The Canon of Scripture - Monergism · 2020-03-05 · The idea of an authoritative list or collection of sacred books is much older, however, than the application of the word, canon,

TheCanonofScripture

bySamuelWaldron

TableofContents

PARTONE:THEAPPROACHTOTHECANON

PARTTWO:THEDEBATEOVERTHECANON

PARTTHREE:THEATTESTATIONOFTHECANON

PARTFOUR:THEFORMOFTHECANON

PARTFIVE:THEACCEPTANCEOFTHECANON

II.TheEarlyHeresies


SECTIONONE:THEMEANINGOFTHETERM

I.InGeneral

The Greek word [for canon] is a word borrowed from the Semiticlanguages. One such Semitic language, Hebrew, uses the word [forcanon]whichmeansareed.BothinHebrewandGreekitcametomeanameasuring rod or ruler. One scholar traces the development of itsmeaning further. He says, "From the sense of literal measurementnaturallyfollowedthemetaphoricaluseofwhetherinEthics...orinArt...orinlanguage..."(1)Theterm,canon,overtheprocessoftimecameto mean, therefore, the standard or measure by which the truth orperfectionorbeautyofsomethingwasjudged.

It is important to fix themeaningof theGreek term inourminds.Thefollowingillustrationsmayservethispurpose.TheClassicGreekauthorswere as a whole, , the absolute standard of pure language, the perfectmodel of composition. (2) The Epicureans used with a specificphilosophicalmeaning.Canonicswasthetaskofseekingtofindabasisora standard by which to know what is true or false, what was worthseeking and what should be avoided. Logic and method, according toEpicurus,composedthisareaofstudy.Epictetus, theslavephilosopher,usedof the logical criteria, rules, or standardsbywhichonemay judgethe truth or value of a thing. Finding the canon was the first step inphilosophy.wasalsousedofmathematicalorastronomicallistsortablesbecause theywere the standards according towhich the these sciencesdidtheirwork.

II.IntheEarlyChurch

Thegeneralideaofsomethingbeinganormorstandardisborneoutinthebiblicaloccurrencesof(Gal.6:16,Phil.3:16TV,andIICor.10:13-16).TheBible,however,doesnotuseinthesenseinwhichwewillbeusingitinthisstudy.Thisspecificsenseorusedevelopedlater inthehistoryofthe Christian church. Very early was used of what was genuinelyChristian.1Clement7:2speaksof"thegloriousandmajesticruleof thetraditionbywhichtheChristianshouldlive."Theearlycreedswere"thecanon of truth" or "the canon of the faith." Since this canon is reallydivineinorigin,tocanonizesomethingwastorecognizeitaspartofthiscanon:divine,sacred,holy,unconditionallyreliableandauthoritative.

Later still the word was used specifically of the collection of sacredwritings or the list of such sacredwritings.Here are some examples ofthisusage.TheCouncilofLaodiceainPhrygiaaroundtheyearA.D.360declared, "Private psalmsmust not be said in the church, neither non-canonicalbooks,butthecanonicalbooksoftheOldandNewCovenants."Athanasiusinthe"DecreesoftheCouncilofNicea"said,"TheShepherdof Hermas is not out of the canon (In other words, its origin is notcanonical.Ithasnoplace in thecanon)."Athanasius in367 in the39thFestalepistlespecifiesour27NewTestamentbooksaloneasthecanonasopposed to all the otherwritingswhich somewanted to include in theNewTestament.

The idea of an authoritative list or collection of sacred books is mucholder,however,thantheapplicationoftheword,canon,tothisidea.Priortothe4thcenturytheideaofanauthoritativelistofbookswasexpressedbymeansofthephrase,"theOldorNewCovenant."God'scovenantwasthefinalauthority.Thus,tosaythatabookwaspartoftheNewCovenantwas to assign to it supreme authority. Later canon was applied to thedecisionsoftheCouncilswhichformedthebasisof`canon'law.

SECTIONTWO:THESIGNIFICANCEOFTHEIDEA

ThesummaryIhavejustgivenyouofthemeaningofthetermraisesthequestion,Istheideaofacanon,alistofsacredwritingswhicharelookedat possessing divine authority, itself biblical? In other words, Does theBible teach the idea of a canon? This question is evenmore urgent toanswer in lightof thefact thatthetermcanon, isneverusedofa listofwritingspossessingfinalauthorityintheBible.

While the term, canon, is never used of a list of sacredwritings in thepagesofHolyScripture, the idea it represents ispresent everywhere inthe New Testament. This is another case where church history hasproperlygivenusawordtodescribeabiblical idea.Similarly, theterm,Trinity, isnot itselfbiblical,but itbringsoutandsummarizesabiblicalidea. The idea of a canon, an official collection of sacred writings, islogically implied in any view of Scripture which regards Scripture aspossessing unique, one-of-a-kind authority. This view is especiallysuggestedbyanyviewofScripturewhichregardstheHolyScripturesasdivine,infallible,andinerrant.

Thiskindofviewis,however,theScripture'sownviewofitself.TheNewTestament everywhere views the Old Testament not only as havinguniqueauthority,butasdivine, infallible,andinerrant.ThisviewoftheOld Testament requires by the strictest logical necessity the idea ofcanon.Thereasonforthisisthatthisviewrequiresacleardistinction,anemphatic boundary between what is and what is not Scripture. Aboundarylineofthischaracterisdrawnbymeansofthecanon,thelistofthosebookswhicharedifferentthanallothersinthattheyaredivineandinerrant.Suchadistinction,suchaboundarylinecanbeprovidedonlyby

theideaofcanon.

ThismaybeillustratedfromoneoftheclassicNewTestamentstatementsofOld Testament authority, Jn. 10:35.Here the assertion ismade that"theScripturecannotbebroken."Otherliteraturemaybebroken,may,inotherwords,err.Tomeananything,thisstatementmustsuggesttheideaofaclearboundarylinebetweenwhatisandwhatisnotScripture.Unlessweknowwhichbookscannotbebroken,itwillbeofnopracticalbenefittous toknowthatScripturecannotbebroken.ThisbiblicaldoctrineofScriptureisofnohelptouswithoutaclearlyunderstoodboundary linebetweenwhatisScriptureandwhatisnot.ThisboundarylineisdrawnintheDoctrineoftheCanon.

The Doctrine of the Canon of Scripture is, therefore, a key part of theorthodoxdoctrineofScripture.Theapplicationsofthisaremany.Letmemention several of them here. First, the Doctrine of the Canon isfoundational for orthodox theology. There is no more foundationaldoctrine than that of theScriptures.TheCanon is anessential point inourDoctrineofScripture.Wemaynot,therefore,thinkofthestudyoftheCanon as a hobby for impractical scholars and old people who havenothing better to do. Second, orthodox theology is required to give areasoneddefenseofitsconclusionsastowhatconstitutestheCanon.Weasthestudents,preachers,anddefendersofsuchtheologyarerequiredtoknowwhatthatdefenseis.Third,theScripturesareadequatetodirectusto such a defense. We may approach the study of Canon with theconfident expectation that no matter how thorny the problems whichconfrontus initare,thediligentstudyofScripturewillprovideuswithsatisfactorysolutions.This is thenecessarydeductionfromthedoctrineof the sufficiencyof theScriptures (2Tim.3:16, 17).Fourth, thosewhoapproach thestudyofCanonwithoutanorthodoxdoctrineofScripturewill without doubt pervert this doctrine. The study of the Canon ofScripture is inseparable from the idea of divine authority. Those whohaveperverted theChristian ideaofdivineauthorityunavoidablymakemistakes in their approach to the Canon.Oneway inwhich they oftenmake amistake is that wrongly define the purpose of the study of thecanon.TheywilltellyouthattheirpurposeistodiscoverhowtheChurchconstitutedcertainbooksasitsfinalauthorityorcanon.Suchastatement

of purpose starts out by denying the very idea of the Christian Canon.Onemayrecognizedivineauthority.OnemayaccepttheclaimsofGodinScripture. But one by the very nature of the case cannot make thoseclaimshaveauthority.Ridderboswellsays:

At the same time, it should be stated that this concept of the CanoncannotbeharmonizedwiththeideathattheCanonoftheChurchcanbesubjectedtotheso-called"spiritual criticism"of theChurch. ItmustbeemphasizedthattheChurchdoesnotcontrol theCanon,but theCanoncontrols theChurch. TheChurch cannot "make" or "lay down" its ownstandard.AllthattheChurchcanlaydownisthis,thatithasreceivedtheCanonasastandardandrule for faithand life,handeddownto itwithabsoluteauthority.(3)

Wewillseethatmanyormostoftheproblemswefaceinthedoctrneofthe canon are solved if we are consistent with the biblical idea of thecanon.Thisisespeciallytruewithregardtohowweknowthatthecanonof Scripture is the true canon. The biblical idea of canon demands theidea that the canon of Scripture must be in the final analysis self-attesting.

SECTIONTHREE:THESTEPSINTHESTUDY

AthoroughoverviewofthedoctrineoftheCanonrequiresustoexplorebroadareasofChristiantheology.TheoutlineofourstudyoftheCanonmakesthisclear.Wehavebegunbygiving...






LetmesayawordortwoaboutthisoutlinebeforewecometoPartTwoofit.

PartOne really dealswith severalmatters of introduction. I have beenintroducingyoutothetermandtheideasuggestedbyit.PartTwotakesus intotheareaofhistorical theologyor thehistoryofdoctrine. InPartTwo my intention is to lay out all the different positions which havegrown up and been stated clearly in the history of the church. This isintendedtosetbeforeusthevariouschoicesandoptionsthathavebeenexplored in the history of doctrines. Hopefully, this will help us makewise and informed choices as we begin to draw our conclusions in thenextpartsofthestudy.

InPartThreeofourstudieswecometotheareaofSystematicTheology.HerewewilldirectlydealwiththesubjectofhowweknowthattheCanonis the Canon. In other words, we will ask the foundational andepistemological question, How do we know that the orthodox andReformedviewofthelimitsofthecanoniscorrect?HowdoweknowthatsacredScriptureconsistsofonlythe39OldTestamentbooksandthe27New Testament books commonly recognized by believers in theEvangelical andReformed tradition? These questions raise the issue ofthe àttestation' or àuthentication' of Scripture. Attestation refers tohowsomethingisattestedorproventobetrue.Authenticationreferstohowweknowthatsomethingisauthenticorproventobewhatitclaimsto be. As you probably are assuming, the answer to these questions iscloselyrelatedtothestudyofApologetics.

InPartFourofourstudiesweexaminesomefundamentalissuesrelatedto redemptive history or exegetical theology. Having answered thequestionabouthowweknowthatourcanonistherightcanon,wecomeinthispartofourstudiestoaskinwhatformorbywhatmeansGodgaveus the biblical canon in history. The question here is, What is therelationship or connection between the redemptive-historical eventsrecorded in the Bible and the Bible itself? How do we link the OldTestamentScriptureswithGod'sdealingwithIsrael?HowdowelinkthepersonandworkofJesusChristwiththeNewTestament?Tobespecific,wewillbeansweringthechallengetotheBiblewhichsaysthatthereisnoconnectionbetweenitsmessageandtheforminwhichthatmessagehascometousinScripture.IsScriptureitselfscriptural?IstheBiblebiblical?DoestheOldTestamentcometouswiththesealofdivineauthorityupon

it?DoestheNewTestamentcometouswiththeapprovalofJesusChrist?IstheactualcharacteroftheOldandNewTestamentsconsistentwiththeteachingoftheBible?IsthereinternalconsistencybetweenthemessageandthepresentformoftheBible?

PartFiveofourstudiesbringsustotheareaofchurchhistory.Herewewill study theprocessbywhich the churchacceptedand receivedmoreand more officially the canon of Scripture. We will deal with theacceptance of the Old Testament canon and examine the issue of theApocrypha. We will deal with the acceptance of the New Testamentcanon.Herethemajorissueisnot,asIsaidbefore,toseehowthepeopleof Godmade these writings have authority. It is rather to see how thepeopleofGodmoreorlessofficiallyandformallyacceptedthesewritingsforwhat theywere, divinely inspiredwritings alreadyhaving authority.Thechallengebeingansweredinthispartofourstudiesistoseewhetherthere is external harmony between what the Bible teaches about thecanonandtheactualacceptanceofthatcanonbythechurch.Ifthecanoniswhat theBible says, thenwe should expect churchhistory todisplaycertain features. We will examine church history to see if there isharmony between the expectations raised by the Bible and the actualeventsofchurchhistory.

ThissurveyofwherewearegoinginthisstudyshowsthatinthisstudyIamprimarilyinterestedinasingleissue.ThatissueistheimportanceoftheChristian'sknowingthattheCanonheholdsandbelievesistrulytheright canon.My intention is to show theChristian the firmbasisofhisfaith. In this way I hold to make solid and sure his confidence in theorthodox, evangelical, Reformed, and biblical view of the canon. To dothis,IintroducethesubjectinPartOne.IshowthehistoricaloptionsinPart Two. I make clear the only right and intellectually solid way ofattesting the canon inPartThree. InPart Four I show that the biblicalview of the canon meets the standard of internal consistency. What ImeanbythisisthatthemessageandtheformoftheBibleareconsistent.I show finally that thebiblical viewof the canonmeets the standardofexternalharmonyinPartFive.Whatwewouldexpecttohappenchurchhistory,ifthethebiblicalviewofthecanonistrue,actuallydoeshappen.Churchhistory isconsistentwithwhatweactually findinthehistoryof

thechurch.

1.Westcott,AGeneral Survey of theHistory of the Canon of theNewTestament,p.504.

2.ibid.

3.RevelationandtheBible,ed.byCarlF.H.Henry,"TheCanonoftheNewTestament",HermanRidderbos,(Baker,GrandRapids,1958)p.196.


SECTION ONE: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AT THE TIME OFTHEREFORMATION

Withmanydoctrines,thepositionsclearlyandcarefullystatedduringtheReformation period have great significance. This is also true for thedoctrineoftheCanonofScripture.ThereforewewillbeginbysurveyingthebasicpositionsoftheReformationperiod.Allofthesepositionswerebuilt on the unique divinity of the Bible. Then, we will examine thedevelopments within the historico-critical school. The theoriespropounded by this school have as their common starting point thedenialoftheuniqueinfallibilityoftheBible.TheyrepresentdistortionsofthedifferentpositionsoftheReformationperiod.

I.TheHumanistView

ThisschoolisrepresentedbysuchvariousscholarsasErasmus,CardinalCajetan of Rome, andGrotius the Arminian. Its common bond was itsconfidenceinandappealtotheexternalevidenceuncoveredbyhistoricalcriticism as the principle by which the true canon was to beauthenticated.B.F.Westcott, thoughof amuch laterperiod, favors thisviewandembodiesitwhenhesays,"externalevidenceistheproperproofbothoftheauthenticityandauthorityoftheNewTestament...."(1)

These humanist scholars, being so different, came to no consensus oruniform view about the true extent of the canon. Erasmus with hischaracteristiccautionandcynicismneverdarestodenythecanonicityofany book of the New Testament. Nevertheless, he plants doubtsplentifully with reference to the seven so-called "Antilegomena" of theNewTestament.(2)Inparticular,heseemstoputtheRevelationofJohnin a the lower order or rank of a `second canon'. (3) Cardinal CajetancarriedErasmus'doubtsfurtherconsigningHebrews,2and3John,Judeand perhaps the Revelation of John to a so-called second canon. (4)ZwingliwasnotuntouchedbyHumanismanddeclaredtheRevelationofJohnnon-canonical.Grotius, theArminianscholar,notesanddiscussestheancientdoubtsaboutthe"Antilegomena"andimplies that somearelessthanfullycanonical.(5)

II.TheCatholicView

TheviewoftheRomanCatholicChurchwasformallystatedandofficiallyproclaimedattheCouncilofTrentin1546.Initsdecreeitrecognizedthe27booksoftheNewTestament,theHebrewcanonoftheOldTestament(variouslycountedas39,22,or24books), and6of theOldTestamentApocrypha as canonical. (6) In addition it received as canonical"traditions pertaining to faith and conduct.... with an equal feeling ofdevotionandreverence."Asiswellknown,theprinciplebywhichRomeauthenticatedthetruecanonoftheBiblewastheauthorityofthechurch.TheRomanchurchdidmakeadistinctionbetween theauthorityof thecanonviewedinitself(7)andtheauthorityofthecanonasitconcernsus(8),thegoverningideawasthattherecognitionoftheCanonrestedupontheauthorityofthechurch.(9)

III.TheLutheranView

One scholar summarizes Luther's position as follows: "Luther took theradicalstepofreplacingtheChurch'sauthoritywithanacknowledgementoftheWordofGodasfinalauthorityfordoctrineandlife-i.e.,ascanoninthefullestsenseoftheterm.""HealsorediscoveredthekeytotherightunderstandingoftheBible....justificationbyfaith."(10)Thisbecametheprinciple by which the true canon was to be authenticated. Whatproclaims Christ and concentrates onHim is canonical. The effect this

hadforLutherontheextentofthecanoniswellknown.Hequestionedthe canonicity of James, "the right strawy epistle," as he called it. (11)While Luther later weakened his position somewhat, it is clear that atleastatonetimeheassignedfourofthe"Antilegomena"toaquestionablestatus.ThesewereHebrews,James,Jude,andRevelation.(12)

ThelaterLutherantheologiansandcreedsabandonedLuther'sdoubtsastothesefourbooks.YetLuther's`canonwithinthecanon'wouldhavefarreachingeffects.

IV.TheReformedView

Calvin andReformed theology after him received theHebrew canon oftheOldTestamentand rejectedall theOldTestamentApocrypha.Theyalso received without distinction the 27 books of the New Testamentdefendingthecanonicityofthe"Antilegomena."(13)

Theprinciplebywhichthiscanonwasauthenticatedwastwofold.Ithadan objective (or rational) and subjective (or spiritual) side. For itsobjective or rational authentication, Calvin appealed to the self-authenticating(14)witnessoftheScripturetoitself.Foritssubjectiveorspiritualauthentication,CalvinappealedtotestimonyoftheHolySpirit.(15)ThistestimonyactuallyopensoureyesandsubduesourwillstothedivineauthorityofScripture. InCalvin'sgreatwork the Institutes thesetwinprinciplesofauthenticationareclearlyseenagainstthebackgroundoftheRomanCatholicviewthattheChurchauthenticatestheScriptures.(16)

SECTIONTWO:THETHEORIESPROMOTEDWITHTHERISEOFHISTORICALCRITICISM

HistoricalcriticismexaltedreasonabovetheBibleandbelievedthattheBible could be criticized and corrected by means of a careful, rationalstudy of historical evidence. This kind of biblical criticism is founded,therefore, in a denial of the unique infallibility of the Bible. It is alsoknown as Higher Criticism, Liberalism, and Modernism. Since theorthodoxviewofthecanonislogicallyclosetoandaresultofthedoctrineof the infallibility of theBible, theDoctrineof theCanon is profoundly

affectedbyhistoricalcriticismofthissort.

I.TheInitialDestructionoftheCanoninHistoricalCriticism

IntheGermancircleswherehistoricalcriticismhaditsoriginJ.S.SemlerwasregardedasthefounderofthehistoricalinvestigationoftheBible.Itis his book entitled, Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon,which lays in large part the foundation of historical or the highercriticismof theBible.This is very interestingbecause it illustrates howfoundationalandimportantthesubjectofthecanonofScripture is.Thebookwhichsoundedthetrumpetcall tostart theattackontheBiblebyModernismwasatreatmentofthecanon.ThisiswhereLiberalismbeganitsattackontheBible.Thisconfirmshowimportantitisforustohaveaclear understanding of this issue as defenders ofGod'sWord. It showshowfundamentalthisdoctrineis.Itshowsthatone'sviewsofthecanonof Scripturewill be directly and immediately twisted by a denial of thedoctrineofthefullinspirationofScripture.

WhatwasSemler'smethodof investigating the canon?Bymeansof anhistorical study of the Canon which laid all the emphasis on "theuncertainty, the conflict, the human strategy, ecclesiastical policy andtactics,whichaccompaniedtheassemblingofthe27books"(17),Semlerdeniedtheauthorityofthereceivedcanon.Hetaughtthatpersonalfaithisnotsubjecttoanyexternalauthority.Itowesfaithtonothingoutsideofitself, but is based on the original evidence of true religious andmoralknowledge. This innate knowledge is identified with the witness of theSpirit.ItenablestheChristiantoidentifytheWordofGodwhereitcomestoexpressionintheScripture.(18)Semler'stheoryhasforitsrealresultthedestructionoftheCanon.(19)Semler'spositionisbasicallythatoftheolderLiberalism.

II.TheAttemptedRestorationoftheCanoninHistoricalCriticism

The complete destruction of the biblical canonwas the logical result ofSemler'swork. This bothered even some theologians who accepted theidea that reasoncouldcriticizeandcorrect theBible.Thereforewithoutforsaking or giving up Semler's rationalism and its denial of biblicalauthority many of those who favored historical criticism attempted to

restoresomekindofcanontotheChristianchurch.

A.TheAttemptofThoseWhoDistortedLuther'sCanonwithintheCanon

ALutherantheologiannamedZahnreactedagainstthedestructionoftheCanonwhich Semler's theories involved. Though they did not abandonthe way in which historical criticism put reason above the Bible, theyappealed to Luther's canonwithin theCanon. The Germanmotto theyborrowed fromLutherwas `wasChristum treibet' whichmeans `whatpreaches (or promotes) Christ'. Zahn attempted to restore an objective(external,rational,written)canontotheChurchasoveragainstthetotalindividualismandsubjectivismoftheolderLiberalism.

YetZahn'sappealtothisprincipleisfarmoreradicalthanLuther's.Laterscholars,likeKummel,alsoappealingtoLuther,taughtthatthebooksoftheBiblearecanonicalonlytothedegreethattheybringusintorelationwith the historical revelation of Jesus Christ. This exists in the centralproclamationwhichmustbeestablishedbya critical comparisonof thevarious writings. Finding this core of truth in the New Testament,however,wasstillthetaskofahumanreasonnotsubjecttotheauthorityoftheScriptures.ItisclearthatZahnandhissuccessorshavenotavoidedtheverysubjectivism(makingtruthamatterofone'spersonalfeelingsoropinions)whichtroubledtheminSemler'swork.

B.TheAttemptofThoseWhoDistortedCalvin'sTestimonyoftheSpirit

TherewasanothergroupofhighercriticswhodisagreedwithZahnandhis friends. They completely rejected any attempt to find an objective,clear, rational, andwritten canonwithin the canon of Scripture. Thesetheologians emphasized experience. The Bible is God's Word when itspeakstous.ItisGod'sWordwhenwehearorexperienceGodspeakingtousthroughit.(20)Thisviewis,ofcourse,knownasNeo-orthodoxy.ItappealedtoanddistortedtheReformedDoctrineoftheTestimonyoftheHoly Spirit. The Bible is not the Word of God in this view. Rather itbecomestheWordofGodonlywhenwehearGodspeakingtousthroughit"hereandnow""straightdownfromabove".(21)Clearly, thispositionalso does not avoid either individualism (making truth a matter one'spersonal opinion) or subjectivism (making truth amatter of one's own

experienceandfeelings).

1.Westcott,loc.cit.,p.502.

2. The antilegomena were literally `those spoken against'. The wordrefers to those seven New Testament books about which some doubtswereraised in theearlychurchperiod.TheywereHebrews,Revelation,James,2Peter,2and3John,andJude.

3.Westcott, loc. cit., p.473. The technical terminology for this illogicalplacingofabookinasecondcanonisgivingitdeutero-canonicalstatus.


5.Westcott,loc.cit.,p.496.Thebookshequestionedwere2and3John,Jude,and2Peter.


7.TheLatinisquoadse.

8.TheLatinisquoadnos.

9.Ridderbos,loc.cit.,p.190.

10.Dutoit, A.B.;Roberts, J.H.Guide to theNewTestament, (trans. byD.R.Briggs)(Pretoria,1979),p.259.


12.Westcott,loc.cit.,pp.481-483.

13.Dutoit,loc.cit.,p.263.

14. The technical word for this self-authentication is autopistia. As theword itself suggests, it refers to the fact that theBibleattestsorprovesitselftobetruewithoutoutsideevidence.

15.ThetechnicalLatinnameforthisisthetestimoniumSpiritusSanctus.

16.NotethefollowingreferencesinCalvin'sInstitutes:1:7:1,1:7:2,1:7:4,1:7:5,3:2:34.

17. Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New TestamentScriptures,(PresbyterianandReformed,1988)p.1.

18.Dutoit,p.266.

19.Ridderbos,RedemptiveHistory...,p.2.

20. Herman Ridderbos summarizes this point of view when he says,"Anothergroupofscholars,whoinprincipleholdtothesamestandpointwithrespecttothecanon,willnothearofsuchanobjectivecanonwithinthecanon.Insteadtheyseekthecanonicityof thecanoninthefact thatwe repeatedly encounter the Word of God in it as an actual event."RedemptiveHistory...p.6.

21. In his summary of Kasemann's position Ridderbos says, "As it liesbeforeusinitsnakedobjectivity,thecanonisnottheWordofGod,norisitidenticalwiththegospel.ItisrathertheWordofGodonlyinsofarasitisandrepeatedlybecomesthegospel.Thequestionastowhatthegospelis cannot be answered by the historian. It can be decided solely by thebelieverwhohasbeenconvincedbytheSpiritandwhohasearstohear."RedemptiveHistory...p.8.


GENERALINTRODUCTION:

Ithasalreadybeenmadeclearthattheideaofacanonisbiblical.ItisanecessaryconclusionwhichmustbedrawnfromtheuniqueandabsoluteauthorityassignedtotheOldTestamentbytheNewTestament.Butthereis also a broader sense in which the idea of a canon or of an absolutestandardisChristian.AttheheartofChristianityaretheideasofdivineauthority and divine revelation. God is the absolute standard for Hispeople.More precisely,God's speaking is the canon of truth. Thus, theidea of canon corresponds to and grows out of divine authority, divine

revelation,anddivinespeaking.TheauthorityoftheCanonis,therefore,essentialtotheauthorityofdivinerevelation.

In dealing with this issue of the authority of divine revelation we are,however, asking and answering two somewhat distinct questions. Thetwo questions are:Why does the Bible possess special authority? and,Howdo I know it possesses such authority?Christians in general haveagreedthattheBiblepossessesinnateauthoritybecauseitistheWordofthelivingGod.Butaslightlydifferentquestionmaybeasked,HowdoIcome to know and recognize that authority? How is that authorityattestedtome?Whenthisquestionisasked,differentanswershavebeengiventoitbythosewhobelievethattheScripturesaretheWordofGod.It is this questionwithwhichwe are now concerned:How is theBibleattestedtomeastrue?Inotherwords,Howdoweknowthatthemessagecontained in the Scriptures is divine? When we have answered thisquestionproperly,wewillbeabletogiveabasicanswertothequestionabouthowweknowthatourcanonistheorthodoxcanon.

When the question of canonical authority is defined in this way it isevidentthatwearedealingwiththesubjectofChristianepistemology.Assuch the study of the recognition of canonical authority necessarilyinvolves applying one's view of Christian Apologetics. Any approach tothe Canon which fails to appreciate the great importance andfoundationalcharacterofApologeticsforthestudyoftheCanonisrightlyviewed as shallow or superficial. When writers simply assume withoutfurther thought that the study of the Canon is simply a matter ofhistorical investigation and evidence, great theological ignorance andshallownessisdisplayed.Thefactisthatone'sevaluationofthehistoricalevidencewillbeprofoundlyaffectedbythepresuppositionsonebringstoitfromone'sApologetics.

Thequestionis,Howdoweknowthatourcanonistherightcanon?ThisquestionisthequestionansweredwhenwespeakoftheauthenticationoftheScriptures.AuthenticationreferstothatwhichprovestheBibletobetheWordofGod.WhenwetellmenhowweknowtheBibleistheWordofGod,we are authenticating theScriptures.Wewill discuss this issueunderthreesectionsofthought.

SECTIONONE:THEATTEMPTEDBUTWRONGANSWERS

SECTIONTWO:THEBIBLICALANDREFORMEDSOLUTION

SECTIONTHREE:THENECESSARYANDIMPORTANTDEDUCTIONS

SECTIONONE:THEATTEMPTEDBUTWRONGANSWERS

I.ManatteststheCanon.

This is the position of Semler and Liberalism. Among these scholarsmany variations were given to this position. Always, however, man'sinnate religious, emotional,moral, or intellectual instincts and abilitiesweremadetheruleofwhatwasconsideredtobecanon.

Amongthemanyobjectionswhichmaybebroughtagainstthisposition,one is most pointed and primary. It ignores man's fallen-ness. Moreprecisely, it ignoresordenies thenoeticor intellectualeffectsofhumandepravity.The fact is that the religious,moral, and intellectual abilitieswhichthispositionappeals toarenot themselves infallible.Rathertheyarefalleninsin.Theappealtomantoauthenticatethecanoncanneverbe successful. A canon is by definition an infallible standard. A falliblemancannevergiveusaninfalliblestandard.Evenworse,a fallenmindwillneverbesatisfiedtoacceptGod'sWord.TheintellectualimpulsesofsuchamindwillalwaysandforevertwistGod'sstandardifweallowittostandinjudgmentoftheCanon.

II.HistoryatteststheCanon.

TherearethosewhoappealtothestudyofhistoryinordertoshowthattheBible is theWordofGod.Thiswas thepositionof theReformationHumanistslikeErasmus.Manyhavefollowedtheminmorerecenttimes.ThisviewassertsthatevidenceoutsideorexternaltotheBibleprovidedbyhistorical investigationwill attest to us the apostolic authorshipandauthenticityofthebiblicalcanon.(1)B.F.Westcottfavorsthisviewandsummarizesitwhenhesays,"externalevidenceistheproperproofbothoftheauthenticityandauthorityoftheNewTestament..."(2)

I certainlydonotwish todeny that theevidenceprovidedbyhistorical

investigationsupportstheideathattheBibleishistoricallygenuineofthebiblical canon. However, several objections may be raised against thisposition.

(1)ItiscontrarytotheexperienceofmostChristians.Veryfew,ornone,cometobelievethattheBibleistheWordofGodthroughastudyofthehistorical evidence. Such a study has very little to do with the faith ofmost Christians. Does this mean that the faith of most Christians isdefectiveorimproper?Ofcoursenot!

(2) It is beyond the reach of most Christians. Many Christians do nothave the intellectual capability of evaluating the thorny, historicalquestionsregardingthescriptures.Mostdonothavethetimetoread,letalonetounderstand,forexample,Westcott'sweightyGeneralSurvey....

(3) It is insufficient for any Christian.What is Biblical faith? It is theconviction,theinnercertainly,theconfidentknowledgethatthemessageof the Bible is true (Heb. 11:1). The fact is that the historical evidence(whileimportant,helpful,andsupporting)isneitherclear,norcompleteenoughtogroundtruefaith.(3)Atpointafterpoint judgmentsmustbemadeonthebasisof incompleteevidence.InsupportofthisassertionIcan only challenge the doubter to read for himself (even such asympathetic andmasterful treatment of the evidence as that presentedby)Westcott.

(4) It is contrary to the nature of true faith. Ridderbos asserts, "Anhistorical judgment cannot be the final and sole ground for theacceptanceoftheNewTestament...Todoso[accepttheNewTestamentonsuchabasis--SW]wouldmeanthatthechurchwouldbaseitsfaithontheresultsofhistoricalinvestigation."(4)ThiswouldmeanthatformostChristians their faith, in reality, would be in the expert, the historicalinvestigatorhimself.Thiswouldbeaclearcontradictionofapassagelike1Cor.2:4,5.

III.TheEcclesiasticalAppeal

ManyappealtothewitnessofthechurchinordertoshowthattheBibleis the Word of God. Roman Catholicism is the key example of this

position. It affirms that the Church is able to give the Christian aninfallible authentication of the Canon. In other words, RomanCatholicismclaimsthatthechurchisaloneabletotellusforcertainandwith authority that the Bible is theWord of God. Of course, any viewwhichgivestotheChurchanyinfallibleauthoritymustbeunacceptabletoProtestants.Furthermore,Romecontradictsthebiblicalteachingthat"thecanonisnotestablishedbythechurch,butthe latter isestablishedby the canon." Thus Rome's position involves "a reversal of theredemptive-historicalorder."(5)ComparethestatementofPaul inEph.2:20 that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles andprophets.

IV.GeneralObjections

With the exception of the biblical andReformed answerwhichwewillstudylater,allthepossiblepositionswithregardtotheattestationofthecanonarevariationsof thepositionswehave laidout.For instance, theappealtoacanonwithinthecanontothedegreethatitdiffersfromtheReformed position is a combination of man and history attesting thecanon. It is, of course, not denied that each of the attempted answersmentionedabovecontainelementsoftruth.Thepointisthatnonearethewhole of the truth. Each lacks the decisive perspective necessary tosupplya satisfying intellectual solution to theproblem.Two convincingobjectionswhichapplytothehumanisticappeal(theappealtoman),thehistoricalappeal (theappeal tohistory),andto theecclesiasticalappeal(theappeal to thechurch)mustnowbe lookedat.Theseobjectionsnotonlyrefutetheinsufficientwaysofattestingthebiblicalcanonmentionedabove,buttheyalsomakeplainthedirectionwemustgoinordertofindasatisfyingsolutiontotheproblem.

(1)Anobjectionwhichapplies toboth thepositionsgivenabove is thatthethingtowhichweappealinordertoattesttheBibletendstoreplacetheBible as one's practical authority. In otherwords, that towhichweappeal in order to prove the Bible becomes the real authority of thosewho appeal to it. This lessens orweakens the practical influenceof theBible.

This problem is shown to be real in Roman Catholicism. Roman's

Catholicism's appeal to ecclesiastical authority to prove the Bible isassociatedwithatendencytodestroythepracticalauthorityoftheBiblefor Roman Catholics. This is so because in its appeal to the church toprove theBible theBible ceases to be the absolute standard. Similarly,historicalcriticism'sappealtomanandhistoryresultedinmakingman'sinterpretationofhistorythefinalauthority.TheBiblewasthensubjectedtothisfinalauthority.TheBibleceasedtocanonexceptasmanpermittedittobe.

IneachofthechoicesgivenabovetheBibleistobeattestedbymeansofan appeal to a higher standard. Thus each of the attempted answers isvirtuallyadenialoftheauthorityoftheBible.Toappealtoanyexternalauthority to prove the Bible is to make something else have moreauthoritythantheBible.TomakeanythingelsehavemoreauthoritythantheBible isadenialof the supremeauthorityof theBible.Though it ishelpful to make a distinction, logically, between the authority of theScriptures for us and its authority in itself, (6) it should always berememberedthatitsauthorityinitselfandwithusisfromasinglecauseandforasinglereason.ItistheWordofGod.

(2)It is importanttonoteat thispointthatthewholeeffort todiscoversomestandardexternaltooroutsideoftheBibletoproveittobeGod'sWordismisguided.Thisisthecasefortworeasons.First,sinceGodhasspokenandtheBibleisitselfthelivingWordofGod,thehighestpossibleauthenticationistheBible'sownwitnesstoitself.Second,ifwethinkthatadivinerevelationfollowingtheoriginalgivingoftheBible isnecessaryin order to confirm it as God's Word, there is no place to stop. ThissecondrevelationwouldrequireathirdrevelationtoconfirmitasGod'sWordand so onwithout end. If theBible asGod's voice orword fromheavendoesnotattestitself,noamountofvoicesorwordsfromheavenwill ever be sufficient to attest it. Stonehouse has well said, "The onlyconcrete[tangible--SW]forminwhichthatauthenticationcancome,ifitis not to be derived from another objective [tangible, written--SW]revelationfromtheLordofheaven,mustbenothingotherthanthevoiceofScriptureitself."(7)

SECTIONTWO:THEBIBLICALANDREFORMEDSOLUTION

TheReformedviewoftheself-authenticationoftheScripturesmustnowbe systematically stated and exegetically defended. The Reformed viewhasoftenbeenmisunderstoodasasubjectivistic(feeling-related)appealto the internal testimonyof theSpirit.Thismisconceptionoccurswhenthe testimony of the Holy Spirit (8) is divorced from the Reformeddoctrine of the self-authentication (9) of divine revelation. (10) Thedoctrine of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit can only be properlyunderstood as one of a trilogy or series of three Reformed doctrinesconcerningtheauthenticationofdivine revelation.Furthermore, adeepappreciationof theconvincingcharacterof thebiblical evidence for theReformed solution to the problem of the authentication of Scripture isonlyobtainedbyviewingthisseriesofthreeofdoctrinestogether.

I.TheSelf-AuthenticatingCharacterofGeneralRevelation

No one has more forcefully stated the significance of the self-authenticatingcharacterofnaturalorcreationrevelationthanCorneliusVanTilwherehesaid:

ThemostdepravedofmencannotwhollyescapethevoiceofGod.TheirgreatestwickednessismeaninglessexceptupontheassumptionthattheyhavesinnedagainsttheauthorityofGod.Thoughtsanddeedsofutmostperversityarethemselvesrevelational,that is, intheirveryabnormality.The naturalman accuses or else excuses himself only because his ownutterly depraved consciousness continues to point back to the originalnatural state of affairs. The prodigal son can never forget the father'svoice.Itisthealbatross[alargeseabird--SW]foreverabouthisneck.(11)

According to the biblical view of creation revelation man is alwaysimmediatelyconfrontedwithdivine revelation.God inHis revelation isceaselesslyauthenticatinghimselftoman.ThecreaturecanneverescapetheCreator.Naturalorgeneralrevelationisself-authenticatingbecauseitis the revelationof theCreator to the creaturemade inHis image. Thebiblical evidence for this has already been presented. It will bemerelysummarized here. Psalm 19 asserts that creation has a voice. It wascreatedbytheWordofGod.Nowitspeaksawordtomen.Withitsvoiceit declares loudly, clearly, abundantly, ceaselessly, and universally thegloryofthelivingGod.Romans1:18f.reflectsonthisPsalm.Itgoesonto

assertthatsuchrevelationleavesmenwithoutexcusebecauseitactuallyimparts to themacertainknowledgeofGod.By it thatwhich is knownaboutGodismadeevidentinthemandtothem.Hiseternalpoweranddivinenatureareclearlyseenandunderstoodbymen.Thus,inacertainsense,theApostlecanassertthatmenknowGod,thelawofGod,andtheordinanceofGodthat thosewhobreakHis lawsmustdie.Thoughtheysuppressthetruth,theydopossessthetruth.Thisviewofthingsisclearlyconfirmed by the rest of Scripture which steadfastly refuses to utilizerational argumentation to prove the existence of God. Even in Acts 17wherePaulfacescompletepaganstheexistenceandattributesareratherasserted,assumed,anddeclaredthanprovenorargued.WhenPaulcitesheathenpoetsinsupportofhistestimony,itisclearthatheassumesthateventhosebarrenofthelightofredemptiverevelationpossessacertainsuppressedknowledgeofGodthatcomestodistortedexpressionintheirsystematicthought.

LetitbeclearwhattheforceofthetestimonyofScriptureis.ItisnotthatmenmayknowGod;northattheypotentiallyknowGodandwillcometoknow Him if they will use their reason aright. It is not that men bynaturalrevelationhaveacertainvaguenotionofsomeundefineddeity.Itis rather that men are immediately confronted with a clear andunavoidablerevelationofthetrueandlivingGod.

This distinct view of Scripture has been clearly asserted by the greatteachersoftheReformedfaith.Calvinfrequentlyassertedjustthisintheopening pages of the Institutes (1:3:1, 2, 3; 1:4:1,2; 1:5:1,2,4, 11,15;1:6:1,2).Thestatementof1:5:4istypical:"TheyperceivehowwonderfullyGodworkswithin them,andexperience teaches themwhat a varietyofblessingstheyreceivefromhis liberality.Theyareconstrained toknow,whether willingly or not, that these are proofs of his divinity: yet theysuppressthisknowledgeintheirhearts."Owenhasmadethepointevenmoreclearwithtechnicallanguage.HesaysaftercitingRomans1:19and2:14, 15: "And thus the mind doth assent unto the principles of God'sbeingandauthority,antecedently[prior--SW]untoanyactualexerciseofthe discursive faculty [the capacity of men to engage in a line ofreasoning--SW]orreason,orothertestimonywhatever."(12)

The self-authenticating character of Scripture has for its significant

setting the self-authenticating character of general revelation. Theevidencefortheself-authenticationofScriptureisnevergivenitsproperweight divorced from this backdrop. John Murray has seen thisrelationship."IftheheavensdeclarethegloryofGodandthereforebearwitness to their divineCreator, the Scripture asGod's handiworkmustalso bear the imprints of his authorship." (13) This argument may,however, beput evenmore emphatically. Itmay be said that if generalrevelationisself-authenticating,howmuchmoremustspecialrevelationas it iswrittendown in theBiblebeself-authenticating.The fact is thatthegreatdifferencebetweengeneralandspecialrevelationisthatspecialrevelation has a far more direct and personal character than generalrevelation.IngeneralrevelationcreationspeakstousofGod.Inspecialrevelation God himself approaches us directly and personally speakingwords tous. J. I. Packer teaches that the purpose ofGod's speaking tomenis tomakefriendswiththem.He thengoeson tospeakof the factthatgeneralrevelationisinsufficientforthisend.

Asagainstthosewhoholdthatgeneralrevelation,and`naturalreligion'basedonit,cansufficeformanwithouttheBible,wemustobservethatPaul'sanalysisshowsuptheinsufficiencyofgeneralrevelation.Itshowsus,first,thatgeneralrevelationisinadequateasabasisforreligion,forityieldsnothingaboutGod'spurposeof friendshipwithman,nordoes itfullydiscloseHiswill forhumanlife.EvenAdaminEdenneededdirectdivinespeech,overandabovegeneralrevelationtomakeknowntohimallGod'swill.(14)

If the comparatively indirect and impersonal general revelationauthenticated itself to men as divine revelation, how much more willdirect and personal speaking by God to men in special revelationconstrain recognition by its self-authentication. Owen makes this verypoint:

WeneednootherargumentstoprovethatGodmadetheworldbutitself.Itcarrieth in it andupon it the infallible tokensof its original ....Now,therearegreaterandmoreevidentimpressionsofdivineexcellencieslefton thewrittenword, from the infinitewisdomof theAuthorof it, thananythatarecommunicateduntotheworksofGod,ofwhatsortsoever.HenceDavid,comparingtheworksofGod,astotheirinstructiveefficacy

indeclaringGodandhisglory,althoughheascribesmuchuntotheworksof creation, yet dothhe prefer theword incomparably before them,Ps.xix.1-3,7-9,cxvlvii.8,9etc.,19,20.(15)

The relation of the self-authentication of general revelation to the self-authentication of the Scriptures (special revelation) may also bepresentedbywayofthefollowingthreesteppieceoflogicorsyllogism.

MajorPremise:DivineRevelationisSelf-Attesting.

MinorPremise:ScriptureisDivineRevelation.

Conclusion:ScriptureisSelf-Attesting.

Thissyllogismdependsforitstruthfulnessontheproprietyofthemajorpremise.Themajorpremiseisbasedonapplyingtorevelationingeneralwhat is true of the self-authentication of general revelation. This isjustifiedbythefactthatgeneralrevelationisself-attestingbecauseofthenature of the Creator/creature relationship. Since this same relationunderlies all revelation, divine revelation in general must be self-attesting.

Let me illustrate how our knowledge of general revelation forms theessential context for appreciating the self-authenticating character ofScriptures.Revelationislikeajigsawpuzzle.Generalrevelationlikethatwe studied inRom. 1:18-23givesus thebordersof thatpuzzle, but thecrucial innerpiecesnecessary tocomplete thepuzzlearemissing.Fromtheborderpiecesyoucantellgenerallywhatcolorandshapethosepiecesmustbe,butyoucannotseethepictureclearlybecausethecrucialpiecesaremissing.Supposeamotherandachildwereputtingtogethersuchajigsaw puzzle and realized when they were almost done that severalcrucial pieces were missing. They look all over the house for thosemissingpiecesandfinallyunderacushiononthecouchtheyfindseveraljigsaw puzzle pieces. When they place them in the puzzle, they fitperfectly,theyaretherightcolor,andtheycompletethepictureperfectly.Now suppose when the father comes home, he questioned them andaskedhowtheyknewforsurethattheyfoundtherightpieces.Wouldhebeabletoconvincethemthattheyhadthewrongpieces?No!Whatcould

they do to convince the father that they had the right pieces? All theycoulddowouldbetoshowhimthepuzzleandhopethathehadnothadsuchabaddayatworkthathewouldnotseetheobviousfit.

ItispreciselythesamewiththespecialrevelationcontainedintheBible.It fitswithgeneralrevelation.First, it reveals thesameGodwhichmenknowbynature.Second,itrevealsthesamewickedsituationwhichmenknowbynature.Itteachesthatmenarewickedsinnersdoomedtodeathby a just God.Men, according to Rom. 1:18-2:16 know this by nature.Third, it explains why a just God continues to show common grace tosuchwickedsinners.AccordingtotheBiblemenareawareofthefactthatGod continues to show goodness to themdespite theirwickedness anddespite His holiness. The Bible explains that mystery by revealing thepurposeofGodtosavesinners.Fourth,theBiblerevealstheonlywayinwhichwickedsinnersunder thewrathofGodcanbe justifiedbyaholyGod. Even though its doctrine of the Son of God coming to suffer thepenalty whichHis people deserved is too wonderful ever to have beenthoughtofbynaturalreason,yetwhenitisconsidereditisobviousthatonlythroughsuchagospelcansinnersbesaved.Thesepieces,yousee,fitthepuzzleofgeneralrevelationperfectly.ThisisthereasonwhywhentheSpirit opens sinners eyes, thegospel is immediately received. Its divinetruthfulness is obvious. It fits the suppressed truth which the sinneralreadyknows.

II.TheSelf-AuthenticatingCharacteroftheScriptures

We have seen to some extent the background of why the Scripturesauthenticatethemselvestomen.NowweneedtoseethattheScripturesindeed teach the self-authentication of Scripture.Here we come to thetrueheartoftheReformedsolutiontotheproblemoftheauthenticationof the Scriptures. Holy Scripture may not be attested finally by man,history, or the church, itmust be self-attested. The Scriptures are self-authenticating.

(1) The Bible everywhere asserts that the Scriptures are never to beviewedas adead letter, but as the livingWord ofGod (Jer. 23:28, 29;Luke16:27-31(16);John6:63;Acts7:38,IPeter1:23-25,andHeb.4:12,13). (17) As the livingWord of God, the Bible confrontsmen with the

voiceoftheonetheyknowtobetheirCreator.Thus,theScripturesinandof themselves demand to be believed and oblige all to whom they areministeredtobelieve.

(2)Withoutcloselyreasoned lengthyargumentsabout themorexternalevidencebeingaddedtothem,theScripturesaresufficienttowarranttheinfallibleconfidenceintheirtruthfulnessrequiredforsavingfaith(Deut.31:11-13;John20:31;Gal.1:8,9;Mark16:15,16).

(3)IfonedoesnotassigntotheScripturestheabilitytocompelbeliefinandofthemselves,oneraisesseriousquestionsaboutthedoctrineofthesufficiency of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). If the Scriptures are notsufficientforthismostfundamentalofspiritualissues,aretheysufficientforanything?Iftheyneedtobesupplementedbylistsofevidences,thenwhy should we deny that they need to be supplemented by works onworshipandpsychologyetc.

Calvin's historically important statement of the self-authentication ofScriptureisfoundin1:7:2and1:7:5of theInstitutes.Partsof itdeservequotation here: "But with regard to the question, How shall we bepersuadedofitsdivineoriginal,unlesswehaverecoursetothedecreeofthechurch?Thisisjustasifanyoneshouldinquire,Howshallwelearntodistinguishlightfromdarkness,whitefromblack,sweetfrombitter?Forthe Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its truth, aswhite and blackthingsdooftheircolor,orsweetandbitterthingsoftheirtaste."(18)

TheScripture,then,isself-authenticating.Thismeansthatthebestwayshow that it true is simply to preach and teach its message boldly.Spurgeonsomewheresaysthathewassometimesaskedhowhedefendedthe Scriptures. He responds that he does not believe that he needs todefendScripture.Scriptureislikealion,saysSpurgeon.Ifweletitoutofitscage,itwilldefenditselfwellenough.Anotherinterestingtestimonytothe self-authenticating power of Scripture comes from the pen ofArchibaldAlexander.Thistestimonyisparticularlyinterestingwhenitisremembered that Alexander was the father of a school of apologeticswhich did not properly understand the self-authentication of theScriptures.

WhilespendingasummerinGermantown,nearPhiladelphia,IwassentfortovisitayoungmanwhomIhadoftenseen.Hedidnotbelongtomycharge,buttwopiousladieswhodid,werehisfriends,andhadcomeoutof the city tonursehim.He had a hemorrhage of the lungs,which leftlittleroomtohopeforrecovery.Ashewasamildandmoralman,Ididnotknowbut thathemightbeaprofessorof religion;butuponaskinghimaquestionrespectinghishope,hefranklytoldmethathehadbeenskepticalformanyyears,andhadnotbeliefthattheGospelwasdivine.Ineverfeltmoreata loss.Themanwastooweaktoattendtoargument,and if Icouldbyreasoningconvincehimofhiserror, itwouldnotbeasavingfaith,andhemustdiebeforethisprocesscouldbegonethrough.Ifound that his infidelity afforded him no comfort in a dying hour, andthathewishedhecouldbelieveinChrist.ItoccurredtomethattheWordofGodcontainedlightandenergyinitself,andthatifhecouldnotattendto the external evidences, the beams of truth might shine in upon hissoul, and thus generate a saving faith by the efficient aid of the Spirit.Afterpointingouttheprobablesourcesofhisskepticism,IrequestedtheladieswhowereattendingonhimtoreadcertainportionsoftheGospeltohim,ashecouldbearit--forhewasverylow.Thiswasdone;andnextday, when I came to see him, he declared that his doubts were allscattered,andthathehadhopeinChrist.Afterwards,hewasneverabletoconverse;butasfarasisknownhediedinhope.(19)

III.TheTestimonyoftheHolySpirittotheScriptures

A.TheBasisoftheTestimonyoftheHolySpirit

ItisnowpossibletounderstandthetruemeaningtheReformeddoctrinecalledthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.Ithasaobjective,rationalbasisinthe self-authentication of Scripture. Calvin saw this clearly: "Let it beconsidered then as an undeniable truth, that they who have beeninwardly taughtby theSpirit, feel an entire acquiescence [submission--SW]intheScripture,andthatitisself-authenticated,carryingwithititsown evidence, and ought not to bemade the subject of demonstrationand arguments from reason; but it obtains the creditwhich it deserveswithusbythetestimonyoftheSpirit."(20)

Thequestionmayarise,however,IftheScripturesareself-authenticating

what is the need of additional testimony? Further, if they are self-authenticating,howdoweexplaintheunbeliefanddenialbywhichtheyare met by so many? This brings us to discuss the necessity of thetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.

B.TheNecessityoftheTestimonyoftheHolySpirit

The cause or necessity of the testimony is in one word, sin. Humandepravity has its noetic or intellectual effects. It perverts humanintellectual endeavor. It causes men to suppress the truth and sospirituallyblindsthemtothe lightofdivinerevelation(Rom.1:21;Eph.4:17-21;2Cor.4:3,4).

AconclusionmaybedrawnfromthewhathasjustbeensaidaboutwhatmakesthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritnecessary.Thereisnothingwrongwith the self-attesting Scriptures. There is nothing wrong with man'smental capacity to respond to the Scriptures properly. The problem iswithman'sheart.HisheartmakeshisintellectsuppressthetruthoftheScriptures in unrighteousness. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is,therefore, simply the removal of that evil heart.He takes away the evilethicaldispositionwhichmakesmensuppressthetruthand,thus,blindsmentothelightofdivinerevelation.Thetestimonyresultsinanethicaltransformation and not merely an intellectual operation. It doessomethingtomen'sheartsbefore itdoessomething to theirminds.Butthisbringsusto...

C.TheDemonstrationoftheTestimonyoftheHolySpirit

The reality of the testimony of the Spirit to the Scriptures may bedemonstratedalongtwolinesofbiblicalargument.

1.FromtheEthicalStarting-pointofAllProperThinking(includingOurThinkingaboutScripture)

TheBibleteachesthatifmanistothinkright,hemustberightethically.Thefollowing passages teach that the ability to think right and by thatmeansseetheself-evidencinglightofspecialrevelationisdependentonaproperethicaldisposition:Ps.111:10;Prov.9:10,1:7,15:33;John3:19-21,

7:16,17;IITim.2:25;IITim.3:7;John10:26,27.Faith,fear,doingGod'swill,repentance,allthesearespiritualandmoralqualitieswithoutwhichwecannot thinkright.Thesequalitiesarenecessary tomake the sinnerstopsuppressingthetruthofGodandstopbeingblindspirituallytothelight of divine revelation. The Bible teaches that they are produced insinnersbymeansof the regeneratingworkof theHolySpirit.All thosepassages,therefore,whichbearupontheregeneratingworkoftheSpiritdemonstrate or prove indirectly the doctrine of the testimony. Thepassages supporting which speak of the Spirit's saving work are wellknownandneednotbecitedhere.

2.FromtheDirectStatementofScripture

As I just statedall thosepassageswhich teach that theSpirit changesaman's heart and imparts to it those ethical qualities necessary to thinkright indirectlysupportthedoctrineof thetestimonyof theHolySpirit.Some passages dealing with the work of the Spirit, however, plainlymentionhowbyHistestimonyHeimpartsthelightoftruthtomen.ThefollowingpassagesmakeclearthatitistheSpiritthatcreatesfaithintheScriptures through his attesting work in the soul of man through theScriptures(Matt.16:17;1Cor.2:14f;John3:3;1Cor.2:4,5;1Thess.1:5;2:13,1John2:20,21,27).(21)

SECTIONTHREE:THENECESSARYANDIMPORTANTDEDUCTIONS

I.CommonMisunderstandingsClearedAway

A.TheMisunderstandingofSubjectivism

WhatdoImeanbythemisconceptionofsubjectivism?ThosewhorejectthedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheHolySpirittotheauthenticityoftheScriptureswilloftenobjecttoitbysayingthatitiscompletelysubjective.TheythinkthatwearesayingthatweknowthattheBibleistheWordofGodbecausewe feel it to be so in our hearts. They often go on to ask,What kind of argument is it that is based on a feeling or a personalopinionresultingfromsomethingtheSpirittellsyouinyourheart?TheyalsoasktheReformedifitisnotarrogantandproudtosaythattheHolySpirithastoldthemthetruth,butnototherChristians.(22)

Twoanswersmaybegiventothisobjection:

(1)ThisobjectiondoesnottakeintoaccountthebasisofthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.Thisistheobjective,self-authenticatingcharacteroftheScripturesastheWordofGod.(23)Itmustberememberedthattheself-authenticationoftheScripturesisnottobedivorcedorwithdrawnfromthe actual quality of the Scriptures. The self-authentication of theScriptures is rooted in the divine perfections of Scripture, its claims,content,andattributes.C.W.Hodgesummarizes itsobjectivecharacterwhenhesays:

"TheWitnessoftheHolySpirittotheBible,then,isnotobjectiveinthesense of being the mystical communication to the mind of a truth orproposition,norisitasubjectiveinferencefromChristianexperience.Itis simply the savingwork of theHoly Spirit on the heart removing thespiritualblindnessproducedbysin, so that themarksofGod'shand intheBiblecanbeclearlyseenandappreciated...ThosewhoarebornoftheSpirit have their minds enlightened so that they are enabled andpersuaded to accept the objective testimonywhichGodgives theBible,and to recognize immediately or behold intuitively themarks of God'shandintheScripture."(24)

OurConfessionalsomakesplainthattheself-authenticationofScriptureiscloselyrelatedto theactualqualityofScripture.Noticehowthe1689BaptistConfessionofFaithtreatsthesequalitiesinChapter1,paragraphs4and5:

4Theauthorityof theHolyScripture, forwhichitoughttobebelieved,dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but whollyuponGod (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to bereceivedbecauseitistheWordofGod.

5WemaybemovedandinducedbythetestimonyofthechurchofGodtoanhighandreverentesteemoftheHolyScriptures;andtheheavenlinessofthematter,theefficacyofthedoctrine,andthemajestyofthestyle,theconsentofalltheparts,thescopeofthewhole(whichistogiveallglorytoGod), the full discovery itmakes of the onlyway ofman's salvation,and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections

thereof,areargumentswhereby itdothabundantlyevidence itself tobetheWordofGod;yetnotwithstanding,ourfullpersuasionandassuranceof the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inwardwork of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with theWord in ourhearts.

Plainly, the Confession sees the excellencies of Scripture as the way inwhichitabundantlyevidencesitselftobetheWordofGod.AlltheHolySpiritdoesistoenableustoacceptthisevidence.Noticehowparagraph5endsbysayingthatthistestimonyorwitness isborne toourhearts "byandwiththeWord".

(2)ThisobjectiondoesnottakeintoaccounttheuniquepositionofGodandhisWord.Wecannotandmaynotargueforthegenuine-nessoftheBible, God's Word in the same way as we would for other historicalevents. To assume that we should and can is to commit the religiousblunder of thinking God is altogether such a one as we are. Theknowledge of God which general revelation imparts is of the samecharacter. It cannot be proven like we prove other things. Those whochargethedoctrineofthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritwithsubjectivismare guilty of rationalism, attaching too much importance to humanreason.

B.TheMisunderstandingofNewRevelation

Boththefriendsandenemiesof thisdoctrinesometimesspeakas if thetestimonyprovidesmenwithnewrevelationinadditiontotherevelationgivenintheScriptures.ButthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritisnotanewrevelation. It does not add to the words of Scripture. We must notconceiveofthistestimonyasanewrevelationtotheeffectthat"theBibleistheWordofGod."Kuypercomments:

It has often, however, been wrongly represented that this witness wasmeant in amagic sense of certain "ecstasy" or "enthusiasm," [spiritualexcitement--SW]andthatitconsistedofasuper-naturalcommunicationfrom the side ofGod, inwhich itwas said to us, "This Scripture ismyWord." Thus it has been represented by some who were less wellinformed,butneverbyourtheologians.(25)

ThisviewhasneverbeentheteachingoftheBibleorReformedtheology.Forexample, the1689BaptistConfessionofFaith clearly speaksof the"inwardworkof theHolySpiritbearingwitnessbyandwith theword."(1:5) The texts cited in support of this doctrine clearly distinguishbetween the gospel and the power by which men were persuaded toaccept its claims (1Thess. 1:5,2:13; 1John2:20,21,27).Admittedly, itmayseemstrangetospeakofatestimonyoftheSpirittotheScriptureswhich adds no words to it. This does not mean that this testimony isword-less, but as was noted above, it comes in the very words ofScripture.

Here it will help us to remember that the testimony of the Spirit isprimarily an ethical change He brings about in our hearts. When weremember that the testimony is primarily an ethical, rather than anintellectualoperation,thenitbecomesclearthatthetestimonydoesnotconsistinanynewrevelation.Itissimplytheremovaloftheevilethicalattitude which hinders the proper reception of divine revelation. Thetestimonydoesnotimpartnewlighttothesinner,butneweyes.

C.TheMisunderstandingoftheWarrantofFaith

ThetestimonyoftheHolySpiritisnotthebasisoffaith.Norisitourfinalauthority.Wemustalwaysmakeadistinctionbetweenthebasisoffaithandthesourceoffaith.Thebasisoffaithistheself-authenticatingWordofGod.ThesourceoffaithisthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.Beforethetheologians who wrote the Westminster Confession ever came to dealwith thewitness of the Spirit as that bywhich faith is produced in theheartofsinners(1:5),theymadeitveryclearthatthereasontheBibleisto be believed is "because it is the Word of God." (1:4) The Bibledistinguishesclearlybetweenthebasisandsourceof faith(1Thess.1:5;2:13).

Itisveryimportanttohavethisdistinctionwellunderstoodbecausetheinspirationof theScripturesbywhich theyare constituted theWordofGodisalsoaworkoftheHolySpirit.Itisadifferentwork,however,thanthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.Thus,thisdistinctionbetweenthebasisandsourceoffaithisreallyadistinctionbetweentwodifferentphasesoftheSpirit'swork.InspirationistheworkoftheSpirit(Eph.6:17;2Tim.

3:16;2Pet.1:21).ItisthisphaseoftheSpirit'sworkthatmaybeinmindwhen the Confession speaks of the "Holy Spirit speaking in theScriptures."(1:10)

It is crucial tokeep thisdistinctionbetween twodifferentphasesof theSpirit'sworkclearlyinmindinthecontextofmoderntheology.(26)Formanymodern theologians theBible ismerely the falliblewitness to theWord of God. It becomes theWord of God when God speaks to themthrough it experientially. The problem is that such people if consistentwillneverobeytheWordofGoduntiltheyfeellikeit.Theirauthorityistheirownexperienceorfeelings.SucharesponsetotheWordofGodisnotthepeculiarpossessionof those infectedwithNeo-orthodoxy.OftenEvangelicalswaittilltheyhaveafeelingbeforeobeyingtheWord,ratherthanobeyingituponitsowninnateauthorityastheWordofGod.

II.CrucialDeductionsPutForward

A.TheQuestionoftheTestsofCanonicity

Theperspectivesbeingdiscussedprovideuswiththeproperapproachtothe question of whether there are tests for canonicity. (27) In otherwords, the biblical andReformed doctrine of the self-authentication ofScriptureshowsushowweshouldthinkaboutthesubjectoftherebeingtestsbywhichboththeearlychurchandeventhechurchtodaycanfindoutifabookshouldbepartofthecanon.Theself-attestingcharacteroftheCanonmeansthatnoexternaltestsorevidencemaybeallowed.Onthe other hand, internal tests or evidence are simply part of its self-authenticating witness. There is evidence that tests taught by theScripture itself were used by the church in some fashion in therecognitionoftheCanon.(28)SomeoftheseinternaltestsandevidenceswillcometolightinourstudyoftheformofthecanoninPartFour.

Externalstandardsofcanonicityarenottobemadethefoundationofourfaith in the biblical canon. It is, however, certainly to be expected thatboth the voice of history and the church will be consistent with theprinciplesoftheauthorityoftheCanon.True,thevoiceofhistoryandofthe church would be insufficient to ground an infallible faith in theCanon.Yetwhenapproachedwiththeguidanceoftheself-authenticating

WordofGod, thevoiceofhistoryand thechurchwill confirm the faithfounded upon the rock of Scripture. Furthermore, it will do thisincreasinglythemorecloselyandaccuratelythosevoicesareunderstood.

B.TheCorrectnessofthePresuppositionofFaith

The faith imparted by the Spirit of God and founded on the self-authenticatingwitness of Scripture gives us the right to presuppose oraccept without other evidence the truthfulness of the message ofScripture in everything. Thus, it is right to presuppose the truth of itsmessageinourapproachtothesubjectofitscanon.

One foundational and essential truth of Christianity is found in Matt.16:18. This passage contains the promise of Christ that He wouldcertainlybuildHischurchontherockoftheApostolicwitnesstohimself.Suchapromiseiscertainlyavitalandessentialaspectofeventhemostbasic faith in themessageofScripture.Wearenot, then,dependentonthe canonicity ofMatthewwhenwe assume its truthfulness. Any, eventhemostgeneral,faithinChristentailsthebeliefthatHischurchwouldbe built on the authentic apostolic witness to himself. Without thispresupposition Christianity of any kind is impossible. The necessarydeduction of such a promise is that Christ's church would not fail torecognizetheauthenticwitnesstoHimselfwhenitwaswrittendowninbooks and letters. This assures us that the church would receive thegenuinecanon.ThepromiseofChristthuscreatesthepresumptionthatthebooksoftheorthodoxandreceivedcanonareauthentic.Itisinlightofthisbasicpresumptionthatthehistoricalevidenceforthecanonicityofeach book of the Bible must be weighed. Simply stated, the historicalevidence must never be evaluated outside of this presumption. Whenevaluated in light of it, thehistorical evidence supports, and inno caseoverthrows,eachofthecanonicalbooks.

The reasoning behind the above paragraph needs to be clearlyunderstood. The self-authenticating character of the Scripture and thetestimonyof theHolySpiritdonot immediatelyorby themselvessettletheproblemof thecanonoranswereveryquestion related to it.This isrecognized by many Reformed theologians, even by many who holdfirmlyandclearlytotheimportanceofthesedoctrinesforthesubjectof

thecanon.AbrahamKuyper,forinstance,remarks,

FromthenatureofthiswitnessoftheHolySpirit,itfollowsatthesametime, that it beginswith binding us simply to theHoly Scripture in itscentrum[thecentralpartorbodyasopposedtothelimbs--SW]....Howfar the authority,which from this spiritual centrumobtains its hold onus, extends itself later to those things in the Scripture that lie on theperiphery [border or margin--SW], is a question at first devoid of allspiritualsignificance....Gradually,however,anevermorevitallyorganicrelationbeginstorevealitselfbetweenthecentrumoftheScriptureanditsperiphery,betweenitsfundamentalandderivative[somethingderivedor obtained from something else--SW] thoughts, and between itsutterancesandthefactsitcommunicates.(29)

E.J.YoungalsoadmitsthatdoctrineofthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritof Scripture does not immediately and without further thought solveeveryproblemrelatedtotheissueofthecanon.

Thisdoctrineisonewhichhasbeenmuchabusedanditisindeedaverydoctrine.Itdoesnotmean that this inward testimony canbeusedas acriterion[measuringstickorstandard--SW]todeterminethecanonicityofacertainverseorchapterorevenbook.(30)

Yet itcannotbedeniedthattheself-authenticationof theScriptureandthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritarethebeginningpointforanysatisfyingintellectual resolution of the canon. Both Kuyper and young go on toargueforthispoint.Younggoesontosay,"Itdoesmean,however, thatthe believer possesses a conviction that the Scriptures areGod'sWord,andthatthisconvictionisaconvictionwhichhasbeenimplantedinhismindbytheThirdPersonoftheTrinity."(31)KuyperproceedstoexplaininsomedetailhowthisgeneralandcentralconfidenceinthemessageofScriptureimpartedbytheHolySpiritpowerfullyandeventuallyleadstoacceptingthewholecanon.(32)Thus,theseedoffaithinChristplantedby theHoly Spirit grows into a deep faith in thewhole of the receivedcanonofScripture.There are several featuresof this growthorprocesswhichwillhelpustounderstandwhyithappens.

First,asChristiansgrowingraceandintheknowledgeoftheLordJesus

Christ, they see more and more the unity of the Scriptures. Theconfession calls this the "consent of all the parts" of Scripture. Kuypersays:

Wefeelourselvesmoreandmorecaptivatedbyapowerwhosecentrumcannot be accepted without demanding and then compelling allunobservedly[withoutnotice--SW]anevermoregeneralconsentfor itsentire appearance, and all its utterances. Thus it ends as Scripture byimposingsacredobligationsuponus,asHolyBookbyexercisingoverusmoral compulsion and spiritual power. And in the end the connectionbetween its form and content appears so inseparable, that even theexceptionalpartsofitsformappealtous,and,informandcontentboth,theScripturecomestostandbeforeusanauthorityfromGod.(33)

ThepathfrombasicfaithinChristtofullfaithinalltheScripturesmaybeillustratedinseveralways.ThetestimonyoftheSpiritgivesuseyestoseethelightofthegospelofthegloryofChrist.Hegivesuseyestoseethedifferencebetweentruthanderror.Gradually(ifweeverhadanydoubt)wewillbeableseethatlightshininginallthepagesofScripture.Also,anintellectualnecessitywillcompelusoninthisjourneyfromfaithinChristtofullfaithintheScriptures.EventhemostundefinedandbasicfaithinChrist assumes and accepts that in Scripturewehave an authentic andtrue testimony about Him. Faith in Christ fundamentally requires theidea that God would not allow the truth about Christ to be lost orhopelesslyclouded.Rather,anyfaithinChristmustbelievethatGodwillpreservethetruthaboutChristsothatpeoplemaybesaved.AnyfaithinChristcarriesinitshearttheassurancewhichisstatedinMatt.16:18thatChristwouldbuildHischurchonthetruthaboutHimself.Thus,themostbasic faith inChristwill find itself opposed to skepticismand cynicismaboutthecanon.ItwillfinditselfinclinedtoacceptthereceivedcanonofScripture.

Butatthispointwemustcometoasecondclassofideaswhichworktoconfirmandhastenthisprocess.ComingtofaithinChristisnotaneventwhich happens in isolation to any individual.More or less consciouslyeverysavedpersonincreasinglyunderstandsthathehasbeenseparatedfromtheworldand joined to thebodyofChrist, thechurch.Hewillbeinclined,therefore,ashegrowsingracetoacceptthetestimonyofthose

he sees as true Christians and reject the views of the world. This willmakehimespeciallyreadytoacceptthetestimonyofthechurchaboutanissueasbasicasthecontentoftheScriptures.Thus,thetestimonyofthechurchwillconfirmwhathisrenewedheartandmindarealreadytellinghim.(34)Hewillbeinclinedtoacceptthereceivedcanonofthechurch.Thisistheelementoftruthintheappealofmanytothechurchinordertoprovethebiblicalcanon.

The Christian's own renewed and spiritual heart and mind is, thus,confirmedbythewitnessofthechurch.Theinnercertaintythuscreatedin the Christian's mind creates in his mind a belief, presumption, orpresupposition that theScripturesare theWordofGod.He approachesthe study of the historical evidence with this faith. He evaluates thehistorical criticismsof the received canonof the churchon thebasis ofthis conviction. He finds approaching the historical evidence with thispresuppositionthatitisconsistentwithhisfaithintheScripture.Thereisnothinginthehistoricalevidencewhichofnecessitycontradictshisfaith.Thereismuchwhichpositivelyconfirmsit.Thehistoricalevidence,then,isnotclearor sufficientenough tobe thebasisofhis faith.Yet is clearandsufficientenoughtoconfirmandstrengthenit.Thisistheelementoftruthintheappealtothehistoricalevidencetoprovethecanon.Withoutfear of contradiction, it may be asserted that not one of the canonicalbooksofthereceivedcanonofProtestantscanbecalledintoquestionbyany existing historical evidence. This line of argument for the receivedcanonmaybediagrammedasfollows:

THEARGUMENTFORTHERECEIVEDCANON

FROM

THESELF-AUTHENTICATIONOF,

ANDTHETESTIMONYOFTHEHOLYSPIRITTO,

THESCRIPTURESTHETESTIMONYOFTHEHOLYSPIRITINANDTOSCRIPTURE

\/

\/

\/

FAITHINTHECHRISTOFSCRIPTURE

\/

\/

\/

EYESTOSEETHETRUTHOFCHRISTINALLSCRIPTURES

\/

\/

\/

MINDTOSEETHATTHECHURCHISBUILTONTHETRUTHOFCHRIST

\/

\/

\/

THECHURCHCONFIRMSTHECHRISTIAN'SFAITH

\/

\/

\/

THEHISTORICALEVIDENCECONFIRMSHISFAITH

\/

\/

\/

THERECEIVEDCANONISAUTHENTICANDGENUINE

To sum up, if even the most basic and simple faith in Christ may befounded on the self-attestation of Scripture, then we have a right to astarting-point, presupposition, or presumption which is of greatimportance in the study of the canon. Truly, even the most generalpresupposition of faith in Christ creates a presumption in favor of theorthodoxandreceivedcanon.

C.TheSuperiorityoftheBooksofScripture

The self-authenticating character of Scripture assures us that therewillbe a gulf separating canonical writings from all others. Thosewritingsmarkedbytheself-authenticatingdivineperfectionsofScripturewillberadicallydifferent thanotherwritings, especially those falselyposingasScripture.Therewillbeaplaindistinctionforanywhohaveeyestoseeitbetween the least of the canonical Scriptures and the best of thosewritings pretending to be scriptural. Owen, thus, says, "On thesesuppositions [assumptions or premises--SW] I fear not to affirm thatthereareoneveryindividualbookofScripture....thosedivinecharactersandcriteria[evidences--SW]whicharesufficienttodifferencethemfromallotherwritingswhatever,andtotestifytheirdivineauthorityuntothemindsandconsciencesofbelievers."(35)

1. R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible,(Zondervan,GrandRapids,1957),p.194.

2.GeneralSurvey,p.502.

3.JohnOwen,TheWorks...,(BannerofTruthTrust),vol.4,pp.20f.

4.Ridderbos,AuthorityoftheNewTestament,p.36.

5.H.Ridderbos,op.cit.,p.36.Cf.Calvinat1:7:2oftheInstitutes.

6.TheLatinisquoadnosandquoadse.

7.StonehouseinTheInfallibleWord,p.105.

8.ThefrequentlyusedLatinphraseistestimoniumSpiritusSanctus.

9.ThefrequentlyusedLatinphraseisautopistia.

10.Ridderbos,ANT,pp.9ff.

11.VanTilinTheInfallibleWord,pp.274,275

12.JohnOwen,pp.84,87,88,ofvol.4ofhisWorks.

13.Murrayonp.46ofTheInfallibleWord.

14.J.I.Packer,GodHasSpoken,pp.54,55)

15.JohnOwen,op.cit.,p.91.

16.NoteOwen'scommentonLuke16:27-31invol.4ofhisWorks,pp.75,76. Here are Owen's remarks: "But is it of this authority and efficacy[power--SW]initself?SeeLuke16:27-31,"Thenhesaid"(therichmaninhell), "I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him:(Lazarus,whowasdead)"tomyfather'shouse:forIhavefivebrethren;that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place oftorment.Abrahamsaithuntohim,TheyhaveMosesandtheprophets;letthemhearthem.Andhesaid,Nay,fatherAbraham:butifonewentuntothemfromthedead,theywillrepent.Andhesaiduntohim,IftheyhearnotMosesandtheprophets,neitherwilltheybepersuaded,thoughonerose from thedead."ThequestionherebetweenAbrahamand the richman in this parable,--indeed between the wisdom of God and thesuperstitious contrivances [devices--SW]ofmen,--is about theway andmeansofbringing thosewhoareunbelieversand impenitentunto faithand repentance. He who was in hell apprehended that nothing wouldmakethembelievebutamiracle,onerisingfromthedeadandspeakingunto them; which, or the like marvelous operations, many at this daythinkwouldhavemightypowerand influenceuponthemtosettle theirmindsandchangetheir lives.Shouldtheyseeone"rise fromthedead,"and come and converse with them, this would convince them of theimmortality of the soul, of future rewards and punishments, as givingthemsufficientevidencethereof,sothattheywouldassuredlyrepentandchange their lives; but as things are stated, they have no sufficientevidenceofthesethings,sothattheydoubtsofaraboutthemasthattheyarenot really influencedby them.Give thembut one realmiracle, andyoushallhavethemforever.This,Isay,wastheopinionandjudgmentofhim who was represented as in hell, as it is of many who are postingthither apace [hastening there speedily--SW]. He who was in heaventhought otherwise; wherein we have the immediate judgment of JesusChristgiveninthismatter,determiningthiscontroversy.Thequestionisaboutsufficientevidenceandefficacytocauseustobelievethingsdivineand supernatural; and this he determines to be in the written word,

"Mosesandtheprophets."Ifhethatwillnot,onthesingleevidenceofthewrittenword,believe[it]tobefromGod,oradivinerevelationofhiswill,willneverbelieveupon theevidenceofmiraclesnoranyothermotives,thenthatwrittenwordcontainsinitselftheentireformalreasonoffaith,or all that evidence of the authority and truth of God in it which faithdivineandsupernaturalrestsupon;thatis,itistobebelievedforitsownsake.ButsaithourLordJesusChristhimself,"Ifmenwillnothear,"thatis, believe, "Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,though one rose from the dead," and come and preach unto them,--agreatermiraclethanwhichtheycouldnotdesire.Now,thiscouldnotbespoken if theScripturedidnot contain in itself thewhole entire formalreason of believing; for if it have not this, something necessary untobelieving would be wanting, though that were enjoyed. And this isdirectlyaffirmed,--"

17.NoteOwen'scommentonLuke16:27-31invol.4ofhisWorks,pp.75,76.

18.EdwardsechoesthethoughtsofCalvinandOwen,vol.2,p.16,ofthetwovolumesetofhisworks.

19.A.Alexander,ThoughtsonReligiousExperience,p.233.

20.1:7:5oftheInstitutes

21. Cf. John Murray's exposition of these passages pp. 47-54 of theInfallibleWord.

22. Ridderbos, Redemptive History ... pp. 9, 10. Ridderbos ablysummarizes the objections of Zahn who represents this view: "Zahnaccuses those who are Reformed of pretending to have an infalliblecriterionofcanonicityintheirhearts,inthewitnessoftheHolySpirit,onthebasisofwhichtheybelievetheycanstate intheirconfessionswhichbooksdo,andwhichdonotbelonginthecanon.Zahnstatesfurtherthatsuch an appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit is a denial of theuncertain-tiesthathaveariseninthehistoryofthecanon.Notonlydoesit appear to make the Holy Spirit the exclusive possession of theReformed,butalsoconflictswiththecharacterofthewitnessoftheHoly

SpiritasdescribedintheNewTestament."

23.Cf.thestatementofCalvincitedabovefromInstitutes17:5

24.InfallibleWord,p.170.

25.Kuyper,PrinciplesofSacredTheology,p.557.

26.JohnFrame,Hermeneutics,Authority,andCanon,pp.222and223.Frame remarks: "In modern theologians like Barth, however, thisdistinctionlosesitssharpness.Forthem,first,inspirationintheorthodoxsensedoesnotexist;GoddoesnotplaceHiswordsonpaper...Thus, inmoderntheologythe internal testimonyreplaces the traditionalconceptofinspiration.Itwastheinternaltestimony,notinspiration,inthisview,that motivated the original writing of Scripture, and it is the internaltestimony (presently occurring, as we read and hear), not inspiration,thatgroundsourfaithinScripture."

27.WhatIamcallingthetestsofcanonicityareoftenreferredtoinLatinas the criteria canonicitas, the notae canonicitatis, or the principiacanonicitatis.

28.Dutoit,loc.cit.,pp.144ff.

29.AbrahamKuyper,PrinciplesofSacredTheology,p.560.

30.E.J.Young,IntroductiontotheOldTestament,p.32.

31.ibid.

32.Kuyper,loc.cit.,pp.560-563.

33.Kuyper,loc.cit.,p.560,561.

34.Kuyper,loc.cit.,pp.561,562.HereareKuyper'swordswithregardtothisprocessofacceptingthewitnessofthechurchtothereceivedcanon:"Withthisconviction,whichisnowhisownforgoodandalways,he,whohasbeensetfreefromtheveildarklyhungbetween,doesnotstandalone,but feelshimself assimilatedby the illuminated consciousnesswhich in

the communion of the saints is distinguished from the naturalconsciousness of the world. This assimilation becomes stronger,accordingtothegreatervitalityofthechildofGodinhim,bywhichheisevermore being changed into the image of the Son of God. Thus thereoriginates a communion of consciousness notmerelywith those roundaboutus,butalsowiththegenerationofthesaintsofformerages,affinityof life with the saints that have gone before, unity of soul-conceptionswiththemartyrs,withthefathersoftheChurch,withtheapostles,andsoatlengthwithChristHimselfandwiththefaithfulof theOldCovenant.In the life-consciousness of that sacred circle the positive convictionprevails,thatwehaveagraphicallyinspiredScripture,onwhichweleanandbywhichwelive;andthatthisisnotcontingent,noraccidental,butnecessary.ThisfaithintheScriptureisfoundasanindispensableandanentirelynaturalcomponentpartinthelife-consciousnessofthiscircle."

35.JohnOwen,Works...,vol.4,p.107.


GENERALINTRODUCTION:

When God speaks, he speaks self-authenticatingly. It is the self-authentication of the Scriptures which is the basis and source of ourconfidencethatwehavethegenuine,biblicalcanon.InPartFourofourstudies we come to ask different questions, How has God spoken? Inwhat historical form has he spoken? It is still necessary to ask thesequestions.ThoughtheydonottellustheprimarybasisorsourceofourconfidenceintheScriptures,theydoinseveralwaystendtoincreaseourunderstandingof,confirmourfaithin,anddefendourviewofthecanonofScripture.Letmeopenuptheimportanceofstudyingtheformofthecanonsothatyouwillappreciatethevalueandnecessityoftheextendedstudywhichwearenowabouttobegin.

First,studyingtheformofthebiblicalcanonwillhelpustounderstand

more clearly the teaching of Scripture itself. Giving to His people awritten revelation of His Word was a vital part of God's working inredemptivehistory.TherecordofthisisanimportantfeatureoftheBibleitself.Without a clear knowledge of the prophets of theOld Testamentand the apostles of the New Testament, our understanding of theScripturesasawholewillbeseriouslyweakened.Thus,byunderstandingthe prophetic and apostolic form in which God gave toHis people therevelationofHiswillourinsightintotheScriptureswillbedeepened.

Second, Christians sometimes ask the important question,HowdidwereceiveourBibles?Othersmay challengeChristiansbyaskingwhat theconnectionisbetweenthemessageoftheBibleanditspresentform.Theymay suggest that the Bible is a disorganized, random, and confusedcollection of books. They may say that the biblical canon is itself notbiblical.TheymayassertthatourloyaltyshouldbeGodandJesusnottoa set of books. Theymay call our Christianity, `bookish, letterish, andlegalistic,' because we reverence the biblical canon. Only anunderstandingoftheformofthebiblicalcanonwillenabletheChristianto answer these challenging questions by showing the unbreakableconnectionbetweensalvationandtheBible,redemptionandrevelation.

Three,anunderstandingoftheformofthebiblicalcanonwillhelpusseewhysomebookscanmakenoclaimtobeingapartofthebiblicalcanon.Understandingtheformofthebiblicalcanonmaynothelpusprovethatthesebooksarecanonical.Yet itwillhelpus show that somebooksarenot. This will be an important point to remember as we study theApocrypha'sclaimtobepartoftheOldTestament.Itwillalsohelpusinseeingwhy some books canmake no claim to being a part of theNewTestament.

Beforewecometoourstudyoftheformofthecanon,Imustmakeplainsomethingthatisonlystatedindirectlyintheprecedingparagraphs.Wedo not come to study the prophetic and apostolic form of the biblicalcanon to put ourselves in a position to prove the biblical canon.ManygoodmenhaveattemptedtoshowthattheNewTestamentisthetrueandauthentic Word of God by proving its apostolic authorship. (1) TheapostolicformoftheNewTestamentisimportantforunderstandinganddefending the New Testament canon. We have in the preceding

paragraphsbrieflystatedwhy that is thecase.Yet theapostolic formoftheNewTestamentcanonandtheprophetic formoftheOldTestamentcanon can never by themselves answer the basic epistemologicalquestionsrelatedtotheauthenticationofScripture.Theevidence isnotcompleteenoughtodo this.Furthermore, it isnot thekindof evidenceneededtodothis.Finally,thebiblicalteachingwithregardtotheseissueswasnever intended toanswer thequestionsdealtwith inPartThreeofthesestudiesonthecanon.

Withallthissaidbywayofintroduction,wecomenowtothequestionsrelatedtotheformofthebiblicalcanon.Weshalldealwiththeminthreesectionsofthought.

SECTIONONE:CANON,COVENANTANDCOMMUNITY--THEFORMOFBIBLICALCANONICITY

SECTIONTWO:MOSES AND THE PROPHETS--THE FORMOF THEOLDTESTAMENTCANON

SECTIONTHREE:JESUSANDTHEAPOSTLES--THEFORMOFTHENEWTESTAMENTCANON

SECTIONONE:CANON,COVENANTANDCOMMUNITY--THEFORMOFBIBLICALCANONICITY

I.AHelpfulIdea

MeredithKline'snamehasbecomealmostsynonymouswiththeideathatthebiblicalcovenantsfindtheirformalorigin,theirsecularmodel,intheancientneareasternsuzeraintreaties.(2)Asuzerainwasanoverlordorkingwhoconqueredandruledoverotherpeoples.Klinedescribes suchtreaties as follows, "In these treaties an overlord addressed his vassals[servantsofahighking--SW],sovereignlyregulatingtheirrelationswithhim,withhisothervassals,andwithothernations."(3)

Klinehas attempted to establish this theoryat length inhisbooks,TheTreatyoftheGreatKingandByOathConsigned.IdonotfollowKlineinalltheapplicationshemakesofthisthesis.YetIseenoreasontodenyhis

basic idea. Rather, I see good reasons to approve Kline's basic thesis.SeveralstrikingparallelswithbiblicalcanonicityshowthecorrectnessofKline'sthesisandmanifestitssignificanceforcanonicalstudy.

(1) There is a great and varied emphasis in these treaties on theinscripturationorwritingdownoftheirprovisionsandthecentralroleofthis writing in the administration of the treaty. (4) This is strikinglyparalleltotheemphasisofthePentateuchonthewritinganddepositingofthecovenantinasacredplace.(5)NoticeExod.24:4-7,12,13;25:16,34:27,28;40:20;Deut.31:24-26.

(2) There is the specific presence of what Kline calls the "inscriptionalcurse."(6)Thisisagainstrikinglyparalleltothebiblicalcursesonthosewhowould alter the Scriptures. (7) Notice Deut. 4:2; 12:32; 5:22; Rev.22:18,19.

(3) There is also a striking parallel between the period in which suchtreatiesflourishedandtheformativeeraoftheOldTestamentcanon.ThedocumentsKlinereferstoflourishedinthe14thto7thcenturiesB.C.Thisis,ofcourse,preciselytheperiodinwhichtheOldTestamentcanonwasformed.(8)

II.ItsSignificantApplications

A.FortheOriginsofCanonicalScriptures

Kline'sideadestroysthehighercriticalviewoftheOldTestamentcanon.Kline summarizes the views of Fohrer. His views may be taken assummarizing the higher critical tradition. He asserts that the OldTestamentcanonwas formedbetween100B.C.andA.D.100.(9) Thepresenceofsuzeraintreatiesinthe14thcenturyB.C.withtheiressentialemphasis onwritingswhich possessed authority as the standard of lifecertainlyweakensthehighercriticalassigningofthebegiiningsoftheOldTestamentcanontothe7thcenturyB.C.andevenlater.(10)

B.FortheSimilarityofCanonandCovenant

NotonlydoesKline'sthesisestablishearlyhistoricalevidencefortheidea

ofcanonicalwritings,but it teachesthattheoriginofawrittencanonisfoundinthebiblical ideaorconceptofthecovenant.AwrittencanonisessentiallyrelatedtothebiblicalpresentationoftheMosaicCovenant.Itis also essentially related to the historical background of the MosaicCovenant. We may, therefore, speak of the equivalence of Canon andcovenant.ThecovenantisthestandardorruleorcanonofthelifeofthepeopleofGod.Thebiblicalideaofthecovenant(aswellasitshistoricalbackgroundinthesuzeraintreaties)containstheideaofformal,legal,orbinding relationship. Hence covenantal writings have authority bynature,formallyandlegally.TheyareinotherwordscanonicalScripture.

Thecloseassociationofcanonandcovenantshouldnotsurpriseus.Ourtraditional designations of the Bible as Old and New Testament(Covenant) point to this association. They were perhaps more properthan we may have realized. (11) This traditional language reflects thelanguage of the early church. It used the term, covenantal, to describewhatwascanonicalbefore the term,canonicalbecamecurrent.Priortothe4thcenturytheideaofanauthoritativelistofbookswasexpressedbythe phrase, the Old and New Covenants (testaments). (12) Before thisPaulhimselfspokenofthereadingofadivinecovenant(2Cor.3:14,15).InthispassagetheOldCovenantequalstheOldTestamentScriptureasawhole.

ThereferenceofPaulabovepointsuptheaccuracyofKline'sideathattheOld Testament Scriptures as a whole are simply expansions of thedifferent aspects of the original covenant with Israel. The frequentreferencestothewholeOldTestamentassimply"thelaw"alsoconfirmsthisidea.(13)

C.FortheAssociationofCanonandCommunity

The relationship between canon and covenant must be completed bynoticingtheassociationofcanon,covenantandcommunity.Perhapsthebestwaytointroducethispointistoaskthefollowingquestion.WhydothecanonicalScriptureshavetheirbeginningintheMosaiccovenantandnot intheearliercovenantsmentionedinGod'sWord? The fact is thatwhiletheBiblecontainstherecordsofGod'searliercovenantaldealingsitsbeginningsaretobetracedtoMosesandtheOldCovenant.Why?

The answer to this question is that itwas the appearance of a nationalcovenantcommunitywhichnecessitatedthecanonicalScriptures.Inthetime of Abraham the covenant community was a family under thepersonal leadership of Abraham. A written code for the ruling of thecommunitywasnotnecessary for it tobegoverned.Soon,however, thecovenantpeoplebecametoolargetobegovernedbythedirectleadershipof oneman.When the covenant people became a nation, therewas nolongerasinglefathertogovernthewholenation.Thenawrittencodeorcanonwasneeded.Onlybyapublic,writtenrulecouldthecorporatelifeof the community be effectively governed. This was the reason for awrittencanon.Ithasseveralimportantimplications.

(1) The covenantal canon is the authoritative rule for the communityimposedbyitscovenantlord.Assuchitinnosensederivesitsauthorityfromthecommunity.ThiscontradictstheRomanCatholicdoctrineideaofthechurchauthenticatingthecanon.

(2) The covenantal canon assumes and presupposes the communityorderedbyitandexistingunderitsauthority."Canonicalauthorityisnotderivedfromthecommunity,but covenantal canonconnotes [intimatesor suggests or implies--SW] covenantal community." (14) This meansthatthecovenantalcanonisalwaysgiventothecovenantcommunityandrecognizedbyit.

One of the marks or necessary conditions of canonicity must be therecognition of a writing by the covenant community to whom it wasoriginally given. The idea of writings only gradually gaining canonicalstatuscenturiesaftertheirwritingisforeignandalientoChristianity.Ifanywritingonlygainedsuchauthority centuriesafter itsbeingwritten,thiswouldclearlyprovethatitwasnotcanonical.

This is an elementof truth in theRomanCatholic idea that the churchattests the canon.It is true thatnobook couldbe considered canonicalwhich was not historically recognized as such by the covenantcommunity. This means that Old Testament books must have beenacceptedascanonicalbytheJews,andNewTestamentbooksmusthavebeenacceptedascanonicalbythechurch.

(3)ThedistinctiveandpeculiarpurposeofthecanonistoorderthelifeofGod'speople.ItistoformallystructureandofficiallyorderthecorporatelifeofthepeopleofGodthatthecanonisgiven.Suchisthewholereasonfor the existence of canon. This rebukes those who wish to regard thedoctrine of the church as of little importance or as a matter ofindifference.TheBiblewasgivenpreciselybecausethechurchistobeaformallyandlegallyorderedcommunity.TheBibleistheconstitutionofthe visible church. Contempt for the visible church or its ordering andgovernmentiscontemptforthecanonitself.TheBibleisgiventobethe`regulativeprinciple'ofthechurch.

(4)We are about to turn to the actual historicalmeans or forms in orthroughwhichGod spoke to his people. The previous emphasis on theself-attestingcharacteroftheWordofGodraisesthisquestion,WhydidGod bother to set up the prophetic institution in the Old TestamentperiodandtheapostolicinstitutionintheNewTestamentperiod?CouldhenothavespokenrandomlytowhomeverHesovereignlypleased?SinceHis Word is self-attesting, why is the existence of clearly definedhistorical institutions through which he would speak to his peoplenecessary.Herethecovenantalcharacterofcanonhelpsus.BecauseHispurposewastogovernhispeople,Heconfirmedandcompletedtheself-attestingpowerofHisWordbygivingitthroughinstitutionswhichwerepubliclyknown.Thesepreviouslyconstituted institutions confirmed theauthorityofHisWordforhispeople,decreasedtheabilityofsinfulmentodenyHisWord,andleftmenwithoutexcuse.

SECTIONTWO:MOSESANDTHEPROPHETS--THEFORMOF THEOLDTESTAMENTCANON

Preface:

ForthebulkofthismaterialIamindebtedtoR.LairdHarris'bookTheInspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, especially ch. 7, "TheDeterminingPrincipleof theO.T.Canon."ThoughMr.Harris does notseeclearlytheimportanceofthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritinattestingthecanon,hedoesgiveclearandcorrectteachingabouttheformoftheOldTestamentcanon.

I.Stated

WhathistoricalformorstructuredidGoduseinspeakingtoIsrael?Whatpublic, well-known institutions did God use to communicate Hiscovenant revelation to Israel? By what formal standards did Israelrecognizethatword?Theanswertosuchquestions is thatGodspoketoIsrael throughMoses and the Prophets. Israel recognized that word inMosesand theProphets.Godwasspeaking inMosesand theProphets.This means that not merely their words, but their writings would beauthoritative.(15)ThetestimonyoftheOldTestamentisthatbothMosesand the prophets did write. The view I will defend here is that thesewritings were confirmed and thus recognized as canonical not onlybecauseoftheirdivineperfectionbutalsobecausetheywereauthoredbyMoses and the Prophets, divinely endorsed and approved spokesmen.Themere fact thatawritingwasauthoredbyMosesor theprophets intheir position as God's spokesmen confirmed its contents to becanonical.Thisviewisprovenandexplainedinthefollowingpoints.

II.Explained

A.Moses

The starting point of Old Testament canonicity is Moses. Moses wasaccredited and endorsed to Israel repeatedly by miraculousmanifestationsofredemptivepower.Notice,forinstance,Exod.4:1-9,27-31.ThusMoseswasrecognizedascanonicalbyIsrael.Naturally,asGod'sknown spokesman Moses' official writings would be regarded aspossessing the authority of divine revelation. The Bible testifies thatMoses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. This testimonyconsistsof"theclaimsofthebooksthemselves,theevidenceofthelaterwritings,andtheassurancesofChrist".(16)Itisunnecessarytogivethisevidence indetailhere. Aftersummarizing theOldTestamentevidencethat Moses wrote these books and that they were received asauthoritative,HarrisconcludesthatthedeterminingprincipleordecidingfactforthecanonicityofthePentateuchwasthatMoseswroteit.(17)

Moses is important not only as the one through whomGod began hisrevelation to Israel. It was also through Moses that the means or

instrument of God's continuing revelation to Israel was instituted andregulated.Thatmeanswas theprophetic institution (Deut. 18:9-22). Sofar as we know, the only divinely instituted and regulated means forcontinuingrevelationintheOldCovenantwasthepropheticinstitution.

B.TheProphets

1.ItsInstitution

Deut. 18:9-22 is the key passage with regard to the institution of theprophetsinIsrael.Some,however,givetothispassageameaningwhichappliesonlytothepersonofourgreatprophet,JesusChrist.E.J.Youngarguesatlengthagainstthis.HesaythatDeut.18:9-22isnotexclusivelymessianic--referring to theMessiah.Rather,heargues that it forms thebasisofthepropheticinstitutioninthenationofIsrael.(18)IagreewithYoung that the messianic reference is not to be doubted. The NewTestament is clearon thispoint.Yet the followingargumentssupportareferencetothepropheticinstitutioninIsrael:

(1) The immediate context points to this. Verses 9-13 in Deut. 18 givedetails about the forbidden sources of supernatural information orrevelationusedbythenationsofCanaan.Verses14and15connectwiththis by means of the double command "you shall not listen (to thediviners, etc).... you shall listen (to God's prophet)." The connection isprobablythatGodwillsupplyasourceofcontinuingrevelationtoIsraelsothattheunlawfulsourcesusedbytheCanaaniteswillnotbeastrongtemptation.Thisthemepointstoareferencetothepropheticinstitution.

(2) The wider context also points to such a reference. The wholesurroundingcontextdealswithinstitutionswhichwouldbeapartofthepromised land in the near future. Deut. 16:18-17:13 speaks of theappointment of judges. Deut. 17:14-20 speaks of the appointment of aking. Deut.18:1-8legislatesfortheleviticalpriesthoodinthepromisedland.Deut.18:9-22thenspeaksoftheraisingupofprophets.Itwouldbeun-naturalinsuchacontexttomakethispassagereferonlytothedistantarrivalofChrist.

(3)Thereferencetothepropheticinstitutionisnecessarytoexplainthe

existenceofthepropheticinstitution.ThisinstitutionissoprominentinthelaterhistoryofIsraelthatweexpectsomeexplanationofit.IfDeut.18:9f.isnotthisexplanation,thereisnoneintheOldTestament.(19)

(4)Thetestofverses20-22pointsthisway.ThegivingofatestintheseversessuggeststhattheIsraeliteswouldoftenhavetoevaluatetheclaimsofamantobeaprophetofthetrueGod.Itseemsun-naturalinlightofthistesttothinkthattherewouldbeonlyonetrueprophet,theMessiah.One difficulty with this interpretation would be that many of the OldTestamentprophetsdidpassthistest.Ifthispassageisspeakingofatestfortheone,trueprophet,theMessiah,thentheirpassingthetestwouldmakeeachofthemthisprophet-Messiah.This,ofcourse,cannotbetrue.

(5)TheevidentreferenceofLuke11:50,51 toDeut. 18:19points to thisconclusion.Thereseemstobeareferenceinthewords(literally),"mayberequiredofthisgeneration,"tothethreatagainstthosewhorejectatrueprophet in Deut. 18:19, "I will require it of him." If this reference is,indeed, present then Jesus in Luke 11 is interpreting Deut. 18 as areferenceto"alltheprophets"(Luke11:50).

(6) Thewords of I Peter 1:11 state that it was the Spirit of Christ whospoke in the prophets. It is possible that Peter is consciously blendingtogetherthetwointerpretationsofDeut. 18wearediscussing. If this istrue, it supports the position. We have, then, in 1 Pet. 1:11 a biblicalharmonyofthesetwointerpretations.Evenifthisisnotso,itenablesusto harmonize a double reference to the Messiah and the theocraticpropheticinstitution.(20)

2.ItsRegulation

The regulation of the prophetic institution is, then, spoken about inverses20-22ofDeuteronomy18.ThewordsoftheprophetofGodaretobeobeyedonpainofdivine judgment.The falseprophet is tobeput todeath.Nowatthispointinthepassageanimportantcanonicalquestionis raised. "How shall we know the word which the Lord has spoken?"Onlyoneanswerisgiveninthispassage,butacomparisonofaparallelmakes plain that there are two answers to this important question: (1)The firstmarkof a canonicalprophet is thathispredictionsare always

accurate(Deut.18:22).(2)ThesecondmarkofacanonicalprophetisthathisteachingisconsistentwiththeMosaiccovenant.NoticeDeut.13:1-6.Notethatthispassagemakesclearthatbothmarksareessentialifoneistobeconsideredacanonicalprophet.Thissecondmarkmakesclearthattheprophetsweredistinctly secondary toMoses in their canonical roleanddignity.NoticeNum.12:5-8whichconfirmsthis.This,however,doesnot lessen the absolute authority of their message. Deut. 18:15, 18, 19makesthisclear.

III.Confirmed

Several things confirm all that has been said about Moses and theProphetsbeingthemeansthroughwhichGodspokeHisWordtoIsrael.

A. If this prophetic institution was not the sole source and test of thecanonicalwritingsoftheOldTestament,thesimplefactisthatwedonotknowwhatthesourceofanyfurtherrevelationwouldbe.(21)Thereisnoother revealed means of continuing revelation from God in the OldTestament.Thereisnoothercanonicalmechanismhintedat.

B.ThefactthattheformationoftheOldTestamentcanonwasconcludedwiththecessationofprophecyinHaggai,Zechariah,andMalachipointstothisinstitutionasthekeytocanonicityinIsrael.

C. The completion of the canon with the cessation of prophecy wasunderstood by the Jews. During the period between the Old and NewTestaments it was understood that the canonwas completedwhen thespiritofprophecydepartedfromIsrael.Harriscitesfourwitnesses:

That hiswas the view of the inter-Testamental period iswitnessed notonly by I Maccabees, in which the defiled stones of the Temple arecommandedtobeputaside"untilaprophetshouldarise"(IMacc.4:46;cf.9:27;14:41),butalsonowbytheDeadSeamanualofDiscipline,whichlooksforwardtothetimeof the"comingofaProphetandtheanointedonesofAaronandIsrael."Inthemeantime,theTorahandthepreviouslymentioned words of the prophets and the rule of the community shallobtain. Much the same idea is expressed somewhat later by thestatementsofJosephus,whodeclared that theprophetswrote from the

daysofMosestoArtaxerxesveryparticularlybuthathnotbeenesteemedof the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because therehathnotbeenanexactsuccessionofprophetssincethattime."SimilaristheTalmudicreference,"AfterthelatterprophetsHaggai,Zechariah,andMalachi,theHolySpiritdepartedfromisrael."(22

D.TheterminologyoftheNewTestamentandtheJudaismwhichexistedin the period between the Old and New Testaments points to theprophetic institution as the sole source of Old Testament canonicalScriptureafterMoses.

(1)Inter-testamentalJudaismregardedallofthebooksoutsidethelawastheprophets.(23)

(2)TheNewTestamentmostcommonlydesignatestheOldTestamentashavingtwopartsthelaw(orMoses)andtheprophets.(24)NoticeMatt.5:17;7:12;11:13;Luke16:16;John.1:45;Acts13:15;24:14;28:23;Rom.3:21;Luke16:29,31;24:27;Acts26:22.

(3) The New Testament designates the Old Testament simply as theprophets. Notice Matt. 26:56; Luke 1:70f. (Note the quotation of thePsalms.); Luke 18:31; 24:25f; Acts 2:30; 3:21; 7:52 (There is a possiblereferencetoMoseshere.)2Peter1:20,21(AccordingtoWarfieldthisisareferencetothewholeOldTestament.).

E.There is the explicit testimonyof theOldTestament thatmostof itsbookswereinfactwrittenbyprophets.ThereisnoevidencethatanyofthebooksbesidethefivebooksofMoseswerewrittenbyanyonewhowasnotaprophet.(25)ThePsalmsandDanielarefrequentlyclassedamongthewritingsratherthantheprophets.YetthereisbiblicaltestimonythatDaniel(Matt.24:15),David(Acts2:30)andAsaph(2Chron.29:30)wereprophets. Solomon, the writer of several other of the books of the OldTestamentcanonoftenclassedasnon-prophetic,wasalsoaprophet.Atleast,therearegoodargumentsforthis.(26)

IV.Cleared

A.Anobjection to this viewof the formof theOldTestament canon is

often raised on the basis of the common threefold division of the OldTestamentcanon.(27)TheancientJewsoftendividedtheOldTestamentinto the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Why the third divisionusual among the Jews, it may be asked, if all were prophets? Severalanswersmaybegiventothisobjection.

(1) The threefold division rests on a distinction between the office ofprophetand thegiftofprophecy.For, instance,E. J.Youngmakes thisdistinction in defending the threefold division and denies that David,Solomon, andDanielwereprophets.(28) YetDavid,Daniel, Asaph arecalled prophets in the Bible. The qualifications for the prophetic officelaid down in Deuteronomy 18 were possessed by each of these andSolomonaswell.(29)

(2)Harrisarguesthatthethreefolddivisionofthecanonisnottheoldestone. (30) Furthermore, its boundaries are fluid and very vague in theearliest evidence. At various times Daniel, Ruth, Lamentations, I & IIChronicles,Ezra,andNehemiahwereplacedintheprophetsratherthanthewritings.Josephusplacesonlyfourbooksamongthewritings.ThesewereprobablyPsalms,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,SongofSongs.

(3) The only possible biblical testimony to this division is Luke 24:44where the reference is to the "law of Moses, and.... the prophets, and....the Psalms." When this single reference is placed over against thenumerousreferences toa twofolddivisionmade in theNewTestament,and the acknowledged prophetic status of several of the authors of thePsalmsintheBible,thereisnoreasontoregarditthissinglereferenceasproof of a threefold division of theOldTestament. The Psalmsmay besingledout inthispassageformanyotherreasons.Thisversemayonlybe a recognition of their distinctive character as hymns or psalms.PerhapsthespecificmentionofthePsalmsisduetothefactthattheyarepeculiarly prophetic of Christ and His work. This interpretation wouldmakesenseinlightofthethemeofthepassage.

(4)Thethreefolddivisionrestsontheassumptionthatthebooksfallinginto the division known as the writings were not written by prophets.There is no evidence for this. In fact, as we have seen, there is muchevidenceagainstit.

B.Another objection against this view of the structure and divisions oftheOldTestamentisthatitimpliesthatcertainmenwerecanonicalandinfallible.ThisisanobjectionorproblemwhichalsoconfrontsusinourtreatmentoftheApostolate.Itisimportant,therefore,todiscussit.

Itmustberememberedinthefirstplacethatthisobjectionwoulddestroyalmost everything the Bible teaches about prophets and apostles beingthespokesmenofGod.Itisclearthatthesemenclaimedfortheirwordsthe authority of God (Deut. 18:18-22; 1 Cor. 14:37). Any theory whichdestroys this authority or our ability to confidently trust any of theirstatementsascertainlytruemustbewrong.Thus,anybiblicalviewmustassigncanonicityandinfallibilityinsomesensetothesemen.

It isnotmaintained that the canonicalmenof theOldTestamentweresinlessorinfallibleinalltheydidorsaid.Someoftheirwordsandactionswereprivateandpersonal.IfMoseswroteashoppinglist,itwouldnotbecanonical. Some of their words and actions were clearly sinful. Mosessinnedeveninhispublicministry.Solomonfollowedothergods.Wehearofaprophetwholiedandofprophetswhodisobeyed.

These things do not contradict the canonicity and infallibility of thesemen in their official ministry and teaching of God's Word. (31) Thisdistinction between these men considered privately and these menconsidered officially is indicated in Deut. 18. There the prophet'sinfallibility is limited to what he spoke in Jehovah's name. Noticeespeciallyvv. 19,20,22.Thisdistinction isalso implied inMatt. 16: 18andEph.2:20wherethechurchissaidtobebuiltonPeterandhisfellowapostles.Thechurchisnotbuiltontheapostlespersonallyandprivately,butonthemintermsoftheirpublicministryandofficialteachingaboutChrist.

Furthermore, it is true that these men could occasionally sin in theirpublicministries.MoseswasrebukedbyGodandadmittedit.PeterwasrebukedbyPaulandadmittedit.GodcarefullyguardsHisWordsothatitisnotmisrepresentedbythesinsofHisservants.NoticealsothatneitherMoses, nor Peter claimed divine authority for their sins. They did notverballylieaboutwhatGodhadrevealedtothem.Theysimplyactedinaway inconsistent with God's Word. Even when this happened, God

publicly rebuked them.Wemay assume, then, unless the officialwordsand actions of thesemen are contradicted by sufficient authority, thatthey are canonical and infallible.Canonicalmen are infallible in theirofficial ministry except where they are contradicted by sufficientauthority.

SECTIONTHREE:JESUSANDTHEAPOSTLES--THEFORMOFTHENEWTESTAMENTCANON

Preface:

Of much help here to me was Herman Ridderbos' book, RedemptiveHistoryandtheNewTestamentScriptures.(32)Part1isexcellent.Part2 is scarred by his acknowledgment that there may be error in theScriptures.ThisadmissionoferrorintheScriptureseemsinconsistenttomewithmanythingsthatRidderbosteachesinthisbookandelsewhere.Itisdifficultformetounderstandthis.AlsoveryhelpfulishisarticleinRevelation and theBible entitled, "The Canon of the New Testament".(33)

Introduction:

A.TheQuestion:WhathasChristtodowiththeNewTestamentcanon?

Christ(orthegospelofJesusChrist)isthewayinwhichGodspoketousin order to give us theNew Testament canon.Mark 1:1 speaks of "thegospelofJesusChrist".Heb.1:1,2aasserts,"HehasspokentousinhisSon." Dutoit says, "Jesus Christ is the canon, both as the one whoproclaims and as the one who is proclaimed .... We must state quitecategorically that in the case of the New Testament canon we areconcernedfirstandforemostnotwithabook,butwithaperson-JesusChrist." (34) No golden tablets have fallen from heaven to be ourauthority.OurcanonistheGod-man,JesusChrist.

Jesusisourcanon.YetHewrotenobooks.It isthisfactwhichexplainsRidderbos'statementthat,"AnyinterpretationthatseekstoconnectthehistoryofredemptionandthecanonoftheNewTestamentatfirstsightcanappeartobeforced."(35)How,therefore,shallwecomeintocontact

with the gospel of JesusChrist?Howdowebridge the gap from JesusChrist--his birth, life,ministry, death, resurrection, and out-pouring oftheSpirit--tothebookwecalltheNewTestament?

B.TheAnswer:Theansweristheapostolate.(36)

TheapostolatecameintobeingwithandbyJesusChrist.Itoccupiedanimportantandclearplaceinredemptivehistory.

1.TheapostolatecameintobeingwithJesusChrist.Matthew,Mark,andLukegivetheaccountofitsorigingreatprominenceintheirgospels.Allrecordtheappointmentofthe12andgivealistingoftheirexactnames.

2.Theapostolateoccupiedanimportantplaceinredemptivehistory.Forinstance,JesuslikenstheirsendingtoHisown(John20:21).Thesendingof Jesus by the Father is, however, a redemptive-historical eventfrequently reflected upon in John's gospel (John 3:17, 34; 5:36; 5:38;6:29;6:57; 7:29;8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3,8, 18,21,23,25). Just as thesendingoftheSonofGodwasaonceforallredemptiveevent,soalsoisthe sendingof theApostles!Thus, "theapostleswere takenup into theredemptiveactofGod...."(37)ItisthisapostolatewhichbridgesthegapbetweenJesusandtheNewTestamentcanon.

JESUS----------------{APOSTLES}---------------N.T.CANON

C. TheDifficulty:When this solution is stated, a difficulty immediatelyconfrontsus.Whomadeup this apostolateof redemptivehistory?ThisquestionmustbeaskedbecausethetermapostleisusedinseveralwaysintheNewTestament,sometimesnotstrictlyinthesenseweareusingit.Itwillbenecessary,then,toexaminetheidentityoftheapostolateinthefirstplaceandsecondly,totakeuptheauthorityoftheapostolate.

I.TheIdentityoftheApostolate

A.TheOriginalApostolate

Anyexaminationoftheapostolateanditsidentitymustsurelybeginwiththetwelve. The identityof thisapostolate ismosteasilyapproachedbyasking thequestion,Whatwere thequalifications for being included in

thisapostolate?Thesequalificationsnoplacecomemoreclearly inviewthaninActs1and2.

AswecometoActs1,itmaybenecessarytorefutetheinterpretationthatseesPeterandtheapostoliccompanyasactingimproperlyinappointinga twelfth apostle. This interpretation is usually brought forward in theinterestof thePaulineapostolate.Paul,somesay,wasreallythetwelfthapostle. The misdirected character of this interpretation will come outincreasingly in our examination of the passage. Two objections to thisinterpretationmay,however,beraisedhere.First, itmustbenotedthattheapostolicpositionofPeterandtheothertenapostlesinitselfvalidatestheiraction.ItistobenotedthattheSpirithadalreadybeengiventhem(John 20:21) and that they had already been appointed to thisresponsible position. Second, divine authority confirms their action onthe day of Pentecost. The Spirit comes upon Matthias, as well as theoriginal11(Acts2:1-4,14,37;6:2).

1.ThefirstqualificationfortheOriginalApostolateisstatedinverses21and 22. One must have been a disciple of the Lord Jesus from thebeginning of the gospel, the baptism of John, up to and includingwitnessing the resurrection of Christ. This qualification is mentionedoften(Mark3:14;John15:27(ForthetermbeginningcompareMark1:1f,Luke1:2.);Acts10:39;Matt.10:1;Luke6:13;Acts13:31;1John1:1.)Itisnot peculiar to Peter or Acts 1. It is intimately related to the officialfunction of the Apostolate stated in Acts 1:22 and Acts 10:39-41. Theterm,witness,alwaysdenotesintheNewTestamentaneyeorearwitnessandcarrieslegalconnotations.AnapostleoftheTwelvemusthavebeenawitness in this sense of Jesus Christ from John's baptism through theResurrection.

Itmust,therefore,beclearlystatedthattheApostlePauldidnotpossessthe necessary qualifications to be one of the Twelve. Whether he hadknownChristafterthefleshornot,hecertainlydidnothavethelengthyandintimateacquaintancedemandedinverses21and22.The languageimplies discipleship which, of course, during this time Paul did notpossess.

2.Thesecondqualificationisunderscoredinverses23through26.One

becomes an Apostle only through direct appointment by Jesus Christ.This qualification is emphatically declared throughout the NewTestament (Acts 1:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 10:39-41). It isunderscoredinActs1.Twoequallyqualifiedmenaresetapart,butonlyone is chosen. The use of the lot emphasizes the idea of direct, divineappointment. Notice Prov. 16:33. The movement from Jehovah ofProverbstotheLordChristofActs1:24pointstothedeityofChrist.Theuseofthelotisperfectlyconsistentwithitsscripturalinterpretationandthenecessitiesofthesituation.

3.The thirdqualification is intimated inActs1:5and8.AsupernaturalgrantoftheSpiritwasstandardequipmentforanApostle.Thismeanttheability to confirmhismissionbymiraculous signs.Notice 2 Cor. 12:12;Matt. 10:1; John 14:12; Mark 3:15. This gift, however, is especiallyconnectedwiththeirofficialwitnesstoChrist(John20:21andJohn14-16).Thepromisesof theSpirit inJohn14-16are tobe restricted to theApostolate.John14:26isconnectedwiththestatementofv.25whichhasonlyApostolicsignificance.TheinterpretationofJohn14:25,26controlsthe promise of 14:16, 17. The connection of John 15:26 with verse 27restrictsitssignificancetotheApostolate.John16:7-14is,thus,alsotoberestricted to the Apostolate. Internal indications as well as the contextmentionedbeforepointtothis.Notethementionoftheirworld-missionin v. 8, the description of the Spirit's ministry as the continuation ofJesus'speakingtotheminv.12,thepromiseofbeingledintoalltruthinv.13,andthepromiseofbeingshownthingstocome,v.13.ThewitnessoftheApostleswillbe,thus,notonlyaSpirit-taughtwitness,buttheverywitnessoftheSpirithimselftoChrist.Awitness,theverywordsofwhichare taughtby theSpirit (1Cor.2:13).ThisunderstandingofJohn14-16doesnotmeanthatasecondaryapplication throughtheApostles to thewholechurchiswrong.

4. This treatment of the original apostolate clearly points to thehistoricallyuniqueandunrepeatablecharacteroftheApostolate.Itplacesclearlybeforeus the specialpositionandpowerof the 12Apostles.TheNewTestamentmentionsotherApostolates.These laterapostolatesaddcomplexitytothepicture.Wemustnowcometodiscussthem.

B.ThePaulineApostolate

1.TheClaimsHeMakes

Paul insistently claims an apostolate of the most exalted character forhimself.Heisinhisownopiniononaparormorethanonaparwiththemosteminentapostles(2Cor.11:5;12:11,12;1Cor.15:7-10;Gal.2:6-10).BothinEphesiansand1CorinthianshereflectsonthesupremacyoftheApostolicoffice(Eph.4:11,2:20,1Cor.12:28).Yet inthesesamelettershehasclassedhimselfasanApostle(ICor.1:1;Eph.1:1).Thus,wemightbe surprised to learn that this claim expressed in these terms wasrecognizedbytheoriginalapostolate(Gal.2:9,Acts15:25,2Peter3:15).

2.TheQuestionHeRaises

a.TheQuestionofHisRelationtotheOriginalApostolate

Paulwasnotoneofthetwelve.Norwashestrictlyqualifiedtobe.Nordidhe claim to be. Yet Peter seems clearly to attach some sort of literalsignificancetothenumber,12,inActs1.Undersuchcircumstanceshowcan Paul claim to be an apostle equal in stature to the 12? Severalresponsestothisquestionareneeded.

(1)Wemust remind ourselves that Paul's claimwas recognized by thetwelve(Gal.2:9;Acts15:25;2Peter3:15).Whenweremember that theexalted terms inwhichhemade this claimcouldnothavebeenhiddenfromtheoriginal12Apostles, theiracceptanceofHisApostolate isverysignificant.

(2) Paul also possessed almost all the qualifications for the originalapostolate.Ofcourse,firstonehadtobeawitnessofthewordsanddeedsof Jesus Christ from the baptism of John through the time of Christ'sresurrection. It is to be noted, however, that even in Acts 1:21, 22 thestressisonbeinganeye-witnessoftheresurrectionofChrist.ThisPaul,of course, possessed. Notice especially 1 Cor. 9:1-5. Second, directappointment by Christ to the office was necessary. This PaulinequalificationisemphasizedintheaccountsofhisconversioninthebookofActs andmanyotherplaces (Acts 22:15; 26:16;Gal. 1:1,15,16; 1 Tim.1:1). Third, a supernatural grant of the Spirit was crucial to being an

Apostle. Paul regarded such a grant as vital to apostolicity, and heclaimedit(2Cor.12:12with1Cor.2:4,10,13;7:40).Hiscommandsandspeakingwere, therefore, the verywords ofChrist (1Cor. 14:37; 2Cor.13:3-5). Thus, Paul lacked only a secondary aspect of one of thequalificationsfortheoriginalapostolate.

(3)Paul claimeda special apostolate to theGentiles.NoticeEph.3:1-6.While the apostolate of the twelve certainly had a world-wide mission(NoticeActs 1:8.), it is clear that it alsopossessed a Jewish focus (Acts13:31; Gal. 2:7-10). It may be for this reason that Peter insisted onreplacingJudaswithonewhowasadisciple from thedaysof John theBaptist.Also,thefactthatPauldidnotwitnessChristfromthebeginningof the gospel, but only after His resurrection could be related to hispositionastheApostletotheGentiles.Thepre-resurrectiondaysofJesushad a Jewish focus (Notice Matt. 15:24.), while Jesus' resurrectionindicated the beginning of the world mission (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke24:44-49; Acts 1:8). It seems peculiarly fitting that the Apostle to theGentileshadseen the risenLordandwasawitnessof the resurrection,butwasnotadiscipleduringthedaysinwhichhismissionwasrestrictedtotheJewishnation.

b.TheQuestionoftheCessation(orTermination)oftheApostolate

SomemightthinkthattheycouldusetheapostolateofPaultojustifytheidea of continuing--even 20th century apostolates. Some might evenclaimtobeaneyewitnessoftherisenChrist.IfChristcanappeartoPaul,afterHisascension,mayhenotappeartosomeoneelsein1994?Severalrepliesmaybegiventothisquestion:

(1) An appearance in A.D. 34 puts Paul's eye-witness in an historicalcloseness to the time of Christ's resurrection. This is clearly differentclaimingsuchanappearanceinthe20thcentury.

(2) Paul's eye-witness occurred during the apostolic period, i.e., thehistoricallifetimesoftheoriginalapostles,andwasrecognizedbythem.Nopossibilityforsuchrecognitionofanewapostolatenowexists.

(3) Paul regardsChrist's appearance to him as his last appearance and

one that is clearly abnormal. What would he have thought of a 20thcenturyappearance?Notice1Cor.15:8.ItisaninterestingconfirmationofthisthatPaulencouragestheCorinthianstoseekthebestandhighestspiritual gifts, but never thinks of the apostolate as a possibility or assomething to which they should aspire. Notice 1 Cor. 14:1. Thesignificanceisclear.Prophecyisthehighestgiftavailable.TheApostolateisclosed.

(4) The Apostles are the foundation of the church (Matt. 16:18; Eph.2:20).Theanalogyisoneofahousewithfoundationsuponwhichisbuiltabuilding.Clearly,thisrestrictstothefoundationalperiodofthechurch.This excludes their existence after the period of the church's historicalfounding. Paul's apostolate occurred during this foundational period.Laterclaimsdonot.

C.TheOtherApostolates

1.Theword,apostle,wasusedtorefertosomewhowereapostlesinthesamesenseasPaulandtheTwelve.

BAG, the Greek Lexicon, asserts that apostle may refer to a delegate,envoy,messenger,or,perhaps,amissionary.Accordingtoitsrootwords,thewordsimplymeans,"asentone."Obviously,suchawordcouldhaveabroadrangeofapplications.Itseemsquitepossiblethatitcouldbeusedofthosewhowerenotapostlesinthenarrow,official,technicalsenseinwhichthetwelveandPaulwere.Cf.bywayofillustrationthebroaderandnarrowermeaningselder,overseer,anddeacon.Allhaveothermeaningsorapplicationsthantotheofficewhichtheyspecificallydesignateinthechurch.Thebiblicalusageofapostle shows that itwasnot restricted towhatwemaycall"BigA-apostles".

a.Sometimesthetermisusedtodesignatetheapostlesofthechurches.That is, the official messengers, delegates, or envoys of certain, localchurches(Phil.2:25;2Cor.8:23).Thisusagemayexplainsomeoralloftheotherusesofthetermwhenitdoesnotreferto"BigA-apostles."WemightsaythattheseapostleswereapostlesofthechurchesnotapostlesofChrist.Thatis,theyweresentwiththeauthorityofthechurchesandnotwiththeauthorityofChristHimself.

b.Sometimesthetermisusedofmissionaries.Thatistosay,thosesentoutfromchurchestobegospelpioneersinotherplaces.NoticeActs13:3;14:26; 15:40, thoughonly the ideaandnot the term ispresent in thesepassages.Itisprobablyinthissensethatmenlikethefollowingarecalledapostles.Barnabasiscalledanapostle(Acts14:4),butheisnota"BigA-apostle"(Acts4:36f).Timothyistermedanapostle(1Thess.1:1;2:6),buthe isnota"BigA-apostle"(Acts16:1f.).Silasalso iscalledanapostle(1Thess. 1:1; 2:6), but it is not likely that hewas a "BigA-apostle," (Acts15:32).Apollosmaybecalledanapostle(1Cor.4:9;3:22;4:17),butheiscertainlynot anapostle in the strict sense (Acts 18:24f.). If AndronicusandJuniasaredesignatedapostles inRom.16:17(This isuncertain.), itwouldbeinthislowersense.

It is possible that such men were termed apostles because of theirassociationwithPaul in his apostolate to theGentiles. This associationgave to them,so tospeak,a share inhisministryandauthority.Noticeespecially 1Thess. 1:1, 2:6.Certainly,Timothy andTituswere apostolicrepresentatives.Thus,theywereinpossessionofextraordinaryauthority(Titus1:5,ITim.1:3;5:17-20).

2.It isalsopossiblethatthistermisusedtodesignateotherswhowereapostlesinthesenseoftheTwelveandPaul"BigA-apostles.

The references to James, the Lord's brother, may assign a "Big A-apostolate"tohim.NoticeGal.1:19;2:9;1Cor.9:5;Acts12:17;15:6-13;1Cor.15:7.(Iamassumingthatallthesereferencesaretothehalf-brotherof our Lord. I believe this to be themost likely interpretation of thesepassages.)OnemayeasilyinterpretsuchversesasascribingtoJamesanapostolate parallel to that of Paul. He had seen the resurrected Lord--perhaps like Paul he had been converted by the sight. Perhaps at thattimehewasappointedtoaspecialapostolatetotheJewslikethatofPaultotheGentiles.Thereferencein1Cor.9:5to"thebrothersoftheLord"may mean that a similar apostolate was given to Joseph, Simon andJudas.NoticeMatt.12:46f;John7:5;Mark13:21;Matt.12:46f;13:55,andActs1:14.

D.Conclusions

1.Thissurveyof theusageof the termenablesus tomakeadistinctionbetweenabroaderandnarrowerusageofthetermintheNewTestament.This distinction is clearly demanded by the necessary qualificationsinsisted in the casesPaul and the Twelve. Itmay be difficult always todecide inwhichsenseanindividual isdesignatedanapostle.Noticethecases of Apollos, Barnabas, James, Jude, and Silas. Yet this difficultyoughtnottocloudthebasicclarityofthisdistinction.ThatthereisalinebetweenbigAandsmallaapostlesisclear.wesimplydonothaveenoughinformationtodecideonwhichsideofthelinesomeàpostles'fall.

2.ItcannotbedeniedthatthereissomeflexibilitywithregardeventotheBig A-apostles. The apostolate is not rigidly restricted to the Twelvealone. (38) The instances of Paul and James establish this. Also,interestinginthisregardisthepossibilitythatPaul'sintimateassociatesobtainedakindofapostolicityfromhim.

3. We must, however, insist on the strict limits of the narrowerApostolate.Thequalitiesofeye-witness;direct,divineappointment;andsupernaturalpowersareabsolutenecessities to claimanapostolate likethat of the Twelve and Paul. These unique qualities point us to theunique,un-repeatable,historicallylimitedidentityoftheApostolate.TheidealizedorsymbolicreferencesoftheNewTestamenttotheApostolate(Matt. 16:17; 19:28;Eph.2:20;Rev.21:14) likewise suggest, the "closedcharacter"orthe"limitedidentity"oftheApostolate.

II.TheAuthorityoftheApostolate

A.ItsNature

The evidence shows that the Apostles possessed for their words andactionstheauthorityofChristhimself.

1.TheJewishBackground

The Jewish background of the word, apostle, is very important tounderstandingitsmeaning.Ridderbosnotes,"Recentresearchhasshownthat the formal structure of the apostolate is derived from the Jewishlegalsysteminwhichapersonmaybegiventhelegalpowertorepresent

another. The one who has such power of attorney is called a Sjaliach(apostle).Theuniquenessof thisrelationship ispregnantly[richly--SW]expressedbythenotionthattheSjaliach(apostle)ofaman,isasthemanhimself."(39)

2.TheNewTestamentPresentation

This same idea that the apostle of a man is as the man himself isrepeatedlymanifestedintheNewTestament itself.JesusChristwashisFather'sApostle.ThuswhatJesussaidHisFathersaid(John14:6-10).Inasimilarway,theTwelveareHisApostles.NoticeJohn20:21.ToreceiveChrist's apostle is to receivehim.NoticeMatt. 10:40; John 13:20. PaulemphaticallyclaimstohavinghiscommandsbethoughtasequalwiththeLord's.Notice 1 Cor. 14:37. Several comments on this last passage areimportantandrelated.

(1) Verse 37 strikingly underscores the idea of the apostle being as theman himself, because Paul has just completed a whole series ofcommands never spoken by the Lord. Notice the preceding context,especiallyvv.26-36.

(2) Verse 38 powerfully emphasizes the extent and significance of thisclaim.ThetranslationofthisversebytheNIVisweak.ThatoftheNASVandRSVisbetter.Theideaisclearlythatrefusaltorecognizeandsubmittoapostolicauthority inthepersonofPaulexposesone'sclaimstobeaprophetorspiritualasfalse.Notev.37,"ifanyonethinksheisaprophetorspiritual..."Butmorethanthisisimplied.Suchafalseprophetcannotbe a saved man. Grosheide rightly comments, "If anybody does notobservetheseordinancesthenhewillnotberecognized,hebelongstotheperishing(1:18).Nottoberecognizedistheoppositeof"tobeknownbyHim."(8:3,cf.13:12).(40)NoticealsoMatt.7:23.

Alsomeaningfuloftherealityandtheextentofapostolicauthorityisthepassage (1 John 1:1-3. The recurrent "we" of these verses is clearly areference by John to the original apostolate. Note the reference to theeye, ear, handwitness of the "we". This insistence on the genuine-nessandauthenticityofJohnandtheotherapostlesproclamationofChrististo be understood in light of the Gnostic counterfeit Christianity which

Johnisbattlingeverywhereinthisletter.AsoveragainstthecounterfeitgospeloftheGnostics,JohndemandsacceptanceoftheApostolicgospelasthetestorstandardoftrueChristianity.Noticealso1John4:4-6.

B.ItsFeatures

AsthepersonalrepresentativesofChristhimselfandassupportedbythesupernaturalgrantoftheSpirittoguidetheirspeech(NoticeJohn15:26,27.),theauthorityoftheapostleshadseveralfeaturesorparts.

1.TheywerethedeliverersoftheChristianRevelation.

Theyweretheguardiansofthedeposit.(41)Thisdepositwastheofficialand trustworthy recordof theperson,work, andwordsof JesusChrist.Notice1Tim.6:20;2Tim.1:13,14.Judespeaksof"thefaithonce-for-alldeliveredtothesaints"(Jude4).Thesewordsclearlyconveytheideaofuniquely importantandcompletedhistoricaloccurrenceswhichpossessauthority.Theapostlesareequippedtosafeguardthepurityandaccuracyof this treasure because of their character as eye-witnesses to thoseoccurrencesandtheirspecialgrantoftheSpirit.ThewordusedbyJude,"delivered,"connotes the ideaofpassingona tradition. It is the ideaofbeingthecommunicatorsofatraditionwhichsummarizesthisfeatureoraspectoftheapostle'sauthority.SeveralpointsbywayofexplanationofthisChristiantraditionarenecessary.

TheChristiantraditionisformallyparalleltotheconceptionoftheJewsoftheirtradition.Theterminologyusedisthesame.isusedoftheJewishtraditioninMark7:13andoftheChristiantraditionin2Peter2:21andJude3.isusedoftheJewishtraditionsinMatt.15:2-6andMark7:3-13andoftheChristiantraditionin1Cor.11:2and2Thess.2:15,3:6.isusedof the Jewish tradition inMark 7:4 and of the Christian tradition in 2Thess.3:6.NoticealsoGal.1:14;Col.2:8.

Itistheapostleswhoarethedeliverersofthistradition.NoticeLuke1:2;Jude3cf.v.17;2Peter2:21cf.3:2;1Cor.11:2,etc.

The tradition possesses a kind of authority. Its clear authority is self-evident from the nature of the Apostolate. Historical occurrences were

witnessed by men and witnessed to in oral and written words. Theseoccurrences, thesemen, and these words are regarded as possessed ofnothing less thandivineauthority in theNewTestament.Thisobjectiveauthority of the New Testament Canon refutes the idea of the canonmaintained by Neo-Orthodoxy. Speaking of Neo-orthodoxy, Ridderbosremarks,"Suchapointofviewsimplyreduces thecontentof thecanonandthegospeltowhatthechurchandindividualbelieverunderstands."(42) It isno longer, then, anApostolic canon.Wemust remember thatthewitnessoftheHolySpiritexistsfirstofall,intheobjectivewordsoftheApostles(John15:26,27)--notintheheartsofbelievers.

The objective authority of the New Testament canon also shows thewrong-nessofany"spiritualcriticism"ofthecanon.Erasmus,Zahn,andothers appeal to John. 16:13;, 1 John 2:27; 1 Thess. 5:20f., and 1 Cor.14:29 to support the idea that the church should andmay criticize theApostlesbymeansoftheSpirit.Never,however,doestheNewTestamentpermit or teach the right-ness of any criticism of Apostolic teaching.ThereisaenormousdistinctionbetweenApostlesandprophets.(43)

Thevaguenessandlackofprecisionwhichweassociatewiththeideaoftradition is not present in regard to the Christian tradition in theNewTestament. (44) In support of this Ridderbos mentions the followingthoughts.First,theChristianideaoftradition"isstronglydeterminedbythe correspondingJewish concept of tradition.Accordingto (them) theauthority of tradition is not derived from the very nature of thetransmittedmaterialand fromtheofficeof the teachersof the law.Thecontent of this tradition was before everything else constituted by theholy God-given Torah and those learned in the law enjoyed theirauthority because they sat in Moses' seat (Mt. 23:2). (45) Second, thepassingonofthistraditionisamatterofapostolicauthorityandthusitsaccuracy is guaranteed. (46) Third, the tradition is a synonym for thedoctrine, thegospel and theWordofGod.Thus, it possesses authority.(47) Finally, behind the tradition guaranteeing its genuine-ness is therisenLord.

This overview of tradition is important precisely because the NewTestamentwritingsare "the remainsand fixation"of this tradition.Thecharacter of the tradition and especially the written tradition is the

characteroftheNewTestament.

2TheywerethecompletersoftheChristianRevelation

The authority of the apostles must not be rigidly limited to an exactcopyingofthewordsandworksofGodinChrist.Ofcourse,thistraditiongoverned their authority and could not be contradicted by them, but itdid not exhaust their authority. Bymeans of their extraordinary grantwith theSpirit, theywerealso themeansofnewrevelation. Theywerenot only official and accredited eye-witnesses of Christ, but also thepersonal, Spirit-equipped instruments of new revelation from Christ.Notice1Cor.15:51;1Thess.4:15;Rev.1:1.

3.TheyweretheappliersoftheChristianRevelation.

As the foundation or founders of the church, they were responsible toorganizeit--applyingtheWordinmanywaysandtomanycircumstancesneverdirectly spokenaboutbyChrist.Notice 1Cor. 14:37; 7:10, 12,25;11:23,33,34;Phil.3:17;4:9;2Thess.3:14.

Whiletheseaspectsofapostolicauthorityaredistinct,theyarenotalwayseasy to separate or even able to be separated in the apostolicwritings.TheymergeintheofficialauthorityoftheApostleinhiswholeministry.

Dutoitmakesthecommentthat"Noneofthismeans,ofcourse,thattheNewTestamentapostlewasinfallible."(48)Ibelieve,however, thatthisis precisely what it means. If it does not mean this, we are at onceconfronted with the overwhelming problem of making a distinctionbetweenwhataspectsoftheApostle'swordsandwhatarenotastandardforus.IntheirofficialministriestheApostleswerethestandardnotonlyin their teaching,but in theirpracticesandexamples.Aswehaveseen,someraiseGal.2:11asanobjectionat thispoint. Itmaybequestioned,however,ifPeter'sactionswereofficialinGal.2:11.Atanyrate,theyweredirectlyrebukedbyPaulhimselfandpubliclyrenouncedbyPeter

C.ItsInscripturation

TheNewTestamentitselfwitnessestothewritingdowninapermanent

way of the Apostolic tradition. It teaches that is in this form that thechurchwouldinthefuturebeboundtothewordoftheapostles.(49)

1. The written reporting of this tradition is associated with the idea ofincreasedcertaintywith regard to itsprecisecontent.NoticeLuke 1:1-4and cf. also 1 Cor. 15:1-3. Because of the heretical errors of some atCorinth,Paul repeats inwritten formthegospelhepreached toput thematterbeyonddoubt.Hesaysinv.2thattheywillbesavedbythatgospeliftheyholditfastintheverywordswhichheproclaimed.Thisphraseisdifficult,butalmostcertainlyemphasizesPaul'sconcernthattheyretainhis gospel in the precise words in which he preached it. It may betranslated"bywhatwordIpreachedittoyou."

2. The permanent writing of the Apostolic witness is regarded aspossessingauthorityfromitsstart.Itistobereadpubliclyinthechurchas the Old Testament was in the Synagogue. Notice Acts 13:15; 15:21;Luke4:16f.,IThess.5:27;Col.4:16;Rev.1:3.John'switnessisawrittenoneandinthatformistrue,John21:24,andintendedasthegroundorbasis of saving faith (John 20:30, 31). The phrase, "these things arewritten," parallels the technical terminology by which John repeatedlycites the Old Testament Scriptures. Notice John 2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34;12:14;15:25.Thewrittentraditionmustbeheldfast(2Thess.2:15).

3. The writings of the Apostles are made equal with those of the OldTestament canon.Given what we have seen about the authority of theapostles, this isnot surprising.Notice 2 Peter 3:2, I Peter 1:12. SeveralpassagesmaketheirwritingsequaltothoseoftheOldTestamentcanon.NoticealsoRev.22:18(where thecurse is similar to those found in theOldTestamentScriptures);2Peter3:15,16;1Tim.5:18(whereLuke10:7iscitedasScripture)

D.ItsImplications

1. The idea of theNewTestamentCanon is consistentwith redemptivehistory. The church in recognizing the canon has acted in accordancewithanimportantfeatureofredemptivehistory:thecommissionofandgivingofauthoritytotheApostlesbyChristhimself.(50)

2.TheclosednatureorcompletedlimitsoftheNewTestamentCanonistaughtbytheNewTestament.SaysRidderbos,"Thisisdirectlydeduciblefrom the unique and exclusive nature of the authority the apostlesderivedfromChrist."(51)

3. Thewritten character of theNewTestament Canon is taught by thenew Testament. The heretical threat of Gnosticism already mentionedmade it necessary already in New Testament times the to guard thedepositagainstperversion(1Tim.6:20;2Tim.1:14).AlreadyintheNewTestamentthemeetingofthisthreatbymeansofthewritingdownoftheauthentictraditioncanbeseen.Notice1Cor.15:1,2;Luke1:1-4;2Thess.2:2 cf. 3:17;Gal. 6:11. All thismeans that the eventual acceptance of awrittencanonwasnecessarybecauseofthedangerofthedistortionoftheChristian tradition by heresy. This teaches the generally untrustworthycharacter of the oral tradition as human wickedness and weaknessincreasinglydistorted it. (52)Maintaining that there is a canonical oraltraditionpossessingauthorityinthechurchisinconsistentwiththeveryreasonforawrittencanon.

4.TheobjectiveauthorityoftheNewTestamentCanonisplainlytaughtbywhatwehaveseen.Asmentionedabove,theobjectiveauthorityoftheApostles'wordsbothspokenandwrittenrefutestheideathattheCanonis only a standardwhen it speaks tome. This idea, advocated byNeo-orthodoxy, is false and contradicts the plainest teaching of the NewTestamentaboutitself.

5. The apostolic authorship of the New Testament Canon is taught bywhat we have seen. Here the point is simply that the actual NewTestamentCanonreceivedbytheChurchisconsistentwithwhattheNewTestament teaches regarding the identity of the Apostolate. The NewTestamentCanon'sauthorityisApostolicinform.Itwaswrittenbythosewho, if they were not Apostles themselves, came out of the Apostoliccircle. Any who are not apostles may lay claim to the approval of theApostles for theirwritings.Most of its bookswerewritten byApostles.Theothers,Mark,(1Peter5:13),Luke,Hebrews(cf.ch.13)werewrittenbytheirintimateassociatesandwiththeirimpliedauthority.Aswehaveseen, the New Testament does not rigidly limit the identity of theApostolate.ItspeaksofprophetsinassociationwiththeApostles.Yet in

all of this a clear and defined authority is assigned to the Apostles ofChrist.ItistheirauthoritygiventhembyJesusChristthatendorsestheNewTestament.WhetheritsbookswereactuallywrittenbyApostles,orbyprophetsworkingunder their authority andwith their approval, theNewTestamentisapostolicinitscontents.

1.R.LairdHarrisisanexampleinhisInspirationandCanonicityoftheBible,pp.219ff.

2.Forthebulkofthematerialofthissection,IacknowledgemydebttoMeredithO.Kline'sbook,TheStructureofBiblicalAuthority.Part 1 ofthis book is extremely suggestive with reference to the subject of thecanon.Part2 cannotbe commendedbecauseof the ethical theories setforthinchapter3ofPart2arecompletelymisguided.

3.Kline,loc.cit.,p.27.

4.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.27f.

5.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.35ff.

6.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.29f.

7.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.36ff.


9.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.21f.Cf.E.J.YounginRevelationandtheBible,ed.byCarlF.H.Henry,pp.157f.

10.Kline,loc.cit.,pp.43,38.

11.Kline,loc.cit.,p.74f.


13.Kline,loc.cit.,p.45,46.


15. R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible,(Zondervan,GrandRapids,1957),p.167.

16.R.LairdHarris,ZondervanPictorialEncyclopediaoftheBible,vol.1,p.711.

17.R.LairdHarris,Inspirationand...,p.159.

18.E.J.Young,MyServantsTheProphets,pp.29ff.

19.CF.Young'scommentsinMyServants...,p.30.

20.Harris,Inspiration...,p.160.

21. It is interesting to see E.J. Young admitting this in his article inRevelation and the Bible, p.168. What makes this admission sointeresting is that Youngdiffers fromR. LairdHarris on this issue.Hedenies that themeans ofGod's speaking to Israel canonicallywas onlyMosesandProphets.Yetheisforcedtoadmitthathedoesnotknowwhattheformwas.

22.R.LairdHarris,Inspiration...,p.169

23.Harris,Inspiration...,pp.171,172.

24.Harris,InspirationandCanonicity,p.171.

25.Harris,loc.cit.,p.174.


27.E.J.Young,RevelationandtheBible,pp.165,166.

28.Young, inRevelationand theBible,p.166, says: "Whatmaybe saidabout the bookswhich belong to the third division? .... It goeswithoutsaying that these writers were acknowledged to be inspired men. Butweretheyprophets?Surely itwouldbedifficult toshowthatDavidandSolomonoccupiedthestatusofaprophet."

29.R.L.Harris,Inspiration...,p.170)



32. Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New TestamentScriptures,(PresbyterianandReformed,1988).

33. Revelation and the Bible, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry, (Baker BookHouse,1958),"TheCanonoftheNewTestament"byHermanRidderbos,pp.189-201.

34.Dutoit,AGuidetotheNewTestament,p.92.Dutoitalsoremarksinthatplace,"Heisnormativesubjectivelyandobjectively."


36. The apostolate is a reference to the Apostles of Christ in theircombinedidentity.TogethertheApostlesofChristformtheapostolate.

37. These are the words of Don Garlington. Cf. also Ridderbos,RedemptiveHistory...p.16f.

38.The"certain fluidity"whichRidderbosmentionswithrespect to thenarrowerapostolateisafact.Dutoitalsomentionsa"certainelasticity"inthisregardinhisGuidetotheNewTestament,p.104.


40.Grosheide,en.loc.,pp.344ff.

41.TheoftenusedLatinphraseforthiswasthe"custodidepositum".

42.Ridderbos,RedemptiveHistory...,p.31f.

43.Ridderbos,loc.cit.,p.29f.





48.Dutoit,loc.cit.,p.107.

49.Ridderbos,loc.cit.,pp.22f.





GENERAL INTRODUCTION: THE APPROACH TO THEHISTORICALEVIDENCE

Ourstudythusfar(andtheconclusionsreachedinit)isfoundationalforourapproachtothisexaminationofthehistoricalevidenceregardingtheacceptance of the Canon by the people of God. It is important at thebeginningof thisstudyof thehistoricalevidencetoremindourselvesofwhat these conclusionsmean for the presupposition, the goal, and theexpectationsofthisstudyoftheacceptanceoftheCanon.

I.ThePresuppositionofThisStudy

As to the presupposition of these studies in church history, I shallpresuppose in these lectures on the acceptance of the canon the sameperspective which should be presupposed in dealing with every otherdevelopmentinthehistoryofthechurch.Iwilltakeasmystandpointorpresupposition faith in theLordJesusChrist.Inotherwords, I assume

thatGodhasspokenHisfinalwordofrevelationtoourraceinthepersonandworkof theLordJesusChrist.Theologically, thismeans that Iwillapproach this subject from what may be called a Reformed andpresuppositionalviewpoint.Ratherthanattemptingtohide,disguise,orminimize the effect of this presupposition, I frankly admit it. I do thisbecauseIamconvincedthatanyotherapproachissimplywrong-headed.Anyotherapproachwilldistort thehistoricaldataandsabotagefaith inChrist. This is the case because any other approach must and willapproachthesubjectwithsomeotherpresuppositionthanfaithinChrist.Thus, the only alternative to a believing approach to this subject is anunbelieving approach. Thus, the only alternative to the rightpresuppositionisthewrongpresuppositionoranattempttocombinethetherightandthewrongpresupposition.

Toooftentreatmentsofthesubjectofthehistoryofthecanonhavefailedto appreciate that this study unavoidably and pointedly confronts thestudentwith the subject of epistemology. Inmy opinion even such fairandfinetreatmentsofthesubjectasthatofF.F.BruceandB.F.Westcottfail at this point. (1) The canon is, first of all, the supreme rule orstandard of faith. The very idea of a supreme rule or final standardnecessarily raises epistemological questions. The study of the canoncannot, therefore, bemerely historical. Itmust alsobe epistemological,apologetical,andtheological.Becausetheydonotemphasizethisaspectofthestudy,butratherappeartotreatthesubjectasmainlyorfinallyamatterofhistorical investigation, the treatmentsofBruceandWestcottare ultimately unsatisfactory to the believing heart. A believing heartknowsthatfaithinChristiswell-groundedanddesirestoseehowthisisso.

The presupposition of faith inChrist has several, crucial ideas logicallyconnectedwith it which are crucial for the study of the subject of thecanon. It involves the necessary idea thatGod having spoken in Christwouldbyaspecialprovidencesecurethepreservationofthatredemptiverevelation so that it might be the supreme standard or canon of thechurch. This is an implication of the work of Christ stated by ChristHimselfwhenHedeclares in response toPeter's confession of the trueidentityofJesusChrist,"youarePeter,anduponthisrockIwillbuildMy

church;andthegatesofHadesshallnotoverpowerit"(Matt.16:18).

This presupposition also involves the idea that revelation is supremelyauthoritative.This is the foundationalconceptatstake in theReformeddoctrine of the self-authentication of Scripture. The 1689 BaptistConfession echoing the Westminster Confession of Faith states thisdoctrineinparagraphs4and5ofitsfirstchapter:

4Theauthorityof theHolyScripture, forwhichitoughttobebelieved,dependeth not upon the testimony of anyman or church,1 but whollyuponGod (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to bereceivedbecauseitistheWordofGod.2

5WemaybemovedandinducedbythetestimonyofthechurchofGodtoan high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures;1 and theheavenlinessofthematter,theefficacyofthedoctrine,andthemajestyofthestyle,theconsentofalltheparts,thescopeofthewhole(whichistogiveallglorytoGod),thefulldiscoveryitmakesoftheonlywayofman'ssalvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entireperfectionsthereof,areargumentswherebyitdothabundantlyevidenceitself to be theWord ofGod;2 yet notwithstanding, our full persuasionandassuranceoftheinfallibletruth,anddivineauthoritythereof,isfromtheinwardworkoftheHolySpiritbearingwitnessbyandwiththeWordinourhearts.3

AssumingthatGodhasspokeninJesusChrist,sucharevelationcannotbeandmustnotbemade tobedependentonanythingelse for its finalattestation. It must be as revelation self-attesting. It is the divinemessage,theactualcontent,thenaturaltruthfulnessofthebooksofthecanonthat is thetrueandfinalreasonfortheiracceptanceascanonicalby thechurch.Historical genuine-ness, ecclesiastical testimony, generalapostolicity,andrecognizedorthodoxymayallinsomesensebemarksortestsofcanonicity,butallsuchmarksarethemselvesdependentupontheself-attestationofScripture.

II.TheGoalofThisStudy

The goal of this study of the historical evidence may be stated first

negativelyandthenpositively.Negatively,itmaybesaidthatthegoalofthis examination is not to infallibly demonstrate by the historicalevidence the authority of the received canon. The external, historicalevidence for the genuine-ness of the Canon is insufficient by itself togroundaninfalliblefaithintheCanon.Positively,itmaybesaidthatthegoalofthisexaminationistheconfirmationofourfaithbyshowingthatthehistoricalevidenceisconsistentwithourfaith.

III.TheExpectationsofThisStudy

Theexpectationswithwhichthisexaminationofthehistoricalevidenceisapproached must also be stated. Our previous study would lead us toexpect, first of all, general agreement among the people of God on theextent of the Canon. Christ's promise mentioned above suggests thisexpectation. Secondly, we should expect to discover that the canonicalbookspossessedoriginal authorityamongGod'speople.The prophetic-apostolic form of the Canon means that the canonical books hadimmediateauthoritywithGod'speople.Wedonotexpect to findbooksonceuniversallythoughtofasnon-canonicalcomingtopossesscanonicalauthoritythroughalonghistoricalprocess.Wedonotexpecttofindthechurch canonizing books in the sense ofmaking them canonical by itsown authority. Thirdly,wemust expect to find some remaining,minordisagreement on the extent of the Canon. The self-authenticatingauthorityoftheScriptureandthepromiseofChristsealedtotheheartofthebelieverbythetestimonyoftheHolySpiritassuresusthattherewillbegeneralagreementontheCanonbyChrist'struepeople.Neverthelessit must be remembered that in this life the people of God are yetimperfectbothindividuallyandcorporately.Theirfaith,therefore,willbeimperfect.TheirremainingsinmayobscuretothemthetestimonyoftheSpirittemporarilyandpartially.OnamattersobasicandcentralasthatoftheCanonwewouldnotexpecttheresultantdisagreementtobegreat,yetsomedifferencesofopinionaretobeexpected.Wewouldexpectthatmajordifferencesonthesubjectof thecanonwouldbeaccompaniedbyother major departures from Christian truth. Having stated theseexpectations, we may anticipate the following examination by theassertion that the evidence abundantly confirms just these, preciseexpectations.

SECTION ONE: THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENTCANON

I.TheAcceptanceoftheOldTestamentCanon

A.TheCriticalConstruction

Harris helpfully summarizes the historical critical view of the OldTestamentcanon.

FormanyyearscriticalscholarshavebuiltuponthethreefolddivisionofthepresentHebrewBibleandhaveheld that it representsa threestagedevelopment. .... The claim in brief is that there were three stages ofcanonizationof theOldTestament.First thePentateuchwas canonizedabout400B.C.Thisdateisbasedupontraditionalhighercriticaltheory....TheProphets,however,werenot canonizeduntil about200B.C.Bythe "Prophets" all these authors understand the eight books call"Prophets"inthepresentHebrewBible,theTalmud,andJerome,namelythe books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,andthetwelveminorprophets.ThesebooksapparentlywerenotwritteninthisfinalformintimetogetintothecanonofthePentateuch....Thatthe"Prophets"werecanonizedby200B.C.isclearbecauseoftwospeciallandmarks [signs--SW]. In Ecclesiasticus (written about 190-180 B.C.),there is a reference to the twelveminorprophets already collected as aunit.Ifthiscollectionwerecomplete,surelytherestofthebookshadalsobeen completed. Secondly this canon of the "Prophets" did not includeDaniel. It is, of course, a cardinal point of criticism that Daniel waswrittenatabout168B.C.asatracttobolstermorale[strengthenpatrioticfeeling--SW]intheMaccabeanstruggles.TheclaimisthatifDanielwaswrittenbefore200B.C.itwouldsurelyhavebeenamongtheprophets.IfthecanonofProphetshadbeencompletedafter168B.C.itwouldsurelyhaveincludedDaniel.TheonlywaytoexplainDaniel'sabsencefromtheProphets is to place the close of the prophetic canon about 200 B.C.beforethewritingofDaniel....ThethirdstageofcanonizationaccordingtocriticalthoughtistheclosingofthecanonoftheWritingsattheSynodofJamniainA.D.90.Eissfeldtreferstothe"synodheldinaboutA.D.100in Jamnia (Jabne), some twelvemiles south of Jaffa .... nowwhat hadcome into being as a result of gradual growth was formally declared

bindingandforthispurposewasalsoundergirdedwithdogmatictheory"...(2)

B.TheHistoricalEvidenc

Ourpresentpurposeisnottoengageinadetailedanswerofthecriticalconstruction. The writers cited above along with E.J. Young (3) haveprosecutedthistaskefficiently.Wewillmerelysketchtheevidenceforthefollowing statement: All the historical evidence outside of the OldTestament back to the earliest information available points to acompleted Old Testament Canon. All the evidence is, therefore,consistentwiththeexpectationthattheOldTestamentCanonwasclosedatthetimewhenitslatestbookswerewritten.Thistimewas,accordingto the witness of Scripture, approximately 400 B.C. The evidencesuporting this assertion will be organized under the following fiveheadings:

1.TheEvidencefromInter-testamentalJudaism

The division of the Old Testament into three divisions may tend toconcealitspropheticauthorshipandforminsomeminds.Yet,itistruetosaythattheearlythreefolddivisionpresupposesarecognized,completedOldTestamentCanon.According toYoung, sucha threefolddivisionofthe Old Testament with its implication of a completed Old TestamentCanon is "attested as early as the Prologue [Introduction--SW] ofEcclesiasticus.SincethewriteroftheProloguestatesthathisgrandfather(the author of Ecclesiasticus, Jesus ben Sirach, around 190 B.C.) gavehimselflargelytothereadingof"thelawandtheprophetsandtheotherbooksofthefathers,"wemayassumethatthisthreefolddivisionwasasoldasthebeginningofthesecondcenturyB.C."(4)

The Dead Sea Scrolls support the evidence of Ecclesiasticus for acompletedcanonoftheOldTestamentinthesecondcenturyB.C.Harrissays:

This entire imposing structure [impressive building--SW] of thedevelopmentof theOldTestamentcanon,supportedbythemosthighlyesteemedcriticalscholars,mustnowbeseentofallundertheweightof

evidence, some new and some old. Themost impressive new evidencecomes from the Qumran find. In the second century B.C. there wasevidently no difference in reverence accorded to books of the variousdivisionsofthecanon.Deuteronomywaslovedandcopiedandregardedasauthoritative[havingauthority--SW],aswereIsaiah,thePsalms,andProverbs.Accordingtothetheory,thePsalms,ifhighlyesteemedin200B.C.,shouldhavebeenfoundinthecanonoftheProphets.Although,sofar, copies of the Psalms are not claimed to date from 200 B.C., yet aportionofEcclesiastes(oneofthelesserbooksinthethirddivisionoftheWritings) is declared to date from 150 B.C. Indeed, its publisherconcludesthatthediscoveryofthecopyarguesthatthebookmusthaveoriginatedsometimesooner-perhaps,hesays,inthemid-thirdcenturyor the late fourthB.C. IfEcclesiasteswas copied - andevidentlycopiedbecause treasured - in themid-second century, the canonization of theWritingsmusthavecomecloseupontheheelsofthecanonizationoftheProphets.Indeed,theymusthavebeenalmostsynchronous[atthesametime--SW]iftheProphetswerenotcanonizeduntil200B.C.(5)

2.EvidencefromFirstCenturyA.D.Judaism

Twowitnessesmaybecitedhere.The first,Philo, theAlexandrianJew,diedca.A.D.40.Thesecond,Josephus,diedca.A.D.100.Theirevidencecomes,thus,fromthesametimeastheNewTestament.

AstoPhilo,Harrissays:

TheevidencefromhiswritingsastotheextentofthecanoncomesfromhisquotationsfromtheOldTestamentandHiscommentsuponvariouspartsof it.Green refers todetailed studiesbyEichornwhich show thatPhiloreferstoorusesasauthoritativeallthebooksoftheJewishcanonexcept Esther, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.Again, these fewbooks arenotdeniedbut simplyneglected, for lackofoccasiontousethem.(6)

This statementmakes clear that Philo utilized each of the typical threedivisionsoftheOldTestamentCanonagreatdeal.

Josephus'witnessisevenmoreclear.

Josephus'catalogliststhefivebooksofthelaw,thenthirteenbooksoftheProphets,thenfourbookscontaininghymnstoGodandcounselstomenfor the conduct of life. This gives the total of twenty-two, which isevidentlyreachedbyassociatingRuthwithJudgesandLamentationwithJeremiah. The four books in the third classification unquestionablyincludePsalmsandProverbs;andEcclesiastesandSongofSolomonaremostnaturallytakenastheothertwo.(7)

Thetotalof22OldTestamentbooksisthetypicalJewishnumberingandis the same as our English count of 39. Josephus thus testifies to acompletedOldTestamentCanoninthefirstcenturywhichwasthesameasours.

3.LaterEvidence

Harrissuppliesuswiththelaterlistsofthosewhostillataveryearlytimenumbered the Old Testament books as 22 or 24. Since both of thesenumbers are simply the result of different ways of numbering the 39bookswhichmakeupourProtestantOldTestament,eachofthoselistedsupports a completed Old Testament Canon the same to our own."Eusebius,of400A.D.,saysthatthereare22Hebrewbooks.Jeromesays24.Origin,of250B.C.says22.Tertullian,of22A.D.,says24.Melito,of170A.D.,enumerates24.....TheTalmudfigureis24."(8)

4.NewTestamentEvidence

ThemostobviousfeatureoftheNewTestamentevidenceisthatthereisacomplete absence of any discussion of canonical questions in the NewTestament.ThoughtheNewTestamentdoesnothesitatetolevelcuttingcondemnationatmanypartsoffirstcenturyJudaism,thereisnotahintof criticism of its received canon. On the contrary, in themany placeswhere the Old Testament is cited as absolute authority by the NewTestament the Jewish canon is assumed to be authentic withoutdiscussion.ThereiseveryreasontoconcludethatJesusandHisapostleswereinperfectagreementwithfirstcenturyJudaismontheextentoftheCanon. This means that they recognized the 39 books of our OldTestaments.WhenPaul said, "AllScripture isGod-breathed,"hemeanteveryScriptureorallScripturecontainedinthose39books(Matt.4:1-11;

2Tim.3:16).

AllofthisisconfirmedbythefactthattheNewTestamentusesmost,ifnotall,oftheOldTestamentbooks.RogerNicolesays:

Ifwelimitourselvestothespecificquotationsanddirectallusionswhichformthebasisofourpreviousreckoning,weshallnotethat278differentOld Testament verses are cited in the New Testament: 94 from thePentateuch,99fromtheProphets,and85fromtheWritings.Outofthe22books in theHebrew reckoningof theCanononly six (Judges-Ruth,Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) arenotexplicitly[clearly--SW]referredto.Themoreextensive[broad--SW]listsofDittmarandHuehnshowpassagesreminiscent[whichremindus--SW]ofallOldTestamentbookswithoutexception."(9)

5.TheAcademyofJamnia

ThewordsofEissfeldt,citedaboveasrepresentativeofthehighercriticalconstructionoftheCanon,givetheimpressionthatanofficialsynodwasheldatJamniawhichformallycanonizedatleastthethirddivisionoftheOldTestamentCanon,theWritings.SuchapictureofwhathappenedatJamniaismisleading,withoutsupport,andsimplyfalseatcrucialpoints.Young'swordshelptoclearawaysomeofthemistfromJamnia.

Ithas sometimesbeenheld thataJewishSynodwasheldatJamnia inPalestine and that this synod made pronouncements concerning theextentofthecanon.AfterTitusandhisarmieshaddestroyedJerusalemin70A.D.RabbiJohanabeZakkaisettledinJamniaandcarriedonhisliteraryactivitythere.Jamniadidbecomeacenterofbiblical studyandthecanonicityofcertainbookswasdiscussed...."(1)

TherewasanacademyatJamnia,butitisextremelydoubtfulthattherewas a synod or council held there. There were discussions about thecanonicityofcertainbooks.Thequestionwasnot,however,astowhetherthey should be included in the Canon. Rather, the issue was whetherbooksalreadyintheCanonhadarighttobethere.Youngproceeds,

... and, in particular, it would seem, whether these books should be

excluded from the canon. But that there was a Synod which discussedwhether certain books were to be included in the Canon is veryquestionable.ProfessorH.H.RowleyhaswrittenverywiselyconcerningJamnia: "It is indeed, doubtful, how far it is correct to speak of theCouncilofJamnia.WeknowofdiscussionsthattookplaceamongsttheRabbis,butweknowofnoformalorbindingdecisionsthatweremade,anditisprobablythatthediscussionswereinformal...."(11)

The facts concerning Jamnia are an inadequate foundation for themighty, theoretical superstructure or building erected on them by thehighercriticalscholars.

C.TheApocryphalAddition

1.TheSourceofitsAddition

InoldmanuscriptsoftheLXX(12)some14or15booksbesidesthoseintheHebrewcanonwere occasionally included.One scholar says, "Since1546theRomanCatholicChurchhasconsideredcertainofthesebookstobeinspiredandonaparwiththeOldTestament.Theseare,specifically,Tobit, Judith,Wisdom,Ecclesiasticus,Baruch, I and IIMaccabees, andsome supplements to Esther and Daniel." (13) The year, 1546, is, ofcourse, the year of the Council of Trent. The decree of the Council ofTrentrevealsthedoctrinalbiasesoftheRomanCatholicChurchandalsoa growing tradition of theMiddle Ages rooted in certain statements ofchurch councils dominated by Augustine of Hippo. Prior to AugustinethesewritingshadbeenoccasionallycitedinawaysimilartoScripturebysome church fathers. As mentioned previously, they were alsooccasionally associated with the Hebrew canonical books in the GreektranslationoftheOldTestament.

2.TheFalsityofitsAddition

The recognitionof thesebooksas canonicalbyRomanCatholicismwaswrong.

Thisisshownbythefollowingarguments.

(1)InpreviousstudiesitwasshownthattheformoftheOldTestamentCanon was that it was given through Moses and the Prophets. It isuniversally acknowledged that the Spirit of prophecy departed fromIsrael after Malachi. It is also universally acknowledged that theApocryphalbookswerewrittennosoonerthanthesecondcenturyB.C.Therefore, it is clear that the Apocryphal books cannot be canonical.Indeed, one of the best of these apocryphal works itself teaches theabsenceoftheSpiritofprophecyatthetimewhenitwaswritten.Notice1Maccabees4:46;9:27;14:41.

(2)Wehavealsoseenpreviouslythatcanonicalbookswouldbereceivedas canonical immediately. One reason for this was their prophetic orapostolic authorship. Another reasonwhy thiswould be so is thatGodgavethebookstoserverule-booksforHispeople.Thus,Hewouldinsurethattheywereacceptedbythemwhenhegavethem.Thereisnoevidencethat these bookswere recognized as canonical by the Jews at any timeand no evidence that they were recognized as canonical by the churchuntil about the time of Augustine. This was 500 years after theircomposition.Harris says, "The single voice of antiquity in favor of theApocryphaisthatofAugustineandtheCouncilsofHippo(A.D.393)andCarthage (397), which he dominated." (14) Neither the Zadokitefragments,norPhilo,norJosephus,northeNewTestamentevercitetheApocryphaasScripture.(15)Onthecontrary,aswehaveearlierseen,theApocrypha are excluded in every early counting or listing of the OldTestamentcanonuntilAugustine.(16)

(3) The promise of Christ that He would build His church on theauthentic, prophetic and apostolic witness to himself assures us of theidea thatbroadandgeneralagreementwouldbe typicalof thechurch'srecognitionofcanonicalbooks.GreatagreementexistsamongorthodoxChristianswithregardtoboththeHebrewOldTestamentandtheGreekNewTestament.Butgeneralagreement simplydoesnotexist regardingthe Apocrypha. The history of the Apocrypha is the history of doubts,division and rejection. Neither the Jews, nor the early church tillAugustine,northeGreekchurch,northeProtestantchurchreceivedtheApocryphaascanonical.EvenAugustinehadhisdoubtslateron.(17)Theverycouncilatwhichthesebooksgainedunquestionablecanonicalstatus

for the Roman Catholic Church was the Council of Trent. It was thatcouncil in which from a Protestant point of view the Roman CatholicChurchbecameofficiallyapostate.Thus,departureonthesubjectof thecanon by Roman Catholicism was accompanied by the officialproclamationofserious,doctrinalerror.

(4)Earlier ithasbeenshownthattheself-authenticationofScripture isrooted in its innate divine perfections, its claims, its content, itsattributes. The Apocrypha does not possess such perfections. Harris isable to assert, "They were written after prophecy had been withdrawnfrom Israel. Their authors are conscious of that fact and speakaccordingly.Theyclaimnodivinity..."(18)Thus,theydonotclaimtobethe Word of God. Also they do not display as to their content divineperfections. One divine perfection which they do not display istruthfulness.Harrisremarks:

ThescenesofTobitandJudithare laid in thedaysof theAssyrianandBabylonian captivities and thus lie within the time of the writingprophets.ButasGreensays,"TheBooksofTobitandJudithaboundingeographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only tovitiate the truth of the narratives which they contain, but to make itdoubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." It is said, forexample, that in Tobit's youth the ten tribes revolted under Jeroboam(1:4,5), which was in about 925 B.C., but that he was alive after thecaptivityofthetentribes,whichtookplacein725B.C.Yethediedwhenhe was 158 years old (14:11). Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar asreigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon (1:1) and contains many otherinternal problems. The books neither claim to be thework of prophetsnor could they be defended as such. The description "false prophets"wouldbettercharacterizetheirauthors.(19)

(5)Itmaybehardtoproverationallyandlogically,butittheApocryphalack the testimony of theHoly Spirit. To anywhowould be inclined todoubtthevalueofthisremark,itcanonlybereplied,letthebelieverreadtheApocryphaandcompareitwithHolyScripture.Listentothepersonaltestimonyandexperienceofonesuchbeliever:

The author was once asked by an earnest Christian woman why

Protestants do not receive the Apocrypha. He gave in outline theargumentpresentedabove--that theJewsdidnot receive it, thatChristandtheapostlesdidnotreceiveit,thattheEarlyChurchdidnotreceiveit,andthattheRomanCatholicsadopteditonlyinReformationtimesinreactionotProtestantismandtobolstertheirshakypositionwithrespectto certain dogmas. It was evidentthat the inquirer appreciated theargument, but was not in a position readily to receive our judge theevidence.Finally,headvisedhertogohomeandreadtheApocryphaforherself.He predicted that shewould enjoy portions of it, butwould bestruck by its inconsistencies when compared with the canonicalScripturesandby itsevident legendaryandunnaturalmaterial.Monthslater she returned and declared that she was fully convinced--she hadread it! More Christians should read the Apocrypha as interesting oldhistory.Todosowouldsettlemanyquestionsregardingcanonicity.(20)

SECTION TWO: THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENTCANON

Introduction:

This study of the acceptance of theNew Testament canon forces us tograpple with important and practical issues at the foundation of ourChristianfaith.

A.TheSeriousQuestionsRaised

Thebasicfactswithregardtotherecognitionofthecanonaresuchastoraise thoughtful questions and even troubling doubts in the seriousChristian'smind. The easiestway to sense the problemwithwhich theChristian is here confronted is by citing the well-known historical factthatthefirstpersontolistallthe27booksofourNewTestamentastheonlygenuineNewTestamentcanonicalbookswasAthanasiusintheyear367. F. F. Bruce says: "Athanasius is the first writer known to us wholisted exactly the twenty-seven books which traditionally make up theNew Testament in catholic and orthodox Christianity, without makingany distinction in status among them." (21) The serious-mindedChristian, if not shaken by such an assertion, is at least filled withquestions. He is accustomed to regard the New Testament as the

unquestioned foundation of his faith. Yet now he hears that its verycontentsweresubjecttodisputeforalmost300yearsafteritsbookswerecompletely written. He probably wonders how to account for thissurprisingfact.

B.ThePreliminaryResponsesPresented

Thereare five important factswhichmayassist theseriousChristian inapproaching this subject. These facts will help him answer any doubtswithwhichheistempted.Thesurprisingfactjustmentionedmaybelessshockingifheremembersthefollowingthings.

First, thewell-known distinction between the homologoumena and theantilegomenamust be understood. Seven of the New Testament books(theantilegomena)wereseriouslydoubtedbysomeintheearlychurch.The four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 Johnwere,however,neverseriouslyquestionedintheearlychurch.Thesebooksareknown as the homologoumena. As soon as the post-apostolic churchbecomes visible in the early second century, it emerges treating thesebooksaspossessingauthority.

Second, the Christian must take into account the difficulties ofcommunicationintheearlychurch.It isnotsurprisingthatsomebookstookaperiodof time togainacceptance insectionsof theearlychurchwhich were a long ways from those to hwome they were first written.Westcottarguesthispointpersuasively:

The common meeting-point of Christians was destroyed by the fall ofJerusalem,and from that timenationalChurchesgrewuparound theirseparate centres, enjoying inagreatmeasure the freedomof individualdevelopment, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated forms, peculiartendenciesofdoctrineor ritual.Asanatural consequence [result--SW],the circulation of some books of the New Testament for a whiledepended,moreorless,ontheirsupposedconnexionwithspecificformsofChristianity;andtherangeofotherbookswas limitedeitherbytheiroriginal destination [the place they were first written to--SW] or bynatureoftheircontents.(22).

Third, it must be remembered that what is under discussion is theuniversalacceptanceoftheNewTestament.ThereisevidencethatallofthebooksoftheNewTestamentwereregardedaspossessingauthorityinsomesectionsofthechurchalmostfromthebeginning.

Fourth, it must be remembered that early Christians surrounded by aliving oral tradition created by the original, apostolic preachers of thegospeldidnotfeelthenecessityforawrittencanonthatwenowfeel.Theneed for awritten canonmay seem obvious to us, but it did not seemobvious to them at first. We must remember also that many earlyChristians lived in thehopeofChrist's imminentreturn.Thus, theydidnot see or sense the necessity of aNewTestament canon immediately.Westcottwellwrites:

Itcannothoweverbedeniedthatthe ideaof theInspirationof theNewTestament,inthesenseinwhichitismaintainednow,wasthegrowthoftime.WhenStPaulspokeoftheHolyScripturesoftheOldTestamentasable tomakewiseuntosalvationthroughfaithwhich is inChristJesus,he expressed what was the practical belief of the first century of theChristianChurch.TheOldTestamentwasfortwoorthreegenerationsacompleteBiblebothdoctrinallyandhistoricallywhen interpreted in thelightoftheGospel.Manyofthemostfarsightedteachers,wemaybelieve,preparedthewayfortheformationofacollectionofApostolicWritingsco-ordinatewiththewritingsoftheProphets,buttheresulttowhichtheylooked forwardwas achieved gradually, even as theOld testamentwasitselfformedbyslowdegrees.Distanceisanecessaryconditionifweareto estimate rightly any object of vast proportions. The history of anyperiod will furnish illustrations of the truth; and the teaching of Godthroughmanappearstobealwayssubjecttothecommonlawsofhumanlife and thought. If it be true that a prophet is not received in his owncountry,itisequallytruethatheisnotreceivedinhisownage.Thesenseofhispowerisvagueevenwhenitisdeepest.Yearsmustelapsebeforewecan feel that the words of one who talked with men were indeed thewordsofGod.(23)

The study of the recognition of the canon is inmany respects a classiccasestudyinthedevelopmentofdoctrineinthechurch.Weshallnoticefirst the church's original, basic, un-tested, and un-refined ideas in the

period of the Apostolic Fathers. Then we shall notice how twisted andheretical movements made clear these raw convictions. We will alsonoticethattheorthodoxresponsetotheseheresiesatimelyand,indeed,providential impulse forcarefullydefiningandexplainingthesubjectofthe canon. Finally, we will notice how a solid, public, and universalharmony was reached by the orthodox church in the Fourth Century.Thus,wewilldealwiththissubjectinthreepoints:

I.THEAPOSTOLICFATHERS

II.THEEARLYHERESIES

III.THELATERAGREEMENT

I.THEAPOSTOLICFATHERS

A.TheApostolicFathersandthePatternoftheOldTestamentCanon

The Apostolic Fathers were Christian writers who lived and wrote justaftertheApostles.Theydidnotconsciouslyintendtomoveevenonestepbeyond theviewsof theChrist andHisApostles.Wecannot, therefore,considertheirviewswithoutremindingourselvesofcanonicalideasthatwerealreadyclearintheNewTestamentitself.

In the New Testament the Old Testament canon stands as a completewholepossessingauthority.The completeness anddetailed authority oftheOldTestamentpermeatestheNewTestamentwitnessasawhole.Itisassumed in the major passages which witness to the view of the OldTestament assumed by Christ and His Apostles (Matt. 4:1-11; 5:17, 18;John10:34-36;2Tim.3:15-17;2Pet.1:19-21).

Itis,therefore,nosurprisethattheApostolicFathersintheearliestpost-apostolicwritingsassumethissameviewoftheOldTestament.Theyviewthe Old Testament as a completed whole. They assume that itsboundaries are well-known. Furthermore, they assign to it the samedetailed inspiration which is assigned to it in the writings of the NewTestament.Kelly(thoughprobablynofriendoftheideathattheBibleiscompletelyhandindetailinspired)isforcedtoadmit:

From Judaism Christianity inherited the conception [idea--SW] of thedivineinspirationofHolyScripture.WheneverourLordandHisApostlesquotedtheOldTestament,itisplainthattheyregardeditasthewordofGod.Thiscomes to light repeatedly in thenewTestamentrecords. ... Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthefathersenvisaged[pictured--SW]thewholeoftheBibleasinspired.Itwasnotacollectionofdisparate[dissimilar--SW] segments, some of divine origin and others of merely humanfabrication[making--SW].(24)

NotonlyistheOldTestamentabookpossessingdivineauthorityfortheApostolic Fathers, it is a thoroughly Christian book. They view it as aChristian book previewing in great detail the person, life, and work ofChrist.Kellyremarks:

TheimportanceoftheOldTestamentasadoctrinalnormintheprimitiveChurch cannot be exaggerated. ... the doctrinal authority ascribed to itwasbasedontheapparently[seemingly--SW]unquestioningassumptionthat,correctlyinterpreted,itwasaChristianbook,andthattheprophetsinparticularwerereallytestifyingtoChristandHisglory.(25)

The importance of the recognized authority of the Old Testament as awhole, in other words as a canon, for the church cannot be over-estimated.Its influenceon theacceptanceof theNewTestament canonwasgreat.Both in theNewTestamentand in theApostolicFathers theideaofanOldTestamentcanonwithinaChristianframeworknaturallyandcertainlysuggestedthataNewTestamentcanonshouldbesetalongsideofit.Theonlythingthatwasnecessarytothedevelopmentofsuchacanonwasasufficientperiodof timetopassfortheapostlestodieandthelivingoraltraditiontheylefttofade.ThechurchwouldthenfinditselfcalledtobefaithfultotheLordinaperiodmarkedbytheabsenceoftheapostlesandthedelayinthereturnoftheLord.Thus,itwouldnaturallyfind it necessary and natural to safeguard its purity by following theprecedentofOldTestament Israel andaccepting "thememoirs [writtenremains--SW]oftheApostles"(asJustinMartyrcalledthem)asakindofNewTestamentcanon.Onlyonedanger,butanimportantandrealone,toweredover the church. Itwas that the churchmightbe so content inthe fading glow of the oral, apostolic tradition that it might beunconscious of the increasing departures from its first purity which it

wouldcertainlycometocontain.Thechurchmighteventuallyawakentoits danger. The question was, Would it awaken in time historically toascertainthosedocumentsthatgenuinelydescendedfromandenshrinedtheapostolicpreachingofChrist?Thisdangerprovidencepreventedbyswiftly loosing on the church in the first and second century pervertedandhereticalformsofprofessingChristianitywhichsoonawakenedandaroused her to the necessity ofmaking clear her understanding of theNewTestamentcanon.

HowtheideaoftheOldTestamentcanonwithinaChristianframeworknaturallyandcertainlygavebirthtotheideaofaNewTestamentcanonmaybe illustrated first from theNewTestament. 2 Cor. 3:14 speaks of"thereadingoftheoldcovenant"inacontextinwhichtheOldandNewCovenants are repeatedly contrasted. Note the explicit mention of theNewCovenantinverse6andthecontrastsofvv.6-11.The"readingoftheoldcovenant" is,of course,a reference to the readingof thewritingsofthe entire Old Testament as this was carried on every sabbath in thesynagogue (Acts 13:15; 15:21). When the widespread habit of the NewTestamenttoputChristandHisapostlesonaplaneofauthorityequalorevensuperiortothatofMosesandtheprophetsisproperlyweighed,thecertaintythattheirwritingswouldcometobeconsideredanewcanonisplain.The following passages display this habit (Rom. 16:25f;Heb. 1:1,2a;IIPeter1:16-21,ICor.15:3-11,IIPeter3:1,2;John2:22).

TheApostolic Fathersmanifest, of course, this same tendency tomakeNewTestamentapostlesequalorsuperiortotheOldTestamentprophets.KellyillustratesthistendencyintheApostolicFathersforus:

The generations stretching from the apostolic age to themiddle of thesecondcenturyhaveaspecial interest forour inquiry[study--SW].Thissprings from the fact that, although the new Testament books werealreadyinexistence,therewasayetnoofficiallysanctioned[approved--SW] New Testament canon. Whence then did the Church draw herteaching, and how did she assess its soundness? For an answer wenaturallylooktothewritingsoftheso-calledApostolicFathers....ForalltheseChristianityseemstohaveimpliedacomplexofbeliefandpractice....whichinthefinalresortwentbacktoChristHimself.ButifHewasthesupremeteacher, the immediatelyaccessible[available--SW]authorities

both for the facts about His Person and for His message were (a) theprophets, who had foreseen every detail of His ministry, and (b) theapostles,whohadworkedwithHimandwhomHe had commissioned.Thistwo-foldappealtotheunitedwitnessoftheOldTestamentandtheapostleswascharacteristicoftheage;itisaptly[fittingly--SW]illustratedby Polycarp's summons to the Philippians to accept as their standardChristHimself alongwith `the apostleswho preached the gospel to usandtheprophetswhoannouncedourLord'scominginadvance.'(26)

How naturally this suggests the coming of a New Testament canon ofapostolic writings to match the Old Testament canon of propheticwritingsisobviousandmaybediagrammedasfollows:

[OLD TESTAMENT CANON=] PROPHETS-->CHRIST<--APOSTLES[??CANON??)

OnlyonefurtheritemneedstobeaddedtocompleteourunderstandingofhowforcefullytheexampleoftheOldTestamentcanonsuggestedtheadditionofaNewTestamentcanon.InatleasttwopassagesinourNewTestaments apostolic writings seem clearly to be described as actuallyScripture.In1Tim.5:18PaulcitestheexactwordsofasayingfromLuke10:7whichisnotfoundintheOldTestament.HecouplesitwithasayingderivedfromDeut.25:4underthecaption,"FortheScripturesays."In2Pet.3:16PetermentionshisbelovedbrotherPaulandrefersnotonlytothe letter Paul had directed specifically to his readers, but to "all hisletters".Hethencommentsasfollows:"Inwhicharesomethingshardtounderstand,whichtheuntaughtandunstabledistort,astheydoalsotherestoftheScriptures,totheirowndestruction."ThereferencetotherestoftheScripturesseemsplainlytoclassthelettersofPaul--herepresentedas a group of letterswell-known to the church--as Scripture. Thus, notmerelyequalauthoritywithScripture,buttheverynameofScripture isalreadyassignedtothelettersoftheApostlePaulandthegospelofLukewithinthepagesof theNewTestament.Withthissuggestivethought inourminds,wemaynowcometotheconsiderationoftheanticipationoftheNewTestamentcanonintheApostolicFathers.

B. The Apostolic Fathers and the Anticipation of the New TestamentCanon

1.TheClearImmaturityofTheirWitnesstotheNewTestamentCanon

TheclearimmaturityofthewitnessgivenbytheApostolicFatherstotheNewTestamentCanonmaybesimplysummarized.TheApostolicFathersknewofnoNewTestamentcanoninthesenseofalistofbookswhichitofficially accepted as canonical. Furthermore, no clear boundary wasdrawn between those New Testament books considered canonical andthose not considered canonical. Its testimony to the New Testamentcanonisnottechnicalorofficial;norisitthoroughordetailed.

a. The witness of the Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament is nottechnicalorofficial.

Here I mean to say that they do not cite the writings of the NewTestamentbymeansofformulawhichwouldidentifythemasscripturalor possessingdivine authority. There seems to be no clear reference intheApostolicFatherstotheNewTestamentwritingsas"Scripture".(27)The Scripture is everywhere rather the Old Testament. Furthermore,while sayings from each of the four gospels are clearly quoted, there isneveranyclearreference to thewrittengospelsasweknowthem.ThatPaulwroteanumberof letters isspecificallyandfrequentlymentioned,(28) but there is no clear mention of either a written gospel or of acollectionoffourgospels.(29)

This state of affairs creates a special difficulty in theApostolicFathers.TheNewTestament writings are often not cited with any introductoryformula suggesting that they have special authority. Thus, when otherwritingsareusedbythem,thereisnocertainwaytomakeadistinctionbetween the use of non-canonical writings and the New Testamentcanonicalwritings.Occasionally the Apostolic Fathers use the books oftheApocrypha.Clementutilizes language fromtheWisdomofSolomonand actually mentions Judith by way of holy example. (30) Of morerelevance to our theme is Polycarp's frequent reference to 1 Clement.Richardsonisongoodgroundwhenhestates:"HemakesmuchuseofIClement."(31)Our problem is that the references toClement are oftennotdistinctfromhisreferencestoNewTestamentwritings.Thus,thoughit is impossible to say certainly one way or another, the impression isgiventosomethatPolycarpregarded1Clementasinspiredorcanonical.

Againstthis,ofcourse,muchcouldbemaintained.Forexample,PolycarpreferstoIgnatius'letters.Itwouldbefar-fetchedtotakethisasevidencethatheregardedthoselettersashavingspecialauthority.ItalsomustbenotedthatincomparisonwiththeirreferencestocanonicalScripturetheuse which the Apostolic Fathers make of apocryphal or non-canonicalwritingsisverysmall.

WestcottnotesthetestimonyoftheApostolicFatherstothegenuinenessoftheApostolicwritings.YetatthesametimesheseesthischaracteristicoftheApostolicFathers.Hetheorizesasfollowsonitsreason:

The testimony to the Apostolic Fathers is not however confined to therecognitionoftheseveraltypesofChristianitywhicharepreservedintheCanonicalScriptures:theyconfirmthegenuinenessandauthorityofthebooksthemselves.ThattheydonotappealtotheApostolicwritingsmorefrequently[often--SW]andmoredistinctlyspringsfromtheverynatureoftheirposition.Thosewhohadheardthe livingvoiceofApostleswereunlikely to appeal to their written words. We have an instinct whichalways makes us prefer any personal connexion to the more remoterelationshipofbooks.ThusPapias tellsus thathe sought to learn fromevery quarter [source--SW] the traditions of those who had conversedwith the elders, thinking that he should not profit so much by thenarratives of books as by the living and abiding voice of the Lord'sdisciples.AndstillPapiasaffirmedtheexactaccuracyoftheGospelofSt.Mark, and quoted testimonies () from the Catholic Epistles of St PeterandStJohn.(32)

WestcottisrighttothinkthattherearegoodreasonswhythetestimonyoftheApostolicFatherstotheNewTestamentwritingswouldbeneithertechnical, nor official. Other considerations explaining this potentiallyconfusingcharacterof theirwitnessmightbeadded.Now,however,wemustnoticeasecondthingwhichmanifeststheclearimmaturityoftheirtestimonytotheNewTestamentcanon.

2.Theirwitnesswasneitherthoroughnordetailed.

Here we mean to say that there is never an reference to the NewTestament as a complete whole. But we also want to say that there is

withintheApostolicFatherscertainandclearreferencesonlytoabout23ofthe27NewTestamentbooks.(33)OfspecialinterestinthiscalculationisthefactthatthereisclearusemadeoftheEpistletotheHebrews,theRevelationofJohn,andtoalesserextentofJamesinthesewritings.(34)This is an important fact for the history of the acceptance of the NewTestament canon because these three books are the three largest andmostimportantofthesevenbooksknownastheAntilegomena.

ThesethingsmustbesaidbywayofqualificationandcautionwithregardtothewitnessoftheApostolicFathers.Yettherearekeyfactswhichmustbebroughtforwardtoindicatethepositivevalueoftheirwitness.Whiletheir testimony to theNewTestamentcanon isnot technicalorofficial,norcomprehensiveordetailed,itissolidandwidespread.Thisbringsusto..

B.TheSpecificContentofTheirWitnesstotheNewTestamentCanon

TheirspecificandpositivetestimonycomesfromtheirwidespreaduseofthewritingsoftheNewTestament.Westcott,speakingofthis,remarks.

It is true that these incidental references are with one exceptionanonymous.ThewordsofScriptureareinwrought[woven--SW]intothetexture[theverymaterial--SW]of thebooks,andnotparcelledout intoformalquotations.Theyarenotarrangedwithargumentativeeffect,butusedasnaturalexpressionsofChristiantruths.NowthisuseoftheHolyScriptures shews at least that they were even then widely known, andtherefore guarded by a host of witnesses; that their language wastransferredintothecommondialect[speech--SW];thatitwasasfamiliartothosefirstChristiansastouswhouseitasunconsciouslyastheydidinwritingorinconversation.(35)

Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius' seven Epistles, theDidache,theEpistleofBarnabasareallmarkedbytheirwidespreaduseofNewTestamentwritings.Mostimpressiveofallis,however,Polycarp'sEpistle to the Philippians. Richardson remarks on this feature of hisletter:"He isnotversed,ashehimselfadmitted, in theScriptures, i.e.,theOldTestament.ButhehadmeditatedmuchonChristianwritings;hisletter isaveritablemosaic[acollectionofpiecesformedtogether intoa

piece of art--SW] of quotation and allusion [reference--SW] to them.Modern critics are fond of calling him "unoriginal." (36) Richardsonelaborates on the mosaic of New Testament writings crammed intoPolycarp'sEpistle:

PolycarpwasacquaintedwiththeSynopticGospelsandTheActs.ButhiscitationsofsayingsofJesusareoftenratherfreelymade.Hisconflation[puttingtogether--SW]ofquotationsmaybedue,ofcourse,tohiscitingthem frommemory. He is well versed [very familiar with--SW] in thePaulineEpistles,andhis references includeHebrewsand thePastorals.Hisspecialfavorite,however,isIPeter;andoftheothercatholicepistlesheknowsJamesandIandIIJohn.(37)

WemustnotpassfromthisconsiderationofthewidespreaduseofNewTestamentwritingsintheApostolicFatherswithoutdueconsiderationofits significance and implications.Wemust admit that there is no clearwitnessinthemthattheNewTestamentwritingswereviewedopenlyascanonicalScripture.WemustalsoadmitthatthereisnocleartestimonytoacollectionofNewTestamentwritings.Yetthereisnonethelessplainwitness to just thekindof treatmentandrespect thatonewouldexpectcanonical Scripture to be given. The writings of the apostles and theirimmediateassociateswere treasuredandrespected.Deepattentionwaspaidtothem.Theirveryterminologyhaswovenitselfsodeeplyintothemindsofthesementhat it flowsoutoftheirpensandmouthsnaturallyandwithoutcitationinmostcases.Thisiswithoutdoubtimportantandsignificanttestimonytothedominancewhichthesewritingswereslowlyattainingintheearliestpost-apostolicchurches.

All of what we have said with regard to the solid and widespreadtestimony to the canon in theApostolic Fathers is strengthened by thefactthatintheirwritingsthebasicinsightandformalprincipleatstakeintheNewTestamentcanonisclearlyembraced.

C. The Fundamental Insight of Their Witness to the New TestamentCanon

This basic insight is their constant exaltation of the apostles and theirauthority in comparison with themselves. There is, in other words, an

awareness of their enormous insignificance compared to the Apostles.Thisawarenesspermeatestheirwritings.(38)SampletestimoniestothissenseofthegreaterauthorityofApostlesasopposedtoApostolicFathersmaybedrawnfromthemajorwritings.Clement,forinstance,saysthis.

TheapostlesreceivedthegospelforusfromtheLordJesusChrist;Jesus,theChrist,wassentfromGodandtheapostlesfromChrist.ThusChristisfromGodandtheapostlesfromChrist....Theypreachedincountryandcity,andappointedtheirfirstconverts,aftertestingthembytheSpirit,tobe the bishops and deacons of future believers. ... Now our apostles,thanks toourLordJesusChrist, knew that therewasgoing tobe strifeoverthetitleofbishop.Itwasforthisreasonandbecausetheyhadbeengiven an accurate knowledge of the future, that they appointed theofficerswehavementioned. ... Pickup the letter of the blessed apostlePaul. ... To be sure, under the Spirit's guidance, hewrote to you abouthimself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had formedcliques.(39)

Fromthesestatementsitisclearthattheapostlespossessedadignitytowhich Clement makes no claim. It is also clear that Clement ascribedsupernaturalgiftstotheapostlestowhichhemadenoclaim.Theyknewthefuture.TheywroteundertheSpirit'sguidance.Hedidnot.

IgnatiusalsoclearlyattestshisownsenseofinferioritytotheApostles:

MayIevershareinthese,sothatImaybenumberedwiththeEphesianChristians who, by themight of Jesus Christ, have always been of onemindwiththeveryapostles....Makearealeffort,then,tostandfirmlybythe orders of the Lord and the apostles .... Correspondingly, everyonemustshowthedeaconsrespect.TheyrepresentJesusChrist, justasthebishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God'scouncil andanapostolicband. ... Since, too, I ama convict, I havenotthoughtitmyplacetogiveyouorderslikeanapostle....IdonotgiveyouorderslikePeterandPaul.Theywereapostles:Iamaconvict....YetyourprayerstoGodwillmakemeperfectsothatImaygainthatfatewhichIhavebeenmercifullybeenallotted,bytakingrefugeinthe"Gospel,"asinJesus'flesh,andinthe"Apostles,"asinthepresbyteryoftheChurch.Andthe"Prophets,"letuslovethemtoo....Fleefromschismasthesourceof

mischief.YoushouldallfollowthebishopasJesusChristdidtheFather.Follow,too,thepresbyteryasyouwouldtheapostles.(40)

ThereareconfusingthingsincertainofthesestatementsofIgnatius.Yet,thefactthatapostlesoccupyaplaceofauthorityanddignityinthechurchnextonlytotheLordJesusChristisclear.Furthermore,despiteIgnatius'clear tendency to exalt the office of bishop, it is plain that apostles areexaltedaboveeventhesinglebishopashewaspresentedinthewritingsofIgnatius.

Polycarp also makes the qualitative superiority and distinction of theApostlesplain:

Certainly, neither I nor anyone like me can follow the wisdom of theblessedandgloriousPaulwho,whenhewaspresentamongyouface tofacewiththegenerationofhistime,taughtyouaccuratelyandfirmly"theword of truth." Alsowhen absent he wrote you letters that will enableyou,ifyoustudythemcarefully,togrowinthefaith....(41)

TheDidachebearsonitsveryfacetheexaltedreverencewithwhichtheapostolatewas viewed. Its first line reads: "The Lord's Teaching to theHeathenbytheTwelveApostles."

ThetestimonyofClement,Ignatius,Polycarp,andtheDidacheshowveryclearly that the principle and powerwhich led to the acceptance of theNew Testament canon was understood by the Apostolic Fathers. Thewhole point andpurpose of theNewTestament canonwas to bind thechurchunchangeablytotheauthentic,apostolicpreachingofthegospel.The canonical character of the Apostles was plainly understood andrecognizedintheearliestwritingswhichsucceededtheNewTestament.Westcotttestifiestothisreality:

Thesuccessorsoftheapostlesdidnot,weadmit,recognise[understand--SW] that the written histories of the Lord and the scattered epistles[letters--SW]ofHisfirstdiscipleswouldformasureandsufficientsourceand testofdoctrinewhen the current traditionhad grown indistinct orcorrupt.ConsciousofalifeintheChristianbody,andrealizingthepowerofitsHead,inawayimpossiblenow,theydidnotfeelthattheApostles

wereprovidentiallycharged toexpressonce forall in theirwritings theessential form of Christianity, even as the Prophets had foreshadowedthem. The position which they held did not command thatcomprehensiveviewofthenatureandfortunesoftheChristianchurchbywhich the idea is suggested and confirmed. But they had certainly anindistinct perception [knowledge--SW] that their work was essentiallydifferent from that of their predecessors [those who had gone beforethem--SW]. They declined to perpetuate [continue--SW] their title,though they may have retained their office. They attributed to thempower and wisdom which they themselves made no claim. Withouthaving any exact senseof the completeness of the Christian Scriptures,theystilldrewalinebetweenthemandtheirownwritings.Asifbysomeprovidentialinstinct,eachoneofthoseteacherswhostoodnearesttothewriters of the New Testament contrasted his writings with theirs, anddefinitelyplacehimselfonalowerlevel.Thefactismostsignificant;foritshews in what way the formation [putting together--SW] of the canonwas an act of the intuition [instinct--SW] of the Church, derived[obtained--SW] fromno reasoning, but realised [accomplished--SW] inthe course of its natural growth as one of the first results of its self-consciousness.(42)

1. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, (Inter-Varsity Press, DownersGrove, 1988); B. F. Westcott,A General Survey of the History of theCanonof theNewTestament, sixthedition, (BakerBookHouse,GrandRapids,1889)reprinted1980.

2. R. Laird Harris, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,pp.723ff.Cf.alsoHarris,InspirationandCanonicity,pp.138ff.andJohnW. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, p. 134 for descriptions andexaminations of the critical construction of the recognition of the OldTestamentcanon.

3.RevelationandtheBible,pp.157ff;InfallibleWord,pp.73ff.

4. Young, Revelation and the Bible, pp.164ff.; Harris, Inspiration ...,p.145.

5.Harris,InspirationandCanonicity,pp.139,140.

6.ibid.

7.ibid.

8.Harris,Inspiration...,pp.142,143.

9.RevelationandtheBible,p.138.

10.TheInfallibleWord,p.73.

11. ibid. Cf. also Harris, Inspiration, p.155, Wenham, Christ and theBible,p.138f.

12. LXX is an abbreviation for the Septuagint. This was the GreektranslationoftheOldTestamentincommonuseatthetimeofthewritingoftheNewTestament.

13.G.D.YounginRevelationandtheBible,p.171.


15.Harris,loc.cit.,pp.182-185.

16.(Harris,loc.cit.,pp.142,143.

17.Harris,loc.cit.,p.190f;Charles,inZondervanPictorialEncyclopediaoftheBible,vol.1,p.205.

18.Harris,loc.cit.,p.194f.

19.Harris,loc.cit.,p.181f.

20.R.LairdHarris,InspirationandCanonicity,p.193f.

21. F. F. Bruce,The Canon of Scripture, (Inter-Varsity Press, DownersGrove,1988),p.209.

22.Westcott,AGeneralSurveyoftheHistoryoftheCanonoftheNewTestament,(BakerBookHouse,GrandRapids,1980),pp.4and5.

23.Westcott,AGeneralSurveyoftheHistoryof theCanonoftheNewTestament,(BakerBookHouse,GrandRapids,1980),pp.55,56.

24.Kelly,EarlyChristianDoctrines,pp.60and61.

25.Kelly,loc.cit.,p.32.


27.ThisstatementrequiresthequalificationthattheEpistleofBarnabasmay cite Matt. 22:14 with the introductory formula, às it is written'.Westcott in his General Survey considers this possibility (p. 51) andremarks,"thisquotationfromStMatthew, if indeed it isaquotation, isthe earliest direct example of a use of a bookof theNewTestament asHolyScripture."

28. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, 47:1; Ignatius' Epistle to theEphesians12:2;Polycarp'sEpistletothePhilippians3:2.

29.Thisstatementmustbequalifiedintwoways.First,theDidachecitestheGospelofMatthewsofrequentlyandpervasivelythatitisdifficulttobelieve that its author did not haveMatthew's Gospel in written formbefore him. Second, in Ignatius' Epistle to the Philadelphians (5:1) thefollowing statement could very easily imply the existence of a writtengospelorgospelsknownbyIgnatius:"YetyourprayerstoGodwillmakeme perfect so that I may gain that fate which have mercifully beenallotted, by taking refuge in the "Gospel," as in Jesus' flesh, and in the"Apostles,"asinthepresbyteryoftheChurch.Andthe"Prophets,"letuslovethemtoo..."(AstranslatedbyCyrilC.RichardsoninEarlyChristianFathers).

30.NoteClement3:4;7:5;and55:4.

31.Cf.forexamplePolycarp'sEpistletothePhilippiansat7:2.

32.Westcott,GeneralSurvey...,p.47.

33. The books to which no or only uncertain reference is made are 2Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John. Note the comments of Westcott, General

Survey...,p.48.WestcottnotesthattherearenocertainreferencestotheEpistlestotheThessalonians,Colossians,PhilemonandTitus.IdisagreewithhimwithregardtoTitusonthebasisoftheallusionmadetoTitus3:1byClement in2:7ofhisepistle to theCorinthians.Additionally, theusemadeof1and2Timothyisundoubted.ThisputsbeyonddoubtthatthePastoralEpistleswereknownandattributedtoPaulandcorroboratestheideathattheApostolicFathersknewofPaul'sEpistletoTitus.Thereis, furthermore, no serious doubt regarding the authenticity of theThessalonians Epistles, Colossians, and Philemon especially when allPaul'sotherlettersareutilized.

34.ClementmakespervasiveuseofHebrews (17:1;27:2;36:1-6),whilePapiasandtheauthoroftheShepherdofHermasplainlyknewofJohn'sApocalypse(Cf.Westcott,GeneralSurvey...,pp.77and201).


36. C. C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, (Philadelphia,WestminsterPress),p.123.

37.Richardson,loc.cit.,p.125.

38.Cf.theff.referencesClement'sEpistletotheCorinthians42:1;44:1;47:1; Ignatius' Seven Epistles: Ephesians 11:2; 12:2; Magnesians 13:1;Trallians3:2:4:3;7:1;Romans4:3;Philadelphians5:1;9:1;Smyrnaeans8:1;Polycarp'sEpistletothePhilippians3:2;9:1;DidacheIntroduction.

39.Clement'sLettertotheCorinthians42:1;44:1;47:1.

40.IgnatiusLetterstotheEphesians11:2;Magnesians13:1;Trallians3:2,3;Romans4:3;Philadelphians5:1;Smyrnaeans8:1.

41.Polycarp'sLettertothePhilippians3:2.

42.Westcott,loc.cit.,pp.56,57.

II.TheEarlyHeresies

Three early heresies assisted the church in putting together its officialunderstanding and list of the canonical books. Repeatedly in churchhistory God has over-ruled heresy for the purpose of making clearimportant doctrinalmatters for his church. This is especially truewithregard to the decisive doctrine of the canon. The church's nativecanonicalinstinct,itsfaiththatGodhadrevealedHimselfwithauthoritythroughcertainspecificmenandtheirwritings,attaineddoctrinalclarityin response to Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism.Gnosticismespecially in its earlier forms tended to claim a direct revelation fromChristwhichbypassedorminimizedtheapostles.Inresponsethechurchbecame aware of the importance of stressing the apostolic andwrittencharacter of its authority.The fact of the canon became clear throughGnosticism.Marcionism, a later and modified form of Gnosticism,acceptedpartsoftheNewTestament,butrejectedtheOldTestamentandanypartstooclearlyinfluencedbyit.Marcionismmadethechurchawareof the danger of diminishing the canon.The need tomaintain the fullextent of the canon became clear through Marcionism.Montanismclaimedpropheticrevelationsinthelatesecondcentury.Inresponsethechurchthoughtaboutonthe limitsof thebiblicalcanon.TheclosingorlimitationofthecanonbecameclearthroughMontanism.

Richardson is simply giving a statement which almost all churchhistoriansagreeaboutwhenheremarksonthissubject:"Thedominantinterest of the second century Church was the ordering of its life andteaching. To preserve the apostolicwitness againstGnostic perversionsandMontanist extravagances, the episcopate, the canon, and the creedwere developed." (1)Our interest is in theway inwhich these heresiesforcedthechurchmakeclearandcarefullystateitscanon.WebeginwithGnosticism.

A.Gnosticism

1.HistoricalOrigins

Gnosticism, it is now commonly granted, was a professedly Christianmanifestation of an intellectualmovement already flowing through theHellenisticworldwhentheMessiahwasborn.Richardsonremarks:

Gnosticism is older than Christianity. It represents the fusion[combining--SW] of Oriental and Greek ideas into various elaborate[complicated--SW] systems whose aim is to acquire "gnosis" orknowledge of thedivine.Ancientmythologicalmaterial is blendedwithphilosophicandreligiousideas.Sometimesthedominatinginterestisthephilosophicone--theproblemoftheoneandthemany.Atothertimesthereligiouselementisprimary,andsalvationissoughtfromtheinsecurityandevilofthenaturalworld.Popularmagicalnotionsalsoenterin;andthe vast movement of Gnosis had manifold forms throughout theHellenisticworld.Gnosis isknowledgebasedonrevelation,but it isnotintellectualknowledge.Itissavingknowledge,enablingthesoultoescapethe fluxandchangeof lifeand to find theassuranceof immortality. Bythe truegnosis the soul is freed from the evil prisonhouseof the bodyintowhichithasfallen,andempoweredtoascendtoitsoriginalhomeinthespiritualworld.(2)

Though it preceded Christianity, it soon came into contact with andinfected it. In Acts 8 the New Testament records the professedconversion,wickedambition,andfinalrejectionofSimonMagus.HaroldO.J.Browncomments:

Gnostic motifs were already felt in Christian circles in the Age of theApostles. Early church tradition attributes the rise of Gnosticism toSimonMagus,brieflymentionedinActs8:9-24....Latertraditionstellusthat he went to Rome, where he competed with the Apostle Peter andfoundedagnosticsect.(3)

WealsoclearlymeetthereplytoGnostictendencies intheEpistlesandperhapsalsotheGospelofJohn.WewillturntothosewritingsduringthecourseofourdiscussionofChristianGnosticism.Earlytraditionrecordsa long list of Gnostic teachers who clothed themselves in the robes ofChristianity.We know of Cerinthus who lived in Ephesus at the sametime as the Apostle John. Also worthy of mention are Saturninus,Basilides,Valentinus,and,ofcourse,Marcion.

2.TypicalFeatures

Brown in summarizing the features of the system of Saturninus (also

knownasSaturnilus)providesuswithahelpfulsummaryof the typicalfeaturesofmostGnosticsystems:

InthevisionofrealitydevelopedbySaturnilus,threethingsstandout:(1)thenotionofadescendingchainofintermediate,moreorlesscorruptiblespiritualpowersbetweentheunknowableFatherandtheworld;thesearecalled "aeons" from a Greek word usually translated "ages," but herehaving the special meaning of godlike spiritual entity. The God of theJewsandhisangelsaredegenerate,base[bad--SW]aeons,Christagoodone. (2) Superimposed [placed against the background--SW] on thischainisadualismbetweenthespiritualworldandthematerialworld;thespiritualentities[beings],theaeons,maybegoodorevil,butthematerialworld is the product of evil aeons and is itself evil. (3) The specificallygnostic ideaofsalvation involves the liberationof theembodiedhumanspiritsfromtheirprisonsoffleshandtheirreturntotheFather.(4)

Clearly, we have here a system embodying the two Hellenistic idea ofemanationbywhichthe infinitegodismediatedtothefiniteworldandtheideaofaspirit/fleshdualisminwhichthefleshisinnatelyevilandthespiritviewedasinnatelygood.

The way in which this idea was worked out in the Gnostic systemsinvolved fantastic,mythic, and complex pantheons. Says Brown again:"AccordingtoValentinus,ChrististheoffspringofSophia,thelastofthethirtyhighestaeonswhomakeupthepleroma,orfullness,oftheaeons.HerevealstheFathertothosewhohavespiritualnaturesandleadsthemtosalvationbyapathofenlightenment."(5)

Suchasystem,ofcourse,sufferedtheself-inflictedfateofattemptingtoreconcile the un-reconcilable. If spirit and flesh are really total andinfinite opposites then no number of emanations from the infinite godcanspanthegulfbetweenthem.Browncomments:

Nevertheless,ifonebeginswiththepresuppositionthatthespiritualcanhavenothingtodowiththematerial,itisdifficulttoseehowincreasingthenumberof intermediate beings reallymakes the leap from spirit tomatter easier or more plausible. Irenaeus lampoons the system ofValentinusinasatireinwhichtheutterlyspiritualaeon,OnlyBegotten,

produces another spiritual aeon, Utternothingness, which in turnproduces an aeon called Gourd--palpable [physical--SW], edible [eat-able], and utterly [thoroughly--SW] delicious. Gourd in turn producesCucumber,andthesefourthengenerateall theother"delirious[crazy--SW]melonsofValentinus."(6)

3.DistinguishingMarks

Whensuchpremisesweremadethestarting-pointofare-interpretationofChristianity,it isnotsurprisingthattheywroughthavoc[chaos--SW]andgeneratedheresy.TheEpistleof1Johnisnowcommonlyunderstoodtobedirected againstGnosticism. This Cnosticismdisplayed itself as akindofsuper-Christianity.JohnStottcomments:

Thishas ledamajorityof commentators todiscover theheretics in theranksofthegnosticswhosepreoccupationwaswithdeliverancefromthe`flesh', which they regarded as the soul's material imprisonment.`Gnosticismisabroadtermembracingvariouspagan,Jewishandsemi-Christiansystems. ...Plummer sumsup its twomainprinciples as `theimpurityofmatter'and`thesupremacyofknowledge'.(7)

1 John reveals at least three deviant tendencies of the ChristianizedGnosticismtroublingthechurchestowhichJohnwaswriting.

a.ChristologicalDocetism

Themost foundationalanddistinctiveof theheresieswhichGnosticismbegatinitsrapeofChristianitywasadoceticviewofthepersonofChrist.Docetismderivedfrom theGreekverb, ,meaning to thinkor seemwastheviewwhichdeniedtherealhumanityand thematerial realityof theChrist.Specifically,theseteacherstaughtthattheheavenlyChristwasnottheearthlyJesus,butdescendedonhimatbaptismleavingJesusbeforehe died (1 John 2:22; 4:2, 3, 15, 5:1). It is this view which makesintelligiblethesomewhatmysteriouslanguageof1John5:5-11(cf.Mark1:9-11). Docetism was, of course, the natural result of the spirit/fleshdichotomyofGnosticthought.WhereveritlaterinfluencedChristianityitalmost inevitably begat Docetism. Marcion, the classic example ofChristianized Gnosticism almost a century later, also had a Docetic

Christology.Kelly remarks: "Marcion's Christology, too, was docetic atanyrateasregardstheLord'sbody."(8)

b.ArrogantElitism

Anelitistas Iamusing ithere isonewho thinks thathe isby inherentrightoneof thechosenfewanddespisesthosewhoarenot.Gnosticismwaselitistthroughandthrough.Brownremarks:

Thegnosticmovementhastwosalient[striking--SW]featuresthatappealto countlessminds in every age, i. e. the claim to present a secret lore[knowledge--SW],explainingotherwiseincomprehensible[impossibletounderstand--SW] mysteries, and the assertion that its secrets areaccessibleonly to theelite--thusby implicationdefiningaseliteallwhotakeanactiveinterestinthem.(9)

A detailed, threefold ranking of men and explanation of the origin ofthese divisions was often provided in Gnostic theory. Speaking of theChristianizedGnosticismofValentinusKellyremarks:

Whenhemademan,hefirstmade`theearthyman',andthenbreathedhis own psychic substance into him; but without his knowledgeAchamothplantedpneuma, or spirit, born fromherself, in the souls ofcertainmen.ThisspiritualelementyearnsforGodandsalvationconsistsin its liberationfromthe lowerelementswithwhich it isunited.This isthe task which the Savior Jesus accomplishes. According to theirconstitution, there are three classes ofmen--the carnal ormaterial, thepsychicandthepneumatic.Thosewhoarecarnalcannot inanycasebesaved,while in order to attain redemption the pneumatic only need toapprehendtheteachingofJesus.Thepsychicclasscanbesaved,thoughwithdifficulty,throughtheknowledgeandimitationofJesus.(10)

Thespiritualclassofmenweresometimesidentifiedbymeansofbiblicalterminologyaselect.It isalsoprobablethatthedistinctionbetweenthepsychic and the pneumatic class of men was also used to distinguishbetween ordinary, un-enlightened Christians and the Gnostic super-Christians.

In1Johnthisarrogantelitismappearstobevisibleatanumberofplaces(1John2:19,20andcf.2:9-11,4:20,21).TheGnosticelitismmayprovideacluetotheemphaticuniversalismof1John2:2whereChristissaidtobe"thepropitiationforoursins;andnotforoursonly,butalsoforthoseof the whole world." Arminians have often urged this text against theCalvinisticviewofelection.ItisbetterunderstoodasaddressedagainstaGnosticandelitistperversionofelection inwhich theelectas naturallyandbycreationdifferentfromtherestofmen.

Aswehavesuggested, thiselitism isclosely related to theclaimsof theGnosticsthattheyhavebeenperfectedthroughtheirsecretknowledge.Itmay be such claims of special knowledge and perfection that John ispiercingly confrontingwhen he claims for all Christians perfection andknowledge(1John2:5,20,27).

c.MoralIndifferentism

TheGnosticideathatthereisanabsolutecontrastbetweenthespiritandthe flesh could lead (as historians commonly note) to two widely andseemingly differentmoral results: asceticism (the view that seesmoralvalueindenyingthebodylegitimatepleasuresandneeds)orlibertinism(the view that sees nothing wrong with indulging every desire of thebody).Bruceremarks:

In its practical consequences for daily life, Gnosticism was usuallyassociatedwithastrictasceticism.ThistendencyappearsasearlyastheincipientGnosticismattackedintheEpistletotheColossians,wherethetendencyofthisteachingissummarizedinthewords,"Touchnot, tastenot,handlenot."Thereissomeevidence,indeed,foraGnosticismwhichdrewdirectlyoppositecorollaries[conclusions--SW]fromthedoctrineofthe inherent [innate--SW] worthlessness of matter; the body, it wasargued, is material and therefore morally indifferent [withoutimportance--SW], and its desires may be indulged at will without anyharmfulconsequences[results--SW]tothetruelifeofthespirit.ButthisoutlookwasnotcharacteristicofthemainGnosticschools.(11)

AtfirstglanceitseemstobethislattertendencywhichcharacterizedtheChristianizedGnosticismattackedbyJohninhisfirstepistle(1John2:3,

4;3:7-9).ItisperhapspossiblethatthedespisingoflawbytheGnosticsassumedinthesepassagesreflectsnotsomuchlibertinismasasenseofmoralsuperioritywhichput themaboveandbeyond the lawsandruleswhichboundordinaryChristians(1John1:6-10).Bruceremarks,"Onthepractical level these new teachers claimed to have reached such anadvancedstageinspiritualexperiencethattheywere`beyondgoodandevil'. (12) Clearly, such a view was almost always a prophecy of moraldisaster.Thus,wemayrightlydescribeitasmoralindifferentism.

Wemustnowexaminehow theseclaimsdirectlyeffected thesubjectofrevelationandthecanon.

4.RevelatoryClaims

The name, Gnosticism, is derived from the claim of these sects to aspecialdivinerevelationorknowledge,agnosis().BrowncommentsonhowthisnameindeedspecifiesadistinctivefeatureofGnosticism.

Thegnosticmovementhastwosalient[striking--SW]featuresthatappealto countlessminds in every age, i. e. the claim to present a secret lore[knowledge--SW],explainingotherwiseincomprehensible[impossibletounderstand--SW] mysteries, and the assertion that its secrets areaccessibleonly to theelite--thusby implicationdefiningaseliteallwhotakeanactiveinterestinthem.(13)

PartofthesubtletyandappealofthisclaimtognosisisthatChristianityitselfdidinitsownsensemakeaclaimtopossessaspecialknowledgeofGodnotpossessedby the un-spiritual (Matt. 13:11; 1 Cor. 2:6-16). It isthisthatexplainsthetendencyofsomemoreorlessorthodox,ChristiantheologianslikeClementandOrigenofAlexandriatopresentChristianityas a gnosis for the spiritual and to describe mature and well-taughtChristians as gnostics. (14) Because of this superficial and verbalsimilarity between Christianity and gnosticmodes of thought. it is notsurprising that gnostic teachers might easily pass themselves off asChristianand,perhaps,eventhinkthattheywere.

TheobstacleinthewayofthisgnosticreinterpretationofChristianitywasthe fundamental difference between the view of the universe held by

Gnosticismand thatheldbyChristianity.Both could speakof a specialrevelationanda savior,but thesesuperficial similaritiesweregroundedincompletelydifferentviewsoftheuniverse.TheGnosticspresupposedafundamental and ultimate distinction between the spirit and the flesh,resolved all ethical distinctions into it, and attempted to span the gapbetween the spirit and the flesh by a complex theory of personalemanations.Christianity in contrast saw the fundamentaldistinctionasthatbetweenCreatorandcreature,taughtthatthematerialworldwasagood creation of God, and taught that sin was an ethical rather thanontological (related to being) matter. Thus, it was at the point of theassessment of the flesh as it came to expression in the vital Christiandoctrines of the resurrection of the body and the person of Christ thatclearandirreconcilabledifferenceswereevidentbetweenauthenticandgnosticizedChristianity.SoimportantandstrategicwerethesedoctrinestoChristianitythatitwasimpossibletodisguisethedifferencesbetweenGnosticismandChristianitytoeventhemostsimpleofminds.Wefind,therefore, even so non-theological a soul as Ignatius taking issue withGnostictendenciesinhislettersatjustthesepoints:

For it was for our sakes that he suffered all this, to save us. And hegenuinelysuffered,asevenhegenuinelyraisedhimself.Itisnotassomeunbelieverssay, thathisPassionwasasham. It's theywhoareasham!Yes, and their fate will fit their fancies--they will be ghosts andapparitions.

Formyself,Iamconvincedandbelievethatevenaftertheresurrectionhewasintheflesh.Indeed,whenhecametoPeterandhisfriendshesaidtothem,"Takeholdofme,touchmeandseethatIamnotabodilessghost."And they at once touched him andwere convinced, clutching his bodyandhisverybreath.Forthisreasontheydespiseddeathitself,andproveditsvictors.Moreover,after theresurrectionheateanddrankwiththemasarealhumanbeing,althoughinspirithewasunitedwiththeFather.(15)

Because of this emphasis on the reality of Christ's flesh IgnatiusemphasizesthenecessityofbeingcommittedtoChrist"inbodyandsoul"(16) and also stresses that the Lord's Supper "is [represents?--SW] thefleshofourSaviourJesusChrist"(17).

The obvious contrast between Apostolic Christianity and gnosticizedChristianityforcedtheearliestGnostichereticstoclaimarevelationfromChristwhichbypassed,overruled,orgenerallyovershadowedthegospelpreachedbytheApostles.Henceitisin1JohnthattheApostlelayssuchemphaticstressontheeyewitnessauthorityofhispreaching(1John1:1-3).Theuseofthefirstperson,pluralpronouninthisopeningstatementof1JohnisaclearreferenceinthiscontexttothejointeyewitnessoftheappointedapostlesofChrist.AccordingtoActs1:22onetechnicalnamefor the apostles was a "witness". This gives a pointed emphasis to thestatement of 1 John 4:4-6 (cf. also 4:13, 14) in which John explicitlycontrasts"you","they",and"we"."YouarefromGod"hesaystothetrueChristians. "They are from the world" he says of the gnostic falseteachers. "We are fromGod" he asserts of theApostles and goes on tomakethisstartlingandemphaticclaim,"hewhoknowsGodlistenstous;hewhoisnotfromGoddoesnotlistentous.Bythisweknowthespiritoftruth and the spirit of error."Here John declares that the standard bywhich true Christianity and false Christianity is to be discerned is thestandardof theApostolicproclamationof thegospel.There isnoother,further, or secret gospelwhich bypasses the public proclamation of theApostlesofChrist.This is thepointof theemphasis in 1John2on thefactthattheyallknow(1John2:20,27).

After theApostlesdied, itwasno longernecessarytoclaimarevelationwhichbypassedthem.SeveralotheralternativescouldbeutilizedbytheGnosticstogivetheirteachinganappearanceofauthority.Atthispointitwas only necessary to pen counterfeit gospels and letters which wereascribedtoapostles;ortheycouldalsobymeansofawayofinterpretingwhich used allegory draw their theories from the genuinely apostolicdocuments. (18) Finally, they could claim that the apostles themselvesreserved a secret gnosis for thoseChristiansworthy of it. SaysKelly ofTertullian who was refuting the Gnostics of this later period, "He wasemphaticthatnosecrettraditionexisted,andthat itwasincrediblethatthe apostles did not know or failed to pass on, the revelation in itsentirety."(19)

TheclaimsofGnosticismtoasecretrevelation,thus,veryearlyforcedthechurch to self-consciously reflect on its sources and authorities. The

responseofthechurchtoGnosticismemphasizedtwoimportantfeaturesofitscanonorstandardoffaithandlife.Itwasanapostolicstandard.Itwasapublic--notasecret--standard.Thepublicnatureof thisstandardcaused the church to emphasize theApostolic office, that is to say, thepresumedorthodoxy of churches foundedbyApostles and led in directsuccession by men descended from the elders first appointed by theapostles.ItalsoledthechurchtoemphasizetheApostles'Creed,thatistosay awritten summaryof theApostolic faithbasedupon thebaptismalvows takenby everyChristian.Finally, andmost importantly it led thechurch to emphasize, collect, and discriminate the genuinely Apostolicwritings from writings falsely claiming apostolic authorship andespeciallyhereticalwritings.

B.Marcionism

1.TheDescriptionofMarcion

Whatweknowforcertainoftheheretic,MarcioniswellsummarizedbythearticleinTheNewSchaff-HerzogReligiousEncyclopedia:

The facts of the early career ofMarcion are difficult to establish partlybecauseofthetendencyofecclesiasticalwriters,fromwhominformationof him is gained, to believe and report damaging stories concerningheretics. The principal sources for his life are the writings of JustinMartyr, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Tertullian, and thesewriters are not in entire accord. His birthplace is given as Sinope, inPahplagonia, on the Euxine, and he is described as a shipmaster ofPontus.TertulliantellsofhiscomingfromPontus(c.140)andjoiningtheChristian community at Rome, in the first warmth of his faith makingthemapresentof200,000sestertii....HespeaksofhisdifferenceswiththeRomancommunity,ofhisexcommunication,ofthereturnofhisgift,and of his attaching himself afterward to theGnostic teacher Cerdo ....AccordingtothesameauthoritytheMarcionitesdatedthetimeof theirmaster'sseparationfromtheChurch....theautumnof144.Justininhisfirstapologywritten about 150 ... notices the great activity ofMarcion.Irenaeus...speaksofMarcion'sflourishing[beingactiveandhavinggreatinfluence--SW]undertheepiscopateofAnicetus(154-165)andtellshowPolycarpmetMarcion and addressed him as the first-born of Satan ....

Thesegivethefewcertainfactsinregardtomarcion'slife,hisseparationfromthechurchin144,hisstudyofGnosticism,andhisfoundationofaseparateChristiancommunity.(20)

The author of this article omits some facts he considers doubtful. It isrumoredinearly traditionsthathewasthesonof theBishopofSinopeandthusraisedinaChristianhome.Itissupposedthatbymeansofthisupbringinghebecameespeciallyenamoredof thewritingsofPaul. It isalso said that his own father excommunicated him for `corrupting avirgin'.Forreasonsalreadygivenintheabovequotedarticleparticularlythislastpieceofinformationmayneedtobetreatedwithsuspicion.

2.TheRelationtoGnosticism

It is plain from the information already given thatMarcionwas highlyinfluencedbyGnosticism,particularly theGnostic teacher,Cerdo.WithGnosticismhedistinguishedbetweentheOldTestamentgodandtheGodandFatherof theLordJesusChrist.He also taught docetism, the viewthat Christ only seemd to be a trueman, at least in amodified form--denying that the Christ was born ofMary and teaching rather that hedescendedfromheaven.His`purified'gospelbeginswiththewords:"InthefifteenthyearoftheEmperorTiberiusGodcamedowntoCapernaumandtaughtonthesabbathdays".(21)

Marcionalsoinculcatedasceticism.Themembersofhisrivalchurchwereexpected be celibate, abstaining from sex andmarriage, and engage inotherasceticpractices.Thus,wemayundoubtedlyclassMarcionismasaformofGnosticism.

Nevertheless, it is proper to see several distinctions which show thatMarcionism was distinct from Gnosticism. Primary among thesedistinctions must be noted a real though perverted interest in thedoctrine of grace. Marcion's major original work the Antitheses.Accordingtothearticlecitedabove,this"wasasemi-dogmatictreatise[adoctrinal book claiming some authority--SW] contrasting contradictorysentencesfromthelawandtheGospel."(22)Thesamewritergoesontoremark:

ForhimPaulalonewas the trueapostle; yethedisregarded theJewishelements inPaulinism.The favoritePauline antithesesbetween the lawandtheGospel,angerandgrace,worksandfaith,fleshandspirit,sinandrighteousness, death and life, were congenial [harmonious--SW] to histhought and germane [appropriate--SW] to his method. In Marcion'ssystem the Gospel of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ is given somuch weight that it caused him to view the Church conception of theGospelasanunpermissiblefalsification[unlawfulforgery--SW].(23)

Another featurewhichemphasizes thesupremacyof this interest in lawandgraceofMarcionandmakeshimdifferentfromotherGnosticsishisfailuretodevelopthecomplexpantheonofemanations(thecomplicatedunderstanding of all the different gods coming from the first god)presentedby otherGnostic teachers of his own era likeValentinusandBasilides.Saysthesameauthorjustquoted:

Marcion's teaching is particularly remarkable for its lack of interest inmetaphysicalquestions[theoreticalquestionsaboutGodandbeing].Itiscertain,however,thathedidnotregardtheCosmos[world--SW]asthecreation of the supreme God; it was the production of a demiurge [alessergod--SW]....MarciondiffersentirelyfromValentinusinfailingtodiscusseons.Marcion'sthoughtconcernsitselfentirelywiththereligiousrecordsoftheJewsandtheChristians.(24)

MarcionismdifferedfromGnosticism,then,inbeinglessfantastic,morerestrainedandpractical,andmoreinterestedinquestionsofagenuinelyChristiancharacter.

3.TheContributiontoCanon

TherelevanceofMarcion to thesubjectof theNewTestamentcanon isindisputable. In the words of F. F. Bruce, "Marcion is the first personknowtouswhopublishedafixedcollectionofwhatweshouldcallNewTestamentbooks.Othersmayhavedonesobeforehim;ifso,wehavenoknowledgeofthem."(25)

Marcion'scanonwas,however,significantlydifferentthanthecanonweknowtoday.SaysKelly:

His dualism [the view that there are two equal and opposite gods, onegoodandone evil--SW], however, ledhim to reject theOldTestament,and itwasnatural thathe should seek to canonizeanalternative setofScriptures for use inhis church. St. Paul, so outspokenly hostile to theLaw,was his hero, and he regarded such Christianwritings as seemedinfected[poisoned]withaJewishoutlookassuspect[questionable--SW].Hence the list he drafted consisted of St. Luke's Gospel, with allseemingly Judaizing passages excised, and ten Pauline epistles (all, infact,exceptthePastorals)similarlyexpurgated[cleansed--SW].(26)

Because of the facts given above,Marcion has sometimes been exaltedintothepositionofthecreatoroftheideaoftheNewTestamentcanon.(27)Thefactsseemmoreconsistentwiththeideathat,farfrombeingacreator, he was a mutilator of the Christian canon. Kelly perceptivelyremarks:

The significance of Marcion's action should not be misunderstood. Hehas sometimes been acclaimed (e. g. by the great German scholarHarnack)astheoriginator[beginner--SW]oftheCatholiccanon,butthisisanextravagant[excessive--SW]pointofview.TheChurchalreadyhadits roughly defined collection, or (to be more precise) collections, ofChristian books which, as we have seen, it was beginning to treat asScripture.(28)

With this limiting of the importance of Marcion in mind, we may yetallowthatMarcion'sheresywasofgreatsignificancetothechurchanditsacceptanceofthecanonbythereactionitcreated.Kellyfurtherremarks:

Nevertheless, if the idea of a specifically Christian canon was deeplyrootedintheChurch'sownconvictionsandpractice,Marcionplayedanimportant part in the practical emergence [coming out--SW] of one.What none of the great ecclesiastical centres, so far as we know, haddone, and what his initiative [ambition--SW] seems to have provokedthemtodo,wastodelimit[setthelimitsof--SW]theirlistsofauthorizedChristianbooksinapublic,officialway.(29)

At more length Orr shrewdly summarizes the significance of theMarcioniteheresyfortheacceptanceoftheNewTestamentcanon.

Thefirst importantgainto theChurchfromthecontroversy inwhich ithad been plunged, was the collection of a body of New TestamentScriptures,ortheformation[puttingtogether--SW]ofaNewTestamentcanon. It is not that the Church did not know itself before this timepossessed of inspired and authoritative writings. The Gospels inparticularhadlongbeeninuseinthechurches,andcollectionshadearlybeen made of Paul's Epistles. Such collections, however, grew upnaturally,informally,withaviewtopurposesofedification,andwithnoidea consciously present of forming what we mean by a Canon ofScripture.WehaveonlytorecallhowneartheChurchofsecondcenturystood to the Apostolic Age, and what stress was still laid on livingApostolictradition,toseehowfaritwouldliefrommen'smindstoerectthesewritings of Apostles and Apostolicmen into a permanent rule offaith and practice for the whole Church. Now under pressure of theGnostic controversy, when the Church was faced with the mutilatedCanon of theMarcion, and saw its borders overrun by pseudonymous[falselynamed--SW]andapocryphal[doubtful--SW]productions,itwasinevitablethatitshouldbeimpelledtosetaboutinrightearnestmakingacollectionofthebookswhichitdidregardasApostolic--whichitknewfrom their history and long-established use to be so--and that theseshould be definitely separated from the floating mass and raised to apositionofexclusive[sole--SW]authority.(30)

Thus, if Gnosticism taught the church by its errors the necessity of anapostolic and public canon, the further phase of Gnosticism known asMarcionism made plain the danger of a mutilated canon. Thus, itimpresseduponthechurchthenecessityofmaintainingthecanoninitsfullextentwithoutbeingdiminished.

C.Montanism

Introduction:

As is often the casewithmovementswhichwere finally rejectedby themainstreamchurchinitsearlierhistory,itisdifficulttoknowhowmuchof what the orthodox writers say about Montanism to regard asbelievable. Two things, however, at least tend make our informationabout theMontanistsmore believable. First, at a number of points we

have statements bymade by theMontanists themselves which tend toconfirmthegeneralviewtakenofthembytheorthodoxwriters.Second,theoppositionofferedtotheMontanistswasmoremixed.Thus,wehaveinformation from more orthodox writers which tends to be moresympathetictowardMontanism.Theclassicexampleofsuchsympathyisnoone less thanTertullianhimselfwho isoftenas tohis laterministryidentifiedasaMontanist.For these reasonswemaybe fairly confidentthatwehavethefactsabouttheMontanistsright.

Churchhistorians have frequently noted thatMontanism represents anoppositereaction in theSecondCentury toGnosticismandMontanism.MarcionismandGnosticismareseenasmovementsofaspeculativeandintellectual character, while Montanism is seen as more subjective orexperiential and practical in character. (31) In this case the practical,subjectiveextremeappearssomewhatlesshereticalthanthetheoretical,intellectualone. In fact the application of the term, heresy, in its strictsensetoMontanismisnotrightbecausewithregardtobasiccontentofthe orthodox faith in the second half of the second century it wasorthodox.Lawlorremarks:

Montanus,itistrue,didnotconsciouslydeviate[departfrom--SW]fromecclesiasticaldogma [official churchdoctrine--SW].HisopponentsbearwitnessthatheacceptedthecanonicalScripturesandwasorthodoxwithregardtotheresurrectionofthedeadandthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Butin another sphere his innovations [inventions--SW] were considerable[significant].(32)

This statement of Lawlor must be taken with some measure ofqualificationsinceneitherwithregardtotheCanon,northeTrinitywasthedoctrineofthechurchverydefinedinthelateSecondCentury.Yetitis certainly true that Montanism's novelties while serious were not asfoundationalasthoseofGnosticismintheircharacter.Thedeviationsordepartures of Gnosticism and Montanism were quite dissimilar.Richardson says, "At the opposite pole to Gnosticism stands theMontanist movement ..." (33) This drastic difference in the twodeviations served, however, to underscore two distinct concerns withregardtothesubjectofthenewTestamentcanon.Bruceasserts:

The Montanist challenge from one direction, like the Marcionite andgnosticchallengesfromotherdirections,madeitthemoreimportantthatthe limits of holy scripture should be clearly defined. Holy scripture,properlydefined,wouldprovideacheckonuncontrolledprophecyas itdidonaundisciplinedspeculation.(34)

It is the significance ofMontanism for the New Testament canon thatleadsustotakeitupinthepresentconnection.Wewillconsideritunderfiveheadings:

1.HistoricalOrigin

2.DistinctiveIdentity

3.EcclesiasticalOpposition

4.LaterDevelopment

5.CanonicalSignificance

1.HistoricalOrigin

LawlorprovidesuswiththemajorfactsconnectedwiththeearlyhistoryofMontanism:

Themovementnow generally known, from the name of its founder, asMontanismhaditsbirthatavillagecalledArdabauinthepartofMysiaadjoining Phrygia, probably not far from Philadelphia. ... There, as itseems, about A. D. 156, Montanus, a recent convert, who had been apaganpriest,begantoprophesy.Hisprophesyingswereaccompaniedbystrange phenomena [events--SW] resembling those associated withdemonical possession. .... After a time--as seems to be implied, aconsiderable [lengthy--SW] time--Montanuswas joined by twowomen,Maximilla andPriscilla, orPrisca,whowithhis sanction deserted theirhusbands,andwhoalsoclaimedtopossessthepropheticcharisma.Theirutterancesweresimilarinmatterandinmannertothoseoftheirleader.....Wearenotsurprisedto learnthatthissuddenoutburstofprophecy,andtheclaimsthatweremadeforitsleaders,provokedmuchopposition.Many of those who heard Montanus and his companions would have

silenced them. Two Phrygian bishops made an ineffectual attempt to`prove and refute' the spirit that spoke inMaximilla; anotherwhohadcome fromAnchiale inThrace, attempted to exorcize [cast demons outof--SW]Priscilla. At first, we are told, themovement advanced slowly:`but fewof thePhrygiansweredeceived.'But after a tim, it seems, themajority of the Phrygian Christians became adherents [followers] ofMontanus.Thusonlycanweaccountforthefactthatatanearlyperiodhis followers were commonly spoken as `the Phrygians,' and theirteachingas`theheresyofthePhrygians'NotlongafterthebeginningoftheprophesyingMontanuscrossedthePhrygianborderand establishedhimself with his followers in the city of Pepuza ... Pepuza, with theneighboringvillageofTymion,henamedJerusalem.Tothissettlement,whichwasthenceforwardthecentreandholycityofEasternMontanism,he endeavored to gather adherents [followers] from all quarters. thesefacts coupled with the lavish promises made by the prophets to theiradherents[followers]andcertainpredictionsofMaximilla...apartfromamore explicit oracle [clear prophecy--SW] attributed to anotherprophetess ... would lead us to the conclusion that the `new prophecy'taughtmentoexpectinthenearfuture,atPepuza,thefinalParousiaofthe Lord .... The primitive Montanists, in fact, held the doctrine ofchiliasm[premillenialism],butchiliasm[premillenialism]ofanewkind.ItwasthishopeoftheParousiaattheirJerusalemthatgainedforthemthe name of Pepuzians .... It is not necessary to pursue the history ofEastern Montanism in detail. For some years after the death ofMaximilla, the last of the original trio, in 179-180, there were noprophets, and the church and theworld enjoyed peace--factswhich, asanti-Montanistic writers pointed out, disproved the claims of the firstprophets.(35)

To this basic account there needs to be added only two additionalcomments. First, the reason that the death of Maximilla tended todisprove the Montanist prophecy is that she had associated her deathwiththeendoftheage.(36)Second,itisimportanttonotethatPhrygiawasnotedforanationaltendencytoecstaticformsofreligion.This isakindof religion that claimsdirect revelation fromGodwhichcauses itsrecipients to behave wildly. Says Bonwetsch, "Montanus, but recentlybecomeaChristian, appeared inavillageofPhrygiaas suchaprophet.

He is saidbyJerome tohavebeen formerly apriest ofCybele, and the`newprophecy'wasdoubtless influencedby thewildenthusiasmof thePhrygianreligiousnature."(37)

2.DistinctiveIdentity

Introduction:

WehavealreadynotedthatinsubstancetheMontanisttendedtosupportSecond Century Christian orthodoxy, especially as over against theGnostic heretics. Nevertheless, their deviations or departures wereserious enough eventually to draw down upon their heads theecclesiasticalcensureorofficialrebukeoftheÒldCatholicChurch'.Wemustbrieflyelaboratefouroftheirdistinctivepeculiarities.

a.TheirNewProphetism

The orthodox writers are filled with polemic or arguments against thenovel formwhich theMontanistprophecy took, and it seems to safe toassume that the `newprophecy'wasquitedifferent from that towhichthechurchwasaccustomedorusedtoinitsrememberedexperienceandinitssacredwritings.Lawlorremarks:

In what way his exercise of the prophetic charisma [gift--SW] wasregardedbyhisopponentsasdifferingfromthatofthegenuineprophetswe have various hints from nearly contemporary documents: he spokewhilehewasactuallyinastateofecstasy;thetrueprophetsreceivedtheirmessage in ecstasy [a state inwhich one loses control of oneself--SW],butdidnotdeliver it till their faculties returned toanormal condition.Moreover, the ècstasy' ofMontanuswas kind ofmadness deliberatelyinduced,whereas prophets, acknowledged as such by theChurch, evenwhen in a state of ecstasy, were of soundmind; .... In agreementwiththesestatementsanoracleofMontanusdeclaresthattheprophetisasalyreplayeduponbythedivineplectrum;andtheforminwhichmostofhis extant utterances are cast implies that he was a mere passiveinstrument,andthatthephraseswhichfellfromhislipswereactuallytheipsissimaverba[verywords--SW]oftheDeity.Hisopponentsremindedhimofthestyleoftheancientprophets,whoashumanagentsproclaimed

thewillofGod--`ThussaiththeLord.'(38)

The Montanist reply to the orthodox contrasts between the propheticformofMontanismandbiblicalprophecyacknowledgedthatthecontrastwasreal,butexplaineditonthegroundsofitsfinalityandsupremacyoftheirprophecies.

There can be no doubt that Montanus maintained that this `newprophesying' differed essentially from all preceding prophecy. Thus thenoveltyof its formwastobeexplained.Itwas the fulfillment--so itwasalleged--oftheLord'spromiseofthecomingoftheParaclete(John14:12-18).TheapostleshadnottheperfectionoftheholySpirit(1Cor.13:8-10);thiswas reserved for thenewprophets, ofwhomChrist spoke inMatt.23:34.ThisisstatedtobetheMontanistdoctrinebymanywriters,anditis the basis of the exaggerated [extreme--SW] assertion of Eusebius ...thatMontanusclaimedthathehimselfwastheParaclete.(39)

Thisviewofthemselvesandthenewprophecyinevitably,thoughperhapsnot intentionally, tended to the idea that it overruled all previousrevelation.SaysLawloragain:

Itisevidentthattheacceptanceofthe`newprophecy'asembodyingthefinalteachingoftheParaclete,andas insomesensesupersedingearlierrevelation, was the cardinal principle of Montanism. This is mademanifest by the very phrase `new prophecy' constantly used by itsadherents [followers]; by the title which they arrogated [usurped orsiezed--SW]tothemselves,asdistinguishingthemfromotherChristians() ... andby thepolemics of anti-Montanistwriters,whose argument ismainly directed to proving that this`so-called prophecy' was in truth afalseprophecyproceedingfromthespiritofevil.(40)

The implicit or subtle canonical claimsof such a viewof its propheciescannotbeavoided.InsomesenseMontanistprophecyclaimedtobringtocompletion previous revelation. This seems to mean that it claimed arelation to theNewTestamentwritings somewhat similar to thatwhichthe new Testament writings claim to the Old Testament. Bonwetschagrees:

TheMontanistsappealedinsupportoftheirownformofprophecytotheexamples of ecstasy [a state in which the prophet loses control of hisbody--SW]recordedintheBible,yetatthesametimeclaimedthattheirmodewasaproofofthemagnitudeofthenewrevelation.Itwas,indeed,thecompletionofthelawofChrist,andinitthepromisedParacletehadappeared,sincethetimeof fullmaturityhadnowreplacedchildhood(1Cor.13:11).Thenewprophecy, therefore,notonlywasaprotestagainstsuppression,butalsoclaimedtheright,inviewoftheapproachingendofallthings,toregulatelifeintheChurch.(41)

b.TheirPeculiarChiliasm[Premillenialism]

ThepeculiarformofPremillenialismheldbytheMontanistshasalreadybeennoted.TheirextremeshadthemarkedtendencytobringdisreputeuponPremillenialismintheearlychurchandmayhavecontributedtoitsgradualdemise.It also tended tohavea specific influenceon canonicalmatters.ThishappenedbecausesomereactingagainstMontanismbeganto reject thewritingsof John towhichMontanismmade such frequentreference.F.F.Brucedescribesthisreactionasfollows:

Oneinterestingby-productoftheMontanistmovementwasthesuspicionwhich it engendered [caused--SW] in some people's minds against theJohannineliterature[bookswrittenbyJohn--SW]ofthenewTestament,to which Montanists so confidently appealed. Their doctrine of thesecond advent was based on a literal interpretation of the milleniummentionedinthebookofRevelation,andtherewerethosewhofounditimpossible to reject this Montanist doctrine without at the same timerejectingthebookofRevelation.Oneofthosewhorejectedthebookwasa Roman presbyter named Gaius, author of a Dialogue in which hemaintainedadebatewithProclus,leaderoftheMontanistsinhisday(c.200).ApparentlyGaiusattributed thebook toCerinthus, ahereticwhoflourishedabouttheendofthefirstcentury.ButthereisreasontobelievethatGaiusalsorejectedtheapostolicauthorityoftheFourthGospel,fromwhich,ofcourse,theMontanistsdrewtheirdoctrineoftheParaclete. ...GaiushadnogreatfollowinginhisviewoftheFourthGospel,however;asmallgroupofpeoplewhomaintainedaviewsimilartohis,but(likehim)were orthodox in all other respects, are referred to by a fourth-centurywriterastheAlogoi.(42)

c.TheirAncientFeminism

Montanism, because of the early prominence of the prophetesses,Priscilla and Maximilla, was characterized by a feminism inconsistentwastheviewsofthechurchinitsday.Lawlorrecounts:

... the association with Montanus of two prophetesses involved therecognition[acceptance--SW] thatwomenmightholdhighoffice in theChurch. Maximilla and Priscilla seem to have made independentcontributions to Montanist teaching ... and they were probably in thehabitofprophesyinginthecongregation...Thereisevidencethat,atanyrateinlatertimes,otherwomenfollowedtheirexample...,orevenoutdidit;forwereadofaprophetessinCappadociainthe3rdcent.,perhapsaMontanist, who baptized and celebrated the Eucharist ... of femalebishops and priests, and of virgins who regularly officiated [officiallypresided--SW]inthecongregationatPepuza...(43)

d.TheirEthicalRigorism[Strictness]

The ethical rigorism or strictness of Montanism and its tendency toasceticismwasrelatedtoitsimminentorsoonexpectationoftheendoftheworld.SaysBonwetsch:

Theentirepurpose,infact,ofthenewprophecywaspreparationfortheapproaching end, and expectation of this great event should determinethe entire life of the Christian. Yet the new prophecy was seldomintroducedbynewforms;whathadhithertobeenvoluntarynowbecameduty.Thus,iftheChurchapprovedonlyfirstmarriageandvirginity,theMontanists regarded second marriages as impure and excluded thosewho contracted them. Sexual purity was a necessary condition forreceivingrevelations,andthevoluntaryfastson the"stationdays"wereextendedfromthreetosixintheafternoonandmadeobligatory[morallynecessary--SW]. ... Again, wherever the Church permitted a distinctionbetween a laxer [looser--SW] and a stricter rule, the Montanistsinvariably allowed only the latter, so that for example, flight [runningaway--SW] in persecution was forbidden and martyrdom wasencouraged.All theserequirementsweremadebytheParacletebecause

thelastdaywasnigh,andthemarriageshouldnolongerbecontracted.Becauseoftheshortnessofthetime,theParacletecouldannulthewordsofPaulasChristhadabrogated[abolished--SW]thoseofMoses.(44)

ConcludingObservations:

Montanism presents us with a remarkable combination of traits whichanticipate later abnormal movements in the church. The intense,eschatological expectation; the claims to prophecy, the neglect of thecreated boundaries between men and women, and even the ethicalrigorism have re-emerged or come out again in varying combinationsagainandagain.Oneneedonly thinkof certainAnabaptist groups, theolderPentecostalist groups, and even theCharismatics of our ownday.The re-emergence again and again of such groups with their uniquecombinationoftraitsconstrainsustoaskwhatresponseandevaluationthe earliest church gave to Montanism. Its response cannot but be ofintenseinterestforus.

3.EcclesiasticalOpposition

Montanism did not long exist before it began tomeet with the formaloppositionofcatholicbishops.SaysLawlor:

Whilethemovementwasstillinitsinfancy,ClaudiusApollinarius,bishopof Hierapolis, wrote a treatise [book--SW] against it, to which wereappended the signatures of many bishops, at least one of whom camefromThrace.Otherconfutationsofthenewteachingfollowedit...ManysynodsmetinAsiaandexcommunicateditsadherents[followers]....Itisimpossible to determinewith accuracy the date of the inevitable crisis;but it iscertainthat inPhrygiabeforetheyear177theMontanistswereexcludedfromtheCatholicChurch...(45)

Swiftandfirmasthisresponseappears,Montanismwasnoteverywheremetwithasunqualifiedandabsolutedisapproval.TheChristiansofGaul,whileopposingtheMontanists,wrote toRomepleading formoderationwith regard to someof their views. (46) Evenmore sympathetic to theMontanistwasthegreatAfricanbishop,Tertullian,whomwemustnowconsider.

4.LaterDevelopment

Despite its condemnation by catholic bishops, Montanism spread tomany parts of theRomanEmpire. Its spread cost it, however, both itsunity and many of its distinctive features. Noting that the earlyMontanists were productive writers, and that among the Montaniststended to be regarded as in some sense canonical, Lawlor goes on tocomment:

Anecessary resultof thiswas the tendency todivision.TheMontanistsmusthaveregardedthewritingsoftheirownprophetsasofatleastequalvaluewiththeScriptures:theyconstitutedinfact,ifnotinintention,anenlargementoftheCanon.Itwasinevitablethattheyshouldbeused,likethecanonicalScriptures,asauthoritativeexpositionsofdogmatic[offiallydoctrinal--SW]Christianity,andthat,likethem,theyshouldbevariouslyinterpreted. By the end of the 2nd cent. there were two parties of theMontanists,whotookdifferentsidesintheMonarchiancontroversy,andboth of them appealed to the oracles of the prophets as well as to theScriptures...Thustheauthorityascribedtothewritingsoftheprophetsproduced a tendency to the formation of parties differing from oneanother inmatters of faith, and probably also inmatters of discipline.Thistendencywouldbegreaterif,asseemslikely,suchwritingswerenotcollectedintoaCorpus.Eachcommunitywouldfollowtheteachingoftheteaching of such books as they happened to possess, without theobligation of harmonizing it with that of the books possessed by othercommunities.(47)

ThecertainorinevitableresultofthiskindofdivisionwasthebreakingofMontanism into many different parties in different regions. Lawlorconfirms:"ItisperhapsscarcelycorrecttospeakofMontanismasasect.In its later stages it was rather a congeries [varied seris--SW] of sectssomewhat loosely held together by an acknowledgment of themanifestationoftheParacleteinMontanus."(48)

It is this that forms the necessary starting-point for the discussion ofTertullian's alleged [supposed--SW]Montanism.Most of the time theysomehow limit their statements. Yet, writers often assert quiteemphatically thatTertullianwas aMontanist.Richardson, for instance,

writes:"...itpassedeventuallytoNorthAfrica,whereitwonforitscausethe vehement Tertullian, in whose writings it takes on a severelypuritanicalnote."(49) If Tertullian is to be called aMontanist at all, itshouldbeonlywiththemostseverelimitationsorqualification.ThefactisthattheMontanismheembracedwassignificantlydifferentthanthatwhich raged in Phrygia in the late second century. Bonwetsch writes,"MontanismspreadtotheWestwithasuppressionofitsecstaticfeaturesandemphasisonitsethicalrequirements."(50)Lawlorconfirmsthis,butgives his opinion that Tertullian was unaware of the extent of thedifferences:"Montanism,asitappearsinthepagesofTertullian,differsso much, and withal is so little conscious of difference, from theMontanism of Phrygia that we are compelled to suppose that hisacquaintancewiththeteachingoftheprophetswasimperfect."(51)

Lawlorcatalogsanumberof thedifferencesbetweenTertullianand theoriginalMontanism. There is no hint of the strange phenomenawhichaccompaniedPhrygianprophecyinTertullian.TertullianaffirmsagainstthePhrygianMontanism that the apostlespossessed the fullnessof theSpirit. tertullian never mentions Pepuza. Tertullian refused to allow awomantospeakinthechurch,ortoteach,baptize,administertheLord'sTable,or"toassumeanyfunctionwhichbelongstoaman".(52)

5.CanonicalSignificance

The above exposition of Montanism fully justifies the multitude ofwitnessamongchurchhistorianswhoconfirm the important, canonicalsignificance of the Montanist movement. Their significance was, ofcourse,whollynegative.Inotherwords,theearlychurchsawinthemthecatastrophewhichawaitedifthestopsignorredlightsignallingthecloseofthecanonwasignored.Richardsonis,then,perfectlycorrectwhenheasserts:

TheCatholicoppositiontoMontanismrestedontheconvictionthattheChristian revelation was complete. Nothing new in principle could beaddedtotheapostolicdepositofthefaith.TheChurch,too,wascautiousabout ecstasies in which the prophet lost the use of his reason andidentifiedhimselfwithGod. "I am comeneither as an angel, nor as anambassador, but as God the Father," said Montanus. Against such

extravagantclaims,theChurchinsistedonthesufficiencyoftheapostolictradition.(53)

III.TheLaterAgreement

Introduction:

The sum of the preceding discussion of the Apostolic Fathers and theearlyheresieshasbeentoemphasizeandmakecleartheideaofapostolicauthority. The post-apostolic church comes into our view with a cleargrasponthedistinctdifferencebetweenitsleadersandteachersandtheauthority of apostles. Its comes into our view with a clear practicalcommitment to their writings, especially the four Gospels and theEpistlesofPaul.

This original grasp on apostolic authority is strengthened by the earlyheresies which Providence arranged to attack the church in secondcentury.Gnosticism'sclaimtoasecretandsecretrevelationemphasizedthe public witness of the Apostles especially as crystallized in theirwritings.Marcionism'smutilation of the Apostolic tradition alerted thechurchtothedangerofaone-sidedandbiasedlimitationoftheApostolictradition. Thus, a sign was given emphasizing the importance ofmaintaining the full extent of the New Testament canon. Montanismcame,however, just in time tokeep the church fromwrongly enlargingthe canon of Scripture. Its excesses and extravagances clearlyunderscoredthedangersassociatedwithanyfailuretolimitthecanontotheApostolicageandwritings.

Itisinthelightofthismakingclearandcarefullystatingthesignificanceof theApostolic canonof the church thatwemayaccept andamen thewordsofBrownashe summarizes the resultof thecontroversiesof thesecondcentury:

WemayconsiderthattheNewTestamentcanonwaseffectivelycompletebyA.D.200,althoughafewbooksremainedcontroversialuntilintothefourthcentury.Theclosingofthecanonwasoftremendousimportance,becauseitmeantthatfromthenontheologicaldisputescouldnolongeraffectthesourceofdoctrine,thetextofScriptureitself.Fromthisvirtual

closing of theNewTestament canon in about200, itwill take twoandonehalfmorecenturiesforChristianitytoreachagreementontwoofitsmostfundamentaldoctrines:thedoctrineoftheTrinityandthedoctrineoftheonepersonandtwonaturesofChrist.(54)

ThewordsofBrownashehasqualifiedhimselfmaybeacceptedasanaccurateaccountofthesituationatthecloseoftheSecondcentury.Heisright tosee that in theclarificationof the ideaof thepublicnature, thefullextent,andtheclosedcharacteroftheApostoliccanon,thequestionandcharacteroftheNewTestamentcanonwaseffectivelyclosedbyA.D.200.Wemust,however,nowcometoconsidertheevidenceforBrown'sassertion and how these controlling and specific perspectives came tofinal and formal expression in the official acceptance of the NewTestamentcanonintheOldCatholicChurch.Wewilldothisbyutilizingtheaccepteddistinctionimplied inBrown'swordsbetweenthebooksoftheNewTestamentknownastheHomologoumenaandthoseknownastheAntilegomena.

A.TheUniversalandEarlyAcceptanceoftheHomologoumena

1.TheCanonofMuratori

Asiftounderscorethesignificanceoftheearlyheresieswehavenoticedfortheacceptanceof theNewTestament canon, theCanonofMuratoriwhichmaybedated"attheendof thesecondcentury"(55)providesuswiththefirstorthodoxlistingofthebooksoftheNewTestamentcanon.Thedocumentinwhichthiscanoncomesdowntousisinafragmentarycondition.Itbegins, for instance,withthewords,"thethirdbookof thegospel;accordingtoLuke"(56).Asthisillustrates,someoftheproblemscreated by the fragmentary character of the document can be solved.Obviously, the canon commenced with matthew and Mark. Assumingthat the list began with Matthew and Mark, twenty-two of the bookswhichwehavereceivedinourNewTestamentsarelistedinthiscanonasacceptable.TheonesmissingareHebrews,3John,James,1Peter,and2Peter.

Two books were included in this canon which are not in our NewTestaments. They are the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of

Peter. (57) There is a note, however, that Peter's Apocalypse is notregardedascanonicalbysome.ThereferencetotheWisdomofSolomonisoddbecauseitispartoftheOldTestamentApocrypha.TheShepherdofHermas ismentioned favorably, butdenied canonical statusbecause"theShepherdwaswrittenbyHermasinthecityofRomequiterecently,inourown times,whenhis brotherPius occupied thebishop's chair inthechurchofthecityofRome;andthereforeitmaybereadindeed,butcannotbegivenout to thepeople inchurcheitheramong theprophets,sincetheirnumber iscomplete,oramongtheapostlesat theendof thetimes."

More interesting for our purposes is the mention of a number ofMarcionite and Gnostic writings which are completely rejected. ThefragmentfirstmentionsMarcioniteforgeries:"ThereissaidtobeanotherletterinPaul'snametotheLaodiceans,andanothertotheAlexandrines,[both] forged in accordance with Marcion's heresy, and many otherswhichcannotbe received into thecatholic church, since it isnot fittingthatpoison shouldbemixedwithhoney."Later the fragmentmentionsother Gnostic productions: "But none of the writings of Arsinous orValentinusorMiltiadesdowereceiveatall.TheyhavealsocomposedanewbookofpsalmsforMarcion;[thesewereject]togetherwithBasilides[and]theAsianfounderoftheCataphrygians..."

In these two parts of the Muratorian canon there is, then, explicitreferencetoandrepliestothethreedistinctheresieswehavedealtwithabove.Plainly,theexistenceandforgeriesoftheseheresieswasoneofthefactorswhich led to thewriting of this the first, orthodox listing of thecanonicalbooksoftheNewTestamentwhichwepossess.ThisisexplicitproofforthesignificanceoftheseheresiesintheformulationoftheNewTestamentcanon.

2.Irenaeus

Irenaeusalsostandsjustatthecloseoftheperiodoftheearlyheresieswehave discussed. We know that he was elected bishop of Lyons shortlyaftertheyear177.SignificantlyforourthesisIrenaeus'mainwrittenworkwas a response to the gnostic heresies which he entitled,AnExposureandRefutationoftheKnowledgethatisFalselySoCalled.[Thisworkis

commonly known from its Latin title as Against Heresies.] Bruceproperlyremarks,therefore,"Irenaeusistheprincipalspokesmanofthecatholic response to Gnosticism and other second-century deviations[departures--SW]."(58)

Itismostsignificant,therefore,thatobviousprogresshasbeenmadeinthemaking clearof theNewTestament canon in themindof Irenaeus.Brucefurtherremarks:

InallIrenaeus'sargument,moreover,scriptureplaysadominantpart.Itis the abiding witness to the one living and true God, `whom the lawannounces,whomtheprophetsproclaim,whomChristreveals,whomtheapostles teach, whom the church believes'. Irenaeus is well able todistinguish`thewritingsoftruth'from`themultitudeofapocryphalandspurious[doubtfulandfalse--SW]writings'....AsfortheNewTestament,HansvonCampenhausendescribes`thecriticalperiodbetweenMarcionand Irenaeus' as `the period in which the "New Testament" as suchemerged'.IrenaeusnowhereinhisextantwritingssetsdownalistofNewTestament books, but it is evident that he had a clear notion of theiridentity.Hemakesfreeuseofthephraseologyaboutòldcovenant'and`new covenant', but does not yet use the latter expression to denote[mean--SW]thecollectionofauthoritativewritingsthrownupbythenewcovenant,asClementofAlexandriaandTertullianofCarthageweresoonto do. The collection itself, however,was a reality to him. In using thescriptures to expose and refute subversive [traitorous--SW] teaching, itwasimportanttoknowwhichscripturesmighteffectivelybesoused,andheknewthem,andusedthem.(59)

Irenaeus'NewTestamentcanonisremarkablyclosetothatoftheCanonofMuratori.Bruceremarks:

Irenaeus, in fact, recognized and appealed to the same collection ofChristianwritings as listed in theMuratorian fragment, except that heincluded1Peter,whichisnotmentionedthere.IftheMuratorianlistisofRomanorigin,itmayhavebeenduringoneofhisearliervisitstoRomethat Irenaeus became acquainted with the contents of the `NewTestament'scripturesacknowledgedinthechurchofthecapital.Perhapsweshouldbewarnedagainstcalling ita`closed' canonby thevery fact

that itwas lateradded to;but itwasenvisagedasa coherent corpus [aconsistentbody--SW],comprising[madeupof--SW]twenty-twobooks--allthebooksofthefinalNewTestament,indeed,exceptHebrews,James,2Peter,3John,andJude.

TheOld andNewTestaments together provided Irenaeuswith a broadand secure foundation not only for the negative purpose of refutingheresybutevenmoreforthepositiveexpositionofwhathasbeencalled`thebiblicaltheologyofStIrenaeus'.Fromhistimeon,thewholechurchin east and west has acknowledged the New Testament collection asmakingup,togetherwiththeOldTestament,theChristianBible.(60)

3.Tertullian

Tertullian'swritingsbelongtotheperiodAD196-212.Itisinhiswritingsthatwefirstfindthedesignation`NewTestament'forthesecondpartoftheChristianBible.(61)Hedidnotusetheword,canon,butapprovedofthe idea it later came to express. (62) Tertullian's canon certainlyincluded thehomologoumenaplusRevelationandJude.Heknowsandlikes Hebrews and compares it favorably to the book he called `theShepherd of the Adulterers'. Though it had not come down to him inNorthAfrica as canonical, he regarded it as the work of Barnabas andworthytoberankedwiththeapostolicwritings.(63)Thus,weseeagainastable New Testament canon of 23 or 24 books similar to that of theCanonofMuratoriandIrenaeus.

4.ClementofAlexandria

ThisClementwasacontemporaryofTertullianfromAlexandriainEgypt.In some respects he echoes Tertullian. Bruce remarks, "In reference toChristianwritingsClement's catholicity is equallyevident.He speaksofthe two parts of the Christian Bible as the Old Testament and NewTestament."(64)Inotherrespects,however,reflectsthelooserandmorecarefreeattitudeofAlexandriawithregardtothecanon.ThismeansthathecitesinadditiontothecanonicalbooksanumberofbooksnotfoundinourNewTestaments.(65)

5.Origen

Origen also sets a New Testament collection of books beside the OldTestament.Brucecomments:

ThatOrigendidrecognizeaNewTestamentcollectionalongsidetheOldTestament is certain, althoughhe expresseshimself as if theuseof theword `Testament' ... in this sense were fairly new in his circle: he bespeaks of `what we believe to be the divine scriptures both of the OldTestament, as people say, and of theNew {Testament}, as it is called.'(66)

Origen also advances the discussion of the New Testament canon bymentioning all the books of our New Testament and classing them aseitherundisputedordisputed.UndisputedarethehomologoumenaandRevelation. Disputed are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James andJude.Among thedisputedhe alsoplaces somebookswhich in the enddidnotqualifyfortheNewTestamentcanon.TheseincludedtheEpistleofBarnabasandtheDidache.

6.TheEarlyVersions

Westcott places not a little importance on the testimony of two earlyversions to the acceptance of theNewTestament canon, the old SyriacversionknownasthePeshittaandtheoldLatinversionofNorthAfricaknownastheItala.(67)Hebegins,however,byadmittingthatenormousdifficultiesbesetany inquiry intoorstudyof theseearlyversions.Thus,somemeasure of caution is necessary with regard to their contents. Itdoes appear, however, that in Syria and North Africa even as early asaroundthemiddleoftheSecondcenturyversionsoftheNewTestamentwere used which confirm the early and universal acceptance of thehomologoumena.Westcott concludes that the early Peshitta included acanonof22booksandomittedonly2and3John,2Peter,theEpistleofSt. Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. (68) The canon of the Italaaccording to Westcott also witnesses to the acceptance of thehomologoumena. It certainly contained 24 books, may also havecontainedHebrews,andomittedonlyJamesand2Peter.

WestcottarguesthatthecanonoftheEasternchurchessuggestedbythePeshittaandthatoftheWesternchurchesrepresentedbytheItalashould

becombined.Hesays:

To obtain a complete idea of the judgment of the Church we mustcombine the two Canons; and then it will be found that of the bookswhichwereceiveoneonly,thesecondEpistleofPeter,wantstheearliestpublicsanctionofecclesiasticaluseasanApostolicwork.Inotherwords,byenlargingourviewsoastocomprehendthewholeofChristendomandunite the different lines of Apostolic tradition, we obtain with oneexceptionaperfectNewTestament,withouttheadmixtureofanyforeignelement.(69)

Conclusion:

Westcott contends for an almost perfect canon by the middle of theSecond century. But even if we do not agree with him, there are amultitude of witnesses confirm that the homologoumena were theassured canonical possession of the Christian church by the end of theSecondcentury.

B.TheUniversalandLaterAcceptanceoftheAntilegomena

1.AnExplanationoftheDelay

At this point a factor which accounts for the delay in the universalacceptanceoftheAntilegomenamustbementioned.Thequestionmayberaised: If canonical books possessed original authoritywith the churchbecause of their apostolic authorship, why were some so seriouslyquestionedbeforebeinguniversallyaccepted?UnliketheOldTestamentpeopleofGod,thechurchwasofvastgeographicalextent.UnliketheOldTestamentpeopleofGod,ithadnocenterlikeJerusalemtopromotewithauthority the recognizedcanonicalbooks.Jerusalemwasdestroyedandthe mother church there scattered while the New Testament was stillbeingwritten.Wemust, therefore, take into account the hindrances ofgeographical limitation and poor communication in delaying theacceptance of certain books universally. (70) Because of such factorssome writings (which had complete acceptance in the region of thechurchwheretheyhadoriginated)werequestionedinanotherregion.

2.AnExplanationoftheirAcceptance

WhyandhowdidtheAntilegomenagainacceptance?Twofactorsseemtohavebeenvital.First, thegrowingunityof the church in theRomanEmpire removed questions about some books because their completeacceptance by the rest of the church became known. Second, thecharacter,theactualself-authenticatingtruthandcontent,ofthegenuinebooksexercisedagreatinfluence.

3.AnExplanationoftheDifficulties

Here we shall show that the reasons the different books of theAntilegomena were questioned are consistent with their originalauthorityandauthenticcanonicity.

a.HebrewsandRevelation

ThesetwoofthesevenAntilegomenacontainover80%oftheircontent.For this reason the fact that they were questionedmay raise themostsevere problems in some minds. There is good reason, however, toconclude that the difficulties raised over them came up later. HermanRidderbosproperlyremarks:

Uncertaintyaboutsomeofthosewritings,itshouldbenoted,onlyaroselater, as a result of certain actions that occurred within or against thechurch. That is the case, for example, for two of the most widespreadinstancesofuncertainty:doubtaboutcanonicityofhebrewsintheWestandabouttheBookofRevelationintheEast.OppositiontotheBookofRevelation in theEast,as iswellknown,was late inoriginandwas theresult of dogmatic, antichiliastic [doctrinal convictions which rejectedpremillenialism]considerations.Apparently,objectionstothecanonicityofHebrewswerenot"original"nordid theyoccurprimarilybecause itsPaulineauthorshipwasdoubted.Rather, thoseobjectionswere lateandarosebecauseoftheMontanistappealtoHebrews6:4.Indeed,theBookofHebrewswas already inuse sometimebetweenA.D. 90and 100byClementofRomeandlaterwasalsocitedbyTertullian.Moreover,asVanUnnikhasrecentlydemonstratedbetweenA.D.140and150inRomeallsorts of expressions from Hebrews were a part of the language of the

churchinthesamemannerasphraseologyfromotherwritingsthatwerenever contested in theWest. Thus here, too, it appears that only laterreflectiondamagedtheauthorityadocumenthadfromthebeginninganddestroyedtheoriginalcertaintyofthechurch.(71)

b.2and3JohnandJude

Thoughthereisgoodhistoricalevidenceforthesebooks,itmaybeoflessextentthanthatwhichsupportstheHomologoumena.Theveryprobablereason for this is simply theirbrevity.Thismade it easy for them tobeoverlookedandimprobablethattheyshouldbequotedasextensivelyasthelargerbooksoftheNewTestament.

c.James

ThereisearlyhistoricalevidenceforthecanonicityofJames."ClementofRome uses the Epistle of James, as doesHermas. It is included in thePeshittoversion."(72) The questions over the canonicity of Jamesmayhavearisen,accordingtoHarris,mayhavearisenduetoconfusionovertheexactidentityoftheJameswhichauthoredit,sincethereareatleastthreeJamesintheNewTestamentwithapostolicclaims.

d.2Peter

Theexternal,historicalevidencefor2PeteristhemostlimitedofanyoftheNewTestament canonical books.Origen is the first tomention thebookbynameandseems toregard itascanonical, thoughhementionsthatsomeChristianshaddoubtsonthismatter.Guthriecitesanumberof very early Christian writings which may manifest dependence on 2Peterandthussupporttosomeextentanapostolicsourcefortheepistle.(73)AmongsuchbooksareClementofAlexandria'sHypotoposes.Otherswhomayalludeto2PeterareTheophilusofAntioch,,Aristides,Polycarp,Irenaeus,andJustinMartyr.Thepseudepigraphical[falselynamed--SW]ApocalypseofPeterwhichdatesfromthefirsthalfofthesecondcenturyalludes[refers--SW]repeatedly to2Peter.Somehave argued,however,that the dependence is in an opposite direction. Guthrie concludes hissurveywiththeseremarks,"Itwouldseemafairconclusiontothissurveyofexternalevidencetosubmitthatthereisnoevidencefromanypartof

theearlyChurchthatthisEpistlewaseverrejectedasspurious,inspiteofthe hesitance which existed over its reception." (74) In light of ourcommitment to a presumption in favor of the received canon and theuniversalreceptionof this letterascanonicalduringthe fourthcentury,thehistoricalevidenceappears tobeconsistentwith thecanonicityof2Peter.

Severalreasonsmaybeassignedwhichexplaintheoriginofthequestionsregarding 2 Peter. There was a large corpus [body--SW] ofpseudepigraphical [falsely named--SW] literature bearing the name ofPeter. This may have cast its shadow on 2 Peter. There were certainobviousdifferences in language stylebetween 1Peter and2Peter. Thismayhavecausedsometolookwithsuspicionon2Peter.Suchdifferencesimstylemaybeexplainedinanumberofdifferentwayswhichhavebeensuggested by interpreters. Probably the best explanation is that SilashelpedPeterwrite1Peter(andcleaneduphisGreek).Notice1Pet.5:12.2Peter's rough style ofGreekmay indicate that Peterwrote that letterwithouthelp.

CulminatingObservations:

The finalmovementof the church toagreementon theNewTestamentcanonmaybesketchedbybriefreferencetotwomenthatsummarizetheprocess that was taking place throughout the church in the RomanEmpire.

Eusebiusof theBishopofCaesareamarksthetransitionfromtheAnte-NicenetothePost-NiceneFathers.HeprovidesuswitharepresentativesampleofthestateofopinionwithregardtotheNewTestamentcanonatthecloseoftheeraofpersecutionandattheopeningoftheConstantinianperiod. His statements are explicit, although not without someuncertainties.He divides the booksmaking a claim to New Testamentcanonicity into three categories: the acknowledged, the disputed(questioned), and the spurious (false). The acknowledged are exactlyequivalent to the homologoumena. Also within this category he placesJohn'sApocalypseaddingthewords,"shoulditseemright".Thedisputedareexactlyequivalenttotheremainingsixbooksoftheantilegomena.Ofthem he says that they are disputed, "but recognized by themajority."

The spurious books include the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd,Barnabas,andtheDidacheandalsoJohn'sApocalypseofwhichheagainsays,"shoulditseemright".WhyEusebiusplacestheApocalypseofJohnamongtheacknowledgedandalsothespuriousbooks,butnotamongthedisputedisadifficultquestion,buttheexplanationisprobablyconnectedwithEusebiusdislikeofitsapparentPremillenarianism.(75)InEusebiuswe see how swiftly the church was moving to consensus on the NewTestament.

AsEusebiusrepresentsthenexttolaststageofcanonicaldevelopment,soAthanasius represents the last stage. Bruce tells us, "Athanasius is thefirstwriterknowntouswholistedexactlythetwenty-sevenbookswhichtraditionally make up the New Testament in catholic and orthodoxChristianity,withoutmakinganydistinctionofstatusamongthem."(76)ThisoccurredinAD367.



3.HaroldO.J.Brown,Heresies,(Doubleday,GardenCity,1984),p.50.

4.Brown,loc.cit.,pp.57,58.

5.Brown,loc.cit.,p.59.

6.ibid.

7. John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of John, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,1983),p.45.




11.F.F.Bruce,TheSpreadingFlame,p.249.

12.Bruce,TheEpistlesofJohn,p.26.



15.Ignatius,TotheSmyrnaeans,chapters2and3.

16.Ignatius,TotheEphesians,10:3;TotheMagnesians13:2.

17.Ignatius,TotheSmyrnaeans,chapter7.

18.EncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,ed.byJamesHastings,vol.VI,(CharlesScribner'sSons,NewYork,1922),p.232.


20. The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, ed. by SamuelMaCauleyJackson,vol.VII,(Funk&Wagnalls,NewYork,1910),p.172.

21.TheNewSchaff-Herzog...,ibid.,p.173.

22.TheNewSchaffHerzog...,ibid.



25.Bruce,TheCanonofScripture,p.134.


27. Note Richardson's comment to this effect, loc. cit., p. 22, "TheCatholiccanonwasdoubtlessframedwithmarcion'sinview..."

28.Kelly,loc.cit.,pp.57,58.


30.JamesOrr,ProgressofDogma,pp.64,65.

31. Note the graph by Robert C. Walton, in Chronological andBackground Charts of Church History, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids,1986),#78.

32.EncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,ed.byJamesHastings,vol.VIII,(Charles Scribner's Sons,NewYork, 1922),H. J. Lawlor, "Montanism,"1922,p.829.


34.F.F.Bruce,TheCanonofScripture,p.168.

35.EncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,loc.cit.,pp.828,829.

36.TheNewSchaff-HerzogReligiousEncyclopedia,vol.VII,p.485.

37.ibid.

38.EncyclopediaofReligionandEthics,loc.cit.,p.828.

39.ibid.

40.ibid.

41.TheNewSchaff-Herzog...,loc.cit.,p.486.

42.F.F.Bruce,TheSpreadingFlame,p.220.




46.ibid,p.830.


48.ibid.




52.ibid.

53.Richardson,op.cit.,p.26.

54.Brown,op.cit.,p.74.

55.Bruce,TheCanonofScripture,p.158.

56.Bruce,TheCanon ...,p.159.BruceprovidesatranslationofwhathecallstheMuratorianfragmentonpages159through161ofthisbook.

57.Zahnconjecturallyemendedthereferenceto"theApocalypseofJohnwe also receive, and that of Peter, which some will not have read inchurch"to"theApocalypseofJohn,wealsoreceiveandPeter's[epistle.ThereisalsoanotherofEpistleofPeter,]whichsomewillnothavereadinchurch".Cf.Bruce,TheCanon...,p.165.

58.Bruce,TheCanon...,p.171.


60. Bruce, The Canon ..., p. 177. Several other interesting facts aboutIrenaeus' canonwhich seem to closely associate itwith theMuratorianfragment are that he seems once to cite the Shepherd of Hermas asScripture and also theWisdom of Solomon. He does not mention theApocalypseofPeter.Therearealsopossible references toHebrews andJames.


62.ibid,p.182.

63.ibid,p.183.

64.ibid.,p.188.

65.ibid,pp.188f.

66.ibid,p.192.

67.Westcott,op.cit.,pp.235ff.

68.Westcott,op.cit.,p.244.

69.Westcott,op.cit.,p.268.

70.Westcott,op.cit.,pp.3-5.

71. Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New TestamentScriptures,(Baker,GrandRapids,1988),p.44.

72.R.LairdHarris,InspirationandCanonicity,p.262.

73. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, (Inter-Varsity,DownersGrove,1979),pp.815-819.

74.ibid.

75.Bruce,TheCanon...,pp.197-199.

76.ibid.,p.209.

The Canon of Scripture - Monergism · 2020-03-05 · The idea of an authoritative list or collection of sacred books is much older, however, than the application of the word, canon,

Documents