APPENDICES: FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DIG DEEPER!

© Lee Martin McDonaldMcDonald, Lee Martin (2011) Origin of the Bible: A Guide for the Perplexed.

London: Continuum. www.biblicalstudies.mcdonald.continuumbooks.com.

APPENDICES:FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DIG DEEPER!

The following collection of data from antiquity is to aid readers in their further interests in canon formation. It is essential information for a more complete understanding of the formation of the Bible as well as the processes that were involved in the church’s recognition of its Bible. This data was published in earlier volumes noted in the Further Reading at the end of the Appendices.

THE STORY THAT LISTS, CATALOGUES, AND MANUSCRIPTS TELL

In what follows, we will list some of the most important catalogues of Jewish and Christian scriptures that have significance for canon forma-tion. A collection of these lists in parallel columns for comparison allows one to see the general agreements as well as the exceptions to those agreements among Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries.

APPENDIX A:

HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT LISTS

I. Lost Ancient Books Mentioned in the Bible, but Not Preserved

The Bible mentions several books that did not survive the ancient screening processes that led to the recognition of our current Old Testa-ment Scriptures. Some 26 of these books that were not canonized are listed in the Old Testament itself.



II. J

ewis

h an

d C

hris

tian

Fir

st/O

ld T

esta

men

t C

ano

ns

Heb

rew

Bib

leC

atho

licO

rtho

dox

Pro

test

ant

Eth

iopi

an

Law

/Tor

ah(P

enta

teuc

h)G

enes

isE

xodu

sL

evit

icus

Num

bers

Deu

tero

nom

yP

roph

ets

(Neb

iim)

Form

er P

roph

ets

Josh

uaJu

dges

1 &

2 S

amue

l1

& 2

Kin

gsL

atte

r P

roph

ets:

Isai

ahJe

rem

iah

Eze

kiel

The

Tw

elve

:H

osea

Joel

Am

osO

badi

ahJo

nah

Mic

ahN

ahum

Hab

akku

k

Pen

tate

uch

Gen

esis

Exo

dus

Lev

itic

usN

umbe

rsD

eute

rono

my

His

tori

cal B

ooks

Josh

uaJu

dges

Rut

h1

Sam

uel

2 Sa

mue

l1

Kin

gs2

Kin

gs1

Chr

onic

les

2 C

hron

icle

sE

zra

Neh

emia

hTo

bit

Judi

thE

sthe

r (+

6 ad

diti

ons)

1 M

acca

bees

2 M

acca

bees

Wis

dom

Boo

ksJo

bP

salm

s

His

tori

cal B

ooks

Gen

esis

Exo

dus

Lev

itic

usN

umbe

rsD

eute

rono

my

Josh

uaJu

dges

Rut

h1

Kin

gdom

s (=

1 S

amue

l)2

Kin

gdom

s (=

2 S

amue

l)3

Kin

gs (

= 1

Kin

gs)

4 K

ings

(=

2 K

ings

)1

Chr

onic

les

2 C

hron

icle

s1

Esd

ras

2 E

sdra

sN

ehem

iah

Tobi

tJu

dith

Est

her

(wit

h 6

addi

tion

s)1

Mac

cabe

es2

Mac

cabe

es3

Mac

cabe

es

Pen

tate

uch

Gen

esis

Exo

dus

Lev

itic

usN

umbe

rsD

eute

rono

my

His

tori

cal B

ooks

Josh

uaJu

dges

Rut

h1

Sam

uel

2 Sa

mue

l1

Kin

gs2

Kin

gs1

Chr

onic

les

2 C

hron

icle

sE

zra

Neh

emia

hE

sthe

rP

oeti

c B

ooks

Job

Psa

lms

Pro

verb

sE

ccle

sias

tes

Song

of

Song

s

Oct

ateu

chP

enta

teuc

h +

Josh

uaJu

dges

Rut

hJu

dith

Sam

uels

Kin

gsC

hron

icle

s1

Esd

ras

+ E

zra

Apo

caly

pse

Est

her

Tobi

t1–

2 M

acca

bees

Job

Psa

lms

5 bo

oks

of S

olom

onP

roph

ets

Maj

or P

roph

ets

Isai

ahJe

rem

iah

Eze

kiel

Dan

iel

Min

or P

roph

ets

Hos

eaJo

elA

mos



Zep

hani

ahH

agga

iZ

echa

riah

Mal

achi

Wri

ting

s (K

etub

im)

Psa

lms

Pro

verb

sJo

bF

ive

Scr

olls

(Ham

esh

Meg

illot

):So

ng o

f So

ngs

Rut

hL

amen

tati

ons

Ecc

lesi

aste

sE

sthe

rD

anie

lE

zra-

Neh

emia

h1–

2 C

hron

icle

s

Pro

verb

sE

ccle

sias

tes

Song

of

Song

sW

isdo

m o

f So

lom

onE

ccle

sias

ticu

sP

roph

etic

Boo

ksIs

aiah

Jere

mia

hL

amen

tati

ons

Bar

uch

+ E

pist

le o

f Je

rem

iah

Eze

kiel

Dan

iel (

+3

addi

-ti

ons:

Pra

yer

of

Aza

riah

& S

ong

of

Thr

ee Y

oung

Men

, S

usan

na, &

Bel

and

th

e D

rago

n)H

osea

Joel

Am

osO

badi

ahJo

nah

Mic

ahN

ahum

Hab

akku

kZ

epha

niah

Hag

gai

Zec

hari

ahM

alac

hi

Poe

tic

Boo

ksP

salm

s (w

ith

Psa

lm 1

51)

Job

Pro

verb

sE

ccle

sias

tes

Song

of

Song

sW

isdo

m o

f So

lom

onW

isdo

m o

f Si

rach

Pro

phet

ic B

ooks

Hos

eaA

mos

Mic

ahJo

elO

badi

ahJo

nah

Nah

umH

abak

kuk

Zep

hani

ahM

alac

hiIs

aiah

Jere

mia

hB

aruc

hL

amen

tati

ons

of J

er-

emia

hE

pist

le o

f Je

rem

iah

Eze

kiel

Dan

iel (

+ P

raye

r of

Aza

-ri

ah, S

ong

of t

he T

hree

Y

outh

s, S

usan

na, a

nd

Bel

l and

the

Dra

gon)

Pro

phet

ic B

ooks

Isai

ahJe

rem

iah

Eze

kiel

Dan

iel

Hos

eaJo

elA

mos

Oba

diah

Jona

hM

icah

Nah

umH

abak

kuk

Zep

hani

ahH

agga

iZ

echa

riah

Mal

achi

Oba

diah

Jona

hM

icah

Nah

umH

abak

kuk

Zep

hani

ahH

agga

iZ

echa

riah

Mal

achi

Sira

chP

seud

.-Jo

seph

usJu

bile

es1

Eno

ch



III. Old Testament Catalogues of Scriptures: Eastern Churches

Melito1 Origen2 Athanasius3 Cyril4

Gen.Exod.Num.Lev.Deut.Josh.Judg.Ruth1–4 Kgs1–2 ChrPssProv. WisdomEccl.SongJobIsa.Jer.Dan.Esd.(Esther= omitted)5

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg./Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.Pss.Prov.Eccl.SongIsa.Jer/Lam./Ep.(Twelve omitted)6

Dan.Ezek.JobEsther

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg.Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.Pss.Prov.Eccl.SongJobTwelveIsa.Jer./Bar/Lam./Ep.Ezek.Dan.

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg./Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.EstherJobPss.Prov.Eccl.SongTwelveIsa.Jer./Lam./Ep./BarEzek.Dan.



IV. Old Testament Collections from the Eastern Churches (cont.)

Epiphanius7 Epiphanius8 Epiphanius9 Gregory10 Amphilochius11

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg.RuthJobPss.Prov.Eccl.1 Kgs2 Kgs3 Kgs4 Kgs1 Chron.2 Chron.TwelveIsa.Jer/Lam/Ep/

BarEzek.Dan.1 Esd.2 Esd.

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.JobPss.Prov.Eccl.SongJosh.Judg/Ruth1–2 Chron.1–2 Kgs3–4 KgsTwelveIsa.Jer.Exek.Dan.1–2 Esd.Esther

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.JobJudg.RuthPss.1 Chron.2 Chron.1 Kgs2 Kgs3 Kgs4 KgsProv.Eccl.SongTwelveIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.1 Esd.2 Esd.Esther

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg./Ruth1–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.JobPss.Eccl.SongProv.TwelveIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg.Ruth1–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.JobPss.Prov.Eccl.SongTwelveIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.Esther



V. Old Testament Collections from the Western Churches

Hilary12 Jerome13 Jerome14 Rufinus15 Augustine16 Carthage17

5 books Moses

Josh.Jdgs./Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.Pss.Prov.Eccl.SongTwelveIsa.Jer./Lam./

EpDan.Ezek.JobEsther(Tobit)(Judith)

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.JobJosh.Judg.RuthSam.3–4 KgsTwelveIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.Pss.SongSol.Esther1–2 Chron.Ezra-Neh.

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg./Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 KgsIsa.Jer.Ezek.TwelveJobPss.Prov.Eccl.SongDan.1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.Esther

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg./Ruth1–2 Kgs3–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.1–2 Esd.EstherIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.TwelveJobPss.Prov.Eccl.Song

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg.Ruth1–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.JobTobitEstherJudith1–2 Macc.1–2 Esd.Pss.Prov.SongEccl.WisdomSirachTwelveIsa.Jer.Dan.Ezek.

Gen.Exod.Lev.Num.Deut.Josh.Judg.Ruth1–4 Kgs1–2 Chron.JobPss.1–5 Sol.TwelveIsa.Jer.Ezek.Dan.TobitJudithEsther1–2 Esd.1–2 Macc.



VI. Important Biblical Manuscripts with Old Testament Collections

Vaticanus (B) (fourth cent.) . . . 18

Sinaiticus (א) (fourth cent.) . . .

Alexandrinus (A) (fifth cent.) Genesis

GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1–4 Kings1–2 Chronicles1–2 EsdrasPsalms . . . ProverbsEcclesiastes Song of SolomonJobWisdomSirachEstherJudithTobitHoseaAmosMicahJoel Obadiah JonahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachiIsaiahJeremiahBaruchLamentationsEpistle of JeremyEzekielDaniel

Genesis . . . . . . . . . Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chronicles . . . . . . 2 EsdrasEstherTobitJudith . . . 1–4 MaccabeesIsaiahJeremiahLamentations . . . JoelObadiahJonahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachiPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastesSong of SolomonWisdomSirachJob

ExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1–4 Kings1–2 ChroniclesHoseaAmosMicahJoelObadiahJonahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachiIsaiahJeremiahBaruchLamentationsEpistle of JeremyEzekielDanielEstherTobitJudith1–2 Esdras1–4 MaccabeesPsalms19

Psalm 15120

JobProverbsSong of SolomonWisdomSirach



VII. Scripture References Attributed to Jesus

The following lists are not complete, but reflect some of the citations of, or allusions to, and parallels in subject and verbal matter with the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and the so-called Apocryphal writings. The following examples are adapted from Nestle/Aland’s Novum Testamen-tum Graece27 (pp. 770–806, especially pp. 800–806).

A. Jesus’ Citations of Biblical Books in the Synoptic GospelsGen. 1.27 (Mk 10.6/Mt. 19.4); 2.24 (Mk 10.7–8/Mt. 19.5); 4.1 ff. (Mt. 23.35/Lk 11.51); 4.24 (Mt. 18.22); 6–7 (Mt. 24.37–39/Lk. 17.26–27); 19 (Mt. 10.15/11.23–24/Lk. 10.12); Exod. 3.6 (Mk 12.26/Mt. 22.32/Lk. 20.37); 20.7 (Mt. 5.33); 20.12 (Mk 7.10/Mt. 15.4); 20.7 (Mt. 5.33); 20.12–16 (Mk 10.19/Mt. 19.18–19/Lk. 18.20); 20.13 (Mt. 5.21); 20.14 (Mt. 5.27); 21.12 (Mt. 5.21); 21.17 (Mk 7.10/Mt. 15.4); 21.24 (Mt. 5.38); 23.20 (Mk 1.2/Mt. 11.10/Lk. 7.27); 24.8 (Mk 14.24; Mt. 26.28); 29.37 (Mt. 23.17, 19); 30.29 (Mt. 23.17, 19); Lev. 13–14 (Lk. 17.14); 14.2–32 (Mk 1.44/Mt. 8.4/Lk. 5.14); 19.2 (Mt. 5.48/Lk. 6.36); 19.12 (Mt. 5.33); 19.18 (Mk. 12.31/Mt. 5.43; 19.18; 22.39/Lk. 10.27); 24.9 (Mk. 2.25–26/Mt. 12.3–4/Lk. 6.3–4); 24.17 (Mt. 5.21); 24.20 (Mt. 5.38); Num. 28.9–10 (Mt. 12.5); Deut. 5.16–20 (Mk 10.19/Mt. 19.18–19/Lk. 18.20); 5.17 (Mt. 5.21); 5.18 (Mt. 5.21); 6.4–5 (Mk 12.29–30/Mt. 22.37/Lk. 10.27); 6.13 (Mt. 4.10/Lk. 4.8); 6.16 (Mt. 4.7/Lk. 4.12); 8.3 (Mt. 4.4/Lk. 4.4); 13.2 (Mt. 24.24); 19.15 (Mt. 18.16); 23.22 (Mt. 5.33); 24.1 (Mk 10.5/Mt. 5.31/19.8); 30.4 (Mt. 24.31); 1 Sam. 21.2–7 (Mk 2.25–26/Mt. 12.4/Lk. 6.3–4); 1 Kgs 10.4ff. (Mt. 6.29/Lk. 12.27); 10.13 (Mt. 12.42/Lk. 11.31); 17.1ff. (Lk. 4.25–26); 2 Kgs 5 (Lk 4.27); 2 Chron. 24.20–22 (Mt. 23.35/Lk. 11.51); Psalms 6.9 (Mt. 7.23/Lk. 13.27); 8.3 (Mt. 21.16); 22.2 (Mk 15.34/Mt. 27.46); 22.2 (Mk 15.34/Mt. 27.46); 24.4 (Mt. 5.8); 31.6 (Lk. 23.46); 37.11 (Mt. 5.5); 48.3 (Mt. 5.35); 50.14 (Mt. 5.33); 110.1 (Mk 12.36; 14.62/Mt. 22.44; 26.64/Lk 20.42–43; 22.69); 118.22–23 (Mk 12.10–11/Mt. 21.42/Lk. 20.17); 118.26 (Mt. 23.39/Lk. 13.35); Isa. 5.1–2 (Mk 12.1/Mt. 21.33/Lk. 20.9); 6.9–10 (Mk 4.12/Mt. 12.4; 13.14–15/Lk. 6.4); 8.14–15 (Mt. 21.44/Lk. 20.18); 13.10 (Mk 13.24–25/Mt. 24.39/Lk. 21.25–26); 14.13, 15 (Mt. 11.23/Lk. 10.15); 23 (Mt. 11.21–22/Lk. 10.13–14); 29.13 (Mk 7.6–7/Mt. 15.8–9); 32.15 (Lk. 24.49); 34.4 (Mk 13.24–25/Mt. 24.29/Lk. 21.25–26); 35.5–6 (Mt. 11.5/Lk. 7.27); 53.10–12 (Mk. 10.45/Mt 20.28); 53.12 (Lk. 22.37); 56.7 (Mk 11.17/Mt. 21.13/Lk. 19.46); 58.6 (Lk. 4.18); 66.1 (Mt. 5.34–35; 11.5/Lk. 7.22); 61.1–2 (Lk.



4.18–19); Jer. 6.16 (Mt. 11.29); 7.11 (Mk 11.17); Ezek. 26–28 (Mt. 11.21–22; Lk. 10.13–14); Dan. 7.13 (Mk 13.26; 14.62/Mt. 24.30; 26.64/Lk. 21.27; 22.69); 11.31 (Mk 13.14/Mt. 24.15); 12.11, cf. 9.27 (Mk 13.14/Mt. 24.15); Joel 4.13 (Mk 4.29); Hos. 6.6 (Mt. 9.13); 10.8 (Mt. 23.30); Mic. 7.6 (Mt 10.35–36/Lk 12.53); Jonah (Mt 16.4; cf. 12.39); 2.1 (Mk 8.31); 3.5–9 (Mt. 12.41/Lk. 11.32); Zech. 9.9 (Mk 11.1ff./Mt. 21.1ff./Lk. 19.29ff.); 13.7 (Mk 14.27/Mt. 26.31); Mal. 3.1 (Mt. 11.10/Lk. 7.27); 3.23–24 (Mk 9.12–13; 11.14/Mt. 11.10/Lk. 7.27; 17.11–12); 12.12 (Mt. 24.30).21

B. Jesus’ Citations of Biblical Books in the Gospel of JohnGen. 1.1 (Jn 1.1); 4.7 (Jn 8.34); 17.10–12 (Jn 7.22); 21.17 (Jn 12.29); 21.19 (Jn 4.11); 26.19 (Jn 4.10); 28.12 (Jn 1.51); 40.55 (Jn 2.5); 48.22 (Jn 4.5); Exod. 7.1 (Jn 10.34); 12.10 and 46 (Jn 19.36); 14.21 (Jn 14.1); 16.4 and 15 (Jn 6.32); 22.27 (Jn 10.34 and 18.22); 28.30 (Jn 11.51); 33.11 (Jn 15.15); 34.6 (Jn 1.17); Lev. 17.10–14 (Jn 6.53); 20.10 (Jn 8.5); 23.34 (Jn 7.2); 23.36 (Jn 7.37); 23.40 (Jn 12.13); 24.16 (Jn 10.33); Num. 5.12 (Jn 8.3); 9.12 (Jn 19.36); 12.2 (Jn 9.29); 12.8 (Jn 9.29); 14.23 (Jn 6.49); 16.28 (Jn 5.30 and 7.17); 21.8 (Jn 3.14); 27.21 (Jn 11.51); Deut. 1.16(Jn 7.51); 1.35 (Jn 6.49); 2.14 (Jn 5.5); 4.12 (Jn 5.37); 11.29 (Jn 4.20); 12.5 (Jn 4.20); 17.7 (Jn 8.7); 18.15 (Jn 1.21 and 5.46); 19.18 (Jn 7.51); 21.23 (Jn 19.31); 22.22–24 (Jn 8.5); 24.16 (Jn 8.21); 27.12 (Jn 4.20); 27.26 (Jn 7.49); 30.6 (Jn 3.13); Josh. 7.19 (Jn 9.24); 2 Sam. 7.12 (Jn 7.42); 13.25? (Jn 11.54); 2 Kgs 5.7 (Jn 5.21); 10.16 (Jn 1.46); 14.25 (Jn 7.52); 19.15 (Jn 5.44); 19.19 (Jn 5.44); Neh. 12.39 (Jn 5.2); Job 24.13–17 (Jn 3.20); 31.8 (Jn 4.37); 37.5 (Jn 12.29); Ps. 2.2 (Jn 1.41); 2.7 (Jn 1.49); 15.2 (Jn 8.40); 22.19 (Jn 19.24); 22.23 (Jn 20.17); 25.5 (Jn 16.13); 31.10 (Jn 12.27); 32.2 (Jn 1.47); 33.6 (Jn 1.3); 35.19 (Jn 15.25); 35.23 (Jn 20.28); 40.11 (Jn 1.17); 41.10 (Jn 13.18); 51.7 (Jn 9.34); 63.2 (Jn 19.28); 66.18 (Jn 9.31); 69.5 (Jn 15.25); 69.10 (Jn 2.17); 78.24 (Jn 6.31); 78.71 (Jn 21.16); 80.2 (Jn 10.4); 82.6 (Jn 10.34); 85.11 (Jn 1.17); 89.4 (Jn 7.42); 89.27 (Jn 12.34); 92.16 (Jn 7.18); 95.7 (Jn 10.3); 107.30 (Jn 6.21); 118.20 (Jn 10.9); 119.142 and 160 (Jn 17.17); 122.1 ff. (Jn 4.20); 132.16 (Jn 5.35); 145.19 (Jn 9.31); Prov. 1.28 (Jn 7.34); 8.22 (Jn 1.2); 15.8 (Jn 9.31); 15.29 (Jn 9.31); 18.4 (Jn 7.38); Jn 24.22 (Jn 17.12); 30.4 (Jn 3.13); Eccl. 11.5 (Jn 7.38); Isa. 2.3 (Jn 4.22); 6.1 (Jn 12.41); 6.10 (Jn 12.40); 8.6 (Jn 9.7); 8.23 [9.1] (Jn 2.11); 9.2 (Jn 4.36); 11.2 (Jn 1.32); 12.3 (Jn 7.37); 26.17 (Jn 16.21); 35.4 (Jn 12.15); 37.20 (Jn 5.44); 40.3 (Jn 1.23); 40.9



(Jn 12.15); 42.8 (Jn 8.12); 43.10 (Jn 8.28, 58); 43.13 (Jn 8.58); 43.19 (Jn 7.38); 45.19 (Jn 18.20) 46.10 (Jn 13.19); 52.13 (Jn 12.38); 53.7 (Jn 8.32); 54.13 (Jn 6.45); 55.1 (Jn 7.37); 57.4 (Jn 17.12); 58.11 (Jn 4.14); 60.1 and 3 (Jn 8.12); 66.14 (Jn 16.22); Jer. 1.5 (Jn 10.36); 2.13 (Jn 4.10); 11.19 (Jn 1.29); 13.16 (Jn 9.4); 17.21 (Jn 5.10); Ezek. 15.1–8 (Jn 15.6); 34.11–16 (Jn 10.11); 34.23 (Jn 10.11, 16); 36.25–27 (Jn 3.5); 37.24 (Jn 10.11, 16); 37.25 (Jn 12.34); 37.27 (Jn 1.14); 47.1–12 (Jn 7.38); Dan. 1.2 (Jn 3.35); Hos. 6.2 (Jn 5.21); 4.18 (Jn 7.38); Obad. 1.12–14 (Jn 11.50); Mic. 5.1 (Jn 7.42); 6.15 (Jn 4.37); Zeph. 3.13 (Jn 1.47); 3.14 (Jn 12.15); 3.15 (Jn 1.49); Hag. 2.9 (Jn 14.27); Zech. 1.5 (Jn 8.52); 9.9 (Jn 12.15); 12.10 (Jn 19.37); 13.7 (Jn 16.32); 14.8 (Jn 4.10 and 7.38); Mal. 1.6 (Jn 8.49); 3.23 (Jn 1.21).

C. Allusions to or Verbal and Subject Parallels with Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Texts Attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels3 Ezra 1.3 (Mt. 6.29); 4 Ezra 4.8 (Jn 3.13); 6.25 (Mt. 10.22); 7.14 (Mt. 5.1); 7.36 (Lk. 16.26); 7.77 (Mt. 6.20); 7.113 (Mt. 13.39); 8.3 (Mt. 22.14); 8.41 (Mt. 13.3; 22.14); 1 Macc. 1.54 (Mt. 24.15); 2.21 (Mt. 16.22); 2.28 (Mt. 24.16); 3.6 (Lk. 13.27); 3.60 (Mt. 6.10); 4.59 (Jn 10.22); 5.15 (Mt. 4.15); 9.39 (Jn 3.29); 10.29 (Lk. 15.12); 12.17 (Mt. 9.38); 2 Macc. 3.26 (Lk. 24.4); 8.17 (Mt. 24.15); 10.3 (Mt. 12.4); 4 Macc. 3.13–19 (Lk. 6.12); 7.19 (Mt. 22.32/Lk. 20.37); 13.14 (Mt. 10.28); 13.15 (Lk. 16.23); 13.17 (Mt. 8.11); 16.25 (Mt. 22.32/Lk. 20.37); Tob. 2.2 (Lk. 14.13); 3.17 (Lk. 15.12); 4.3 (Mt. 8.21); 4.6 (Jn 3.21); 4.15 (Mt. 7.12); 4.17 (Mt. 25.35); 5.15 (Mt. 20.2); 7.10 (Lk. 12.19); 7.17 (Mt. 11.25/Lk. 10.17); 11.9 (Lk. 2.29); 12.15 (Mt. 18.10/Lk. 1.19); 14.4 (Mt. 23.38/Lk. 21.24); Jdt. 11.19 (Mt. 9.36); 13.18 (Lk. 1.42); 16.17 (Mt. 11.22); Sus. 46 (Mt 27.24); Bar. 4.1 (Mt. 5.18); 4.37 (Mt. 8.11/Lk. 13.29); Ep. Jer. 6.24, 28 (Mt. 11.29); 7.14 (Mt. 6.7); 7.32–35 (Mt. 25.36); 9.8 (Mt. 5.28); 10.14 (Lk. 1.52); 11.19 (Lk. 10.19); 13.17 (Mt. 10.16); 14.10 (Mt. 6.23); 20.30 (Mt. 13.44); 23.1.4 (Mt. 6.9); 24.19 (Mt. 11.28); 24.21 (Jn 6.35); 24.40.43 (Jn 7.38); 25.7–12 (Mt. 5.2); 27.6 (Mt. 6.12); 28.18 (Lk. 21.24); 29.10 (Mt. 6.20); 31.15 (Mt. 7.12); 33.1 (Mt. 6.13); 35.22 (Mt. 16.27/Lk. 18.7); 37.2 (Mt. 26.38); 40.15 (Mt. 13.5); 44.19 (Jn 8.53); 48.5 (Lk. 7.22); 48.10 (Mt. 11.14; 17.11/Lk. 1.17; 9.8); 48.24 (Mt. 5.4); 50.20 (Lk. 24.50); 50.22 (Lk. 24.53); 50.25 (Jn 4.9); 51.1 (Mt. 11.25/Lk 10.21); 51.23 (Mt. 11.28); 51.26 (Mt. 11.29); Wisd. of Sol. 2.13 (Mt. 27.43); 2.16 (Jn 5.18); 2.18–20 (Mt. 27.43); 2.24 (Jn 8.44); 3.7 (Lk. 19.44); 3.9 (Jn 15.19); 5.22



(Lk. 21.25); 6.18 (Jn 14.15); 7.11 (Mt. 6.33); 8.8 (Jn 4.48); 9.1 (Jn 1.3); 15.1 (Lk. 6.35); 15.3 (Jn 17.3); 15.8 (Lk. 12.20); 15.11 (Jn 20.22); 16.13 (Mt. 16.18); 16.26 (Mt. 4.4); 17.2 (Mt. 22.13); 18.15 (Jn 3.12); Pss. of Sol. 1.5 (Mt. 11.23); 5.3 (Jn 3.27); 5.9 (Mt. 6.26); 7.1 (Jn 15.25); 7.6 (Jn 1.14); 16.5 (Lk. 22.37); 17.21 (Jn 7.42); 17.25 (Lk. 21.24); 17.26, 29 (Mt. 19.28); 17.30 (Mt. 21.12); 17.32 (Lk. 2.11); 18.6 (Mt. 13.6); 18.10 (Lk. 2.14); 1 En 5.7 (Mt. 5.5); 16.1 (Mt. 13.39); 22.9 (Lk. 16.26); 38.2 (Mt. 26.24); 39.4 (Lk. 16.9); 51.2 (Lk. 21.28); 61.8 (Mt. 25.31); 62.2 (Mt. 25.31); 63.10 (Lk. 16.9); 69.27 (Mt. 25.31/ 26.64/ Jn 5.22); 94.8 (Lk. 6.24); 97.8–10 (Lk. 12.19); 103.4 (Mt. 26.13).

D. Allusions to or Verbal and Subject Parallels with Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Texts Attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John4 Ezra 1.37 (Jn 20.29); 4.8 - Jn 3.13; 1 Macc. 4.59 (Jn 10.22); 9.39 (Jn 3.29); 10.7 (Jn 12.13); 4 Macc. 17.20 (Jn 12.26); Tob. 4.6 (Jn 3.21); Bar. 3.29 (Jn 3.13); 2 Bar. 18.9 (Jn 1.9; 3.19; 5.35); 39.7 (Jn 15.1); Sir. 16.21 (Jn 3.8); 24.21 (Jn 6.35); 24.40, 43 (Jn 7.38); 44.19 (Jn 8.53); 50.25–26 (Jn 4.9); Wisd. of Sol. 2.16 (Jn 5.18); 2.24 (Jn 8.44); 3.9 (Jn 15.9–10); 5.4 (Jn 10.20); 6.18 (Jn 14.15); 8.8 (Jn 4.48); 9.1 (Jn 1.3); 9.16 (Jn 3.12); 15.3 (Jn 17.3); 15.11 (Jn 20.22); 18.14–16 (Jn 3.12); Pss. of Sol. 5.3 (Jn 3.27); 7.1 (Jn 15.25); 7.6 (Jn 1.14); 17.21 (Jn 7.42); 1 En 69.27 (Jn 5.22).

APPENDIX B:

I. The Importance of New Testament Lists and Catalogues

There are many citations, allusions, and quotations of New Testament writings in the early church fathers. What do these things mean in regard to the formation of the New Testament canon? Sometimes very little, but such references help establish the authority of the writing in the view of the ancient author showing at the least that the ancient writer accepted these writings as sacred scripture on par with the Old Testa-ment scriptures. Most of the various ancient lists or catalogues of Chris-tian scriptures were drawn up after the first half of the fourth century, however, some recent canon scholars often gather together various ref-erences that an ancient writer makes to the New Testament writings and concludes that such a collection actually comprised the biblical canon



of the ancient writer. This may be the case also when Eusebius produced a collection or catalogue of sacred New Testament writings from Ire-naeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen since no trace of such a list has survived in what remains of their works. Whether such a listing of references was in fact “the” biblical canon of those ancient writers is, of course, impossible to demonstrate. Some of these “lists” of sacred writ-ings are located at the end of this chapter and will be discussed below, but they are frequently not canons or closed collections of Christian scriptures in the way we now think of a fixed New Testament canon. Such collections often say little more than that the theology of the writer(s) in question was informed by those ancient Christian writings. Until we come to the fourth century and clearly see the published lists of canonical writings, we have no certain way to determine a fixed list of sacred scriptures for any ancient writer. Scattered references for the most part do not prove that the literature was acknowledged to be scrip-ture or that the collection of such references from an author’s extant writings constitutes a fixed canon of New Testament scriptures.

The study of such references can be extremely valuable, especially as one examines the context in which each of these quotations, allusions, or citations are found, and one may conclude by such a study that some of the ancient writers actually attributes divine inspiration and author-ity to a particular source. A common error in the study of the biblical canon, however, is to view all of such references as citations of “scrip-ture.” Further, this does not account for what the writer does not mention, namely, sources considered sacred that were not included in a particular treatise or book because those additional references would not advance the purpose of the writing or book. For example, because Irenaeus cites some references to literature that helped him refute the heresies of his day, we cannot conclude that we thereby know all of the literature that he thought was sacred. Had he written on all facets of the Christian faith, even those not in dispute, we might well have more cer-tainty in the matter, but we do not. There is a fundamental flaw in lists that are produced simply by tabulating the Old Testament or New Tes-tament references of ancient writers. We might add, those scholars who produce such lists seldom identify the sources or books mentioned that were not found in the Old Testament or New Testament, namely, how the ancient writers used and viewed noncanonical sources. The tendency of many scholars to ignore these important considerations, leads to the



conclusion that such lists are often highly suspect. Because of this, it is important to add a few cautionary comments at the beginning of this section as we looks at the so-called lists.

The term “list” is probably not the best term to describe a catalogue of New Testament writings drawn up by the early church fathers since it suggests that they consciously composed a fixed list of Christian scrip-tures. Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, for example, made no such lists or catalogues. In this section we will see references to Christian literature that was recognized as having normative value for the church. But in assessing their significance, a few cautions are in order. First, the pres-ence of citations or references to the New Testament literature in the writings of the church fathers do not in themselves necessarily prove that the documents referred to were viewed as sacred scripture. The patristic citations, however, often do give evidence of the acceptance of this literature as authoritative in the life of the church and an indication of the beginnings of a Christian canon of scripture. It is essential to know the specific context of each citation before a judgment can be made in this regard. Until there is a specific listing of writings that “belong” to a sacred collection, which is sometimes accompanied by a listing of those writings that do not belong, it is generally best to reserve judgment about the scope of the biblical canon for any particular writer. Second, the absence of a particular Christian document from the writ-ings of one of the church fathers does not necessarily mean that he was either unaware of it or that he did not believe that the writing was scrip-ture. Quite often the writings that we possess from antiquity were pro-duced in response to a specific problem in the church, and the writer would seldom have the occasion in such ad hoc or occasional type of writings to cite all of the works he considered to be inspired scriptures. Third, the writings of one church father in one area are not necessarily representative of the views of all Christians in the same area. We could also add that this would be even less so in other areas that were more remote. Finally, only a small portion of the total number of the known ancient written documents is available today. Many were destroyed by the enemies of the church and some by the Christians in their “heresy hunts.” Some of these writings were simply lost, for example, a part of Paul’s Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 5.9) and his letter to the Laodicean church (Col. 4.16). There also came a time when some of the ancient writings were no longer deemed relevant to the needs of the



local church and they were either discarded or stored in as yet undiscov-ered locations. Not only have many books from the period of ancient Israel been lost (see Chapter 3), the same is true of early Christian litera-ture that “did not survive the cut.” The possibility still exits that in the future there may be other discoveries such as those at Qumran and Nag Hammadi that will give us even greater insight into the perplexing questions about the Christian biblical canon. With these cautionary notes, let us proceed to the undisputed lists that also help us see the final stages of the canonical formation process.

Although no part of the New Testament was consciously written as a part of an already existing collection of documents, some Christian writings began to appear together in collections in the second century. It is not unreasonable to think that a collection of Paul’s epistles was grouped together and circulated in many churches even by the end of the first century. At least three of the Gospels may have been grouped together by Justin (ca. 160—he apparently does not know John). All four canonical Gospels were for the first time grouped together by Irenaeus (ca. 170–180). The earliest and best example of a limited collection of Christian scriptures comes from the second century. This collection was produced by Marcion (ca. 140 CE), but his list of Christian writings was far from what later came to be known as a fixed “canon” of Christian scriptures (see discussion of Marcion in Chapter 6).

What is obvious in all such listings or collections of New Testament documents from the time of Marcion to the end of the third century, but possibly also the fourth, is the absence of agreement on what such collections mean. Should they be considered list of sacred scriptures? When we discover the numerous groupings or “catalogues” of Christian scriptures in the fourth century, we can speak more confidently of “canonical lists,” but before then it is not clear what the precise boundar-ies of the Christian scriptures were. We can find no agreement on this matter in the ancient churches. Only at the end of the fourth century was a general consensus reached on most of the 27 books that make up our present New Testament, but, as we will see, unanimity did not prevail even then. It took centuries longer for a consensus to be reached on our present 27 books. The first indisputably closed collections of Christian scriptures begin with Eusebius who was possibly the creator of such lists in the fourth century. Eusebius may have created his lists by compiling the titles of scriptures cited in the writings of Irenaeus



(Ecclesiastical History 5.8.1), Clement of Alexandria (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.1–7), and Origen (Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3–14). There are 16 such catalogues that have been preserved from the fourth and fifth centuries. Eusebius’ own canon of New Testament writings is more limited than the ones he reports (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen), and also more limited than the collections that follow him. For convenience, we will simply list them here with their approximate date and provenance. Their contents are listed in the conclusion of this chapter.

Eusebius, 1. Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1–7 (303–325, from Palestine/Western Syria)Catalogue in Codex Claromontanus (6 2. th century, from Alexandria/Egypt)Cyril of Jerusalem, 3. Catech. 4.33 (ca. 350, from Palestine)Muratorian Fragment (ca. 350–375, probably from the east) 4. Athanasius, 5. Festal Letter 39 (ca. 367, from Alexandria/Egypt)Mommsen Catalogue (ca. 365–390, from Northern Africa) 6. Epiphanius, 7. Panarion 76.5 (ca. 374–377, from Palestine /Western Syria)Apostolic Canon 85 (ca. 380, from Palestine/Western Syria) 8. Gregory of Nazianzus, 9. Carm. 12.31 (ca. 383–390, from Asia Minor)African Canons (ca. 393–419, from Northern Africa)10. Jerome, 11. Ep. 53 (ca. 394, from Palestine)Augustine, 12. De Doct. Christ. 2.8.12 (ca. 400–430, from Northern Africa)Amphilochius,13. Iambi ad Seleucum 289–319 (ca. ca. 396, from Asia Minor)Rufinus, 14. Comm. in Sym. Apost. 36 (ca. 400, from Rome/Italy)Pope Innocent, 15. Ad Exsuper. Tol. (ca. 405, from Rome/Italy)Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine’s (ca. 400, from Eastern Syria) 16. (With the exception of the MF (Muratorian Fragment), this list is found in Hahneman, 133, 171–172).

Along with the above, we include the following important manuscripts that indicate what books their producers thought were important and likely sacred. It took much longer than the time of the production of these volumes before unanimity on the contents of the New Testament canon was reached. While there is a core of books that are the same in



each, there are several other books that each adds to its collection of scriptures both in the Old Testament portion and in the New (the New Testament portions are listed below in Section V). The most important of these include:

Codex Vaticanus (ca. 350–375, from Alexandria/Egypt)Codex Sinaiticus (ca. 350–375, from Alexandria/Egypt)Codex Alexandrinus (ca. 425, from Asia Minor)Syriac Peshitta (ca. 400, from Eastern Syria)

The following discussion will focus primarily on four very important lists of New Testament scriptures from the fourth century and also make some additional comments on some other significant collections that are listed in Section V below. The first is the list and groupings provided by the most important person in the series of list-makers, Eusebius, who writes in the first third of the fourth century. The second is commonly called the Muratorian Fragment (MF) and has been at the heart of much misunderstanding about the origins of the New Testa-ment canon. The third comes from Athanasius who is the first to list all of the 27 books that are in our New Testament. Finally, the fourth cen-tury list from Augustine was perhaps the most influential. These and the others that follow are intended to give to the reader an understanding of the variety of views in the ancient churches on what literature informed the beliefs and practices of the Christian communities in the fourth and fifth centuries. All of the writings in the early lists were not specifically called “scripture,” but in many cases they seem to have functioned that way in some churches. These lists also indicate to some extent that there was broad acceptance in the early churches in regard to the majority of the books that constitute our present New Testament canon. We con-clude that a fair amount of diversity regarding the substance of the New Testament canon existed in the Church well into the fifth century.

II. Four Important Lists

The following discussion focuses on four of the most influential lists of New Testament scriptures in canonical discussions today. These are in roughly chronological order and all shed some light on the process of canonization. As the reader will see at the end of this chapter, there were several other lists that are not discussed here for the sake of space, but



the reader can infer from them that there were a variety of opinions on the scope of the New Testament canon in the fourth and fifth centuries before the matter was finally stabilized, at least officially. We should note that even though these lists begin to appear in the fourth century and later, this does not mean that all of the books in the lists were equally and widely read. The evidence suggests the opposite in fact. We will begin with the first writer that we can specifically identify and date who, as we noted at the conclusion of Chapter 7, was very influential in the canonical processes.

A. Eusebius (ca. 320–330)It was Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who was the first to set forth a clearly identifiable list of New Testament writings, or canon. His canon was not, however, as precise as many subsequent theologians would have hoped and this demonstrates the lack of unanimity on the matter at the beginning of the fourth century. He shows confusion in the churches on more than a fourth of the current New Testament writings at the initial stages of the closing of the New Testament canon. His list of “recognized” New Testament scriptures is as he calls them followed by a second group, the status of which remains uncertain or in dispute or “disputed.” Still others are listed as “spurious,” that is, rejected. The books that he claimed had wide acceptance among the churches and were “recognized” or “admitted” as authoritative New Testament scrip-ture include the four Gospels, Acts, fourteen epistles of Paul (Hebrews was attributed to Paul, but it was not without question), 1 Peter, 1 John and possibly Revelation. He uses the term “recognized” for 20 or more books of the New Testament and in 5.8.1 he refers to “handed down scripture” (or “scripture that has been handed down [in the churches]”). In 6.14.1, he speaks also of “all the canonical [= ‘testamented’] scrip-ture.” He listed some widely “disputed” among the churches and this collection included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. He also classified as “spurious” (“among those not reckoned as genuine”) the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and possibly Revelation. In 3.3 1, Eusebius listed 2 Peter among the noncanonical or “non-testamented” writings.

Of Peter, one epistle, that which is called his first, is admitted, and the ancient presbyters used this in their own writings as unquestioned, but the so-called second Epistle we have not received as canonical,



but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has been studied with other Scriptures. (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1, LCL)

The well-known text in which most of this information is found is highly significant and merits close attention.

At this point it seems reasonable to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have been quoted. In the first place should be put the holy tetrad of the Gospels. To them follows the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. After this should be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. Following them the Epistles of John called the first, and in the same way should be recognized the Epistle of Peter. In addition to these should be put, if it seem desirable, the Revelation of John, the arguments concerning which we will expound at the proper time. These belong to the recognized books. Of the disputed books which are nevertheless known to most are the Epistle called of James, that of Jude, the second Epistle of John which may be the work of the evangelist or of some other with the same name. Among the books which are not genuine must be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the work entitled the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to them the letter called of Barnabas and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles. And in addition, as I said, the Revelation of John, if this view prevail. For, as I said, some reject it, but others count it among the Recognized Books. Some have also counted the Gospel according to the Hebrews in which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. These would all belong to the disputed books, but we have nevertheless been obliged to make a list of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradi-tion of the Church, are true, and genuine, and recognized, and those which differ from them in that they are not canonical but disputed. These are nevertheless known to most of the writers of the Church, in order that we might know them and the writings which are put forward by heretics under the name of the apostles containing gos-pels such as those of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others besides, or Acts such as those of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succes-sion of the orthodox ever thought it right to refer in his writings. Moreover, the type of phraseology differs from apostolic style, and



the opinion and tendency of their contents is widely dissonant from true orthodoxy and clearly shows that they are the forgeries of here-tics. They ought, therefore, to be reckoned not even among spurious books but shunned as altogether wicked and impious. (Adapted from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1–7, LCL. Emphasis added)

What becomes apparent from Eusebius’ threefold classification of Christian writings, which is also similar to the classification attributed to Origen, in his Ecclesiastical History 6.24–25, is that there still was not complete unanimity in the greater Church of Eusebius’ time (ca. 325–330 CE) about which writings were authoritative New Testament scripture. Twenty of the New Testament books appear to have been widely recognized and formed the undisputed core of his New Testament canon, but the authenticity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were still doubted by many church leaders. Indeed, one cannot argue clearly that Eusebius accepted as canonical any more than the first twenty books that he lists as author-itative scripture. He had doubts about some of the others and especially had strong negative feelings about the final category. His view, however, that some books could be held in question, did not prevail and the Church preferred certainty over acceptable ambiguity, even though historically it was never able to agree unanimously on precisely which books should receive the normative status of scripture. There is nothing, however, that suggests that Eusebius accepted those books in the “dis-puted” category.

Up to this point we can detect in the greater Church that there was widespread agreement on the authoritative status (canon 2) of most of our New Testament writings, and this agreement was accomplished without any council decisions by gathered leaders in the Church. It might be said that this collection of 20 New Testament writings was widely recognized from the “grass roots” of the Church, but later the remaining 7 were determined by the hierarchy of the Church through council decisions. Only the latter 7 continued to be questioned in the churches after Eusebius, but even there, the broad support for and use of these writings is undoubtedly the reason that councils eventually rec-ognized their authenticity and canonicity. Up to and including the gen-eration of Eusebius, however, no hierarchical council had been involved in any decision regarding the status of Christian writings and very few



lists of New Testament scriptures were produced. From the time of Eusebius, numerous lists of authoritative New Testament writings began circulating in the churches, and it is highly probable that Eusebius was the leader of a move toward the stabilization of the biblical canon in the Eastern churches. This may have come as a result of his being asked by Constantine to produce the 50 copies of the Church’s scriptures and the consequent need to identify precisely what those scriptures were. There is some reason to believe, as we observed above, that those copies only contained the Gospels, but it is still possible that complete collections of the scriptures were intended. Later, Jerome became the primary leader in the West in helping the Church determine which writings were its authoritative scriptures.

With the council meetings in the churches in the fourth century and following, there was more of an opportunity for the churches as a whole to speak specifically to the issue of the contents of the biblical canon. At that time, there was a growing unity in the churches over the matter, but by no means was there ever any complete agreement. The Syrian churches, for example, continued to prefer the use of Tatian’s Diatessa-ron instead of the individual canonical Gospels well into the sixth cen-tury. There was general agreement on accepting as canonical the core of the New Testament writings, namely, the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s let-ters (which at this time included the Pastorals and usually Hebrews), James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. There continued to be some doubt, however, about Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation in some of the churches.

While there was some discussion about adding Hermas to the core of New Testament scriptures in the fourth century, it was rejected by Euse-bius, as well as by the author of the MF, and others. Its popularity in many churches, however, is seen in the fact that it was cited as scripture earlier by Origen and was included in the fourth century manuscript, Codex a, and even later in Codex Claromontanus (DP) of the sixth cen-tury. These manuscripts are collections of what one community at least considered scripture since Hermas is not distinguished from others in the collections.

B. The Muratorian Fragment: A Fourth-Century List?One of the pivotal issues in New Testament canonical studies today has to do with the dating and provenance of the MF. In 1738–1740, Lodovico



Antonio Muratori discovered and edited, in the Abrosian Library of Milan, what many canon scholars believe is one of the most important documents for establishing a late second-century date for the formation of a New Testament canon. The document he found in a codex is a sev-enth- or eighth-century fragment of a larger document that was poorly translated into Latin from the Greek, and commonly called the “Mura-torian Canon” or “Muratorian Fragment” (MF). It is usually dated ca. 180–200 CE, but more recently some scholars have called for a fourth-century dating.

The following translation of the MF comes from Metzger (Canon of the New Testament 305–307), who includes the line demarcations in parentheses as well as his “translational expansions” in square brackets, which add clarity to the sometimes cumbersome sentences and the inclusion of alternative translations in parentheses. We have also added seven paragraph marks.

Par. 1. . . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4–5) when Paul had taken him with him as one zealous for the law, (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

Par. 2. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urg-ing him [to write], (11) he said, “Fast with me from today for three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.” In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15–16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the



second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it, then if John so consistently (28) mentions these par-ticular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself: “What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you?” (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order.

Par. 3. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For “most excellent Theophilus” Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence—(37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40–41) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44–46) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme).

Par. 4. It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49–50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: to the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54–55) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56–57), yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59–60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62–63) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.

Par. 5. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which



cannot be received into the catholic church (67)—for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the Epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or bearing the name of) [(69)]22 John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.

Par. 6. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it can-not be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the prophets, whose number is complete, or among (80) the apostles, for it is after [their] time.

Par. 7. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Val-entinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84–85) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians. . . .

This document lists 22 New Testament writings, including the Wisdom of Solomon (lines 69–70) and tentatively the Apocalypse of Peter (lines 71–72). Hebrews, James, one of the epistles of John, and 1 and 2 Peter are missing. The fragment consists of some 85 lines, and is missing both the opening and concluding lines. Optimistically, the MF has been hailed as “the oldest extant list of sacred books of the New Testament,” and most scholars believe that it was written in Rome, or in its vicinity. Several important canon scholars claim that the MF originated in the west near Rome in the late second century and suggest that it was formed largely in a polemic against the Montanists at the end of the second century. These conclusions raise significant problems, however, since the closest parallels to the MF are more than 150 years later in the middle to the end of the fourth century. If neither Irenaeus nor Origen had lists of canonical New Testament Scriptures, and there is no clear evidence that they did, the MF has no parallels until the fourth century. Indeed, until the middle of the fourth century, there are no clear parallels to anything like it in either the eastern or the western Churches, and the most impressive parallels then come from the east and not fromthe west.



In 1973, Albert Sundberg, Jr. made the first major challenge to the traditional dating and provenance of the MF (“Canon Muratori” 19–23), and more recently Geoffrey Hahneman has significantly advanced Sundberg’s thesis. They both argue for a fourth-century dat-ing of the MF and for an eastern origin. If this view is correct, it helps us to understand why Eusebius was still hedging about the scope of his canon in the first quarter of the fourth century. If the matter had been largely settled at the end of the second century, why is there so much discussion about the scope of the Christian Bible in the fourth to the sixth centuries? For example, several scholars have reasonably argued that Eusebius himself rejected, or at least did not endorse, the so-called disputed books —James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and possibly Rev-elation and Hebrews. Why would Eusebius have raised a question about some of these books if the matter had been settled for the Church in the second century as a second-century dating of the MF suggests, espe-cially in regard to Jude, 2 or 3 John, and Revelation (Ecclesiastical His-tory 3.25.2, 4)? And what sense would his categories have made if, in fact, his “disputed” category had already been largely accepted? The growth and development of the biblical canon in the fourth century is seen in the fact that the three categories in Eusebius (recognized, dis-puted, and spurious) fade away by the end of the fourth century. After-wards only the recognized writings are included and the rejected writings are excluded. There is no disputed category by that time, and this is what we also find in the MF.

The reference to the General Epistles (lines 68–69) and the Pastoral Epistles (lines 59–60) in the MF is unusual, since there is little evidence to show that they were either cited as Scripture or widely received as such in the late second century by the Church. There are very few clear references to this literature in the second century, though, with Tertul-lian in the third century, there are several clear citations of Paul, includ-ing the Pastoral Epistles. In his Against Marcion (5.1–21), Tertullian defends Paul’s epistles and includes the Pastoral Epistles and in another text even cites Jude to support the authority of 1 Enoch (see The Apparel of Women 1.3).

More telling than this is the strange reference in the MF (lines 69–70) to the Wisdom of Solomon, an Old Testament apocryphal writing, among the list of New Testament books! This is highly unusual, and has its only parallels in the fourth century and in the east in the writings of



Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.25 and 5.8.1–8) where he discusses Irenaeus’s canon. It included, along with Wisdom, the Shepherd of Her-mas. In his Refutation of All Heresies 76 (ca. 375–400), Epiphanes added both Wisdom and Sirach to his New Testament list. On the other hand, Melito, in the second century, included Wisdom of Solomon in an Old Testament list (Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14). Wisdom of Solomon had more popularity in the east than in the west, but the document was also referred to by western writers (Heb. 1.3 cities Wisdom 7.25; compare with 1 Clement 3.4; 7.5; 27.5), and Tertullian, (Prescription Against Her-esies 7 and Against the Valentinians 2) also refers to it. The significance of this is that it lends support to the claim that the MF comes from the fourth century or later and from the east. Although Wisdom of Solomon was excluded from Old Testament lists in the fourth century, it was sometimes included in New Testament Scriptures, or accepted as a sec-ondary reading as in the case of Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Rufinus.

The most important argument in favor of a second-century dating of the MF and its western provenance has to do with its rejection of the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite lately [very recently] in our time” (lines 73–74). Hermas lived and flourished roughly 100–145 CE and, therefore, was not from the apostolic era. The author of this fragment evidently separated the apostolic times from all other times. Also the statement that Pius, the brother of Hermas, was currently the bishop of Rome (line 73), suggests that “our time” is a reference to the second century and no later than 200 CE, but more likely 140–150 CE.

Hahneman, following Sundberg, claims that the words “recently in our time” most plainly refer to the writing of the Shepherd of Hermas during the time of Pius’s episcopacy (ca. 140–154 CE?) and, conse-quently, the “our time” suggests that the Fragment was produced at roughly the same time. It is also possible that the reference that the Shepherd of Hermas was written “quite recently in our time” (lines 73–74), may simply be an example of how the ancient churches distin-guished the apostolic times from their own. In other words, “our times” is a reference to the post-apostolic era as opposed to the times of the apostles themselves. There are several examples of this practice, includ-ing one from Irenaeus who uses “our times” (temporibus nostris) of an event nearly 100 years before him (the end of the reign of Domitian, see Against Heresies 5.30.3). We should also note that the statement that



Hermas is the brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome, is without clear foundation and is unknown until the fourth century. The poor tran-scription of the Fragment makes the historical reference to Hermas and Pius suspect.

The major problem with dating the MF as early in the second century (in the lifetime of Pius) is that, at that time, there are few parallels even acknowledging Christian writings as Scripture let alone as part of a fixed canon. The New Testament writings, of course, had to be called “Scripture” before they could be called “canon,” and they were only beginning to be called “Scripture” in the second century. While some scholars grant the possibility that the words “in our times” could refer to any time after the apostolic times, they still say that they are compatible with a second century dating of the document, claiming that “in our times” was not the usual way of distinguishing those times.

The claim that the Shepherd of Hermas was written in the early part of the second century may be correct. Its widespread use in the latter part of that century is well known and the recognition and acceptance of the Shepherd continued in several churches well into the fifth century, even in the west. In the late second century, Irenaeus calls the Shepherd of Hermas “scripture” (Against Heresies 4.20.2) and Eusebius also knew of this reference, and acknowledged Irenaeus’s reception of the Shepherd of Hermas (Ecclesiastical History 5.8.7–8). This recognition also came from Clement of Alexandria who frequently quoted the Shep-herd of Hermas as if he was quoting other scriptures from both the Old and New Testament writings (Miscellaneous Studies 1.1.1 and 1.85.4). According to Eusebius, Origen likewise included this work in his sacred collection (Ecclesiastical History 6.25.10). It is also listed in Codex Sinaiticus (Ø) and Codex Claromontanus (Dp) even though, in the latter case, in a secondary position. Eusebius appears to be the first to place the Shepherd of Hermas in a disputed category (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.6), but he still recognized that many held it in high esteem (Ecclesiastical History 5.8.7). Eusebius himself placed the book among the “spurious” (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1–5). Athanasius called it “most edifying” in his earlier On the Incarnation (ca. 318 CE), but changed his mind by the time he wrote his famous 39th Festal Letter 39 (367 CE). Both Jerome and Rufinus also speak respectfully of the book, even though they place it in a secondary position, that is, not as a part of the New Testament canon. Our point here is that the rejection of Shepherd of Hermas seems



much more at home in the fourth century and following than it does in the second century, where it was considered Scripture by the fathers at the end of that century.

Other possible evidence for a later dating of the MF is the listing of the four canonical Gospels without any defense, such as we find earlier in Irenaeus who took great pains to argue for the validity of the four canonical Gospels. On the other hand, the MF reflects a widely accepted and firmly fixed tradition of having four Gospels alone and this fits better at a later time in the church than the late second century. While Tertullian accepted the four canonical Gospels ca. 200 CE, he neverthe-less prioritized Matthew and John over Luke and Mark. Making such distinctions among the four Gospels is not found in fourth century discussions and lists. The contemporary writer from the west closest to the time of Tertullian is Irenaeus (170–180 CE) and his strange way of arguing for the four canonical Gospels suggests that not everyone in the second century was as convinced about their “canonicity” as he was (Against Heresy 3.11.8–9). In fact, Tatian’s use in Asia of more than the four canonical Gospels in his Diatessaron, and his preference for the Gospel of John shows that some of Irenaeus’ contemporaries did not agree that the Gospels should be limited to the four canonical Gospels. At least, no one else makes such a strong defense for the use of only the four Gospels as rigidly as Irenaeus proposed. See for instance his famous argument in the following text:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in num-ber than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world and while the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting, therefore, that she [the Church] should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, who sits upon the cherubim and who contains all things and was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. . . . But that these Gospels [the four canonical Gospels] alone are true and reliable and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many such arguments. (Adapted from Against Heresy 3.11.8, 9, ANF)



Irenaeus believed that the four Gospels and other New Testament literature, along with the Old Testament writings, were normative for the Church, and he clearly called these writings “scripture” (see 1.9.4; 2.26.1, 2; 3.1.1, and so on). However, although it is evident that Irenaeus intended to acknowledge the necessity and authority of the four canonical evangelists, he did something which no canonical Gospel writer ever intended to do—namely, to suggest that somehow the Christian message was incomplete if one gospel (or less than four) were used. Luke appears to have used but dismissed the gospels that preceded him (Mark?), apparently writing to correct them with a “more orderly account” (Lk. 1.1–4). John, who must surely have known of Mark and probably Matthew, offers a significantly different picture of Jesus’ life, message, death, and resurrection. He does not suggest that his Gospel needs the other Gospels to support his claims or even to supplement them. That is not the intent of his concluding remarks in Jn 20.30, though the hyperbole in the later Johannine appendix in 21.25 may warrant that kind of speculation. Although Irenaeus may have seen the need for four “pillars” of gospels for the Church, it is difficult to establish that the evangelists themselves or anyone before Irenaeus saw such a need. It may be argued that Matthew and Luke did not view their sources as inviolable scripture (especially Mark), since they took such liberties in adding to and altering the sources they used.

Tatian’s followers later inserted clauses from the Gospel of Hebrews and from the Protevangelium of James into the Diatessaron, but one still cannot find in Tatian or his followers the loyalty to the “inspired text” that one can find in Rev. 22.18–19 or in Irenaeus’s defense of the four-Gospel canon cited above. From the fragment of the Diatessaron that has survived, it is clear that much of the context, especially from the Synoptic Gospels, is omitted. Does this mean that the canonical and “inspired” status of the four Gospels was not yet fully recognized by Tatian and by many of his other contemporaries? No doubt he saw them as responsible and faithful documents—otherwise he would not have used them, but he obviously did not perceive them as inviolable (sacred and therefore unchangeable) texts. While Irenaeus’s canon of Gospels was not universally accepted in his day, hence Irenaeus’s need to provide a defense of the four, the same cannot be said about the MF, in which the acceptance of four canonical Gospels is assumed without debate. This suggests that it was produced at a later date when such



matters were largely settled in the Church, namely, in the fourth century. On the whole, since there are apparently no parallels to the MF until after the time of Eusebius and those are from the east, the document therefore arguably should be dated after the mid-fourth century andits provenance assigned to the east, though we cannot insist on the location.

The possibility of a western origin for the MF is suggested by its discovery in the west, in spite of its Greek origins and the lateness of its translation into Latin. On the other hand, the nature of the list itself as well as many of the peculiarities within it appears to be eastern. The MF is an important document for our understanding of the growth and development of the New Testament canon if it is placed in its proper context. It is only a decisive text for those scholars who use it to argue that there was a canon consciousness at the end of the second century and scope of the biblical canon at that time. If the document can be dated that early, it is the strongest support they have for an early closure of the New Testament canon, but that, of course, is the question. The evidence is not compelling for placing it in the second century and as a result it is not the decisive text as some scholars have supposed. It becomes rather the “Achilles’ heel” of their argument.

It seems to fit best with the 15 other canonical lists from the fourth and early fifth centuries, even though it is not identical to any of them. It has been argued that the form of the MF, unlike the lists of books without comment in the fourth century, demonstrates that it is out of step with the fourth-century canonical lists. Although it is true that no exact parallels to the MF in the fourth century exist, something that could be said about other fourth-century lists, there are close enough parallels with Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.25) in the fourth cen-tury and no parallels anytime before then. Eusebius lists his Scriptures with comment—not in a simple list—and his list is also without exact parallel in contents in the fourth century. We conclude that Eusebius’s description of Irenaeus’s and Origen’s canons are similar in style to the MF (Ecclesiastical History 5.8.1–9 and 6.25.3–14) and are likely fourth century inventions.

The fourth century appears then to be the time when the MF is most at home, and the only place where it has parallels to other lists and shows awareness of canon consciousness. While the list may be strange in the fourth century because it attacks second-century heresies, we



can add that this is precisely what Eusebius does when he attacks the teachings of the Marcionites, Gnostic Christians, and Montanists,—all second and third century heresies—in the fourth century! See the comparison of the Fragment with other lists below. It seems obvious from the above study that the closure or fixation of the New Testament canon is more at home in the fourth century, even though the process of canonization may have begun with the recognition and use of Christian literature as Scripture as early as the second century. The ambiguity of Eusebius’ list of New Testament canonical literature (the “doubted” books) continued in practice after him, even though with some modifications. In our next list, we will see that ambiguity fades and the books that currently make up our New Testament canon are clearly set forth.

C. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 296–373)The most famous of the lists of New Testament canonical scriptures, which eventually carried the day, is found in Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter from Alexandria and corresponds to the 27 books of the New Testament which are acknowledged in the Church today. At the Council of Nicea (325 CE) it was decided that the Church could no longer divide over when to celebrate Easter as they had earlier in the case of the “Quartodeciman” controversy of the late second century. At that time the churches in the east were divided from those in the west over the matter. It was decided that Athanasius would announce to his fellow bishops each year the date of the following Easter. He did this from 328–373 CE in the form of a Festal Letter in which he would not only announce the date of the next Easter, but he also included remarks about important matters. In his 39th letter he dealt with the canons of the Old Testament and New Testament. The Letter in part reads:

(1.) Since, however, I have spoken of the heretics as dead but of our-selves as possessors of the divine writings unto salvation, I am actually afraid lest in any way, as Paul said in writing to the Corinthians, a few of the undefiled may be led astray from the simplicity and purity by the craftiness of certain men and thereafter begin to pay attention to other books, the so-called sacred (books). Therefore, because of fear of you being deceived by these books possessing the same names as the genuine books, and because of the present stress of the Church,



I exhort you to bear with me for your own benefit as I actually make mention of these heretical writings, which you already know about.

(2.) As I am about to mention these matters, I will back up my venturesomeness by following the example of the evangelist Luke. And I will also will say that since certain men have attempted to arrange for themselves the so-called secret writings and to mingle them with the God-inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully informed even as they were handed down to our fathers by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word from the beginning, having been encouraged by true brethren and learning all from the beginning, I also resolved to set forth in order the writings that are in the list and handed down and believed to be divine. I have done this so that each person, if he has been deceived, may condemn those who led him astray, and that he who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of the truth.

(3–6.) [A listing of the Old Testament books is omitted here].(7.) Those of the New Testament I must not shrink from mention-

ing in their turn. They are these: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, and according to John.

(8.) Then after these are Acts of the Apostles and the seven letters of the Apostles called the “Catholic” letters, which are as follows:—one from James, two from Peter, three from John, and after these one from Jude.

(9.) In addition, there are fourteen letters of Paul the apostle, written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians, and thereafter one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, and, without a break, two letters to Timothy, one to Titus, and one final letter written to Philemon. Lastly, from John again, comes the Revelation.

(10.) These are springs of salvation, so that he that is thirsty may be filled with the (divine) responses in them; in these alone is the good news of the teaching of true religion proclaimed; let no one add to them or take away aught of them. It was in regard to these that the Lord was ashamed of the Sadducees, saying:—“You are being led astray, since you do not know the scripture,” and he exhorted the Jews, saying, “Search the scriptures, for they are the very writings that witness concerning me.”



(11.) But for the sake of being more exact in detail, I also add this admonition, writing out of necessity, that there are also other books apart from these that are not indeed in the above list, but were produced by our ancestors to be read by those who are just coming forward to receive oral instruction in the word of true religion. These include: The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.

(12.) And nevertheless, beloved, though the former writings are canonized [or, “are listed,”] and the latter are read, nowhere is there mention of the secret writings (the apocrypha). They are instead a device of heretics, who write them when they will, furnishing them with dates and adding them, in order that by bringing them forth as ancient books they may thus have an excuse for deceiving the undefiled.23

Athanasius is the first known writer to use the term canon in reference to a closed body of sacred literature, and also appears to be the first to list the 27 books of our current New Testament canon. We should note that the verb form “canonized” or “listed” in section 12 of Athanasius’ letter is also used here. One should not conclude from this, however, that all subsequent church leaders agreed fully with Athanasius’ canon. It is not certain whether all Christians even in Egypt where he lived agreed with his list, but as the concluding tables show, for sure many other Christians both before and after him differed on the contents of the New Testament canon. As we have seen, he unhesitatingly accepted the book of Revelation as a part of his biblical canon, but other churches in the East did not follow his example. Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus (in Cappadocia) left it out. It is interesting that the Greek Orthodox Church to this day does not include readings from the Apocalypse in its lectionary.

D. AugustineAugustine of Hippo (354–430) produced one of the most important catalogues of the sacred books that comprised his Bible in the first third of the fifth century that had considerable influence in his generation and subsequently in the whole church. He writes:

The complete canon of scripture on which I say that our attention should be concentrated, includes the following books: the five books



of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), and the single books of Joshua, son of Nave, and of Judges, and the little book known as Ruth, which seems to relate more to the beginning of Kings, and then the four books of the Kings and the two Chronicles, which do not follow chronologically, but proceed as it were side by side with Kings. All this is historiography, which covers continuous periods of time and gives a chronological sequence of events. There are others, forming another sequence, not connected with either this class or each other, like Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, and the two books of Maccabees and the two of Ezra, which rather seem to follow on from the chronologically ordered account which ends with Kings and Chronicles. Then come the prophets, including David’s single book of Psalms, and three books of Solomon, namely Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. The two books entitled Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are also said to be by Solomon, on the strength of a general similarity; but there is a strong tradition that Jesus Sirach wrote them, and in any case, because they have been found worthy of inclusion among authoritative texts, they should be numbered with the prophetic books. There remain the books of the prophets prop-erly so called. The individual books of the twelve prophets who because they are joined together and never separated are counted as one. Their names are these: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Then there are the four prophets in larger books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. These 44 books form the authoritative Old Testament. The authoritative New Testament consists of the gospel in four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul (Romans, Corinthians (two), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (two), Colossians, Timothy (two), Titus, Philemon, Hebrews), two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude, and one of James, the single book of the Acts of the Apostles and the single book of the Revelation of John. (Augustine, On Christian Teaching 2.8.26–29)24

The sequence of Augustine’s list indicates that some of the books in both testaments had gained an accepted order that is similar in many of the canonical lists in the tables above, but not exactly the same. This list



gained widespread prominence and eventually was adopted by the whole Catholic Church. The New Testament here, though in a different order, is the same that obtained canonization in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches.

III. Some Important Other Collections

A. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (ca. 315–386)Cyril gave a list of “Divine Scriptures” similar to that of Athanasius, only he excluded Revelation. His New Testament collection is described in the following manner:

But the four Gospels alone belong to the New Testament; the rest happens to be pseudepigrapha and harmful. The Manicheans also wrote [The] Gospel according to Thomas, which indeed, having been camouflaged by the sweetness of its title derived from an evangelist, corrupts the souls of the simpler ones. But accept also the Acts of the twelve Apostles. In addition to these [accept] the seven Catholic Epistles: [the one] of James and [the two] of Peter and [the three] of John and [the one] of Jude; and accept lastly as the seal of all, even of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. Let all the rest, however, be placed in secondary [rank]. And those which are not read in the Church, do not even read them privately as you have heard . . . (Cyril, Instruction 4.36. Emphasis added, trans. Theron, Evidence 116)

B. Amphilochius, Bishop of IconiumAmphilochius (after 394 CE) appears to have accepted all of the books in Athanasius’ canon except Revelation (which he called spurious), though he also raised doubt about Hebrews and the Catholic (or General) Epistles, questioning whether there should be seven epistles or three. He appears to be the second person to use the term canon (kanon) in reference to a list of Christian scriptures. After listing his books, he concludes, “This is perhaps the most faithful [lit., ‘unfalsified’] canon of the divinely inspired scriptures.” Although this statementindicates what he hopes will be followed in the churches, it is neverthe-less expressed in the language of possibility, not that of an undoubting affirmation. Chrysostom (407 CE) offers another example of thelack of agreement over what books belonged in the New Testament



canon. He never mentions Revelation or the last four Catholic Epistles. Further, the Apostolic Constitutions (no earlier than the fourth century) added to Athanasius’ list 1 and 2 Clement and the eight books of the Constitutions themselves, but omitted Revelation. In the late fourth and early fifth centuries, some Eastern churches rejected Revelation, even though they appear to have been in substantial agreement regarding most of the other Christian literature in Athanasius’ canon.

It is interesting that Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 230) accepted Rev-elation as authoritative scripture, but did not believe that the Apostle John had written it. He made one of the earliest critical assessments of the text, noting that the vocabulary and style of Revelation were not John’s. Dionysius’ evaluation of the text of Revelation is preserved in Eusebius and is illustrative, though not necessarily typical, of the criti-cal skills of that day. He writes:

In a word, it is obvious that those who observe their character throughout will see at a glance that the Gospel [John] and Epistle [I John] have one and the same complexion. But the Apocalypse is utterly different from, and foreign to, these writings; it has no con-nection, no affinity, in any way with them; it scarcely, so to speak, has even a syllable in common with them. Nay more, neither does the Epistle (not to speak of the Gospel) contain any mention or thought of the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle, whereas Paul in his epistles gave us a little light also on his revelations, which he did not record separately. And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless Greek, but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete absence of any bar-barous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems, both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowl-edge and prophecy; nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate, but that he employs barbarous idioms, in some places committing downright solecisms. These there



is no necessity to single out now. For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the dissimilarity of these writings. (Ecclesiastical History 7.25.22–27, LCL)

We should note in passing that Revelation is absent from many of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament literature. This may well have been due to the uncertainty over who wrote the book, as well as to res-ervations about the contents of the book.

C. Uncial Codices (Books)One of the important ancient resources for understanding the develop-ment of Christian biblical canons is the ancient books and what was in them. The book form was developed by the Romans from something like a simple notepad in the first century CE and by the end of the sec-ond century it could contain some 200 to 220 pages, enough to include most of the Pauline corpus as we see in the Chester Beatty Papyri col-lection (P46) and by the early third century the codex could contain all four Gospels that we also find in the Chester Beatty Papyri (P45). By the fourth century the technology for making the codices had developed to the point where the codex had expanded to the capacity of some 1,600 pages. At that time, all of the sacred books of both Old and New Testa-ments could be included in one volume. For example, Codex Vaticanus, dating from around the middle of the fourth century CE, is a fragmen-tary manuscript containing both Old and New Testament books and is defective since it breaks off in the middle of a sentence in Hebrew 9.24 and omits the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation. It is difficult to argue what books formed the complete manuscript, but from what is in there, it cannot be argued that the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2, Timothy and Titus), Philemon, and Revelation were included. Since this codex is defective, we cannot be certain about the complete scope of this manu-script, but it is fairly inclusive in its Old Testament collection and lim-ited in its New Testament.

At roughly the same time, Codex Sinaiticus, another defective manu-script from the middle to late fourth century CE, has an extensive Old Testament collection, including several of what we now call Apocryphal books, but it also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in its New Testament. Interestingly, 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas were often included in Christian sacred collections through the



fifth century CE. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180 CE) cited the Epistle of Barnabas as scripture, and Origen even called it a “catholic epistle” in the third century.

Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century) besides the New Testament books also contains 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Claramontanus (DP), a Greek and Latin manuscript dating from the fifth to the sixth centuries, includes a list of both New Testament and noncanonical early Christian literature. Along with the Gospels, albeit in a different order (John follows Matthew), D has Acts following Revelation, the Pastoral Epistles come before Colossians, and Philippians is missing. After listing Paul’s epistles, the collection in D places Barnabas after Jude and before Rev-elation. Following Acts, which comes after Revelation (!), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter are included, but Hebrews is omitted. The Old Testament section of the MS also includes 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees. Interestingly, Codex Constantinopolitanus dating from the eleventh century includes 1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas, the Didache, and an interpolated text of the Epistles of Ignatius.

Besides the various manuscripts above, it is important to ask when do we see all of the New Testament books together in one volume. Although this was a possibility from the fourth century and later due to the growth in the technology of book or codex making, the rather astonishing fact is that there are few Greek manuscripts that contain exactly the same books of the New Testament that were received by the church at large (those books and no more or less) until quite late, namely, around 1000 CE. Another important question that has no easy answer has to do with the time when we begin to find manuscripts without any noncanonical books in them. It is appears that no noncanonical books were listed in catalogues of sacred scriptures after the sixth century, but that does not mean that the reading of all noncanonical writings ceased in the churches. That continued on for several centuries. This suggests that the matter was largely decided by then, but also raises the question about the situation in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries and in the major churches during that time that led them to adopt the fixed New Testament collection that we have now.

Some readers might further ask why those churches should be the ones deciding the issue for all time. What was it about the churches of the fourth to the sixth centuries that gave them the divine right to fix the canon of Christian scriptures? Also, what literature had obtained a



place of acceptance at an earlier time (“canon 1”), but by this time no longer held sway in the church and did not continue to influence the church in the same manner? The final question in this line of thinking is whether changing times justify the changing of the biblical canon? Since the church has always believed that it was living in the new age of the Spirit and that the Holy Spirit continues to speak to the churches, we ask on what grounds churches today say that there is no room for other sacred literature to be added to the current biblical canon? Further, why is it that some canonical literature that no longer seems as relevant to the church cannot be dropped from the biblical canon? In principle, it appears that the Christian biblical canon is still open even if in practice that seems unlikely.

While in the fourth century, Athanasius listed the New Testament scriptures that he believed were authoritative for the church, his list was but one of many from that period, even though in time, his list eventu-ally obtained supremacy within the churches. Notice that even after Athanasius’ famous list (39th Festal Letter in 367), 1 & 2 Clement, Ignatius’ Letters, Hermas and Barnabas were still being circulated among churches in sacred collections that included most of what we know as the canonical books.

APPENDIX C:

ANCIENT LISTS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES25

I. Three Possible Early New Testament Lists Based on Eusebius

Irenaeus (170–180)26 Clement of Alex. (170)27 Origen (220–230)28

MatthewMarkLukeJohnRev.1 John1 PeterShepherdWisdomPaul (mentioned, but his

epistles are not listed)

JudeBarnabasApoc. Pet.HebrewsActsPaul (nothing listed)GospelsMatthewLukeMarkJohn

MatthewMarkLukeJohn1 Peter2 Peter?Rev.1 John2, 3 John (?)HebrewsPaul (mentioned, but his

epistles are not listed)



II. New Testament

Eusebius29 Clermont30 Cyril of Jer.31 Athanasius32 Cheltenham33

Recognized:Gospels (4)ActsPaul’s Ep.s

(14?)1 John1 PeterRevelation (?)Doubtful:JamesJude2 Peter2, 3 JohnRejected:Acts of PaulShepherdRev. of PeterBarnabasDidacheRevelation (?)Gosp. of Heb

(?)Works cited by

heretics:Gosp. of PeterGosp. of

ThomGosp. of

Matth.Acts of

AndrewActs of John

Gospels:MatthewJohnMarkLukePaul Epistles:Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.(Phil?)(1–2 Thess.)(Heb?)1–2 Tim.TitusCol.Philm.I-2 PeterJames1,2,3, JohnJudeBarnabasRev.ActsOthersShepherdActs of PaulRev. of Peter

New Test:Gospels (4)ActsCatholic Ep.s.

(7)James1–2 Peter1,2,3 JohnJude?Paul (14 Ep)(incl. Heb.)Pseudepig:

Lit.Gos. of Thom

New Test.:GospelsMatthewMarkLukeJohnActsCatholic Ep.sJames1,2, Peter1,2,3, JohnJudePaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1–2 Thess.Heb.1–2 Tim.Tit.Philm.Rev.Catechetical:DidacheShepherd

GospelsMattMarkLukeJohnPaul’s Ep.s

(13)ActsRev.1,2,3, John1–2 Peter(no Hebrews)



III. New Testament Lists/Catalogues of fourth Century. 2

Epiphanius34 Apos. Canons35 Greg. of Naz.36 AfricanCan.s37 Jerome38

Gospels (4)Paul’s Ep.s

(13)ActsCath. Ep.sJamesPeter1,2,3 JohnJudeRev.WisdomSirach

Gospels (4)Matt.MarkLukeJohnPaul Ep.s

(14)39

Peter Ep.s (2)1,2,3 JohnJamesJude1–2 ClementApost. Const.Acts

Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsPaul Ep.s (14)Cath. Ep.s (7)James1–2 Pet.1,2,3 JohnJude

Gospels (4)ActsPaul Ep.s (13)+ Heb1–2 Pet.1,2,3 JohnJamesJudeRev.OK to read:Acts of

Martyrs

“Lord’s Four”MattMarkLukeJohnPaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.1–2 Thess.Col.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.1–2 Pet.1,2,3 JohnJudeJamesActsRev.



IV. New Testament Lists/Catalogues of fourth Century. 3

Augustine40 Amphiloch.41 Rufinus42 Innocent43 Syrian cat.44

Gospels (4)Matt.MarkLukeJohnPaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.1–2 Thess.Col.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.1–2 Peter1, 2, 3 JohnJudeJamesActsRev.

Gospels (4)Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsPaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1–2 Thess.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb. (?)Cath. Ep.s (7?)JamesPeterJohnJude (?)Rev. (?)

Gospels (4)Matt.Mark.LukeJohnActsPaul Ep.s (14)1–2 PeterJamesJude1,2,3 JohnRev.Ecclesiastical:ShepherdTwo WaysPreaching of

Peter

Gospels (4)Paul Ep.s

(13)45

1,2,3 John1–2 Pet.JudeJamesActsRev.Repudiated:Matthias/James the lessPeter+ John =

Leucian(Andrew =Xenocharides& Leonidas)Gos.Thomas

Gospels (4)Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsGal.Rom.Heb.Col.Eph.Phil.1–2 Thess.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.



V. New Testament Lists/Catalogues of fourth Century. 4

Muratorian Frag.46 Laodicea Synod47 Carthage Synod48 Eucherius49

Gospels . . . . . . Luke

(“third book”)John

(“fourth Book”)Ep.s of John (not

identified)ActsPaul Ep.s to

churchesCor.Eph.Phil.Col.Gal.Thess.Rom.Ep.s to Individuals:Phlm.Tit.1–2 Tim.Jude1 and 2 or 3 Jn

(2 ep.s)Wisdom of

SolomonRev.Apoc. Pet.Forged (rejected)Ep. LaodiceansEp. AlexandriansOthers (?)Rejected:ShepherdWorks of ArsinousValentinusMiltiadesBasilides . . .

Gospels (4)Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsCatholic Ep.s ( 7)James1–2 Peter1,2,3 JohnJudePaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1–2 Thess.Heb. 1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.(Rev. is missing)

Gospels (4)ActsPaul (13)Heb.1–2 Pet.1,2,3 JohnJamesJudeRev. (later added)

Matt.MarkLukeJohnRom.1 Cor.2 Cor.(Gal. missing)Eph.1 Thess.(2 Thess., missing)Col.1 Tim.2 Tim.(Titus, missing)(Phlm.,missingHeb. ActsJames1 John(2,3, John,

missing)(Jude, missing)Rev.



VI. Later New Testament Lists/Catalogues from the fifth, sixth, and sixteenth Centuries

Gelasius50 Junilius51 Cassiodorus52 Isodore53 Trent Council54

GospelsMatt.MarkLukeJohnActsPaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Eph.1–2 Thess.Gal.Phil.Col.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.Rev.1–2 Pet.1 John2,3 JohnJude

GospelsMatt.MarkLukeJohnActsRev.Paul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.1–2 Thess.Col.1–2 Tim.Col.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.James1–2 Pet.Jude1,2 John

GospelsMatt.MarkLukeJohnActs1 PeterJames1 JohnPaul Eps. (13)Rom.1 Cor.2 Cor.Gal.Phil.Col.Eph.1–2 Thess.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Rev.Omitted:(2 Pet.)(2,3 John)(Jude)(Heb.)

GospelsMatt.MarkLukeJohnPaul Ep.s (14)Rom.1–2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.1–2 Thess.Col.1–2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.1,2,3 John1–2 Pet.JudeJamesActsRev.

Gospels (4)ActsPaul Ep.s (14)1–2 Pet.1,2,3 JohnJamesJudeRev.



VII. New Testament Uncial Manuscripts from the fourth andfifth Centuries

Vaticanus (B) Sinaiticus (Ø) Peshitta (SyrP) Alexandrinus (A)

Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsJames1 Pet.2 Pet.1 John2 John3 JohnJudeRom.1 Cor.2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1 Thess.2 Thess.Heb. (partial)Omitted:(1 Tim.)(2 Tim.)(Tit.)(Rev.)

Matt.MarkLukeJohnRom.1 Cor.2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1 Thess.2 Thess.Heb.1 Tim.2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.ActsJames1 Pet.2 Pet.1 John2 John3 JohnJudeRev.Barn.Herm.. . .

Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsJames1 Pet.1 JohnRom.1 Cor.2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1 Thess.2 Thess.Heb.1 Tim.2 Tim.Tit.Phlm.Heb.

Matt.MarkLukeJohnActsJames1 Pet.2 Pet.1 John2 John3 JohnJudeRom.1 Cor.2 Cor.Gal.Eph.Phil.Col.1 Thess.2 Thess.Heb.1 Tim.2 Tim.Tit.PhlmRev.1 Clem.2 Clem.Pss of Sol.

NOTES

1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14, (ca. 320–325, Caesarea, Palestine). 2. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.25.2 (ca. 320–325, Caesarea, Palestine). 3. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.4, (ca. 367, Alexandria, Egypt). 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4.35, (ca. 394, Bethlehem, Palestine). 5. Books in parentheses ( ) are omitted from this source. 6. Books in parentheses ( ) are omitted from this source. 7. Against Heresy 1.1.8, (ca. 374–377, Salamis, Western Syria). 8. On Weights and Measures 4, (ca. 374–377, Salamis, Western Syria).



9. On Weights and Measures 23, (ca. 374–377, Salamis, Western Syria).10. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. 1.12.5, (ca. 390, Cappadocia, Asia Minor).11. Amphilochius, Iambi ad Seleucum 2.51–88, (ca. 396, Iconium, Asia Minor).12. Hilary, Prolog. in Lib. Ps. 15, (ca. 350–365, Poitiers).13. Jerome, Ep. 53.8, (ca. 394, Bethlehem, Palestine).14. Jerome, Praef. in Lib. Sam. et Mal., (ca. 394, Bethlehem, Palestine).15. Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. Apost. 35, (ca. 404, Rome, Italy).16. Augustine, De Doct. Christ. 2.13 (ca. 395, Hippo Regius, North Africa).17. Council of Carthage (397 CE), canon 26; It is likely that 1–5 Sol. is Prov.,

Eccles., Song, Sirach, and Wisd., but this is not certain.18. The “. . .” marks indicate losses or omissions in the manuscript.19. Before the Psalms, there is a letter of Athanasius to Marcellinus about the

Psalter and a summary of the contents of the Psalms by Eusebius.20. After the Psalms, there are a number of canticles extracted from other parts

of the Bible.21. What we see from this survey is that the Evangelists attribute to Jesus the

use of the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, the Psalms and Isaiah.22. This number is missing from Metzger’s translation and line designation.23. This is admittedly a rather loose adaptation and translation of Athanasius’

difficult text. The translation, though quite free in portions, nonetheless brings out Athanasius’ original intent.

24. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by R. P. H. Green, Saint Augustine: On Christian Teaching, Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Uni-versity Press, 1997, 36–37.

25. The following collections are modified from the collections found in G. M. Hahneman, Bruce M. Metzger, F. F. Bruce, Lee M. McDonald, and Alexander Souter.

26. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2–8 (ca. 320–330, Caesarea, Palestine). While Eusebius attributes this “canon” (endiathekon) collection to Irenaeus, it is probably nothing more than Eusebius’ listing of the references made by Irenaeus.

27. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.1–7 (ca. 320–330, Caesarea, Palestine). While Eusebius attributes this “canon” (endiathekon) collection to Clement, it is probably nothing more than Eusebius’ listing of the references made by Clement.

28. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3–14. As we observed in note 27, it is likely that this list is a Eusebius invention based on a compilation of references to literature that Origen cited.

29. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1–7, (ca. 320–330, Caesarea, Palestine).30. Catalogue in Codex Claromontanus (DP), (ca. 500, Alexandria, Egypt).31. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 4.33, (ca. 350, Jerusalem).32. Athanasius, Ep. Fest. 39, (ca. 367, Alexandria, Egypt).33. The Cheltenham Canon is also known as the Mommsen Catalogue,

(ca. 360–370, Northern Africa).34. Epiphanius, Pan. 76.5, (ca. 374–377, Salamis, Western Syria).35. Apostolic Canon 85, (ca. 380, Western Syria).



36. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. 12.31, (ca. 390, Cappadocia, Asia Minor) and later ratified by the Trullan Synod in 692.

37. African Canons, (ca. 393–419, Northern Africa).38. Jerome, Ep. 53, ca. 394 (Bethlehem, Palestine).39. The number 14 indicates that Hebrews was included as one of Paul’s letters.40. Augustine, De Doct. Christ. 2.8–9.12–14, (ca. 395–400, Hippo Regius,

North Africa).41. Amphilochius, Iambi ad Seleucum 289–319, (ca. 396, Iconium, Asia Minor).

The list concludes by acknowledging that some have questions about 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews , Jude. and Revelation. (?) = doubted by some.

42. Rufinus, Comm. in Symb. Apost. 36, (ca. 394, Rome, Italy).43. Pope Innocent, Ad Exsuper. Tol. (ca. 405, Rome, Italy).44. Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine’s (ca. 400, Eastern Syria).45. Some add Hebrews to this list to make it 14, but this is uncertain.46. The Muratorian Fragment. While the majority of scholars contend that this

was a late second century CE fragment originating in or around Rome, a growing number hold that it was produced around the middle of the fourth century (ca. 350–375) and that it originated somewhere in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, possibly in Syria.

47. Synod of Laodicea, Canon 60 (ca. 363, Laodicea, Asia Minor).48. Synod of Carthage, Canon 39, (397, North Africa). Revelation was added

later in 419 at the subsequent synod at Carthage.49. Eucherius, Instructiones (ca. 424–455, Lyons).50. De cretum Gelasianum De Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis (ca. sixth

century). This canon list is attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492–496), but it is more likely from the sixth century.

51. Junilius, Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis, Book I (ca. 551, North Africa).52. Cassiodorus, Institutio nes Divinarum Saecularium Litterarum (ca. 551–562,

Rome).53. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, In Libros Veteris ac Novi Testamenti Prohoemia

(ca. 600).54. Council of Trent, Concilium Tridentinum (1546).

FURTHER READING

Ellens, J. H. “The Ancient Library of Alexandria and Early Theological Development,” Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 27 (1993), 1–51.

Hahneman, Geoffrey M. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

McDonald, Lee M. “Ancient Biblical Manuscripts and the Biblical Canon,”in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from Studiorum Novi Testamentum Societas. ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth. T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series. New York and London: T&T Clark, 2008, pp. 255–281.



McDonald, Lee M. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

McDonald, Lee M. Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Trans. R. M. Wilson. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991–1992.

Souter, Alexander. The Text and Canon of the New Testament. Studies in Theology. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. London: Duckworth, 1954.

Swete, H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Revised by R. R. Ottley with Appendix by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914, reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.

Theron, Daniel J. Evidence of Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980.

Documents

APPENDICES: FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DIG DEEPER!