The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Guides to Biblical Scholarship New Testament Series)

The New Testament Canon Its Making and Meaning

by Harry Y. Gamble

Fortress Press

Philadelphia

Contents

EDITOR'S

FOREWORD

ABBREVIATIONS

I.

7

. , ,

,

, , , , , ,

INTRODUCTION

, .

···········

The Problem of the New Testament Canon Some Important Terms Canon, Scripture

,

. .

·.···············

. .

New Testament. . II.

.

COPYRIGHT

© 1985

BY FORTRESS

PRESS

reserved. No part of this '. s~oredIII a retrieval system or t publication may be reproduced e ectronic, mechanical ph~tocora~smlttedin any form Or by any means' the prior permission of the cop p~mhg, recording, Or otherwise without yng towner. '

L'b I rary Cambl H

Includes index. L Bible. N T --{';

BS2320C36 " anon. I. Title. ISBN o:.sOO6-0~~i.-9 225.1'2 85·4509

1729B85 P

rinted in the United States

of A

.

menca

1-470

HISTORY

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

III.

FACTORS

IN THE FORMATION

Intrinsic Factors Extrinsic Factors Marcionism Gnosticism Montanism

, ,

.

,

~ ~

Other Factors Criteria of Canonicity .................•..........

,

", "

43 46 50

.

57 57

. , . .

59 59 62 63

.

65

, .. -

18 19

. . 35 . 36 . 41

OF THE CANON

'"'

11 11 15 15

23 24 24

CANON.

The Second Century . The Gospels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Letters of Paul. The Early History of Paul's Letters Early Editions of the "Corpus Paulinum" The Use of Paul's Letters in the Second Century Other Writings _ ...•... The Third and Fourth Centuries ..............•...

~nrights

of Congress Catalo' . gmg m Publication Data e, arry Y., 1941-0 The New Testament canon.

THE

.

9

67

CONTENTS

Apostolicity ... , . , . , ... Catholicity. . . . . .

,,,

Orthodoxy , , : : : : : : : : .. , . , Traditional Usage . , . . .. ., Inspiration ,

.......

IV.

.

,

, ,,,

.

.,

,

"

68

69 69 . 70 , 71

Editor's Foreword

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS CANON

73

~e

ganon as a Hermeneutj~~l' C~~'t~~; . 73 e anon as a Theological Prohlem ,,,,,., 82 The Scope of the Canon .. .. " .... -- . 83 The Nature of the Canon a; No;~' , , ....•.. , 85 Scripture and Tradition .. , , .. , .....

.......

"

. .. .. . .

89

. . .. . . . . . . ..

93

. . . .. . . ,

Appendix: Text of the Muratorian Canon List,

,

The volumes in this series have dealt with issues of method and of form. They have described and analyzed various critical procedures for understanding NT texts (form and redaction criticism, literary criticism, structural exegesis, etc.). They also have attempted to define a number of the formal patterns which shape the materials of the New Testament (gospel, letter, proverb, apocalypse, etc.). The volume on NT theology was not a departure from this direction because it dealt with such formal questiuns as the definition of NT theology, the motives which have generated its pursuit, and its relationship to other theological disciplines. The focus of the series has been on the formal and the critical, with attention to both the linguisticliterary and the historical paradigms for the critical study of the NT, as well as to the dimension of meaning. The present volume on the canon continues this tradition. It is a historical analysis of a fundamentally theological phenomenon. Professor Gamble deals historically with the development of the canon and the factors which generated its formation. But this development was composed of confessional decisions. The variety of forms in the NT, which can be interpreted with a multiplicity of methods, became a closed collection which a believing community regarded as religiously authoritative, Thus, as Professor Gamble well demonstrates, a historical study of the canon's formation cannot be truly critical without paying due attention to the theological factors in the historical process and the theological implications of the church's decision to have a canon. It is necessary to deal with such issues as the context which the canon provides for interpretation and the qnestion of how the canon can exercise normative authority for Christianity. DAN O. VIA

6

The Divinity School Duke University

7

Abbreviations

Adv. Marc. A.H. Apol. ATR BA B.C.E.

BHT Bib BJRL CBQ C.E.

CTM Dial. Ep. EvTh fl. H.E. HBT HeyJ HTR HTS IDBSup. Int JBC JBL JTS JSQT

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem [Against Marcion] Irenaeus, Adversus haereses [Against Heresies] Justin, Apology Anglican Theological Review Biblical Archaeologist Before the Common Era Beitriige zur historischen Theologie Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Catholic Biblical Quarterly Common Era Concordia Theological Monthly Justin, Dialogus cum Trypho [Dialogue with Trypho] Epistle( s) Evangelische Theologie floruit [flourished] Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica [Ecclesiastical History] Horizons in Biblical Theology Heythrop Journal Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible supplementary volume Interpretatian The Jerome Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Theological Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9

ABBREVIATIONS

KBANT IUS(S) , MThz NT NTS NovTSup OT RBen RHPR SBLMS SBS SBT SD SPAW,PH StEv StPat StTh Strom, TDNT TS

KolUmentareund Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen T estament manuscript(s) Munchener theologische Zeitschrijt New Testament New Testament Studies Noldvum Testamentum, Supplement O Testament Revue benedictine Revae d'histoire et de hil I Society of Bibli I ' p 'osop lie religieuses I ICa LIterature M h S ' Stuttgarte B'b I' ' onograp enes r

1

e studren

Studies in Biblical Theology Studies and Documents Sltzungsberichte der W h preusSlSchen Akademie der issenso aften-Ph -I hStudia I' 10SOP isch-historische Klasse evange'lea

TV VC

WMANT

Studia patristica Stadia theologica Clement of Ale dri Th I' xan na, Stromatets eo ogica! Dietionar ., h Theological Stadies Y oJ t e New Testament Texte . . . und V n tersuc h ungen Vlg,ltae christianae Wissenschaftliche Mo ' Neuen Testa nographlen zum Alten und ment

WVNT

Wissenschaftliche V

Testament

ZKG

ntersuchungen

' ZUlli

Neuen

Zeitschrijt fur K' h Zeitsch ift ,__ IrC engeschichte , n Jar die neatesta I' h Zel/schrift fur Th I " ment iSC e Wissenschaft eo ogle and Kirche

ZNW

ZTK

Introduction

THE PROBLEM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON Even a CurS9!Y glance at its contents

reveals that what we

know a;-"'ihe N';; Testament" is not a book at all in the usual sense ut a co~ection of ea!ly_Christ!an"'"\vritings. twenty-seven- in-all, It is a~. moreover, which has hlstorically.J:>~ s~t....a~rt as possessing a distinctive and in eed unique authority for the faith and p;:;;,ctice-ofth~ Christian cllUrch. As a fixed collection of religiously - 'J!!tt>oritati.Y.ej;tera~, the'"'N-r{;o'nstitutes the ...fanon of Christian scriptures. 1 The purpos;Q[1:llISVo1ume is to assess the NT as canon and thus-to comprehend the fundamental form of the NT itself, NT scholarship has been progressively sensitive to the importance of form as a component-along with content-s-of meaning, and the NT has been greatly illuminated through the formal analysis of the traditions and documents contained in it. But all too little attention has been paid to the form of the NT as a whole, although an understanding of that form is indispensable to a full appreciation of the meaning and function of the NT. An evaluation of the NT as canon entails historical, literary, and theological questions:.!.'ow ~d thi!. coll~ of writings come into being? What assumptions

and intentions con-

b-ibuted to its fo;:;;;atio~? Who or what de!Jrmined il:§..£9~ts? On I what basis did special authority come to be attached to these writingS? How does the character of this collection bear upon its interpretation? In what ways does this collection claim or exercise reli , gious authoritv? ' -Such questions are rarely raised by the ordinary .:~.:dei)even the

i

L On the term "canon," see further below, 15-18.

10

11

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

Christian reader who si I tak th Christianit ' is s mp y es e NT for granted. Its place within nenrly -im;~ssiblo ~ro~me~t and Jo~gstarlding that most will find.J! foth"---; --_,e 0 imagms a Chnstranity without a NT. But just r IS reason it needs to be hasi d h original or -emp asrze t at the NT was not an the NT'-d evlen ad_p.'!!.!icularlyearly feature of Christianity, Rather eve 0l'.e onll::,..g d all ' ries, as the-;:-;'ulLJ I - ra Iu y over.: the course of several ~nJu"y"life of th~ci~~t ~h~~~ne; v:,net of c~nditioning factor ..iJLt/re know it until tl I r' - - dId not attam the form in which we _~ _ I te ate fourth c t D' ------the seC;;;;t . -- - ~n _ury. unng the first and most of cen ury, It would hav b ' , such a collection w Id e een impossible to foresee that ou emerge Th £. • h sumed that the exist f h ' . ere ore, It oug t not to be as0 fact. Nothing dictat e~c;h t he NT IS a necessary or self-explanatory more, even when t~ 'dat t ere should be a NT at al]. Furthermained for a long tel ea of such a collection took hold, it retrue uncertain wh t 't b tak a I s su stance and shape would b e, and It might h ave en any b f diff one it ultimately a . d num er 0 irterent forms than the cqurre Many p ib I' . as th e existence f NT aSSI I tries were open.f So, just o a was _not for eor dai d tents. And OUr famih arne , neither were its conI ranty WIth th NT h Id genuine peculianties of t b e s ou not blind us to the £.OUrGIS ospels instead of I su stance . for examp Ie, that it contams so similar and the c. th°ny one (especially when the first three are so differe t) h Ietters of Paul but rour f f n ; or t at it contains so many so ew 0 any othe it One prophetrc book (Re I " r wri er, or that it contains ouly -) )~'?t obyious wh ~: a~~n) and only one historical book (Acts). (_not others-when th ---emhraces Just these documents and '-1-""'" ~e - were many mc uueu-{)r -why 0th ers - w h'lOh could have been ,conversely 't -\.. ~nts as it jo~s. ~ ~1 L'Ontams as _ffii!ny and various doC; While the format' d" ,th . IOnan slgmfica f I e mterest of NT schol . h nCe 0 t Ie NT canon have attracted pro bl ems have not had ars,mtefild h' e 0fN T studies as a whole these NT has traditionally bee~ery Igh billing.3 The scholarly study of the which belong to the cano:reodcchuPiedwith the individual documents an as dealt pnman ' '1y with questions of 2

.f

. For a review of th I developmentin early~h~~~lat!ves. each of which Wa ;ork: Macmillan Co., 1925),~6~:'Jee Adolfvon Harr:ackt;h[Yds~ible but had some embryonic Th The most fertile period fl. ' e rigm of the New Testament (New cot~or Zahn, Geschic1tte des c:11011 studies was the late IIi 1889/J G;;~ra{d Survey of the ;;;;::ta~;'tlichen Kanons jnd early twentieth centuries: s Origi~ ~fth\~T t, Gesc1tichte des ne~ OJ the Canon of tJu~Ne " T r angell, 188&-92); B. F, Weste . All these remain s~ eda'''dTTlentlichenKatlons ~. iSla(me~t,. 6th ed. (Cambridge, n r work.~. ' \0 s. LeipZIg, 1907-8); Hamack,

2~~etl(~

INTRODUCTION

their authorship, historical and religious background, literary character, theological ideas and purposes, By comparison with this concentration on the discrete contents of the NT, relatively little attention has been paid to the canon itself, and to tJllsextent- the-canon has b.ten !ilki'n-for grante ev';;-i;;NT scholarship.'Recently, h~w~ th-;; canon has eme;:ged as a focal point .of scholarly concern, and it is not much of an exaggeration to say that today the canon is among the leading topics of NT studies, This renewed interest in the canon is due to manv factors. These include modern discoveries of early Christian literat~re previously unknown or known only at secondhand, new appraisals of the history of the OT canon and its bearing on the formation of the NT canon, and a heightened awareness of the variegations and conflicts of early Christianity.

Some stimulus has come also from modern ecumenical

discussion, which has brought into clearer focus the divergent conceptions and uses of the canon in the various branches of Christianity, But above all, questions about the canon have been posed by. the interpretation of the NT writings themselves, Ironically, the rrwre fully the individual documents of the NT have been understood, the less intelligible the NT as a whole has become, both historically and theologically, On the historical side, exegesis has emphasized the highly occasional character of the writings contained in the NT: each emerged in a particular historical setting, dealt with specific issues of the moment, and was directed to a limited and often strictly local readership, This recognition poses very sharply the questions of how, why, and with what results these writings were detached from their generative contexts, brought together in a collection, and ascribed a general relevance and timeless authority for Christianity as a whole. FlIlther, the historical study of the NT has steadily undermined the traditional legitimations of the canon (e.g., that these writings were composed by apostles, or that they are distinguished by their inspiration). Examined within the full context of early Christian literature, the documents which came to constitute the NT canon are not, as a group, recognizably unique, 4. This results partly from increasing disciplinary specialization which has led to an unfortunate separation between NT studies and early church history. It is no act:ident that the two most recent major studies are by scholars better known as church historians than as NT specialists: Robert Grant. The Formation of the New Testament (New York Harper & How, 1965) and Hans von Campe~hausen, The Fonnation of the Christian Bible (Phtladelphla: li'ortress Press, 1972). S"rnptomancally, many NT "Introductions" contain no discussion of the fonnation or si,ltnificance of the canon.

13

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

On the theological side, the NT canon has become, if anything, still more problematical. The religio-historical interpretation of the NT has led inexorably to the insight that among its contents there is an astonishing variety of theological assumptions and perspectives. This inner diversity manifests itself in fundamental tensions and, some would say, outright contradictions of a theological sort within the boundaries of the NT. This state of affairs must not be given a hasty or facile explanation, as though it were a matter merely of different idioms or of natural (and thus negligible) results of situational differences. Rather, one must reckon with the fact that the NT incorporates various independent and to some extent heterogeneous conceptions of the very meaning of Christianity. Like the recognition of historical diversity within the NT, sensitivity to its theological diversity stirs interest in the history of the canon, but it also raises far-reaching questions about the nature of the canon as a theological norm. In particular, how can the NT possess and exercise the religious authority traditionally vested in it when it increasingly seems to lack theological consistency among its Own contents? ',en -l ,.t-

~

•

Finally, the historical-critical exegesis of the NT has resulted 10 a highly ambiguous relationship between the phenomenon of the canon and the tasks of exegesis. On the one hand, the essential and traditional subject matter of exegesis has been stipulated by the canon. It is precisely their presence in the canon which has not only insured that these writings have survived and can still be studied but has also endowed them with the religious authority which has constituted their special intcrest as objects nf detailed and specialized interpretation. In these ways exegesis presupposes the canon. But on the other hand, so far as the aim of exegesis has been to gain a fully historical Comprehension of the NT literature, the canon is only an obstacle to be overcome because it serves to obscure the original historical contexts and relationships to which its contents first belonged. Consequently, the interpreter of the NT is driven outside the canOn in order to make Sense of the documents within the canon, and this suggests that the canon as such has little bearing on the interpretation of its contents .. This awkward situation_in which the canOn sets the agenda for exegesis yet exercises slight influence on exegesis-points up the need to reconsider the hermeneutical function of the canon and to c1arilY the relationship between the canon, the contents of the canon, and the tasks of exegesis.

INTRODUCTION

SOME IMPORTANT TERMS Canon'

"". transliteration of the Greek kanon, The English word ca.non IS a e both secular and early Chris-. which had a rich history 10 ancient usa a thoritative collection of tian. Its meaning as a designation. 0 t a~.s Ubackground. The Greek writings can be estimated only aga~ns d the Semitic root kane, th . t was rorme on kanon, along wi Its cogna es, .. .f English "cane"). Kanon meaning a "reed" (of bulrush or papyruds, c . tool for measure~r ' ifi d d s ecially the ree '!' a . h d-" also Sl III e a ree , e -""'cl-h~ bask';ense of" strrog: t ro . alignment, and there~ore acquire t -. the field of craftsh d h d a special currency 10 h In .this sense t e war a '. d" "ruler" or any ot er h it t "measuring 10 or , manship, were I mean bli h to test straightness (e.g., a tool whose purpose was to c.sta. IS 1 or there arose meta horical level a plumb line), From thIS htera sense aalsoa" a "norm" an ideal ) k - came to mean ~ '"'d ~lications of the_~: ~-,-;"'"h thina could be evaluate it . azainst wmc some 0..: __ ~_ standard a firm cn enon = . al the word kanon was =+"-"7" -h' b d metaphonc sense, h' and judged. In t IS roa er, di t USI'C literature, et ICS, f t t . c1u mg ar ,m , used in a variety a con ex s, 10 m le Pliny the Elder spoke of Dolaw, and philosophy. So, for exa p A' . t tl regarded the good man h . sculpture, ns 0 e f ryphoros as t e canon in s , .d d I gie as the canon true as the canon in ethics; Epicurus cons l ere ,0 se of kantm as "norm" t knowledge. In these cases Iit Iis the a b strach sen rd kiLnQn also ha d an"st d d" which is uppermost.. 'antiquity But t e wo ..... -I "I' t " "cataor S an ar name Y IS, __ other and rather distinct meamng III 1 t have been derived from 1llgiIe." This sense of the word seedl~,sbaStOha~its point of departure in -bits asic meanmg 'f" a me asurmg rc 1 uhi h gave rise to tel h ldea 0fa

1,

°

the calibrated marks on such a too , bl IC atalogue of astronomical fixed series. Hence, an arithmehtic tal e: a ~vents might be called a observations, or an ou tlim e of c rona .ogica l

kanon in the sense of an established hst' " " in its metaphorical fi t t k up the ward canon Early Christianity 1'5 00 . 'th written materials. Its ear, tee hItters sense of " norm ., bu t no t I'n connectIOn WI • t\: a passages III

. Ch' tian usage are III v liest occurrences In TIS b d' tion "Peace an d mer cy of Paul. In Gal. 6: 16 Pau I prono uuces _a ene "IC)that is, this ,. rn I"e or be Upon all who walk by thIS kanon .... , hich Paul holds out as ,_ I . . the gospel message w "norm" and clear y It IS B deutungsgeschkht.e ~s ' ". es H. Oppel, KANON: Z~r eus sup. 30. 4 (LeipZig. 5. For full discussions ,01,tlhlS t~n;~;~:hu~gm (regula, norma), :;~%~~~gKanolls(Leipzig, 19(4), W(Jrtes tmd Sel,le,. lalelmsc e~ s deT Ceschichte des neutestamen u: 1937); Theodor Zah~1 Crun4. 3 (1965): 596--602, 1-14; H. W. Beyer,Kanon, YDNT ,

15

THE NEW TESTAMENT

.cANON

a standard ofliving. In the second passage, 2 Cor. 10:13-16, the word kanon OCcurs three times, but here its precise sense is not easy to determine. The following translation is given by the RSV: But we will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits [to metron tau kanonos] God has apportioned us, to reach even to you, For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach YOU; we were the first to Come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

We do not boast beyond

limit, in other men's labors; but our hope is that as your faith increases, our field [ton kanona] among you may be greatly enlarged, so that we may prea~h the gospel in lands beyond

you, without

anothers field [en allotrio kananij.

boasting

of work already

done

In

Like the RSV, many translators and commentators take the word kanon here as a geographical reference to the region of missionary work allotted to Paul. Although this Seems to yield an adequate sense, such a meaning of the word is very poorly evidenced elsewhere. 6 Therefore, it is better to take the term in this context as a reference to Paul's mandate as apostle to the Gentiles, understood as the "norm" of his missionary work. This interpretation

gives a greater

consistency

to

Paul's use of the term, since both here and in Gal. 6:16 it would designate as the fundamental norm the gospel as it is actualized in the Pauline missionary preaching.' Apart from these Pauline texts, the word kanon is found elsewhere in first-century Christian literature only in 1 Clement, composed about 96, where it refers to "rules" governing moral behavior and ecclesiastical practice.

8

In the late second centu , however,_the_Christian use of the term ~ecam;;;;;;~,~ore com!lli',.n.It regularly app;;,;s ii);;;ci, phrases as the rule of truth (ho kanon tes aletheias, or the Latin equivalent, re6~nd the "rule of faith" (ho kanon tes pisteos; regula fidei), ~rases which tyPi~~ sunu!l'l!:Xfo.rmulations of QQristian belief, un. ersto as the no~ or stand!.ird_to [email protected]~ng, f~h, an practJ~':.ght to COnorm. More comprehenSive still are the phrases the rule of the Churc (ho kanon tes ekklesias) or "the ecclesiastical rule" (ho ekklesiastikos kanon), which refer to the whole of Christian teaching together with such authorities, regulations, and actions as are prescrihed by and effective within the church." Thus.

~%'

6, see J. F. Strange. BA But 46 (1983) 167-68.

--~,

"2 Corinthians 10:13--16 IUuminated by a Reeently Published Inscription", .

hrfJ~I~I~~)~7i' "Die Legtttmat d~~ Apost~,1s. Eine 'Untersuchung do ., esp. 56--61; Beyer, Kanon, 599; ana see 1. wnning,

zu 2 Korinther

10-13,"

Kanon im Kanan: Zum

~tischen GrundkJg~probletn des neutestamentlichen Kanans, Forschungen zur Geschichte Lehre des Protestantismus 43 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 1972), 17-23. 8. The passages are 1 ClemEnt 1.3; 4.1; ana 7.2.

UII

~e ~: ..'·:j~~s l::~~~,

l~/:fle' 1.9.4,; sl.,1O·1; ,5·j20'901D ; emo. nstratia .3; Tertullian, PraeSCripUo d Eusebfus, H.E. 6.13.3. , men. rom,. .5 an In

13, 27;

17

THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

INTRODUCTION

widely inacknowledged place the list of boask authe dntiIC an d authoritative and could find a stituting "scri ture." Religious authority was not sim Iy intrinsic to/ U s use In Wor h-. h d ....." --------general recognition of thei h s rp precisely because of this t e ocuments themse ves, it emerged within and was contingent on inally intended b), speaki~lf C farjacter, Hence, even if it was not eng- ~tIie church's recognition of th~ir creative and corrective effects --;;;-its ng 0 these doc" -I·r·--sense of being "in the 1- t." h . uments as canonical" in the own ire. . IS, t e Idea of their' came to be connoted by the term" ,?orrnahve status mevitably previous Christian usa th canon, and all the more since in New Testament " norm ""Or standard," ge albeit e inword oth had co nsrs. t ent Iy h ad the sense of It remains to examine the term "New Testament," by which the 16 er connecnons entirely.14 canon of early Christian literature is traditionally titled. "New TesScripture ~ment" is a JatiIili\eQ reude.ri!.lg.of the.£ireek "new cov",n;mJ:" (kaini! If in connection with Christ' . . had t~e specific sense of a fixI:~ ~::hngS the word "canon" originally term scripture" designates iti of authontative documents, the authoritative and are used :~I ~:I~e which are taken to be religiously th)'Jr systematic enurnerar] I' d as such, yet WIthout regard to ea non presupposes the existence IOn or of lmltatio scrt n. Wh ereas the concept of does not necessarily entail th . rptures, the concept of scripture \!2.possess scriptures witho te Inohhon?f a canon. It is entirely oossible . - in the fi.rst sevu a Iso-_=~'l9n, avmz _th e silt uation and this was Cdenc" The. firs consists of the use of early Christian documents by C ristian writers of the second through the fifth centuries. From the frequency and manner of their citations of and allusions to early Christian writings, it is possible to infer the value they attached to them. Uncertain and unsatisfactory

as this procedure

often is, such evidence

is the hest we have up to the end of the second century.' The second type of evidence is comprised by explicit discussions and judg~ents, either by individual writers or by eeclesiastical councils, about documents whose authority is either aeeepted or rejected. This evidence is vel)' helpful but, with a few exceptions, belongs mostly to the fourth l\Ild fifth centuries, The ~d sort of evidence is provided by the contents of ancient manuscripts of the NT, together with some "scriptural aids" (concordances, prologues, etc.) variously included in them. This evidence, too, comes mostly from the fourth century and later,

,

since not many extensive manuscripts have been preserved from the

earlier period. _The_avflilabkevidence, jnterprete.cLcarefully.and with a view to the broader history of the ancient church, yields a coh~rent,

.!...'!.otp!!rticula~ly detailed, mnceptiono(the

process ~_which theE

w~f2r~ed.2 1. The mere fact that a document is quoted or alluded to by an early writer does not mean it had aln;;~dyattained canonical standing, even if it is called "scripture" or cited with some such formula as It is written." See above 18 with 'n. 14 and, in addition, the remarks of Campen hansen, For""'10:'1"011,103, and R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition ill the Early Church (Philadelphia: Weshninster Press, ov2), 205-8. 2. Useful collections of evidence are: E. Preuschen. Ana/ecta: Kiir,,£re Texte zur Geschichte der ,.\/ten Kirche und d.e3 Knnons 2, Zur Kaocosgcscbtchte. 2d ed. (Tubingen, 1910; rcpr. Frankfurt, 1968);E. Hennccke and W. Schneemekher, ed., NT ApocrlJPha, l:4z.-.60; D. J. Theron, Evidence uf Tmditio.tl (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 195;); Souter, Text and Canon, 188-220.

23

22

• THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

THE SECOND CENTURY The Gospels How, when and why the ancient church came to acknowledge four and only four Gospels is at many points obscure. Though it has sometimes been claimed that only these Gospels ever enjoyed general esteem and use in early Christianity, the evidence shows that the Cosl'~which eventually hecame.canonical did not a~!,-cle!s as a Theological

Problem

in Antiquity,"

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

CANON

this cullection deserves

to be quoted

at leng

,

. be either more or fewer, in number It is not possible that the Gospels can [ the world in which we live, than they are. For, s~nce there ~re zOhe~ch is scattered throughout the and four principal winds, an? smce e oort of the church is the Gos~el and whole world, and since th~ pillar an~ SUfP Id have four pillars breathing t the Spirit of Lite, it is fitting ,t~at. s e s ou From this it is evident that t IT immortality all over and revivifying .men. n the cherubim and controls a \Vord the Artificer of all, He that Jlts £oupoaspects but bound together by thing;, has given us the Oospel un ~rw~~: four-fac~d, and their faces one spirit. . , . For the cherubim a ls f God For the Scripture say,s, . images of the dispensation of the S~~0 b [i: tng his effective working,. hiS first liVing creature was like a H.on, (r:as lil~e a calf, signifying his sact;J;fi: leadership and roval power; the secan d °t were the face of a man, and sacerdotal order: "but the third ha , as 1 b' '. "the fourth was like a t asf th a human emg, 'gs over evident description 0 f h'IS a d venifi Spirit hovering wit h h'IS ,wm flying eagle .. pointing out the g toe . accord with these thmgs amana the church,' And therefore the Go;pel:h~li~?ng creatures are quadrt°';' which Jesus Christ is seated. . .. or se 'allowed by the Lor. 0br c . also t he COUT the Cospells' qua dr itorm, as IS • tol'the human race, 01leh' Clore h' d reasOn were four principal covenacitsJ'v:~he flood, under No~; t e t lfnd the Rood, under Adam; the se con · '. th: fourth, that which re:,lves ~ho the giVing of the Law, under Muses, I These things bemg ~o, sums up all things by means of the Go~pe~~l~~rned and also a~daclOb' destroy the fann of the Gospel are vam , b 'ng either more In num er f th Gaspe l as el . who .represent the or, aspectsho hand, fewer. (A .H . 3,11.8-9) preVIOuslystated, on t e ot er

fOili

0h

~Th:

:hiS

m~l

t~h~~

h

in The Early

, sly adduces an allegorical interIrenaeus's argument, which ingemou tioned in Rev. 4:6-9 and pretation of the four living creat":;'s ~~nthat toward the end_of the alludes to four divine covenants, JE lca..!: I as becoming current III , f£ ou rGospesW . Iy t hta second century a collect!oll--O B h' remarks also Imp ' 'I. 't' 'ty ut IS G I the western region of C flS Iam '. U'on for if a four- ospe ',. ;;Th' g of an mnOva, h 1 ethis must nave eell somet III d lly acknowledged, t en r bl' h d an genera collection had been esta IS eEl Ver8jDIl.~.10-25,

Church (Phllade(p~a: Westm~nster Press, 1956), 39-54. For a useful collection of relevant texts see also H. Merkel, Die Lang, Pluralitilt der Evangelien als theologisches und exegetiaches Problem in der allen Kirche (Berne: 1978). 21. For disc~ssion of this p~blem in the ancient church, see H. Merkel, Die WidersprUche zwiscMn den Eti(mgelu:~ ..1hre POk7n~c~e und apologetische Behandlung in der alten Kirchc his :;::u AugllStin, WUNT 13 (Tublllgen: Mohr Slebeek, 1971), and Grant. Earliest Lives of Jesus, 14-37, 52-62. 22"u.On t~e DiaJessamn generally, see B. M. Metzger, The Early Versioll.\",oj the New Testament (0 ord: elaren au Press, 1977), IG--36, with reference to most of the rel~Mant literature 23. On the .use of .ot?er mat~rials than Our four Gospels. see G. Messin~, Diatessaro~ Persiano (Rome: ~itness to the currency of a four-Gospel collection i'!. the west is the M uratorian canon list, an annotated catalogue of authontative books ~la""'.;;;'ms to have been composed in the very late second or early third century, 25 The list is only partially preserved; it began with comments on each of the four Gospels, but the statements about Matthew and Mark are lost, What remains of its treatment of the Gospels may be quoted: .. , at which however he was present and so he has set it down. The third Gospel hook, that according to Luke. This physician Luke after Christ's ascension, since Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his travels composed it in his own name according to his thinking. Yet neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh, and thus as he was able to ascertain it, so he also begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

I

r ~

(

( ~

t

Lin~s 16-26 of this statement oller a defense of th~Gospel collectIOn, Specifically, It IS urged that although the GojPels are indeed 25. The date and location have been recently d's ~ . Put edb y A . C . S un.db erg, J~.) A Fourth Century List," 8TH 66 (L973)' 1-41 Canon Murat.or!: ing. For criticism see E F ,;. s argu.ments, though mterestm~, are not conVlnC·

lli

677-83. See Appe~dix tor' th:~iisM'

~a~oll Muratl?n:( Date aTld Provenance, . SWat 18 (1982): ura onan canon 1St au. trails.).

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

. I ' t' ach one and this as a different everything essentia IS p~ _in...!' -'. ~--~ f h di "re"s:!!u~lt.:o~f~' ~e:..£gu~I~a:;n~c:.:.e:..-"ofTth'7e::d:i:-;V1t·ne S_ 'rit. The admission 0 t e .1versity among t e Gospels, toget h er WIIth th e c laim that this diversity h d " matters nothing for the f:ait. h 0F beli that some a e levers, "uggests s indeed found discrepancies. trou bl esorne an d , perhaps for that reason, , h ompanying claim t at continued to prefer only one G osper.I Th e aL"C f . hat i ti I y well be a retort to a pre each Gospel contains W at IS essen ia rna ibl erence for one of the fuller Gospels (Matthew?), and/or pass) ~ toda critical attitude toward Mark. 26 But if such issues still had to e abdressed then the four-Gospel collection had not yet become esta lished beyond all objection, This is apparent especially from thfietreatment given here to the Gospe I0 f Jo hn . Th ever; ' elaborate justi cations offered on its behalf (lines 9-16 and 2&-34) cannot have been sup~ri thi rord fluous. Special pleading was require, d in IS cas e , and the , reasons h this can be found in the peculiar

The fourth of the Cospels, that of John [one] of the disciples. W,hcI?-. his fel~owdisciples and bishops urged him he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us relate to one another." In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that, while all were to go over [it], John in his own name should writ? everything down: And therefore, though varIOUSrudiments arc taught In the several . Gospel books, yet that matters nothing.for .the faith ofbelievers, since by the one guiding Spirit everythmg IS declared In all: concerning the birth concerning the passion, ('oncerning the resurrecti~n concerning the intercourse with his disciples ' and concerning his two comings, the first despised in humility, which has come to pass the second glorious in r:oyal power ' which is yet to come, W'hat wonder then if John so constantly adduces particular points in his epi.stles also where he says of himself: ''\fhat we have see'n with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you For so he professes [himself] not merely an eye and ear witn~ss but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order. '

THE HISTORY OF THE

history

of this Gospel m t e secon

century. d by most The Gospel of John seems not to ~ ~n known2r use-Ii t _ -, d t 0 a IL appearan.ces was rs em secono-century Cliristian writers, an -. - h ': AI-=> --., a gnostic teac Ployed among gnostic Christians. 27 B as!llides I, . . er 111 ti ---."""" .,~ -11h it d it and the Valentinian gnos IC exanuria (ca. 1301 may we ave CI e I, b h t xpositions teachers Ptolemaeus and Heracleon (160-170) ot wro e e the on of this Gospel2s Theirs are t~ar.liest-kn!!w1!..cmum.eJlta1J,edS h c- t 'I Chn ti writing) an t e rae Gospel of John (or indeed on any ear y ns ': d h iws that John tliat they c;';;idered it worthy of such detaIieChstu tY '.tOy by the midi gnostlc ns lam h ad acquired considera bl e stan dtnz mg m 'd 't"c circles there trast OutSl e gnos I dl e 0f th e secon d century. B Y con , d' to the late second was scant knowle d ge 0 f· or mteres t 1'n John , an pnor, "hie that the . f 't authority It lS pOSSl century no broad recognitIOn 0 1 S h' 'G I through IllOSt of · ance of t IS ospe aImost exclusive Iy gnostiC proven al acceptance.,.,..ll,e. t 'ts more gener t h e secoud century militate d agams I d f "t by the so-called 0" df theusema eo I ' yon d t h at, John also sUll~re E.0m~_ ~. , t;;;:;is~ which Ilour,.... h" t al 0 known as on, d !!ew pr~--!~y ~o~e~~ S . tu 1ts adherents claime ished in the latter naif of the second cen ,ryJ' h (14'26 15:26, etc.) Ollllse d III on ., h t ha t the mming of the Parac Ite e pr the founder of t e on of MontanuS, h ad actually occurred in th e pers . th Muratorian Fragment," Eh hardt "The Gospels met Stories [Man26. ?nt~eseand related questions, seeA(:The rFra~work of the New Testamen Ortkirchl'che Studien 2 (1953): 121-38 -36) " I of John.'" chester: Manchester Univ. PreSS, 1964J, 11· h Go.,.,.,el aod Hillmer, Gospe ed b S ders Four't Vt'"' I rh Intedfretu.IOH 27. The evidence is fully canva~s y an 'F W'(es The sr.·ritual G~ p: e 1960 aDd E. 00 " f J h soo M. . 1, . U jverslty ress. '73) "'0. For gnostic appropnatlons 0 \0, h (Cambridge; Cambrl ge 1 ~~J1. Abingdon P-ress, 19 . of the Fourth Gospel in the Early C I)~C E gesis SBLMS 17 (Nas lH e. Pagels, The ]ohannint! Gospel in Gnostic XI' , -I'

I,

(

33

THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON I

movement, and that the new Jerusalem foreseen in Revelation (21:2) would soon descend to earth. Opposition to the" new prophecy" some. times entailed a critical attitude toward John. This is exemplified by l the learned Roman churchman Gaius who, early in the third century, as a result of his distaste for Montanism, rejected both the Gospel and Bevelation.P But perhaps the strongest reservations about John arose ~ from the perception of its extensive differences from the other Gospels '. in both outline and substance. These discrepancies were problematical , enough that some, rather than trying to rationalize them, found it easier simply to dismiss John from consideration altogether." Against this background it is not surprising that the author of the Muratorian list thought it necessary to give especially strong endorsements of John. These are offered in two claims. The first is emhodied in an implausible legend about the origin of the Gospel (lines 9-16), the point of which is to assert that its authority is not of one apostle only but of all the apostles together!" The second is the insistence, based On an appeal to the letter known as 1 John (1:1-3), that the author of the Gospel was a reliable eyewitness (lines 26-34).32 By such means this Gospel is defended against its detractors. Yet so far as this r was necessary, the four-Gospel collection itself could not be taken for granted.

I

~though in the western regions of Christianity a four-Gospel collection was corning into its own near the end of the second ';;'ntuJ:)', ( ,the situation was not so fully developed elsewhere. In the same period, Clement of Alexandria, who knew and valued our four Gospels, still granted a good measure of authority to the Gospel of the Hebrews and r the Gospel of the Egyptians and so did not hold exclusively to a collection of four Cospels.P From Syria there is a fascinating report pre29. See below. 51 with n. 73. 30. See the ~tudie~cUed in n. 21 above. The idea, first attested by Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, H.E. 6)4.7) but Widely found thereafter (Wiles, Spiritual Gospel, 11-12), that John is the "spiritual Gospel ,:,'bere~ the other Gospels deal only with the "outward facts" must have been conceived IthargeJ)' Wtt~ ~ View to th~ great differences between John and the Syn~pucs aEldin all effort to give em a positive explanatIon. '; 31. Thih.le~e~d (perhaps ~ased on John 21:24) originally must have aimed to suggest that only John was aht Onba ve am,ong e Gospels because it alone had the backing of all the apostles. If so, it :~htea~heoth:' deVised when the Gospels were circulating individually and stood in competition

If

32, On this passage see the remarks of Eh h dt "TIt G l' h " 26-36. For the possibl i po t· of h ~r? e. ospe s In t e Muratorian Fragment, John see R Br \ m r ance. teo nnIne epistles for the reception of the Gospel of 145-&1. . own, T e CommUnity of t e Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979),

~

r

34

CANON

. ( 6 12 2) concerning Serapion, bishop of A~served by Eusebius H.E. .. h hi h lay in Serapion s h unity of R OSSUS, w lC tioch (ca. 190). In t e comm . d Serapion expressed jurisdiction, the Gospel of Peter was m use, an t ally brought to his . b hi B t when It was even u no reservation a out this, U h d ideas Serapion . ht tain etero ox I , I attention that this Gospe mig con thot a four-Cnspe] col' id nt i ustrates a n ll banned its further use. Th e mCI e d £ several centuries lection had not become normative in the east, aln IIor ti which held it was Tatian's Diatessaron, not a J:lour- Gospe co ec ion, the field in the Syrian church. . s els did 1I0t begin to acquire CIn summary, our four canonical Go p th wr[tten gospels ~ d 1t d T on or among 0 er clear prominence beyon ora ra I 1 f t i the western area until the second half of the second century, rs lEn t the end of ' d I I . the eastern. ven a of Chnstianfty, an more sow y m h C -. G pel collection was d I th est t e rour- os the second century an 10 e w: b th ght and problems .h d h times een Oll , not so firmly estabhs e as as some. I ) that given the circentered especially around JO~lll.It IS i~s::'de:~e lux~riant variety of cumstances of second-cent~ry Chrtsuan 1Y which were current during gospel traditions, both written and oral' 11 tion was neither a nee. C • f £ -Gospecoec that time, the formation 0 a our f h history of gospel literacssary nor an entirely natural outcome 0 t e ,1 mpromise striking 1 be seenasaco h h I ture in the early c urc . t can on y . bl ltiplicity of gospels managea e mu a precarious balance b etween an un. os e1 on the other. The onthe one hand and a single, self-conSJSte~~g t:rminology applied to nature of this compromise can be seen ~n e 11' sources. Writers of t the four-Gospel collection in late secon U gular) and in this way this period tend still to speak of the gospe .s~nallYa theological con. hath preserve tbe Idea t hat at " gospe I" was ongm tial unity of the gaspe.I hasi e the essen I d cept and not a book an emp a51Z h allow that this essen. connection .. WIt h speer s lfic documents, t ey These ideas are h e Id Yet In , . .. . ibu d g fonr witnesses. d' t tial unity 15 dlstn ute amon I' "the Gospel accor 109 a together and expr~ssed by the formu alIOn't . tl s eaking, four G2ss nc 'on between the nee d Mark," and so forth. T h us, t h ere are notthc:L= I thO way e tensl I. I pels but a fourfold g~e. n IS the actual presence of mil tip e felt for a single and unitary gospel a~:t erpetuated in the collection gospel documents is not overcome P of four Gospels.'

-c~(

I"

eltOn

~6s~~~~~C~mcf~':J~~~tl~rie: desecritures et apocryphes, n Bib 29 (1948): 77-99; (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1~3s). ,an E. Mo and, The Concept of the Gospel in Alexandrian Tlleowgy

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

\

f

The Letters of Paul k the NT almost half t which rna e up " . II d Of the twenty-seven ocumen s I H ever large Paul s m uence stle Pau. ow are letters ascribed to t h e apo

35

-

_.

~.._,."

._~

.... _.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

_.~

0-

,,..~

"':-_0

•

,

••

_~......

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

may have been in earliest Ch . tiani hi canon is dispro ortio t I TIS raruty, IS prominence in the NT not be overlook~d P n~ e y larger. The peculiarity of this fact should after he became a Chau tiwas not a historical disciple ofJ esus, and even with the leading fig ns anfaPhostlehe stood in an oblique relationship ures 0 t e prtrrutive ch h M oreover , Paul's letters were practical expe dirents of his mi . urcn, k specific churches th issronary wor : addressed to~ , ey are narrowly parr I . b pose and mak ICU ar III su stance and pure no pretense of gener I . t How and why did th . a merest or timeless relevance. ey attain their standing in the NT? • The Early History of Paul's Letters The early history of Paul's Ie . were collected are very ob tter~ ~nd the process by which they evidence several tbe ti sal cure, an in the absence of any conclusive I ore IC reconstructi h b review of these' will point u h " ous ave een proposed. A A traditional and widel pte mam ISsues. ball theory." On this Vie: ~eld explanation may be called the "snow, outset by the communin ' t aulhs.letters were highly valued from the ies 0 w ICh the a tl was an authoritative fig t th pos e wrote. After all, Paul h e tak es note that Someure 0 d ed churches I' hi f d hi 0 IS oun ing, and even ) (2 Cor. 10:10). If during hregar e 1.~1~ letters as "weighty and strong" uettm P I' I h.IS congregations this rnaIS own II h e au s etters were valued in , y we ave led t h ---among such communitie 0 an exc ange of his letters . I s as possessed an d h 1 crrcu ation of them outside the y, an . t us to an ever wider r dressed. In this haphazard wa churches to which they were first adhave emerged in differe t I y'IPartIal collections of the letters could c ti II th n oca ities until fi all b re_ on, a e letters would have b .!' y, y a proce~f acIIslied as a group. een brought together and pubThis explanan htl r hi ion, w I e plausible in th b IOns w .IChmay not be justified S. e a stract, ~ests on assump- ~ ad hoc piece of corresponde '. mce each of Paul s letters was an with imme . d iate and local .nee written to a speer'fic ch urch and dealing valu e wou ld h ave been seenISSUes in th it is not 0 bvi VI0us that an enduring much less by other churches In e;; even by their original recipients, reserved at all (cf.I Cor. 5:9; 2 C~:' ~ome I~tters of Paul were not been preserved only fragmentaril ~4J.. while others seem to have e made up of such fragments) y d hiormthians is often thought to ;:;e ~~ ~ways immediately ~p~:ec~at:~ndicates that Paul's letters f y a. een m such early d or carefully treasured. If alleges, It would be odd that th an thgeneral circulation as this th';ory e au oroI' Act .. s, wntmg several decades "-

(2

36

~.,._... , __

'

~-

CANON

after Paul's time, shows no knowledge of any letters of Paul and seems unaware that Paul even wrote letters. In view of such problems, another theory was offered by E. J. Goodspeed." He assumed that precisely because Paul's letters were occasional pieces of real correspondence they were not scrupulously preserved hut, like all letters, were read and then laid aside only to be forgotten. In this way the silence of Acts about Paul's letters becomes explicable: according to Goodspeed, the letters, having fallen into disuse, were rescued from obscurity only after Acts was written, and indeed only because Acts was written. He conjectured that the publication of Acts, with its rehearsal of Paul's itinerary, prompted someone who was already acquainted with one or two of Paul's letters (Colossians and Philemon) to search out other letters of Paul among the Pauline churches mentioned in Acts. Having successfully retrieved these, the collector then wrote what we know as the letter to the Ephesians, intending it to be a summation of Paul's thought and an introduction to the collected letters. In this way Goodspeed accounted for the peculiar character of Ephesians, including its general cast, its resonance of other letters of Paul, its close literary relationship with Colossians, and its apparent pseudonymity. On Goodspeed's view, then, it was only through the labors of an ardent admirer of Paul that the apostle's letters escaped oblivion and were gathered up into a collection of nine authentic letters plus the pseudonymous Ephesians. Despite its ingenuity, Goodspeed's theory has not been widely accepted, and for good reasons.35 That Paul's letters immediately fell into obscurity is no less an assumption than the contrary view that they were continuously ssteemed.i" Also, it is a romantic notion that a single individual moved by personal admiration of Paul should have gone on an odyssey in search of "lost" letters of the apostle, and it seems unlikely that Acts played any role in this, since Acts nowhere intimates that Paul was a writer of letters. Further, recent studies of Ephesians, though granting that it is not an authentic letter of Paul, have shown that it is not merely a pastiche of themes from the genuine 34. Goodspeed,

New Solutions to New Te~.tllmefd Problems (Chicago: Untv. ofCbicago

Press, 1921),

1-64; idem, TM Meaning of Ephesians (Chieugo; Onlv. ofCbicago Press, 1933); and many other publications.

35. The theory has heen variously adopted and adapted mainly by Goodspeed's students: ef. john Knox,Philef1l(ln Among the Lettef"S of Paul re\'o ed. (Na.~hville: Abingdoopress),1~9tA~f.ttBam~~ Pa~l Becomes a Literary Influence (Chi~gO: Uni". of Chicago Press, 1941~ . p' .11;51) d Epistle 'to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin, and purpose (Oxford: CJ%5)on ress, an The Fonnation of the Pauline Corpus of Letters {London: Epworth Press, 1. . 36. L. Mowry "The Early Circulation of Paul's Letters," J BL 63 (1944): 73-86. Cf. Knox, philemon, 71-72.

'

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

THE HISTORY OF THE

letters but must have its Own specific historical setting and purpose. If Goodspeed Were right about the introductory purpose of Ephesians, I we would expect evidence that this letter once stood at the head of the collection, but the earliest known arrangements of the letters show nothing of the sort. 37 Still another and no less ingenious explanation has been advanced 38 by W. Schmithals. He too supposes that the collector-editor of the Pauline-jetters was a single individual, but Schmithals attributes to him a very different motive: the purpose of the collector was to furnish the church at large with a useful weapon in its struggle against the gnostic tendencies which threatened Christianity in the late first and early second centnry. To this end he not only collected the letters but also edited them in order to depict the apostle as a constant and ) implacable foe of gnostic ideas. Schmithals is led to this conclusion by his supposition that virtually all the authentic letters of Paul (Galatians and Philemon excepted) are literary composites which have been ed- ~ itorially pieced together from diverse smaller letters and letter fragments. His theory about the origin of the Pauline collecti~n is an effort to provide a historical context and unity of motive for the kind of thoroughgoing editorial work he detects in the letters. According to Schmithals, the editorial reworking of Pauline texts had two specific aims. First, it Was necessary that each of Paul's letters be made to contain an element of anti-gnostic polemic, and since this was not ) always present it was supplied by combining different pieces of cor-, respondence into new literary units. Second, the editor wished to consolidate the many fragments of Paul's correspondence into seven letters, so as to make clear by the symbolism of the number (seven ee wholeness) that Paul's teaching was meant for the entire church. Thus, he fashioned a collection which was anti-gnostic in substance and catholic in shape. Hence, Schmithals reconstructs an original collection ., containiI,lg 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1-2 Thessalo. nians, and Romans. Since Schmithals's theory is so fully predicated on his views about the composite character of individual letters, it must stand or fall witb the plausibility of those views.39 While most scholars are prepared to

)

I

~L4~ ..

H. Buck, "The Early Order of the Pall]ine Corpus," ]BL 68 (1949): 351-57; see also below, 38 Sch . hal "0 h .. and the ~~lJS~ t~~s eJCs~Pjlti(~nahodUEarlibc.stCollection of the Major Epistles of Paul," in Paul . " s redactional '. ee Y thea'as VI e: A p mgdon 1972), 239-74. 39. For Schmlthals ul d Press, h

J.

E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon

38

Pre;~~si9S;t).

Q

an

t e Gnostics and Gnosis in Corinth, trans.

f

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

.. h as affected some of the, letters, grant that secondary editoria I reVlSlOn 1 arbi y Schmithals's analyses are suspect for their mmlPdlexlt , seelt~I~~ esti: I . I' ty and few wou agree w trariness, and sheer mu tip iciry, . ng the Pauline letters mates of the nature or extent of redaction a~~h collection ever conFurthermore, there is nu good evidence th.a th t the stood in the tained only the seven letters ~e asslgnsht~ I~ or ka ow/and used beproposed order. 40 And if Paul s letters a een nine that an editor forehand, as Schmithals allows, It IS difficult to -ecasti g as he alleges III could have succeeded WIt. h sue h a prorm scuous recas discover an occa-' Both Goodspeed and Schmithals ha;e t~ the Pauline letter d I've for the torma ion 0 sion, an agent, an a mo I . I t the collection (pseudocollection hy relying on features mtema 0 ba ic to yet another d ) Th e features are s nyrnity and re action. e sam II H M Schenke has h .. of the co ection . f th modern t eory 0 e ongm the work of a "Pauline suggested that the collection.of.Paul's ~et~ers was d valued Paul's teachschool," that is, a group of persons. ~ ,0 ~~~:: continuation of Paul's ing and who assumed the responsl~:l~~henke attnbutes to this group work after the death of the apostle. . f then tic letters of Paul not only the gathering and presorvatton fOpa~, correspondence, the but also the editorial reworking of some 0 au s Ephesians 2 Thes-f " "P]' e letters (Co 1ossians, , composition 0 new au m bli I' on of the whole corsalomans, 1-2 TImothy, Titus), and the pu ICt~lng extending, and ' imed at sus aim , pus. These various e florts were a . . field after his death. d I, hi his histone rrussron k I eveloping Pau s teac mg m herit gradually too Slape, Under this Impetus the Pauline literaryd' en agfeteaching it remained . g tra ition .0 _ , but since it was a matter 0fl'a ivm The silence of Acts t P line oommuntttes-tr d I pertinent for a time on y 0 au h t hen Acts was compose about letters of Paul is due to the fact t a;; t generally known. the collection was still in ItS early stages an no It recognizes that~the h . . many ways d ' This is an attractive hypot esis milt' must be understoo not development of the Pauline letter co ec th theological history of merely in literary terms but as an asPhect °b e preserved chiefly out , I ust ave een early Christianity' Paul setters m . F ther this theory can P I' ur, along with aut h en ti c of a persistent devotIon to au s, teachmg. ta'ns k < , rna e sense of the tact t h a t the collectIOn . . con d Iletters whic h h ave been letters, both pseudonymous compOSItIOns an the dubious idea that a .. ed itorially reworke d , ye t WI tI,out relymg on t f the Paulme Corpus,

z:

10;

. ]. e Letters and the Formu lon 0 40. H. Gamhle, "The Redaction 01 the Pau In d' P Iuss . most of the d roader stream of Chnstian thought for I secon cen tury th .t Id b I The Epistle to the Hehrews appears to have been used (though became suddenly well kno';'n e~ I wou e. very puzzling that they, - ;;Overnamed) by Clem~nt of Rome in the last years of the first century, decades of that t B an widely honored during the last two but during the second century it ~ommanded almost no interest in thex, esteemed b I cen ury. ut the fact that Paul's letters are highly western church. Tertullian knew Hebrews and thought it was written y renaeus, Tertullian CI fIr author of the Murat' F ' ement 0 A exandria, and the .. by Barnabas, but he made scant use of it, appealing once to its teaching onan ragment geogra h- II di h "Witnesses are, implies that Paul's Ii ' plea y iverse as t ese ~ against a second repentance (De pudicitia 20)_'iNeither Irenaeus nor continuously and broadly valued d terary legacy had been more or less \ \I!h~ Muratorian list shows any awareness of this letter. In the east, by r: even if this is not dil urmg the preceding period as well, r contrast, Hehrews must have been mor
THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

CANON

th t of the most im ortant rePromises," and from this Eusebius (HE. 7.25) has preserved some~ It will have become 0b vious a one . the cclesiastica t: . th history of the canon IS interesting excerpts.?" Here Dionys!,us remarked that he would n?t sources.!.orJ!l ovenng e . P I I' e (ca 265-340). In ')')t, himself reject the book Revelation since many brethren hold It In ~ btEnsebiu bishop of Caesarea~a ~~:~biUS' inquired into esteem," but he confessed that Revelation was incomprehensible to composing this work, completed about~h h d recorded mcov him (HE. 7.25.4-5). He proceeded to make many acute observations earlier usages of Christian wn itiIn g s in the c urc, .an tion of Eu-' ' t ' But here It IS a ques about the language, style, and thought of Revelation which decisively ( useful bits of evidence on t h IS 0pIC. tous d t ' the churches differentiate it from the Gospel of John and 1 John (HE. 7.25.17-27), th latus of vanous acumen s m b t sebius's statements a au es 1 bl it ess He provides a Since these insights compelled Dionysius to deny that Revelation was hi h h " Iso a va ua e WI n . =:r-, ofhis)l!Y.nday for w IC e IS a . E 3 25.1-7Cacknowledge\-"'an , " sius's hesitancy toward Revelation was not merely or even mainly a 'bDD, :l.--\ omo ogO,umenOl , f " kuowledged books _ result of his doubts about authorship. Rather, he was tronbled by the tha), and IWretical works. 76 In the category ~ ac Eusebius includes use being made of it by millennialists who gave the work a literal that is those receive d as aut horit on aI've I scnpture-" bl . [udiug He, h I tt s of Paul (presuma Y me interpretation and conjured up expectations about an earthly kingdom the four Gospels, Acts, tee er 11 th t Revelation may be (HE. 7.25,1-5). Thus, the basic considerations were doctrinal and her' f b ) 1J h d 1 P ter He also a ows a rews ,on, an ".:' . blc." In the larger category 0 meneutical, and the question of authorship was ancillary to these, In placed in this group if It seem desu~ P t 2 and 3 John, and any case, Dionysius's criticisms eroded what standing Revelation had "disputed books" he places James, J~ e f ~:~mas, Apocalypse of gained in the east, and later on, eastern Christian writers generally in addition, Acts of Paul, ~he Shep ;~el~e Apostles. Then he adds, rejected it. Peter, Barnabas, and Teaching of the bid among the disputed th h tR lation may e c asse k 1n they tradition ~nd belaslUsdsetforth a list.'of those writin.gs "banded dl d '. leve to be div' " ' ". y ,Detnne IS proclaimed" H" me, and m which alone the uthoTltative exactly the t' IS ISthe first'list to narrie-as ex~e1Y At anaslus was---'--~ wenty-seven booh..which k M ~ '0' U sian of Hebrews in the west had been paved by Hilary of Poitiers (d. 366), Ambrose of Milan (d. 397), and Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), all of whom used it as canonical while nevertheless regarding it as anon' ymous. Clearly, the western recognition of Hebrews did not depend on a persuasion of Pauline authorship. But with the Council of Car, thage in 418, Hebrews was finally fully integrated into the Pauline collection; and its approval by Jerome, who was much under eastern II influence, insured that it would no longer be challenged in the west. \ '" In sum, the writings which found the least and most hesitating '\, recognition in the ancient church were James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Their status was almost everywhere questionable before , the middle of the fourth century But also the acknowledgment of I Hebrews and Revelation was fitful and uneven, and the acceptance of Hebrews in the west and of'ilevelation in the east did not become (~ _ firm until the late'fourth century. A broad uniformity of usagewhicifl ,. \ closely apllroxirriat~s Our NT cannot therefore be dated before tbe close of the fourth century, and even then tbe-sy"i-ian church lagged , r.t"elimd. . It needs to be emphasized " however- that this emergent uni-' /.U Orrrutv was fundamentally de facto, for no ecumenical authority of the ancient church ever rendered a formal decision for the church at large as to the exact contents of Christian scripture.

f

80. On tile varying

W H P Hat h "Tb

133....si. .

A

regard

~

p '. or

H b

e rews an

c. ' e OSition of Hebrews concIse summary or the evi(]ence

d !

I

Its p acement relative to the Pauline

I

etters,

'"

]

in the Canon of the New Teshment " lITR 29 (1936: is given by B. Metzger, Text~;l Com;nentatlj, 661--61-.

f \

. circumstances, and historical A complex interplay of Ideas, f of Christian scripth ncept a a canon forces conspired, to create e co, . [' its development, aud to d direction a I h tures, to influence tl ie pace an th the existence and the c ardetermine its contents, Apart from ese, d acter of the NT are hardly to be understoo . INTRINSIC FACTORS .' Th [, ith of tbe , Ipturul relIgIOn. e a Christianity did not begin as a send c 1 'd on a person, Jesus of , , k rl by an tdcuse . th earliest Christians was eva eq, d t I written texts but 10 e no Nazareth aud he was apprehende d d,n n Messiah and in the ~ '. 'fi an nse , . preaching- about him .as the eruct e . The immediacy of Chrisf Chri (" n commumty. d charismatic life a the rts la, h t I gical hopes rna e super. d h [' of Its esc a 0 0 here han experience an t e ervor .' ltings and t ere :IS. DO . ' f Christian wn I hri ' fluous even the composmon 0 , d the idea of C ristian .hurch entertame h I intimation at all that t e ear y c f h Therefore the NT as we ' a tern. , , scriptures much less a coIIocnon '-d f ""e first generations , fJ the mill s 0 til think of it was utterly remote rom L'

of Christian believers, Ch ' ("anity had called into service -OCcourse, almost from the start . n'h' as the propbetic witness · . terpretmg t em h J wish the scriptnres of Ju d alsm, m fulfillment.' Even so, t ese e of which the Christian fmth was the d th Christian message; they eate expreSSion. 'Thus scriptures only suppa rt e d and confirme .' d , the ' uwe It a equ , 'ty was did not constitnte its baslS or did t mean that Chri'llam .h 'ptures no Christian use of J eWlS sen . . The Sub-Slrndun n 2' 20' v ~ (l968): 317-20. ' 27; F. E. Vokes, "The·

_ Paulsen,

Die Bedeutu

d

fig

64

. Use ofScnpture

in the Montanist Colltto'

es Montanism.u s, .. ""4-J2. ,,,, "

r

I

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

CANON

l

FACTORS IN THE

FORMATION

OF THE CANON

.. d ffi I" g the scope of the canon. an Jerome and Augusti,;el'n the western. For the fortunes of some authority of individual writings an a na lzl nt . a closed collection, .. . I I iti ate to say tha as individual writings (e.g., lk;;cl,;tion, Hebrews) the judgments of such ( In this sense It IS entire y egr im f hi h othing may be de, thinkers were crucial, even though in the whole process of canon b dded and rom w IC n to which no th mg may ea. official decisions of the church. formation the ideas of individual theologians were not conclusive. Again, leted, the NT canon IS contingent on I t I separated even the history of the canon, like the history of the ancient church gen~ly, the history of the canon ca~n~t beiJor;~Ke ::':"ufacture In the ~. erally, shows the effects of the political rivalries, cultural differences, ¥rpm so ordinary a matter as t e 1St ry . . Ch .stianity made use and theological orientations of the great centers of ecclesiastical mfluancient w;rld.28 Virtually from th begm ~I) But t e codex ence: above all, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.25 The theological ( ~fihe c--;;-dex (or 1e:J'bookj rat er than the ~o . (or tS'croan'd not yet well ----..-.,..,... ~ hi g fan mnova IOn conservatism of Antiochene Christianity and its bent toward a literalwas in the first century som~t m a small and long remained quite historical type of interpretation are symptomized in the narrow, highly developed, so that ItS capacity was d auld not contain more hi t a gIven co ex C traditional collection of scriptures which persisted for so long in that limited. So long as t ISwas rue, 1 the letters of Paul or h everal Gaspe s or h region. Conversely, the open and speculative cast of Alexandrian ( than a few writings, per aps s '1 h fourth century that t e Christianity with its commitment to allegorical exegesis is reflected in other small collectiuns. ~aa not;n~. t-~pahle-of containIng the the rich trove of early Christian literature valued in Egypt. As in technology of bookmaking pro uce co lc es c not a mere coincidence, _. . It is pro ba bY l doctrinal, so also in canonical matters Rome generally charted a prag- ( -'-whole of the Christian scr!I?tures. -2., . I fi d content only when ~.1-.. T . d a relative Y xe b matic middle COursebetween these extremes. Further, some ime:'tus !berefore, that ..g~e..N acqurre . th various writings to e to the production of lists discriminating be~een authoritative and codices became large enough to permit I etse ical factor both con-) P I b k Thi IS mere Y ec hn . I nonauthoritative writings is perhaps also to be located in the chUrsh'S'?[ transcribed in a sing e_ 00. d f th first time gave tangib e experience of persecution, which often involved the proscription, , tributed"to the stability of the canon ~ . or fethese writings from all (r~quisition: ~nd: estructr;;n of Christian scriptures by local or provin- form to the collection and differentlatlOn 0 CIaI authorthes. Such situations may have prompted the church to' others. ward decisions about which books were to be held sacred and retained [ CRITERIA OF CANONICITY . from the authorities and which ones might be surrendered without , . d bted to many contmgent bl~me. And, so,far_as Canonization is understood strictly as the £leter· If the formation of the NT canon w~: m edom process. The church mmation of a fixed and closed list of authoritative scriptures, offifjgl ( historical factors, it was not a thoroug Y rfa~tsliterary and theological !£!JfJ!!!.stical deCisions rendered by bishops Or councils must be-given th i also engaged in a re flec tive evaluatIOn . d a 1 nts as specia 11y3..!!.....'!!:their dueY "'e do 0 t'"KIlOW0 f any sue h d eCISlons .. . to teas h I I cume ,. l,¥ ~ pnor heritage and in setting ~part certam - °B se these pri;;iples were , . . 'ples ecau ...".- . .- half of !he fOJ,lr!b.,g;m.ur.y,by ~h;ch time. many documents. had b.een tative it appealed to certam pnncl. ~ 't ' Cll to assess !!teu m such long and w'd ~th ~ >--= ~ fi , . consIstency, I IS t . I e Use at an othcial decision could only con fro not invoked with g~at ng~.Q!. h and there is disa eemen standmg practice. But this was not true of all documents which found ~h 'a of actual effects on t e h'J> t a of- t canou, f so' ~n 'tyr~ a place m the canon and '1' . I . t ..---" . ;mIlor nee a h thO king . , ' ecc eSlasbca pronouncements were IllS fUtoday a out t~>anl.!}g_ 9..[ . d t ominently in t e 10 mental in bnnging so .. r C zg.;;jh . . that figure mos pr me wntmgs to lUll canonical recognition-Jor canonici . T e cntena ~ --- h if th Codex (New York and examplef' Hebrews in the west and Revelation in the east. The J·udg· d T C Skeat, The Blft 0 if :he Early codex (Pbdaments 0 eccl . t' I h 28 On thiS, see nowesp C H. RO~~~ En G Turner, The Typology 0 eSlas lea aut orities were more important than this hoW· London Oxford Um" Press, 1983), 77) d bel der Blldung ever, b ecause they had th f ' th delphia. Umv of Pennsyl"anla Press, ,~9 cler Sammlung und AUssch~heUd!clsive critena II1 . e errect a concluding discussion about e Leer (Pnn:nptel li d lOSplrahon as pIe was van

l

o

ll~'-

!l.

e

IT'

25. See esp. H. Lietzmann "W' d . wur Kleine SchrifteFi 2, "Studie~ ZUt~e N e:r dIe Biich~;r des Neuen Testament Heiligc Schrift?" in Verlag, 1958), 15--98. euen estament, cd. K. Aland (= TU 68; Berlin: Akadelllie26. cr. W. R. Farmer, Jesus and th G .. tress Press, 1982) 177-259 He he oospel; Tradition, Scripture and Canon (Philadelphia: Forformation and sub~tance of the ~ owever, goes too far in finding here the b8.'iic motive for the 27 5 dber ' non. ,un g, 'Toward a Revised History," 461.

(

( f

I

29 So, e g , E Flesseman 404 20) speCIfies aposta CIty an 330) thlOks the mam prmcl: ~shlp des Kanoos," ZTK [1964] enhmlsen (Formation, nod closest to Chnst, autb o. the west and east, ....-espedl"ely, Camp must deTlve from the pe 15) suggests that [0 the hlstor' chronologlC:al, so that authontatlve d(;~~lem of the NT canon~~~ les .. -The most tborou~l~he~ playmg no I~portant role, K the p~1Dclple of ha"mg n~ PB~ndung des netltes~'hn WQher of the canon one can speak on -H Obhg, Die theo/.ogtSC I 1972), for a summary, IS of the cntena of canontClty l~A~n (Dusseldorf Patmos- er ~~o). 59-91. Karnms in d€,. alten Klrche, K (Dusseldorf PatolOS-Ver g,

11~f k

mmmt die Bibel thre Autuntaf?

k

67

THE NEW TESTAMENT

FACTORS IN THE FORMATION

CANON (

of the church were apostolicity, catholicity, orthodoxy, and esta~lished usage.

-

-

~

Apostolidty In popular Christian thinking, the apostolicity of the NT writingsis us~ally taken to mean that they were actually written by apostles, but th " IS an madequate conception of this criterion as it functioned in t he ancient church . Certai -, - the am Iy> some writings were esteeme d m fi;m conviction that they had been composed by apostles. The Gospel b Matthew and the letters of Paul are good examples though it would e wrong to think th at even III in tth ese cases apostolic' authorship was t.h e only consideratio n. Oth er writings -, ' were received as authoritative m the frank recognitio th t th h d -~ d' .. -------:c,L _ _~n_ a LIley a oruy an 10.irect ctmnection-WlUl apostles. " Here one m ay th'-IIIk 0f~Mar k and -- - Luke, whose apostolicity ,' ~d was envative through as iati ith P Still h ' _ socia IOn WI eter and Paul, respective Iy, I ot er wntmgs fo d th , '-'. ~.---:--_ _ UO __ ~ay mto the canon in spite of large uncertamhes abont - thei 'h~_~h' , , '--30 eILaU-'.!!!lLll!lp,Hebrews and- Revelation being cases inhiPOInt. And som e wn itimgs w hiICh explicitly ' , claimed apostolic au th ors Ip either failed t ' (Th Teachin of th ' 0 gam canonical standing altogether e were ac~owle~ ~~elve Apostles, Barnabas, the Gospel of Peter) or ude) Ob' Ig very tardily and with hesitation (James, 2 Peter, Jthe d, " VIOUSY ' then , ap os t 0I'ICau th ors h ip was not the only or even ecrsive question in det .. th ' also clea th t ' _ errmmng e status of a document. It IS r a apostolicity w t di I' authorsh' I c. as no pre icated exclusively on aposto IC ip. n ract th~n t" I " d and could ' ~sto ic was ver much broa or connote beyond d' t I' b followers 01ap tl' d Irec aposto ICauthorshi ,authorshi Y -t-,

"

or even slIlll

os es.

erivation

om the

ener

time

0 t

( (

( (

(

( (

a ostles,

~e a~olic tea~~i~g,;~;r.;::t of con~e~t with what the church too~ to otapostoliCity t lit refore, It IS mIstaken to con ne ihe1! on Le gro1!!'~ I' ved that th;-Jewish Scrip~ WlUle the ancient church certainly be Ie ~,an even more in use iu who consistently

l (

l

r

J

"-::-'1

/'

37. Ohlig Die Iheolo . h 38. Ibid.:

269--95.

gl$C

e Begrijndung,

d'· . th Early Church, 215-21. d 40. On Eusebius, see Hanson, rra lhon In e . In irillion of Scripw~e: !1'O~lerM an 41. See the excellent discussion by P. Achteme1er, T;~tes ~at, so }Oflgali ins~l~afjon IStakenth~ Proposals (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980). He that not only the writings but also be coterminous ....ith the canon, it is nec1eshary were "inspired." long process of canonization and the 6ua s ape 0

195-97.

~9. Ibid., 296-309. On th . . hvres saints du Nouveau T:s~~~fiCt~ceBihofliturgical reading d J n, 21 (1940): 378-405: .. Ruwet, ':Leeturc tihlrgique et

t'f :h%~~~n

r

71

�._.

__

.,

~

--

.. .,

......

_.~.

-

_._~ .......

"

t

,

THE

r

_~_,

..........

_

... ~ .... _

,._---------

•• __

....

,

NEW TESTAMENT

'

CANON

1l l

tures, and above all the prophetic books, were inspired, ~ at first make thii-claim for Christian~itings, But as Chnslla~ngs [ _ wer"-.!"ad a!oJlgillh:.... the.... ] ewish.scriptures and increasingly seen asa "oun~rpart to them, it becam~ ever more c'!.stom.... ary, beginning about lhe--,,!!tlof the second centuD'~ to assert that Christian wd!ID~re ~o inmired-:-42Nevertheless, in the deliberations of the ancient churrh about the authority of its writings, we )l,~_where.Jin~f .-lnsPiratiorW>einl
- _ .-- ~ . catholic . _ ~tianfty eacn nds its I~rary ~prese~~tions an amcu ~s .!.ts p=rticul;r claims:" I;:; ihis respect the ~~ indeed reflect

I 1

I

19. Ebeling, Problem of HisWrlcit!j, 63. 20. Kiimmel, "Notwendigkeit und Grem:e," 247-49. [' he d '--tn 21 d ..b I'r. T wl"tivn und Schrift in der eV.:lnge ISC nun "..... 0. So, e.g., P. Lengsfel , U er WJerung. r l.oo D k . 1960) 112-18· Appel Kanan lischen Theologie der Gegenwart (Pad-croom: Bool us- ruc533erel, ' ' ' und Kirche, 115-20; R. E. Brown, "Canonicity," JBC (1968): . f .a_, h c_ fu· bed b •• '!b d . fI rat k t,h of this state 0 iU.....rs as uo.:en rrus Y . .. e most ,erovocative an m uen I sec d the Unity of the Church," in idem, EII9aYs E. Kasemann, The Canon of the New Testament an hlad I hia· FortresS Press) 95-107. For on ~ew Tesfal7Wnt Themes (London: SCM ~re~s, 164!.p I . e:E NT see J. D. c.' Dunn, Unity a detailed exposition of the varieties of thea ogJca posItions In 0:.. '1
COnceptand its history,

86

cr,

Umnin

'

THE INTERPRETATION

CANON

g, Kanon 1m Kanon, passim, but esp. 16--30,

1

I 1 1

1

I 1

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

AS CANON

able form of the kerygma, is the authoritative element in the canon. Others, disavowin historical criteria, have located the essential n.. ing of the NT~ theolo~ical minciele, such as the justi c~tion of the ungodly or the radical questiontng of human existence or, m the well.. known formula of Luther, "what preaches and promotes Christ."'" Catholic scholars have been roundl;c..criticaLof.thejnt=..s.Lin a canon ill the canon and see it as a clear admissiOILO£tha..inad~ of the Protestant principle-of ~ scriptum, '~e." The~ object specifically to the reductionism, sel~itY....J!nd aroltra!)' subJecltvlty I seems to entail and insist onthe need to affirm the unity and coerence olthe cano;-as a w ole."T These objections are intelligible an not altogeth,;';, misplaced, but the proposed alternative is untenable and represents the very problem which creates the need for a canon in the canon. How is it possible, once the theological diver~ty of the canon is admitted, to give equal authori to all the canonical documents? Either historical resu s wi not be taken seriously, or a perspective will be found outside the canon which detennines how scripture is to be interpreted, in which case the authority of the canon will be given up anyway .. The essential difference between the typi.. cally Protes ..tant and Catholic viewpoints is thaJ Protestant scholars ar..e jntent on finding....an.-intlmlretive rinci Ie ithin:t!!..e ~on ..?'hile Catholic scholars Jook fOJ:' ~ts~ci\flon, iILthe authoritative teacbing of the church, Each view is in its own wayan admission that the form _ canon does not aJll!jannoLserye-as an effective theological ~orm. Of course, on the question of a canon in the canon, it is an oversi~-

plification to speak of a strict division between Protestant and Catholic scholarship. There are Catholic scholars who see the need for some form of intracanonical

discrimination

and Protestant

scholars who are

suspicious of the idea. But it needs to be emph~zed that the concept of a canon in the canon is Daalymisconstrueil.!- It -'~ ta en..l.ojJ!' a

-

"ft/ 5-1. "0 F ge nach der Mitte und clem Kanon im 26. For a survey of the proposals, see \, ,,,.urag.e, ~r ,:~ h-+erti u 'Festschrift E K&eKanan des Neuen Testaments in