Canonization Controversy:
Dan Vergano and Cathy Lynn Grossman made the following claim in their USA Today article:
“The canon was largely set at the Synod of Rome in 382 when the dominant Christian leaders of the time established the authority of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John_Scripture, like history, was codified by the winners, by those who emerged with the greatest numbers at the end of three centuries of Christianity, said Michael White, director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas-Austin_’In the ancient world, Christianity was even more diverse than it was today,’ Ehrman said. Not until later centuries did the standard devotional texts known as the New Testament become the bedrock of the Christian faith. Dozens of alternative gospels and creeds lost out in the process.”1
The National Geographic Society makes the following claim:
“St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt, lived from about 293 to 373_In 367 he decreed to all Egyptian Christians that the only texts they should regard as sacred were 27 Jewish and Christian books specifically listed by him. The works on that list comprise the New Testament as we know it today.”2
We should wonder just what they meant by the term decreed? Was he the top of the hierarchy whose proclamations were imposed upon Christendom? Or was his decree based upon common knowledge and the norm of mainstream Christianity?
From The Da Vinci Code to the The Gospel of Judas, there has been a lot of talk about the issue of canonization. There appears to be certain basic assumptions in the skeptical/liberal views on the issue:
1-The church’s orthodoxy came to be, not due to reliance upon the facts of the events as they occurred, but due to the whims of an oppressive majority of hierarchical authoritarians.
2-Christianity had, and has, no right to establish a canon, no right to decide what was/is orthodox or heretical.
3-The cannon chosen by the church just happened to be all of the wrong texts.
4-It was the persecuted minority that held the truth (even though they came around one to three hundred years later).
In other words, the a priory commitment is that Christianity is a false faith and so anyone who opposed it or augmented it, virtually beyond recognition, must be right. This is true even though orthodox, traditional, early document based Christianity teaches love of one’s neighbors and enemies and forgiveness for friend and foe alike.
On the other hand, Gnosticism teaches many things that modern skeptical/liberal find un-politically correct such as hatred of the flesh and male chauvinism. Gnostic salvation is reserved for the initiates, it is a secretive society that selfishly guards against outsiders gaining salvation. Moreover, as far as I can tell, no skeptical/liberal has charged that the Gnostics were attempting to oppress the rest of Christendom and attempted to manipulate the canon simply in order to advance their own particular, and peculiar, theology.
Now, let us deal specifically with the issue of the canonization in 382 AD:
There is a manuscript known as The Muratorian Fragment that is date to circa 170-200 AD. This fragment is very relevant to the issue of canonization, especially in the light of charges of late dated canonization by the winner.
The very beginning of the Muratorian Fragment is missing but we can draw a very viable inference from the fact that the text states that “the third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.” It appears that the order of the gospels was as it still is today. This is because while Matthew and Mark are not mentioned, we infer that they were in the missing piece of the text, Luke is referred to as the third and John’s is mentioned as “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.”
Luke is said to have compiled “the acts of all the apostles,” “For ‘most excellent Theophilus.’”‘
John is said to have written “Epistles,” “Apocalypse,” (aka Revelation) and “Jude.”
There are references to “the Epistles of Paul,” that are listed as being written to the Corinthians (two of them), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two of them), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two of them).
It is also very relevant that at this early date The Muratorian Fragment mentions Gnostic and or apocryphal texts such as:
“[an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion.” It is thought that Marcion manipulated the text of Ephesians and claimed that it was a letter from Paul to the Laodiceans. But why was Macrion able to choose which New Testament texts to place into his canon? Because those texts where already in existence, known and circulated.
There were also “several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church.” The text states, “Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; 3 and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends 4 of Solomon in his honour..” Some believe that rather than friends the text here originally read Philo (the Alexandrian) since the Greek for Philo is Philonos and the very similar philon means friends and it is thought that Philo is the author of the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon.
We also learn that at that time the church, “receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently,” thus, “it cannot be read publicly to the people in church” and one reason why they may be important but not read in church neither “among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.”
Lastly, other Gnostic texts are mentioned and rejected, “we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians.”
Thus, in this fragment that comes from 182-212 years before “the dominant Christian leaders,” “largely set at the Synod of Rome in 382.” The New Testament is made up of 27 books (or books and letters) and the fragment mentions 21. We can safely infer 2 others (Mathew and Mark) which brings us to 23.
Incidentally, we have three letters/epistles of John in the New Testament, the fragment refers to, “two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John.” Thus, there were at least two, which means that it is safe to say that there were three. The only New Testament works missing from the fragment are the letter to the Hebrews, the book of James and 1st and 2nd Peter. Yet, the fragment is fragmented at the beginning and end so that it is possible that these were mentioned. Yet, even if we grant that they were not, we still have very little left for the Synod of Rome of 382 AD to do since the church had a very early understanding of what was authentic and what was not.
Clement of Rome (who wrote ca. 96 AD) was very emphatic about apostolic authority, “The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good order.” He clearly cited 1st Corinthians and Hebrews and demonstrates knowledge of other canonical texts.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 117 AD) held that the apostle’s teachings are to be found in their gospels he did “not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles.”
The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 130 AD) also dealt with issue surrounding the unity between the Old Testament and apostolic writings and cites from Matthew’s gospel with the scriptural qualification, “it is written.”
Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD) refers to the “memoirs of the Apostles” when alluding to Mark, Matthew, Luke (and possibly John and Revelation).
Polycarp (d. 155 AD) furthered the understanding of unity between the Old Testament and the apostles. In his letter to Philipi (ca. 107 AD) he referred to “the apostles who brought us the Gospel, and the prophets who foretold the coming of the Lord (the Messiah).”
Tatian wrote Diatessaron (between 160-175 AD) and only used the four gospels. It seems safe to assume that his teacher St. Justin (1st part of the 2nd c.) also accepted these only.
Irenaeus (130-202 ad) quotes all of our present NT works except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude. He wrote, “It is not possible that the Gospel be either more or fewer than they are_the Gospel is quadriform” (Adv. Haer., III, xi, 8).
The author of the Gnostic Gospel of Truth, written in Rome ca. 140, used practically the same books as our present New Testament.
Hippolytus (170-235) utilizes the four Gospels, 13 epistles of Paul, Acts, 1st Peter, 1st and 2nd John, and Revelation. He quotes and alludes to Hebrews, 2nd Peter and James in a separate category.
Tertullian (160-220 AD) cited 23 New Testament books except 2nd Peter, James, and 2nd and 3rd John. He also wrote, “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards” (Against Marcion).
Origen (185-250 AD) wrote the following in Homilies on Luke, I, “The Church has four Gospels.” This is 149 years before the Synod. Origen accepts the four Gospels, the 13 epistles of Paul, 2nd Timothy, one of Peter’s letters (and states, “possibly a second, but this is disputed”), one of John’s letters (and states, “and, as it may be, a second and third – but not all consider these to be genuine”), James (stating that it may not be authentic), Jude and Revelation. He quotes some apocryphal texts but always qualifying them by stating, “If anyone receives it.”
Clement of Alexandria (180-211 AD) quotes from the four gospels as well as the rest of the New Testament except for Philemon, James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd John. (Strom., I, xxi)
Cyprian of Carthage (who converted to Christianity ca. 246 AD) cited 20 New Testament books except Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Jude.
Eusebius (260-340 AD), “And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of the Gospels” (Hist. Eccl., III, xxv). He makes reference to all 27 New Testament books but states that 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude and Hebrews are “disputed, but familiar to the people of the church.”
Four gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1st Peter, 1st John, “perhaps Revelation” believes that the following should be included: James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John.
Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD) lists the New Testament books precisely as we have them today in his 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367AD).
In 303 AD the Roman Emperor, Diocletian sought to destroy the Christian scriptures. This means that there was such a thing as Christian scriptures, that they could be sought and found (i.e. they were recognizable).
The Synods at Rome in 382, at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 recognized the 27 books New Testament books.
In 394 AD Jerome listed the Old and New Testament books just as we have them today in a letter to Paulinus the bishop of Nola.
We will wrap up this partial testimony with a succinct statement by Bruce Metzger:
“Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.”5
Let us note that the canon is not based on preferred doctrine but on direct and early proof of apostolic teachings and doings. Furthermore, it is safe to say that, at least 200 years prior the 382 AD date claimed above, the texts that were accepted as apostolic and scripture were (at the very least) the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Luke’s book of Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, 1st Peter and 1st John. There were some doubts about Hebrews, although some accepted it as one of Paul’s letters. James was accepted in the Eastern Church before the West. 2nd Peter was an uncertainty for some time. 2nd and 3rd John may have been attached to 1st John and simply known as John’s epistle (since 2nd and 3rd John are very brief texts). Jude was accepted in the Muratorian Fragment, Clement, Tertullian and Origen but not generally accepted for some time. Finally, Revelation also found some acceptance and some doubts for some time.
All 27 New Testament books were written, circulated, utilized and highly regarded even while very few of them were in dispute. In fact, scripture existed before a canon existed.
The Gnostics had concocted their own religion and their own theology. There is no reason to suppose that the early church, or that of 382, would regard their very late dated forgeries as worthy of canonization. By 382 the New Testament was a collection that was virtually completely collected already. The claim of oppressive authoritarian canonization becomes null and void in light of the facts of history.
We therefore end as we begun-the The Gospel of Judas is authoritative in that it is piece of Gnosticism’s puzzle. It is historically valid in as much as through it we learn something about ca. 200 AD. It is theologically orthodox for certain Gnostic sects. It presents us with nothing that can augment, nor challenge, the New Testament. It tells us nothing about the historical Jesus or Judas. It is an interesting piece of history and is no more nor less than what it is-a text about certain beliefs, held by a certain group, at a certain time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.