THE FIRST CANON OF THE CHURCH AND MARCION

Students learning about the origins of the New Testament or the church’s history occasionally get the impression that the first person to attempt to canonize the books of the New Testament (hereafter NT) was the heretic Marcion.  To be sure, with respect to canonizing “a” NT, Marcion provided the church with one of the earliest attempts to set apart a distinctly “Christian” list of authoritative books; however, this is not to prove that he was the first to have created a NT “canon.”  He certainly was not the one who invented the concept of a canon of sacred books for Christians.  It should be recognized that the church was initially born out of Judaism, and thus it received its concept of canonical literature from Judaism.  As you should know by now, the Jews already had their own canonical list of sacred books.  While differing groups within Judaism may have disagreed with which books constituted their canon, devote Jews did have the concept of a canon for their faith.  As some of us may know, the Sadducees believed that only the Pentateuch was the scared and close canon for the Jews, while the Pharisees held to the Law and the Prophets as authoritative—along with their oral traditions.  Regardless, both groups believed that a Jewish canon existed.

Jesus’ view of the OT canon was more in line with that of the Pharisees (see Matt 5.17-21; Lk 11.50-51, 24.44; which incidentally corresponds to the OT as traditionally found in Protestant Bibles).  Marcion, however, was fiercely anti-Semitic; consequently, he unilaterally rejected the entire OT.  As far as he was concerned only the writings of the apostle to the Gentiles (i.e., Paul) and the Gospel that was written for a Gentile audience ( i.e., Luke’s Gospel) should be considered authoritative for the “Gentile” church.  It should also be noted that he redacted (i.e., edited to fit his own views) these writings in order to make them anti-Semitic and more Gnostic in their teachings (which says a lot about his view of what it means to call a book “sacred”).  Regardless of his view, it is undeniable that the first canon of the early church was the OT.  Jesus and apostles regularly referred to the OT as both “scripture” and “God’s word,” not to mention viewed it as authoritative with respect to doctrine and orthodoxy.  They also only viewed books from the Hebrew Bible as authoritative; moreover, they never quoted as scripture any Apocryphal writings.  It is true that on a couple of different occasions they referred to some events contained in these secondary writings; but they never referred to these books as “scripture.”  Consequently, it is wrong to assume that the church did not have a canon until Marcion redacted and compiled his.  The first canon of the church was the OT.

The question still remains, however, was Marcion the first to compile a distinctly apostolic list of canonical books?  I would argue that he was not.  The fact that he limited his list of books to only one Gospel (Luke’s) and certain letters of Paul implies that there was in existence a larger pool of books that were viewed by others in the church as authoritative.  We know from writings of the apostolic fathers that by the early second century the church knew of the 4 canonical Gospels.  And about the same time that Marcion was arguing for only one authoritative Gospel, Tatian was using these same four Gospels as the basis for his Diatessaron.  And lest we forget, the Muratorian Canon’s list of authoritative books is also dated to the middle of the second century.  Consequently, I would argue that there is adequate proof to reject the claim that Marcion was the first to create a NT canon.  Instead, it is more probable that in different regions of the Empire regional churches had already viewed certain NT writings as authoritative (i.e., canonical) in their specific churches, and by and large they restricted their NT canon to apostolic works that they were aware of, but of course, in some locations there were also exceptions that also included some non-apostolic works as well.

The problem seems to have been that in different regions churches had different lists.  These differing lists existed because the many churches throughout the Roman Empire did not know of all the apostolic books that would inevitably be included in the final NT canon, or that they questioned certain books that other churches revered as authoritative (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, etc.).  Marcion, however, was a wealthy ship builder and an influential businessman among the leadership of Rome who traveled throughout the Roman Empire.  Consequently, he had a greater exposure to the different authoritative lists of the churches in the different regions.  Consequently, he saw the need for a universal authoritative list for the universal church.  However, with the rise of Gnosticism and its proponents within the church (e.g., Marcion), coupled with emergence of Montanism (beginning in the late middle second century), as well as a need to completely break from Judaism (remember, the Second Jewish Revolt occurred between AD 132-135), the church’s leadership felt the need to come together and be more proactive in recognizing what NT books were already authoritative (i.e., canonical) for the church.  Consequently, by the end of the second century most of the apostolic writings that make up the NT canon had pretty much been agreed upon, but it was not until the late 4th century that the issue was settled and all 27 books of the NT were recognized as canonical and the issue was “functionally” closed.

Some would argue for later dates, such as the fifth century, or even not until after the Reformation.  I, however, categorically reject these positions since there have been and there will always be some in the church who disagree with the current composition of the NT canon (e.g., Luther, while occasionally preaching from to the book of James, regarded it as the least canonical book, referring to it as “straw”).  Universal recognition in any era of the church’s history has never been achieved.  That does not prove, however, that the church did not come to a significant consensus in their recognition of what constituted God’s word to the church by the middle of the 4^th century AD.

Lastly, when many discuss the creation of the NT canon they have in mind the moment that the list of authoritative NT books was completed—that is officially recognized as closed.  This is why many consider Marcion the first person to have attempted the compilation of a NT canon, the rationale being that he was the first to distinguish as authoritative a set number of “Christian” books separate from the OT for use in the church.  Thus, some scholars credit him with being the first to create a NT canon.  This position is not credible when one considers his motivation.  His motivation for developing his abbreviated canon was driven out of antisemitism and his disgust of the OT.  He was not motivated out of desire to protect the church from other heretics or spurious writings.  It may very well be that Marcion is partly responsible for the NT being distinguished from the OT instead of it simply viewed as a continuation of the OT.  While it is still likely that the apostolic writings would have been seen as distinct from the OT, the point is that it was Marcion’s prejudice that drove him to separate certain apostolic writings from the OT; as well as separate some apostolic writings from other apostolic writings.  Consequently, his attempt to create a NT canon should not be viewed as a credible attempt to close the canon, but rather a dysfunctional attempt to separate the church from its Jewish origins, as well as promote certain apostolic writings above other equally valuable writings found in today’s canonical New Testament.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2012

Read Full Post »

HOW DID THE CHURCH RECOGNIZE THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON?

Have you ever wondered where the NT came from or how it became the “New Testament”?  There are a lot of explanations as to how the church came to “recognize” or “create” the Christian canon, and these different discussions provide explanations of various “criteria” that the early church used while confirming what was canonical and what was not. However, by and large the majority of explanations do not suggest that “inspiration” was a criterion that was involved in the process. Many students find it inconceivable that the early church did not specifically consider the doctrine of inspiration while determining the canonical status of books that inevitably were included in the New Testament (this blog will primarily discuss the NT canon since the early church readily received the Hebrew OT as authoritative and thus “canonical.”  To be sure, intuitively one would expect this quality to be the most important requirement for compiling an authoritative list of literature for use in the church.  It should be noted, however, that not employing the doctrine of inspiration as a test for determining the canonical status of a book is not to say that the early church did not affirm the doctrine of inspiration.  Second Timothy 3.16 clearly reveals that the apostolic church believed in the doctrine of inspiration.  Additionally, in First Clement 47 (ca. AD 96) the author wrote that “Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”  The NT passage the author referred to as “Spirit inspired” was 1 Corinthians 1.12.  Clearly, therefore, the early church believed in this essential doctrine.  The question then becomes why didn’t it employed the test of inspiration while wrestling with the issue of canonicity.  The first reason is because that was precisely what the early church was making an effort to recognize: i.e., what writings were inspired and therefore should be recognized as “canonical.”  That being the case, you can’t use a test of “inspiration” to determine what was “inspired.”  That would be an example of employing a circular argument.  The second reason is simply that the church wanted to avoid the argument that would have surely arisen over choosing who got to decide what books were inspired and what books were not.  Think of it this way, what may be inspiring to you may not at all be inspiring to me.  Some Christians love the Psalms, while others love Paul’s letters; so as you can see the issue of determining what is inspired and what is inspiring can be a very personal preference.  And that is precisely what the early church was attempting to avoid.  Such an important decision could not be determined by the subjective evaluation of a few individuals and neither by a simply majority.  Therefore, in order to safely address this critical issue the church employed some more objective criteria in their decision making process.  For example, there were some in the early church who believed that only Paul’s letters to the churches were authoritative for the church (as opposed to his personal letters to Timothy and Titus).  Conversely, there were others who believed that First Clement was “helpful,” as well as Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermes, so why not also include these books?

These later books were not recognized as canonical precisely because they failed the other tests that were actually used by the early church.  The wisdom of the early church and the value of the tests that it did use for determining canonical status of a book are revealed by the fruit it produced.  As you may well know, the specific tests the early church used were apostolicity, universality, and test known as “the rule of faith.”  Some also refer to a “fourth” test, which is that of “antiquity.”  This, however, is rather redundant because any book that was “apostolic” (i.e., written by an apostle or the associate of an apostle) was by all qualifications “ancient.”  Consequently, this blog will simply discuss the 3 qualifications of apostolicity, universality, and the rule of faith. First let’s look at the test that had the most biblical support, which was the test of apostolicity.  This test has the most biblical support because it is observable by the church’s attempt to find a replacement for Judas.  When seeking Judas’s replacement the remaining apostles decided that one specific qualification was more important than all the rest, which was the qualification that the new 12th apostle must have participated in the ministry of Jesus from its commencement until his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1.21-22).  In other words, he must have been an associate and witness of the entire ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Unless he met this essential criteria he was not qualified to be an apostle since his most important function in the church would be to faithfully establish it upon the message and teachings of Jesus Christ (Matt 28.20, “. . . teaching them all that I have commanded you . . .”), and in order to do so he must have heard and been instructed by the Lord himself (this is the primary reason why Protestants do not recognize the institution of the papacy as holding the office of apostle).  Secondhand witnesses would not do for the office of apostle.  This is why Paul considered himself as one who was “untimely born” (1 Cor 15.8).  What Paul meant was that although he did not follow the Lord during his earthly ministry he did meet him after the resurrection and was called by him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Although he did not walk with Jesus before the resurrection, he did personally meet him in his resurrected body and was called by him specifically for the ministry that he inevitably fulfilled (cf., Acts 23.11; 1 Cor 9.1, 15.8).  Consequently, the church rightly recognized his special place in the establishment of the church and its doctrines.  Notwithstanding the Lord’s appointment of Paul, Acts 1.21-22 demonstrates “apostolicity” is a biblical principle for determining and protecting the orthodoxy of the church; consequently, apostolicity is the most biblically defensible test of the three criteria employed by the early church.

Next let us consider the test referred to as the rule of faith.  This test makes a lot of sense because it demands that in order for a piece of literature to attain the status of canonicity it would have to explain and teach the doctrines of the Christian faith as it was received by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord.  This test essentially prohibited any literature from achieving canonical status that was not completely dedicated to the truthful explanation of the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3).  In other words, Paul’s letter to his aunt Esther wishing her a happy birthday or Peter’s “things to do” list were not considered worthy of canonical status simply because their purpose was not to explain, teach, or defend the message and teachings of Jesus.  This requirement also prohibited fictional works such as The Shepherd of Hermes from being recognized as canonical.

Lastly, let us consider the test of universality.  This test prohibited any specific church or region of the Empire from dictating this important decision over the rest of the church.  For example, it prohibited the church in Jerusalem or the church in Rome from deciding for believers everywhere what was to be recognized as authoritative in the church.  This test is especially important because it provides evidence that in the earliest period of the church’s history the church in Rome was not viewed as the titular head of the universal church.  If the church in Rome was the sole authority of the church or acted in such a manner, then we would have literary evidence indicating decisions based upon what the church at Rome had declared for the rest of the churches, or what the Pope had decided concerning this issue.  However, documents from first 3 centuries of the early church existence reveals absolutely no historical evidence of such a state of affairs during the church’s earliest history.

One important purpose of these three tests was to restrict the pool of literature that would be recognized as the foundation of orthodox Christianity.  Some believe that if was not for Spirit’s guidance these tests would have greatly expanded the pool of literature that was to be considered for canonical status.  However, taken together these tests actually greatly restricted the possible pool of literature, so much so that some apostolic books were almost withheld from being recognized as canonical; e.g., Revelation (even though historically speaking it was one of the earliest books that was used in the church), 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and James.  Consequently, given the task that the early church was faced with, these tests proved very successful in helping her correctly recognize what the Holy Spirit had already provided for her edification and protection.  These tests greatly enabled the church to correctly recognize the books that the Spirit inspired for the purpose of teaching future generations what was the true message of the Jesus Christ, what were the correct beliefs concerning him, and what the ethical practice of Christianity truly looks like.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011

 

Read Full Post »