, such as the { nnes, Roe an proved t b WIld e Iy popular not only in Asia( Minor but also' nature and meaning of historical tradition, the relation of past and in orne and N th Af ' OQ-iliehistory of.the ,or rica. The effect of Mont;yiliJJ1 ) present revelation, the authority of certain documents (Jobn, Revethe prophetic oracle;:~o~ ISu,su.:illYlodg$ i.7"~}oints, fjr.,s,b since \Jation), and the prerogative of their interpretation.'2 ut there is no compiled in writt s: ontanus and hIS followers were sometimes r .s.'l9.i-eyidence that it called forth the idea ot",dosed canon of scrip~e. "--,.,,,,_. --_..-.it d as authoritative, the church had to disclaim thes I en b rorm ' a n d CIe value, Second e d r specifying which writings did have authoritative Even though a' special and determinative impact on the formatiou '~' ,an more Important b and continuing revelati ' ecause Montanism asserted new ( the NT canon cannot be assigned to anyone of these second-century revelation was co fi dlOn, the church was led to insist that inspired controversies, their collective importance ought not to be underestiapostles-and thatn neI to an age now past-t h e age of Christ and the ~d-:- n;;;(Jfverse conceptions of Christianity exemplified in these on sue ' binding force By II: r h teachmgs as derived from that time had movements required their opponents to define more exactly the sub, '. ca-~mg0-forth thiIS reaction, Montanism supjJosedlY precipitated the stance of the Christian confession, to specify its proper resources, and ' of a cIose canon to which nothing newlSI ad mlssible ThusconceptIon ' to safeguard it against criticism and deviation, The tendency to ascribe ' , Just as Marc' , f ' th e idea of a cano dr, IOn IS 0 ten credited with conceiving( authority to certain traditional documents and to make argumentative n an lOrCIn . enlarge the scope of it h' g the church, in reaction to him, to\ theolOgical appeals to iliem was an important part of this effort, But 'd ' Vlewe as later fur ' Ih'S aut hontatI ve SCrIpture, so Montanism can be this was not effective apart from the concurrent tendencies to for~ . msmte" authontative writings, g opposIte Impetus to limit the scope of) mulate Christian belief in concise and summary form and to lodge the prerogative of teaching and interpretation with authoritative eccle• ThIs assessment of M " " MontaiHsts eomnposed-2.l!.tam~s lmR.0rtance is very doubtful. If the siastical officers. 23 colle crIOns-f0 t-heir- oracles -and perhaps Some other works 't wntten d scnpture or iliought Iof thOes not seem th at they appealed to these as Other Factors had a general and longst:~t' supplementing Christian writings which .Many other factors also played a roleJn shaping the NT, though it dId not reject writings h' ~g authonty,I9 Certainly, the Montanists is not easy, to g~uge their importance, So, for example, the 2Efnions employed them to sup W t I~ were generally recognized but freely re~,cted theologians (wheilier or ;,:ot iliey happened also ~o be cannot be said to have Pp~~ kondtanist ideas,20 Therefore, Montanism bishops) were often widely influential, Stnking examples of thIS can acter of Ch nstian ' ' on the normative charJ writings vo ( e au em p h aSlS be seen in such figures as 2rigen'and Athanasius in the e~ern church n fact, arguments about sc ,as opposed to new prophetic revelations), t 21. Kalin, "Ar!?ument from Inspiration," and J. L. Ash, "The Decline of Ecstatic prophecy in the a remarkabl y small role innp ili ure hand I arguments from scripture played Early Church,' TS 37 (1976): 227-52. e woe confl'Iet w h ase issues seem nOt 19. Cam.

l

0:.

a

S (

o

•

'

'

r

•

'0(

22. Paulsen, "Die Bedeutung des Montanismus," 32-52. . t 23. Ine formation of the canon as such could not be a decisive res~nsc, since the .mtos p~:dmg question was not which writinWi were authoritative but, rather, how they should be 18 erpre . !?4. K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament CanOn (London: Mowbray, 1962), 20-2.2.

J

Veny ., s~nhausen, FOnnatk>n 2' 20' v ~ (l968): 317-20. ' 27; F. E. Vokes, "The·

_ Paulsen,

Die Bedeutu

d

fig

64

. Use ofScnpture

in the Montanist Colltto'

es Montanism.u s, .. ""4-J2. ,,,, "

r

I

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

l

FACTORS IN THE

FORMATION

OF THE CANON

.. d ffi I" g the scope of the canon. an Jerome and Augusti,;el'n the western. For the fortunes of some authority of individual writings an a na lzl nt . a closed collection, .. . I I iti ate to say tha as individual writings (e.g., lk;;cl,;tion, Hebrews) the judgments of such ( In this sense It IS entire y egr im f hi h othing may be de, thinkers were crucial, even though in the whole process of canon b dded and rom w IC n to which no th mg may ea. official decisions of the church. formation the ideas of individual theologians were not conclusive. Again, leted, the NT canon IS contingent on I t I separated even the history of the canon, like the history of the ancient church gen~ly, the history of the canon ca~n~t beiJor;~Ke ::':"ufacture In the ~. erally, shows the effects of the political rivalries, cultural differences, ¥rpm so ordinary a matter as t e 1St ry . . Ch .stianity made use and theological orientations of the great centers of ecclesiastical mfluancient w;rld.28 Virtually from th begm ~I) But t e codex ence: above all, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.25 The theological ( ~fihe c--;;-dex (or 1e:J'bookj rat er than the ~o . (or tS'croan'd not yet well ----..-.,..,... ~ hi g fan mnova IOn conservatism of Antiochene Christianity and its bent toward a literalwas in the first century som~t m a small and long remained quite historical type of interpretation are symptomized in the narrow, highly developed, so that ItS capacity was d auld not contain more hi t a gIven co ex C traditional collection of scriptures which persisted for so long in that limited. So long as t ISwas rue, 1 the letters of Paul or h everal Gaspe s or h region. Conversely, the open and speculative cast of Alexandrian ( than a few writings, per aps s '1 h fourth century that t e Christianity with its commitment to allegorical exegesis is reflected in other small collectiuns. ~aa not;n~. t-~pahle-of containIng the the rich trove of early Christian literature valued in Egypt. As in technology of bookmaking pro uce co lc es c not a mere coincidence, _. . It is pro ba bY l doctrinal, so also in canonical matters Rome generally charted a prag- ( -'-whole of the Christian scr!I?tures. -2., . I fi d content only when ~.1-.. T . d a relative Y xe b matic middle COursebetween these extremes. Further, some ime:'tus !berefore, that ..g~e..N acqurre . th various writings to e to the production of lists discriminating be~een authoritative and codices became large enough to permit I etse ical factor both con-) P I b k Thi IS mere Y ec hn . I nonauthoritative writings is perhaps also to be located in the chUrsh'S'?[ transcribed in a sing e_ 00. d f th first time gave tangib e experience of persecution, which often involved the proscription, , tributed"to the stability of the canon ~ . or fethese writings from all (r~quisition: ~nd: estructr;;n of Christian scriptures by local or provin- form to the collection and differentlatlOn 0 CIaI authorthes. Such situations may have prompted the church to' others. ward decisions about which books were to be held sacred and retained [ CRITERIA OF CANONICITY . from the authorities and which ones might be surrendered without , . d bted to many contmgent bl~me. And, so,far_as Canonization is understood strictly as the £leter· If the formation of the NT canon w~: m edom process. The church mmation of a fixed and closed list of authoritative scriptures, offifjgl ( historical factors, it was not a thoroug Y rfa~tsliterary and theological !£!JfJ!!!.stical deCisions rendered by bishops Or councils must be-given th i also engaged in a re flec tive evaluatIOn . d a 1 nts as specia 11y3..!!.....'!!:their dueY "'e do 0 t'"KIlOW0 f any sue h d eCISlons .. . to teas h I I cume ,. l,¥ ~ pnor heritage and in setting ~part certam - °B se these pri;;iples were , . . 'ples ecau ...".- . .- half of !he fOJ,lr!b.,g;m.ur.y,by ~h;ch time. many documents. had b.een tative it appealed to certam pnncl. ~ 't ' Cll to assess !!teu m such long and w'd ~th ~ >--= ~ fi , . consIstency, I IS t . I e Use at an othcial decision could only con fro not invoked with g~at ng~.Q!. h and there is disa eemen standmg practice. But this was not true of all documents which found ~h 'a of actual effects on t e h'J> t a of- t canou, f so' ~n 'tyr~ a place m the canon and '1' . I . t ..---" . ;mIlor nee a h thO king . , ' ecc eSlasbca pronouncements were IllS fUtoday a out t~>anl.!}g_ 9..[ . d t ominently in t e 10 mental in bnnging so .. r C zg.;;jh . . that figure mos pr me wntmgs to lUll canonical recognition-Jor canonici . T e cntena ~ --- h if th Codex (New York and examplef' Hebrews in the west and Revelation in the east. The J·udg· d T C Skeat, The Blft 0 if :he Early codex (Pbdaments 0 eccl . t' I h 28 On thiS, see nowesp C H. RO~~~ En G Turner, The Typology 0 eSlas lea aut orities were more important than this hoW· London Oxford Um" Press, 1983), 77) d bel der Blldung ever, b ecause they had th f ' th delphia. Umv of Pennsyl"anla Press, ,~9 cler Sammlung und AUssch~heUd!clsive critena II1 . e errect a concluding discussion about e Leer (Pnn:nptel li d lOSplrahon as pIe was van

l

o

ll~'-

!l.

e

IT'

25. See esp. H. Lietzmann "W' d . wur Kleine SchrifteFi 2, "Studie~ ZUt~e N e:r dIe Biich~;r des Neuen Testament Heiligc Schrift?" in Verlag, 1958), 15--98. euen estament, cd. K. Aland (= TU 68; Berlin: Akadelllie26. cr. W. R. Farmer, Jesus and th G .. tress Press, 1982) 177-259 He he oospel; Tradition, Scripture and Canon (Philadelphia: Forformation and sub~tance of the ~ owever, goes too far in finding here the b8.'iic motive for the 27 5 dber ' non. ,un g, 'Toward a Revised History," 461.

(

( f

I

29 So, e g , E Flesseman 404 20) speCIfies aposta CIty an 330) thlOks the mam prmcl: ~shlp des Kanoos," ZTK [1964] enhmlsen (Formation, nod closest to Chnst, autb o. the west and east, ....-espedl"ely, Camp must deTlve from the pe 15) suggests that [0 the hlstor' chronologlC:al, so that authontatlve d(;~~lem of the NT canon~~~ les .. -The most tborou~l~he~ playmg no I~portant role, K the p~1Dclple of ha"mg n~ PB~ndung des netltes~'hn WQher of the canon one can speak on -H Obhg, Die theo/.ogtSC I 1972), for a summary, IS of the cntena of canontClty l~A~n (Dusseldorf Patmos- er ~~o). 59-91. Karnms in d€,. alten Klrche, K (Dusseldorf PatolOS-Ver g,

11~f k

mmmt die Bibel thre Autuntaf?

k

67

THE NEW TESTAMENT

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

CANON (

of the church were apostolicity, catholicity, orthodoxy, and esta~lished usage.

-

-

~

Apostolidty In popular Christian thinking, the apostolicity of the NT writingsis us~ally taken to mean that they were actually written by apostles, but th " IS an madequate conception of this criterion as it functioned in t he ancient church . Certai -, - the am Iy> some writings were esteeme d m fi;m conviction that they had been composed by apostles. The Gospel b Matthew and the letters of Paul are good examples though it would e wrong to think th at even III in tth ese cases apostolic' authorship was t.h e only consideratio n. Oth er writings -, ' were received as authoritative m the frank recognitio th t th h d -~ d' .. -------:c,L _ _~n_ a LIley a oruy an 10.irect ctmnection-WlUl apostles. " Here one m ay th'-IIIk 0f~Mar k and -- - Luke, whose apostolicity ,' ~d was envative through as iati ith P Still h ' _ socia IOn WI eter and Paul, respective Iy, I ot er wntmgs fo d th , '-'. ~.---:--_ _ UO __ ~ay mto the canon in spite of large uncertamhes abont - thei 'h~_~h' , , '--30 eILaU-'.!!!lLll!lp,Hebrews and- Revelation being cases inhiPOInt. And som e wn itimgs w hiICh explicitly ' , claimed apostolic au th ors Ip either failed t ' (Th Teachin of th ' 0 gam canonical standing altogether e were ac~owle~ ~~elve Apostles, Barnabas, the Gospel of Peter) or ude) Ob' Ig very tardily and with hesitation (James, 2 Peter, Jthe d, " VIOUSY ' then , ap os t 0I'ICau th ors h ip was not the only or even ecrsive question in det .. th ' also clea th t ' _ errmmng e status of a document. It IS r a apostolicity w t di I' authorsh' I c. as no pre icated exclusively on aposto IC ip. n ract th~n t" I " d and could ' ~sto ic was ver much broa or connote beyond d' t I' b followers 01ap tl' d Irec aposto ICauthorshi ,authorshi Y -t-,

"

or even slIlll

os es.

erivation

om the

ener

time

0 t

( (

( (

(

( (

a ostles,

~e a~olic tea~~i~g,;~;r.;::t of con~e~t with what the church too~ to otapostoliCity t lit refore, It IS mIstaken to con ne ihe1
--

--- -- --

-- (

30. When Hebrews was canonical standin ~n aCa:'cptedin the west it w . . denial of its apos~l' couraged the assumption ~ Pa ll:5 VIewed mostly as anonymous, but then I~ standing in the easr authorship did not cause him ~line.au~orshiP. As for Revelation, DionysiU~1 310M' . . 0 reject It but did subsequently undermine liS . 1& D~ theologische Be 32. Ibid., 92-93 152-56 (U k.grttndung, 57-156. , r 1rchlichkeit).

68

OF THE CANON

Catholicity Also considered was the criterion of catholicity: to be recognized as authoritative, aJiocument had to be releYant to the church as a whole and even so intended by its authol',33 Strictly understood, this meant that writings addressed to limited constituencies and not to the church as such were of questionable value, Odd as it may seem, the letters of Paul, though indisputably apostolic, were problematical on the score of catholicity, since Paul had written to specific local communities and not to the church at large, This difficulty was still felt even at the end of the second century.P' Of course, virtually all the writings which now stand in the canon were, in fact, composed for special groups of recipients and therefore fell short of the ideal of catholicity, but this was not always obvious to the ancient church, and even when it was, other factors could outweigh the want of a general address, ~~rk in the use of this crit
---

--

33. ibid., 225-32. 34. See above, 45 and n. 62. 35. Ohlig, Di"" theologische Begrundung, 17o-~. . . S--12) urge that the faith may be 36. Both Irenaeus (A.H. 3,4.1-2) and Tertul.ha ~r~sctP~ff;Uth ., without recourse to scripture. adequately known and held simply 011 th~ .bas1.s ,:e eChun:h: 75-129; r. N. D. Kelly, On the rule of faith, see Hanson, TnwltlOn m t 1960) !/62-99' J. Mitros, '''rhe Norm of FRIth m Christian Creeds (New York: Harper & Brother5, , , the Pab"istic Age," TS 29 (1968): 444-11.

d lEa~l

f

r

~a"~!1

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

OF THE CANON

in a circular argument: writin s were accepted as authoritative if they tried to determine whether a writing had heen in public use in the _ conforme to the rule.of.faith, and the rule of faith was validated by clmrches from an early time. 40This criterion was not, however, defin_appealing, among other things, to the authority of some of the same ltiV~: many ocumeD§: whidI.. m~t~ adequately were no .admltted'into the can--;'n (e.g, T';~Shepherd,TClernent:T e Teaching wrifings, 1t is symptOilliitic of thiS(nterplay th,rttbe criterion of or, ~es), while other writm~ing..l.Q.IJ,gslanding.a.r!d tliodoxy seems never to have been applied to such literature as tbe ~ncy nevertheI2!ffi3ld~njcal, cognition, alth~ugh letters of Paul or the Synoptic Gospels, The reason is that these bad heen valued so long and used so widely that their orthodoxy could tardily (e.g, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John), I~eptiQns, only be taken for granted: it would have been nonsensical for tbe ( r the canon which eventually emerged does offer a good index of the earlY Christian writings which in the first several centuries had conchurch to have inquired, for example, into the orthodoxy of Paul! If, sistently claimed the attention of the church precisely because those as the church believed, its tradition of faith derived from the apostles , t ' , g and guldtng and was therefore really "apostolic tradition," then that tradition could writings had beeu found useful in nurturing, sus amm , not be sharply differentiated from writings which were also believed the faith and life of most Christian communities, it should be clear that the I?!inci~s of canoniCIty adduced in the to be of apostolic origin, Thus, the criterion of agreement with the :-~ cnurcn were f'l!.th of the church was used rimarily in connection witllWillrngs ancient numerous ~d'lVefse. an d broadly deEned, that whose .r-r It , -was ~IeU,:-:J' maIn y as a thei~lication was not s stemilic ~r thorou h1 consistent and that ---,- aut on''''y ' remaime d--uncertain,, ana negattve st d th ' f bi ti So a document WIthout h _T~;:-:,,"an,,,,,,,:,,a,,,,r _ra er Jhan.-as a_pp~tive ~ argument.31 Very many UY. were used in a variet 0 com ll!a2Q!ls, -:-------:">' , I ' h ' t ' early Chnsttan writings were impeccably "orthodox" yet did not gain a cIaim to apostolicity (at east In t e stnc er sens es) could nevertheless on the basis of traditional usage, But candidacy as canonical scripture (or, if they did were not finally can' ( be approved as authoritative onized}, , di , III a tra itional use was no guarantee 0 f canoru'cal recognition and , number of cases did not avail for or against. Whereas pauhls letftehrs Traditional Usage they fell far sort 0 t e h ' I . . ( Were apostolic in the strictest aut ana sense, Even more importa n t was t h e criterion ' ' ideal of catholicity, Such variations show that the criteria °hfcladnomc~ty of traditional usage t hat IS, h h e out ror wetera· cl ' h id e al s WhiICh the church are more representative of tel I I -h' _pveD...! pl:!!m~d been customarily emll.loyed in !1w itings themse ves. n s Ip and teaching f th ':l::2r f th' -I' , h scripture than of the actual c aracter 0 e wr d ~ cath I' it 0 e anous churches, as Unlike aRostoliCIty, , n, and ortho oxy were ,_Olcly,an Or 0 ox ukh ./~~ ~ f ( Earticular the PrIDciples of.1lpostolicity, ca th 0IlCI'l', -f I .. v 'a "1,h ' , ~~ch Dertain to th internal character 0 -" than-meaos 0 e... a Wntmg, t e pnncip e of t d"t~' I "'. ~ les.s.-tha..effective reasons for cano~recogmtIon . -.~ '/pra~ r f fa 1 mna usage capitalized on ttre stanulog ..1. ., Lattach r1 t ~rtain-docU1llents -lll-V-l e _ c Ices ot the church Of ~g.the-authorit7'--t,",e:; ~e im ortance of early tI'm b d' course, Christian writings had from an e een rea al 'd h f !l.UheirJongstanding illie_b.y_the. chUI.Q.h,1herefor""h' ld Pt be overworship Wh'l h' ongsl e t e Jewish scriptures in the setting 0 t. 1 h'ISt ory 0 f the_ canon s ,-ou no sQc,LpriO,ciIIle.s_fQL,the.actua such wr:t' let IS practice did not in itself presume or imply that I mgs were can ' I ' estimated, fulness conl' d Olllca, It was a tacit recognition of their use~ ,, lerre on them ' d the way for th ' a certalll authority, and ultimately pave e canonIzation of f th 39 f h Inspiration d bo case, the criterion ft d" Some 0 em,' In the nature 0 t e . .,: emarks must be ma e a ut -- -~_ 0 _fa thanal llsag ...l~.1_ '-y Before concluding thIS d,SCUSSIon,S,ome r , f th NT writings is unt! [ the third and C h e 'A,......llotsome express y mto p a --lOurt centur' h h h _-r:-: 'ns iratian. if only because the speCIal authOrIty 0 insnired.41 some retrospect on't les w en t e c urch was a'5Ie to nave ~ h ;:;;;ma--rtrn:nlie are um ue =,I S own custom Th' f ' II prominent i~ d. s, IS sort 0 appeal is espec13 Y ( so 0 tell_ye£ende>! on Le gro1!!'~ I' ved that th;-Jewish Scrip~ WlUle the ancient church certainly be Ie ~,an even more in use iu who consistently

l (

l

r

J

"-::-'1

/'

37. Ohlig Die Iheolo . h 38. Ibid.:

269--95.

gl$C

e Begrijndung,

d'· . th Early Church, 215-21. d 40. On Eusebius, see Hanson, rra lhon In e . In irillion of Scripw~e: !1'O~lerM an 41. See the excellent discussion by P. Achteme1er, T;~tes ~at, so }Oflgali ins~l~afjon IStakenth~ Proposals (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980). He that not only the writings but also be coterminous ....ith the canon, it is nec1eshary were "inspired." long process of canonization and the 6ua s ape 0

195-97.

~9. Ibid., 296-309. On th . . hvres saints du Nouveau T:s~~~fiCt~ceBihofliturgical reading d J n, 21 (1940): 378-405: .. Ruwet, ':Leeturc tihlrgique et

t'f :h%~~~n

r

71

�._.

__

.,

~

--

.. .,

......

_.~.

-

_._~ .......

"

t

,

THE

r

_~_,

..........

_

... ~ .... _

,._---------

•• __

....

,

NEW TESTAMENT

'

CANON

1l l

tures, and above all the prophetic books, were inspired, ~ at first make thii-claim for Christian~itings, But as Chnslla~ngs [ _ wer"-.!"ad a!oJlgillh:.... the.... ] ewish.scriptures and increasingly seen asa "oun~rpart to them, it becam~ ever more c'!.stom.... ary, beginning about lhe--,,!!tlof the second centuD'~ to assert that Christian wd!ID~re ~o inmired-:-42Nevertheless, in the deliberations of the ancient churrh about the authority of its writings, we )l,~_where.Jin~f .-lnsPiratiorW>einl<...us~~4'f...9.is~~n, 43 hter~ , aeu;:e~re~~ the early church, @cl'y a few documents expliCJtl)( ro~Q.e!..~: ~cept~f scripture a'!9 olfu!:ed no leverag"..o,! the..!luestion o~ a~t~ont~oLvan~us writ" gs. ~~ and ",:a,s used ~ dlstmgliIsh heretical from orthodox writings: heretical writings were/

-

,

•

IV The Interpretation of the New Testament as Canon

f

.2i.!!le

"y


church, But msplrat n coul no be used to dillerentJate orthodo, writings into canontca an noncanonical categories.:" It has been properly noted that "this state of affairs should warn us against any definition of the nature of Holy Scriptures where 'inspiration' so over' shadows the process of canonization that the latter is dismissed by a general reference to the providential preservation of twenty-seven in' spired books ,"45 .The N~iti.!1gs !lid not become canonic.>!1becanse they.... ~et:.e believe!!.\.o b.!'..'!n.!9ue~spiredfTathe1:l th~y were judged to be InSn' d b h h -.... .... ..-:----r tth _,~",JJ:!O ~~'Y ad prgyiQusly commende
for othe.!, more

in

The inteI"Q!!JtationoLthe NT is normally under~t

t

now, therefore,

---

Com'brnC~ou

1. Among historians

r

to r~flect on t e c

-

of Christian scnptur~

-

THE CANON AS A HERMENEUTICAL CONTEXT " , b' ct of interpretation, it ISlmportnnt Although for us the NT is an 0 Je t t' Tbe process of inter. , 'tself inte re a lon, to realize that the NT 15 mI. h composition of the wntm-gs pretation was _ ~ d y at war kmtevery . eral way as the b-'asle • -. ~ b th ught of m a gen k inc1uaed in it and may e 0 I Paul in his letters see s ,, So for examp e, motive of their composItIOn., 1) h t 'ed to trace the consequence of the formation

72

t

i.ndi~jd!Jal(~o.cllm~r:i:Q:~~~:t7:: ~nSt~xts

fixea collection

articular and practical rw.QPS.

'

, t~nsl~_

the interpreiilion of the ied in and of themselves and With a VIew to g ld ration of their lth little or no consi e and inherent meanings, b u t \Vl I' Ivi w this is a thorpomt 0 VIe place within the canon. F rom a historica I d 'thin ' tl tting of these acuments WI h oughly legitimate approac , smce ie se beari the recovery of ' d d has no direct eanng on th e canon 15 secon ary an , ght ot to be confused their original meanings, Nevertheless, this ~~h ;T as such for the (as it regularly is) with the interpre;,lion °h e sum of its parts, , hi b h and dinerent t an the NT 15 somet mg ot more , I be equated with the and the meaning of the whole may not mp ~ The NT is a canon, cumulative meanings of its constltuentt e:~n ~;efully studied indeand though its contents are necessan be full understood until it is pendently of this fact, the NT WIll,not r: Ytchie~l through ~is ob ective li~s'Jn~o!!.-'n1£!!~~~:",,-::,:,;e I d d a so un erstoo as fa~a1.n't of the""'';non, thougl,._th_a_t is_in_diW~a reconstruction 0 t e 15 on:..g , must also be..e.v.aluatedl-Itl£ sable; the consequences of that.h!sto~ -h haracter of the NT as a necessary

42. Hanson Tradition' th E l 'h t J. ( Christian d~trine of th I~ ~ ~r!l C urch. 211-13. For Origen's role in the developmen 43 K St d-'I" e inSpiratIOn of Scripture, see CampentlUusen. Formanon, 315-26. _.I . . en ""I. ApocalyPse of Joh "243 -~ 245 Th full ked out allU connrmed by Kalin "A t fi. n, .; ~L . is thesis has been y wor .. A Glance at CanoIl Hi~toryrw-ad~ 4~o('i911)sPlrahon,,, summarized in "The Inspired and the Christian Doctri~e of I . .7 ;.542--49. See also A. C. Sundberg, Jr., "The BI e 44 Kal' " nsplration, Int 29 (1975)' 352-71 ( . tn, Argllment from Inspiration" 2.'30-39 . . 45. Stendahl, "ApocalyPse of John," 2,M-45. .

oo.d..

of the canon

of the canon, but

0h~y 150

;;t'rlo(theN

k(O'

H'amr:~nts com

as n

oIlfY marginally

relevant

here.

73

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

to interpret the primitive . .. Ch ristian confession for Gentile Christian groups, andf th the author of M ar k zi pretatio d gives a disti istmcttve theological interIna etraitionsab tJ b' au esus. SlIC I1 early writings as these in turn ' the subie Internretati Mecame, tth , ct a f in erpretation in other writings. Thus, a ew and Luke may . lvy bee vi visio f th . appropnate viewed as interpretive reo elf sources ' inc 1udi10g Mar,k and the pseudonymous Paul. Ins a me etters areI m their vanous ways interpretations of Paul's teachmg The v the NT does not consist from first to lastof wha:e::tg~~Pb es shllo'd.:hat e ca e primary t ra diti the NT I IOns"" or primary texts " . rather, and

l r

r f

l

i

er

Ingful appropriation by ~~e y . ecause they lent themselves to mean' CirCumstances.

nstIan communitIes

in later and different

r

But if the NT writ" the mgs are int y were valued and preser derhPretations of prior traditions, and if ve trough an ongomg . process of inter'

74

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

r

AS CANON

pretation, then it must also be emphasized that their consolidation into a canon was an event with far-reaching hermeneutical consequences of its own. In the nature of the case, canonization entails a

II

recontextualization of the documents incorporated into the canon. They are ahstracted from both their generative and traditional settings and redeployed as parts of a new literary whole; henceforth, they are known and read in terms of this collection. In this way their historically secondary context becomes their hermeneutically primary context. The consequences of this shift for the interpretation of the NT writings were various but momentous.

Incorporates various stages of tradition and interpretati~n text

commentary. Each d ... ' ' to apprehend and ada ocu~ent was 10 Its ongmal setting an effort Th pt tradition in a new situation e process of interpretatlo k howeve th ' composition f th . I n was at war, owever, not only III e [ They themse~ ese writings but equally in their subsequent histories came into broad use an d zai c: they were sus ves tibl game d aut h onty so rar as cep 1 e to approprt ti . I d their persiste t aI TIaIOn In ater situations and so prove { . n V ue to the chu hId d hei . . umg reinterp t ti rc . n ee t elf capacity for conunauthority whi reh a IOn was d the necessary can d ition for the rehgious c accrue to the .. f b seen as scriptu d h rn, in virtue a which they came to e did not simplyre an idet t en werer rnad e part a f the canon. This authontr were understoodresit e in the do cuments b ut d epended on what they for example P 1,0 lmean by the communities which read them So, , th e presumption ' au th s etters . d as authontative onIY on ( h could b e receive Particular circumst at t had relevance and meaning bevond the pel of John did tances.o the churches addressed by Paul. The Gos' no acqUIre any b roa d aut h ority until the church fouod a perspechve by hi h w IC to comp t a Iong with the more tra dI' b . . re h en d It ti OnaI Gospels (i .e., y vrewmg it "th th aut IIOrity of Revel t! as t e spiritual Gospel"). And e .m d e b ate, at least a1 IOnwas much d' d th lspute so long as its meaning was I I'f' It were a11ego' n e II' eastern ch urc h',ItS authority could be granted Ony fore a function of the'ncat y interpret e.d Re I'Igious authority was there' th at IS, . of interpretatIOn m eractlOn b ~tw een t h e texts and their readersF cannot finally be di'" '. Or thIS reason the history of the canon uerentIated f th h' canon consists of tho' .. rOm e IStory of mterpretation. The auth on't ative esteem se wntmgs pre' I b whoIeh came into traditional use and

THE INTERPRETATION

For one thing, the formation of the,

canon served to obscure its own history and to relativize the historical and particular character of the texts which belong to it. Once the collection had come into being, it could be taken as a thing in itself and considered independently of the forces which led to its creation and independently of other documents which, though having close historical or literary relationships with the canonical documents, were not included in the canon. Furthermore, the creation of the canon had a leveling effect upon its contents: within the canon each docu-> ment appears to have the same status and value as any other. Although canonization marks out a clear boundary between the writings in the canon and those outside it, it signals no distinctions among its own

contents and indeed militates against them. pie, within the canon 2 Peter and Romans standing, even though in the precanonical remotely approximate Romans in the extent

Consequently, for examappear to have the same period 2 Peter did not of its use or value in the

church. More important still, the canon creates a presumption of unity .. and coherence among its contents and inevitably encourages a synoptic

reading of them. Thus, the canon operates to refocus the meaning of individual documents, as each is read with a view to the others and in the light of the collection as a whole. This has two broad results. On the one hand it works to minimize the meaning(s) peculiar to particular texts within the collection and so to mask differences or' incongruities among them. On the other hand, it generates a new, range of meanings on the basis of the intertextllal relatIOnshIps estab· Iished by the canon. Since the canon has such results, It cannot. be regarded only as an anthology; in its actual effects the canon IS a hermeneutical medium which by its very nature influences the un· derstanding of its contents. The hermeneutical fo:ce of the NT canon is not, however, merely tacit or fortuitou.s. It IS als~ mti~ated by formal features which characterize the discrete collectIOns Wlthm the 75

THE

NEW

TESTAMENT

CANON

canon and S f h by the st rue t ure an d contours of the canon as a whole tIlese aspects of the canon deserve special notice. . e co ection of four Gosp 1 d I promise which the . e 5, as not.e ear ier, represents a comideal f . I ancient church devised to mediate between the a SlOge self actnaloavailabtlit f -consist en,t th eo Iogica IIy ad equate gospel and the at an inclusi yo many gospel-type documents. The collection aims respectth~s:~:: not ex~austive witness to the Christ event. In this themselves h o~ ~ntinues along the path of the NT Gospel writers Jesus in eac 0 w. om brought together diverse traditions about or er t0 provide fuller an d more pointe . d portrayals of him. But in anoth h of the G el way t e grouping of four Gospels violates the intentions ospe writers each of h I independent and If' ffi . w om apparent y meant to offer an duces a prin . I se f -su ctent account. In effect, the collection introGospel is de cip edo fmutual correction and limitation whereby each out by the pepnveI' 0 pre-emine . nee or comp Iete va Iidity. This is borne cu rar way m which th h c d to t h ese writings: all four were sub. d d . e c urch rererre was designated :u';;.e ~n er ~:mgle heading, "the gospel," and each thor. That. s e ospel according to" (kata) its ostensible auIS, none of them w gospel" pure and' I _ as un d erstoo d to be or to contain "the ·mdividuality of th sImp e.. .If m thi s fash'IOn b ot h th e commonality and I' 1 re Iahvized in relatiese wrtttngs are affi rme d , t hei elf va ue IS neverthe ess ·itse If. 2 Hence th IOn to I each othe r an d III - re 1ation to " the gospeI" , e gospe messag ("th • anyone Gospel do bee gospel ") is not reducible to their COrporate WI'tcume,nt ut stands beyond them as the subject of ness As a II . •_CLea!ivetension with - h co ech~ then, th<:...Gospelsstand in a fourfold Gospcl:!t'-.!'!!L..9..!Ju,-l;: !IJlli'ad of four GOSpels -t1iere lsa ___ _ . seems clear fu th h _-A.~~'..;;..:;:.:.-~ ception of this colle ti . r . r ermore, t at at or near t e mof it c on Its rorrn was t a ken t 0 b e an essential corre Iate · 1 S proper understandin ( mg and authority were g Irenaeus), such that theological meandocuments taken by th emsel in the collection rather than in the single provides a critical pri emsIe ~es. Thus, the collection by its very form, mClpeJ~ . . ' Something similar can be Or ItS lOterpretation. belongs to the NT-th 1 t said about the other major collection which The e e ters I assumption which prom t dofthPaul_- th oug h for different reasons. etters-namely, that in sPit~:f e crrculation and collection of Paul's and value for the chnrch t I theIr partICularity they have relevance a arge-was gi. Thus the . Iven expression in an early,

0;;:' 0

l

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

[

perhaps original, edition of the lellers which presented them as letters

{

counted individually and the collection was expanded to include fourteen letters (two times seven). Thus, the hermeneutical intention of the collection is embodied in its outward form. But more than this,

to seven churches, the number seven indicating their universal pertinence." This connotation was not lost even when the letters were

the Pauline corpus, even in its earliest known editions, incorporates

d

[

l l {

t-

vari ' _.1 anCient church {)Us Oluers are attested' Was relatively indifli 3. See R. Morgall "Tb HIn the early period. erent to the precise order of the Gospels, and , e ermeneuti IS' . ca Igruficance of F 76 Our Gospels," lnt 35 (1981): 376--88.

THE INTERPRETATION

[ r

pseudonymous lellers which interpret Pauline teaching. Recognizing this, the historical-critical effort to lay hold of Paul's teaching attends to the authentic letters alone, and properly so, since the historical Paul is certainly not identical with the canonical Paul. But this distinction was not drawn by the ancient church, which esteemed Paul precisely in terms of the sorts of universalizing and ecclesiological perspectives that gain their clearest expression in the pseudonymous letters, and not in terms of the radical and mntroversial aspects of Paul's teaching that belong to the authentic lellers. Thus, in content as well as in form, the collection of Paul's lellers offers guidance for the theological interpretation of the apostle's teaching. From the point of view of the corpus and of the canon in which it was included, the meaning and authority of Paul for the church are not contingent on individual letters, nor even on the authentic ones alone, but inhere

in the collection as a whole. Unlike the lellers of Paul the catholic letters had very diverse individual histories and were brought together as a discrete group only in the fourth century. Therefore, in spite of the close literary, historical, or theological relationships which exist among some of them, the grouping of these seven lellers is artificial- But it is not arbitrary. The significance of this collection can be inferred from an early arrangement which, with one change, subsequently became standard: James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude- Tbe rationale for this order appears to lie in a correlation made by the ancient church between these letters and Paul's reference (Gal. 2:9) to the "pillar apostles," whom he names in the order James, Peter, John. Since Gal. 2:1-10· and Acts 15:1--35 were read as proof of the agreement of the apostles and of the unanimity of apostolic preaching, the gathering up of these "catholic letters" and their use alongside Paul's letters gave documentary expression to the idea of a corporate and unitary teaching deriving • from principal apostolic mentors.5 The formal legitimation of the col4. See above, 42. 5. See esp. D. Liihrmann, "cal. 2.9 und die katholischen Briefe," ZNW 72 (1981): 65-87.

I, THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

lection is derived from Paul, but at the same time this collection serves to counterbalance the imposing legacy of Pauline literature, both implicitly and explicitly (cf. James, 2 Peter). Here, too, then, the signif· • icance of the collection goes beyond the meanings of the individual documents within it and is a function of its form as much as of its contents. The larger structure of the NT canon was not given along with the documents that were canonized. It had to be created. But since the • canon is for the most part a "collection of collections," the larger struc-

1

ture ~~the canon w~s ~ainly a matter of arranging pre-existing groupS of writings, and the options were therefore limited. Even so, the shape ~hich the canon assumed deserves comment. Ancient lists and edittons of the canonical writings almost invariably placed the Gospels

first. This priority owes nothing to literary chronology but is due, rather, to the pre-eminent importance of their subject, Jesus, who was . the focus of the church's faith, its point of origin and persistent ref· erence. Moreover, the tradition of his words and deeds had served fr~m the beginning as the primary authority of the church's faith. T erefore, the primacy of the Gospels within the canon had ample Jn~tification. But it was much less obvious how the other collections might be arranged > an d some vunattons . . ful were typical as the canon took Iform. In some early lists and editions of the NT the catholic letters preceded the lett ers' 0f P au,lb' ut followed in others. Acts lackmg a . Iace ill any of the I p ' Hrst wt arger coII' ections, was most closely associated at rst with the cathoh Itt' h k hi IC e ers, eit er preceding or following them, Th e elYtty0t IsllassOciation,and also the reason why Acts came into popU an at an and eve til' ua y game d canonical standing lies in the use maeo d f Actsbegi ' . t hi'e ate second century, It was a helpfuI d . mung m acument for demonst ti i'un't f tl .. . ra mg over-against heterodox movements the 0 Ie prrmttiva ch urc h an d t h e consensus of its apostolic lead ers, andI ythus i b s in su stantiating th I' f d f apostolic tea hi C e c arm 0 an original, normative bo y 0 C relation with m,~ onsequently, it was most naturally brought into tolic figures Bur ngs purportedly deriving from those original apos. u ,SOonenough th e same I' f Acts as a front' ogre led to the placement 0 isprece to the e ti di Paul's for there It n Ire range of apostolic letters, inclu 109 , gave a pe ive f h be read as express f r~pechve rom which all of them mig t Ions 0 a umtary t h' f I and Paul, In its st d rd ., eac mg 0 the primitive apost eS an a pOSlho 'th· h plays another and equall' n WI m t e canon, however, Acts between Gospels d y Important role: it provides the bridgework an apostohc letters, By its content it is very well

78

1

I I

THE INTERPRETATION

suited to this purpose because it explicitly correlates the teaching and authority of the apostles with Jesus himself and emphasizes their foundatioual importance for the church. These features allow Acts both to warrant the standing of apostolic letters within the canon and to articulate a rationale for a hipartite canon consisting of Gospel and Apostle." In this way the principle of apostolicity, which had been invoked on behalf of these writings during the earlier period, was finally built into the structure of the canon itself, so that the substance of the canon' gains legitimacy from its form. This survey of the more prominent formal features of the canon and its component collections should suffice to show that the canon is a hermeneutical construct not only by circumstance but to some extent also by design. This design urges the coherence of the several collections within themselves and with each other and so promotes the • interpretation of each text with a view to other texts. In this way, the import of single documents is qualified and revised by the larger w~ole, while at the same time the larger whole gives rise to new meamngs, " through the textual configurations created by the canon, Thus, the ..,-' canon itself is a locus of meaning. The me~ning which accr~e~,to a document within the canonical matrix, Its canomcal sense, IS not necessarily identical or even continuous with its intrinsic,. hi,storical meaning but sometimes exceeds or even contravenes the slgm6c~nce a document can be said to have in its own right. For example, since

the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were composed together as a continuous

(

narrative

in two volumes, it does not seem that the author

meant to write a Gospel in the same sense that the' other Gospel writers did or that what we call the Gospel of Luke is rightly part of the fourfold Gospel. The separation of Luke and Acts in th~ canon violates the author's intention and confers on each part of hIS work . d ' h did t 'gl'nally bear. Likewise the meanmgs an

l

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON

functions t ey

no on

1

'

canonical presentation of Paul's authentic letters in the company of pseudonymous Pauline letters, with the wh~le fra~ed ~y the leg~nds about Paul in Acts and by the catholic epIStles" Inevttably qualIfies Paul's most incisive ideas and obscures the partlculanty of hIS hese cerns. Nevertheless,

,

Juxtapositions

the "canonical

.

f

sense" which arises through

t

md

' g which belongs to the NT an

is a dimenSIon 0 meamn

is specifically characteristic of the NT as such, that is, as ~anon, If the canon does function, either by circumstance or eSlgn, as a W F

Stl/: Fo~tr:S~

6. On the significance of Acts in this r(epga.rl~1 and Canon," in Parabl£s and Prese,u;e 'hi aue pia.

k "'The New Testament as Tradition preSS, 1982), 179.

79

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

hermeneutical wh th dr, framewo k Iit iIS a d'£!" itterent and more difficult question • predicated to what extent the interpretation of the NT should be canonical on ItS character .as canon and should attend to specifically th me:,mngs, Historical criticism has traditionally disregarded e canon fa r th e mterpretation . , of individual documents, and this di as Irrelevant d . of historica,slr:gtar IS for the most part legitimate within the objectives 7 But' In recent years t h ere has been a growing interest' m erpretation th I' the church~~h t e ref,evance of the canon for the use of Scripture in biblical theol a o~ theological exegesis and the articulation ofa criticism " h ogyb' IS Interest, which has gained the label "canonical s: with the , OTasb een . pursued so rar aImost exclusively in connection ut III markedly d'£!" ' chief exponents, B, S, Childs and A itterent ways b y Its interpretatio f J, " Sanders, Childs has argued that the theological n 0 scripture ought t d h b " I • (canonical) fo "f' 0 procee on t e asis of the fina m "full canonl'carl to a"glven text and with persistent attention to its texts in the c con ext Th-that' IS, th e way t h at text is related to all other the basis a d anon. t h us ' the .'l't crary context of the canon is rnade n ouc stone of ' t' I historical context f th In erpretation, rather than the origina focused not on th o fi eI'canomcal documents. 8 Sanders, however, bas 'I context of the doco· ments but npon the na rorm and fixe d canomca e process of can " hat I cal dynamics by whi h hori ,omzation-t at IS, the hermeneutl'' lc bnt were time d aut oritative traditions were not only stabilized , anagaInr'dd • written, in order to k' hevise an adapted, reformulated and re, ' Circumstances of th make I" them freshl es y re Ievant to the ever-changlOg e re 19IOUS co . H ' a ~atter of discerning the h mmu~lty. ere canonical criticism IS WIthin the canon d ' ermeneulical processes lying behind and , . pnatlon.? Differentan .USIngthe th m as para diigms for its modern appro, as ese prog preclation of the rams are, b oth urge a renewed apcanonlOrthetkfh' Th e question of the h as 0 t eological interpretation, scarcely been raised fo ther~eneulical significance of the canon has _ r the N'p III terms of the perspectives employed

ri,

I

I 1

I I {

1

I ,

l'

I. But note the sensthl ~.h'tler to Overbeck ~nli~,gs of L. E. Keck "Is of the canon BaCk£ S~cotJd CenturY 1 8. Childs's position is sk even o~ historical criticism.

and

Importance

d~~ Iestament Field Study? Fr 1 : 1l}.:.35,He rightly comments the -. ~ew

a

ofll

of

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

in the canonical criticism of the OT.lO Yet those perspectives cannot have quite the same force for the NT, chiefly because the history of the NT literature is much less protracted and complex, For the NT documents there is less distance and less difference between early traditions and their final textual redactions, and between'finaltextual redactions and the formation of the canon, Hence, an emphasis on the "final form" of a text (Childs) or on the long and varied history of the adaptation of tradition (Sanders) has considerably less relevance for the NT canon than for the OT canon, Nevertheless, canonical criticism .. has rightly called attention to the fact that the canon as such constitutes a vehicle of meaning and that the meaning which belongs to the canonical context needs to be appreciated in itself if the nature of the canon is to be fully understood. While it is important to recognize the hermeneutical aspects of the canon and the meanings which accrue to the texts as a result of their configuration within the canon, it is by no means clear, as some advocates of canonical criticism maintain, that only the "canonical sense" of the texts is relevant for theological exegesis or that the canon as a whole provides the proper context for interpretation, The canonical sense of the texts is only one among other senses which have a different oJ basis but belong equally to the canon." Each document in the canon draws upon and to some extent reproduces traditions, whether oral or written, which were in themselves authoritative for the Christian communities that cultivated them, and the meaning of these traditions had nothing to do with a larger literary context, still less with a canon of scripture. So far as such traditions have been absorbed into documents which later became canonical, those traditions comprise a level of meaning in the canon but one very different from the canonical meaning, Beyond this, there is also an authorial level of meaning in the NT, and this consists of the meaning we can ascribe to the intentions of the writer of each document, This must be distingnished both from the meaning of such traditions as the author employed and from the significance of the author's work in its subsequent canonical setting, Yet another level of meaning is provided by the church's I1Ilderstand-

011

1970) and is fully repr~s:~~~e~ m ~\isBiblical Theola' . roort~t~sPress, 1979).A scr~ III ~IS lntroduction to e1~~nTm (Philadelphia: Westminster Pres', un mjSOT 16 (t98O) and'~s 0 Critical appraisals t I estament as Scripture (Philadelphia: 9. See J. A. Sand T IfI HBT 2 (1980). ,oget ler with responses by Childs may be L'~ Th ers, orah nd ' 1 e: e Nature and Fm .U Canon {Philadel h' ~~l:it~ ArcMeol~~~ni~fMtheCanon," illP,W:~~~r~s 'pr;hss1972); , idem, "Adaptable for r ar en City, N.Y., Doubi'd,? ofG. E. Wright Jt'F e Mighty Acts of Cod: Essa~d . e y &: Co., 1976), M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, ail

flo

p~

THE INTERPRETATION

.add

53i-'60: .

;"g,

[ r

J~bJ!{~u.

10. Ret.'ent studies along these lines include R. E. B~~, The Cn:tical.~~ani3f oft~ YQrk: Paulist Press, 1981), esp. 23--44; J. D. G. D~~':1'. Leved"CofCan2°j"51 Asell. Outler 'Th~ 13-60; R. W. Funk, !be New Testament as TroiUltl';lrt: an w • anon, - " , 7lts Logic of Canon-Makin~ and the Tasks of Canon CritIClsm, In Texts and T.edame , ed, W. E. March, 263-76. See also the appended note. p. 92 below. 11. See esp. Dunn, "Levels of Canonical Authority," 18--27,

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

ing of its scripture, and this ecclesiastical level of meaning is not neeessarily to be identified with the traditional, authorial, or canonical meam~gs which may be assigned to the canonical writings. Indeed, it IS not ~nthe canon in quite the same way, for it lies in the interaction between the canon of scnp . t ure an d t h e ongoing _. life of the Christian . , community 12 Amo g th I I · n ese VarIOUS eve s of meaning it is not obvious th at. t h e canonical sens e h as, or oug h t to b e granted, ' any special pre:m~nce, let alone exclusive validity, So far as it is distinctive, the R ~mcal.sense does not spring from the intention of any biblical writer, aflter, It arises through the collocation of diverse texts and what it rehi ects h b above all are th e h ermeneutic. al perspectives of' the church w ~c rought these texts together, drew a boundary around them, an pr~V1dedstructural relationships among them, The canonical sense 18 not th this reason to be either minimized or absolutized. To the extent di t . at the form of th e canon preserves and promotes a way 0f ~eahmg ~ts cohntents which accentuates the meanings they had come 10 _a~e or t .e church, it surely has relevance for the tasks of theeogica that first Yet it was not the form of the canon or' the canonical sense, t at rst el t d h ' scripture but th eva e t ese particular documents to the status of in s . II .e meanmgs that were attached to them individually or rna groupmgs d urmg . th e ear Iier history of their interpretation and u d h se, an t ese authorial I meaning s b ore a muc h cIoser relationship to the sense. n any .'case th e canomca . I sense of any writing is not someth - th mg at can be isolated £ ' hori , 'f ' is distinct it i rom Its aut anal meamngs: even 1 It , I 18 not mdependent s: it I fr tween the t t d : ' JOr I resu ts om the interplay beTh Iorev an an aadeouate hermcneuti of the can ex an Its b context ,ereIOre, equate hermeneutic on cannot indiff criticism. But I hi e precriti _ ica IIy m irterent to detailed historicaI ' ing of the NT a so, ith Istoncal criti cism cannot full y explicate the mean' Wl out attending t th . canon. 0 e h ermeneutical import 0f t he

Th

h

e t eologlCal problem of th hermeneutical iSSues Ide canon, though not unrelated to the on the question' Ho adrea y dIscussed, is focused more specifically , . Woes the NT mative authority fur Ch . t" canon possess and exercise-IIGfns lam!}'? Th" I pose d both by investigat' f' ISquestIOn has been inescapab Y h-ISt onc . al exegesis of th IOns 0' the h'18t ory 0 f the canon and by the e canomcal t ex t s, I t h as become the subject 0 f 12. See esp. Brown en!" al

82

THE INTERPRETATION

lC

Meaning, 34-43.

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

heated controversy in recent decades because it touches directly on far-reaching differences in the conception and use of the canon among different confessional bodies within Christianity, above all, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.13 The problem can be conveniently explored under the following three leading aspects,

1

The Scope of the Canon In the light of modern knowledge about the history of the canon and the character of its contents, it is difficult to justify the limitation of the canon to precisely the twen -seven ocuments which have traditionally

belonged to it. The reasons or

is are several.

Irs

as

the canon too shape, only such documents as had survived an were still availabk"c-;';;;Idbe considered for inc1USi~But some of Paul's etters, t e written sources behind the Gospels, and no doubt many other pieces of early Christian literature were simply lost. In this sense, the potential content of the canon wa~ected from the outset by the accidents of literary preservation. ~0"liTh the crucible for the ~~ process of canon formation was provlde
'

l

of historica circumstances, t eo ogical controversies, ~n. terpretation, region usages, judgments of ecclesiastical authonbes,

1 1

I

and eventhe

technical as-eets of book manufacture and textual trans-

~is-;ion_ T e scope of the canOiiiSffiere ore inaebte to a.~, e range of contingenjjjistoricul factors and from a historical standpomt ISlargely

fortuitous.(thIf<1) the limits of the canon cannot any longer be defended on th,,:'!?asis of the explicit warrants adduced on its behalf by the ancient church. Historical criticism has shown that the ancient church was most often mistaken in its claims that the canonical writings . I hil th hi t ry of the canon makes It were wntten

by apost es, W lee

IS,o.

validity, 15

1

e

11 t d a d valuated by E. Kasemann, Vas 13. Some of the most impmtant studies ~a"e been ~ eAn ;} WI' egmwartigen ViskttssiOn Neue Testament als Kanon. DokumentatlOfi ufid ktitiS d ses;ments Jthe main issues arc given (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecb.t, 1970). ku~ef~1 bhOO ~n protestantismus als konuooerstheoby N. Appel, KalWn und Kirche. Ole KaRon r1S € I~ l~) representing a CathoHc viewpoint; l. IlJgisches Problem (Paderbom: Bonifacius-Druc kerel, '. Lanning, Kanon im Kanon, representing a Protestant perspective.

:he

1

. ,

doubtful that theoretical criteria (apostohclty, catholicity. etc.) wer ' , . . 14 F 11 these reasons the tradiefl ective reasons for canomzatIOn, or a 'd tional boundaries of the NT canon have been deprived of clear an self-evident

THE CANON AS A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

.

•

I

z:

14. See· above, 67-72. . . tl' h egetische Forschung den Kanon 15. Thus, e.g., H. Braun. "Hcbt die heutlge neute~~:i:,.1J~welt (Tiihingen: Mohr, Si~beck, auf?" in Gesammelte Studien :tum Neuen T~sta~td G ". A Sand "Die Diskrepanz ZWISchen 1~2), 310-34; W. G. J(iimmel, "No.twen~.d<e~~n d:;'~~~e'sta~ent1i~hen KanDns aJs hermeneLlhlstorischer Zufalligkeit und normativem .har er tisches Problem," MThZ 24 (1973): 147-60.

THE INTERPRETATION

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON 'IT. -fInh this 1-' - situation - tw 0 l""rent cI' alms h ave been advanced III support o t eh imits of the cano ~th ~, ' Phi rotestant sc 0 ars have typically asserted at t e canonical lite r at ure as an ~intrinsic - and self-authenticating a, thori h h u onty w ic impresses it If th Cath l' h 1 se on e conscientious reader, whereas\ ( a th~ty~ 0 ic sc 0 ars have typo .. d that the canon derives its r" icaIIy maintalne u on rrom official .. b th tak h recogmtton y e church. These alternatives e a more istorical form III . th e calms I' - canon --- evolved eit,h er thaUIw more or Iess spo t I h Juition of the ear~ a!,e~us. y t rough th~ religi?us ~xpe£i~' ..!klib t ~ Y ChnstIan commumtIes,..JU:.1hat it was carefully and quat:;: ~:collS~ucted by the church. But neither view is fully adeofb' h e dactu history of the canon. For example the judgments IS ops an councils in th e IOU r rth an d fifth centuries ' did not merely ratify a16.status which the se writings .. h ad already secured for themI se Yes, smce some of th .. not been id 1 d e wrtttngs then recognized as canonical had wt e ti y use dor everywh ere receive . d as authoritative. ' a closed coll So, as very much a orodu anf III respect of its specific limits, the canon is from an earl~ ti::t 0 the church, Yet the high regard which attached and the letter f P ";'d almost everywhere to the Synoptic Gospels church could s 0 au~wed nothing to official decisions, and the later extent the c.::n 1y ahc owledge their authority, not decide it To this , not yet as a d e fi nitive . , co I' tIonally prior t on, th tough h lection, was fu ncto the Christ 0 e ~7urch, which is grounded in the primitive witness f event. Hence th a the canon and the auth " e r ~e~eeJL!!.1~..llJ!.W"'JY The burden f h on of the chur£!!..& historically ambiguonS, that the canon 0 "m£: uc recent Protestant thinking has been to admit . " closed while insisting that the limits of th IS actually" or "h'1stoncally e Canon prescribed' th an d that the scop fth III e ancient church are not binding Th"IS VIew does neo t e canon rema' . ., I .. 18 1 InS III prmClp e open to reVISIon, r

1

_"d-

~n."'_....

...,,~,.;

boundaries of th 0 actna Iy intend any alteration of the traditional "a1 independ ecanonItaim' d to assert and preserve the cntlC £ ---:-- ~tea . enc.e..,o SC:tlpture . canon IS taken to b ", Qver-agalllst the -church' when the th e b oundaries of th e a stnctly dog matlC . reality, that is when ' not onlY e canOn but al so th e meaning of its' canonicity are _ 16. ThU5> among oth ers ~r;hriftkanon& (Zollilm , .~: Aland, Problem

oif

iilteste christliche Trad'-t~Urlch; Evangelischer V the NT Canon, 18-24; H. Diem Das problem Jet 17. Kiimmel, "Notw ~nd als Kanan," EV~~~ ~7; F. Hahn, "Die'Heilige Schrift als 18. Ibid., 249-59. D~n I eJt und Crenze," 24-34 ' 62-63. as the Church' B lem, Das Probkm. de .. ~~~ Chur<;h;~ ~t~ K~tdelp~ia: Fo~r~~c;~~a~ona, .15--16; ~. Mansen, The New Testnment Lonn~: Lraditi~n,Min (~hiladelphia; Fo::e2;~ Ebeling, The Problem oj HlstQrW!ty , non 1m Kanon, 26:l-68 0 tlnd Tradition (Philaddssh' .1967), 62--64; idem, 'Sola Sel1V' . p .ta; Fortress Press, 1968), 113-21;

I;~gk"

wo::i~j~

84

A~j.

1

1 1

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON

considered as beyond all discussion, rrotestantism has already become ~holic in principle, ~~ then founded 11 on the infallibilit of a doctrinal decision of early_Cathilliillm" (that is, about the limits of the canonl.l? Since apart from an infallible teaching office of the church ~re can e no certainty_ab;;;;t the correctness of the ~aditionalsv;;:: ten!Lof the canon, the limits of the can~ar-", M£..e.ssarilypJID:!sional ~g to ~t,,~t~i!t priilci~, Still, it can be maintained among Protestant scholars that the canon must at least theoretically have limits because reliable testimony to a historical locus of revelation entails chronological and spatial proximity,20 This very delicately...fush~ned positiPIl-nnds-liule-appreciatien amo~ Catholic scholars W!lO, while acknowledging the appearance of contingency in the history of the canon and the fragility of the criteria of canonicity, fully affirm the traditional limits of the canon as the authoritative work of the church, . acting in accordance with historic usage, true teaching, and providential guidance." Here the canon of scripture and the teaching authority of the church form an indivisible unity. It is worth notingJJ.owever, that prior toJhe_ConnciLo£..T.t:ent.(.l5fi4)IDid..its dogm ic definition of the canon it was not uncomm n.for the_Rrow.r limits of the.-£1ln.oJUQ be debated~sReciallv in regard to those writings that had also been, disputed in the ancient church.

The Nature of the Canon as Norm The concept of the canon and its normative function have been , called into question even more by the exegesis of NT texts· than by the history of the canon. It has bee'!. the ext~- _ .-- ~ . catholic . _ ~tianfty eacn nds its I~rary ~prese~~tions an amcu ~s .!.ts p=rticul;r claims:" I;:; ihis respect the ~~ indeed reflect

I 1

I

19. Ebeling, Problem of HisWrlcit!j, 63. 20. Kiimmel, "Notwendigkeit und Grem:e," 247-49. [' he d '--tn 21 d ..b I'r. T wl"tivn und Schrift in der eV.:lnge ISC nun "..... 0. So, e.g., P. Lengsfel , U er WJerung. r l.oo D k . 1960) 112-18· Appel Kanan lischen Theologie der Gegenwart (Pad-croom: Bool us- ruc533erel, ' ' ' und Kirche, 115-20; R. E. Brown, "Canonicity," JBC (1968): . f .a_, h c_ fu· bed b •• '!b d . fI rat k t,h of this state 0 iU.....rs as uo.:en rrus Y . .. e most ,erovocative an m uen I sec d the Unity of the Church," in idem, EII9aYs E. Kasemann, The Canon of the New Testament an hlad I hia· FortresS Press) 95-107. For on ~ew Tesfal7Wnt Themes (London: SCM ~re~s, 164!.p I . e:E NT see J. D. c.' Dunn, Unity a detailed exposition of the varieties of thea ogJca posItions In 0:.. '1
t

f

[

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

~e .theolo ical varie ations and internal controversies of-early Chris!]!I!!!Y, but so far as it also represents divergent theological standpoints as having canonical force, the canon as such cannot serve as a decisive theolo~ic~1 norm. Instead of providing a firn~..basis for t~ u!!ill:..."f Christianity.uhe.cancn merely egitirnizes the~multiplicitl!.....ofdiscord.. ant confessions, each of which may appeal to theJ\lT wjth eqnal right." By throwing into sharp relief the extent of theological diversity within the canon, historical ..critical exegesis has made it impossible to sustain the fo~mal and legal understanding of the canon, widespread in Prot.. estantism a~d Catholicism alike, according to which the canon is a do~trmal umty possessing equal authority in all its parts, with theo.. logical inconsistencies heing ruled out in principlc.P' In practical terms, this means that a theological claim cannot now be vindicated by the SImple shibboleth, "The NT says ' .... ," not because the NT does not say It, but because it says much else besides and not with straightfor.. w~d consistency ..Taken as a whole, therefore, the canon cannot can.. stitute a sharply effective theological norm, t: kutonce ~ formal,
2'

COnceptand its history,

86

cr,

Umnin

'

THE INTERPRETATION

CANON

g, Kanon 1m Kanon, passim, but esp. 16--30,

1

I 1 1

1

I 1

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

able form of the kerygma, is the authoritative element in the canon. Others, disavowin historical criteria, have located the essential n.. ing of the NT~ theolo~ical minciele, such as the justi c~tion of the ungodly or the radical questiontng of human existence or, m the well.. known formula of Luther, "what preaches and promotes Christ."'" Catholic scholars have been roundl;c..criticaLof.thejnt=..s.Lin a canon ill the canon and see it as a clear admissiOILO£tha..inad~ of the Protestant principle-of ~ scriptum, '~e." The~ object specifically to the reductionism, sel~itY....J!nd aroltra!)' subJecltvlty I seems to entail and insist onthe need to affirm the unity and coerence olthe cano;-as a w ole."T These objections are intelligible an not altogeth,;';, misplaced, but the proposed alternative is untenable and represents the very problem which creates the need for a canon in the canon. How is it possible, once the theological diver~ty of the canon is admitted, to give equal authori to all the canonical documents? Either historical resu s wi not be taken seriously, or a perspective will be found outside the canon which detennines how scripture is to be interpreted, in which case the authority of the canon will be given up anyway .. The essential difference between the typi.. cally Protes ..tant and Catholic viewpoints is thaJ Protestant scholars ar..e jntent on finding....an.-intlmlretive rinci Ie ithin:t!!..e ~on ..?'hile Catholic scholars Jook fOJ:' ~ts~ci\flon, iILthe authoritative teacbing of the church, Each view is in its own wayan admission that the form _ canon does not aJll!jannoLserye-as an effective theological ~orm. Of course, on the question of a canon in the canon, it is an oversi~-

plification to speak of a strict division between Protestant and Catholic scholarship. There are Catholic scholars who see the need for some form of intracanonical

discrimination

and Protestant

scholars who are

suspicious of the idea. But it needs to be emph~zed that the concept of a canon in the canon is Daalymisconstrueil.!- It -'~ ta en..l.ojJ!' a

-

"ft/ 5-1. "0 F ge nach der Mitte und clem Kanon im 26. For a survey of the proposals, see \, ,,,.urag.e, ~r ,:~ h-+erti u 'Festschrift E K&eKanan des Neuen Testaments in
it

~;s~~~~~~~Y~u~~;~n

1

I

1

r.

k :i% G'

oHerts

87

- --_.-

-, '.-~--=:-==-.:""

~~~_~ ~e~

....."<""""~.,_.

THE

_ _~_"

~~O-t

~

__

~

•

_

NEW TESTAMENT

--

_

I

about the internal

Jl'J

sol

.rl. 'l'

1~ stinting

specificity of a canon in the canon is sometimes re-

so a: t th ved I m . ala differe n t way, b y t aki ng t h e canonical standing of dineren . eo;g;c viewpoints as a positive endorsement of a broad confes· slO~ p uralism within Christianjry, 30 On this view the multiplicity of contesstom - . is less a fact to be regrette d th .. £claiming th e name Ch rtsttan an It IS a act which ha t 'fi d Ch . b I . S ypl e nstianity from the beginning and debongs to Its very nature. This views falls outside the tenus of the e ate sch 0Iars hiip an d b elongs to the religiously plura Iistic A mIcontinental A' ng 0- mencan setting Still - . th h attempt to fi d t th - I, It IS a useful reminder at t e n may be co t m ehcanon a thoroughly uniform and coherent norm nrarytoteaim fh onized a rang f th I _ seven 0 t e ancient church, which cane 0 ( eo H oglCal d e Iibtlera e Y ecumenical spirit b posT I mns, sometimes in a e.g., e rews, Revelation, the Gospel ofJohn), and 28. Kasemaru'l , D a.s N eue Te$tament al8 Ko. 29. Lonning. Kanan irn Kn ~ non, 376.

30. F. V. Filson W' non, 268-11. , hlCh Books Belong to the B 'hle? I

88

,

133-34; Dunn. Unity and Diversity, 374-82.

_,

••

--

,~-,--,

"-

-----

.,-

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

consistently demurred from reductionistic proposals aimed at strict consistency (Marcion's Apostolikon, Tatian's Diatessaron). From this viewpoint, then, the canon's normative function is not to preclude diversity but only to limit its scope within broad but defimte penmeters.

Apart from the controversy within NT scholarship about the the~logical legitimacy and precise character of a canon III the canon, It IS widely recognized that in fact every interpreter of the NT a?d every confessional

1

center of the canon and about the

extemallimits of the canon, are intimately related: both aim to distinguish the authority of scripture from the authority of the church and to mamtam the autonomy of scripture. For when the outer boundaries of t~e canon are regarded as absolutely fixed, the theologically normative force of the canon is reduced, and correspondingly, when the critical function of the canon is emphasized its precise limits are relativized .29 S'mce th e rrorma I'dcanon is unquestionably characterize bY theological variety ' no thimg Iess than canon 10 i the canon-a . . , an aa canon se Ieotive principle of interpretation--can provide the sharp definition required of a theological norm. dilemma between. the generous diversity of the formal canon

... ~

THE INTERPRETATION

CANON

'1uestion of the whole canon versus parts of the canon rather than a question about the interpretation of the whole-that is, a hermeneutical ~n.28 Nevertbeless, the terminology runs t e risk of create ing confusion between "scripture" on the one hand and "hermeneutics" on the other. What is fundamentally at stake in the debate about a canon in the canon is whether there can he any opposition between the canon and the church, that is, whether and how scripture can exercise a critical and corrective function over-against the church and so really be a norm in itself. In this sense the idea of a canon in the canon actually repr~sents the intention of the sola scriptum principle, even though it disavows a formal notion of the canon. Thus, it can be seen that the two concerns,

"

1 1

1

standpoint

within Christianity

operates,

conSCIOusly or

unconsciously with a henueneutical perspective or principle which . ". h . al iti . ace' rt aiin way and to elicit serves to orgaruze t e canomc wn mgs·m . . from them a particular pattern of meaning. 31 This is not only lll~vltable but necessary if the canon is to playa role in theological reflection and not remain unmanageably and meaninglessly diffuse. Whether these principles or perspectives should be called canons in the canon IS unimportant. Their effect is the same: to develop from the formal de . ki g d facto canon Yet just here the Importance of Jure canon a wor me' . the formal canon in all its diversity appears, for although it requtres a reduction and specification of its meaning in order. t.o exercise a n~rmative function, it nevertheless resists the absolutIzlllg of any partIcular appropriation and so maintains the potentialities of lllterpretation "t own way the formal canon against 'dogmatic forec Iosures., Th us, In 1 S works to insure the autonomy and authority of scripture and of the gospel it mediates. Scripture and Tradition _ A third dimension of the theological problem of the canon ~~modThern . hi b ripture and tradition. e study lies in the relatIOns ip etween sc d' fixed distinction between scripture and traditi~n, and the stan ing . - I f sola scriptura to the Catholic opposition of the protestant pnnclp eo. b d li watchword of scriptum et traditio, have lost the~ a~;ka:av:Pha~a~ tion. Both the history of the canon and exegeti w part in this, I gh that the contents The history of the canon indicates clear y enou - f d't' b h h ch on the basiS 0 tra I IOn. d of the NT were determine y t e c ur d·t· of ecclesiastical h rf 1 £ ce was tetra Ilon Perhaps the most powe u or . al standing on this acnsage, but the writings whICh ~am~ ~~:n:t~:thorshiP and validated count were buttressed by tradltlOn I e nO ']}, Dunn Unity and Diversity, 314-75; d p blem of the NT Canon, v;rv , ' 13 31. See, e.g., Alan ,t'O "lad I ;h' . Westminster PresS, 1983}.70" J. Barr, Holy Scripture (Phi e pia.

THE INTERPRETATION

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

through traditional conceptions and formulations of the faith. Therefore, t~ acknowledge the authority of the canon is to acknowledgethe authonty . one cannot have scrip. of the traditiIOn WhiIeh gave biat h to It: ture Without also having tradition. This oint has been r gular! made by Cathohc sc 0 ars a inst t e Protestant abit of op 0 n npture t.oqa'!.ltlOn and it is a . t i . d -_~~L"~ _ poin mcreasmg y a mitted by Protestant sc 01~-ft-~~~ ~ars.h This adrniISSlOn IS 0 en accompameo DY legiffmate reservations sue as that it is an 0 versunp . lificati 1 cation to VIew canonization merely as' a matter of ecclesia1 Stilea I d ecisions, _. . or that by creating a canon of scnpture the church wa s d e lib - - Itself 1 erate Iy su b mitting to scripture as a norm. Still ' the ba SIC - lac t: t remains . th at the canon . of scripture is di pre icated on the tradition of the ancient church. also has u n d errmne . d th e disti . dBut exegesis di Istinctton between scripture an thra ition by showing that the individual documents of the canon are Thi t _emselves .' to a grea t er or Iesser extent, products of traditionIS IS Pdre.emmently true of the Gospels as form criticism has demonstrate :. but in th e epist - Ies too there 'is a deep indebtedness to ktheryg~tJc, hturgical pa a tiIC, an d exegetical - traditions. . r~..... ' rene Indee d, e .rartrrerdiback one penet t I hri . ra es mto ear y C ristianity the more pervasive tra ttion is Fu th ' tradition but actuall r e~more, the NT not only em bodies earlier Owncont trY exhibits the development of tradition among its and Luk en S, _as lor h example' m th e appropriation of Mark by Matthew Pauline e, I ttor in tH"e treatment 0 fP au I'me teac h ing among the pseu d 0-

ture is pereseurs.dlbstoncally speaking, then, tradition precedes scrip, . me - In - scripture. As a result, the problemf". y scnptu re, an d persists o scrrpture and trad iti " h longed to hist - I d I Ion, w ich h as customari Iy b eonca an syst ti h I exegesis and ex . h ema c t eo ogy, has entered the field 0f , egesis as m lb to sustain the dichotomy between the two Th s: a.d e Iit ImpOSSIIe . ererore It is . . I c. sch olars to characten h' mcreasmg y common lor Protestant enze t e canonical lit " c f tra dition" or as a "f ..... 1 erature as a specific rorm 0 ular stage

33

Thi

reezing

Or

transcription"

of tradition at a partie·

. ISway of speaki ks Catholic distinction betw ng mar an approximation toward the and unwritten tradition. een scnpture and tradition in terms of written The recognition of the hist·

32 S

-

oneal Importance

00

1

uting to the substance and determining the shape of the canon does not suffice to confirm the Catholic principle of tradition or to discredit the Protestant principle of scripture alone, but it does require a reconsideration of both in the light of the actual, historical relationship between scripture and tradition. Among Protestant scholars the normative status of the canon is often defended today precisely through an appeal to tradition. It is argued, for example, that the canon comprises specifically apostolic tradition and that this is distinct from and normative for (later) ecclesiastical tradition both because the apostolic office is incapable of succession and because in shaping the canon the church meant to submit itself permanently to the witness of the apostles.?' But without subscribing to these particular arguments, the authority of the canon can also be maintained by' the claim that it constitutes

I

,tradition

J

the original,

earliest,

or primary tradition

of Christianity,

and that it has a unique significance because it stands in close spatiotemporal relation to the generative events of Christianity which are otherwise inaccessible.35 Obviously, such formulations do not concede anything to tradition as a source of authoritative teaching independently of scripture but regard the role of subsequent ecclesiastical as the proper

interpretation

and exposition

of scripture.

On

the Catholic side, in addition to the remarkable emergence and excellence of critical biblical scholarship in the wake of Vatican II, there are promising reappraisals of the concept of tradition, especially in relation to the decrees of the Council of Trent which have been often {.' interpreted, but probably wrongly, to define tradition as an inde-..),' pendent

source of revelation.

36

At the same time there is within Prot-

estantism a growing awareness that traditions of teaching and usage which are by no means exclusively biblical also belong to it, and that a radical disavowal of tradition in the name of scripture is historically naive and theologically untenable. Historical studies are making it ever clearer that in the ancient church scripture

and tradition were not two

separate categories but were mutual and coinherent modes of preserving and proclaiming the faith.37 Exegesis and the study of the history of the canon only contribute to a fuller appreciation of the organic nature of this relationship.

of tradition

in contrib-

. ce, e. g. Cullman "Th T oj Historicity' 62-63 'd" ,e radition," in The Earl Ch Church's Badk. 16-20 an Sola SCripturd' and TradYt. 1f,Tch, 59-99, esp. 87-98; Ebeling, Problem 33. Ebel.in "'s I . lon, 113-14; Marxsen, New Testament as the g. {) a SCriptu' d (1.0 nd on: SCM Pre 197 Ta an Tradition" 108· C Testament," BJRL ~:' (197~/: 18-19; E. Best: "SCriptu~F'TEv~s, Is Hoi!! Scripture Christian? tament as Tradition and esp. 264---67.Hah e'''Dr,adltlon, and the Canon of the New as anon, 154-64. ' n. Ie Heilige Schriff'; Funk, "New Tes-

c~'

1

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON

34. Cullmann, "The Troditioll." For telling criticisms, see LOnning, Kanon im Kanan, ~~. 35. ~~e,,a~ong oth~rs, Ebeli,~g, "'Sola Sc~tura' an~ Tradition"; Hahn. "Das Problem Schrift ul1d TradItion 1m Urchnstenturn, EvTh 30 (I9/0): 449--68. . ? 36. For reapyraisal of thl;J Trideotine formulation, see esp. G. Tavardh,Holi9~n) t or H~ Church. The Crisili oj the Protestant Reformation {New York: Harper & Brat ers, : esp. . 37. In addition to Tavard see E. Flesscrnan van Leer, Tradition ,"~M Early Church (Asscn: Van Gorcum, 1954), and R. P. C. Hanson. Tradition in teaT Ij -UTC.

ahndic1P~tr:

THE

NEW

TESTAMENT

CANON

The transmission of tradition and the missionary expansion of Christianity inevitably gave rise from the beginning to multiple interpretations of the Christian faith. These interpretations necessarily varied according to their cultural and chronological settings, for without such adaptation the Christian message risked the loss of meaning and relevance. But precisely because the settings of Christianity were and continue to be diverse, no single interpretation of Christianity can claim to be conclusive and complete. At the same time, an interpretation which is not rooted in and continuous with the generative events of Christianity will hardly be legitimate. The genius and the value of the NT canon lie in its accommodation of both these factors. The boundaries of the canon rule out certain particular interpretations and some types of interpretation, but the same boundaries encompass a range of other interpretations. Thus, the canon is a compromise between the single and specific ground of faith-the Christ event-and the multiplicity of its interpretive appropriattons.i" It stands against a stultifying self-consistent reduction of meaning, but equally against the vagaries of unlimited possibilities of meaning. In doing so, it makes mterpretation both possible and necessary. • 38. Flink, "The New Testament as Tradition and Canon" 174. ~~~ pUb~cation of Brevard Childs' The New Testament' as Canon An lntmductwn (Philadelphia: no; ~s~ es~, 1984) occur.red only after the present studr. was in proofs, and consequently it colll~ (pp. 73-82e;b~~~.acc~un~ In th~ foregoing discllss~on of' The ?anon as a Hermeneutical C~n.t~Jlt to the NT. As hC~l~S book IS the. first systematic and extensive effort to apply canonlCa! c~lbc,lSm of malo th 1 c. It emo~strates In a provocative way both the possibilities and the lumtatwns signifi ng b~g..l:a.jt;geSls dependent upon the shape of the canon while sharply restricting the gone too lnte~re.tation. In spite of his disclaimers, it appears to me that Childs has to dehtstortctae th~lca iffere,ntJatmg theologICal exegesis from historical criticism, and thereby actual history of th non In ref::rd both to the composition of individual documents and to e and uses it is tm e ca?o,,:, ?t1 t e other hand, the method of canonical criticism as Childs defines "canonical functio P;,csf~hn]dtiCand tends to yield theological platitudes in the description of ~e to stimulate cont:u .Og d~ o~menfts, Nevertheless, the book is a pioneering effort which is cert3ul In ISCUSSlon 0 the hermeneutical import of the canon.

52

::ch

:f

fut~l'1d~

tet

Appendix: The Full Text of the Muratorian

Canon List

1

1

...

at which however he was present and so he has set it down. The third Gospel book, that according to Luke. This physician Luke, after Christ's ascension,. . since Paul had taken him with him as a companlOn of his travels, composed it in his own name

according to his thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh, and thus as he was able to ascertain it, 1 so he also begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels, that of John [one] of the disciples. When his fellow disciples and bishops urged him he said: "Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another." In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that, while all were to go over [it], John in his own name should write everything down. And therefore, though

I

1

various rudiments

are taught in the several

Gospel books, yet that matters . . .. nothing for the faith of believers, since by the .one gmdmg Spirit everything is declared in all: concemlOg the birth, concerning

the passion, concerning the resurrection,

concerning the intercourse with his disciples and concerning

his two comings,

the first despised in humility, which has come to pass, the second glorious in royal power, which is yet to come. What wonder then if John so constantly adduces particular points in his epistles also,

92

1

APPENDIX: THE FULL TEXT OF THE MURATORIAN CANON LIST

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

for gall cannot be mixed with honey. Of course the epistle of Jude and two with the title "John" are accepted in the catholic Church, and Wisdom, written by friends of Solomon in his honor. We accept only the apocalypses of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [i.e., Peter] to be read in the Church. But Hermas composed The Shepherd quite recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother, Pius, oocupied the episcopal seat of the city of Rome. And therefore it should indeed be read, but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the prophets, whose number is complete, nor among the apostles, for it is after their time. But we accept nothing whatsoever of Arsinoes, or Valentinus, or Miltiades. Those also [are rejected] who composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Cataphrygians of Asia Minor.

where he says of himself: What we have seen with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you. For so he professes [himself] not merely an eye and ear witness, bot also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order. The acts of all the apostles, however, were written in one volume. Luke summarized "Ior most excellent Theophilus" particular things which happened in his own presence, as he also clearly indicates by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] as he proceeded to Spain. The epistles of Paul themselves, however, indicate to those who wish to know which ones [they are], from what place, and for what reason they were sent:

first of all, to the Corinthians, admonishing [them] against the schism of heresy; then to the Galatians, against circumcision;

then to. the Romans, however, he wrote at length, explammg with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their essential principle also. It is necessary

I

for us to discuss these individually, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John: wrote only to seven churches by name, and In the following order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh ' to dthe Romans.. (Altho u gh h e wrote a second time . . h'[ans to the Connt

1

an Thessalomans for reproof, it is evident

that one Church is spread throughout the whole world. For John also, although In the Apocalypse he wrote to seven churches nevertheless speaks to all.) And one to Philem'on and one toh Titusb' but tw 0 t 0 Timot h y, written from affection and 10 v Ch he; avhe een sanctified by the acknowledgment of the catholic

t

j

j

ure lor t e ordering of

ecclesiastical discipline . Also current IS . [a Ietter] to the Laodicea in P l' ns, another to the Alexandrians forged au s name for the he res ' f M . ' which cannot b d ) 0 arcion, and several others, e accepte In the catholic Church,

1I

94

J