The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (14 page)

^*
The dates generally follow
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, 3d ed. (Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997). A question mark indicates the date is disputed. The date given reflects the authors' view.

¹
B. F. Westcott,
A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament
(London: Macmillan & Co., 1896), 1. Westcott defines
canon
as “the collection of books which constitute the original written Rule of the Christian Faith” (ibid., n. 1).

²
See L. M. McDonald,
The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority
, 3d ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 38–39; and B. M. Metzger,
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 289–93.

³
For helpful surveys see D. G. Dunbar, “The Biblical Canon,” in
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon
, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 297–360, 424–46; and “The New Testament Canon,” in D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 726–43. See further the discussion below.

⁴
K. and B. Aland,
The Text of the New Testament
, rev. and enl. ed., trans. E. F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 85; B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman,
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
, 4th ed. (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005), 55–56.

⁵
M. B. Thompson, “The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the First Christian Generation,” in
The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences
, ed. R. Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 49–70.

⁶
Some have sought to reopen this issue; see R. W. Funk, “The Once and Future New Testament,” in
The Canon Debate
, 2d ed., L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders, eds. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 541–57; and the discussion of reformist feminist proposals by E. S. Fiorenza, R. R. Ruether, and others in M. E. Köstenberger,
Jesus and the Feminists: Who Do They Say That He Is?
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2008). McDonald (
Biblical Canon
, 427) has questioned the contours of the NT canon, particularly with regard to 2 Peter, the Pastorals, and other “nonapostolic” books. Certain Christian groups have historically had a different NT. The Nestorian churches in Eastern Syria still hold to a 22-book NT (B. M. Metzger,
The Bible in Translation
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 25–29; Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 735). Evangelicals and Roman Catholics continue to differ regarding the contents of the OT canon (see the discussion of the OT Apocrypha in chap. 2 below).

⁷
J. Barton,
Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 1.

⁸
W. R. Farmer, D. M. Farkasfalvy, and H. W. Attridge.
The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach
, Theological Inquiries (New York: Paulist, 1983), 125.

⁹
E.g., Luke 4:21; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20.

¹⁰
I. H. Marshall,
The International Critical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 615. He noted that some scholars try to lessen the implication of the statement by (1) making the reference to
graphē
apply only to the first quote; (2) a loose understanding of the word; or (3) the contention that the term is an inexact expression. However, as Marshall rightly said, “In any case, for the author the second citation had equal authority with the OT” (ibid.).

¹¹
This silence can be explained by (1) the lack of complete records (3 John may have been cited in now-lost early patristic writings); (2) the shortness of the letter (only 14 verses); and (3) the fact that reference to 3 John may not have been as essential in the early church's proclamation, defense of the faith, or theological controversies, as those of other more weighty NT writings. But see C. E. Hill,
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004), 99, 369. Hill noted that the author of the
Epistula Apostolorum
used the phrase “to walk in truth,” a possible echo of 3 John 3–4, and that Irenaeus (
Against Heresies
4.26.3) may allude to 3 John 9 when referring to elders who “conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puff ed up with pride of holding the chief seat.” Hill also theorized that the fifth- or sixth-century Codex Bezae may have originally included John, Revelation, and 1, 2 and 3 John in successive order, which would suggest a considerable prehistory as well as a “Johannine corpus” (ibid., 455). Given the size and content of 3 John, the question arises how such a manuscript could have survived unless it was attached to one or several larger works (at least 1 and 2 John).

¹²
Generally, Clement used
graphē
to refer to the OT, except for
2 Clem.
23.3 where he cited an unknown writing (see also
2 Clem.
11.2–4 for the same citation). There is some connection of this unknown writing to James.

¹³
M. W. Holmes,
The Apostolic Fathers
, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 141: “This appears to be the earliest instance of a NT passage being quoted as
scripture
” (emphasis original). Holmes suggested that the passage quoted is either Matt 9: 13 or Mark 2 :17.

¹⁴
P. Hartog,
Polycarp and the New Testament
, WUNT 2/134 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002), 195.

¹⁵
Metzger (
Canon
, 61) stated, “Polycarp almost certainly knows the Epistle to the Hebrews; he calls Christ ‘the eternal high priest’ (xii.2; see Heb. vi.20; vii.3) and seems to echo Heb. xii.8 (‘let us serve him with fear and all reverence,’ vi.3).”

¹⁶
The citation is from Eph 4 :26, quoting Ps 4:5. Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
, 295.

¹⁷
Polycarp further seemed rather enamored with
1 Clement
, which regularly used the word translated “pore over”
(egkyptō)
to refer to studying the OT Scriptures. Yet Polycarp, for his part, used Clement's favorite term, not with reference to the OT but to the Pauline letters (
Phil.
3.2). Clearly Polycarp understood the Pauline Letter collection to be Scripture. He certainly had access to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Timothy, and possibly

2 Thessalonians (Hartog,
Polycarp and the NT
, 195–97). Given this list, it is improbable that Polycarp's collection of Paul's letters did not contain the rest of his letters (see below on the nature of ancient letter collections).

¹⁸
C. E. Hill, “Papias of Hierapolis,”
ExpTim
117 (2006): 312.

¹⁹
Ibid.

²⁰
See Metzger,
Canon
, 305–7, citing Muratorian Canon 60 and 66–67.

²¹
See the discussion in ibid., 191–201.

²²
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix,
A General Introduction to the Bible
, rev. and exp. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 277–78.

²³
For helpful treatments on the formation of the Christian canon, including criteria for canonicity, see Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 726–43 (esp. pp. 736–37); and L. M. McDonald, “Canon,” in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development
, ed. R. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 134–44 (for ancient references regarding criteria for canonicity, see p. 135).

²⁴
The above list should not be taken to suggest that the early church used this exact list of criteria to arrive at the NT canon. Rather, these four criteria, used in conjunction with one another, adequately summarize the types of considerations that went into the early church's adjudication of individual books for possible inclusion in the canon.

²⁵
Eusebius,
Eccl
.
Hist.
3.25. Eusebius added the book of Revelation to this because he could not reconcile the thousand years of Rev 20:2–7 with his own antichiliast position, though this appears to have been at least to some extent a function of his own personal bias rather than reflecting widespread rejection of Revelation by the church as a whole.

²⁶
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–367/68) received Hebrews and James; Philaster, bishop of Brescia (died c. 397), received the seven General Epistles and Hebrews; Rufinus (c. 345–411) received the entire 27-book NT, as did his friend and contemporary Jerome (c. 345–420). Augustine (354–430) followed suit (see Metzger,
Canon
, 232–37).

²⁷
Revelation was the only book rejected by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (c. 315–387), and Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329/30– 389/90); Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340–395) stated that most rejected Revelation.

²⁸
As did Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403). See F. F. Bruce,
The Canon of Scripture
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 210–14.

²⁹
These writings include the
Shepherd of Hermas
(received by Irenaeus, respected in Egypt, but not Clement of Alexandria or Origen) as well as the Wisdom of Solomon and the
Apocalypse of Peter
(included in the Muratorian Canon). First Clement was also received as Scripture by some (e.g., Clement of Alexandria). The
Epistle of Barnabas
was briefly believed to be canonical in Egypt. The
Didache
was at one time considered Scripture in Egypt according to Clement of Alexandria and Origen. See H. Y. Gamble,
The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning
, Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 48–49.

³⁰
Note that the Muratorian Canon and Eusebius both discuss the books of the NT in these categories, as did many other patristic writers.

³¹
Westcott (
Canon
, 439) noted regarding Codex Sinaiticus and The Shepherd of Hermas that “the arrangement of the quires shews
[sic]
that the
Shepherd
, like
4 Maccabees
in the Old Testament, was treated as a separate section of the volume, and therefore perhaps as an Appendix to the more generally received books.”

³²
D. Brown (
The Da Vinci Code
[New York: Doubleday, 2003], 234), in a widely popular novel, suggested that the canon was determined—what is more, significantly revamped—at the Council of Nicea (325). In fact, the Council never even discussed the matter. Instead, this first ecumenical council presupposed the NT Scriptures, including the four canonical Gospels, as the arbiter of all disputes (see Westcott,
Canon
, 438).

³³
See Metzger,
Canon
, 314–15; Westcott,
Canon
, 448–49.

³⁴
P. Schaff , ed.,
The Seven Ecumenical Councils: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
, Series 2, vol. 14 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 454.

³⁵
P. Balla, “Evidence for an Early Christian Canon (Second and Third Century),” in
Canon Debate
, 385.

³⁶
This is addressed in the discussion of pseudonymity later in this volume; see especially the discussions in chap. 15 (Pastorals) and chap. 18 (2 Peter).

³⁷
See A. C. Sundberg Jr., “Toward a Revised History of the New Testament Canon,”
SE IV
, TU 102 (Berlin: Akademie, 1968), 452–61; id., “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,”
HTR
66 (1973): 1–41.

³⁸
See Sundberg, “Canon Muratori”; G. M. Hahneman,
The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon
, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992); and McDonald,
Biblical Canon
, 369–79. On the Muratorian canon, see already the brief summary earlier in this chapter as well as the discussion in Metzger (
Canon
, 191–201).

³⁹
E. Ferguson, “Canon Muratori: Provenance and Date,”
Studia Patristica
18 (1982): 677–83. Hahneman's arguments are solidly refuted by C. E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,”
WTJ
57 (1995): 437–52 (see esp. p. 440). See also E. Ferguson, “Review of G. M. Hahneman,
The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon
,”
JTS
57 (1993): 696. For a helpful discussion of the date of the Shepherd of Hermas, see Holmes (
Apostolic Fathers
, 447), who suggests that the writing may be a composite document.

⁴⁰
See A. C. Sundberg, “The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration,”
Int
29 (1975): 352–71.

⁴¹
See the discussion of inspiration later in this chapter.

⁴²
C. D. Allert,
A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon
, Evangelical Resourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 175.

⁴³
A. C. Sundberg, “Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should It Be Re-Examined?”
CBQ
28 (1966): 194–203; and id., “The ‘Old Testament’: A Christian Canon,”
CBQ
30 (1968): 143–55.

⁴⁴
Allert,
High View of Scripture
, 175.

⁴⁵
McDonald,
Biblical Canon
, 426–27.

⁴⁶
This question addresses at least two major issues. First, there is the matter of proper exegesis: the NT endorses neither slavery nor the subjugation of women, though it does restrict certain ecclesiastical roles to men (see R. W. Yarbrough, “Progressive
and
Historic: The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” in
Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15
, ed. A. J. Köstenberger and T. R. Schreiner [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 121–48). Second, there is the issue of the relationship between biblical revelation and contemporary culture. Especially since culture is always in a state of flux, if not entropy (a case in point being the advocacy of some, even in the church, of the permissibility of homosexuality today, which stands in conflict with the Bible's universal condemnation of this practice), culture must not be used to judge the appropriateness of biblical teaching. Instead, Scripture should constitute the standard by which the morality of the prevailing culture is assessed.