The Canonicity of the New Testament Scripture:
A Study of the Issues Involved, Higher Criticism, and Evangelical Responses
Jason Kruis
BTS500: Introduction to Biblical Studies
July 2015
Introduction/Thesis
Canon, for our purposes, is defined as “religious writings that are to be regarded
as authoritative scripture.”1 This paper focuses on the question of whether the 27 books
known as the New Testament (NT) of the Bible should be regarded as canonical, i.e.
whether these 27and only these 27are to be regarded as authoritative NT scripture.
Issues involved in the area include dating; historical evidence and testimony; apocryphal
writings; and theological concerns. Higher critics have used each of these issues to
denigrate the Bible, and evangelicals have responded to these criticisms with thorough
and robust defenses of the New Testament Canon. In treating the issues involved, higher
criticism, and evangelical responses, this paper seeks to demonstrate the canonicityand
thus the authorityof the NT, finally showing the implication of these discussions on
methodology in approaching the Scripture.
The Historical Context of the Canon Debate
While the question of canon is at least as much a theological as a historical one,2
in Gaffin’s words, it is important that we be “careful not to forget or distort the historical
picture,” lest we allow “theological reflection” to become “abstract and speculative.”3
Therefore we will start with the historical aspect of the question, beginning with the
historical context of the debate, which we will take in two parts. First we will consider
the early history: the roughly three centuries from the time of the apostles, until that time
1
Powell, 118
Gaffin, 165
3
Ibid., 166
2
1
when what we know today as the New Testament had been generally established in the
church’s understanding. The second aspect of the history we will investigate is more
modern (the earliest parts of which include the Reformation and the Enlightenment
periods): the time and circumstances leading up to today’s higher criticism.
Early History
As Kyrtatas says, “it is so difficult and controversial to deal with the origins and
the earliest stages of the NT canon, we may as well start from the end product and move
backwards.” 4 The “end product” (an “authoritative” New Testament) finds its earliest
extant mention in Athanasius’ thirtyninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D.,5 and was
subsequently accepted (with Augustine’s support) at the Synod of Hippo in 393.6 From
that time, as Ehrman records, “For those within the orthodox tradition, the tradition that
stands at the root of most forms of Christianity familiar to us todayRoman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox, Protestantthe matter was for all practical purposes resolved.” The
church had its canon.
Moving backward from there, by the end of the second century,
most
of what is
now the NT was already generally agreed upon in the Mediterranean world as well as in
an area spanning Britain to Mesopotamia.7 As to what had led to the consideration of the
issue, Metzger contends, scholars are “largely agreed on the importance of Marcion and
other secondcentury heretics in forcing the Great Church to give its attention to the
canon question.”8 Notable among these heretics (and heresies) are the effects of
Gnosticism (specifically Basiledes, Carpocrates, Valentinus, and the Nag Hammadi
Tractates); Marcion; and Montanism.9 Additionally, Metzger notes, persecution was a
factor: “When the imperial police knocked at the door and demanded of Christians that
they surrender their sacred books, it…[became necessary] to determine on solid grounds
precisely which were the books for adherence to which they were willing to suffer.”10
Moving back from there, we find evidence in the subapostolic literature from as
early as the end of the first century that the apostolic writings were “universally held to
possess the same divinely authoritative character as the books of the Old Testament.”11
Further, the apostolic writers themselves (most clearly Peter, in 2 Peter 3:16) considered
one another’s writings to be Scripture on the same level authoritatively as the Old
Testament. It is on this basis that Packer can write that “When in the midsecond century
the Church began formally to define the limits of its New Testament canon, it seems that
the process involved no more than the explicit recognition of an established state of
affairs.”12
While aspects of this narrative have in recent centuries come into some
controversy, the positive claims so far (as noted along the way) can still be said to be
generally accepted. The interpretation of these facts, however, and their implications for
modern life and theology, have become matters of heated debate, in which those who
hold to historically orthodox doctrines of Scripture and canonicity no longer find
themselves in the academic majority. It is the historical development of this state of
affairs to which we now turn our attention.
Modern History
Throughout the Middle Ages, and even lasting through the period of the
Renaissance and Reformation, there was little question as to the authenticity and
composition of the New Testament.13 Although Luther had an unflattering view of some
of NT books, especially James (a subject to which we will later return), neither he nor his
followers attempted to remove them from the canon.14
By the close of the seventeenth century,15 the Deistic movement was on the rise in
England and France, and in militant opposition to the possibility of the miraculous or
supernatural.16 However, as Hagerty notes, neither Deists nor the Voltaire school were
able to undertake the “learned Biblical criticism” that would be necessary to undermine
Scripture’s supernatural claims. Instead, it would be up to “German Rationalists, backed
by certain scientists,”17 to “deliver Europe from what French deists and German
pantheists described as medieval superstition.”18
In his brief narrative of this history, Hagerty recounts how Reimarus (16941768),
Paulus (17611851), Hegel (17701831), David Straus (18081874), and Ferdinand Baur
(17921860) each contributed to the denigration of the Bible through accusations of
deception; denial of the supernatural; evolutionary theory; and the systematic escalation
and application of these attacks on Christianity.19 Straus, in his
Life of Christ
(1834),
posited a late date for the writing of the gospels, to accommodate his explanation of
Jesus’ miracles as “folklore developed by hero worship during the century following the
death of Christ.”20
These German Bible critics were (according to Hagerty because of their
“erudition”) intimidating to many of the professors in the Protestant seminaries of Europe
and America,21 who “were unprepared to judge how much of what German professors
said was based on fact and how much of it was inference drawn from Hegelian
Philosophy.”22 While their learnedness certainly may have been a contributing factor to
the Germans’ ability to intimidate their foreign peers, it may also have been a (feigned)
posture of certainty, as described by Vigouroux, a French Biblical scholar:
One cause of the influence exercised by negative criticism is the tone of
assurance with which it draws its conclusions…. In confidence: “Science
proves, criticism demonstrates,” and this assertion frequently takes the
place of proof and demonstration. As though science were incarnate in
their person! As though criticism did not exist outside hypotheses invented
by their imagination!23
It was this illiberal context that produced famed German theologian and
lexicographer of NT Greek Walter Bauer (18771960), whose father was a professor at
the same Prussian university in which Kant had taught. He studied theology, classical
philology, and oriental philology at the universities of Marburg, Berlin, and Strassburg.24
His work on the heels of that discussed above among his rationalistic German forerunners
plays almost poetically into Harris’s observation: “If the literal truth of the Bible books is
denied, as it is denied by the New Modernism, the chief criterion for the assemblage of
the books is abandoned, and the problem of the canon returns with a new force.”25 It
would seem that the 18th century German attacks on the Bible’s content found their
crescendo in Bauer’s
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
(originally printed in
German in 1934),26 the continued influence of which is (by Kruger’s estimation) one of
the most significant contributing factors to the ongoing problem of canon.27
This brief history should serve as a sufficient context for launching into our
discussion of higher criticism and evangelical responses in the area of canonicity. We
will proceed one issue at a time, considering first the higher criticism, followed by
relevant evangelical responses. As should become evident, the contemporary“liberal”
arguments and agenda are on a roughly even trajectory with (i.e. they have not
discernibly advanced beyond) those of Bauer and his forbears. And thankfully,
contemporary evangelical scholarship has evidently caught up to (perhaps even
surpassed) the
erudition
of the opposition.
Dating of Canonical Texts
Regarding the dating of texts, there are two pairs of subissues. The first involves
texts that are numbered among the twentyseven in the New Testament, versus
apocryphal texts that are not. The second involves early dates versus late dates. In this
section, we deal only with the question of early or late dates for the twentyseven
included in the NT canon. While the question of dates for apocryphal texts will be left for
an independent discussion of those texts, I will note here the general objective of each
side:
● Higher critics generally seek to assign earlier dates to apocryphal texts and
later dates to canonical texts, eventually making them roughly “equal.”
● Evangelicals generally seek to defend early dates for canonical texts and
to demonstrate later dates for apocryphal texts.
While perhaps selfevident, it should be noted that the reason behind these general
objectives is that the earlier the date assigned to a text, the easier it is to make a case that
its claims to portray the
true
Jesus and/or apostolic teachings are legitimate (or at least
equally worthy of being considered as such in comparison with other texts).
Higher Criticism
The Gospels
We have seen evidence of earlier dating controversy, as already noted (and under
a different scenario), in the work of the early German higher critics, particularly Straus,
who posited a late date for the gospels to delegitimize Scripture’s supernatural claims.28
28
Hagerty, 200
7
From there, admittedly, the work of the higher critics to demonstrate late dates for some
of the NT’s texts did become more refined and (at least in some cases) less apparently
agendadriven.
The Pastoral Epistles
Among the canonical texts most commonly attacked on dating grounds are the
Pastoral Epistles (PE), the two letters (which claim to have been29) written by Paul to
Timothy (especially the first), along with the one (which also claims Pauline authorship30
) to Titus. The objections relative to dating are largely focused on contentparticularly
the church hierarchy prescribed and the heresies describedwhich higher critics maintain
is better placed in the second century, making it impossible for Paul to have authored the
PE.31
Second Peter
According to Kruger, “Perhaps no book has had a more difficult journey into the
canon than 2 Peter.”32 Once again, the grounds for 2 Peter’s supposed disqualification
comprise various objections that lead to its date being set by most scholars in the early
second century,33 precluding the epistle’s selfproclaimed34 Petrine authorship. In this
case the objections include such facts as its exclusion from the Muratorian Canon,35 with
modern critics considering it “proven, that a pseudoPeter of a later period clumsily
manufactured this Epistle from that of Jude.”36
Evangelical Response
The Gospels
As Kruger confidently asserts, “The New Testament books are the earliest
Christian writings we possess.”37 Noting the importance of an early date to the reliability
of writings claiming to describe authentic early Christianity (and noting marginal claims
to the contrary), he goes on to write, “After all the scholarly dust has settled, even critics
agree that these four [the Biblical books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] are the earliest
accounts of Jesus that we possess.”38 Among the higher critics I have reviewed (with, as
noted, the exception of Straus39), I have not found any claiming a date later than ca.
9013040 for any of the four NT gospels.
The Pastoral Epistles
To the claim that the theological battles being waged in the PE belong to the
second century, Lange response, “The identity of these heretics with the Gnostics of the
second century is not at all made out as yet; and even the opposite is provable from other
apostolic letters,”41 and “The grounds [for] a reference here to the Marcionites [Marcion
36
Ibid.
Kruger, Michael, “Ten Basic Facts About the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize,”
Inerrant Word
, accessed July 29, 2015,
http://inerrantword.com/180015375/blog/180004060/220000053/Ten_Basic_Facts_About_the_NT_Canon
_that_Every_Christian_Should_Memorize.
38
Ibid.
39
Hagerty, 200
40
Pagels, 34
41
Lange, 3
37
9
being a secondcentury heretic], are arbitrary and weak in the extreme.”42 With regard to
the supposed prolepsis of second century ecclesiological structure, while the PE exhibit a
unique focus (within first century Christian writing) on the selection of overseers/elders
and deacons, the particular circumstances (within Timothy’s and Titus’s churches) which
the letter seeks to address could easily account for this.43
Second Peter
In response to the widely held opinion (among modern scholars) that 2 Peter is a
pseudonymous work dating to the early second century, evangelicals have made a
“substantial case...for the traditional authorship of the book, which would suggest a date
in the mid60s.”44 Supporting evidence in this case includes the likelihood that early
sources (such as 1 Clement, ca. 96) knew and used the epistle.45 Additional support
comes from apparent allusions or citations in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
Origen.46 In light of all evidence, “2 Peter still has significantly more support for its
inclusion in the canon than the best of those books that have been rejected.”47
Historical Evidence and Testimony
The Muratorian Canon
In support of the claim that the essence of the NT canon was beginning to take
shape by the end of the second century, evangelical scholars seem to rely as much on the
Muratorian Canon as on any other piece of historical testimony. This document, named
for the eighteenthcentury scholar who discovered it in a library in Milan,48 is a
fragmentary text that includes a list of books that its author (who remains anonymous)
considered to be part of the NT Scriptures.49 While the discovered fragment is generally
considered to date to the eighth century, it is a translation of a Greek original.50 Part of its
contribution to the case for (early) canonicity is that it excludes midsecondcentury
writings from consideration on the basis of their
late
date.51
According to Ehrman, “The common view of the matter since the days of
Muratori has been that [the original] was written somewhere in the vicinity of Rome in
the second half of the second century, possibly during the time of Hippolytus.”52 As the
list contains the four NT gospels (and no others); Acts; and all thirteen Pauline epistles,53
while at the same time noting the tentative acceptance of some books while justifying the
exclusion of some others (“for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey”),54 such an
early date gives a strong boost to the case for most of the canon being recognized as such
before the end of the second century. Surely it is this strength of support that has led
higher critics to challenge such an early date; it is this challenge to which we now turn.
Higher Criticism
Sundberg and Hahneman have provided the most noted case against a
secondcentury date for the Muratorian Canon.55 Mainly in dispute is the significance of
only four words: in Latin, “vero nuperrime temporibus nostris.”56 This reference,
included in the fragment, to the time when Hermas wrote his work
Shepherd
has been
understood to read, “very recently, in our times.”57 Given the generally accepted
midsecondcentury date for
Shepherd
(Hermas was the brother of Pius [ca. 155], a fact
mentioned in the same sentence in the fragment),58 this would seem to place the dating of
the Muratorian Canon in the latter half of the second century.
Seeking to bypass what they acknowledge is the “plain reading” (i.e. the common
interpretation) of the text, Sundberg and Hahneman posit an “alternative.”59 While
“nuperrime” (recently) is generally thought to refer to the author (i.e. to mean that the
author was a contemporary of Hermas and Pius), Sundberg offers as a “viable”
alternative that “nuperrime” might be taken to refer to the timing of
Shepherd
relative to
the other writings listed.60 If this is the case, then the strongest piece of evidence for early
dating of the Muratorian Canonand thus an early, mostlydeveloped and recognized
canonis lost, allowing room for the contention that “far from being a Roman list from
the end of the second century, Canon Muratori is probably an Eastern list dating from the
fourth century.”61
Evangelical Response
On the issue of the dating of the Muratorian Canon, evangelicals are not alone in
their skepticism of Sundberg and Hahneman’s proposed “alternative” to the historical
understanding. Ehrman acknowledges that their arguments “have not proved altogether
compelling,”62 and that “The difficulties that [Hahneman’s position] poses are
convincingly
shown by several scholars who have written reviews of his work, especially
Ferguson, Holmes, and Metzger” (emphasis added).63
Verheyden has offered a charitable critique of Sundberg and Hahneman, noting
that they “do deserve credit for having asked whether an alternative interpretation might
be possible,”64 and finding enough consideration to “necessitate a closer look at the
plausibility of their proposal.”65 In the end, however, having dealt with the technicalities
of the linguistics in the context of their historical implications, Verheyden finds that,
“While it may well be plausible to maintain a distinction between the apostolic and
postapostolic eras at the end of the second century, by the end of the fourth century, it
makes less sense.”66 For Verheyden, the historical understanding that this phraseology
represents a hint from the author of its midsecondcentury provenance still stands. 67
Orthodoxy and Heresy
It is without dispute that the first several hundred years of the church’s existence
witnessed a struggle among competing parties to claim the mantle of the true apostolic
faith.68 What was generally accepted from at least the time of Athanasius’s list69 until the
rise of the European Deists and Rationalists,70 was that truth had won out over errorthat
what could rightly be called orthodoxy had survived what could rightly be called heresy.
In modern scholarship, this understanding can no longer be assumed.
Higher Criticism
With the 1934 publication of his work
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity
, Walter Bauer sought to turn the understanding of the relationship between
orthodoxy and heresy on its head. In his introduction to this work, he presents his
reasoning for attempting an “objective” consideration of early Christian controversies.71
The final implication, by his reasoning, is that we might reject the determinations of the
early church that led to our canon and faith, finding that what it had rejected as “heresy”
has in fact an equally legitimate (and perhaps more legitimate) claim to the label of
Christianity. As Köstenberger puts it, “What used to be regarded as heresy is [in Bauer’s
66
Ibid., 504
Ibid.
68
See Metzger’s extended treatment, 75106; consider also the NT Scripture’s own testimony to this
struggle, particularly in the PE, Jude, and 2 Peter.
69
Discussed in p. 4 of this paper, under
Early History
.
70
Discussed in pp. 45 of this paper, under
Modern History
.
71
Bauer, xxi
67
14
wake] the new orthodoxy of the day, and the only heresy that remains is orthodoxy
itself.”72
Much as the Deists and Rationalists laid the groundwork for Bauer, Bauer laid the
groundwork for the scholar Bart Ehrman, who has successfully expanded on and
popularized Bauer’s theories in the modern environment to which they are so well suited.
73
Propounding the idea that the right view of early Christianity is a pluralistic one
wherein the various groups and truth claims should be considered to have been equally
valid, Ehrman contends that the reason this has not been the historical understanding is
itself due to revisionist historians:
And then, as a coup de grâce, this victorious party rewrote the history of
the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a
conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the
majority of Christians at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his
apostles, that its perspective, in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e.,
the “right belief ”) and that its opponents in the conflict, with their other
scriptural texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested in
deceiving people into “heresy” (literally meaning “choice”; a heretic is
someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right things).
And with this, we are compelled to seek a more holistic (i.e. palatable to liberal
sensibilities) understanding of who Jesus “really” was and what he “really” taught, by
looking to the writings that were “wrongly” rejected by the early church. It is the topic of
these writings to which we will turn next, after concluding this section by considering the
evangelical response to Bauer’s and Ehrman’s foundational contentions.
72
Köstenberger, 16
Cf. Köstenberger, 1516
73
15
Evangelical Response
Jerry Flora, in his dissertation
A Critical Analysis of Walter Bauer’s Theory of
Early Christian Orthodoxy and Heresy
, offers a seemingly balanced appraisal of Bauer’s
work, concluding that it “proves to be a valuable corrective to the oversimplified
approach of the older position.”74 Indeed, we might relate to the (sometimes rightly
protective) tendency in the evangelical Christian tradition to dismiss historical heresy
without seeking to comprehend it, once we understand it to have been labeled as such by
the early church. Perhaps, then, Flora is right even in affirming Bauer’s desire to give
“the socalled heretics their day in court with the benefit of doubt on all controverted
questions.”75
Having examined the evidence presented at that “court date,” however, Flora
finds that Bauer has overreached: “he interpreted some evidence too onesidedly, did not
give sufficient weight to other evidence, and sometimes treated lack of evidence with
unnecessary suspicion.”76 Choosing to “argue the case for the opposition as strongly as
possible...what he produced was the antithesis of the traditional theory. By attempting to
outline a thoroughly consistent (
konsequent
) hypothesis he went too far.”77 To wit, Bauer
was wrong to find that historical heresies should not have been deemed heretical.
As to the accusation of revisionist history later furthered by Ehrman (as noted
earlier), Flora responds to this contra Bauer, using an apt quote by G. Peter Richardson:
74
Flora, 152
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
75
16
“It is a tempting procedure to read back into a fluid period a later fixed idea, by adducing
only the evidence for that particular view.”78 Flora’s point is that any supposed
revisionism on the part of later historians (he mentions Eusebius in particular79) is less
likely a conspiratorial effort at obscuring the truth of a misdeed done to those with
opposing views; and more likely a combination of distrust of those who had been
determined to be heretical or at least heterodox, together with an uncurious perspective
molded by its (relatively homogenous) context.
From what we have seen, Bauer’s attempts (frequently recycled by Ehrman) at
invalidating the traditional historical testimony to orthodoxy’s rightful triumph over
heresy ultimately fall short. However, as we will see in the next section, that has not
stopped modern scholars (most prominently Ehrman) from building on this unfirm
foundation to a great deal of popular acclaim.
Apocryphal Writings
Apocryphal Christian writings comprise “a vast body of early nonbiblical
Christian writings that claim to preserve memories of Jesus and the apostles and that
frequently imitate the major genres (literary types) of NT literature.”80 Among these
writings, the extrabiblical gospels in particular have received much attention in the
decades since the 1945 discovery of the fiftytwo Nag Hammadi texts in Egypt.81
78
Ibid., 155
Ibid.
80
MacDonald, Dennis R., “Apocryphal Christian Writings,” ed. Mark Allan Powell,
The HarperCollins
Bible Dictionary
(Revised and Updated) (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 38.
81
Wegner, 413
79
17
It is the claims and teachings of these writings that Ehrman insists need to be
“recouped”82 as legitimate expressions of the Christian faith. The (already mentioned)
success of Ehrman’s work to this end is perhaps best captured in the wild popularity of
the book
The Da Vinci Code
and the eponymous movie starring actor Tom Hanks.
Consider this Ehrmanesque excerpt:
More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet
only a relative few were chosen for inclusionMatthew, Mark, Luke, and
John among them…. The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the
pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great…. Constantine
commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that
spoke of Christ’s
human
traits and embellished those gospels that made
Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and
burned…. The modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who
possessed a political agendato promote the divinity of the man Jesus
Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base.83
With entertainment value (and pop culture adoption) like that, it can be hard to imagine
an evangelical response that would stand up. However, following a survey of higher
criticism in the area, we will see that evangelicals have some strong counters to what in
the end is a weak, agendadriven case.
Higher Criticism
Bauer and Ehrman, while serving (respectively) as pioneer and famous proponent
of the alternative reading of history that lends serious (i.e. scholarly) credibility to
noncanonical gospels and other apocryphal writings, are by no means alone as higher
critics in their field. As Köstenberger observes, it is “clear that Bauer’s conception of the
82
See Ehrman’s “Introduction: Recouping Our Losses,” 18
Brown, Dan,
The Da Vinci Code
(New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231, 234
83
18
canon as a later, afterthefact concept imposed upon the New Testament books is quite
widespread among modern scholarship.”84 Funk captures well the vision and agenda in
this camp when he writes with regard to revisiting the the idea of canon in the modern
context, “It will be a great tragedy if we do not seize the opportunity to revamp and
revise…. [We need a New Testament] larger than the current New Testament because the
church fathers unduly narrowed the scope of the founding documents….”85
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to consider a large number of
apocryphal writings independently, we will have a look at the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,
which Dungan calls the most important lately discovered document (from the Nag
Hammadi library) “known to have been rejected by the ‘Great Church’ leaders.”86 Such a
contention springs from the fact that
Thomas
is one of a only a few that may date to the
early second century, and also bears some resemblance to “source Q that scholars work
with in relationship to the Synoptic Gospels.”87
Elaine Pagels, in her book
Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas
,
highlights the importance of this Gospel to her by recounting her struggle to reconcile her
evangelical Christian experience (largely centered on a celebration of the Gospel of John)
with what she believed should be true of how God would receive a Jewish friend who had
died tragically in a car accident.88 It was (in her telling) only by her eventual Greek
84
Köstenberger, 106
Funk, 555; “For more on Funk and the Jesus Seminar’s attempt to modify the existing canon,” Kruger, in
17 (note 10), points to “Cutting Loose the Holy Canon: A Controversial ReExamination of the Bible,”
U.S.
News & World Report
15, no. 18 (1993): 75.
86
Dungan, 33951
87
Wegner, 421
88
Pagels, 3031
85
19
studies (at Harvard) of “‘gospels’ and ‘apocrypha’ written during the first centuries,
many of them secret writings of which I’d never heard,”89 that she found the
Jesus
she
was seeking, the one portrayed (in her understanding) in the
Gospel of Thomas
:
Many Christians today who read the
Gospel of Thomas
assume at first
that it is simply wrong, and deservedly called heretical. Yet what
Christians have disparagingly called Gnostic and heretical sometimes
turns out to be forms of Christian teaching that are merely unfamiliar to
usunfamiliar precisely because of the active and successful opposition of
Christians such as John.90
By John, she means the apostle, against whose Gospel she pits that of
Thomas
for a
whole chapter,91 in which she concludes:
Now we can see how John’s message contrasts with that of
Thomas
.
Thomas
’s Jesus directs each disciple to discover the light within (“within a
person of light there is light” [
Thomas
24]); but John’s Jesus declares
instead that “I am the light of the world” [John 8:12] and that “whoever
does not come to me walks in darkness” [John 8:12]. In
Thomas
, Jesus
reveals to the disciples that “you are from the kingdom, and to it you shall
return” [
Thomas
49] and teaches them to say for themselves that “we
come from the light” [
Thomas
50]; but John’s Jesus speaks as the one who
comes “from above” and so has rightful priority over everyone else: “
You
are from below; I am from above… The one who comes from above is
above all
” [John 8:23].92
With this brief survey, we begin to see how the BauerEhrman construct works:
cast doubt on the traditional version of events, denigrating the “orthodox” and restoring
(“recouping”) the “heretical.” Next, scour apocryphal writings for something that
comports with your preferred concept of God (or Jesus), andsince all “early” Christian
89
Ibid., 3132
Ibid., 73
91
Ibid., “Gospels in Conflict: John and Thomas,” 3073
92
Ibid., 68
90
20
writings are equally validlift up your preferred understanding and its reliedon
writing(s) as the true representation of the Christian faith, or at least (as Ehrman would
have it) as one of the “Lost Christianities.”93
Evangelical Response
There is a solid case to be made that the NT does, in fact, include the right books,
and that the “political” story Dan Brown borrows from Ehrman and Bauer is not the true
story of Christian history.94 While elements of that case are found elsewhere in this
paperincluding in the next section,
Theological Concerns
here we will argue that even
the allowance of an early date for some of the apocryphal books (e.g. an early second
century date for
Thomas
), and even the similarity of a book like
Thomas
to accepted
Jesus tradition, do not recommend an adjustment to the NT canon.
While Wegner acknowledges the possibility of a very early date (6070) for some
of
Thomas
’s material, he notes strong evidence that places most of its content much later
(ca. 170 or later).95 He writes,
In sum, it is possible that a portion of the material in
Thomas
reflects
tradition circulating among the churches that could belong to this early
period, but these must be examined on a sayingbysaying basis…. The
debate over
Thomas
is about what and how much of this material goes
back to Jesus and how much of it is a reflection of later Gnostic concerns.
Most of
Thomas
does not go back to Jesus, but a few pieces could.”96
As to Pagels’s claims for
Thomas
, Wegner believes she has “overplayed the
contrast” with John.97 Taking a closer look at the content of
Thomas
, we see that there are
parts that seem to teach an exalted Jesus, at least somewhat in line with John’s teaching:
Thomas
77 reads, “Jesus says, ‘It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I
who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a
piece of wood and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”98 As Wegner
asks, “Does this not suggest a higher view for a unique Jesus than Pagels presents?”99
With
Thomas
apparently among their best shots, we can infer that the higher
critics remain unable to put forth an apocryphal text to match the mix of early date, early
attestation, and consistent content of the true NT texts. What is more, with Pagels’s
apparent bending of
Thomas
to fit her agenda, it strikes one as ironic that she would
distort for her own purposes even a book which few believe is actually Scripture.100
Theological Concerns
As noted at the beginning, the question of canon is at least as much a theological
as a historical one.101 Having spent the bulk of this paper on historical data and debate, we
turn now to what I consider the most important of the issues involved in the area of
canonicity, that of
theological concerns
. As Vanhoozer incisively observes, “History
alone cannot answer the question of what the canon finally is; theology alone can do
that.”102
Higher Criticism
While it might seem a little odd to begin our discussion of theological concerns by
considering what the higher critics have to say, it should be helpful to get a handle on the
objections before diving into what should be a rich discussion of worthy theological truth,
so as to ultimately draw as much goodness from that truth as to dispel any thought of the
objections, leading to unfettered worship!
Inspiration
Sundberg is generally correct in observing that “In Protestant thought the
concepts of Bible canon and of inspiration are virtually synonymous.”103 From there he
proceeds to argue that a related claim (e.g. Luther’s) that Scripture is selfattesting (i.e.
to its own inspiration and thus canonicity) is too subjective to be valid, as “the judgment
[of canonicity] is made by the person arguing the case.”104 Finally, having claimed
ignorance of any NT teaching that isolates the gift of inspiration to particular people,
places, or times, Sundberg concludes thatalthough he is not questioning the inspiration
of Scripturethe doctrine of inspiration is inadequate to “serve as a criterion of
canonization,” as it is “so broad in the church as to not be limitable to the canon of
scripture.”105
Who Chooses the Canon (Or Does It Choose Itself)?
This question is not unrelated to that of inspiration. Like Sundberg with regard to
inspiration, Marxsen takes an “open” view with regard to what would qualify one to
identify books as canonical:
Anyone who insists that the church (led by the Holy Spirit) was able to
decide on the structure of the canon will hardly admit that the Spirit left
the church as soon as the decision was cast; it is not clear to me, at least,
how such an idea could be defended. But if the Spirit did not abandon the
church, why shouldn’t the church at a later date be able to make similar
decisions?106
He argues it another way as well, again similarly to Sundberg:
Occasionally the position is taken that it was not really the church which
determined or defined the canon...it simply declared those writings to be
canonical that had already proven themselves to be canonical through long
use. But a problem still remains, for the solution makes the experiences of
men the standard for what should be (or better, should remain) canonical.
Experiences, however, can be deceitful allies in such decisions, and it is
fair to ask whether the experiences of one individual are binding on
another.107
And finally, Marxsen takes issue with the idea of canon as an object of faith, asserting
that rather than placing faith in Scripture, its adherents are (“whether they know it or
105
Ibid.
Marxsen, 18
107
Ibid., 17
106
24
not”) really trusting and participating “in a decision of the church,” forgetting that “the
canon did not fall from heaven all at once as an entity to be believed in.”108
Kyrtatas also weighs in on this question, stating that he disagrees with the many
scholars who say (or imply) that the process of determining what belonged in the canon
was one of recognizing as such books that already possessed authority in the church.109
Rather, he says, “We should look at the matter the other way around: having been
included in the canon, all documents were considered to be inspired and authoritative,
whatever their prior status, because of their inclusion…. It was ultimately the canon itself
that secured a special reception for its documents.”110
While brief, this overview of higher criticism in the area of theological concerns
demonstrates the ways in which its practitioners push back against the Biblical
theological truths on which belief in a New Testament Canon ultimately rests. The fact
that more space will be given to the evangelical response in this section (which will
proceed in due course from
response
to original
case
) is justified in that it is this side that
here holds all the assets. Opponentsif the evangelicals’ claims are truelack the
necessary truth,111 help,112 and even will113 to truly grasp theology.114 (Additionally, based
on my research, the evangelicals’ volume of work in this area dwarfs that of the
opposition.) So we turn now to the evangelical response.
108
Ibid., 18
Kyrtatas 31
110
Ibid., 31, 32
111
John 14:6
112
John 15:26
113
John 7:17
114
See also Ephesians 4:18 and Romans 1:21.
109
25
Evangelical Response
Inspiration
While Wegner115 and Harris116 both take the traditional Protestant view that
inspiration is the ultimate determiner of canonicity (making the two more or less
synonymous), I am going to agree with Gaffin in conceding to Sundberg117 that
inspiration is broader historically than can be limited to the canon of Scripture, and that if
inspiration were the test, “There would be the insuperable difficulty [for Sundberg,
unavoidable subjectivity] of having to
demonstrate
inspiration for each New Testament
document.”118
It should be noted, however, that Sundberg expands the doctrine of inspiration
beyond what is allowable biblically when he indicates that it is in no way restricted “to
particular persons or to particular times.”119 We are now (since the closing of the canon
near the end of the first century) in a period analogous to the 400 years between Old and
New Testaments when, as Wegner explains, “The voice of God had ceased following the
time of Malachi (about 400 BC); thus, new books were no longer being added to the
sacred Scriptures.”120 This agrees with Gaffin, whose expansion of the doctrine allows
only that other writings with “full apostolic authority” (e.g. “Paul’s previous letter to the
Corinthians and his letter to the Laodiceans”) are “presumably inspired.” 121
Who Chooses the Canon (Or Does It Choose Itself)?
Perhaps no one has said it better than B. B. Warfield:
In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation
of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very
firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is
once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form
for itself the idea of a “canon,”or, as we should more commonly call it,
of a “Bible,”that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the
authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the
Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the
“Canon of the Old Testament.”122
This makes sense of Peter’s identification of Paul’s letters with “the rest of the
Scriptures.”123 And while that may be the most obvious NT reference to the fact that
Warfield’s understanding comes from the apostles themselves, Gaffin notes that we find
indication elsewhere that the apostles were already concerned that, as they die, there be a
“preservation of apostolic witness in and by the church.”124 The apostles’ witness is
repeatedly called “tradition,” and it is seen to be authoritative and binding, for example,
when Paul commands his readers to “hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them
to you,”125 and to “hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of
mouth or by letter from us.” 126 As Gaffin notes, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is “especially
instructive” in its wording,
by word of mouth or by letter
: “Notice that hereshortly after
1 Thessalonians, perhaps the earliest New Testament documentwritten as well as oral
122
Warfield, 411
2 Peter 3:16. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations in this paper are from the New American
Standard Bible (NASB) translation.
124
Gaffin, 177
125
1 Cor. 11:2
126
2 Thess. 2:15
123
27
apostolic tradition is already in view as authoritative.”127 Again, as Warfield has so
clearly stated, the idea of authoritative Scripture was no novel concept for the apostles
and their followers. And the NT provides the needed evidence to make the case that they
were recognizing exactly what they had even as the Scriptures were being written.
This reality readily dispenses with both Marxsen and Kyrtatas. While on the face
of it part of Marxsen’s argument relies on an obvious logical fallacy, or at least a gap in
logic (i.e., if the Holy Spirit is still active in the church, his ministry
must
still include
directing God’s people in choosing books to add to the canon), one might proceed to
consider the question of whether God’s people would still be able to recognize an
inspired book if it showed up. Gaffin does just that, concluding:
The church would have to be far less fragmented than it has been for the
past thousand years for it to recognize and then reach a consensus that
such a writing is indeed canonical. Furthermore, such recognition could
hardly claim continuity with what took place in the church during the first
four centuries, when it was always a matter of deciding about documents
that had all along been known, at least to some degree. But now there
would be a new document abruptly introduced after nearly two thousand
years.
As to the question of faith raised by Marxsen on the basis of his observation that a
Scriptural Canon did not fall out of the sky to become an object of belief, we must admit
this in a sense. While it does take faith, this faith is not in the decisions of men (as Gaffin
notes, the inclusion of Hebrews could be taken as the right choice made for the wrong
reason128). Neither is this faith in the idea that a book fell out of the sky to be believed.
127
Gaffin,177
Ibid., 169
128
28
Rather, this is faith in the providence of and faithfulness of God who orchestrated early
church history through the teaching and leadership of his apostles on whom he said he
would build his church,129 subsequently and rightly (and by means even of men’s flawed
decisions) setting aside the documents (and only the documents) he intends to be used by
his church until the close of the age. With Gaffin, therefore, I gladly embrace the
circularity of the final word: “Canonical is what belongs to the New Testament, and what
belongs to the New Testament is canonical”130
I
mplications on Methodology in Approaching the Scripture
Having come to this point, we draw the same conclusion as Packer: “The Bible
itself must fix and control the methods and presuppositions with which it is studied.”131
While the higher critics discussed in this paper come to the question of canonicity (and
more generally to the Scripture itself) with themselves in view as the judges, the right
approach to the Scripture (including to the question of canonicity) is to come
submissively. If the Bible is what it claims to be (and despite much toil, the higher critics
have not convincingly proven otherwise), then we must come to it in such a way as to
receive what Paul says it is good for: reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.132
We can only hope and pray that in their pursuits the higher critics ultimately come into
these treasures of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ.
129
Cf. Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20
Gaffin, 170. Just a note: if I could have simply reproduced Gaffin’s entire article for this paper, that
would have been satisfactory in my estimation.
131
Packer, 68.
132
2 Tim. 3:16
130
29
Bibliography
Bauer, Walter.
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity
. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971.
Boring, M. Eugene. “Bauer, Walter.” In
Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters
(2nd
ed.), edited by Donald K. McKim, 172177. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2007.
Dungan, David L. “The New Testament Canon in Recent Study.”
Interpretation
29
(1975): 33951.
Ehrman, Bart D.
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never
Knew
. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Flora, Jerry Rees.
A Critical Analysis of Walter Bauer’s Theory of Early Christian
Orthodoxy and Heresy
. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1993.
Funk, Robert W. “The Once and Future New Testament.” In
The Canon Debate
, edited
by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 541557. Peabody, MA: 2002.
Gaffin, Richard B. “The New Testament as Canon.” In
Inerrancy and Hermeneutic
,
edited by Harvie M. Conn, 165183. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.
Hagerty, Cornelius.
The Authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures
. Houston, TX: Lumen
Christi Press, 1969.
Harris, R. Laird.
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1969.
Köstenberger, Andreas J and Michael J. Kruger.
The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How
Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our
Understanding of Early Christianity
. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.
Kruger, Michael J.
Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New
Testament Books
. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Kyrtatas, Dimitris J. “Historical Aspects of the Formation of the New Testament Canon.”
In
Canon and Canonicity: Essays on the Formation and Use of Scripture
, edited
by Einar Thomassen, 2944. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2009.
Lange, John Peter et al.
A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 2 Peter
. Bellingham,
WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Marxsen, Willi.
The New Testament as the Church’s Book
, trans. James E. Mignard.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
Metzger, Bruce M.
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance
. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Packer, J.I.
“Fundamentalism” and the Word of God
. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.
Powell, Mark Allan.
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Revised and Updated
. New
York: HarperCollins, 2011.
30
Sundberg, Albert C. “The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration.”
Interpretation
29 (1975): 352371.
Towner, Philip H.
12 Timothy & Titus (The IVP New Testament commentary series)
.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J.
The Drama of Doctrine: A CanonicalLinguistic Approach to
Christian Theology
. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Verheyden, J. “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute.” In
The Biblical Canons
,
edited by J.M. Auwers and H.J. De Jonge, 487556. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 2003.
Warfield, Benjamin B.
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
. Louisville, KY: SBTS
Press, 2014.
Wegner, Paul D., Terry L. Wilder, and Darrell L. Bock. “Do We Have the Right Canon?”
In
In Defense of the Bible
, edited by Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder,
393428. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2013.