Bible Canon: What Is the Early Church Evidence?

[Michie]

Christians have historically argued about the contents of the Bible. (For details, see “Bible Canon: What is the Problem?”). One way to try to resolve matters is to look at evidence from the Early Church, especially the “Canon lists” which record the contents of ancient Bibles.

In what follows we will look at 28 pieces of evidence from the second to the fourth centuries. As far as possible we will look at which Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are listed in each source. The sources are mainly cited from Bible-researcher.com, as that site gives texts in English and in the original language.

1. Second and Third Centuries​

Evidence of Biblical canon lists start emerging in the second century.

Evidence 1: The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170). This does not include an Old Testament. Its New Testament included 23/27 books, omitting Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter. It mentions the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, but places it amidst New Testament books. (See Fragment.)

Evidence 2: Melito of Sardis (c. 170) cited the Old Testament as just the Protocanonicals, but with the exception of the book of Esther. There are no details about the New Testament. (See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.)

Evidence 3: Origen (d. 253) is reported by Eusebius (d. 339) as having an Old Testament which consisted of the Protocanonicals (omitting the 12 books of Minor Prophets) and including 3 of the Deuterocanonicals: Baruch Chap. 6 (the Letter of Jeremiah) and the two books of Maccabees. Origen’s New Testament included 22/27 books, omitting Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and James, which were all listed as “disputed.” (See Ecclesiastical History6.25.)

However, Eusebius’ summary may not be entirely accurate. For example, Origen elsewhere quoted Deuterocanonical Tobit as if it were Scripture (Against Celsus, Bk 5, Chap 19).

2. Sources from 300–360​

Continued below.

Bible Canon: What Is the Early Church Evidence? – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

 

[BBAS 64]

Christians have historically argued about the contents of the Bible. (For details, see “Bible Canon: What is the Problem?”). One way to try to resolve matters is to look at evidence from the Early Church, especially the “Canon lists” which record the contents of ancient Bibles.

In what follows we will look at 28 pieces of evidence from the second to the fourth centuries. As far as possible we will look at which Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are listed in each source. The sources are mainly cited from Bible-researcher.com, as that site gives texts in English and in the original language.

1. Second and Third Centuries​

Evidence of Biblical canon lists start emerging in the second century.

Evidence 1: The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170). This does not include an Old Testament. Its New Testament included 23/27 books, omitting Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter. It mentions the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, but places it amidst New Testament books. (See Fragment.)

Evidence 2: Melito of Sardis (c. 170) cited the Old Testament as just the Protocanonicals, but with the exception of the book of Esther. There are no details about the New Testament. (See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.)

Evidence 3: Origen (d. 253) is reported by Eusebius (d. 339) as having an Old Testament which consisted of the Protocanonicals (omitting the 12 books of Minor Prophets) and including 3 of the Deuterocanonicals: Baruch Chap. 6 (the Letter of Jeremiah) and the two books of Maccabees. Origen’s New Testament included 22/27 books, omitting Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and James, which were all listed as “disputed.” (See Ecclesiastical History6.25.)

However, Eusebius’ summary may not be entirely accurate. For example, Origen elsewhere quoted Deuterocanonical Tobit as if it were Scripture (Against Celsus, Bk 5, Chap 19).

2. Sources from 300–360​

Continued below.

Bible Canon: What Is the Early Church Evidence? – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

Good day,

You may find this helpful...

Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Comprehensive and detailed information on the history of the canon, texts, and versions of the Bible

www.bible-researcher.com

In Him,

Bill

 

[Michie]

Christians have historically argued about the contents of the Bible. (For details, see “Bible Canon: What is the Problem?”). One way to try to resolve matters is to look at evidence from the Early Church, especially the “Canon lists” which record the contents of ancient Bibles.

In what follows we will look at 28 pieces of evidence from the second to the fourth centuries. As far as possible we will look at which Protocanonical, Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are listed in each source. The sources are mainly cited from Bible-researcher.com, as that site gives texts in English and in the original language.

1. Second and Third Centuries​

Evidence of Biblical canon lists start emerging in the second century.

Evidence 1: The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170). This does not include an Old Testament. Its New Testament included 23/27 books, omitting Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter. It mentions the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, but places it amidst New Testament books. (See Fragment.)

Evidence 2: Melito of Sardis (c. 170) cited the Old Testament as just the Protocanonicals, but with the exception of the book of Esther. There are no details about the New Testament. (See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.)

Evidence 3: Origen (d. 253) is reported by Eusebius (d. 339) as having an Old Testament which consisted of the Protocanonicals (omitting the 12 books of Minor Prophets) and including 3 of the Deuterocanonicals: Baruch Chap. 6 (the Letter of Jeremiah) and the two books of Maccabees. Origen’s New Testament included 22/27 books, omitting Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and James, which were all listed as “disputed.” (See Ecclesiastical History6.25.)

However, Eusebius’ summary may not be entirely accurate. For example, Origen elsewhere quoted Deuterocanonical Tobit as if it were Scripture (Against Celsus, Bk 5, Chap 19).

2. Sources from 300–360​

Continued below.

Bible Canon: What Is the Early Church Evidence? – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

What Does It All Mean?​

Generations of Catholic and Protestant polemicists have appealed to the evidence above to prove particular versions of the Bible. Protestants have argued for a Bible which consists of the Protocanonicals (alone) + the New Testament. Catholics have argued for a Bible which consists of the Protocanonicals + Deuterocanonicals + New Testament.

Catholic polemicists used to note that Jeremiah and Lamentations are often joined together. (See Codex Amiatinus.) And Baruch was often included under the name of Jeremiah. (For example, St. Irenaeus quotes Baruch as Jeremiah, Against Heresies, Bk 5, Chap.35, as does St. Augustine, City of God, Bk 18, Chap. 33). If citations of Jeremiah can be interpreted as including Lamentations and Baruch, then a Catholic Bible emerges in evidence 14 (Pope Damasus), 17 (Synods of Hippo and Carthage), 18 (St. Augustine), 21 (Pope Innocent I), and possibly 26 (Codex Alexandrinus).

However, this argument is potentially undermined by evidence 28 (Codex Amiatinus), which shows that Vulgate Bibles containing Jeremiah did not always contain Baruch. This can be seen clearly in Codex Toletanus (also known as Biblia Hispalense) c. 950, where there is a note at the bottom of the Table of Contents saying that the Church has declared Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans to be non-canonical, and so it is removed (ab ecclesia in canone nonrelatam); and that the book of Baruch should now be added (literally “desired”). (See Contents, p. 2.)

Protestant polemicists used to argue that if Lamentations can be assumed within Jeremiah, then evidence 20 (Rufinus) and 22 (Bryennios List) describe a Protestant Bible. Evidence 16 (Jerome) may also describe a Protestant Bible, but the breadth of Jerome’s views make it difficult to draw a firm conclusion.

Ultimately, neither the Catholic nor Protestant polemicists did justice to the full breadth of the evidence. Both tended to fall into the fallacy of selectivity (i.e., Cherry Picking); as they each tried to justify their differing conclusions by appealing to a narrow cross section of the total evidence.

Perhaps a more appropriate response to the totality of the evidence would be to recognize the diversity which it represents? Rather than trying to find in the evidence a developed doctrine of a Biblical canon, perhaps it would be more honest to recognize that the evidence shows a developing of doctrine taking place?

If this is so, then it means that it is a potential misuse of the evidence to try and extract a doctrine of Biblical canon from pieces of Early Church evidence. The ancient evidence may well be an important ingredient in an eventual answer, but history alone cannot resolve the problem of Biblical Canon.

Bible Canon: What Is the Early Church Evidence? – Catholic Stand

catholicstand.com

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I wonder if there is any mention of Enoch or Jasher in these studies.