Storia del canone del Nuovo Testamento

commentario avventista

(in preparazione la traduzione in italiano)

In regard to the meaning of the word canon, and its use as technical term to designate the collection of sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, see Vol. I, p. 36.

Although the roots of canon formation go back to the apostolic age, a uniform recognition of all New Testament books throughout Christendom was not achieved for several centuries.

It may be said at the outset that the New Testament canon came into being neither by a papal decree nor by the decision of an ecumenical church council. Neither was it the result of a miracle, although this claim is made in the following legendary story: The delegates to the Council of Nicaea, desirous to know which books were canonical and which not, are said to have placed under the communion table all books for which a place in the canon was claimed. Then they prayed that the Lord would show them which books were canonical by miraculously placing them on top of the stack. According to the story, this miracle happened during the prayer, and thus the New Testament canon was established. This story, which is of obscure origin, has not the slightest credibility.

Holy Scriptures in the Early Church.—The collection of sacred writings in the New Testament found its prototype in the canon of the Old Testament. Throughout the Greek-speaking world, the LXX, the Bible (Old Testament) of the Jewish dispersion, became the Bible of Christendom. With it Christians accepted the Jewish doctrine of divine inspiration, so that in the books of the Old Testament they did not see the words of Samuel, David, or Isaiah merely, but rather the Word of God, the product of a divine spirit and wisdom. Since the Christians believed that the Jews, by their rejection of Christ, had lost their privileges and had been rejected by God (see Vol. IV, pp. 30–33), the Christian church considered itself the only rightful owner and interpreter of this Word of God. The Old Testament contained prophecies pointing to Christ and also many glorious promises for the true people of God, whom the Christians believed themselves to be. All of this made the Old Testament dear to the early church.

Besides the Old Testament the early church possessed the "Words of the Lord" as received from Jesus Himself or from the apostles, who had been eye-witnesses. The church considered the words and prophecies of Jesus as on the same inspired level as the sayings of the Old Testament. Thus Paul could quote the Pentateuch as "scripture" (1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Deut. 25:4) and couple with it a statement of Jesus (Luke 10:7). It was only natural that as the apostles carried the gospel throughout the world, many of the Lord’s words and much reminiscence about Him circulated orally. An evidence of this is the instance where Paul, in speaking to the elders of Ephesus, used a saying of Jesus that appears nowhere in the Gospels (Acts 20:35). That oral tradition concerning the words of Jesus existed into the 2d century is demonstrated by Eusebius’ account (Ecclesiastical History iii. 39. 2–4) of the interest displayed in them by Papias (first third of 2d century).

At the same time, however, certain initial steps in the formation of the New Testament canon are recognizable in the earliest Christian period. Already during the first generation of Christians there appeared written records of the life of Christ. Luke, in the prologue to his Gospel (ch. 1:1–4), testifies that several works describing the life and teachings of Jesus existed in his time. He goes on to assure his readers that he tells his story in reliable form.

It can be assumed that the majority of churches possessed the written Gospel before the end of the 1st century. The acquaintance of the early Church Fathers with these writings is apparent from their quotations of them. The word "gospel" appears in the New Testament only as a singular term designating the glad tidings of Jesus. Justin Martyr, about a.d. 150, was the first to employ the plural form, "The Gospels" (Gr. ta euaggelia), as a designation for the written accounts of Jesus’ life. Gradually the phrase, "It is written," used generally for quotations from the Old Testament, was applied also to sayings of the Lord. The first appearance of such a usage is in the Epistle of Barnabas (ch.4), written before a.d. 150. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement, from about the same date, speaks of the teaching of the "Books and the Apostles" concerning the church (ch. 14; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, p. 255), a reference that may include the Gospels with the Old Testament as the "Books," and that certainly demonstrates the status the epistles had attained by this time.

Besides the Gospels, other Christian works circulated in the early church. Among these the epistles of the apostle Paul took first place. Paul wrote usually to meet specific problems in certain localities. At the same time, however, he encouraged the distribution of his letters, as is evident from his request that the Colossians (Col. 4:16) and the Laodiceans exchange his letters. It can be taken for granted that before passing on its letter to another congregation, a church usually would make a copy. It was probably in this way that Paul’s letters first were copied, and that collections of these copies grew. That such collections existed already in the apostolic age is intimated by Peter (2 Peter 3:15, 16), probably about a.d. 65. Similarly, Clement of Rome, writing to the church at Corinth 30 years later, could admonish them, "Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul" written to them (I Clement, ch. 47; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, p. 243). The fact that Clement goes on to refer to the content of 1 Corinthians would seem to indicate not only that this epistle had been preserved at Corinth, but also that Clement had a copy available at Rome.

Other witnesses for the early distribution of Paul’s writings are Ignatius and Polycarp, both of whom wrote in the first half of the 2d century. About a.d. 117 Ignatius wrote from Smyrna to the Ephesians that Paul "in all his Epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus" (Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch. 12; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 55). Probably toward the middle of the 2d century Polycarp wrote to the Philippians concerning Paul that "when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you" (Polycarp to the Philippians, ch. 3; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 33). Elsewhere in the same epistle (ch. 12) Polycarp quotes Paul (Eph. 4:26) as "scripture." These statements clearly indicate that both Ignatius and Polycarp were well acquainted with at least two of Paul’s letters, and that they expected the churches likewise to know them. Therefore it seems most probable that a collection of Paul’s epistles must have had wide distribution only a few decades after his death.

Other epistles besides those of Paul also must have come into circulation very early. Peter had addressed his first letter to the Christians of five provinces of Asia Minor, and had thus clearly given it the character of a circular letter. James had the same aim in addressing his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." John addressed the Revelation to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia, and specifically claimed divine inspiration for it (chs. 1:1–3; 22:18, 19). It is only reasonable to conclude that these books quickly found a wide circulation.

From these evidences it is obvious that books originating in the time of the apostles that either recounted the life of Christ or contained important messages of apostles were highly valued by the church and were considered authoritative.

Development of the New Testament Canon, A.D. 140–180.—The first man to establish a canon was the heretic Marcion about the middle of the 2d century. He was a thorough anti-Semitist who held that Jehovah in the Old Testament was the Jewish God of wrath and justice, and that He had nothing in common with the Christian God of love. Marcion claimed to be a true interpreter of the Christian theology of Paul, and being an excellent organizer, he fixed for his own sectarian church a Bible canon that conformed to his ideas. He eliminated entirely the Old Testament and also certain books of the apostolic age. Consequently his Bible consisted only of the Gospel of Luke, the writings of the apostle Paul, and a book of his own, called the Antithesis, in which he presented his arguments for rejecting the Old Testament. His collection of Paul’s epistles, called the Apostolikon, consisted of ten letters of Paul: Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, First and Second Thessalonians, "Laodiceans" (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. He rejected 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, and also changed the text of those books that he accepted, to agree with his theology.

Marcion’s activity forced the church to take a stand with regard to what books could justly claim the status of Scripture. Unfortunately few sources are available that clearly show how the Christian church acted in regard to this matter in the middle of the 2d century. A clear picture of the New Testament canon does not emerge until about a.d. 200. The meager sources that are available on this subject from the period under consideration are the following.

Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Marcion, wrote several works at Rome about a.d. 150, in which he treated the Gospels as Holy Scripture on a par with the Old Testament. Describing the Christian church service, he says that in their gatherings Christians read the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets (that is, the Old Testament) before the sermon (First Apology, ch. 67). Writing for pagan readers, Justin used a literary word, apomneµmoneumata, "memoirs," to refer to the Gospels, as he explains in the preceding passage (ibid., ch. 66). In mentioning the Gospels before the Old Testament in describing Christian Scripture reading, he indicates that the church accorded the Gospels a position at least as high as that of the Old Testament. Justin also declares (Dialogue, ch. 103) that the Gospels had been composed by the apostles or the disciples of the apostles. He sometimes introduces quotations from the Gospels with some such formula as, "Christ has said" (ibid., chs. 49; 105), and sometimes with the phrase, "It is written" (ibid. chs. 49; 100; 107).

While it has been debated how many Gospels Justin knew, the evidence is strong that he used all four of them. Some of his quotations are not found in the exact form in which they appear in the canonical Gospels, and may have been taken from extra-Biblical sources. Since about the same time 2 Clement uses sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels (chs. 4; 5; 12), it would not be surprising to find Justin doing the same. Justin’s writings reflect acquaintance not only with the Gospels but also with Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Acts. He quotes the Revelation between a statement from the Old Testament and a saying of the Lord (Dialogue, ch. 81).

Tatian, a pupil of Justin, made a harmony of the four canonical Gospels, which would seem to indicate that he considered these books as apart from apocryphal works. This harmony, known as the Diatessaron (literally, "Through four"), appears to have been the standard form in which the gospel story circulated in the Syriac-speaking church for some two centuries. See p. 122.

Theophilus of Antioch (died c. a.d. 181) puts the Gospels on a level with the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and declares that they were written by pneumatophoroi, "spirit-bearing [men]" (To Autolycus ii. 22; iii. 12).

That the book of Revelation was highly valued at this time is indicated by Justin Martyr (Dialogue ch. 81), Theophilus (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History iv. 24), and Apollonius (Eusebius ibid. v. 18).

New Testament Canon at End of 2d Century.—The existence of a canon, in the sense of a generally recognized group of books constituting the New Testament, becomes apparent near the end of the 2d century. Witnesses to such a canon are extant from various parts of the Roman world. From Rome itself comes a document called the Muratorian Fragment; from Gaul, the testimony of Irenaeus of Lyons; from Africa, Tertullian of Carthage; and from Egypt, Clement of Alexandria. The earliest known systematic list of New Testament books is the Muratorian Fragment, named after its discoverer, L. A. Muratori, who found it in the library of a monastery at Milan in 1740. The beginning and end of the document are missing, and its Latin is barbarous and poorly spelled. Scholars generally have concluded that this fragment originally was written in Rome toward the end of the 2d century. It furnishes a list of books that might be read publicly in church, and also mentions several books that should not be read.

In the missing portion at the beginning of the Muratorian Fragment there was evidently a remark about Matthew; this was followed by a notation on Mark, of which only one line is preserved. Since Luke is called the third, and John the fourth Gospel, there is no doubt that Matthew headed the list. The Acts of the Apostles come next, and following them the epistles in this order: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy. He also includes Jude and 1 and 2 John. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John are omitted. Certain other books are either called in question or rejected outright. Thus of the Apocalypse of Peter (not to be confused with the epistles of Peter), the Fragment declares that although some accepted it, others thought it should not be read in church. The epistles to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians and the Shepherd of Hermas are denied a place in the canon at all. Concerning Revelation, the Fragment states that although John wrote to the seven churches, he spoke to all.

Irenaeus’ New Testament canon can easily be reconstructed on the basis of his numerous Biblical quotations. He recognized the four Gospels as the only canonical ones and characterized them as the four pillars of the church (Against Heresies iii. 11. 8). He also accepted 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Acts, and Revelation. Irenaeus does not quote from Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter, and they may have been absent from his collection of New Testament books. Neither does he mention 3 John and Jude, but this may have been accidental, since both are very short. On the other hand, Irenaeus apparently considered the Shepherd of Hermas to be canonical, as he introduces a quotation from that work with the words, "The Scripture declared" (ibid. iv. 20.2).

A study of Tertullian’s writings reveals much the same picture with regard to his New Testament canon. Although he quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, he did not consider it to be canonical, thinking that it had been written by Barnabas (On Modesty ch. 20). Tertullian accepted the Shepherd of Hermas during his earlier years, but rejected it later.

Clement of Alexandria, a representative of the Eastern Church, showed a more liberal attitude toward sacred writings than was common in the West. Besides the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he used also—although as somewhat lesser authorities—the apocryphal gospels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians. His New Testament canon contained also 14 books of Paul, including Hebrews, which the Eastern Church accepted as Pauline without hesitation, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Acts, and Revelation, as well as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and other noncanonical writings. Whether he knew James, 3 John, and 2 Peter is not certain. Clement’s writings clearly show that books already rejected in the Western Church as noncanonical were still used without scruple in the East. A clear distinction between the apostolic and the nonapostolic writings was made at this time only in the West.

A study of the principal witnesses to the New Testament canon at the end of the 2d century shows that the four Gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Acts, and Revelation were generally recognized as canonical. While some in the West still doubted James, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews there were those in the East who felt free to use certain apocryphal writings as authentic.

This brief survey of the evidence shows that the New Testament canon during the 2d century did not develop so much through a process of collecting apostolic writings as through a process of rejecting those whose apostolic origin was not established. In the course of the first hundred years of the Christian church many books had been written. Every Christian sect and province had produced writings, especially so-called Gospels. These were copied and distributed, with the result that the body of Christian literature grew to formidable size. It was soon noticed that gall had been mixed with honey, to use an expression of the Muratorian Fragment that describes works that claimed apostolic origin yet propounded Gnostic teaching. A clear stand regarding these spurious books became necessary.

A trend in the opposite direction, which intensified the need for a canon, was emphasized by the heretic Marcion. In order to have support for his anti-Jewish teachings, he rejected not only all spurious works but also several books of undisputedly apostolic origin. His rejection of such genuinely apostolic works, together with the widespread use of nonapostolic writings, forced Christians to decide what to accept and what to reject.

One principle that Christians adopted in determining the validity of a book was the status of the author. Whatever was not clearly of apostolic origin, they rejected. The only exceptions made were the works of Mark and Luke, who were the associates of venerated apostles. Another basis of canonicity was the contents of books for which a place was claimed in the New Testament. Even books purporting to be of apostolic origin were rejected when they were found to contain Gnostic elements. One example of such works is the so-called Gospel of Peter.

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History vi. 12) records an incident that illustrates how church leaders gave counsel in the choice of a canon. About a.d. 200 the church at Rhosus, near Antioch, seems to have been divided over the use of the Gospel of Peter. The church members there submitted their dispute to Serapion, bishop of Antioch. He was not familiar with this work, and thinking that all the Christians at Rhosus were orthodox, he allowed its use. Later, however, when he became aware of the Gnostic character of this gospel, he wrote a letter to Rhosus and retracted the permit he previously had given. It is most interesting to note that a bishop allowed a book unknown to him to be read in church, apparently because it carried an apostle’s name as author, but that he prohibited it as soon as he recognized by its contents its spurious character and authorship. Similar cases may frequently have occurred, although no further records of such decisions have been preserved.

Canon After a.d. 200 in the East.—The first evidence after a.d. 200 concerning the New Testament canon in the East comes from Origen (died c. a.d. 254). He observed that differences existed among the various churches in regard to the content of the New Testament, and he differentiated between generally recognized writings and contested ones. Eusebius presents a record of Origen’s views (ibid. vi. 25), according to which the four Gospels, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation were generally accepted. Although Eusebius seems to have forgotten it, Acts should be added, because Origen clearly shows that he considered it as belonging to the same group. According to Eusebius’ testimony, Origen lists as still contested 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Hebrews. That he also placed Jude in this category is apparent from his own remarks (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus XVII. 30). Although the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and the Didache stood on the borders of the canon, Origen was convinced that they were not apostolic.

A controversy over the Revelation took place in the Eastern Church during the 3d century. Orthodox Christians had not previously questioned the authenticity of this book. They had always accepted it as inspired and apostolic. Origen had expressed no doubts about the authority of Revelation, but his followers attacked it vehemently. Particularly notable in this regard was Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (died c. a.d. 265), who wrote a treatise in which he sought to disprove the apostolic authorship of the book. The Alexandrian theologians seem to have turned against the Revelation because its vivid picture of the reality of the judgment and the heavenly kingdom did not agree with their allegorical and spiritualized theology. As a result of this controversy, the faith of many Christians in the book of Revelation was shaken, and for more than a century the Eastern Church was not sure whether the book was acceptable or not.

By the time Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire (a.d. 313), the line of demarcation between recognized and rejected books already had been drawn. Thus Eusebius, writing about a.d. 325 (ibid. iii. 25, Loeb ed., vol. I, pp. 257, 259), divided into three classes the New Testament books claiming canonicity. His first class consisted of the "Recognized Books": the four Gospels, Acts, 14 epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation. His second class was made up of "Disputed Books," which he divided again into those that were "known to most" Christians: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and works that were "not genuine": the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. In his third class Eusebius placed "altogether wicked and impious" writings, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias.

Eusebius’ discussion reveals clearly that Christians definitely had separated the chaff from the wheat of New Testament scripture before Christianity became a recognized state religion early in the 4th century. The books he classifies as "Recognized Books" and "Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to most" are the same 27 New Testament books recognized as canonical by all Christians today. All others he rejected.

An important factor in settling the question of the canon in the Greek Church was the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (a.d. 367). As the leading man of his time, Athanasius told his bishops and their people that the canon of the New Testament consists of 27 books. He made no criticism of any book, nor any differentiation between books. Of all the apocryphal works, he mentioned only the Didache and the Shepherd, and stated that although these two books do not belong to the canon, they might be used for the edification of candidates in baptismal classes.

Although Athanasius’ directives were binding legally only in Egypt where he was the recognized spiritual leader, yet his personality was so strong that the whole Greek-speaking church was influenced by his verdict. Although some theologians of the East rejected Revelation as late as the 5th century, his canon of 27 books came to be the recognized standard.

The formation of the canon experienced a different course in the Syriac-speaking church, which lay east of the imperial Roman borders in the area of the Upper Euphrates, Mesopotamia, and Persia. During the 2d century, Christianity took strong root in this area, and the Gospels probably were translated into Syriac before a.d. 200, as is indicated by the Curetonian and Sinaitic Gospel manuscripts (see p. 122). However, these Gospels seem to have been used much less than the Diatessaron, the Gospel harmony prepared by Tatian probably a few years earlier. During the 3d and 4th centuries the Syrian church knew the Gospel almost exclusively in this latter form. In the 5th century, leaders of the Syrian church, such as Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Rabbula of Edessa, made strong efforts to eliminate the Diatessaron in favor of "the Gospel of the Separated," as the four individual Gospels were called.

Little is known concerning the early use of other New Testament books among the Syrians. From the Doctrina Addai, written about a.d. 350, it appears that the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles were in use in the Syriac-speaking churches along with the Old Testament and the Diatessaron. However, it is not known how early the Syrian churches had become acquainted with these books, or whether they had the general epistles and the book of Revelation. A list of New Testament books in Syriac from the 3d century found in the monastery at Mt. Sinai lists only the four Gospels, the Acts, and the epistles of Paul, including Hebrews.

A new Syriac translation, the Peshitta (see p. 122), appeared with strong ecclesiastical support in the early 5th century. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four Separate Gospels, and contained also the Acts, 14 epistles of Paul, and 1 Peter, 1 John, and James. Thus the Syriac New Testament canon consisted of 22 books, and so remained for many years. As a result of the Christological controversies of the 5th century, some elements of Syriac-speaking Christianity, under pressure from the West, accepted the canon of 27 books, while others retained only the 22.

Canon After a.d. 200 in the West.—The testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment shows that at the turn of the 3d century, the New Testament canon had reached a rather fixed form in the West. The four Gospels, the Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation, and perhaps also 2 John and Jude were generally recognized as belonging to the canon. Second Peter, James, 3 John, and Hebrews had not yet achieved this recognition, although some apocryphal works were still at times accepted. The history of the canon after a.d. 200 therefore involves chiefly the acceptance of three general epistles and Hebrews, and the rejection of some questionable apocrypha.

The Western Church did not have so many notable scholars as the East, but its church discipline was stronger, and consequently the development of the canon in the West did not involve as much vacillation as in the East. The Western Church finally followed the East in accepting Hebrews, while at the same time it strongly defended the Revelation, a book the East did not favor during the 3d century and part of the 4th. Finally, the Greek theologians reversed their attitude and accepted Revelation into their canon.

The general epistles still were little used in the Latin Church during the whole 3d century. Quotations from these books hardly ever appear in the Latin Fathers of this period, and when they do, they are taken from 1 John and 1 Peter. In the 4th century, however, the general epistles received wide acceptance. Two canon lists witness to this. One, a list discovered by Theodor Mommsen, probably from Africa, lists five general epistles: three letters of John, two letters of Peter. However, a later hand has added to one of the two extant copies of this canon the remark, una sola, "one only," to both entries, perhaps indicating that while the original author of this list reckoned three letters of John and two of Peter as canonical, a later reader voiced his opposition to this view. The second canon list from the 4th century is the Catalogus Claromontanus, found between Philemon and Hebrews in the uncial manuscript D at Paris. It lists all seven general epistles in the following sequence: 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude.

The final decision concerning the New Testament canon was taken by the Latin Church in a.d. 382, when the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damascus, decreed officially that the seven general epistles form an integral part of the New Testament. This decree attributed the First Epistle of John to the apostle and the other two to another John, supposed to have been a presbyter. The church of North Africa followed suit, when during the council of Hippo (a.d. 393) and the 3d council of Carthage (a.d. 397) decrees were voted similar to that made at Rome in a.d. 382.

The Epistle to the Hebrews likewise did not find complete acceptance in the Western Church until the second half of the 4th century. The main reason for this lay in its disputed authorship. The Latin Fathers of the 3d and 4th centuries either did not mention Hebrews or rejected its Pauline authorship. Consequently it is also absent from the Catalogus Claromontanus, unless it is indicated there under the entry "Epistle of Barnabas," which is possible, but improbable. However, the great Latin theologians and ecclesiastical leaders of the latter part of the 4th century stood strongly under the influence of the Greek theology of the East, where the Pauline authorship of Hebrews had never been doubted. Hence, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Vigilius of Thapsus, Ambrose, Augustine, and other Western leaders began to accept Hebrews as canonical. This trend was legalized at the Synod of Rome in a.d. 382, which declared the canon to possess 14 letters of Paul. The subsequent African councils of Hippo and Carthage also accepted Hebrews as Pauline. Augustine, in his New Testament canon, as presented in his work De doctrina christiana (II. 8, 12–14), does not vary in any way from the canon of Athanasius of Alexandria contained in his 39th Easter Letter (see p. 129). From this time on the Latin and Greek churches had the same New Testament canon of 27 books.

The apocryphal books of the New Testament were rejected earlier and more resolutely in the Western Church than among the Christians of the East. By a.d. 200 a clear stand was taken in the West with regard to books whose apostolic origin was questionable, as is attested by Tertullian and the Muratorian Fragment, while at the same time some of these same books were used by Clement of Alexandria with no scruples. Apocryphal books were still part of the Eastern Church literature in the 3d and 4th centuries as Origen’s and Eusebius’ works testify. At that time these books were unanimously rejected by the Latin Church Fathers. However, later Bible manuscripts reveal that in some circles apocryphal books remained in use until the Middle Ages. Twenty of these manuscripts are known to contain a Latin translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, and more than 100 of them have the so-called Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

It is a remarkable fact that not one of the ecumenical church councils of the early centuries attempted to fix the canon. The first ecumenical council (though recognized as such only by the Roman Catholic Church) to deal with the canon was the Council of Trent (1545–64), which for the first time established by decree a canon of Scripture binding upon all members of the Catholic Church. Although earlier councils had dealt with the canon, as mentioned, they were not ecumenical, and had jurisdiction only over certain ecclesiastical provinces.

A study of the development of the New Testament canon provides convincing evidence that the hand of Providence led in the formation of God’s written Word. As has been seen in the foregoing survey, the decisions that brought into being the canon of 27 books were not essentially the work of an organized church expressing its will through either a pope or a general council. Rather, the canon of Scripture developed gradually over a period of some four centuries as many Christian men under the guidance of the Spirit of God recognized that certain works had been inspired by that same Spirit, and that other works had not.

In this divinely directed work of selection, certain standards aided the early Christians in deciding which books merited a place in Scripture and which did not. One of these standards was authorship. The New Testament was the good news concerning Jesus Christ, and Christians naturally believed that the most authentic presentations of this message were those written by men who had been with Jesus. Consequently only those works were accepted finally concerning which Christians were clearly convinced that they were the products of an apostle or of a companion of an apostle writing in the apostolic period. Thus the books of Mark and Luke were admitted because every Christian was convinced that they had been written in the time of the apostles Peter and Paul, and perhaps under their supervision. On the other hand, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, although widely accepted in the 2d century, was ultimately dropped from the canon because its contents showed that it could not have been written by that apostle. Similarly, the Shepherd of Hermas, a book favored by some early Christians, did not finally achieve a place in the canon because it originated in the postapostolic period.

Another standard which guided the early church in the selection of the canon was that of content. This sometimes involved more subtle judgment than did the question of authorship. It necessitated the evaluation of a book in terms of its inner consistency, its agreement with the rest of Scripture, and its conformity with Christian experience. It was doubtless largely by this principle that the early Christians rejected the many Gnostic gospels and apocalypses.

Essential to the successful accomplishment of all of this was the guidance of the Spirit of God, the Spirit who led the minds of the prophets and apostles as they wrote, and who has brought conviction to the heart of every true believer in Jesus Christ, as he has read the Scripture, that it is truly the Word of God.

Bauer, Walter. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. and ed. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. xl, 909 pp., 2d ed., 1979. The 2d ed., revised and augmented by Gingrich and F. W. Danker, incorporates the changes and additions in Bauer’s 5th German ed., corrects errors, and expands the bibliography by thousands of new entries. The best NT Greek lexicon available. Includes references to the Church Fathers, papyri, and current scholarly literature.

Blass, Friedrich W., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A translation and revision of the 9th-10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner, by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. 372 pp. An authoritative source for Greek grammar and syntax.

Bruce, Frederick F. The English Bible: A History of Translations From the Earliest English Versions to the New English Bible. 3d revised ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. 274 pp. The best and most up-to-date history of the English Bible.

The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Ed. by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. 1970. 648 pp. Vol. 2: The West From the Fathers to the Reformation. Ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. 1909. 566 pp. Vol. 3: The West From the Reformation to the Present Day. Ed. by S. L. Greenslade. 1963. 590 pp. Cambridge: University Press. A comprehensive history of the Bible including languages and script, text, canon, and translation by a team of experts.

Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. 342 pp. Comprehensive treatment of the NT canon by an expert on the period of the early church.

Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. Co., 1968. 316 pp. Inspiration and canonicity are presented from the conservative position of an evangelical.

Kubo, Sakae, and Specht, Walter. So Many Versions? Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Press, 1975. 244 pp. The most thorough and up-to-date work on the most commonly used 20th-century English versions.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. 284 pp. A lucid, reliable guide to the textual criticism of the NT.

_______. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. 498 pp. The origin and transmission of all the NT versions made prior to a.d. 1000. Contains lists of the earliest MSS of each, gives the noteworthy printed editions, and discusses the scholarly investigation and textual analysis of each. Limitations on the use of each is presented by collaborating scholars.