~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

As we have seen, the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures states that the Bible, both Old and NewTestaments, is the Word of God, inspired by the Spirit of God equally in all its parts. This sets them apart fromand above all other writings, whatever their relative value may be, and makes the Scriptures the only rule bywhich we are to judge all other writings, utterances, revelations, or ideas. Of course, unbelievers deny this. Somany errors, they assert, have entered through transmission and translation that the Bible is fallible like any otherbook and unreliable as an exact and perfect rule. Another way that is popularly set forth to seek to discredit theBible is to assert that Jewish or Church officials have suppressed and excluded from the Bible certain writingsthat should have been included in it and that would greatly change the overall meaning and message of the Bible.In addition, many liberal scholars today who call themselves Christians have expressed doubt concerningwhether only the books in the Bible are truly inspired and are therefore the only rule of faith and practice. Theydo this to undermine the unique authority of the Bible so that other ideas that are either denied or are absent inScripture may be introduced and accepted as true also.

Our Protestant English Bibles contain 66 books-39 in the OT and 27 in the New. How do we know thatthese and only these books should be regarded as the inspired Word of God (in the fullest sense) and thusincluded in the Bible? Is it true that there are other books that should have been included in it but have been leftout? This is indeed a serious question, because if it is true, then the Bible is an incomplete guide or rule andtherefore inadequate and not entirely reliable. We then must wonder if what we receive from the Bible is thewhole truth and can never be sure that we are really following the truth.

As we have said, God inspired the authors of Scripture to write what they did so that what they wrote iswithout error. But this does not mean He inspired the copyists and translators so that they made no errors, andthe same must be said for those who collected the books of the Bible. We need to remember that the authorsof the Bible did not write at the same time but over a period of 1600 years. Neither were they necessarilyconscious at the time each of them wrote that what he wrote would be added to a collection of writings thatwould eventually contain 66 books. Obviously someone or some group of people had to be responsible forrecognizing these writings as inspired and collecting them, and we have no assurance from the Scripturesthemselves that those who collected these writings were infallible in their judgment concerning which wereinspired and which were not inspired writings. There is nothing in the Bible itself that tells us which books belongin the Bible and which do not. This was for those who recognized and collected the books to decide. Since nobooks were added to the OT since several centuries before Christ and no books were added to the NT after thefirst century, how did the collectors of these writings know when the Bible was "full" and no other books could beadded? The question of the canon of Scripture, therefore, is very important to our doctrine of the Scriptures-Bibliology-and to the very trustworthiness of our faith.

This is what we mean by the "canon" of Scripture: we mean that standard collection of writings that aredivinely inspired and therefore authoritative, sacred, and binding. Indeed, there have always been, including during the time and shortly after the Scriptures were written, and stillare today many writings that are very helpful to us as believers that are not "canonical," that is, recognized asbeing part of this divinely inspired collection, and are therefore not authoritative, sacred, and binding like the"canonical" writings called Scripture are. There were also outright false writings. We use the word "canon" forthe collection of unique writings that are divinely inspired. It comes "from the Greek word kanon, which, in turn,is derived from a Semitic root [word meaning] 'reed.' From this came the idea of a measuring rod, later a rule ornorm of faith, and eventually a catalogue or list" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "Canon of the OT";Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,MI; Vol.l,pp.591, 592). Just as a measuring rod has many marks on it, the canon of Scripture is a catalogue or list of those writings which are recognized as divinely inspired that make up the Bible.

"The crucial difference between canonical and noncanonical literature is that the former is normative(authoritative) and the latter is not. Inspired books have divine binding on the believer; the latter may have somevalue for devotion and edification, but they are not to be used to define or delimit any doctrine. Canonical books provide the truth criteria by which all noncanonical books are to be judged. No article of faith may be based onany non-canonical work regardless of its religious value. The divinely inspired and authoritative books are thesole basis for doctrine" (From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix; Moody:Chicago; 1974,p.76)

Since the Bible itself does not tell us which books should be in it and which should not (or, for that matter,that there should be such a thing as the Bible as we know it) and since the books that now make up the Biblewere written not at the same time but over the centuries, the account of how these books came to be in the Bibleis purely a historical study. And for our study of the canon we will separate the OT from the New.

How do we know that the 39 books we have in our Protestant English Bibles and these alone should makeup the OT? How do we know that other known books should not be included? Who decided and how did theydetermine that these 39 alone should be included in the OT canon?First, let us note that although the determination that these 39 alone were Scripture, that is, that they madeup the canon of the OT, was the conclusion of a process over much time, the concept that certain writings wereabove all others and were authoritative or binding, the Word of God, is much older. It goes back to the very time Moses wrote the first five books of the OT, called the Pentateuch. From the very time they were written they were recognized as sacred and binding by the Jews-the Word of God. Other books were added to this collectioneither as soon as or not long after they were written:

"From the very beginning the inspired writings were collected by the people of God and revered as sacredand divinely authoritative. Moses' laws were stored by the ark in the tabernacle of God (Deu.31:24-26) and laterin the temple (2 K.22:8). Joshua added his words 'in the book of the law of God...and set it up...in the sanctuary of the Lord' (Jos.24:26). Samuel informed the Israelites of the duties of theirking 'and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the Lord' (I Sam. 10:25). Samuel headed up a school ofthe prophets whose disciples were called 'sons of the prophets' (I Sam.19:20). According to Ezekiel there wasan official register of prophets and their writings in the temple (Eze.13:9,ASV). Daniel refers to 'the books' whichcontained the 'law of Moses' and 'the prophets' (9:2,6,11). The writers of the books of Kings and Chronicles wereaware of many books by prophets which covered the whole of preexilic history. This general evidence of agrowing collection of prophetic books is confirmed by specific usage of the earlier prophets by later ones. Thebooks of Moses are cited throughout the OT from Joshua (1:7) to Malachi (4:4), including most of the majorbooks between (I K.2:3; 2 K.14:6; 2 Chron.14:4; Jer.8:8; Dan.9:11; Ezra 6:18 and Neh.13:1). Both Joshua andevents in his book are referred to in Judges (1:1,20-21; 2:8). The books of Kings cite the life of David as it wastold in the books of Samuel (see 1 K. 3:14; 5:7; 8:16; 9:5). Chronicles review Israel's history recorded fromGenesis through Kings including the genealogical link mentioned only in Ruth (1 Chron.2:12-13). Nehemiah 9reviews Israel's history as it is recorded from Genesis to Ezra. A psalm of David, Psalm 18, is recorded in 2Samuel 22. Reference is made to Solomon's Proverbs and Songs in 1 Kings 4:32. Daniel cites Jeremiah 25(Dan.9:2). The prophet Jonah recites parts from many Psalms (Jon.2). Ezekiel mentions both Job and Daniel(Eze.14:14,20). Not every prior book is cited by a later one, however; but enough are cited to demonstrate thatthere was a growing collection of divinely authoritative books available to and quoted by subsequent prophets. In addition to the continuous collection of prophetic writings presented in the OT there appears to be a continuityamong the writings themselves. Each of the leaders in the prophetic community seems to have linked his historyto that of his predecessors to produce an unbroken chain of books. Since the last chapter of Deuteronomy doesnot present itself as prophecy it would seem that Moses did not write about his own funeral. It is more likely thatJoshua, his God-appointed successor, recorded the death of Moses (Deu.34). The first verse of Joshua linksitself to Deuteronomy saying, 'After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord spoke to Joshua the sonof Nun. Joshua added to the Mosaic law and put it in the tabernacle (Jos.24:26). Judges picked up at the end ofJoshua saying, 'After the death of Joshua the sons of Israel inquired of the Lord,' but the record was notcompleted until Samuel's time. This is repeatedly shown by the statement, 'In those days there was no king inIsrael' (Judg.17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). At this point the prophetic continuity was established in a school directedby Samuel (1 Sam.19:20). From its ranks came a series of prophetic books which cover the entire history of thekings of Israel and Judah, as the following sample illustrates:

1. The history of David was written by Samuel (cf. I Sam.), Nathan, and Gad (I Chron.29: 29),

2. The history of Solomon was recorded by the prophets Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo (2 Chron.9:29),

3. The acts of Rehoboam were written by Shemaiah and Iddo (2 Chron.12:15),

4. The history of Abijah was added by the prophet Iddo (2 Chron.13:22),

5. The story of Jehoshaphat's reign was recorded by Jehu the prophet (2 Chron.20:34),

6. The reign of Hezekiah was written by Isaiah (2 Chron.32:32),

7. The life of Manasseh was recorded by unnamed prophets (2 Chron.33:19),

8. The other kings also have their histories recorded by prophets (2 Chron.35:27).

"Anyone familiar with the biblical books which cover the period from David to the Exile will see that theprophetic books listed above are not identical with the Samuels, Kings, and Chronicles. Each time a cue is givenin the repeated phrase, 'and the rest of the acts' of king so-and-so are written 'in the book' of prophet such-and-such. The biblical books appear to be prophetic abridgments edited out of the more complete histories recordedby the prophetic succession beginning with Samuel. It is interesting to note that Jeremiah, who wrote just priorto and during the Jewish Exile, is not mentioned as having written one of these histories. Yet Jeremiah was a writing prophet, as his books (Jeremiah and Lamentations) indicate, and as he explicitly claimson numerous occasions (cf.Jer.30:2; 36:1,2; 45:1-2; 51:60,63). In fact the scribe Baruch tells us that Jeremiahhad secretarial help. Speaking of Jeremiah, he confessed, 'He dictated all these words to me, while I wrote themwith ink on a scroll' (Jer.36:18; see also 45:1). Further, the last chapter of the Kings parallels the material of Jeremiah 52,39,40,41. This is still another indication that Jeremiah was responsible for both books. Laterin the Exile, Daniel claims to have had access to the books of Moses and the prophets. From them he not only names Jeremiah but quotes his prediction of the seventy-year captivity from chapter 25 (cf.Dan.9:2,6,11). On the basis of these facts, it is reasonable to suppose that the abridgment of the prophetic writings which took the form of the biblical books of the Kings was the work of Jeremiah. Thus, the continuity of the preexilic prophets from Moses, Joshua, and Samuel would be completed with the works of Jeremiah. During the Exile, Daniel and Ezekiel continued the prophetic ministry. Ezekiel vouched to an official register of prophets in the temple records. He declared that false prophets 'shall not be in the council of my people, neither shall they be written in the register of the house of Israel' (Eze.13:9,ASV,margin). Ezekiel referred to Daniel by name as a noted servant of God (Eze.14:14,20). Since Daniel possessed a copy of the books of Moses and the prophets, including Jeremiah's book, we may reasonably assume that the Jewish community in the Babylonian Exile possessed Genesis through Daniel. After the Exile, Ezra the priest returned from Babylon with the books of Moses and the prophets (Ezra 6:18; Neh.9:14,26-30). In the Chronicles he undoubtedly carried his own priestly account of the history of Judah and the temple (see Neh.12:23). Chronicles is connected with Ezra-Nehemiah by the repetition of the last verse of one as the first verse of the other. With Nehemiah the chronology of prophetic continuity is complete. Each prophet from Moses through Nehemiah contributed to the growing collection which was preserved by the official prophetic community stemming from Samuel. As with the prophetic continuity, the canon of prophetic writings is complete with Nehemiah. All twenty-two (twenty-four) books of the Hebrew Scriptures are written by the prophets, preserved by the prophetic community, and recognized by the people of God....[T]he completeHebrew Testament was collected in two main sections: the five books of Moses and the seventeen (ornineteen) prophets who followed him....Virtually all twenty-two (twenty-four) books in both sections are cited asScripture by the NT. There is no scriptural nor historical support for the theory that a third division, known as 'the writings, awaited canonization at a later date. Instead, the inspired books were brought into the canon as law and prophets. This canonization was a twofold process. Whatever the factors are which led to subsequent or parallel threefold categorization of these OT books, this much seems clear-the complete canon of the OT is consistently referred to as the law and the prophets." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., pp.80-85)

Concerning this "three-fold" division of the OT, the ISBE says:

"The Jews early divided the OT writings into three classes: (1 ) the tora or law; (2) the nebiim, or Prophets; and (3) the ketubim, or Writings, called in Greek the Hagiographa. The tora included the five books of the Pentateuch (Gen.,Ex.,Lev.,Num.,Deut.),....The nebiim embraced (a) the four so-called Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, counted as one book, 1 and 2 Kings also counted as one book) and (b) the four so-called Latter Prophets (Is.,Jer.,Ez., the Twelve Minor Prophets, counted as one book), a total of eight books. The ketubim or Writings were eleven in all, including Ps.,Prov.,Job, the five megillot or Rolls (Cant.,Ruth,Lam.,Eccl., Esther), Dan., Ezra-Neh. (counted as one book), and I and 2 Chron. (also counted as one book); in all twenty-four books, exactly the same as those of the Protestant canon. This was the original count of the Jews as far as we can trace it back. Later certain Jewish authorities appended Ruth to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah, and thereby obtained the number twenty-two, which corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; but this manner of counting was secondary and fanciful...." (ISBE, o.p.cit., p.592)

Other Jewish witnesses to the present OT canon are:

4 Esdras. "4 Esdras in Latin (2 Esdras in English) is a Jewish apocalypse written originally in Greek toward the close of the lst cent. (ca. A.D. 81-96). The passage of special interest to us is 14:19-48, which relates in most fabulous style how Ezra was given spiritual illumination to reproduce the Law, which had beenburned....[He] dictated to his amanuenses continuously for forty days and nights, producing ninety-four books ofwhich seventy were kept secret and twenty-four published....:'And when the forty days were ended, the Most Highspoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first...but keep the seventy that werewritten last, in order to give them to the wise among your people"' (2 Esd.14:45f.). The story is obviously purefiction....From the legend of 4 Esdras, however, it is commonly inferred that the twenty-four books that remainafter subtracting seventy from ninety-four are the canonical books of the OT. This would make it the first witness we have to the number of books contained in the OT canon. This number corresponds exactly with the usual number of sacred books according to Jewish count.

"Josephus. Flavius Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian.....about the year 100...wrote a controversial treatise, known as Contra Apionem, in defense of the Jews against their assailants....The important passage in his treatise (i.8) reads as follows: 'For it is not the case with us to have vast numbers of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. We have but twenty-two containing the history of all time., books that are justly believed in. And of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and the earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to the time of his [Moses'] death. This period falls short but by a little of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents [probably Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes] comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own time every event has indeed been recorded. But these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our conduct; for though so great an interval of time [i.e., since they were written] has now passed, not a soul has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. But it is instinctive in all Jews at once from their very birth to regard them as commands of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, willing to die for them.'...[P]robably joining Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah....[t]here is little doubt that his twenty-two books are those of our present Hebrew canon....It was the uniform tradition of Josephus' time that prophetic inspiration had ceased with Malachi (ca. 445-432 B.C.). Hence, according to him, the canon was closed in the reign of Artaxerxes (465-425 B.C.). He does not pause to give any account of the closing of the canon; he simply assumes it. Prophecy had ceased, and the canon was accordingly closed; the fact did not require official proclamation....Reduced to its lowest terms, the element of real truth in what he says was simply this, that he voiced a tradition that was at that time universal and undisputed; one, however, that had required a long period, perhaps hundreds of years, to develop. Hence we conclude that the complete OT canon, numbering twenty-two books, was no new thing in A.D. 100." (ISBE,op.cit.,pp.597,598)

The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches accept a number of other books besides the 39 (24 in the Hebrew Bible) into the OT canon. These are usually called "the apocrypha" although the term is applied to other books as well:

"On the basis of the LXX, Catholics advocate what is known as the 'larger' canon of the Jews in Alexandria; Protestants, on the other hand, deny the existence of an independent canon in Alexandria in view of the 'smaller' canon of the Jews in Palestine. The actual difference between the Catholic and Protestant OT is a matter of seven complete books and portions of two others, viz., Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and 2 Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther (10:4-16:24) and to Daniel (3:24-90, Song of the Three Holy Children; ch. 13, Susanna; ch. 14, Bel and the Dragon). These portions Protestants reject as apocryphal because there is not sufficient evidence that they were ever reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere. The fact that the present LXX includes them is far from conclusive that the original LXX did....In the various extant MSS of the LXX, the apocryphal books vary in number and name. For example, the great Vatican MS, which is probably 'the truest representative which remains of the Alexandrian Bible,' and which comes down to us from the 4th cent. A.D., contains no book of Maccabees whatever, but does include 1 Esdras, which St. Jerome and Catholics generally treat as apocryphal. On the other hand, the Alexandrian MS, another of the great MSS of the LXX, dating from the 5th cent. A.D., contains not only the extracanonical book of 1 Esdras, but 3 and 4 Maccabees, and in the NT 1 and 2 Clement, none of which, however, is considered canonical by Rome. Likewise the great Sinaitic MS, hardly less important than the Vatican as a witness to the LXX and like it dating from the 4th cent. A.D., omits Baruch (which Catholics consider canonical) , but includes 4 Maccabees and in the NT the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, all of which are excluded from the canon by Catholics. In other MSS, 3 Maccabees, 3 Esdras, and Prayer of Manasses are occasionally included. The problem as to how many books the originally LXX version actually included is a very complicated one. It probably included none of these variants. Still another reason for thinking that there never existed in Egypt a separate or 'larger' canon is the fact that during the 2nd cent. A.D. the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila's Greek version of the OT in lieu of their own, and it is known that Aquila's text excluded all apocryphal books. Add to this the fact that Philo, who lived in Alexandria from ca. 20 B.C. till A.D. 50, never quotes from one of these apocryphal books though he often does from the canonical, and that Origen, who also resided in Alexandria (ca. A.D. 200), never set his imprimatur upon them, and it becomes reasonably convincing that there was no 'larger' canon in Alexandria." (ISBE,op.cit.,pp.594, 595)

Because MSS of the Septuagint in early Christian times contained some or most of the apocryphal books, many early Church fathers quote from them and call them "scripture." On the other hand, most of them held that they were not inspired, at least not in the sense that the other 39 are. Later this led to confusion and the apocrypha were eventually recognized in the Western (Roman Catholic) Church as canonical or at least semi-canonical.

There is no doubt that by the time of Christ the OT canon had been fixed at the present number of books for quite some time. As we have already seen, the witness of Christ Himself to the inspiration of the Scripturesis one of the greatest if not the greatest reasons why the Church should believe in it. The same may be said for the OT canon. Jesus' constant reference to the Scriptures is the strongest evidence that He acknowledged and thus lent His divine endorsement to the canon of His day.

"The evidence furnished by the NT is of the highest importance. When summed up, it gives the unmistakable impression that when the NT was written (ca. A.D. 50-100) there was a definite and fixed canon of OT Scripture, to which authoritative appeal could be made. First, it is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of the names or titles ascribed to the OT writings by the authors of the NT: thus, 'scripture' (Jn.10:35; 19:36; 2 Pet. 1:20), 'the scriptures' (Mt.22:29; Acts 18:24), 'holy scriptures' (Rom.1:2), 'sacred writings' (2 Tim.3:15), 'law' (Jn.10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1 Cor.14:21), 'law and prophets' (Mt.5:17;7:12; 22:40; Lk.16:16; 24:44; Acts 13:15;28:23). Such names or titles, though they do not define the limits of the canon, certainly assume the existence of a complete and sacred collection of Jewish writings that are already marked off from all other literature as separate and fixed. One passage (Jn.10:35) in which the term 'scripture' is employed seems to refer to the 0T canon as a whole: 'and scripture cannot be broken.' In like manner the expression 'law and prophets' is often used in a generic sense referring to much more than merely the first and second divisions of the OT; it seems rather to refer to the old dispensation as a whole; but the term 'the law' is the most general of all. It is frequently applied to the entire OT, and apparently held in Christ's time among the Jews a place akin to that which the term 'the Bible' does with us. For example, in Jn.10:34; 12:34; 15:25, texts from the prophets or even from the Psalms are quoted as part of 'the law'; in 1 Cor.14:21 also, Paul speaks of Isa. 28:11 as a part of 'the law.' These names and titles, accordingly, are exceedingly important; they are never applied by NT writers to the Apocrypha. One passage (Lk.24:44) furnishes clear evidence of the threefold division of the canon. Usually the NT writers mentioned the first two sections only (cf. Mt.5:17; Lk.16:16), but quite obviously included the Hagiographa with the prophets just as the Talmudic teachers did, due no doubt to the lack of a proper term for the Hagiographa. Another passage (Mt.23:35; cf. Lk. 11:51) seems to point to the final order and arrangement of the books in the OT canon. It reads: 'that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.' Now in order to grasp the bearing of this verse upon the matter in hand, it must be remembered that in the modern arrangement of the OT books in Hebrew, Chronicles stands last; and that the murder of Zechariah is the last recorded instance in this arrangement, being found in 2 Chron.24:20f. But this murder took place under Joash king of Judah in the 9th cent. B.C. There is another that is chronologically later, viz., that of Uriah son of Shemaiah who was murdered in Jehoiakim's reign in the 7th cent. B.C. (Jer.26:23). Accordingly, the argument is this: unless Chronicles already stood last in Christ's OT, why did He not say, 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Uriah'? He would then have been speaking chronologically and would have included all the martyrs whose martyrdom is recorded in the OT. But He rather says, 'from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah, ' as though He were including the whole range of OT Scripture, just as we would say 'from Genesis to Malachi.'...Another ground for thinking that the OT canon was closed before the NT was written is the numerous citations made in the NT from the OT. Every book is quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. But these exceptions are not serious. The Twelve Minor Prophets were always treated by the Jews en bloc as one canonical work; hence if one of the twelve was quoted all were recognized. And the fact that 2 Chron.24:20f. is quoted in Mt.23:35 and Lk. 11:51 presupposes also the canonicity of Ezra-Nehemiah, as originally these books were one with Chronicles, though they may possibly have already been divided in Jesus' day. As for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, it is easy to see why they are not quoted: they probably failed to furnish NT writers material for quotation. The NT writers simply had no occasion to make citations from them. What is much more noteworthy is that they never quote from the apocryphal books, though they show an acquaintance with them....As a witness, therefore, the NT is of paramount importance. For, though it nowhere tells us the exact number of books contained in the OT canon, it gives abundant evidence of the existence already in the 1st cent. A.D. of a definite and fixed canon....Christians of all sects have always been disposed to accept without question the canon of the Jews. For centuries all branches of the Christian Church were practically agreed on the limits set by the Jews, but eventually the Western Church became divided, some alleging that Christ sanctioned the 'larger' canon of Alexandria, including the Apocrypha, while others adhered, as the Jews have always done, to the canon of the Jews in Palestine. Taking the Eastern or Oriental Church first, the evidence they furnish is as follows. The Peshitta or Syriac version, dating from A.D. 150, omits Chronicles. Justin Martyr (A.D. 164) held to a canon identical with that of the Jews. The canon of Melito, bishop of Sardis, who (ca. 170) made a journey to Palestine in order carefully to investigate the matter, omits Esther; his list, the earliest Christian list we have, has been preserved by Eusebius in HE iv.26. Origen (d.254), educated in Alexandria and one of the most learned of the Greek fathers, also set himself the task of knowing the 'Hebrew verity' of the OT text. In his list (preserved by Eusebius in HE vi.5) he reckons the number of books as twenty-two (thus agreeing with Josephus); inadvertently he omits the Twelve Minor Prophets, but this is manifestly an oversight on the part of either a scribe or of Eusebius, as he states the number of books is twenty-two and then names but twenty-one. The so-called canon of Laodicea (ca. 363) included the canonical books only, rejecting the Apocrypha. Athanasius (d.365) gives a list in which Esther is classed as among the noncanonical books, though he elsewhere admits that 'Esther is considered canonical by the Hebrews'; however, he also includes Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah. Gregory of Nazianzus in Cappadocia (d.390) omits Esther. But Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch (500), and Leontius of yzantium (580) both held to the strict Jewish canon of twenty-two books. The Nestorians generally doubted Esther. This was due doubtless to the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. A.D. 390-457), who disputed the authority of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Job. The oriental churches as a whole, however, never canonized the Apocrypha. In the Western Church. Between A.D. 100 and 400 the NT writings became canonical, occupying in the Christian Church a place of authority and sacredness equal to those of the OT. The tendency of the period was to receive everything that had been traditionally read in the churches. But the transference of this principle to the OT writings produced great confusion. Usage and theory were often in conflict. A church father might declare that the apocryphal books were uninspired and yet quote them as Scripture, and even introduce them with the accepted formula, 'As the Holy Ghost saith.' Theologically they held to a strict canon, homiletically they used a larger one. But even usage was not uniform. 3 and 4 Esdras and the Book of Enoch are sometimes quoted as 'Holy Writ, ' yet the Western Church never received these books as canonical. The criterion of usage, therefore, is too broad. The theory of the fathers was gradually forgotten, and the prevalent use of the LXX and other versions led to the obliteration of the distinction between the undisputed books of the Hebrew canon and the mostpopular apocryphal books; and being often publicly read in the churches, they finally received a quasi- canonization." (ISBE,op.cit., pp.596, 597, 599)

"Until Jerome produced a new translation of the OT from the Hebrew text at the end of the fourth century, the Latin OT was a rendering of the Septuagint, including the 'Septuagintal plus' [or, apocrypha]. There was little if anything to indicate to readers of the Old Latin version that the 'Septuagintal plus' stood on a different footing from the rest of the OT. Tertullian of Carthage is the first writer to be considered among the Latin fathers: he flourished at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third. He calls the two Testaments 'instruments' (Latin instrumenta), using the word in its legal sense. The OT is 'the whole instrument of Jewish literature'; he gives the impression that he knows exactly what it contains, although he nowhere gives a list of its contents. His OT was evidently co-extensive with the Septuagint (including the 'Septuagint plus'); indeed, in one place he implies that it might justifiably be extended beyond the limits of the Septuagint....The Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra) was never included in the Septuagint (for this reason its Greek text has not survived). But Tertullian knows and accepts its account....Another work which found no place in the Septuagint was the composite apocalyptic work called 1 Enoch....A number of early Christian writers mention it with reservations, but Tertullian approved of it, and would have been willing to see it included in the ancient instrumentum [it was quoted by Jude, 14]....A compilation to which Tertullian and other early Christian writers assigned genuine prophetic authority was the Sibylline Oracles. The Sibylline Oracles which they knew were Jewish and Christian poems composed in an oracular idiom at various times between 200 B.C. and A.D. 250. But those writers who quote them took them at face value as the genuine prophecies of an ancient pagan prophetess-'the Sibyl', says Tertullian, 'who antedated all literature and was a true prophetess of truth.'...But it was not suggested that the Sibylline Oracles should be included in the Jewish or Christian holy scriptures: to those who took them at face value they constituted a parallel body of divine prophecy, communicated and transmitted through Gentiles.... Tertullian may stand for all the Latin fathers before the time of Jerome: the Bible which they used provided them with no means of distinguishing those parts which belonged to the Hebrew canon from those which were found only in the Septuagint." (The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce; Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove,IL; 1988, pp.83-

We have already noted the fact that Jerome (346-420) received the task of re-translating the Bible into Latin. But instead of following the Old Latin versions and translating from the LXX, he worked from the Hebrew. He thereby also rejected the apocrypha.

"In his famous Prologus Galeatus or 'Helmed Preface' to the books of Samuel and Kings, he declares himself for the strict canon of the Jews, rejecting the authority of the deuterocanonical books in the most out- spoken manner, even distinguishing carefully the apocryphal additions to Esther and Daniel. Contemporary with Jerome in Bethlehem was Augustine of North Africa (354-430). He was the bishop of Hippo, renowned as thinker, theologian, and saint. In the three great councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) of which he was the leading spirit, he closed as it were the great debate of the previous generations on the subject of the extent of the canon. In his essay De doctrina Christiana he catalogues the books of Scripture that had been transmitted by the fathers for public reading in the Church, giving their number as forty-four, with which he says 'the authority of the OT is ended.' These forty-four books probably correspond with the present canon of the Catholic Church. But it is not to be supposed that Augustine made no distinction between the protocanonical and deutero-canonical books. On the contrary, he limited the term canonical' in its strict sense to the books that are inspired and received by the Jews, and denied that in the support of doctrine the books of Wisdom and Sirach were of unques-tioned authority, though long custom had entitled them to respect. And when a passage from 2 Maccabees was urged by his opponents in defense of suicide, he rejected their proof by showing that the book was not received into the Hebrew canon to which Christ was witness. At the Third Council of Carthage (397), however, a decree was ratified, probably with Augustine's approval, which in effect placed all the canonical and deuterocanonical books on the same level, and in the course of time they actually became considered by some as of equal authority....From the 4th to the 16th cent. A.D. the process of gradually widening the limits of the canon continued. Pope Gelasius (492-496) issued a decretal or list in which he included the OT Apocrypha. Yet even after this official act of the papacy the sentiment in the Western Church was divided. Some followed the strict canon of Jerome, while others favored the larger canon of Augustine without noting his cautions and the distinctions he made between inspired and uninspired writings....Nevertheless, down to the Council of Trent [Roman Catholic] (1546) the apocryphal books possessed only inferior authority; and when men spoke of canonical Scripture in the strict sense, these were not included. Luther, the great German Reformer of the 16th cent., marks an epoch in the history of the Christian OT canon. In translating the Scriptures into German, he gave the deuterocanonical books an intermediate position between the 0T and the NT....This indeed was the attitude of all the early Reformers....Rome had vacillated long enough and now realized that something must be done. Accordingly the Council of Trent decreed at its fourth sitting (April 8, 1546) that the apocryphal books were equal in authority and canonical value to the other books of sacred Scripture [and added an anathema to those who said they were not]....The Vatican Council of 1870 not only reiterated the decree but in addition canonized tradition." (ISBE, op.cit., p.600)

Today there is general agreement among Roman Catholic scholars to call the apocrypha "deuterocanonical" or secondarily canonical. In 1642 and 1672 councils of the Greek Orthodox Church at Jassy and Jerusalem confirmed as "genuine parts of Scripture" the contents of the "Septuagintal plus". But again, most Greek Orthodox scholars today put the apocrypha on a lesser level of authority than the "protocanonical" writings. (Bruce, p.82)

The 39 Articles of the Church of England (1562/63) lists only the standard 39 books as canonical, consigning the apocrypha to a lesser place having some value but not Scriptural authority. Likewise the Synod of Dort (Calvin-istic, 1618-19) separates the apocrypha from the truly canonical books as did other Protestant confessions.

The two Wyclif versions of course included the apocrypha since they were made from the Latin Vulgate. Coverdale (1535) separated the apocrypha from the OT books, placing them after Malachi with a title page introducing them saying they "are not to be rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they founde in the Canon of Hebrue." Matthew's Bible, Taverner's Bible, the Great Bible, and even the earlier editions of the KJV all included the apocrypha, but set apart by themselves. "The first English version to omit them altogether was an edition of the KJV published in 1629; but the custom of printing them by themselves, between the OT and the NT, continued until 1825." (ISBE, op.cit., p.600)

The books of the apocrypha and their approximate dates of writing are:

"The Wisdom of Solomon (c.30 B.C.), Ecclesias-ticus (Sirach) (132 B.C.), Tobit (c.200 B.C.), Judith(c.150 B.C.), 1 Esdras (c.150-100 B.C.), 1 Maccabees (c.110 B.C.), 2 Maccabees (c.110-70 B.C.), Baruch (c.150-50 B.C.), Letter of Jeremiah (c.300-100 B.C.), 2 Esdras (c.A.D.100), Additions to Esther (140-130 B.C.), Prayer of Azariah (second or first century B.C.) (Song of Three Young Men), Susanna (second or first century B.C.), Bel and the Dragon (c.100 B.C.), Prayer of Manasseh (second or first century B.C.)." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., p.93)

Besides these, two non-canonical books mentioned in the OT which are no longer in existence are the Book of Jasher (Josh.10:13) and the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num.21:14). In addition, there are a number of books that are spurious or false because they claim to have been written by biblical authors. They may be called the OT pseudepigrapha ("false writings"): "The Book of Jubilee, The Letter of Aristeas, The Book of Adam and Eve, The Martyrdom of Isaiah, 1 Enoch, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sibylline Oracle, The Assumption of Moses, 2 Enoch (or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch), 2 Baruch (or The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), 3 Baruch (or The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch), 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Pirke Aboth, The Story of Ahikar, The Psalms of Solomon, Psalm 151, and The Fragment of a Zadokite Work." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., p.88)

Again, in addition to these, other books of a religious nature are known, including some interesting ones found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of which were ever accepted as anything near canonical.

In conclusion, there is no reason whatsoever from the evidence, either ancient or modern, to believe that the OT consists of anything more nor anything less than the 39 books of our Protestant Bibles. In fact, the evidence is decidedly against any other writings being included.

"The history of the NT canon differs from that of the Old in several respects. In the first place, since Christianity was an international religion from the beginning, there was no tightly knit prophetic community which received all inspired books and collected them in one place. Local and somewhat complete collections were made from the very beginning, but there is no evidence of a central and official clearinghouse for inspired writings. Hence, the process by which all of the apostolic writings became universally accepted took many centuries. Fortunately, because of the availability of source materials there is more date available on the NT canon than the Old. Another difference between the history of the Old and New Testament canons is that once discussions resulted in the recognition of the 27 canonical books of the NT canon, there have been no moves within Christendom to add to it or take away from it. The extent of the NT canon has met with general agreement within the church universal....The NT was written during the last half' of the first century. Most of the books were written to local churches (e.g. , the bulk of Paul's epistles) and some were addressed to individuals (e.g., Philemon, 2 and 3 John). Others were aimed at a broader audience, in eastern Asia (1 Peter), western Asia (Revelation) and even Europe (Romans). Some of the letters probably originated in Jerusalem (James) while others arose as far west as Rome (1 Peter). With such a geographical diversity of origin and destination it is understandable that not all the churches would immediately possess copies of all the inspired NT books. Add to this the problems of communication and transportation and it is easy to see that it would take some time before there was anything like a general recognition of all twenty- seven books of the NT canon. These difficulties notwithstanding, the early churches immediately began to make collections of whatever apostolic literature they could verify. From the very beginning there were inauthentic and nonapostolic writings in circulation. Because of some of these accounts of the life of Christ, Luke, the companion of Paul, undertook his gospel, saying, 'inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accom- plishished among us...it seemed good to me also...to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed' (Lk.1:1-4). The implication in Luke's prologue is that in his day (c. A.D.60) there were already some inaccurate accounts of Christ's life in circulation. We know for sure that the Thessalonian Christians were warned about any false epistles sent to them under the name of the apostle Paul. 'We beg you, brethren,' he wrote, 'not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited...by...a letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of' the Lord has come' (2 Thess.2:2). In order to verify the authenticity of his epistle he closed saying, 'I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write' (2 Thess.3:17). In addition, the letter would be sent by personal envoy from the apostle. The apostle John further informs us that Jesus did many other signs 'which are not written in this book' (Jn.20:30), for if every one were written, 'I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written' (Jn.21:25). From the multitude of His deeds which were not written by the apostles, there arose many beliefs about the life of Christ which demanded apostolic verification. While the original eyewitnesses of the life and resurrection of Christ were alive (Acts 1:21-22), everything could be subjected to the authority of the oral teaching or tradition of the apostles (see 1 Thess.2:13; 1 Cor.11:2).... [lt] is clear that even the apostolic church was called upon to be selective in determining the authenticity of the many stories and sayings about Christ. In his gospel John put to rest a false belief circulating in the first-century church which held that he would never die (Jn.21:23-24). The same apostle also issued a strong warning to believers when he wrote, 'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world' (1 Jn.4:1). In brief, there is every indication that within the first-century church, there was a selecting process at work. Every al-leged word about Christ, whether oral or written, was subjected to authoritative apostolic teaching. If word or work would not be verified by those who were eyewitnesses (see Lk.1:2; Acts 1:21-22), it was rejected. The apostles who could say, 'That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you' (1 Jn. 1:3) were the final court of appeal. As another apostle wrote, 'We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye witnesses of His majesty' (2 Pet.1:16). This primary source of apostolic authority was the canon by which the first church selected the writings through which they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship (Acts 2:42). Thus the living 'canon' of eyewitnesses became the criterion by which the earliest canonical writings were recognized, and God Himself bore witness to the apostles (Heb.2:3-4). Another indication that the process of NT canonization began immediately in the first-century church was the practice of official public reading of apostolic books. Paul commanded the Thessa- lonians, 'I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren' (1 Thess. 5:27). Likewise, Timothy was told to present Paul's message to the churches along with the OT Scriptures. 'Till I come,' he wrote, attend to the public reading of the Scripture, to preaching, to teaching' (1 Tim.4:13; see also v.11). The public reading of authoritative words from God was a practice of long standing. Moses and Joshua did it (Ex.24:7; Josh.8:34). Josiah had the Bible read to the people of his day (2 Ki.23:2) as did Ezra and the Levites when, 'they read from the book, from the law of God; clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading' (Neh.8:8). The reading of apostolic letters to the churches is a continuation of this long prophetic tradition. There is a significant passage on the reading of the apostolic letters in the churches. Paul wrote to the Colossians, 'And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of Laodiceans' (Col.4:16). John promised a blessing for him who reads aloud this book (Rev.1:3), which he sent to seven different churches. This clearly indicates that the apostolic letters were intended to have a broader application than merely one local congregation. They were binding on all the churches, and as the churches were receiving and reading those authoritative writings they were thereby laying the foundation of a growing collection of received writings. In brief, they were involved in an incipient process of canonization. This original acceptance of a book as one authoritatively read in the churches would be crucial to later recognition of the book as canonical. There was already in NT times something of a round-robin, circulated canon of inspired Scripture. At first no church possessed all the apostolic letters, but their collection grew as copies could be made and authenticated by apostolic signature or emissary. Undoubtedly the first copies of Scripture emerged from this procedure of cir-culating epistles. As the churches grew, the demand for copies became greater, so that more congregations would keep them for their regular readings and study along with the OT Scriptures. The Colossian passage previously cited informs us that circulation was an apostolic practice. There are also other indications of this practice. John was commanded of God, 'Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches [of Asia Minor]' (Rev.l:ll). Since it was one book and they were many churches, the book had to be circulated among them. The same is true of many of the general epistles. James is addressed to the twelve tribes in the dispersion (Jam.l:l). Peter wrote a letter to 'the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynial (I Pet.l:l). Some have felt that Paul's Ephesian epistle was general since the term Ephesians is not in the earliest manuscripts. The letter is simply addressed 'to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus' (Eph.l:l). All these circulating letters reveal the beginning of a canonization process. First, the letters were obviously intended for the churches in general. Then, each church would be obliged to make copies of the letters so they would possess them for further reference and study. The commands to read and study the Scriptures in the NT (which include some apostolic letters) do not indicate a mere once-for-all reading. Christians were urged to continually read the Scriptures (1 Tim.4:11,13). The only way this could be accomplished among the ever-growing number of churches was to make copies so that each church or group of churches could have its own collection of authoritative writings. But one may wonder if there is any evidence within the NT that such collections were developing. Yes there is. Peter apparently possessed a collection of Paul's letters and placed them alongside the 'other scriptures' (2 Pet.3:15-16). We may assume that Peter had a collection of copies of Paul's works, since there is no good reason that Peter would have possessed the original copies of Paul's epistles. After all, they were not written to Peter, but to the churches scattered throughout the world. This is indicative that other collections must have arisen to fulfill the needs of the growing churches. The fact that one writer quotes from another also indicates that letters with divine authority were collected. Jude quotes from Peter (Jude 17; see also 2 Pet.3:2), and Paul cites Luke's gospel as Scripture (I Tim. 5:18; cf., Lk.10:7). Luke assumes that Theophilus had a first book or account (Acts 1:1). Thus, the process of canonization was at work from the very beginning. The first churches were exhorted to select only the authentic apostolic writings. When a book was verified as authentic either by signature or by apostolic envoy, it was officially read to the church and then circulated among other churches. Collections of these apostolic writings began to take form in apostolic times. By the end of the first century all twenty-seven NT books were written and received by the churches. The canon was complete and all the books were recognized by believers everywhere. Because of the multiplicity of false writings and the lack of immediate access to the conditions related to the initial acceptance of a book, the debate about the canon continued for several centuries, until the church universal finally recognized the canonicity of the 27 books of the NT....

"Several forces at work in the early Christian world led to an official recognition of the 27 canonical books of the NT. Three of these forces are of special significance: the ecclesiastical, the theological, and the political. (1) The early church had both internal and external needs for an official recognition of canonical books. From within there was the need to know which books should be read in the churches according to the practice indicated for the NT church by the apostles (I Tim.5:27). From outside the church was the need to know which books should be translated into the foreign languages of the converted peoples. Without a recognized list of books it would be difficult for the early church to perform either of these tasks. The combination of these forces put increasing pressure on the church Fathers to make an official list of the canonical books. (2) Another factor within early Christianity called for an ecclesiastical pronouncement on the canon. Since all Scripture was profitable for doctrine (2 Tim.3:16-17), it became increasingly necessary to define the limits of the apostolic doctrinal deposit. The need to know which books were to be used to teach doctrine with divine authority was made even more pressing as a result of the multitude of apocryphal and heretical books claiming divine authority. When the heretic Marcion published a sharply abridged list of canonical books (c.140), including only the gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles (omitting 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), the need for a complete canonical list became acute. Caught in the tension between those who would add to the canon and others who would take from it, the burden fell on the early church Fathers to define precisely the limits of the canon." (Geisler and Nix, op. cit., pp.101-107)

"Marcion is the first person known to us who published a fixed collection of what we should call NT books....He rejected the OT, as having no relevance or authority for Christians; his collection was therefore designed to be a complete Bible. Marcion was born about AD 100 at Sinape, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Asia Minor. His father was a leader in the church of that city, and Marcion was brought up in the apostolic faith. Of all the apostles, the one who appealed to him most strongly was Paul, to whom he became passionately devoted, concluding ultimately that he was the only apostle who preserved the teaching of Jesus in its purity. He embraced with intelligence and ardour Paul's gospel of justification by divine grace, apart from legal works....Paul's refusal to allow any element of law-keeping in the message of salvation was taken by Marcion to imply that not only the OT law, but the OT itself, had been superseded by the gospel. The gospel, he believed, was an entirely new teaching brought to earth by Christ. The law and the prophets made no sort of preparation for it, and if some passages in Paul's correspondence suggested that they did, those passages must have been interpolated by others-by the kind of Judaizers against whom Paul polemicized in Galatians and other letters. Marcion appears to have remained in communion with the catholic [universal] church so long as he lived in Asia Minor. There is some reason to think that he shared his radical thoughts with leading churchmen of the region, such as Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, but found them unresponsive. Perhaps it was in the hope of finding a more positive response from the more enlightened churchmen of Rome that he made his way to the imperial capital early in the principate of Antoninus Pius (who became emperor in AD 138). On his arrival in Rome he made a handsome donation of money to the church (he is said to have been a shipowner and was probably quite well off). His understanding of the gospel and its implications was so self-evidently right to his own way of thinking that he could not believe that it would fail to be equally self-evident to any unprejudiced mind. But the Roman churchmen were so disturbed by his doctrine that they not only rejected it but even returned the money he had presented to the church. Not only did Marcion regard Paul as the only faithful apostle of Christ; he maintained that the original apostles had corrupted their Master's teaching with an admixture of legalism. Not only did he reject the OT; he distinguished the God of the OT from the God of the New. This distinction of two deities, each with his independent existence, betrays the influence of Gnosticism on Marcion's thought. The God who created the material universe, the God of Israel, was (he held) a totally different being from the Father of whom Jesus spoke. The Father was the good and merciful God of whom none had ever heard until Jesus came to reveal him. As in the teaching of most Gnostic schools, the God who made the material world was an inferior deity-inferior in status and morality alike-to the supreme God who was pure spirit. The Gnostic depreciation of the material order finds an echo in Marcion's refusal to believe that Jesus entered human life by being 'born of a woman' (Gal.4:4). Enlightened and unprejudiced the church leaders in Rome might be, yet they understandably found this teaching unacceptable. So Marcion, despairing of being able to convince the catholic church anywhere of the truth of his message, withdrew from the catholic fellowship and established a church of his own. This church survived for several generations- surprisingly, when it is considered that its membership was maintained solely through conversion. It could not keep its numbers up by incorporating the children of existing members, for celibacy was obligatory on all its membership. At the same time, Marcion was a faithful enough Paulinist to allow no discrimination against female members of his church in matters of privilege or function: for him, as for Paul, there was 'neither male nor female' (Gal.3:28). He provided his followers with an edition of the holy scriptures, to which he prefaced a series of Anti-theses, setting out the incompatibility of law and gospel, of the Creator-Judge of the OT and the merciful Father of the NT (who had nothing to do with either creation or judgment)....The holy scriptures to which the Antitheses served as an introduction inevitably included no part of the OT; they consisted of an edition of the Greek NT. Marcion did not call it the NT, so far as we know; indeed, he may not have given any one title to the edition as a whole. He referred to it by the titles which he gave to its two component parts: Gospel and Apostle. Our main source of information about it is Tertullian's treatise Against Marcion, written over half a century later, when Marcion had been dead for some decades. Hostile and vituperative as Tertullian's treatment is, his factual data appear to be reliable. Marcion's Gospel was an edition of the Gospel of Luke. Why he should have chosen Luke's gospel is a matter of speculation: perhaps in his native environment it had already come to be associated in a special way with Paul. He nowhere mentioned Luke's name in connexion with it; it was presented simply as the gospel of Christ. Its text was purged of those elements which were inconsistent with Marcion's understanding of the truth and which therefore, on his principles, must have been interpolated by Judaizing scribes. The birth of John the Baptist was omitted; it implied a connexion between Jesus and something that went before. The birth of Jesus himself was omitted: Jesus entered the world not by birth but by a descent as supernatural as was his later ascension. (Marcion found the whole idea of conception and childbirth disgusting.)...[He began with Luke 3:1, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar'.] But the material which follows immediately on that time-note was unacceptable to him. The account of John the Baptist's ministry and his baptism of Jesus implies some continuity between Jesus and the old order. So does the genealogy of Luke 3: 23-38, tracing Jesus' ancestry back to Adam through David and Abraham. Them temptation narrative (Lk.4:1-13) represents Jesus quoting from Deuteronomy three times, as though it had authority in his eyes-an impossibility, according to Marcion's principles. Equally impossible, for Marcion, was the idea that Jesus, preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk.4:16-30), should have claimed that his ministry was the fulfillment of OT prophecy. So, having begun his edition of the Gospel with the time-note of Luke 3:1, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius', Marcion went straight on to Luke 4:31 and continued: 'Jesus came down to Capernaum'-as though he came down there and then from heaven, fully grown....There are other peculiarities of Marcion's .03 Marcion's Apostle was an edition of ten letters of Paul. The three Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are not included [but this may not have been by his design]. At the head of his Apostle Marcion placed the letter to the Galatians. We do not know if it occupied this position in any other copy of Paul's letters, but there was a special appropriateness in this position to Marcion's way of thinking, for here the antithesis between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles (as he read the letter) was expressed most sharply. To Marcion the letter mounted a direct attack on the Jerusalem apostles, for it was at their nstance, or at least by their agents, that the attempt was being made to win Paul's Gentile converts in Galatia over to a judaistic perversion of Christianity. The Jerusalem leaders might have reached an agreement with Paul at the conference described in Galatians 2:1-10, but they had broken that agreement by their effort to subvert the pure faith of the Galatian churches....Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an alien hand and was removed. Even Galatians had been subjected to such corruption here and there, he found. The mention of Abraham as the prototype of all who are justified by faith (Gal.3:6-9) could not be left standing and the tracing of any kind of relationship between law and gospel (as in Gal.3:15-25) was equally unacceptable. Marcion's edition of Romans lacked Romans 1:19-2:1; 3:21-4:25; all of Romans 9-11 except 10:1-4 and 11:33-36, and everything after Romans 14:23. The idea of establishing the law through faith (Rom.3:31), the application of the story of Abraham in chapter 4, the grappling with the mystery of Israel's unbelief in chapters 9-11 (with their concentration of proof-texts from the OT), were all incompatible with Paul's gospel as Marcion understood it....An example of a change reflecting Marcion's doctrine of God comes in Ephesians 3:9. The gospel is there described as 'the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things' (hidden, that is to say, in the divine mind and not revealed until the fullness of the time had come). But to Marcion the 'God who created all things' had nothing to do with the gospel; he was a different being from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So, by a very small change, Marcion made this text refer to 'the mystery hidden for ages from the God who created all things.'...The widespread view that Marcion provided the church with its precedent for establishing a canon of NT books has been expressed, among others, by Hans von Campenhausen: 'the idea and the reality of a Christian Bible were the work of Marcion, and the Church which rejected his work, so far from being ahead of him in this field, from a formal point of view simply followed his example.' But this view is probably wrong. Theodor von Zahn, in an earlier generation, was prone to overstate his Case, but on this point his judgment stands: 'Marcion formed his Bible in declared opposition to the holy scriptures of the church from which he had separated; it was in opposition to his criticism that the church in its turn first became rightly conscious of its heritage of apostolic writings.'...There are two ways, [Tertullian] says, of nullifying the scriptures. One is Marcion's way: he used the knife to excise from the scriptures whatever did not conform with his own opinion. Valentinus, on the other hand, 'seems to use the entire instrumentum' (which here means the NT), but perverts its meaning by misinterpreting it. Valentinus was contemporary with Marcion: he came from Alexandria in Egypt and lived in Rome from about AD 135 to 160....[H]e [too] broke with the church and became the founder of a Gnostic school whose members were called, after him, Valentinians....Both Marcion and Valentinus presented a challenge to the catholic church-that is, to those Christians who adhered to what they believed to be the apostolic teaching. The communities to which many of those Christians belonged claimed to have been founded by apostles, and there had been no ascertainable shift in their teaching since the time of their foundation. The distinctive features of Marcionitism and Valentinianism had this at least in common-they were recognized as innovations. This, the leaders of the catholic church knew, was not what they had heard from the beginning. But their followers had to be shown where those new movements were wrong: if the teachings of Marcion and Valentinus were unsound, what was the sound teaching, and how could it be defended? In the catholic response to this twofold challenge, what came to be called 'the rule of faith' played a crucial part. The 'rule of faith' was a summary of the tenets held in common by the churches of apostolic foundation: it is closely related to what is called 'apostolic tradition'. R.P.C. Hanson describes it as 'a graph of the interpretation of the Bible by the Church of the second and third centuries'. In the establishment and defence of the rule of faith the appeal to the Bible was basic. In debate with the Valentinians and others of similar outlook, the interpretation of the Bible was the point at issue; in debate with the Marcionites, the identity of the Bible had to be defined. Where the interpretation of the Bible was at issue, there was a tendency to maintain that only the catholic church had the right to interpret it, because the Bible was the church's book; but in the Marcionite controversy an answer had to be given to the more fundamental question: What is the Bible?...The leaders of the Roman church (and other churches that shared the same faith) had no doubt that his answer was wrong. What, then, was the right answer? If they had not given much thought to the limits of holy writ previously, they had to pay serious attention to the question now. And sooner rather than later they declared their mind on the matter. We do not reject the OT scriptures, as Marcion does, they said; we accept them, as did Jesus and the apostles (both original apostles and Paul). As for the scriptures of the new order, we accept not one gospel writing only, but four (including the complete text of Marcion's mutilated Gospel). We accept not only ten letters of Paul, but thirteen (that is, including the three addressed to Timothy and Titus). And we accept the Acts of the Apostles, a work which links the gospels and the apostolic letters, providing the sequel to the former and the background to the latter....(The trouble was, especially for the Marcionites, that Acts presents independent testimony also to the genuine apostleship of those whom Marcion considered as apostates.)" (Bruce, op.cit., pp.138-141,144,145,146,150-152)

"(3) The forces for canonization culminated in the political pressures brought to bear on the early Christian church. The Diocletian persecutions (c.302-305) provided a strong motive for the church to settle on a definitive list of canonical books. According to the Christian historian Eusebius, an imperial edict of Diocletian in 303 ordered 'the destruction by fire of the Scriptures.' Ironically enough, within twenty-five years the Emperor Constantine had become a convert to Christianity and ordered Eusebius to prepare and distribute fifty copies of the Bible. The persecution had occasioned a serious look at just which canonical books should be preserved, and the call for Bibles by Constantine also made an official list of canonical books necessary." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., pp.102, 103)

"[T]he order [on February 23, AD 303] for the surrender and destruction of the scriptures was something new. It marked the recognition of the vital role of the scriptures in Christian life and worship....Nowhere in the empire was the edict put into more vigorous effect than in North Africa. The record has been preserved of an inquisition conducted by the mayor of Cirta, capital of Numidia, and his assistants....To hand over the sacred books, even when death was the penalty for non-compliance, was regarded as a serious offence, practically equivalent to apostasy. Those who handed them over were called traditores, which literally means 'handers over', but it is the word from which 'traitors' is derived. When peace returned to the church, it had to be carefully considered whether traditores could be restored to communion and, if so, what forms of discipline they should be required to undergo. But a church might have a variety of books in its possession, not all of them sacred books....[F]or Christians who were ordered to hand over books it must have become important to know which books must on no account be surrendered and those which might reasonably be regarded as 'not worth dying for'." (Bruce, op.cit., pp.216,217)

"The confirmation of the canonicity of the NT is evidenced in several ways. Immediately after the times of the apostles, in the writings of the earliest Fathers, there is a recognition of the inspiration of all the 27 books. Supporting their witness are the early translations, canonical lists, and pronouncements of church councils. All together they provide a continuity of recognition from the very inception of the canon in the time of the apostles until the final confirmation of the universal church at the end of the fourth century. Just over a generation following the end of the apostolic age, every book of the NT had been cited as authoritative by some church Father. In fact, within about two hundred years after the first century, nearly every verse of the NT was cited in one or more of the over thirty-six thousand citations by the Fathers....The [chart on p.11] shows exactly which Father cited what book as Scripture in the early centuries. The reader should be cautioned however that the lack of reference to a book by a Father does not necessarily imply its rejection. The argument from silence is in these cases, as it is in general, a weak one. The absence of a citation may merely indicate the lack of occasion to make one in the extant writings of the Father. To illustrate this point, the reader might ask himself when he last quoted Philemon or 3 John. Not every book of the NT is quoted by every Father, but every book is quoted as canonical by some Father. In the final analysis, this is sufficient to indicate that the book was recognized as apostolic from the very beginning. Other confirmations of the canon of the first century are found in the translations and canonical lists of the second and third centuries. Translations could not be made unless there was first a recognition of the books to be included in the translation. The Old Syriac translation. A translation of the NT was circulated in Syria by the end of the fourth century which represented a text dating from the second century. It included all the 27 NT books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The noted biblical scholar B.F. Westcott observed, 'Its general agreement with our own [canon] is striking and important; and its omissions admit of easy explanation.' The omitted books were originally destined for the Western world, and the Syriac church was in the East. The distance and lack of verifying communications slowed down the final acceptance of these books in the Eastern Bible, which had come out before that evidence was available to them.

The Old Latin translation.

The NT was translated into Latin prior to 200 and served as the Bible for the early Western church, just as the Syriac version did for the East. The Old Latin version contained every book of the NT with the exception of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter. These omissions are the reverse of these in the Syriac Bible. Hebrews, 1 Peter, and probably James were written to churches at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean world. Hence, it took time for their credentials to be finally recognized in the West. Second Peter presented a special problem which will be discussed [later]. What is of interest is the fact that between the two earliest Bibles in the Christian church there is a recognition of the canonicity of all 27 NT books.

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170).

Aside from the obviously abridged canon of the heretic Marcion (A.D.140), the earliest canonical list is found in the Muratorian Fragment. The list of NT books corresponds exactly with that of the Old Latin translation, omitting only Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter. Westcott argues that there was probably a break in the manuscript which may have at one time included these books. It is rather unusual that Hebrews and 1 Peter should be omitted while the less frequently cited Philemon and 3 John are included.

Codex Barococcio (206).

Another supporting testimony to the early canon of the NT comes from a codex entitled 'The Sixty Books.' Upon careful examination these 60 books actually include 64 of the familiar 66 canonical books of the Bible. Only Esther is omitted from the OT, and Revelation from the New. The canonicity of Revelation is well attested elsewhere, being supported by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian list.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c.340).

The situation of the NT canon in the West at the beginning of the fourth century was well summarized by the historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (3.25). He listed as fully accepted all of the 27 NT books except James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. These he listed as disputed by some, while he rejected Revelation altogether. Thus all but Revelation had gained acceptance, although several of the general epistles were not without dispute.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c.373).

Whatever doubts existed in the West about some of the general epistles and Revelation were dispelled in the fifty years following Eusebius' work. Athanasius, the Father of Orthodoxy, clearly lists all 27 books of the NT as canonical (Letters 3. 267.5). Within a generation both Jerome and Augustine had confirmed the same list of books, and these 27 books remained the accepted canon of the NT (see Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2.8.13).

The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The supporting witness to the canon of the NT was not limited to individual voices. Two local councils ratified the 27 canonical books of the NT. The variation on the OT canon accepted by these councils has already been discussed. There is also a list from the Synod at Laodicea (343-381) which includes all except Revelation; but eleven scholars have questioned the genuineness of this list." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., pp.107-111)

"Thus, we see at approximately the same time in churches throughout the empire a unified decision fixingthe limits and contents of the canon." (ISBE, op.cit., p.605)

"Since the fifth century the church has accepted these 27 books as the NT canon. Although subsequently there have been disputes about the OT, the Christian church in all of its main branches continues to this day to recognize only these 27 books of the NT as apostolic." (Geisler and Nix, p.111)

"Precisely which books of the NT canon were in dispute in the early church? On what basis did they gain their final acceptance? What were some of the NT apocryphal books which hovered on the borders of the canon?...(1) Like the OT, the vast majority of NT books were accepted by the church from the very beginning and never disputed. These are called homologoumena, because all the Fathers spoke in favor of their canonicity. The homologoumena appear in virtually all of the major translations and canons of the early church. Generally speaking, 20 of the 27 books of the NT are homologoumena. This includes all but Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Three more books, Philemon, I Peter, and I John, are sometimes lacking in recognition, but it is better to refer to these books as omitted rather than disputed....During the second and third centuries numerous spurious and heretical works appeared which have been called pseudepigrapha, or false writings. Eusebius called these books 'totally absurd and impious.' Virtually no Father, canon, or council pronounced any of these books canonical. So far as Christians are concerned, these books are mainly of historical interest. Their contents are heretical teachings of Gnostic, Docetic, and ascetic errors. The Gnostics were a philosophical sect claiming special knowledge into the divine mysteries. They held that matter is evil and denied the Incarnation of Christ. Docetists held to the deity of Christ but denied His humanity, saying He only appeared to be human. The ascetic Monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature, which was a fusion of the divine and human. At best, these books were revered by some cult or were referred to by some orthodox Fathers. The mainstream of Christianity followed Eusebius and never considered them anything but spurious and impious. Like the OT pseudepigrapha, these books manifested a wild religious fancy. They evidence an incurable curiosity to discover things not revealed in the canonical books (for example, about the childhood of Jesus) and display an unhealthy tendency to support doctrinal idiosyncrasies by means of pious frauds. There is perhaps a kernel of truth behind some of what is presented, but the pseudepigrapha must be carefully 'demythologized' in order to discover that truth. The exact number of these books is difficult to determine. By the ninth century, Photius listed some 280 of them. Since then more have been brought to light. Some of the more important pseudepigrapha and the traditions traceable to them are listed below:

1. The Gospel of Thomas (lst C.) is a Gnostic view of the alleged miracles of the childhood of Jesus.

2. The Gospel of the Ebionites (2nd C.) is a Gnostic Christian perpetuation of OT practices.

3. The Gospel of Peter (2nd C. ) is a Docetic and Gnostic forgery.

4. Protevangelium of James (2nd C.) is a narration by Mary of King Herod's massacre of the babies.

5. The Gospel of the Egyptians (2nd C.) is an ascetic teaching against marriage, meat, and wine.

6. Arabic Gospel of Childhood (or The Infancy) records childhood miracles of Jesus in Egypt and the visit of Zoroastrian Magi.

7. The Gospel of Nicodemus (2nd or 5th C.) contains the Acts of Pilate [epistles, reports of Pilate on the trial, death, and resurrection of Christ] and the Descent of Jesus [to the underworld].

8. The Gospel of Joseph the Carpenter (4th C.) is the writing of a Monophysite cult which glorified Joseph.

9. The History of Joseph the Carpenter (5th C.) is a Monophysite version of Joseph's life.

10. The Passing of Mary (4th C.) relates the bodily assumption of Mary and shows advanced stages of Mary worship.

11. The Gospel of Nativity of Mary (6th C.) promotes Mary worship and forms the basis of the Golden Legend, a popular 13th-C. book of lives of the saints.

12. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (5th C.) contains a narrative about the visit to Egypt by Jesus and some of His later boyhood miracles.

13-21. The Gospel of the Twelve, of Barnabas, of Bartholomew, of the Hebrews (see Apocrypha) of Marcion, of Andrew, of Matthias, of Peter, of Philip. Plus The Gospel of Eve, James the Elder, Judas Iscariot, Thaddaeus, Valentinus (or Gospel of Truth).

1. The Acts of Peter (2) (2nd C.) contains the legend that Peter was crucified upside down.

2. The Acts of John (2nd C. ) shows influence from Gnostic and Docetic teachings.

3. The Acts of Andrew (?) is a Gnostic story of the imprisonment and death of Andrew.

4. The Acts of Thomas (?) presents the mission and martyrdom of Thomas in India.

5. The Acts of Paul describes Paul as small, large-nosed, bald-headed, and bowlegged.

6-8. The Acts of Mattias, of Philip, of Thaddaeus.

Plus of Barnabas.

1. The Letter Attributed to Our Lord is an alleged record of the response of Jesus to a request for healing by the king of Mesopotamia. It says He would send someone after His resurrection.

2. The Lost Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd, 3rd C. ) is a forgery based on 1 Corinthians 5:9 found in a 5th-C. Armenian Bible.

3. The (6) Letters of Paul to Seneca (4th C.) is a forgery recommending Christianity to Seneca's students.

4. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans is a forgery based on Colossians 4:16. (Also under Apocrypha)

1. The Apocalypse of Peter (also under Apocrypha)

2. The Apocalypse of Paul

3. The Apocalypse of Thomas

4. The Apocalypse of Stephen

5. Second Apocalypse of James

6. The Apocalypse of Messos

7. The Apocalypse of Dositheos

These last 3 are 3rd C. Coptic Gnostic works found in 1946 at Nag-Hammadi, Egypt.

1. Secret Book of John

2. Traditions of Matthias

3. Dialogue of the Saviour

All 3 of these are also from Nag-Hammadi and were unknown before 1946.

"According to the historian Eusebius, there were seven books whose genuineness was disputed by some church fathers and which had not yet gained universal recognition by the early 4th century. [These] were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. [This] does not mean that they did not have an initial recognition by the apostolic and subapostolic communities. On the contrary, hese books are cited as inspired by a number of the earliest sources. Nor does the fact that they were disputed by some indicate that their present place in the canon is any less firm than other books. On the contrary, the basic problem of acceptance for most of these books was not the inspiration of the book but the lack of communication between East and West with regard to their divine authority. Once the facts were known by the Fathers, the final acceptance of all 27 books of the NT was not long coming....A brief survey of why each book was disputed and how it was finally recognized is in order:...

Hebrews. Basically the anonymity of the author raised questions about Hebrews. Since the author does not identify himself and disclaims being one of the apostles (Heb.2:3), the book remained suspect among those in the West who were not aware of the authority and original acceptance of the book in the East. In addition, the fact that the heretical Montanists appealed to Hebrews to support some of their erroneous views slowed its acceptance in orthodox circles. By the 4th C., however, through the influence of Jerome and Augustine, the epistle found a permanent place in the canon....The contents of the book are clearly authentic as is its claim to divine authority (cf.1:1; 2:3-4; 13:22).

James. The veracity of the book of James was challenged as well as its authorship. As with Hebrews, the author does not claim to be an apostle. The original readers and those after them could verify whether this was the James of the apostolic circle, the brother of Jesus (cf. Acts 15, Gal.1). But the Western church did not have access to this original information. There was also the problem of the teaching on justification and works as presented in James. The supposed conflict with Paul's teaching of justification by faith plagued the book of James. Even Martin Luther called it a 'right strawy epistle' and placed it at the end of his NT. But, as the result of the efforts of Origen, Eusebius (who personally favored James), Jerome, and Augustine, the veracity and apostolicity of the book came to be recognized in the Western church. From that time to the present, James has occupied a canonical position in Christendom. Its acceptance, of course, hinged on the understanding of its essential compatibility with the Pauline teachings on justification.

Second Peter. No other epistle in the NT had occasioned greater doubts to its genuineness than 2 Peter. Jerome seemed to understand the problem and asserted that the hesitancy to accept it as a genuine work of the apostle Peter was due to a dissimilarity of style with I Peter....William F. Albright, noting the similarities to Qumran literature, dates the book before A.D. 80. This would mean that it is not a 2nd-C. fraud but a work emanating from the apostolic period. The recently discovered Bodmer MS (p72) contains a copy of 2 Peter from the 3rd C. in Egypt. This discovery also reveals that it was in use and highly respected by the Coptic Christians at that early date. It is cited by both Clement of Rome and Pseudo-Barnabas in the Ist and 2nd C.'s respectively. Then there are the testimonies of Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine in the 3rd through 5th C.'s. In fact, there is more verification for 2 Peter than for such classics of the ancient world as the works of Herodotus and Thucydides. Finally, there is positive internal evidence for its authentication. There are marked Petrine character-istics and doctrinal interests. The differences in style can be explained easily because of the use of a scribe in I Peter and the lack of one in 2 Peter (see I Pet.5:12).

2 and 3 John. The two shortest epistles of John were also questioned as to their genuineness. The writer identifies himself only as 'the elder,' and because of their anonymity and limited circulation, these epistles did not enjoy a wide acceptance, albeit they were more widely accepted than 2 Peter. Both Polycarp and Irenaeus acknowledged 2 John as authentic. The Muratorian canon and the Old Latin version contained them as well. Their similarity in style and message to I John, which was widely accepted, made it obvious that they were from John the apostle (cf.1 Jn.1:1-4). Who else was so familiar to the early Asian believers that he could write authoritatively under the affectionate title of 'the elder'? The term elder was used as a designation by other apostles see I Pet.5:1), as it denoted their office (see Acts 1:20) and apostleship designated their gift (cf. Eph.4:11).

Jude. ...Most of the dispute [over this book] centered around the references to the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch (Jude 14-15) and a possible reference to the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9). Origen hints at this problem in his day (Commentary on Matthew 18:30) and Jerome specifically declares this to be the problem (Lives of Illustrious Men, ch.4). Nevertheless, Jude was substantially recognized by the early fathers. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all accepted it, as did the Muratorian canon. The explanation of the pseudepigraphal quotes which commends itself most is that they are not essentially different from those citations made by Paul of the non-Christian poets (see Acts 17:28; 1Cor.15: 33; Titus 1:12). In neither case are the books cited as authoritative, nor does the quote vouch for everything in the book-it merely cites a truth contained in the book. The recently discovered Bodmer papyrus (p72) confirms the use of Jude, along with 2 Peter, in the Coptic church of the 3rd C.

Revelation. This book was labeled Antilegomena in the early 4th C. because some had challenged its authenticity. The doctrine of chiliasm (millennialism) from Rev.20 was a focal point of the controversy. The debate lasted longer than that about any other NT book. It extended into the late 4th C. Strangely enough, Revelation was one of the first books to be recognized among the writings of the early Fathers. It was accepted by the writers of the Didache and the Shepherd, by Papias, and by Irenaeus, as well as by the Muratorian canon. But, when Montanists attached their heretical teachings to the Revelation in the 3rd C., the final acceptance of the book was considerably delayed. Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria, raised his influential voice against Revelation in the mid-3rd C. His influence waned when Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine came to its defense. Once it became evident that the book of Revelation was being misused by the cults, although it originated with the apostle John (Rev.1:4; see 22:8,9), rather than with them, its final place in the canon was secure.

"The distinction between the NT Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha is not definitive. For the most part, the latter books were not received by any of the orthodox Fathers or churches as canonical, whereas the apocryphal books were held in high esteem by at least one church father. The NT Apocrypha had only at best what Alexander Souter called a 'temporal and local canonicity.' They were accepted by a limited group of Christians for a limited time but never gained very wide or permanent recognition. The fact that these books possessed more value than the pseudepigrapha undoubtedly accounts for the higher esteem given them by Christians. There are several reasons why they are an important part of the homiletical and devotional libraries from the early church: (1) they revealed the teachings of the 2nd-C. church; (2) they provide documentation for the acceptance of the 27 canonical books of the NT; and (3) they provide other valuable historical information about the early Christian church concerning its doctrine and liturgy. The enumeration of the NT Apocrypha is difficult because it depends upon the distinction made between Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. If the criteria include acceptance by at least one of the orthodox fathers or lists of the first five centuries, then the following would be considered NT Apocrypha:

The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (c.70-79). This widely circulated lst-C. letter is found in the Codex Sinaiticus MS (Aleph) and is mentioned in the table of contents of Codex Bezae (D) as late as 550. It was quoted as Scripture by both Clement of Alexandria and Origen....The writer of the epistle is a layman who does not claim divine authority (ch. 1), and who obviously is not the Barnabas named among the apostles of the NT (Acts 14:14).

The Epistle to the Corinthians (c.96). According to Dionysius of Corinth, this letter by Clement of Rome was read publicly at Corinth and elsewhere. It is also found in Codex Alexandrian (A) around 450, and Eusebius informs us that this letter had been read in many churches (Ecclesiastical History 3.16). The author was probably the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3, but the book does not claim divine inspiration....There has never been a wide acceptance of this book, and the Christian church has never recognized it as canonical.

Ancient Homily. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement (c.120-140) was once wrongly attributed to Clement of Rome. It was known and used in the 2nd C. In Codex Alexandrinus (A) it is placed at the end of the NT along with 1 Clement and Psalms of Solomon. There is no evidence that this book was ever considered fully canonical....

Shepherd of Hermas (c.115-140). This was the most popular noncanonical book in the early church. It is found in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) in the table of contents of Bezae (D), in some Latin Bibles and was quoted as inspired by Irenaeus and Origen. Eusebius relates that it was read publicly in the churches and used for instruction classes in the faith. The Shepherd is a great Christian allegory and, like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress later, it ranked second only to the canonical books in circulation in the early church. Like the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) of the OT Apocrypha, the Shepherd has ethical and devotional value but was never recognized by the church as canonical. The note in the Muratorian Fragment summarizes the status of the Shepherd in the early church, 'It ought to be read; but it cannot be publicly read in the church to the people, either among the Prophets, since their number is complete, or among the Apostles, to the end of time.'

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve (c.100-120). This early work was also held in high regard in the early church. Clement of Alexandria quoted it as Scripture, and Athanasius said it was used in catechetical instruction. Eusebius however, listed it among the 'rejected writings,' as did the major Fathers after him and the church in general. Nonetheless, the book has great historical importance as a link between the apostles and the early Fathers, with its many references to the gospels, Paul's epistles and even the Revelation. However, it was not recognized as canonical in any of the official translations and lists of the early church.

The Apocalypse of Peter (c.150). This is one of the oldest of the noncanonical NT Apocalypses and was widely circulated in the early church. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, in the table of contents of Bezae (D), and is quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Its vivid imagery of the spiritual worlds had a wide influence on medieval thought from which Dante's Inferno was derived. The Muratorian Fragment had questions about its authenticity, claiming that some would not permit it to be read in the churches. The church universal has never recognized it as canonical.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla (170). This was quoted by Origen and is in the table of contents of Codex Bezae (D). Stripped of its mythical elements, it is the story of Thecla, an Iconian lady who supposedly was converted under Paul in Acts 14:1-7. Many scholars feel that the book embodies genuine tradition, but most are inclined to agree with Adolf von Harnack that the book contains 'a great deal of fiction and very little truth.' The book has never really gained anything like canonical recognition.

Epistle to the Laodiceans (4th C.?). This forgery was known to Jerome, but it appears in many Bibles from the 6th to the 15th C.'s. As J.B. Lightfoot noted, 'The Epistle is a centro of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connection of any clear object.' It has no doctrinal peculiarities and is as innocent as any forgery can be....[T]he epistle is definitely not canonical.

The Gospel According to the Hebrews (65-100). This is probably the earliest extant noncanonical gospel and has survived only in fragments found in quotations from various Fathers. According to Jerome, some called it the true gospel, but this is questionable since it bears little resemblance to the canonical Matthew, for it is in many respects more pseudepigraphal than apocryphal in nature. Its usage by the Fathers was probably largely homiletical, and it never gained anything like canonical status.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (c.108). Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle and the teacher of Irenaeus, is an important link with the lst-C. apostles. Polycarp laid no claim to inspiration, but said that he only taught the things he had learned from the apostles. There is very little originality in this epistle, as both the content and style is borrowed from the NT, and particularly from Paul's epistle to the Philippians. Even though Polycarp's work is not canonical, it is a most valuable source of information about many other NT books which he cites as canonical.

The Seven Epistles of Ignatius (c.110). These letters reveal a definite familiarity with the teachings of the NT, especially the Pauline epistles. The style of the letters, however, is more Johannine. Irenaeus quotes from the epistle to the Ephesians, and Origen quotes from both the epistle to the Romans and the epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius, whom tradition claims was a disciple of John, does not claim to speak with divine authority....The letters are no doubt genuine but not apostolic and therefore not canonic....The genuine writings from the subapostolic period are most helpful from a historical point of view, for they reveal the state of the church and the recognition of canonical books of the NT." (Geisler and Nix, op.cit., pp.113-125)

"The books of the Bible are not considered God-given because they are found to have value in them; they are valuable because they are given by God-the source of all value. And the process by which God gives His revelation is called inspiration. It is the inspiration of a book which determines its canonicity. God gives the divine authority to a book and men of God receive it....Canonicity is determined by God and discovered by man....Whatever rules (canons) may be used by the church to discover precisely which books have this canonical or normative authority should not be said to "determine" their canonicity....Only God can give divine authority and, hence, canonicity to a book....Only inspiration determines the authority of a book to be canonical or normative. The people of God have played a crucial role in the process of canonization through the centuries, albeit not a determinative one. Upon the believing community lays the task of discriminating and deciding which books were from God. In order to fulfill this role they had to look for certain earmarks of divine authority....Operating in the whole process are discernible some five basic criteria: (1) Is the book -does it claim to be of God? (2) Is it prophetic-was it written by a servant of God? (3) Is it authentic-does it tell the truth about God, man, etc.? (4) Is the book dynamic-does it possess the life- transforming power of God? (5) Is this book received or accepted by the people of God for whom it was originally written-is it recognized as being from God?

The Authority of a book. As indicated earlier, each book in the Bible bears the claim of divine authority. Often the explicit 'thus says the Lord' is present. Sometimes the tone and exhortations reveal its divine origin. Always there is divine pronouncement. In the more didactic (teaching) literature there is divine pronouncement about what believers should do. In the historical books the exhortations are more implied and the authoritative pronouncements are more about what God has done in the history of His people (which is 'His story')....The books of the prophets were easily recognized by this principle of authority....Some books lacked the claim to be divine and were thereby rejected as noncanonical. Perhaps this was the case with the Book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. Still other books were questioned and challenged as to their divine authority but finally accepted into the canon, such as Esther....

The prophetic authorship of a Book. Inspired Books come only through Spirit-moved men known as prophets(2 Pet.1:20-21)....Every biblical author had a prophetic gift or function, even if he was not a prophet by occupation(Heb. 1:1). Paul argued in Galatians that his book should be accepted because he was an apostle, 'not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father' (Gal.1:1)....It was because of this prophetic principle that 2 Peter was disputed by some in the early church....

The authenticity of a book....Any book with factual or doctrinal errors (judged by previous revelations) could not be inspired of God....Simple agreement with previous revelation would not ipso facto make a teaching inspired. But contradiction of a previous revelation would clearly indicate that a teaching was not inspired. Much of the Apocrypha was rejected because of the principle of authenticity....Some canonical books were questioned on them basis of this same principle [e.g., James and Jude]....

The dynamic nature of a book....The Apostle Paul revealed that the dynamic ability of inspired writings was involved in the acceptance of all Scripture as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 indicates....'The holy scriptures...are able to make thee wise unto salvation' (v.15,KJV). Elsewhere, Peter speaks of the edifying and evangelizing power of the Word (1 Pet.1:23; 2:2). Other messages and books were rejected because they held out false hope (1 K.22:6-8) or rang a false alarm (2 Thess.2:2)....Some biblical books, such as Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, were questioned because they were thought by some to lack this dynamic edifying power....

The acceptance of a book. The final trademark of an authoritative writing is its recognition by the people of God to whom it was initially given....Later generations of believers sought to verify this fact....Communication and transportation being what it was in ancient times, it sometimes took much time and effort on the part of later church Fathers to determine this recognition....

"We should not imagine a committee of church Fathers with a large pile of books and these five guiding principles before them when we speak of the process of canonization. No ecumenical committee was commis- sioned to canonize the Bible. The process was far more natural and dynamic....Although all five characteristics are present in each inspired writing, not all of the rules of recognition are apparent in the decision on each canonical book....[Some were used only implicitly. Some of the rules for recognition operate more negatively than others. For instance....there are no false teachings which are canonical, but there are many true writings which are not inspired. Likewise many books which edify or have a dynamic are not canonic, even though no canonical book is without significance to the saving plan of God. Similarly, a book may claim to be authoritative without being inspired, as many of the apocryphal writings indicate, but no book can be canonical unless it really is authoritative....The principle of acceptance has a primarily negative function. Even the fact that a book is received by some of the people of God is not a proof of inspiration....The initial reception by the people of God who were in the best position to test the prophetic authority of the book is crucial. It took some time for all segments of subsequent generations to be fully informed about the original circumstances. Thus, their acceptance is important but supportive in nature.

"Beneath the whole process of recognition lay one fundamental principle-the prophetic nature of the book. lf the book were written by an accredited prophet of God, claiming to give an authoritative pronouncement from God, then there was no need to ask the other questions." (Ibid., pp.66-72)

"So far as the OT is concerned, [the canon] is a heritage with which the Christian church was endowed at its inception. Its contents meant much in the life of the church's Lord; they cannot mean less in the life of the church. 'What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed' [G.A. Smith]....It is sometimes said that the books which made their way into the NT canon are those which supported the victorious cause in the 2nd-C. conflict with the various Gnostic schools of thought. There is no reason why the student of this conflict should shrink from making a value-judgment: the Gnostic schools lost because they deserved to lose. A comparison of the NT writings with the contents of The Nag Hammadi Library [will readily demonstrate this]....[T]he documents which attest this true Christianity can claim, by the normal tests of literary and historical criticism, to be closer in time and perspective to the ministry of Jesus and the witness of his first apostles than the documents of the Gnostic schools....The NT writings provide incontrovertibly our earliest witness to Christ, presenting him as the one in whom the history of salvation, recorded in the OT, reached its climax....Certainly, as one looks back on the process of canonization in early Christian centuries, and remembers some of the ideas of which certain church writers of that period were capable, it is easy to conclude that in reaching a conclusion on the limits of the canon they were directed by a wisdom higher than their own. It may be that those whose minds have been largely formed by scripture as canonized find it natural to make a judgment of this kind. But it is not mere hindsight to say, with William Barclay, that 'the NT books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' or even, in the exaggerated language of Oscar Cullmann, that 'the books which were to form the future canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic apostolic authority, as they do still, because the Kyrios Christ speaks in them....The suggestion is made from time to time that the canon of scripture might be augmented by the inclusion of other 'inspirational' literature ancient or modern, from a wider cultural spectrum. But this betrays a failure to appreciate what the canon actually is. It is not an anthology of inspired or inspiring literature. If one were considering a collection of writings suitable for reading in church, the suggestion might be more relevant. When a sermon is read in church, the congregation is often treated to what is, in intention at least, inspirational literature; the same may be said of prayers which are read from the prayerbook or of hymns which are sung from the hymnbook. But when the limits of the canon are under consideration, the chief concern is to get as close as possible to the source of the Christian faith.... In the canon of scripture we have the foundation documents of Christianity, the charter of the church, the title-deeds of faith. For no other literature can such a claim be made. And when the claim is made, it is made not merely for a collection of ancient writings. In the words of scripture the voice of the Spirit of God continues to be heard." (Bruce, op.cit., pp. 276-278,2B2,283)

Francis Turretin observed:

"The church cannot establish the canon and make it authoritative, but only recognize and proclaim it....A goldsmith who separates dross from gold or who seeks gold in ore sees the difference between the true and the false, but does not make the true either for himself or for us, so the church separates true canonical books from noncanonical and apocryphal, but does not make them canonical, nor can it give authority to books which do not have it in themselves, but proclaim the authority already present from the books themselves." (The Doctrine of Scripture, ed. and trans. by John W. Beardslee III; Baker:Grand Rapids,MI; 1981 [1688], pp.82,83)

Once again we close this section with a quote from The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago, October 26-28, 1978. In the "Exposition" after 19 articles of affirmation and denial concerning the Scriptures the statement reads:

"It appears that the OT canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The NT canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit- given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beardslee, John W. III, ed. and transl., The Doctrine of Scripture, Francis Turretin; Baker Books:Grand

Rapids,MI; 1981 [1688].

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture; Intervarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL; 1988.

Geisler, Norman L., and Nix, William E. From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible; Moody:Chicago; 1974.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, G.W. Bromiley,

gen. ed.; Eerdmans:Grand Rapids,MI; 1979.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center

email