Conclusion

Conclusion

Chapter 4

D. Moody Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” JBL 119 (2000): 3.

E.g., Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1: Prolegomena (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 38-43; William Wrede, The Origin of the New Testament, trans. James S. Hill (London and New York: Harper and Brothers, 1909), p. 10; Lee M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), pp. 32-33, 248-49; Werner G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), p. 476; and Gottlob Schrenk, “γραφω,” TDNT 1:745.

Harry Y. Gamble, “Christianity: Scripture and Canon,” in The Holy Book in Comparative Perspective, ed. Frederick M. Denny and Rodney L. Taylor (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1985), p. 41; see also Helmut Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 64-65; and John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 152-53. Elsewhere, Gamble seems more open to the possibility that the Gospels were not written for a narrow audience but would have been intended for wider distribution; see Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 102-3.

Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), p. 50. See also McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 249; and William R. Farmer and Denis M. Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon (New York: Paulist, 1976), p. 54.

Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. Robert McLachlan Wilson (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 1:17. For a very similar view, see Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 18; Morton S. Enslin, “Along Highways and Byways,” HTR 44 (1951): 67-92; and C. F. Evans, “The New Testament in the Making,” in The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 232-83, at p. 237.

Powell, Introducing the New Testament, p. 50.

While the New Testament documents had occasional dimensions to them, we should also note that they were still intended for wider distribution. For instance, scholars have long considered the Gospels to be occasional documents—written only for specific groups—but this has rightly been challenged in recent years. In particular, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), pp. 527-29, points out that Paul’s letters, while certainly occasional, also bear indications that they were intended for wider distribution; e.g., Paul commands that letters written to one church be shared with other churches (Col 4:16).

Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” pp. 3-20. In this article, Smith appears to be backing off his earlier position in which he affirmed that “The Apostle Paul . . . did not think he was writing holy scripture” (Robert A. Spivey and D. Moody Smith, Anatomy of the New Testament [New York: McMillan, 1989], p. 450).

John Barton, The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (London: SPCK, 1997), p. 25.

N. T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), p. 51.

For discussion of the authority of the apostles and the role of apostolic tradition, see chapter two above.

Wright, Last Word, p. 52.

Spivey and Smith, Anatomy of the New Testament, p. 450. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 478, seems to make a similar (unexplained) distinction. He argues that the authority of an apostle was “like that of the Lord, a living authority” and “not the authority of Scripture.” But if a person writes with the authority of the Lord himself, how is this meaningfully different than what we call Scripture?

Barton, Spirit and the Letter, pp. 67-68.

Ibid., p. 25.

Of course, a New Testament writer could understand his book to be “apostolic” in the sense that the book is passing down authoritative apostolic tradition even if he himself is not an apostle but had direct and immediate access to an apostle (e.g., Mark passing down the teachings of Peter). For this reason, early Christians were resistant to books that were written after the apostolic time period. For instance, the Muratorian fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas on the grounds that it was written “very recently, in our own times” (line 74). The meaning of this phrase has recently been disputed by Geoffrey M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), pp. 34-72. See response from Charles E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” WTJ 57 (1995): 437-52.

F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 71.

Bruce, Galatians, p. 72. A helpful overview of the various theories about the identity of Paul’s opponents can be found in Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 3-9; John C. Hurd, “Reflections Concerning Paul’s ‘Opponents’ in Galatia,” in Paul and His Opponents, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), pp. 129-48; and Martin C. De Boer, “The New Preachers in Galatia,” in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and David P. Moessner (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008), pp. 39-60.

Jack T. Sanders, “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ Statements in Galatians 1–2,” JBL 85 (1966): 335-43, and other scholars, have argued that Paul’s claims in Galatians about receiving revelation directly from Christ are contradictory to claims in places such as 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3, where he is dependent on tradition passed down from the other apostles. For a response, see Bruce, Galatians, pp. 88-89; Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Revelation and Tradition: The Origin of Paul’s Gospel,” EvQ 57 (1985): 23-41; Philippe H. Menoud, “Revelation and Tradition: The Influence of Paul’s Conversion on His Theology,” Int 7 (1953): 131-41; William R. Baird, “What Is the Kerygma: A Study of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and Galatians 1:11-17,” JBL 76, no. 3 (1957): 181-91; and Knox Chamblin, “Revelation and Tradition in the Pauline Euangelion,” WTJ 48 (1986): 1-16.

In these verses (Gal 1:11-12), Paul does two things to place himself in continuity with Old Testament prophets as a messenger of God: (1) By using the verb εὐαγγελισθὲν (“was preached”) in Galatians 1:11, especially in conjunction with the noun εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”), Paul links himself with Isaianic texts that anticipated the proclamation of the gospel message in the age of the Messiah (e.g., Is 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). Most noteworthy is Isaiah 61:1, where the speaker declares, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news (εὐαγγελίσασθαι)”—a passage also referenced in Luke 4:17-19. (2) Paul uses the term “revelation” (ἀποκαλύψεως) to describe his prophetic message. Michael Pahl, “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word’: Exploring Some Early Christian Patterns,” JSNT 29 (2006): 224, observes that ἀποκάλυψις, along with μυστήριον, “are found in Jewish and Christian writings with reference to prophetic revelation.”

Fung, “Revelation and Tradition,” p. 24.

Of course, some scholars doubt the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, or argue that 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 is a deutero-Pauline interpolation. On the latter point, see Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971): 79-94; Hendrikus Boers, “The Form-Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: I Thessalonians as a Case Study,” NTS 22 (1976): 140-58; and Daryl Schmidt, “1 Thess. 2.13-16: Linguistic Evidence for Interpolation,” JBL 102 (1983): 269-79. For a response, see Jon A. Weatherly, “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: Additional Evidence,” JSNT 42 (1991): 79-98.

G. K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), p. 79; Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letter to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 87. On the use the phrase “word of God” for the authoritative apostolic message, see Pahl, “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word,’” pp. 211-27.

Treatments of apostolic tradition include: Oscar Cullmann, “Tradition,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (London: SCM, 1956), pp. 59-99; F. F. Bruce, Tradition: Old and New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 29-38; idem, “Tradition and the Canon of Scripture,” in The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 59-84; and G. W. H. Lampe, “Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church,” in Scripture and Tradition, ed. Frederick W. Dillistone (London: Lutterworth, 1955), pp. 21-52.

The “word of God” also refers to divine teaching outside Paul’s writings: Luke 3:2; 5:1; Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 11:1; Hebrews 13:7. The authority of “the word of God” is evident by the fact that the phrase is also used to refer to Scripture itself (e.g., Mt 15:6; Mk 7:13; Rom 9:6; Heb 4:12).

Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 111.

The NIV rightly captures the sense of 1 Thessalonians 4:2 as follows: “For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.” For more discussion, see Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians, pp. 114-15; and F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word, 1982), pp. 79-80.

1 Thessalonians 4:3. Michael W. Holmes, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), p. 124, comments on this verse: “Paul views the instructions he passed on to the Thessalonians (4:2) not merely as precepts to be followed but rather as nothing less than the expression of ‘God’s will’ for them (4:3).”

Fee, Thessalonians, p. 153.

This term is also indicative of apostolic tradition (e.g., 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:6).

In terms of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, please see note 43 below.

Gamble, Books and Readers, pp. 209-11; Bruce N. Fisk, “Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge Among the Christians of Rome,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp. 157-85; Lee I. Levine, “The Second Temple Synagogue: The Formative Years,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (Philadelphia: ASOR, 1987), pp. 7-31; and Claude E. Cox, “The Reading of the Personal Letter as the Background for the Reading of Scriptures in the Early Church,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris and James W. Thompson (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), pp. 74-91.

Hist. eccl. 6.12.2; 3.3.6; 4.23.11; Canon 36 of the Council of Carthage.

By the time of Justin Martyr in the second century, New Testament writings were regularly being read in public as Scripture alongside the Old Tesament: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things” (1 Apol. 67.3).

E.g., Lev 4:13; 5:17; 27:34; Num 15:39; Deut 4:2; 6:17; 8:6, 11:28; 30:16; Josh 22:3; Judg 3:4; Ezra 7:11; Neh 10:29; Ps 19:8.

The word ἐντολή itself is also used frequently by Paul to refer to the teachings of the Scriptures (e.g., Rom 7:8-13; 13:9; Eph 2:15; 6:2). It is worth noting here that when Paul issues commands by saying “I, not the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 7:12 (and surrounding passages), it is not an attempt to contrast his lower authority with Christ’s higher authority. On the contrary, Paul’s statement simply means that he has no direct command from Jesus on this particular subject and therefore must speak “on his own authority” (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], p. 292). But, both commands—whether from Jesus or Paul—have the same level of authority. For more discussion, see Wayne Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 47; Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1988), p. 21; Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 109; John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” in The Infallible Word (Philadelphia: P & R, 1946), p. 38; and Cullmann, “Tradition,” p. 74.

Christian Stettler, “The ‘Command of the Lord’ in 1 Cor 14:37—A Saying of Jesus?,” Bib 87 (2006): 42-51, suggests that when Paul refers to a “commandment of the Lord” he is not referring to his own authority to speak for Christ but is merely passing along a tradition from the earthly Jesus. However, this suggestion runs into numerous problems, the most obvious of which is that there is nothing in the immediate context that could be construed as a saying of Jesus. When Paul passes along Jesus tradition elsewhere in this letter, it is usually quite clear what he is referring to (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23-25). In addition, Stettler argues that Paul would never refer to his own teaching as a “command of the Lord” because Paul’s “opinion . . . is not of the same authority” as that of Jesus (p. 43). But Paul is quite clear elsewhere that he speaks with the very authority of Jesus (Gal 1:1) and even refers to his teachings as the “word of God” (1 Thess 2:13), a phrase which is not meaningfully different from the “command of the Lord” in terms of authority. It is for these reasons (among others) that the vast majority of commentators rightly understand this passage as Paul speaking with the authority of the risen Christ.

Although some early manuscripts favor the imperative ἀγνοείτω (P46, א, Ac, B, D2), the UBS committee is quite confident that ἀγνοιεῖται is original (א*, A*vid, Dgr*, 33, 1379, Origen). See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), p. 501.

Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 712.

Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), p. 517.

William L. Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth,” TynBul 33 (1982): 3-29.

Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961), p. 327.

Of course, a number of modern scholars question the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. However, such concerns are not relevant for our argument here. Our point is simply that the author of 2 Thessalonians (even if he is just purporting to be Paul) is claiming authority for this writing. Moreover, there are a number of scholars who have challenged these criticisms of 2 Thessalonians; e.g., Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 364-74; Robert K. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), pp. 3-18; I. Howard Marshall, 1&2 Thessalonians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 28-45; Best, Thessalonians, pp. 37-59; and, most recently, Paul Foster, “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” JSNT 35 (2012): 150-75.

The specific issue Paul is addressing is those members of the church who have become “idle” (ἀτάκτως). For more on this topic, see Bruce W. Winter, “‘If a Man Does Not Wish to Work . . .’ A Cultural and Historical Setting for 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16,” TynBul 40 (1989): 303-15; and Ronald Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess 3:6-12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?,” NTS 34 (1988): 105-19.

Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 281.

Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians, pp. 254, 260-63, suggests that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 may be a lesser penalty than excommunication, designed to keep the Thessalonians from being influenced by such a person (cf. 1 Cor 15:33). But he does acknowledge that excommunication is a possibility in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and that there is a clear connection between 3:6 and 3:14. See also Judy Skeen, “Not as Enemies, but Kin: Discipline in the Family of God—2 Thessalonians 3:6-10,” RevExp 96 (1999): 287-94. E. J. Bicknell, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Methuen and Co., 1932), p. 93, refers to the punishment as “social ostracism.”

Leon Morris, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 144.

The same word (συναναμίγνυσθαι) is used in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 where the Corinthians are told not to “associate with” a brother who is committing sexual immorality and refuses to repent—a clear instance of excommunication language. Bruce, Thessalonians, p. 210, acknowledges this connection but still suggests that the punishment in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 was less severe than 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. For a similar view, see Morris, Thessalonians, p. 149.

Wanamaker, Thessalonians, p. 289. In agreement is Charles J. Bumgardner, “‘As a Brother’: 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Ecclesiastical Separation,” DBSJ 14 (2009): 55-97.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 32.

For an up-to-date discussion of Gospel genre, see Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 73-84. The traditional view that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies is defended by Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Some exceptions include Mark 7:19; 13:14; Luke 1:1-4; John 2:22; 21:24.

Armin D. Baum, “The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” NovT 50 (2008): 120-42.

Examples of biographies that were formally anonymous include Lucian’s Life of Demonax, Secundus the Silent Philosopher and Lives of the Prophets, Arrian’s Anabasis, and Sulpicious Severus’s Life of St. Martin.

Baum, “Anonymity,” p. 139.

Ibid.

Whether the canonical Gospels are really authored by the names in their titles is not relevant for the argument here. We are simply arguing that the Gospels present themselves as apostolic—whether they actually were is another question entirely. For simplicity, we will refer to the authors of these Gospels by the names in their titles.

Robert Guelich, “The Gospel Genre,” in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983), p. 204. Summaries of the various views on this verse can be found in Allen Paul Wikgren, “ΑΡΧΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ,” JBL 61 (1942): 11-20; and C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 34-35.

E.g., M. Eugene Boring, “Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel,” Sem 52 (1990): 43-81; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp. 143-45; and Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), p. 152.

E.g., William L. Lane, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 39-62; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: A & C Black, 1991), pp. 31-52; and Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” pp. 204-16.

Robert H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 39. In agreement is Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” pp. 204-16, who also denies that Mark 1:1 is a title, but still affirms that “the evangelist applies εὐαγγελίον in 1:1 to his literary work” (p. 206). See also R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 50-51.

For an account of the origins of this term within Christianity, see Graham N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 9-62; and William Horbury, “‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judea,” in The Written Gospel, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 7-30.

Robert H. Gundry, “ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ: How Soon a Book?,” JBL 115 (1996): 321-25; Helmut Koester, “From the Kerygma Gospel to the Written Gospels,” NTS 35 (1989): 361-81. However, Gundry and Koester’s conclusions have been rightly balanced out by James A. Kelhoffer, “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century,” ZNW 95 (2004): 1-34.

In addition, Mark uses the term more often than the other Gospels (Mk 1:1, 14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:29), compared to only four times in Matthew and none in Luke and John.

John H. Roberts and Andreas B. Du Toit, Preamble to New Testament Study: The Canon of the New Testament, Guide to the New Testament vol. 1 (Pretoria: N. G. Kerkboekhandel Transvaal, 1979), 1:127.

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), p. 90.

N. Clayton Croy, “Where the Gospel Text Begins: A Non-Theological Interpretation of Mark 1:1,” NovT 43 (2001): 123-24, defends the close connection between Mark 1:1 and Hosea 1:2 and even points out that introductory phrases using ἀρχὴ were added to the manuscripts of many LXX writings. However, Croy’s argument that Mark 1:1 is a later scribal gloss is not a necessary conclusion from this data. One need only suggest that Mark wrote with awareness of LXX manuscripts that contained this type of language.

Gerd Theissen, The New Testament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), p. 54.

These connections were originally noted by C. H. Dodd, “The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” ExpT 43, no. 32 (1931): 396-400; idem, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper, 1949), pp. 46-52; and Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971), p. 25.

For a defense of the pre-Lukan nature of Acts 10:34-43, see Peter Stuhlmacher, Das Paulinische Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), p. 279n1; Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 70-81; and Michael Bird, “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul,” in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts, and Convergences, ed. Michael Bird and Joel Willitts (London: T & T Clark, 2011), pp. 37-38.

Mark 1:1 uses εὐαγγελίον, Acts 10:36 uses εὐαγγελιζόμενος (cf. Is 52:7).

Mark 1:1: “The gospel of Jesus Christ”; Acts 10:36: “Preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ.”

Mark 1:3 cites Isaiah 40:3; Acts 10:36 references “Israel” and alludes to Isaiah 52:7; Acts 10:38 alludes to Isaiah 61:1. See discussion in F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 212-13.

Mark 1:1 uses ἀρχὴ; Acts 10:37 uses ἀρξάμενος.

Mark 1:4-8 discusses John the Baptist; Acts 10:37: “Beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed.”

Acts 10:38: “[Jesus] went about doing good and healing” parallels Mark 1–14; Acts 10:39-40, “They put him to death . . . but God raised him on the third day,” parallels Mark 15–16.

Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), pp. 284-88, surveys evidence that Acts 10:34-43 is connected to Peter himself.

Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” p. 212 (emphasis his).

E.g., Papias cited in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.14-15; Justin, Dial. 106; and Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.5. For further connections between Mark and Peter, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 205-7; Ulrich H. J. Körtner, “Markus der Mitarbeiter des Petrus,” ZNW 71 (1980): 160-73; Hengel, Four Gospels, pp. 78-89; Everett Kalin, “Early Traditions About Mark’s Gospel: Canonical Status Emerges, the Story Grows,” CurTM 2 (1975): 333-41; and Cuthbert H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel V. The Movements of Jesus and His Disciples and the Crowd,” JTS 26 (1925): 225-40.

David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 47-49.

The practice of using an inclusio to identify an eyewitness source can be found in Greco-Roman works such as Lucian’s Alexander and Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus. See discussion in Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 132-45.

In Mark 1:16 we read that Jesus saw “Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon” (Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος). Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 50, observes, “The double reference to Simon most likely indicates his relative stature in Mark’s Gospel.” In Mark 16:7, the angel says, “But go, tell his disciples and Peter (καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ).” The redundancy of Peter’s name here is once again indicative of added emphasis.

The name Peter occurs nineteen times, and the name Simon occurs seven times, which is proportionately much more than the other three Gospels. See Hengel, Four Gospels, p. 82.

See discussion of Peter’s heightened role in Bird, “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul,” pp. 35-36.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 125.

Hengel, Four Gospels, p. 82.

Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” pp. 3-20.

Robert A. Guelich, “‘The Beginning of the Gospel’: Mark 1:1-15,” BR 27 (1982): 5-15.

See discussion in Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 34-35.

Guelich, “Gospel Genre,” pp. 206-7.

Regarding apocryphal gospels such as Thomas, Smith observes, “Thomas is not a narrative; it could not, I think by intention, be construed as continuing the biblical story” (“When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” p. 13).

N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 218.

John H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), and a number of other scholars depending on his work, have suggested that John 21:24 only means that John is a “source” behind the Gospel, but not that he actually wrote it. However, Bauckham makes a compelling argument that γράψας cannot mean that John was a “source” but must mean that the author has directly written it, or dictated it to a secretary (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 358-62). Others have suggested that John 21:24 only means that the beloved disciple has written the immediately preceding verses. However, even Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 717n4, acknowledges that John 21:24 “looks back to the gospel” itself. See also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (London: Burns and Oates, 1982), p. 373.

For a survey of different positions on the authorship of John (twenty-three of them!), see James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995), pp. 127-224. The traditional view that the beloved disciple was John the apostle, son of Zebedee, is still held by a number of scholars: Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:83-104; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 775-77; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 682-85; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), pp. 603-6; and Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001).

Although the phrase “beloved disciple” does not occur here, Bauckham makes a compelling argument that the parallels between John 1:35-40 and John 21 confirm that the “beloved disciple” is in view in both passages (Jesus and the Eyewitness, pp. 390-93).

Ibid., pp. 390-93.

Ibid., p. 393.

Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Beloved Disciple as Eyewitness and the Fourth Gospel as Witness,” JSNT 85 (2002): 3-26, has challenged the eyewitness role of the beloved disciple and has argued it is merely a “literary device.” For a response, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness, pp. 386-88. Benjamin W. Bacon, “The Motivation of John 21:15-25,” JBL 50 (1931): 71-80, agrees that John 21:24 is making a claim that the Gospel of John is apostolic but simply denies the historical authenticity of this claim. However, the purpose of this chapter is not to prove that the claim of John 21:24 is historically accurate—that is another matter entirely. Our concern here is simply to show that the writers of these books claimed apostolic authority and that their readers would have understood that claim.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness, pp. 389-90.

Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 554, declares, “It is perfectly clear that their [the disciples’] witness and that of the Spirit are identical.”

Judith Lieu, “How John Writes,” in Written Gospel, pp. 173-74, makes a very similar point. She argues that John 2:17-22 and John 12:14-16—both passages that speak of the disciples understanding events more clearly at a later point by the help of the Spirit—show the reader that John 15:26-27 is being fulfilled in the very book they are reading.

Jean Zumstein, “La naissance de la notion d’Écriture dans la littérature johannique,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), p. 377; translation mine.

Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 671.

For a discussion of the literary connection between John 21:24-25 and John 20:30-31, see Fernando F. Segovia, “The Final Farewell of Jesus: A Reading of John 20:30-21:25,” Sem 53 (1991): 167-90.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 31.

See discussion of inscriptional curses in chapter two above.

We can see parallel phrases in Greco-Roman writings on occasion; e.g., Aristides uses the phrase γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ (Orationes 26); Plutarch has the similar phrase γράφοντες ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ (Demosthenes 3). So it is possible that it is merely coincidental that John’s use of this phrase in John 20:30 is in accord with Old Testament practice. However, given John’s Jewish roots, and given the implications already noted regarding John 21:24, the fact that it is a coincidence seems to be less likely. There is also as similar phrase in Ecclesiasticus 50:27, ἐχάραξεν ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, but this no doubt reflects the very Old Testament usage we are observing.

Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1215. Keener also notes that John 20:31 uses the perfect γέγραπται to refer to his own writing, a term which normally is used by John throughout his Gospel to refer to Scripture (Jn 2:17; 6:31, 45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25). Gottlob Schrenk, “γραφω,” TDNT 1:745, makes this same observation: “When speaking of the aim of his own writing, i.e., to awaken faith, he can use a word which elsewhere he reserves for OT Scripture, γέγραπται.”

Some central works on the prologue of Luke include: Loveday Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Vernon K. Robbins, “The Claims of the Prologues and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: the Prefaces to Luke and Acts in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetorical Strategies,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel, ed. David P. Moessner (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999), pp. 63-83; Schuyler Brown, “The Role of the Prologues in Determining the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), pp. 99-111; David E. Aune, “Luke 1:1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?,” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World, ed. Alf Christopherson, et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 138-48. For more bibliographical references, see Joel B. Green and Michael C. McKeever, Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).

Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Volume 1: 1:9–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), rightly points out that the structure of Luke 1:1-2 may indicate that the earlier gospel accounts mentioned by Luke were also dependent upon these “eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” (p. 57). But such an observation does not mean that Luke himself was not dependent on such sources. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), argues that the ἡμῖν in Luke 1:2 “has a narrower reference to Luke and his contemporaries who were dependent on eyewitnesses for their knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus” (p. 41).

Roger Balducelli, “Professor Riesenfeld on Synoptic Tradition,” CBQ 22 (1960): 416-21. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1985), p. 294, agrees that Luke is third generation, but does not sharply divide the two groups; instead he argues that the first group (the eyewitnesses) later became the second group (ministers of the word). For a similar view, see Richard J. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4),” CBQ 43 (1981): 205-27.

Bock, Luke, p. 58.

Allison Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 136-39. However, Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 42, reminds us that this phrase would have also included those such as Paul and Barnabas who were not part of the original Twelve. Marshall says it well: “They are to be identified with the apostles, although not exclusively with the Twelve” (Gospel of Luke, p. 42).

Green, Gospel of Luke, p. 41; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 389-90. John Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20 (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1989), p. 7, links the two concepts together: “Being present as an eyewitness is the basis for becoming a witness.”

Bock, Luke, p. 57; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, p. 41; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, p. 293.

I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), p. 56.

Craig A. Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 200.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness, pp. 389-90.

Pahl, “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word’,” pp. 211-27.

Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, p. 295.

E.g., Acts 16:4; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Peter 2:21; Jude 3.

Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible,” pp. 170-201, argues that Luke is intentionally rewriting the “sacred tradition” that he has received in imitation of the technique of the author of Chronicles (and other hagiographa). When such sacred tradition is rewritten, it is normal for the author to edit, expand and modify material according to theological needs of his audience. Thus, Luke’s rewriting of the tradition should not be taken as evidence that Luke regarded that tradition as insufficient or problematic. Similarly, Nolland, Luke 1:1-9:20, pp. 6-12, argues rightly against the notion that Luke’s decision to write is somehow driven by his belief that prior accounts were somehow deficient or flawed. Luke gives no indication of criticism of those who came before him but only that it seemed good “to me also” (κἀμοὶ). See further discussion in Alexander, Preface, pp. 201-2.

Michael D. Goulder, The Evangelist’s Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture (London: SPCK, 1978), pp. 8-13, suggests that Luke’s intention to produce an “orderly” (καθεξῆς) arrangement is best understood as Luke producing a gospel that can be read in the proper liturgical order in public worship. If so, then this is an additional indicator that Luke was intentionally written as a “scriptural” sort of document.

David P. Moessner, “How Luke Writes,” in Written Gospel, p. 165. See also idem, “‘Eyewitnesses,’ ‘Informed Contemporaries,’ and ‘Unknowing Inquirers’: Josephus’ Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of ΠΑΡΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΕΩ,” NovT 38 (1996): 105-22. In agreement is Alexander, Preface, pp. 34-41; and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 123. Bock, Luke, p. 60; and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, pp. 296-97, disagree and argue that παρηκολουθηκότι means “investigate.” However, these different views may not be as far apart as some think. Bock agrees that the term can mean that Luke “followed along” or “studied” these things (p. 60). That is quite similar to the view we are advocating here, namely that Luke presents himself as a student or studier of these traditions (under the tutelage of the apostles). In other words, Luke was “trained.” While the term “investigate” captures some of these same ideas, it gives the impression that Luke was “discovering” or maybe “uncovering” the story of Jesus on his own, whereas the prologue makes it clear that Luke clearly “received” (παρέδοσαν) his core information from the apostles. In addition, the term ἀκριβῶς (“carefully”) is not as decisive as some suggest. It is quite possible to understand Luke as saying that he “studied/followed all these things carefully from the start.”

Moessner, “How Luke Writes,” p. 166, suggests that Luke may have Paul in mind in Luke 1:2 because he uses the phrase ὑπηρέται (“servant”), which he later applies to Paul in Acts 26:16.

Ibid., p. 165.

Bock, Luke, p. 66. Although some older commentators have suggested that Theophilus is a Roman official (e.g, J. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950], p. 53) it should be noted that Theophilus is a common name among Jews and Greeks and that the title κράτιστε (“most excellent”) could simply be an honorary address to someone important, not necessarily a Roman official (Josephus, Life 430; Ag. Ap. 1.1).

Marshall, Gospel of Luke, p. 43. Green, Gospel of Luke, pp. 45-46, disagrees and argues that formal catechetical instruction could not be dated so early. However, Marshall recognizes that the instruction that Theophilus received was not “the rigorous catechumenate of a later age”; even so, “new converts were doubtless given careful training in the faith” (Gospel of Luke, p. 43).

Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, p. 290.

I do not use the term “salvation history” in the manner made popular by Hans Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1960). Instead, I am using it to refer to the Gospel as the bearer of the salvific message—i.e., the Gospel of Luke is both history and theology. For more on this issue, see Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian; and Oscar Cullmann, Salvation in History (London: SCM, 1967).

Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, p. 290.

Evans, “Luke and the Rewritten Bible,” p. 201. It is worth noting that there is some evidence Luke was regarded as “Scripture” quite early. 1 Timothy 5:18 cites “The laborer deserves his wages” and introduces it with “For the Scripture says.” Although it’s possible that 1 Timothy 5:18 may be citing some apocryphal source, the only known match for this citation is Luke 10:7. One must at least consider the possibility that 1 Timothy is citing Luke’s Gospel as Scripture. See discussion in John P. Meier, “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts as Scripture?,” Mid-Stream 38 (1999): 71-78. On an additional note, C. K. Barrett, “The First New Testament?,” NovT 38 (1996): 94-104, seems to share the notion that Luke–Acts was written as a Scripture of sorts when he declares that “the author accepts the Old Testament, and provides, to accompany it, an explanatory and interpretative parallel book—we may call it, though Luke did not, a New Testament” (p. 102, emphasis mine).

For a discussion of the authorship of Matthew, see R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 50-80; and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), pp. 1-47.

Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” pp. 7-8. For more on Matthew’s Scripture-like style, see E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM, 1989), pp. 258-65.

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), pp. 150-53. In agreement is Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 18-19.

Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 150. Even though Genesis 5:1 is followed by a genealogy, Davies and Allison point out that (1) this is more of a history than a genealogy; and (2) it is a list of descendants as opposed to a list of ancestors like in Matthew.

Ibid., p. 151.

Ibid., p. 153. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), translates this phrase as “book of genesis” (p. 28); however, he does not view it as a title for the Gospel as a whole.

Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), p. 151.

The focus on the number fourteen in the genealogy may be an instance of gematria, as the letters of the name “David” add up to fourteen. In addition, David is the fourteenth name on the list. See discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 161-65.

Of course, there are also examples of genealogies in nonbiblical literature. For more, see Gerard Mussies, “Parallels to Matthew’s Version of the Pedigree of Jesus,” NovT 28 (1986): 32-47; and Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 13-19, argues that much of Matthew’s genealogy is dependent on Chronicles 1–3.

As mentioned on p. 50n12, there are good reasons to think a threefold division of the canon was in place by the first century; Luke 24:44; Sir 39:1; 4QMMT (95–96); Philo, Contempl. Life 25.

For discussion of Israel as still in exile, see N. T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, pp. 268-79; Craig Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), pp. 299-328; Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,” in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus & the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), pp. 77-100; and Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), pp. 224-27.

Nahum Sarna, “Bible,” in Encyclopedia Judaica III:832.

G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), p. 177. The connection to 2 Chronicles 36:23 is disputed by Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 679.

Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 187.

For more on Moses typology, see Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993); Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1991); Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 260-61; and Meredith G. Kline, “The Old Testament Origins of the Gospel Genre,” WTJ 38 (1975): 1-27. For a broader look at images of Moses in the New Testament, see John Lierman, The New Testament Moses (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 423-24.

Smith, “When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?,” p. 8. The thesis that Matthew is a new Pentateuch was originally suggested by Benjamin W. Bacon, “The Five Books of Matthew Against the Jews,” Exp 15 (1918): 56-66. For a fuller analysis of Bacon’s view, see France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 142-45. One need not accept Bacon’s thesis in order to recognize that Matthew is presenting the teachings of Jesus (and therefore his Gospel) as new revelation from God.

For a survey of the authorship issue, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 14-20; Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 19-30; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 320; and Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 42-46.

Hist. eccl. 6.25.14.

Ellingworth, Hebrews, p. 21.

Adolf von Harnack, “Probabilia über die Addresse und den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW 1 (1900): 16-41.

David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2010).

Bruce, Hebrews, pp. 68-69; George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1981), p. 25; Pamela M. Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews Within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), pp. 227-28.

The NASB and NIV translate ἐβεβαιώθη as “confirmed.”

Heinrich Schlier, “βέβαιος, βεβαιόω” in TDNT 1:600-603.

William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1991), p. 39, translates ἐβεβαιώθη as “guaranteed.”

Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 77-78. Marshall argues that the ἡμῖν in Luke 1:2 “has a narrower reference to Luke and his contemporaries who were dependent on eyewitnesses for their knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus” (Gospel of Luke, p. 41). For discussion of 1 John 1:2, see next section below.

Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 41.

Buchanan, To the Hebrews, p. 25.

Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 592-93.

Ign. Rom. 4:4.

1 Clem. 42:1-2.

Hist. eccl. 6.25.13.

For an analysis of Hebrews’s journey into the canon, and its association with Paul, see William H. P. Hatch, “The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament,” HTR 29 (1936): 133-51. On connections with Paul, see also Dieter Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), pp. 241-44. If Luke were the author of Hebrews, then this would explain the Pauline connections; see Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews.

David M. Allen, Deuteronomy & Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Re-presentation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

Ibid., pp. 214-16.

Ibid., p. 225.

Ibid., p. 213.

The debate over the authorship of 2 Peter is not relevant to our immediate point here because we are only discussing whether the author presents his writings as authoritative or not. For the various positions on this issue, see Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), p. 158; Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1964); J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 237; C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM, 1960), p. 149; Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1907), p. cxxvii; Daniel J. Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter (College­ville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), p. 237; Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” JETS 42 (1999): 645-71; E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (London: Tyndale, 1960); and Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1990), p. 805-42.

Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 288.

Denis M. Farkasfalvy, “‘Prophets and Apostles’: The Conjunction of the Two Terms Before Irenaeus,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and the Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980), p. 120, argues that this text “appears to sketch a theology of the Canon, or, as I prefer to call it, a theology of the ‘pre-Canon’ or ‘proto-Canon.’”

Attempts to make “prophets” here refer to New Testament prophets has been roundly rejected; see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p. 287.

The reference in 2 Peter 3:2 to the singular “commandment” of the apostles has confused some. Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter, sums it up well when he declares, “[The command] refers not so much to one commandment (e.g., the love command) but rather to the substance of the Christian faith proclaimed by the apostles” (pp. 281-82).

For more discussion of this passage as it pertains to the development of the canon, see Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), pp. 204-5.

This prior letter was most likely 1 Peter, but it does not matter for our point here. For a survey of different opinions on this question, see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, pp. 285-86.

F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 34-35, observes that although the ἀρχῆς of 1 John 1:1 obviously connects the reader back to John 1:1, the two words are used differently. The former is used for the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, whereas the latter marks the beginning of creation. Thus, there is a strong connection between 1 John 1:1 and Luke 1:2, as both refer to apostles as those who were with Christ “from the beginning.” Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles (Hermenia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), p. 8, agrees and adds the observation that John 1:1 has “in the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) whereas 1 John 1:1 has “from the beginning” (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς).

Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 54.

I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 106.

Marshall, Epistles of John, p. 100. The fact that 1 John uses the word ἀρχή in the very first verse would no doubt draw a connection to John 1:1.

John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 67.

Bultmann, Johannine Epistles, p. 8, points out that the neuter relative pronoun ὃ in 1:3 indicates that the message/good news is primarily in view.

Pahl, “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word,’” pp. 211-27.

Marshall, Epistles of John, p. 102. For more on the debate about the meaning of word in 1 John’s prologue, see J. Emmette Weir, “The Identity of the Logos in the First Epistle of John,” ExpT 86 (1974/1975): 118-20; and K. Grayston, “‘Logos’ in 1 John 1:1,” ExpT 86 (1974/1975): 279.

Bruce, Epistles of John, pp. 35-38; Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), pp. 33-34.

Bruce, Epistles of John, p. 35.

Bultmann, Johannine Epistles, p. 11.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 31.

Barton, Spirit and the Letter, p. 25.

Chapter 5

The classic example is the disagreement between Theodor Zahn and Adolf van Harnack. See Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols. (Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1888); and Adolf von Harnack, Origin of the New Testament and the Most Important Consequences of a New Creation (London: Williams & Northgate, 1925). Ironically, even Harnack’s later date is earlier than the modern “consensus” that we will discuss below.

Obviously this question presumes the functional definition of canon. On this definition, the “date” of canon is determined by when these books were used as Scripture in the life of the church. See chapter one for more discussion.

Helmut Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, ed. William L. Petersen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), p. 19. Koester appeals to the New Testament’s lack of scriptural status as a reason it was so readily changed by scribes during this early period. Thus, argues Koester, we cannot trust that the New Testament text was transmitted with fidelity during this precanonical phase. Similar arguments can be found in Geoffrey M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), p. 96; Donald W. Riddle, “Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline,” ATR 18 (1936): 227; and David Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 202-5. For further reflection on this issue, see Michael J. Kruger, “Early Christian Attitudes Toward the Reproduction of Texts,” in The Early Text of the New Testament, ed. Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 63-80.

Lee M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), p. 359.

Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972), pp. 103, 182, 186.

Dimitris Kyrtatus, “Historical Aspects of the Formation of the New Testament Canon,” in Canon and Canonicity: The Formation and Use of Scripture, ed. Einar Thomassen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2010), pp. 29-44.

Kenneth L. Carroll, “The Earliest New Testament,” BJRL 38 (1955): 45-57.

A general introduction to Irenaeus can be found in Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997); and Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

Haer. 3.11.8.

E.g., Haer. 1.3.6; 2.27.2; 3.11.8; 3.12.12; 3.12.9; 5.5.2. See discussion in Graham Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 105-6; and Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), pp. 154-55.

Irenaeus may also have considered the Shepherd of Hermas to be Scripture (Haer. 4.20.2).

Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 111.

Arthur J. Bellinzoni, “The Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers: An Overview,” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 49n17.

Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, trans. Robert McLachlan Wilson (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), p. 18. See also Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible, pp. 103-46.

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, p. 101.

Kyrtatus, “Historical Aspects of the Formation of the New Testament Canon,” p. 35.

Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible, p. 147.

Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Texts, Collections, and Canon,” in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, ed. Jeff W. Childers and D. C. Parker (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006), p. 27. Even though Hurtado agrees that citation patterns change at the end of the second century, he does not attribute that change to a newly found “text consciousness” (as some maintain) but to an emergent “author consciousness” where texts are seen more as the works of authors and cited as such (pp. 26-27).

For a helpful overview of recent approaches to Marcion, see John Barton, “Marcion Revisited,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 341-54; John Barton, The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (London: SPCK, 1997), pp. 35-62; R. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984); and David L. Balás, “Marcion Revisited: A ‘Post-Harnack’ Perspective,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and the Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980), pp. 95-107.

Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 40.

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, p. 101 (Hahneman’s statement is almost a word-for-word quote from Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], p. 31, though he does not indicate he is quoting another source). Oscar Cullmann, “The Plurality of the Gospels as a Theological Problem in Antiquity,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (London: SCM, 1956), pp. 51-53, is also critical of Irenaeus’s reasoning, calling it “theologically valueless speculation” (p. 53). However, Cullmann still affirms an earlier date for the Fourfold Gospel itself.

E.g., Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment, p. 102, appeals to the “Alogi” and their rejection of the Gospel of John as evidence there was no Fourfold Gospel established at the end of the second century (thus making Irenaeus an isolated anomaly). Instead, he argues that the Alogi were “protesting against the introduction [of John’s Gospel] into the church’s usage” (p. 102, emphasis mine). But why should the disagreement of the Alogi necessarily be taken as evidence that there was no Fourfold Gospel? Does the establishment of the Fourfold Gospel require zero disagreement? For more discussion on this issue see, Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), pp. 261-66.

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), p. 10.

Haer 3.1.1.

Haer 3.3.4; Hist. eccl. 5.20.4-8. It is clear that Irenaeus had more than a mere acquaintance with Polycarp and regularly sat under his teaching; see discussion in Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 351-59.

Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), pp. 29-37; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 58-64; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature,” ANRW 2.21.2 (1984): 1221-87.

Beale, Revelation, p. 59.

In addition to the four creatures around the throne (Rev 4:6-8), there are four angels (Rev 7:1; 9:14-15), four winds (Rev 7:1), four directions (Rev 7:1; 20:8), the fourfold formula “every tribe, tongue, people, and nation,” and the repeated formula of thunder, rumblings and lightning occurs four times (Rev 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18).

In Haer. 3.11.8, Irenaeus not only alludes to the four creatures around the throne (Rev 4:6-8), but also alludes to the four winds and four directions (Rev 7:1).

Sib. Or. 4.24-26 (emphasis mine); see also 2 En. 30:13. As another mark of completeness, ancient writers often divided up history into four epochs or four kingdoms; e.g., Daniel 2; 1 Enoch 83–90; 2 Baruch 39; Apoc. Ab. 28. Irenaeus does something very similar when he divides all of biblical history into four covenants (Haer. 3.11.8).

Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?, p. 37. See also Osborn, Irenaeus, pp. 175-76.

T. C. Skeat, “Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon,” NovT 34 (1992): 194-99.

E.g., Irenaeus describes the creatures as “cherubim” (Ezek 10:20); he describes God as seated on the cherubim (Ezek 1:22; 10:1); and he describes the creatures as “four-faced” (Ezek 1:6).

That the argument for a Fourfold Gospel was originally based on Ezekiel is supported by the fact that the order of the creatures in Ezekiel’s account provides an order for the Gospels which is quite old: Matthew (Man), John (Lion), Luke (Ox), Mark (Eagle). This is the so-called Western order. The order of the creatures in Revelation provides no recognizable order: John (Lion), Luke (Ox), Matthew (Man), Mark (Eagle). See Skeat, “Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon,” pp. 196-97.

Graham N. Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel,” NTS 43 (1997): 322 (emphasis mine).

The fragment itself is an eighth-century Latin text that was originally composed in Greek at the end of the second century (see below for discussion of dating). Basic introductory details (author, provenance, etc.) are discussed in the standard works on canon: Gamble, New Testament Canon, pp. 32-33; McDonald, Biblical Canon, pp. 369-79; Campenhausen, Formation, pp. 243-61; Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, pp. 191-201.

Since the fragment cites 1 John at an earlier point (lines 29-31), it is reasonable to think that the other two epistles mentioned in lines 68-69 are 2 and 3 John. For more on this possibility, see the arguments of Peter Katz, “The Johannine Epistles in the Muratorian Canon,” JTS 8 (1957): 273-74.

The poor quality and fragmentary nature of the Muratorian fragment have led Zahn and others to suggest that the omission of books such as 1 Peter may have been due to scribal error; see Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2:143.

Although the Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned, its disputed status is quickly acknowledged: “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church” (line 72). The mention of the Wisdom of Solomon is particularly perplexing because it would be more fitting under an Old Testament list. One possible explanation has been suggested by William Horbury, namely that there was a widespread practice in the church of first listing the received books of both Old and New Testaments and then, at the end, mentioning the “disputed” books from both testaments that were useful for the church but not necessarily regarded as canonical. See William Horbury, “The Wisdom of Solomon in the Muratorian Fragment,” JTS 45 (1994): 149-59.

Pagels, Beyond Belief, p. 111.

Even if the Muratorian fragment was written in reaction to Montanism or Marcionism (Campenhausen, Formation, pp. 243-61), there are no reasons to think that this list represents the first time these books are regarded as scriptural. As Metzger argues, “It is nearer to the truth to regard Marcion’s canon as accelerating the process of fixing the Church’s canon, a process that had already begun in the first half of the second century” (Canon of the New Testament, p. 99; emphasis mine).

Albert C. Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” HTR 66 (1973): 1-41; idem, “Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon,” Studia Evangelica 4 (1968): 452-61; idem, “The Biblical Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration,” Int 29 (1975): 352-71; idem, “The Making of the New Testament Canon,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), pp. 1216-24.

Hahneman, Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon; and idem, “Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon,” in Canon Debate, pp. 405-15.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, pp. 369-78; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM Press, 1990), p. 243; Harry Y. Gamble, “Canon, New Testament,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:856 (though Gamble is more cautious).

See responses to Sundberg/Hahneman from Philippe Henne, “La Datation du canon de Muratori,” RB 100 (1993): 54-75; Charles E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” WTJ 57 (1995): 437-52; Everett Ferguson, “Review of Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” JTS 44 (1993): 691-97; Theo K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1999), pp. 339-54; and Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), pp. 487-556.

Verheyden, “Canon Muratori,” p. 556.

For introduction, see Robert M. Grant, Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). For further discussion of the dating issue, see Hill, Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, p. 79.

Autol. 3.12.

Robert M. Grant, “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” JBL 66 (1947): 187, argues that Theophilus only sees the Gospels as on par with the “Writings” of the Old Testament, meaning the third (and less authoritative) section of the Hebrew canon. However, the manner in which Theophilus juxtaposes the Gospels with books such as Isaiah and Jeremiah suggests that he views them as fully authoritative.

Autol. 3.13-14. In the preface to his Commentary of Matthew, Jerome informs us that Theophilus wrote his own commentary on Matthew many years earlier—confirming that Theophilus regarded it as Scripture.

Autol. 2.22.

Autol. 2.13. Although Luke 18:27 has parallels in the other Synoptics (Mt 19:26; Mk 10:7), the form of the citation here only matches Luke. See Grant, “Bible of Theophilus,” p. 186.

Epist. 121.6.15. Apparently, Theophilus might also have written a commentary on the four Gospels, but Jerome indicates that this is disputed. For discussion, see William Sanday, “A Commentary on the Gospels Attributed to Theophilus of Antioch,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (Oxford: Clarendon, 1885), pp. 89-101.

For a general introduction to the Diatesseron, see William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatesseron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994); and Bruce M. Metzger, Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), pp. 10-36. Theophilus demonstrates that an author can hold to the scriptural status of the individual Gospels and, at the same time, produce a Gospel harmony. Therefore the production of a Gospel harmony should not be taken as an indication that an author is opposed to the Fourfold Gospel or trying to supplant it, contrary to some who have argued this must have been Tatian’s intent; e.g., William L. Petersen, “The Diatesseron and the Fourfold Gospel,” in Earliest Gospels, ed. Charles Horton (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 50-68; Gamble, New Testament Canon, pp. 30-31. Moreover, the very concept of a harmony, rather than demonstrating that these books lack authoritative status, implies the very opposite, namely that the author regards them as having the kind of authoritative status that would be threatened if they disagreed with one another. Why even try to harmonize nonauthoritative books? If they are nonauthoritative there is no reason to be concerned about their lack of agreement. Metzger states it plainly: “The Diatesseron supplies proof that all four Gospels were regarded as authoritative, otherwise it is unlikely that Tatian would have dared to combine them into one gospel account” (New Testament Canon, p. 115). In fact, Kenneth L. Carroll, “Tatian’s Influence on the Developing New Testament,” in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), pp. 59-70, argues that Tatian was not opposed to the Fourfold Gospel but the creator of it (!).

The Diatesseron has some odd textual variants that are not found in our canonical Gospels; see discussion in Petersen, “Diatesseron and the Fourfold Gospel,” pp. 50-68. But the existence of textual variants is categorically different than Tatian using another gospel beyond the canonical four. We have evidence elsewhere that oral Jesus tradition affected the transmission of the Gospel texts in certain instances (e.g., Lk 22:44; Jn 5:4; Jn 7:53–8:11), so we should not be so surprised by the fact that it happens in the Diatesseron.

Grant, “Bible of Theophilus,” p. 182.

Autol. 3.14. Adolf von Harnack, “Theophilus von Antiochia und das Neue Testament,” ZKG 11 (1889–1890): 1-21, argues that the Pauline letters were not regarded as Scripture. For a rebuttal, see Grant, “Bible of Theophilus,” pp. 183-84.

Grant, “Bible of Theophilus,” p. 184.

Autol. 1.14. McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 279, argues that Theophilus viewed Romans as part of the “prophetic Scripture.”

Hist. eccl. 4.24.1. That Tertullian also drew from Revelation in his attack on Hermogenes has led some to suggest Tertullian was dependent on Theophilus; see J. Hendrik Waszink, Tertullian: The Treatise Against Hermogenes (New York: Newman Press, 1956), p. 89; and Hill, Johannine Corpus, p. 80. Given that Tertullian saw Revelation as Scripture (Marc. 4.5), there are good reasons to think that Theophilus also saw Revelation as Scripture.

Grant, “Bible of Theophilus,” p. 185, does point out some echoes of 1 and 2 Peter in 2.34 (1 Pet 4:3), 2.13 (2 Pet 1:19), and 2.9 (2 Pet 1:21), and some possible allusions to Hebrews in 2.25 (Heb 5:12; 12:9), and 1.3 (Heb 12:29).

Strom. 1.29; 6.5-7.

Strom. 3.6-13.

Strom. 2.9; 5.14.

Referring to Clement of Alexandria’s use of apocryphal gospels, Hahneman draws an unexpected conclusion: “This would seem unlikely if the Fourfold Gospel canon had already been established” (Muratorian Fragment, p. 94). But Hahneman never explains why this would be the case. Does the mere use of apocryphal material mean there could not be a Fourfold Gospel? Particularly strange about this conclusion is that Hahneman already reminded the reader not to confuse “acquaintance with the four gospels and the Fourfold Gospel canon” (p. 94). If so, then we should also not confuse mere acquaintance with apocryphal gospels and the acceptance of them as Scripture.

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5-7.

Strom. 3.13.

Hengel, Four Gospels, pp. 18-19.

Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 135. James A. Brooks, “Clement of Alexandria as a Witness to the Development of the Canon,” SecCent 9 (1992): 41-55, differs from Metzger in that he includes Jude and 2 John but leaves out Philemon. Given that Eusebius informs us that Clement wrote commentaries on all the “Catholic Epistles,” there is good reason to think he would have also included James, 2 Peter and 3 John. It is also possible that Clement regarded other books as Scripture, such as the Epistle of Barnabas (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.14.1; Strom. 2.6.31; 2.7.35; 2.20.116; 5.10.63). Clement’s high opinion of Barnabas was no doubt driven by his apparent belief that the author was the first-century companion of Paul (Strom. 2.20.116). Whether Clement regarded Barnabas as Scripture is not germane to our point here, because we are concerned about the existence of a canon, not whether there was full agreement on the canon.

Strom. 3.13.93.

Brooks, “Clement of Alexandria,” p. 48. Brooks draws his statistics from the work of Otto Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus (4 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905). Stählin catalogs 3,279 total references to the New Testament in Clement of Alexandria, as opposed to just 71 to the New Testament Apocrypha.

Bernard Mutschler, Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), p. 101. For discussion of Mutschler, see Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?, pp. 71-72.

Brooks, “Clement of Alexandria,” p. 44.

For a helpful overview of Justin, see Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, eds., Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).

Ireaneus, Haer. 1.28.1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.29.1.

1 Apol. 66.3.

Dial. 103.

Graham N. Stanton, “Fourfold Gospel,” pp. 317-46.

E.g., Dial 100.1; 103.8; 106.3-4. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 38, declares that the citations in Justin “derive from written gospels, usually from Matthew and Luke, in one instance from Mark.”

Dial. 106.

The connection between Mark’s Gospel and Peter was widespread in early Christianity; e.g., Justin, Dial. 106; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.5; Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15; 6.14.6 (attributed to Clement of Alexandria). For more on this point, see Everett Kalin, “Early Traditions About Mark’s Gospel: Canonical Status Emerges as the Story Grows,” CurTM 2 (1975): 332-41.

Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 246; Gamble, New Testament Canon, p. 28. Others argue that Justin knew John but did not regard it as authoritative; e.g., John W. Pryor, “Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel,” SecCent 9 (1992): 153-67; and Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 63.

Further argument for Justin’s reception of John can be found in Charles E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel Among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, pp. 88-94.

Dial. 81.4.

Hist. eccl. 4.18.6.

1 Apol. 46.2; cf. Dial. 88.7. Kenneth L. Carroll, “The Creation of the Fourfold Gospel,” BJRL 37 (1954–1955): 68-77, is not persuaded by the appearance of logos and argues it can be explained by general awareness of the teachings of Philo (p. 70).

E.g., Jesus as μονογενὴς (Dial. 105.1; cf. Jn 1:18; 3:16); piercing Jesus’ hands and feet with nails (1 Apol. 35.7; cf. Jn 20:25, 27).

1 Apol. 61.4.

Dial. 103. This issue receives far too little attention. Although some scholars argue that Justin only knew the three Synoptics, they rarely explain what Justin’s fourth gospel must have been if it weren’t John. Since Justin explicitly states he knows (at least) four core gospels, this issue must be addressed.

Gamble, New Testament Canon, p. 29. See also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 41.

The term ἀπομνημονεύματα (“memoirs”) was used in classical literature, such as Xenophon’s Memorabilia concerning Socrates. The fact that Justin twice compares Jesus with Socrates (1 Apol 5.3; 2 Apol 10.5), is a further indication that Justin likely used the “memoirs” language for apologetic purposes to persuade his unbelieving audience. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 38-39, objects to these claims, arguing that the term ἀπομνημονεύματα did not have connections to Xenophon’s works in Justin’s day.

J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London: MacMillan & Co., 1889), p. 33; Oskar Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, pp. 53-76, esp. pp. 71-73; Graham N. Stanton, “Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martryr and Irenaeus,” in Biblical Canons, pp. 353-70, esp. p. 355; Barnard, Justin Martyr, p. 63. Dibelius understood the use of “memoirs” as an apologetic by Justin to ensure that the Gospels “would be classified as literature proper” (Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel [Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971], p. 40). Charles H. Cosgrove, “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon: Observations on the Purpose and Destination of the Dialogue with Trypho,” VC 36 (1982): 209-32, disagrees with these sentiments and argues that there is no reason to think that Justin is writing to a pagan audience with apologetic motives. Thus, he concludes that Justin uses the term “memoirs” to describe the Gospels because “he conceives of them as purely historical documents and not as authorities” (p. 223).

Hist. eccl. 3.39.15. Papias refers to Mark writing down what Peter “remembered” (εμνημόνευσεν). For more on this point, see Richard Heard, “The [ΑΠΟΜΝΗΜΟΝΕΥΜΑΤΑ] in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus,” NTS 1 (1954–1955): 122-33. Loveday Alexander, “Memory and Tradition in the Hellenistic Schools,” in Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives, ed. Werner Kelber and Samuel Byrskog (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), pp. 113-53, takes a different approach and argues that Justin may have borrowed the term from second-century Hellenistic schools.

1 Apol. 67.3.

Martin Hengel, “The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985), p. 76.

E.g., Dial 100.1; 103.6-8; 104.1; 105.6; 106.3-4; and 107.1. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 41, plays down the implications of this language by claiming it does not mean Justin regarded the Gospels as “Scripture” but instead Justin merely meant these things were “recorded in a written document.”

Stanton, “Jesus Traditions,” p. 358. 1 Apol 61.3-8 has sayings of Jesus set alongside quotes from Isaiah.

For a broad overview of public reading in early Christianity, see Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 205-31.

Colin H. Roberts, “Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester,” BJRL 20 (1936): 227. William A. Johnson, “Towards a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” AJP 121 (2000): 593-627, demonstrates this very point when he discusses how many books in the ancient world were designed more as status symbols to be looked at than as something that might be regularly read. See also Larry W. Hurtado, “Manuscripts and the Sociology of Early Christian Reading,” in Early Text of the New Testament, pp. 49-62.

Scott Charlesworth, “Public and Private—Second- and Third-Century Gospel Manuscripts,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias (London: T & T Clark, 2009), pp. 148-75. Second-century examples of such “public” texts include P103, P77, P90, P104, P64+67, P52.

For the lack of such lectional aides in Greek literary texts, see Eric G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987), pp. 7-12.

Eric G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), pp. 85-87; Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 173-74. Turner notes that while classical literary texts can have upwards of fifty lines per page, some Christian texts of the same size average far fewer lines (and letters per line). A noteworthy example of this trend is P46, which is estimated to have about twenty-five to twenty-eight lines per page (at least in the earliest portions), whereas P.Oxy. 2537 (Lysias) is approximately the same size and averages forty-five or more lines per page.

Turner, Typology of the Early Codex, p. 85.

E.g., Wilhelm Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins Des Märtyrers in Ihrem Wert Für Die Evangelienkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1891), pp. 114-16, argues that Justin was using traditions earlier than the Synoptics; Adolf Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen Über Die Evangelien Justin’s, Der Clementinischen Homilien und Marcion’s (Halle: C. A. Schwetschke, 1850), pp. 101-304, argues that Justin is dependent on an apocryphal gospel; Donald A. Hagner, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr,” in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 233-68, argues Justin is more likely dependent on oral tradition. For an argument that Justin was using Matthew, see Édouard Massaux, “Le texte du Sermon sur la Montagne de Matthieu utilisé par Saint Justin,” ETL 28 (1952): 411-48.

Koester, “Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” p. 30.

William L. Petersen, “Textual Evidence of Tatian’s Dependence upon Justin’s AΠOMNHMONEYMATA,” NTS 36 (1990): 512-34.

It should be noted that Justin does not always cite the Gospels in a harmonized form. This most often occurs in the Apology, whereas there are numerous Gospel citations in the Dialogue that seem to be drawn directly from the canonical gospels (especially 97-107).

Koester and Petersen seem to have confused a Gospel harmony with Gospel harmonizations. While Tatian was no doubt influenced by some of Justin’s harmonized traditions, the two works are very different. Sharon L. Mattila, “A Question Too Often Neglected,” NTS 41 (1995): 199-217, argues that Tatian tends to form his harmony in large blocks, drawing from one Gospel (quite faithfully) for a period of time before switching to another one and then doing the same. In contrast, Justin’s text is often paraphrased and tends to harmonize single passages by drawing material from a variety of chapters and contexts. Mattila summarizes, “Whatever compositional methods might lie behind Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα, they do not resemble those evident in the Diatesseron” (p. 206).

The most thorough analysis of Justin’s extracts from the Gospels is Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967). See also Leslie L. Kline, “Harmonized Sayings of Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Justin Martyr,” ZNW 66 (1975): 223-41.

E.g., Pliny the Younger, Ep. 3.5; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.26.12; Clement of Alexandria, Exc. For more on how such testimonia books were used for collecting excerpts from the Old Testament, see James Rendel Harris, Testimonies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “‘4Q Testimonia’ and the New Testament,” TS 18 (1957): 513-37; and, more recently, Martin C. Albl, And Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999).

John Whittaker, “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation,” in Editing Greek and Latin Texts. Papers Given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto 6-7 November 1987, ed. John Grant (New York: AMS, 1989), pp. 63-95, at pp. 86-90; Bruce M. Metzger, “Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp. 167-88, esp. 186. As an example, see Clement of Alexandria’s Excerpts of Theodotus.

Of course, we should acknowledge that even when Justin cites the Gospels “directly” and not from a collection of Jesus sayings, he sometimes still shapes them (and harmonizes them) according to his own needs and purpose. For this reason, some scholars suggest that Justin’s Gospel citations can be explained simply by his free use of the Synoptic Gospels themselves; see W.-D. Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987), pp. 161-265; Joseph Verheyden, “Assessing Gospel Quotations in Justin Martyr,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, Festschrift J. Delobel, ed. Adelbert Denaux (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 361-78. This latter article is a response to William L. Petersen, “What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?,” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History: A Discussion of Methods, ed. Barbara Aland and Joël Delobel (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994), pp. 136-52.

Paul Foster, “Justin and Paul,” in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael Bird and Joseph R. Dodson (London: T & T Clark, 2011), pp. 108-25.

Foster, “Justin and Paul,” p. 124.

Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” pp. 74, 187n95; see also Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1979), 353-67.

Barnard, Justin Martyr, pp. 62, 74. His reticence to use Paul more explicitly than he does may have again simply been due to his apologetic context; for more, see C. E. Hill, “Justin and the New Testament Writings,” in Studia Patristica, ed. E. Livingstone (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 42-48.

Skarsaune, “Justin and His Bible,” pp. 68-71; Hill, “Justin and the New Testament Writings,” pp. 46-48.

1 Apol. 39.3.

1 Apol. 39.3; Dial. 109.1; Dial. 110.2.

1 Apol. 42; cf. Dial. 42.1.

Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), p. 135.

Dial. 81.4.

1 Apol. 28.1.

For more on this enormous subject see Andrew Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, eds., The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); idem, eds., Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers; Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973); idem, “Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr,” pp. 233-68; and A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, ed., The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905).

For the argument that the apostolic fathers are drawing almost entirely on oral sources, see Stephen E. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Paul Foster, “The Text of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers,” in Early Text of the New Testament, pp. 282-301, argues cogently that the apostolic fathers are not able to aid us in tracing the development of the New Testament text, due to the difficulty of identifying citations and the loose citation practices. But the question of whether the apostolic fathers help us trace the text of the New Testament is a different question from whether it helps us trace the canon of the New Testament.

Helmut Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostlischen Vätern (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957).

William L. Petersen, “Textual Traditions Examined: What the Text of the Apostolic Fathers Tells Us About the Text of the New Testament in the Second Century,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 29-46.

Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Synoptic Tradition in the Didache,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity: La réception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif, ed. J.-M. Sevrin (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 197-230; Andrew Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), pp. 5-20; and Andrew Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, “Reflections on Method: What Constitutes the Use of the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers?,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 61-82.

Helmut Koester, “Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?,” JBL 113 (1994): 297.

For more on analyzing patristic citations, see Metzger, “Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 167-88; Bart D. Ehrman, “The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for NT Textual Criticism,” in New Testament Text Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, ed. Barbara Aland and Joël Delobel (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994), pp. 118-35; M. Jack Suggs, “The Use of Patristic Evidence in the Search for a Primitive New Testament Text,” NTS 4 (1958–1957): 139-47; Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations,” Bib 52 (1971): 357-73; and Richard Glover, “The Didache’s Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 5 (1958): 12-29.

More of a “maximalist” position has been taken by Édouard Massaux, Influence de L’Évangile de Saint Matthieu sur la littérature chrétienne avant Saint Irénée (Lueven: Lueven University Press, 1986); and W.-D. Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus.

Most recently, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 240-63. Earlier than Bauckham, others challenged some central tenets of form criticism: e.g., Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Graham N. Stanton, “Form Criticism Revisited,” in What About the New Testament?, ed. Morna D. Hooker and Colin J. A. Hickling (London: SCM, 1975), pp. 13-27.

Holly Hearon, “Implications of Orality for the Study of the Biblical Text,” in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark, ed. Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper and John Miles Foley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), p. 9; and Gamble, Books and Readers, pp. 28-32.

James A. Kelhoffer, “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century,” ZNW 95 (2004): 9-10.

By way of example, we see much textual interchange in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. Several examples: (1) The Philippians sent a letter to Polycarp asking for copies of Ignatius’s letters (Phil 13.1-2); (2) Polycarp collected the letters of Ignatius and had them copied; (3) Polycarp sent his letter back to the Philippians with Ignatius’s letters attached; and (4) Polycarp forwarded a letter from the Philippians onto Antioch. This array of literary traffic simply shows that the apostolic fathers were quite willing to interact with, cite and copy written texts. For more, see Michael J. Kruger, “Manuscripts, Scribes, and Book Production Within Early Christianity,” in Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2012), pp. 15-40.

Koester, “Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?,” p. 297.

For more on the role of oral tradition in the solution to the Synoptic problem, see James D. G. Dunn, “Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition,” NTS 49 (2003): 139-75; and Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

Andrew Gregory, “What Is Literary Dependence?,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, ed. Paul Foster, et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 87-114.

E.g., Gregory affirms the goal of his methodology: “a small sample of quite secure evidence may be of more value than a larger sample of less secure evidence” (Reception of Luke and Acts, p. 13).

E.g., even if one of the apostolic fathers expressly stated, “For it is written in the Gospel of Luke . . . ,” one could still object that we cannot be absolutely sure that it is the same Luke we possess. After all, some scholars have suggested that these early Christians used a proto-Luke which eventually was enlarged into our current, larger version of Luke; e.g., John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942). Other scholars have suggested we can have certain results when the citation includes the redactional work of the evangelist; e.g., Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition,” p. 95 (relying on Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung). However, this does not even provide certain results given that (1) redactional features may have been independently added by two different redactors; and (2) we cannot even be sure about which features of the Gospels are actually redactional (Tuckett himself acknowledges these limitations).

Young, Jesus Tradition, p. 26, argues against the works of Massaux and Köhler on the grounds that their “method largely predetermines the outcome.” However, the same thing could be said of Young’s view (and others who have a more minimalist approach to the apostolic fathers).

Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, trans. Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1994), 2:32, states, “I do not see the need to multiply hypotheses unnecessarily since the text of Mt. was within reach. . . . Why then turn to an oral tradition or to a parent document of the gospels, whose existence is hypothetical?” Massaux’s methodology was refined further by Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus. For a similar approach to Massaux on this issue, see Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 73n47.

Hurtado, “New Testament in the Second Century,” p. 27 (emphasis his).

William R. Farmer and Denis M. Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the New Testament Canon (New York: Paulist, 1976), p. 50.

The standard work on literacy in the ancient world is William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). Although Harris is generally accepted among scholars, it is balanced by Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (New York: New York University Press, 2000).

Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Charles E. Hill, “‘In These Very Words’: Methods and Standards of Literary Borrowing in the Second Century,” in Early Text of the New Testament, pp. 261-81; and F. Gerald Downing, “Writers’ Use or Abuse of Written Sources,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 523-48. Petersen, “Textual Traditions Examined,” objects to this explanation on the grounds that “many of the ‘deviating’ readings found in the Apostolic Fathers have parallels in other Fathers or documents” (p. 42). However, as noted above, this can be explained by the fact that early Christians often used “testimony books” composed of sayings of Jesus that were used for catechetical instruction. Bellinzoni, Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, made this argument in regard to Justin’s text of the Gospels.

E.g., Whittaker, “Art of Misquotation,” pp. 63-95.

Eric G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 106-7.

Scholars are divided over the precise date when Papias wrote. Some have argued for a later date ca. 140; e.g., Brooke F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 70; and Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, pp. 147-50. Others argue for an even earlier date ca. 110; see J. Vernon Bartlet, “Papias’s ‘Exposition’: Its Date and Contents,” in Amicitiae Corolla, ed. H. G. Wood (London: University of London Press, 1933), pp. 16-22; Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Re­assessment,” JETS 26 (1983): 181-91; and Rupert Annand, “Papias and the Four Gospels,” SJT 9 (1956): 46-62.

Eusebius himself was critical of Papias, calling him “a man of very little intelligence” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.13). But, as Gundry points out, Eusebius was no doubt critical of Papias because he did not share his view of the book of Revelation (Matthew, p. 615).

For discussion of Papias as a source, see Samuel S. Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), pp. 272-92; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew, pp. 609-22; Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, pp. 219-22; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), pp. 7-17; Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 47-53; and R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 53-60.

Irenaeus, Haer. 5.33.4.

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.9.

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16.

Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-4; Martin Hengel, Die Johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungversuch mit einem Beitrag zur Apolalyse von Jörg Frey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), pp. 75-95. The identity of this particular John is much disputed in modern scholarship, with some scholars suggesting it was not the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, but a different John who was also a disciple of Jesus (and the author of the Johannine epistles and the Gospel of John). See Martin Hengel, Four Gospels, pp. 67-68; and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 412-37. Others suggest that John the Elder is just a reference to John the apostle (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 5.33.4). See Gundry, Matthew, pp. 611-12; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 69-70; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), pp. 95-98; and, more extensively, John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911).

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 202-39. There is ongoing discussion about whether Papias only received his information from those who followed (παρηκολουθηκώς) the elders described in Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-4, or directly from the elders themselves (particularly John the Elder). Eusebius seems to indicate he received information in both ways (Hist. eccl. 3.39.7) and actually heard from John directly. Irenaeus also indicated Papias heard from “John” directly (Haer. 5.33.4). However, it is possible that both Eusebius and Irenaeus are mistaken and misunderstood Papias.

The verb ἐμνημόνευσεν could go with either Peter or with Mark; Alexander, “Memory and Tradition,” p. 118, opts for Peter.

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16.

E.g., Justin, Dial. 106; and Irenaeus, Haer. 3.10.5; Tertullian, Marc. 4.5.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15; 6.14.6 (attributed to Clement of Alexandria); for more on this point, see Kalin, “Early Traditions About Mark’s Gospel,” pp. 332-41. Kurt Niederwimmer, “Johannes Markus un die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten Evangeliums,” ZNW 58 (1967): 172-88, has argued that Papias’s statements about Peter are untrustworthy and likely fabricated to bolster Mark’s Gospel over against Gnostic works that were also claiming connections with Peter (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.106.4, speaks of how the Valentinians claimed “Glaucias” was the interpreter of Peter). However, while we can never be absolutely sure Papias is truthful, we have little reason to think he is fabricating these connections to Peter, particularly given the lack of any obvious anti-Gnostic polemic. It is as likely that the Valentinians copied these earlier claims about Mark rather than the other way around (Byrskog, Story as History, p. 273). Other scholars disagree and have suggested that Papias is anti-Gnostic: e.g., Ron Cameron, Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 98-99; and Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 184-88.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 124-26, 155-82.

For more on this “integrity formula” in early Christianity, see David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 1208-16; and Michael J. Kruger, “Early Christian Attitudes Toward the Reproduction of Texts,” in Early Text of the New Testament, pp. 63-80. Not only is this formula present in other Jewish literature outside the Old Testament (e.g., Aristeas 310-311; 1 En. 104:9-10; 1 Macc 8:30; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.42; 11QTa 54.5-7; b. Meg. 14a), but it is also reflected in Greco-Roman writers such as Artemidorus (Oneirocritica 2.70), Aristides (Orations 30.20), Chariton (Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.1.5), Cicero (De oratore 3.8.29), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Antiquitates Romanae 5.8), and Lucian (Hist. Conscr. 47).

We should be reminded here that the point of this whole chapter is simply to evaluate when early Christians viewed New Testament books as authoritative, not whether their assessments of these books were accurate. Thus it matters not whether Papias was, in fact, correct about the authorship of Mark. Rather, the point here is that Papias received it as authoritative based on his beliefs about its authorship.

Papias’s testimony that Matthew was received as authoritative at an early point is consistent with the fact that Matthew was one of the most (if not the most) popular gospels in earliest Christianity. This is borne out by the early textual witnesses to Matthew; see Tommy Wasserman, “The Early Text of Matthew,” in Early Text of the New Testament, pp. 83-107.

Cameron, Sayings Traditions, p. 110.

Ibid., p. 112. See also Andrew F. Walls, “Papias and Oral Tradition,” VC 21 (1967): 137-40.

Hist. eccl. 3.39.15.

Dial. 106.3.

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 3; Thomas W. Manson, “The Gospel of St. Matthew,” in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1962), pp. 68-104; Annand, “Papias and the Four Gospels”; and Matthew Black, “The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew,” JSNT 37 (1989): 31-41.

We have no reason to think Matthew was originally written in Hebrew; see Josef Kürzinger, Papias Von Hierapolis Und Die Evangelien Des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1983), pp. 9-32; and Albertus F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), p. 11. However, some have suggested the theory that there was an early form of Matthew in Hebrew (a proto-Matthew) that was later expanded into our current Greek Matthew; see Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” NTS 29 (1983): 25-47.

Kürzinger, Papias Von Hierapolis Und Die Evangelien Des Neuen Testaments, pp. 9-32; Gundry, Matthew, pp. 619-20. Others have disagreed with Kürzinger’s hypothesis, including Hengel, Four Gospels, p. 71; and Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 16.

Jewish-Christian gospels (some which were purported to be originally in Hebrew) have a complicated history in early Christianity. For an introduction to Jewish Christian gospels, see Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, pp. 3-43; and Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, pp. 134-78. Since Matthew was well known as a Jewish gospel, it is not difficult to see how Papias and others might get confused on its original language. Such confusion on this issue, however, would not necessitate that Papias is confused on other issues; see France, Matthew, pp. 64-66.

Hist. eccl. 3.39.15. Moreover, τά λόγια is also used for Old Testament Scripture (e.g., Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2), and for the title of Papias’s own work, Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεος, which clearly refers to more than just sayings of Jesus. For more on the meaning of τά λόγια, see Dieter Lührmann, “Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?,” in The Gospels Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. Ronald A. Piper (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), pp. 97-116. Lührmann makes a compelling argument that Papias’s use of λόγια rather than λόγοι is noteworthy because the former means not just “words” but “inspired divine utterances from the past” (p. 108). If so, then Papias’s use of this word for Mark and Matthew is an indication that he viewed them as being, in some sense, authoritative divine speech.

Hist. eccl. 3.39.17.

Ibid.

Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse 34.12.

Richard Heard, “Papias’ Quotations from the New Testament,” NTS 1 (1954): 130-34, argues that Papias likely used a number of Paul’s epistles (particularly 1 and 2 Corinthians).

Hill, Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, pp. 385-96. Richard Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” JTS 44 (1993): 24-69, makes a compelling case that if Papias appealed to 1 Peter in order to explain the origin of Mark’s Gospel, then Papias probably mentioned 1 John in order to explain the origin of John’s Gospel (Hist. eccl. 3.39.17).

Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-4. For a statistical study of this list, see Jake H. O’Connell, “A Note on Papias’s Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 129 (2010): 793-94. But not all are convinced that the order of Papias’s list is a decisive consideration; see Gerd Theissen, The New Testament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), p. 215. The so-called anti-Marcionite prologues describe Papias as a disciple of John and even the amanuensis of John’s Gospel. While these connections are consistent with the other evidence we have seen, the date and reliability of these prologues is too uncertain to put much weight on them.

Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” p. 44.

Andrew of Caesarea, in his commentary on Revelation, tells us that Papias declared, “I saw Satan fallen from heaven”—a saying of Jesus found only in Luke 10:18 (translation from Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?, p. 214). For more on Papias’s knowledge of Luke, see Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and Luke): A New Papias Fragment,” JTS 49 (1998): 625-29. Denis M. Farkasfalvy, “The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris and James W. Thompson (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), pp. 92-106.

A date for the Fourfold Gospel in the first half of the second century is also affirmed by: Christian-Bernard Amphoux, “La finale longue de Marc: un épilogue des quatre évangiles,” in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. Camille Focant (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), pp. 548-55 (early second century); T. C. Skeat, “The Origin of the Christian Codex,” ZPE 102 (1994): 263-68 (early second century); Stanton, “Fourfold Gospel,” pp. 317-46 (ca. A.D. 150); and James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Older works affirming an early date for the Fourfold Gospel include Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons; Harnack, Origin of the New Testament, pp. 68-83; and Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), pp. 33-41.

Of course Papias is quite willing to draw on the “living voice” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4) in addition to written gospels. But this does not indicate, as so many suppose, that oral tradition is the only or primary source of his information (see discussion on this often misunderstood statement in chapter three above).

For a broad overview, see J. Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994).

For discussion of the purpose and theology of Barnabas, see Carleton Paget, Epistle of Barnabas, pp. 46-70.

Barn. 4:14.

Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus, p. 113; James Carleton Paget, “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 229-49.

The same word appears in Barn. 5:2; 14:6; 15:1; and 16:6.

Even if Barnabas is quoting from a written source, this does not mean that the phrase had no oral history. It is interesting to note that this same phrase appears as a textual variant at Matthew 20:16 according to some manuscripts (C D W Θ f1 f13). J. Vernon Bartlet, “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 18, suggests this is evidence that this phrase had an oral history. However, Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), p. 41, suggests this textual variation is more likely due to a scribe who was harmonizing the text with Matthew 22:14.

Pier F. Beatrice, “Une citation de l’Évangile de Matthieu dans l’Épître de Barnabé,” in New Testament in Early Christianity, pp. 231-45.

Young, Jesus Tradition, p. 27; Hagner, “Sayings of Jesus,” p. 242. Similar phrases are found in 2 Bar. 44:15; and Plato, Phaedo 69c.

That Matthew 22:14 is a modified/redacted version of earlier Jewish sources has been argued by Daniel C. Olson, “Matthew 22:1-14 as Midrash,” CBQ 67 (2005): 435-53, esp. p. 437. Similarly, see Ben F. Meyer, “Many (=All) Are Called, But Few (=Not All) Are Chosen,” NTS 36 (1990): 89-97, esp. pp. 96-97.

Gundry, Matthew, pp. 169-70; Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1955), p. 38; Eta Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (London: SPCK, 1975), pp. 93-94; and Bernard B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p. 162. Also, most scholars do not consider Matthew 22:14 to be part of Q, but a redaction of an earlier version of this parable (which Luke 14:16-24 reproduces most closely). See James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), p. 448.

Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, p. 3, has argued that we can only be certain an author is drawing on a written gospel when it shows familiarity with redactional portions of those gospels.

Carleton Paget, “Epistle of Barnabas,” p. 233.

E.g., 5.9 reads ὅτι οὐκ ἠλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς (“for he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners”) and is nearly identical to Matthew 9:13.

Again, the fact that Barnabas cites other literature outside the Old and New Testaments as “Scripture” (e.g., 16.5 cites 1 En. 89 with “For Scripture says”) is beside the point being made here. The question is not whether there was agreement among early Christians on the extent of “Scripture,” but simply whether early Christians understood that new scriptural books had been given under the administration of the new covenant.

For a helpful introduction to Ignatius and his writings, see Paul Foster, The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 81-107 (though he takes a later date for the letters, ca. 125–150); William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); and, most recently, Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009).

Paul Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 159-86, at p. 172. A similar conclusion is found in William R. Inge, “Ignatius,” in New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 61-83. Schoedel, Ignatius, p. 9, is willing to say that Ignatius only has “certain” knowledge of 1 Corinthians (despite the fact that Ignatius clearly knew multiple letters of Paul).

E.g., Ign. Eph. 14:1; 16:1; 18.1; Ign. Magn. 8:1; 10:2; Ign. Rom. 5:1; 9:2; Ign. Pol. 5:1.

Ign. Eph. 12:2 (emphasis added).

1 Corinthians 15:32; 16:8; Ephesians 1:1 (though ἐν Ἐφέσω is omitted in P46, א* and B); 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:18; 4:12; and possibly Romans 16:5. For more on the critical and central role of Ephesus in early Christianity, see Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); and Eugene E. Lemcio, “Ephesus and the New Testament Canon,” BJRL 69 (1986): 210-34.

Heinrich Rathke, Ignatius von Antiochien und die Paulusbriefe (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967), pp. 21-22. It is worth noting that the English “makes mention” may not be the best translation of μνημονεύει (Ign. Eph. 12:2). Instead it is possible (and maybe even preferable) to render this verb as “to remember” or “to think of.”

Daniel Hoffman, “The Authority of Scripture and Apostolic Doctrine in Ignatius of Antioch,” JETS 28 (1985): 75. See also J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; London: MacMillan, 1889), 2:65-66; and Schoedel, Ignatius, 73n7.

Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2:65-66; Schoedel, Ignatius, p. 73; Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 49.

Ign. Eph. 12:2.

Ign. Rom. 4:4.

Ign. Trall. 3:3.

Charles E. Hill, “Ignatius and the Apostolate,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 36 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), pp. 226-48.

Hill, “Ignatius and the Apostolate,” p. 234.

Robert M. Grant, “Scripture and Tradition in St. Ignatius of Antioch,” CBQ 25 (1963): 327.

Sundberg, “Biblical Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration,” pp. 352-71, has argued that Ignatius, and other church fathers, viewed themselves as “inspired” with the same level of authority as the apostles (e.g., Ign. Trall. 4:1; Ign. Rom. 8:3; Ign. Phld. 7:1-2). Others have made similar arguments; e.g., Everett Kalin, “The Inspired Community: A Glance at Canon History,” CTM 42 (1971): 205-8; Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 58-66. However, it is not at all clear that these passages in Ignatius necessarily indicate that he viewed his authority as equal to the apostles. Sundberg does not seem to recognize that similar language can sometimes be used to speak of both ecclesiastical authority and apostolic authority. When the larger context of Ignatius’s writings are taken into consideration, there is little doubt that he sees the authority of the apostles as unique and unparalleled (Hill, “Ignatius and the Apostolate,” pp. 226-48.). The same is true of other church fathers. While Irenaeus makes occasional statements that indicate the Holy Spirit is at work in the church of his own day (Haer. 5.6.1), there are no grounds for pressing this to mean that he would accept modern-day writings as equivalent to the writings of the apostles—on the contrary, Irenaeus is very clear that the apostles are behind the authoritative books he receives (Haer. 3.1.1). For more this subject, see Frank Thielman, “The New Testament Canon: Its Basis for Authority,” WTJ 45 (1983): 400-410.

E.g., Ign. Magn. 13:1; Ign. Trall. 7:1.

See examples in Hill, “Ignatius and the Apostolate,” pp. 235-39.

E.g., Ign. Smyrn. 6:1 (Mt 19:12); Ign. Smyrn. 1:1 (Mt 3:15); Ign. Magn. 8:2 (Jn 1:14; 17:16); Ign. Phld. 7:1 (Jn 3:8); Ign. Smyrn 3:2 (Lk 24:39). For more, see Inge, “Ignatius,” pp. 63-83 (who argues on p. 83 that it is “highly probable” that Ignatius used John); Charles E. Hill, “Ignatius, ‘The Gospel,’ and the Gospels,” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 267-85; Hill, Johannine Corpus, argues that “Ignatius’ knowledge of John can be taken as proved” (p. 442); Foster, “Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,” p. 180, argues that there is one “certain” place where Ignatius cites Matthew’s Gospel (e.g., Ign. Smyrn. 1:1); Grant, “Scripture and Tradition,” pp. 325-27, argues that Ignatius knew Matthew and John; Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, pp. 44-49. An argument that Ignatius did not know Matthew can be found in J. Smit Sibinga, “Ignatius and Matthew,” NovT 8 (1966): 263-83. For an overall assessment of the relationship between Matthew and Ignatius, see Christine Trevett, “Approaching Matthew from the Second Century: The Under-Used Ignatian Correspondence,” JSNT 20 (1984): 59-67.

Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 7-8.

Michael D. Goulder, “Ignatius’ ‘Docetists’,” VC 53 (1999): 16-30; Hill, “Ignatius, ‘The Gospel,’ and the Gospels,” pp. 271-74.

For a brief introduction to Polycarp, see Michael W. Holmes, “Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians,” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster (London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 108-25.

Hist. eccl. 5.20.4-7.

Hist. eccl. 5.33.4.

Phil. 3.2; 9.1; 11.2, 3.

Phil. 9.1.

Phil. 3.2.

Polycarp refers to Paul’s “letters” (Phil. 3.2). Since Polycarp is writing to the Philippians, some have questioned whether he implied Paul wrote more than one letter to the Philippians, or whether the plural here could refer to a single letter; e.g., J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), pp. 140-42. However, the more natural solution seems to be that Polycarp regards all of Paul’s letters as intended for every church, even if not directly addressed to them. See Andreas Lindemann, “Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul, ed. William S. Babcock (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990), pp. 25-45, esp. pp. 41-42. For an overview of the options, see Michael W. Holmes, “Paul and Polycarp,” in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael Bird and Joseph R. Dodson (London: T & T Clark, 2011), pp. 57-69, at p. 58n10.

Phil 3.2.

Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and Its Allusions to New Testament Literature (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2001), p. 195; Kenneth Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), p. 187; Michael W. Holmes, “Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 226; and Paul V. M. Benecke, “The Epistle of Polycarp,” in New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 84-104.

Phil. 3.2.

Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), p. 307, argues that “for Polycarp there is no apostolic authority other than Paul.” But this seems contrary to all the evidence. Not only does Polycarp mention plural “apostles” (Phil. 6.3; 9.2), but he knows 1 Peter and 1 John (see below). In addition, Paul himself acknowledges the existence of other apostles (e.g., Gal 2:2).

Denis M. Farkasfalvy, “‘Prophets and Apostles’: The Conjunction of the Two Terms Before Irenaeus,” in Texts and Testaments, p. 120.

Werner G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1975), p. 485.

Polycarp, Phil. 12.1. Latin text: Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est, irascimini et nolite peccare, et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. Holmes argues that since we cannot be sure of the original Greek terms used by Polycarp then we cannot be sure he intended to cite this passage as Scripture (“Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians,” p. 210n99). Holmes’s caution is certainly appropriate. However, while there will always be some ambiguity in terms of what Polycarp’s original Greek read, the term scripturis in Latin is a fairly reliable reference to Scripture. For examples of scripturis as the Latin translation of γραφαί (“Scripture”), see Charles M. Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul, and the Scriptures,” AThR 47 (1965): 200. It is also interesting to note that James Donaldson, The Apostolic Fathers: A Critical Acccount of Their Genuine Writings and of Their Doctrines (London: Macmillan, 1874), p. 243, was so convinced that scripturis referred to authoritative Scripture that he argued it must be a later interpolation.

Benecke, “Polycarp,” p. 93; cf. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 62.

For a survey of the different options see Berding, Polycarp and Paul, pp. 117-19; and Paul Hartog, “Polycarp, Ephesians, and ‘Scripture,’” WTJ 70 (2008): 255-75.

L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2004), p. 354 (see also p. 481n72).

Berding, Polycarp and Paul, p. 118.

Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, p. 113. Cf. Ernst Käsemann, Das Neue Testament als Kanon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1970), p. 67n15.

Berding, Polycarp and Paul, p. 118.

Boudewijn Dehandschutter, “Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians: An Early Example of ‘Reception,’” in New Testament in Early Christianity, p. 282.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 276. See also Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul, and the Scriptures,” pp. 199-216.

Nielsen, “Polycarp, Paul, and the Scriptures,” p. 216.

Hartog, “Polycarp,” p. 267; Benecke, “Polycarp,” pp. 84-104; Holmes, “Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians,” p. 226.

E.g., Phil 2.3; 7.2.

Benecke, “Polycarp,” p. 103 (emphasis original).

Koester, Synoptische Überlieferung, pp. 114-15.

Berding, Polycarp and Paul, p. 94.

Hill, Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, pp. 418-20.

E.g., Benecke, “Polycarp,” pp. 101-4; Young, Jesus Tradition, pp. 232-37.

This addresses what Bellinzoni describes as the criteria of “accessibility” when assessing whether a writer could have cited a New Testament text; see Bellinzoni, “Gospel of Luke in the Apostolic Fathers,” pp. 45-68.

A helpful introduction to this letter can be found in Andrew F. Gregory, “1 Clement: An Introduction,” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster (London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 21-31.

The identity of the author of 1 Clement is unclear; but for our purposes here we shall call the author “Clement.” See discussion in Gregory, “1 Clement: An Introduction,” pp. 23-24.

Andrew F. Gregory, “1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 129-57; A. J. Carlyle, “Clement of Rome,” in New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 37-62.

Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, p. 42; Carlyle, “Clement of Rome,” pp. 37-62. See discussion in Gregory, “1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” p. 143.

Hagner, Clement of Rome, p. 237.

E.g., 1 Clem. 47:1-3.

1 Clem. 42:1-2.

1 Clem. 5:2.

1 Clem. 47:1-3. Scholars agree that this passage is a clear reference to 1 Corinthians: Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum, pp. 190-91; Gregory, “1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” pp. 129-57; and Hagner, Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, pp. 196-97.

Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; London: William Hienemann, 1919), p. 91.

Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1885), p. 18.

The main example of this is 1 Clem. 63:2. However, in this passage it is ambiguous whether the phrase διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (“through the Holy Spirit”) modifies “the things written,” or whether it describes the means by which the “wanton anger” in a person is rooted out. There are other examples where the authority of church leaders is emphasized (e.g., Ign. Trall. 2:1; 1 Clem. 59:1), but the term πνευματικῶς is not used. For further discussion, see Craig D. Allert, High View of Scripture?, pp. 60-65.

E.g., 1 Clem. 8:1; Barn. 14:2; Ign. Magn. 9:2; see similar language in Ezekiel 37:1; Matthew 22:43; Revelation 1:10.

Hengel, Four Gospels, p. 128 (cf. p. 286n514). Clement’s call for the Corinthians to “take up” Paul’s letters (ἀναλάβετε) forms a striking parallel to 1 Esdras (I Ezra) 9:45 which asks the recipients to “take up” (ἀναλαβὼν) God’s law and read it publicly to God’s people.

Gamble, Books and Readers, pp. 209-11. Of course, we know there were instances where noncanonical books were read in worship (e.g, Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11). However, this does not keep us from agreeing with Gamble that “Liturgical reading was the concrete setting from which texts acquired theological authority, and in which that authority took effect” (p. 216).

1 Apol. 67.3. Some scholars have argued that the very structure of the Gospels indicates they were intended for liturgical reading: George D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950), pp. 72-100; Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), pp. 182-83; Phillip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).

Hagner, Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, pp. 238-71. Carlyle, “Clement of Rome,” pp. 55-58 is more pessimistic, but I find Hagner’s arguments more convincing.

1 Clem. 5:4; 47:1-3.

1 Clem. 5:4; cf. 1 Clem. 5:5.

Regarding Pauline letter collections, see David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik (Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); Stanley E. Porter, “When and How Was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), pp. 95-127; Harry Y. Gamble, “The Redaction of the Pauline Letters and the Formation of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 94 (1975): 403-18; Kenneth L. Carroll, “The Expansion of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 72 (1953): 230-37; and Charles H. Buck Jr., “The Early Order of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 68 (1949): 351-57.

David Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism and the Origins of the New Testament Canon of Scripture,” in The Bible as a Human Witness: Hearing the Word of God Through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin (London: T & T Clark, 2010), p. 318.

Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism,” p. 318.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 277, suggests 2 Peter may be as late as ca. 180.

J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 237; C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM, 1960), p. 149; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1907), cxxvii; Daniel J. Harrington, Jude and 2 Peter (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003), p. 237. Some have tried to push the epistle’s date as late as the middle of the second century (e.g., McDonald, Formation, p. 277), but this position is decidedly in the minority, and there seems to be little evidence to justify it.

E.g., Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), p. 158; and Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (New York: Doubleday, 1964).

Lorenz Oberlinner, Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994), p. 254. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, p. 126; and Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), p. 79, have argued that only the first half of the citation is meant to be “Scripture.” But there is nothing in the text that suggests this limitation. In fact, other New Testament examples of double citations—Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10; Acts 1:20; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 2:22—have both citations included in the introductory formula (George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], p. 234). Thus, I. Howard Marshall declares, “Both quotations are envisaged as coming from ‘Scripture’” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999], p. 615).

Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, p. 616 (emphasis mine).

Anthony T. Hanson, Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 102.

Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, p. 126; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, p. 79.

The similar phrase in Matthew 10:10 is still different from Luke 10:7 and 1 Timothy 5:18. Echoes of this phrase also occur in 1 Corinthians 9:14 and Didache 13:2. For more, see Anthony E. Harvey, “‘The Workman Is Worthy of His Hire’: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church,” NovT 24 (1982): 209-21.

E.g., Irenaeus (Hist. eccl. 5.8.3); Origen (Hist. eccl. 6.25.6); and the Muratorian Fragment.

C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” BJRL 47 (1965): 430-52.

John P. Meier, “The Inspiration of Scripture: But What Counts as Scripture?,” Mid-Stream 38 (1999): 77.

Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, p. 13; Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 387; Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, p. 58; Meier, “Inspiration of Scripture,” p. 78. Campenhausen’s well-known claim that the Pastoral Epistles derive from the time of Polycarp (Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible, p. 181) has not been widely accepted and places the letters too late to be so readily received by Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment just a short time later; see critique of Campenhausen in Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 85; and Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 386-87.

Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism,” p. 318.

Conclusion

John Webster, “‘A Great and Meritorious Act of the Church’? The Dogmatic Location of the Canon,” in Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons, ed. John Barton and Michael Wolter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 96-97.

Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 12.

David Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism and the Origins of the New Testament Canon of Scripture,” in The Bible as a Human Witness: Hearing the Word of God Through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin (London: T & T Clark, 2010), p. 315.

Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), p. 145.

Ian Hacking, in the preface to Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), p. xxvi.

↑ Back to top