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. Downerâs 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.
to add comments