Jonathan Edwards: Reconsidering Closed Communion and the Internal Condition > > Home

Close but no Cigar: Books Almost in the NT Part 3

Reasons for their rejection

Posted Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Charlie Trimm

Well, here comes the part you've all been waiting for! Well, at least, it is the end. Here is my discussion of why these books were rejected and what impact that has on the books that were accepted.

Reasons for Rejection

For most of these books, no reason is given by the Church Fathers for their rejection, although they are explicitly rejected as Scripture. This is seen especially in Eusebius, who has a four fold classification. The first category includes the universally acknowledged books, the second is the disputed books, the third is the spurious books, and the fourth is the rejected books. The first two categories contain only books that are in our NT canon, the third contains all the books surveyed in this paper (except the Wisdom of Solomon), and the fourth contains the heretical and gnostic gospels and acts. The third category is rejected as Scripture, but not as unhelpful. They are good for private reading and edification, but not for building doctrine or public reading in the churches (Bruce 198-200). This attitude was common among the church fathers (such as Athanasius, Rufinius and the Muratorian Canon), many of whom would recommend that a book was to be read but not read as Scripture.

But we still have not examined why these books were regarded as spurious. The Muratorian Canon gives the reason for the Shepherd of Hermas not being Scripture as its late date of writing. The Canon goes on to reason that since it was written late, it could not have been written by a prophet or an apostle. This shows that the lack of apostolic authority was enough to keep a book from the canon. As far as the Acts of Paul, a reason is given by Tertullian: it was composed in honor of Paul by a presbyter. But why is this wrong? No explicit reason is given, but apparently a similar unspoken but understood reason would exist as with the Shepherd: it did not have apostolic authority.

No explicit reason is given why the other books did not become Scripture, but the main reason would seem to be the lack of apostolic authority. For example, Clement was not an apostle or an apostolic man, so this book could not be considered as Scripture. The date of the Revelation of Peter would be much too late for Peter to actually have written it, so pseudonymity would be a problem, as it would also be for the Epistle of Barnabas. Another reason for their exclusion is their relative quality and helpfulness when compared to the canonical books. While this is inherently subjective, these books have a different feel to them than do the canonical NT books. It is evident they are sub-quality and not inspired. The church fathers intuitively recognized which books should be in the canon.

[C]ertain books excluded themselves from the canon. Among the dozens or more gospels that circulated in the early Church, the question how, and when, and why our four Gospels came to be selected or their supreme position may seem to be a mystery - but it is a clear case of survival of the fittest. As Arthur Darby Nock used to say to his students at Harvard with reference to the canon, 'The most travelled roads in Europe are the best roads; that is why they are so heavily travelled.' William Barclay put the matter still more pointedly: 'It is the simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so' (Metzger Canon 286).

Reasons for Acceptance

This raises the question of why some church Fathers would accept non-canonical books as Scripture. If they are not Scripture why cite them as Scripture? As can be seen by the recognition data above, there are patterns. Clement of Alexandria, cites a large number of books outside our NT canon. But Clement's view of inspiration is quite different than an evangelical view. "Since Clement is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings that contain moral and religious truth, are in his view inspired. He refers to Orpheus as 'the theologian', and speaks of Plato as being 'under the inspiration of God'. Even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words 'divinely inspired'" (Metzger Canon 134). Clement connected inspiration more with truth wherever it could be found than with a restricted set of documents that God dealt with in a special way. This means that we cannot simply use the word inspired in Clement to find a closed canon. Origen (probably the student of Clement) exhibits many of the same views as Clement but tightens them considerably. On the one hand, he views as accepted by the church the books that we have in the canon today. But on the other hand, he can quote the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired. While he is beginning to restrict inspiration to the canon, it is still broader than it is later defined (Metzger Canon 135-141).

The reason several extra-canonical books were added to early manuscripts of the NT is unclear. A possible reason is that even if these documents were not accepted as canonical, they were still recommended to be read by the faithful. So a scribe could have copied them without implying that they were inspired.

One possibility for the inclusion of Wisdom in the Muratorian fragment is that the writer was at that point beginning a separate part of his list, the disputed books. This part of the list would include both OT and NT disputed books. That would mean that starting at Wisdom, he lists the disputed books after he has finished the confirmed books (Hill 441).

The Muratorian Canon is also in a state of progress. There are three revelations listed in it (John, Peter, and Hermas). The Canon rejects Hermas, tentatively accepts Peter, and accepts John. Apparently in the past there were three revelations accepted, then at this point there was two, and finally later on there would be one (Metzger Canon 198). The canon for the most part moved from wider to narrower as time went on. The reason for this would be that as the documents spread to more churches, more study and data on the document came to light. Eventually, after several centuries of discussions, the church as a whole was able to determine what was useful for the church as a whole, what was apostolic, and what was orthodox. The canon was refined as more data was gathered.

Are these books helpful for us today? While they are not inspired, they are still helpful in limited ways. An examination of the limited support for canonicity these books receives when compared to even the least-accepted book of the NT canon, 2 Peter (Green 5), encourages us that the while the choosing of the canon might seem haphazard at first glance, the process actually proceeded quite logically and we can be confident of our NT canon. The books also help us to see what the early church was like and give us a historical grasp of that time, keeping us from being myopic. They help us in seeing how those close to the apostles interpreted the apostles. And some of them are just fun to read!

 

Works Cited

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1988.

Davis, Glenn. "Development of the Canon of the New Testament." www.ntcanon.org 2004.

deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

de Young, James B. "A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha." Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 437-454.

Goodspeed, Edgar, Trans. The Apocrypha. New York: Modern Library, 1959.

Green, E. M. B. 2 Peter Reconsidered. London: Tyndale, 1961.

Hagner, Donald Alfred. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Hennecke, Edgar, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, and R. McL. Wilson, Eds. New Testament Apocrypha. Volume 1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.

---. New Testament Apocrypha. Volume 2. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964.

Hill, C.E. "The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon." WTJ 57:2 (1995): 437-453.

Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Kirby, Peter. "Early Christian Writings." www.earlychristanwritings.com 2001.

Knight, K. "Fathers of the Church." www.newadvent.org/fathers 2003.

Metzger, Bruce M. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford, 1957.

---. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.

Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Osiek, Carolyn. Shepherd of Hermas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.

Peterlin, Davorin. "Clement's Answer to the Corinthian Conflict in AD 96." JETS. 39:1 (1996): 57-70.

Richardson, Cyril C., Ed and Trans. Early Christian Fathers. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.

 

Series: Close But No Cigar
Close but no Cigar: Books Almost in the NT Part 1
Close but no Cigar: Books Almost in the NT Part 2
Close but no Cigar: Books Almost in the NT Part 3

Monday, December 26, 2005 8:46 AM

Brian wrote: 

Maybe I was just hoping for more fuss, Charlie suggesting that we add the Shepherd of Hermas to the Canon, or something. What was the specific value of these writings? We consult many books that aren't Scripture on a host of topics. What would I turn to these books for? Did they address church polity? Do they recommend open or closed communion?

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:14 AM

Dr. Samtor wrote: okay...its sam...i confess...
"While this is inherently subjective, these books have a different feel to them than do the canonical NT books. It is evident they are sub-quality and not inspired. The church fathers intuitively recognized which books should be in the canon."
 
Charlie, what do you think of this as a criterion...the feel of a book?  Is this a problem for me because of the times in which we live...do you have a problem with it?  If i were to throw a book out based on its feel, i'd probably get rid of Jude...any thoughts?

Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:18 AM

Brian wrote: The Canon and the Nature of the Church

Charlie, you quoted Metzger,

"[T]he New Testament books became canonical because no one could stop them doing so"

The Canon and the character of the church are inextricably linked. The church identified the Canon according to the wisdom it had learned from the Scriptures and the Apostles. So if the Canon were to be different, we would also have to imagine a different church.

You mention that there were three revelations. Is this why people refer to the Revelation of John as "Revelations." Seriously though, what would a fundamental Baptist church be like if it preached the Revealations of Peter and Hermas as well as that of John?

Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:32 PM

Charlie wrote: 

Good questions Brian. For the most part, I didn't intend to answer them in my paper. I wrote the paper in response to what I saw as a glaring hole in the standard works on the canon. When they looked at the debated books in the canon, they would cite all the support for them, and then say that there is overwhelming evidence for them. But they would never look at the books that didn't make it. Is there overwhelming support for them too? This is why I wrote the paper, and so the questions you ask were not my concern. But here a few thoughts.

These books tell us a lot about the early church and how they thought and read Scripture. Since we are talking about allegory elsewhere, we can see some prime examples in Barnabas. We can see how some in the church viewed Paul (such as in the Acts of Paul). But we must be careful: these books tell us mostly about the person that wrote them, not necessarily about the church as a whole. There are spiritual lessons we can learn from these books, although the way they get to their conclusions is often different than ours. There is discussion of church polity, although no formal discussion as such. Usually it is assumed, and then something is discussed in relation to the polity. So those are a few comments. Frankly, I recommend them simply as enjoyable reading.

Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:34 PM

Charlietor wrote: 

Samtor,

Yes, that kind of reasoning does disturb. I intended the statement not as a reason for accepting or declining, but as a retrospective look at a decision already made. As I read these books, and compare them with those that were accepted, they have a different feel to them, even from Jude. But perhaps if I wasn't living in a modernistic society, then maybe the feel of a book would weigh more heavily with me. But as it is, I see the books being accepted or declined for other reasons.

Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:38 PM

Charlie wrote:  I want to preach from the Acts of Paul sometime and look at the lion that was baptized by Paul after it belived. That should raise some eyebrows. Seriously, though, someday I want to lead a Communion by looking at the Communion section in the Didache.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:32 AM

Charlie wrote: 

About the "feel" of the books, here is a quote from Eusebius in his Church history.

Writings published by heretics under the names of the apostles, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthais, and others, or the Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles have never been cited by any in the succession of church writers. The type of phraselogy used contrasts with apostolic style, and the opinions and thrusts of their contents are so dissonant from true orthodoxy that they show themselves to be forgeries of heretics. Accordingly, they ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.

(Book 3 paragraph 25)

Login to add comments