De Moor II:13: The Canon of Scripture, Part 4

II.  α.  Next, in the Canon of the New Testament our AUTHOR enumerates twenty-seven Books; the Most Illustrious JOHANNES ENS, in his Diatribe de Canone Librorum Novi Testamenti, diffusely taught that these same Books so consistently made up the Canon of the New Testament that, when certain pious men have from time to time stirred up doubt concerning one or the other of these Books, they did not so much doubt whether that Book was wont to be included in the Canon by the Church de facto, but only whether that was done de jure, and whether its divine authority was sufficiently evident.

              β.  The Fathers divide these Books of the New Testament into two major parts, calling these the Evangelical and Apostolic Canon, the Evangelical and Apostolic books, εὐαγγελίων πίστιν καὶ ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν, the deposit of the Gospels and the tradition of the Apostles.  Our AUTHOR commends to us a τριχοτομίαν/trichotomy of these Books, according to which they are found in the New Testament, thus called from their greater part, 1.  five Historical Books, names, the Gospels with Acts, 2.  twenty-one Dogmatical Books, namely, fourteen Epistles of Paul, seven Epistles of the other Apostles, which are wont to be called Catholic, concerning the sense of which differentiating designation I treated at length in my Dutch Commentary on 2 Peter 1, pages 4-6, 3.  one Prophetic Book, namely, the Apocalypse:  which division the Most Illustrious LEUSDEN, in his Philologo Hebræo-Græco, Dissertation III, thinks is to be preferred even to the other.

              Nevertheless, our AUTHOR does not ignore the fact that among these Books of the New Testament also there were formerly in the Church and even in the age of the Reformation certain ἀντιλεγομένους/disputed Books.  That is, from Origen in the third century to Athanasius in the fourth century.  Doctors, a fair number, and of eminent authority in the Church, doubted, not only of some individual pericopes, that is, of Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:43, 44; John 8:1-12 (concerning which, LEUSDEN in his Philologo Hebræo-Græco, dissertation III, § 5, page 15, dissertation V, § 10, page 35; RUMPÆUS in his Commentatione critica ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § XLI, pages 227 and following; HARENBERG[1] in Bibliotheca Bremense, classis II, fascicule II, chapter I, § 16-21, pages 248-275; and MARCKIUS, with respect to Luke 22:43, 44, in Exercitationibus textualibus, Part VI, Exercitation XXXIV, § 15, and with respect to John 8:1-12, Exercitationibus textualibus, Part V, Exercitation XXXVIII, § 1); but they, being doubtful concerning entire Books, were at a loss whether they were rightfully entered into the Canon of the New Testament:  thus indeed EUSEBIUS relates the matter, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXV, in which, after a fair number of the Books of the New Testament are reviewed, he adds:  καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις·  τῶν δὲ ἀντιλεγομένων, γνωρίμων δὲ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς, ἡ λεγομένη Ἰακώβου φέρεται, καὶ ἡ Ἰούδα, ἥτε Πέτρου δευτέρα ἐπιστολὴ, καὶ ἡ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ἰωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ τυγχάνουσαι, εἴτε καὶ ἑτέρου ὁμονύμου ἐκείνῳ·  —Ἔτι τε ὡς ἔφην ἡ Ἰωάννου Ἀποκάλυψις εἰ φανείῃ, ἥν τινες ὡς ἔφην ἀθετοῦσιν, ἕτεροι δὲ ἐγκρίνουσι τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις, And these are among the accepted writings:  Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless well-known to many, are extant the so-called epistle of James, and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they happen to belong to the Evangelist or to another person of the same name:  —and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others reckon among the accepted books, concerning which AMPHILOCHIUS, in his Jambis ad Seleucum, surveying the θεοπνεύστους/inspired Books in verses 308, 309:

Τινὲς δέ φασι τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους νόθον,

Οὐκ εὖ λέγοντες, γνησία γὰρ ἡ χάρις.

But that which is to the Hebrews is said to be spurious

By some, but incorrectly, for the grace is genuine.

But, that these things are in no way prejudicial to the Canonical authority of these Books, shall be easily demonstrated; if I in a few words point out just how slight are the reasons that have led pious Men into doubt, and have troubled them.  In general, the heresy of the Marcionites in the second century, diffused far and wide, was able to give the first occasion to these doubts; inasmuch as those heretics were rejecting all the Books just now enumerated, with TERTULLIAN testifying in his libris adversus Marcionem, and EPIPHANIUS in Hæresi XLII.  In particular:

1.  With respect to the EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, many of the Latins doubted of it, a.  because they were uncertain concerning Paul’s authorship.  But I have shown that this came to pass in a questionable manner, in § 12; neither does this then make for the subversion of the divine and Canonical authority of any Book; consult § 12.  b.  Because they were rashly supposing that in Hebrews 6 and 10 the error of the Novatians concerning the non-admittance of the Lapsed to repentance was established, etc.; see SPANHEIM, Miscellaneis Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, part I, chapter VIII, columns 207-213, opera, tome 2, relating this matter, and showing the rash doubt concerning the αὐθεντίᾳ/authenticity of this Epistle.

2.  The EPISTLE OF JAMES was suspected, a.  because οὐ πολλοὶ τῶν πάλαι αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, not many of the Ancients make mention of it, according to EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book II, chapter XXIII, toward the end; it is evident of itself just how inane this is, especially since this Epistle was being read in many Churches with the rest, as the same EUSEBIUS testifies in the same place.  b.  In the age of the Reformation, LUTHER did not at first acknowledge the Canonical authority of this Epistle, who was followed by Illyricus,[2] Osiander,[3] the Centuriators of Magdeburg,[4] and other Lutherans; because the Epistle of James appeared to them to stray not a little from the analogy of Apostolic doctrine, while he ascribes justification, not to faith alone, but to works:  see LAURENTIUS[5] on the Epistolam Jacobi, on the title, pages 1, 2; ECKHARDUS[6] in his Fasciculo Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter I, question 4, pages 19-21; we shall see how rashly these things are presumed in Chapter XXIV, § 15.  It is regarded as correct, what the Most Illustrious WOLF writes in his Curis philologicis et criticis, when in the Prolegomenis ad hanc Epistolam he treats of its divine and Canonical authority:  “The Blessed Luther’s sinister judgment concerning that is not able to be brought as a reproach against our Church, since ὁ μακαρίτης, the blessed one, himself modified it, neither is there anyone among us today that calls its trustworthiness into doubt:”  see also BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, pages 1485b, 1486.

3.  Concerning the Canonical authority of the SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER some have doubted, because, a.  They were uncertain whether it was to be ascribed to Peter:  which, a.  would not then take away its divine authority, b.  rests upon a slight foundation, taken from differences of style; c.  by reasons of greater moment, sought from the argument of the Epistle, it is demonstrated that it certainly belongs to Peter.  b.  They rashly thought that in 2 Peter 3:13 a third new earth was promised after the dissolution of all things:  see Commentarium meum in 2 Peter 1, pages 20-22.

4.  There was doubt concerning the SECOND and THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN, because the Author calls himself the Πρεσβύτερος/Elder; but just how vain that is was already observed on § 12.

5.  There was dispute concerning the EPISTLE OF JUDE, a.  because a great many of the Ancients are as silent concerning it as concerning the Epistle of James according to EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book II, chapter XXIII, which proves nothing.  b.  Because from the Book of Enoch, which is Apocryphal, and perhaps from another Apocryphal Book, testimony is thought to be received in it, in the case of the Prophecy of Enoch recited and the dispute of Michael the Archangel with the Devil concerning the Body of Moses commemorated:  which proves nothing, neither is it able to be proven:  consult § 3 of this Chapter.  c.  Because the author of this Epistle speaks of the Apostles as one of their disciples, and as one following their times:  d.  Because it contains almost nothing that was not borrowed from the latter Epistle of Peter; see ECKHARDUS’ Fasciculum Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter I, question 4, pages 19-21:  the former of which LUTHER rashly takes to himself out of verse 17, on which see the marginal notes of the Dutch Bible and SPANHEIM’S Miscellanea Sacrorum Antiquorum, book II, part III, chapter V, column 262; neither is the later easily able to be proven:  while others in CALOVIUS’ Bibliis Illustratis on this Epistle, page 1689, maintain that the Apostle Peter brought over many things from the Epistle of Jude; which nevertheless is repugnant to the common opinion, which relates that the Epistle of Jude was written after 2 Peter, even by a comparison of the future tense in 2 Peter 2:1 with the past tense in Jude 4.  But it would suffice to have responded with GOMARUS, opera, part II, page 485, “Finally, they object that no writings of the Apostles were transcribed from another source, for they were immediately from the Holy Spirit.  But this Epistle was transcribed from another source, namely, from 2 Peter 2.  Therefore, it is not the writing of an Apostle.  But the minor premise is denied, while we say nothing of the major.  For, although this Epistle agrees in many things with 2 Peter 2, nevertheless it has some things diverse.  The same Spirit is the author of the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, and He dictated the same doctrine to both:  and His latter words, set forth by Jude, He illustrated by the testimony of His words, formerly written by the ministry of Peter.  In which matter, nothing is absurd:  just as Paul wrote nearly the same things in Ephesians 4 and in Colossians 3 by the government of the same Spirit.  Similarly a good part of the Prophecy of Obadiah is found in the other Prophets by the inspiration of the same Spirit:”  for more things in favor of the divine and canonical authority of this Epistle see GOMARUS, opera, part II, before his Exposition of the Epistle of Jude, pages 485, 486; CALOVIUS, Bibliis Illustratis on Jude 1, pages 1689, 1690; JOHANN CHRISTOPH WOLF, Prolegomenis in Epistola Judæ.

6.  Finally, there were doubts concerning the APOCALYPSE OF JOHN, a.  because they supposed that John was not its author, which we saw was done without good reason in § 12.  b.  Because this Book seems obscure, supported by no grounds, having nothing of the Apostolic gravity.  But in part these things are the chatterings arising from men unlearned and rash, who were not yet thoroughly instructed concerning the certainty of the Apocalyptic prophecies:  in part the obscurity is to be imputed to the prophetic argument.  c.  Some believed that the heretic Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypse, because they thought that Revelation 20:1-10 favors his doctrine concerning the earthly reign of Christ.  But, a.  they were led away into error by a παρερμηνείᾳ/misinterpretation of the passage cited:  b.  if the Apocalypse was by Cerinthus, other errors of Cerinthus would also be found in the Apocalypse:  but as it is, c.  valid arguments against the heresy of Cerinthus are able to be drawn from this book.  For the Canonical authority of the Apocalypse, consult GOMARUS on capita priora Apocalypseos, opera, part II, pages 489-491; SPANHEIM’S Xenia Romano-catholicoram, Dilemma XII, opera, tome 3, columns 1138, 1139; WOLF’S Prolegomena in Apocalypsi in Curis Philologicis et criticis, pages 371-373; TWELLS’ Vindicias Apocalypsos apud Wolfium, pages 387-429; but also JOHANN CHRISTOPH HARENBERG’S Stricturas in probra, quæ adversus Johannis Apocalypsin leguntur in libro, Dictionaire philosophique portative par Monsieur de Voltaire, Bibliotheca Bremensis nova, classis VI, fascicule II, chapter III, pages 42-98.

Concerning the rest of the ἀντιλεγομένοις/disputed Books of the New Testament, consult JOHANNES ENS in his Diatribe de Librorum Novi Testamenti Canone, chapter XII, page 371 and following, especially Distinction III, pages 384-413.

[1] Johann Christoph Harenberg (1696-1774) was an evangelical German Lutheran theologian and historian.  He served as Professor of History and Antiquities at Brunswick (1745-1774).

[2] Matthæus Flaccius Illyricus (1520-1575) was a Lutheran divine.  He served as Professor of Hebrew at Wittenburg (1544), then as Professor of New Testament at Jena (1557).  He made great contributions in the fields of church history and hermeneutics.  He wrote Clavem Scripturæ Sacræ seu de Sermone Sacrarum Literarum and Glossam Compendiariam in Novum Testamentum.

[3] Lucas Osiander (1534-1604) was a Lutheran theologian.  He produced an edition of the Vulgate with supplemental annotations and corrections, inserting Luther’s translation in the places in which the Vulgate departs from the Hebrew.  He was also an accomplished composer of music.

[4] The Magdeburg Centuries is an ecclesiastical history covering the first one thousand and three hundred years of the Church, which was compiled by certain Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg, known as the Centuriators of Magdeburg, led by Matthias Flacius Illyricus.  It is a pioneering work in ecclesiastical history, which aims to show the substantial uniformity of the faith of God’s people throughout the centuries, while tracing the parallel development of Antichristian Romanism.

[5] Jacob Laurentius (1585-1644) was a Dutch Reformed minister.  He wrote Epistolam Jacobi, Perpetuo Commentario Explicatam.

[6] Heinrich Eckhard (1580-1624) was a German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.