History of New
Testament Canon
(a)
An Awareness Within the New Testament Itself
At
times the New Testament writers seemed plainly aware that they or others from
amongst themselves were writing Scripture, e.g. 2 Pet.3:16 refers to Paul's
letters and "the rest of the Scriptures." Especially the Book of
Revelation seems rather self-consciously Scriptural (e.g. 1:3; 22:18,19). But
these are mere "hints" compared to the authoritative tone conveyed by
certain New Testament concepts. Three terms stand out:
(i)
"Apostle": The concept of
"apostle" is defined especially by the idea of authorization, by the
transmission of definite powers. The apostles are Christ's representatives
(Mt.10:40; cf. Jn.13:20). In a very special and exclusive manner he entrusted
them with the preaching of the Gospel. He also endowed them with the Spirit of
truth who would guide them into all the truth (Jn.14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15). They
were thus the transmitters of revelation (Heb.2:4). The salvation that appeared
in Jesus, first proclaimed by the Lord himself, was validly attested to by the
apostles.
(ii)
"Witness": The apostles were witnesses of the salvation revealed in
Christ. This concept should be understood in a forensic way. The apostles were
eyewitnesses and they bear this testimony for the forum of the coming Church
and the entire world. This testimony is both oral (preaching) and written (New
Testament documents).
(iii)
"Tradition": In the New
Testament this is a very authoritative concept. It means 'what has been handed
down with authority.' In apostolic times equal significance is given to oral
and written proclamation. The New Testament writings "are partially the
remains and fixation of a previous oral tradition." 11 The
source of the New Testament tradition lies in the apostles, e.g. 1 Cor.15:1-4.
Paul both receives and transmits tradition. A personal power is involved here,
viz. that of the apostles. They had received authority from Christ to do this.
The tradition of which the New Testament speaks is therefore not an unchanneled
stream which is then perpetuated as the faith or theology of the Church. It is
rather the authoritative proclamation entrusted to the apostles, as the
witnesses of Christ and as the foundation of the Church.
Although
the importance of apostolic witness and tradition is hard to exaggerate, the
authority of the apostles should be seen in its proper perspective.
B.B.Warfield gives more content to apostolic authority than is warranted by the
New Testament itself. In his view the New Testament canon was imposed by the
apostles on the Church. Thus the canon was not only complete but also fully and
finally accepted by the end of the first century. In an article originally
published in 1892 Warfield writes: "In every case the principle on which a
book was accepted, or doubts about it laid aside, was the historical tradition
of apostolicity." However, "the principle of canonicity was not
apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as 'law.'" 12
Warfield then further explains, "The authority of the apostles, as by
divine appointment founders of the Church, was embodied in whatever books they
imposed on the Church as law, not merely in those they themselves had
written." 13 In his position Warfield is obviously taking
apostolic authorship too far. Not only is it difficult to conceive how the
apostles could impose books on the Church as law, there is no historical
evidence for any such apostolic imposition. Perhaps this is the reason why
Warfield's discussion does not proceed beyond the second century. He completely
leaves out of the question the whole "recognition" element on the
part of the Church. His view simply cannot account for the diversity of
opinions regarding the limits of the New Testament which prevailed for decades
and even for centuries.
Warfield's
position certainly simplifies the canon question by making the New Testament a
closed book by the end of the first century, but it fails to do justice to the
historical facts. We must pay attention to the diversity of opinions that came
to expression in the early church.
(b)
The Apostolic Fathers
The
Apostolic Fathers were more concerned with practical and moral issues than with
theological reflection. The works of these early Christian writers contain no
formulated doctrine of Scripture or canon, and yet there is much that is
suggestive of later development.
(i)
Clement of Rome: Writing in about the year 96 Clement emphasizes the importance
of apostolic authority: "The apostles received the gospel for us from the
Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is
from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of
God in good order." 14 His only specific references to the New
Testament are from 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. However, there is evidence of his
familiarity with a wider range of the canonical materials. Yet Clement has no formal
theory of the New Testament canon. While the tradition that derives from Jesus
and the apostles is authoritative, it is not authoritative in a specific form.
(ii)
Ignatius of Antioch: Around 115 Ignatius stated that the teachings of the
apostles are known through their writings. There is, however, no indication
that he viewed the apostolic writings as Scripture parallel to the Old
Testament. For him the issue is the authority of the revelation — not its form,
whether oral or written.
(iii)
Polycarp (d.155): Like Clement and Ignatius, Polycarp sees an integral unity
between the Old Testament and the apostles. However, he moves beyond his
predecessors in that for him the importance of the Old Testament has receded in
favour of the increased esteem given to the writings of the apostles,
particularly Paul.
(iv) The Epistle of Barnabas (ca.130): Most of
this epistle is a polemical foray into interpreting the Old Testament. Barnabas
wrestles with the problem of continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New
Covenants. Generous use is made of the Old Covenant to show how it points to
Christ. Barnabas indicates that as the problems of Old Testament interpretation
grew, the Church would become more conscious of its literature as forming a
complementary Scripture (the New Testament). He cites Matthew 22:14 with the
formula "it is written."
(v)
"Gospel" and "Apostle": According to F.F.Bruce, in the early years of the second century two
Christian collections of authoritative documents were current. One was called
"The Gospel" (with sub-headings "According to Matthew,"
etc.). The other was "The Apostle," i.e. the Pauline corpus (with
sub-headings "To the Romans," etc.). Soon these two parts were to be
connected by the Book of Acts which brought the two collections together. The
implications of this were significant, as Bruce explains:
So
long as the fourfold Gospel and the Pauline collection circulated separately,
one can hardly speak of a canon, even in embryo. The bringing together of the
two collections into one was facilitated by the existence of Acts, the hinge
which joined the two. ... Acts provided the central structure of an edifice
which now took on the shape of the canon as we have received it.
So,
already at this early stage, the Church was making progress in the recognition
of an authoritative collection of Christian books. Just before the middle of
the second century something happened to speed up that progress and give it
greater precision than had characterized it up until that time.
2.
The New Testament Canon between 140 and 220
The
early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong heretical
movements:
(a)
Marcionism
About
the year 140 the Roman church received a visit from Marcion, a native of Asia
Minor. He presented his teachings to the presbyters at Rome, but they found it
utterly unacceptable, which was not surprising considering his radical Gnostic
views. He rejected the Old Testament entirely and regarded the God depicted
there as an inferior Being. Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the
authority of the God of the Old Testament and to reveal the superior God of
goodness and mercy whom he called the Father. But this message had been
obscured in the Gospel by Judaizing corruptions. Paul and Luke were the only
ones to find favour with Marcion and these only partially. So what Marcion did
was to set up a canon, a definite group of books which he regarded as fully
authoritative, replacing all others. These comprised ten of the Pauline
epistles (without the Pastorals) and Luke's Gospel. He seems to have edited
these books, purging them of what did not accord with his views.
Marcion's
views were dangerous and widespread. The Marcionites were the first to have a
clearly defined canon. The compilation of this canon was a challenge and incentive
to the church of Rome and the other like-minded churches. If these churches
denied that Marcion's canon was the true one, then let them show what the true
one really was. Before we examine the Church's response, we need to consider
other heretical groups which may have contributed to this precipitating factor.
(b)
Gnosticism
While
the origins of Gnosticism are not certain, it is clear that the movement came
to full bloom in the middle of the second century. With its idea of an esoteric
gnosis ('knowledge') it raised in more acute form the questions of
tradition and authority that engaged the Apostolic Fathers. The Nag Hammadi
finds of 1946 have provided us with fresh insights into their teachings. Chief
among the finds was The Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of 114
sayings of Jesus and which has been proposed as a source for reliable
traditions about the historical Jesus. Another significant Gnostic work was the
apocryphal Gospel of Truth written in Rome ca. 140. The author used
practically the same books as our present New Testament canon and the manner in
which he treats these documents proves that they had authority for him.
However, for the Gnostics true gnosis was beyond Scripture. Although
they attributed their apocryphal writings to various apostles, they at times
portray the apostles themselves as deficient in knowledge. While they did not
delimit the canon as Marcion did, the Gnostics also performed a catalytic
function in the formation of the canon. As David Dunbar concludes:
Gnosticism's
effect on the Church was to intensify its concern for faithful adherence to the
teaching of the apostles. The necessity for a concrete standard by which to
evaluate the Church tradition pressed the orthodox Fathers from Irenaeus onward
to focus more consciously on Scripture as the written fixation of the apostolic
tradition.
(c)
Montanism
Later
in the second century orthodoxy was to be challenged from yet another
direction. Montanism was a movement that started ca. 156 in Phrygia in Asia
Minor. Its leader, Montanus, believed that Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit
(Paraclete) had now been fulfilled. Montanus was the Paraclete's
mouthpiece. The coming of the Paraclete was the immediate prelude to the second
advent of Christ and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns
of Phrygia. Montanism spread throughout the empire. By the end of the second
century it had made one of its most illustrious converts in Tertullian of Carthage.
While
Montanism stressed the renewal of the prophetic gift and taught that the Holy
Spirit was manifesting himself supernaturally through entranced prophets and
prophetesses (notably Montanus himself), the result of the Montanist challenge
on the question of the canon has long been debated. The claim to inspiration by
the Holy Spirit certainly challenged the Church's understanding of authority.
However, such influence as the New Prophecy had on the emergent canon was
certainly indirect. Montanist polemic comprised no attack upon the authority or
validity of the Biblical writings (Old or New Testament). Nor were the
Montanist oracles, collected in written form, seen as equivalent to Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment