ca CHAPTER) 9 PART Ill THE NEW TESTAMENT. . 10 THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ‘dence has been discussed at length ITSELF later consider the inner testimor ly enough, that internal evi It is no mark of a spiritual Cl ity to deprecate the Old . Christ and the apostles never di these last days he has spoken to us by Fer lerrateti had a wonderful place in God's economy of redemption, and ee Old Testaient canon as" held in ‘ ‘was chief among them. But Moses was a servant in God's house, ; ist is a "son over God's house (Heb. 3:6)." “The law was grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John the New Testament is fuller than the Old Testament declaration of the explanation of the things of our redemption. the New Testament message transcends the State-Church of Israel, tions of canonicity, therefore, are of even Testament field than in the Old. What book Word of God? There are some other ‘sufficient. What God spoke'and had committed to writing w: ‘What He did not immediately speak or have committed cing as tot to be received as authoritative.’ "For prophecy never fad its origin in the will of man, but men spoke fr carrie DE ae God as they were carried along by which were regarded as ii in Part I the subject, But although several hands produced it, one 5 ‘were not received as sacred by the decree of a church and thus, by194 CHAPTER 10 THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 195 Galatians) could be called early; any books of a peaceful, re late. On such grounds he dated the Gospel of rguments were later given up but in any case held on the bases of such reconstructions that the synoptic written around A.D. 80, mainly because in the Olivet discourse they refer to 2 shows that he compared his teaching to that and John with whom he was in agreement. expressed at any time after Jesus’ death and resu So the first century of our era is not a of the first century church must. reckon with the Gentiles, preached the same message ional. Before we turn to the Christian authors, bbe worth while to note the claims and data of Some years ago F.F, Bruce wrote—it was his The New Testament Documents: Are they inspired by God, but even if they are not so records and have much to say about the the course of the history of ‘was a companion of ney to Macedonia up again later at of great salvation (1 Tim. 1:13); his persecutions, dangers, shipwrecksCHAPTER 10 THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 197 Roman justice and protection from the Jews at Jerusalem. ‘The great tions by Rome came from Nero and later. The Book of Acts fits this 5 thought denies that Acts could have been written risonment because, they argue, Acts follows the 1 of Luke and Luke, like the other synoptics, mentions the fall of lem and therefore cannot be dated before A.D. 70. We shall speak of ‘hot supernaturally predict ostdate that event, But if you thus believe in a purely human in Acts, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testawment is ible—and we might even say, irrelevant! Unfortunately, as ought has permeated our pulpits, more and more people have luded that belief in a merely human Christ is indeed irrelevant and have ‘when Paul was there, indeed it a Roman imprisonment. Indeed, the argument should be turned around. Since the date of in the early is so natural a view, we should bi the extent of the eschatological expectation of the early church? Here again, we have a theoretical reconstruction of what critics think the early church fed and, the data are made t was part of the miraculous prediction of the One who 1 who raised the dead and who promised shipwreck journey to Rome. Di risoned in Caesarea, Luke was per 1 throughout Palestine gathering inistry. Paul could no longer tered and surely there were requests that he give them an account of the life and work of Christ which he had preached. Whether the idea came in Thessalonica and 2 Thess. 2 AS to the date of Acts, the logical conclusion is at about the ti it was written mned, i.e. the two year confinement for Luke who was by nature a vestigation. What a chance fo Ss Nor does Luke say anything about the cataclysmic event of the m of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans. In Acts, Paul appeals “May well have found some people who had been healed by Jesus or some among the 500 who had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul, who had198 CHAPTER 10 ‘THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 199 been in Jerusalem while he was a persecuter could surely have given him plenty of leads! deacons (Acts 6:2). The only other use of the jhere the foundations of the city bear the the Lamb,” of Luke? He uses the title “Twelve” 7 ‘when Luke tells ome hints in the work of Luke-Acts that the material is Gospel did not refuse the rady he shows a significant use of the typical later had spoken to "Then Peter for research which Luke had while remembered the word the accounts of others (Luke Book of Acts and the sviously, which is quite possible. reject such an early date for the Gospels. forthe development of the doctrine, ‘There a n0 ling reason why the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (as well as Q if ‘was one) could not have been written any time between A.. 35 and We shall consider John later. ‘apostle,” "apos epistles 36 times and in the other Epistles and Revelation 9 times. hi 19th century, by what is called the two document theory. Basically it js that Mark and Q were written first, then Matthew drew on both of Bese plus some material of his own and Luke likewise drew on both with and then when he refers to Ct resurrection appear: Cor. 15:5). Acts uses the title "Twelve" only once when it refers to theay HAR TERAO! ‘THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 201 peculiar to him. The view has always had some dishelievers f have been more who see it as artificial and unnecessary. phenomena could be explained as well by holding. that uke drew upon Matthew. There are rk and not Matthew, but there Iways a real question which book thew or Matthew from Mark? to Greek, but Mark was written in Greek and occasionally for emphasis present purpose. There are, ho bear on the questions ‘especially for Jews some interesting touches in the Gospels which Matthew is admitted by most to be a gospel th the genealogy emphasizing David the extensive in its quotations from the the Christ. ‘aimed at Phatisaic pp.35-44 above) and includes a long and bitter attack on the reli aders of Jerusalem Tf Matthew is for the Jews and against the Jewish opponents of ‘would naturally be supposed to be a product of the earliest ity was still predominately Jewish. And that is just ‘witnesses say. We shall in the next chap rapias and others who say that Matthew was writ to Hebrew spoken commonly then in Ps his own translation of the Hebrew (or the Targum). ‘The phenomenon has been int of as due to some source document or a uthor's usage versus the usage of Jesus whom he tes, but all of these ideas do not fit the data as well as the observation of jous that whereas Mark twice quotes Aramaic ‘does not. The evidence is not compe! is 14-15 there is @ nine-tine the Septuagint, not from i. The identical quotation is found word for word word in Acts 28:26-27. The is pretty clear, Matthew, again we emphasize in its form dependence on the Book of Aets. nem ‘These details are indeed not conclusive, but they suggest that ‘was written in Aramaic for the early church which was at first explain why those who stood by ‘A reasonable explanation could be that ere they were helpful, “This scenario seems to be somew li nat complicate, dt it should be remembered thatthe data of the Synoptic interrelations areavapaeath THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 205 al 204 I evidence for Luke and its hhe as an apostle had a to forego for the sake Old Testament the case rather extensively from the Ol Fhe oxen who work (Deut. 25:4). In 1 Timothy 5 be ject and again quotes Deuteronomy, but instead of Dugh John the Baptist (whom some even think of as a Qumranite!), but fests that it was through some men of Qumran who fled before the and Christian community where "The Gospel of John took pe over more than a decade.” Most of this is supposition. Allowing that are mi expressions similar in the two very similar to a later quotatio in which Polycarp quotes fi A.T.Robinson who does not speak from odoxy, but nevertheless argu that there is anything gue which demands a date l Robinson draws than the 60's of the first century. "14 to one feature not usually mentioned, the hodox authors agree that t 1 Timothy was Gospel was wi sere 0 ind therefore w: w as known to the high priest a to So close till the end (John 18:15). The statement is made that this disciple ‘wrote the Gospel (John 21:20 and 24). He argues that the iven show that the predicti Jesus is being interpreted and 0 Peter's martyrdom. But, he says, the reference to Christ should return does not need ated years later. in the 1800's argued that logical hope may have hn would last until Christ a development of the high Christolo fe forgotten. But some conservative tly after the death of Pet What Robinson involves a date before the execution of Peter book! What was it that even possibly he did n pul Peter's martyrdom that might start _unwelc could interfere with Peter's extensive ministry206 CHAPTER 10 IE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO ITSELF 207 In any case it remains as a remarkable point that John published a Gospel and then later, about A.D. 65 added to it a chapter referring to Peter's death. There could hardly be a better piece of internal evidence that the Gospel as a whole was written before ‘AS to other New Testament books the next chapters when we consider early extern insistence that Peter must be late and by someone else it than Peter. is that | by about 64 when Peter was martyred in Rome the Pauline ‘Were neither collected nor regarded as Scripture. Second Peter, , written by someone else in the name of Peter. Two in the ancient world ‘not unusual for 7 be done and accepted and actually, such Ii accepted in the Gnostic community of Nag Hammadi, "The ee ‘that Baa was not by Peter and onl rine authorship insisted upon. We may only say here that ‘was not by Peter. the marks of Peter's authorship were inserted ingenuity. It could hardly be thought of as a mere attribution by title And 2 fo the ac f customs, the Muratorian Canon, of which we ally ‘rejects a certain pseudonymous writi BO iD There is no inherent reason why 2 Peter teat apostle. Further external evid it wi rr coe lence in its favor will be | ‘coming of the righteous. We acceptance of t the book has many marks of Petrine authorship. name of Peter a se his second letter (3: "as our Lord Jesus to refer to the prophecy of Jesus repo (which we have claimed was written by John after Peter's death) which Peter had long been aware of. In 1:16-18 Peter declares he had not followed fables or invented |. but had spoken as an eyewitness of Christ's ly refers to his experience on the Mount of, ss the voice he and the others had heard from ath soon to take place at the New Testament. much discussed because of Most believe that they are and classifies them as Scripture. Here perhaps is the main reason for theHISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T. BOOKS 209 CHAPTER Il HISTORY OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T. BOOKS consider the history of the acceptance of the New Testament books and n in Chapter 12 examine further why they were so accepted and what ‘means for our acceptance of our New Testament. As in our treatment the Old Testament, we shall give both the evidential argument and the ological and hope thereby to come to a more complete analysis of how ‘why and when the New Testament was formed. ‘Westcott chooses, as the first stage in his study, the years from A.D. t0 approximately a century after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and ne seventy years after the death of John. This is the age of greatest ‘The history of the acceptance of the New Testament Books has been ‘given many times. A major treatment was offered by the learned Westcott. ‘which may still be called a standard.!_ An outline of hi positions will suffice at this point. A more popular and recent treatment is found in F.F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture. ere Bruce in a bi outlines the history of the early recognition and of the New i process of canonization which was not complete ‘word in the fourth century. More satisfactory two centuries it is probably more productive to emphasize the early sources rather than the numerous studies, especially when many of these studies (not those of Dunbar or Bruce) are written with a negative bias assuming naturalistic development or authoritarian ecclesiology. ‘Therefore we shall go over this ground, the witness of the early church fathers to the use and acceptance of the New Testament books, one wi a book is not gto the general practice, into the age of the Apostolic fathers, A.D. ), and the age of the Greek Apologists, A.D. 120-170. Again, the noved from the apostles. But the later age also is of great importance, for olycarp was doubtless not the only Christian who lived to a ripe old age. i. We have shown in Part Il that Chri (0 the Old Testament canon which the cu wg recognized. The New Testament canon grew s ‘the Word of God were written and collected. These fe accepted by later writers, because they were recognized as i ipture because they were heard the Apostle John, F mny of the first period is given by the three great bishops and martyrs, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Clement, the bishop of the Phoenix as an argu | fine exh contains argument from silence. For instance, it four Gospels were used by Justin Martyr as Scripture. It is not clear that they or some of them were not so regarded previously. We shall thereforeae CHAPTER HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T. BOOKS 211 inthians is especially instructive, for it is the first post- Fe eiee LCoaslas cree SO eee ae stle of the blessed Paul the apostle . . . in "Lightfoot translates, "Of a truth he Ke the Word of God, an apostle. Clement gives high honor to the tles Peter and Paul in chapter 4. ‘Then in chapter 42 he declares that he apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ: as Christ has done so from God. therefore was sent forth by and the apostles by Chri issured by the resurrection our Lord Jesus Christ and ‘5) they went forth preaching."® The impression given is that accepted the apostles as speaking the word of God by the Spirit. idea is strengthened by section 43 that follows. Clement speaks of Oses and the sedition of Korah and his company and declares that Moses &new beforchand” that the rod of Aaron would bud and the sedition would ended. Then in Chapter 44 Clement says "Our apostles also. knew, ugh our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife on account of the ce of the episcopate. For this reason, inasmuch as they had ined a perfect foreknowledge of this they appointed those nisters).."10 We notice not only that the apostles are held by Clement to Ow the future, but that their office is parallel to that of Moses and the ne verb "foreknow" used of eknowledge) to the apostles. did not call Paul's letter to the assion above that he treated it as such), but the apostles is that they were organs of revel lel to the Old Testament. Here is the reco; ightfoot remarks, "The whole passage is borrowed from the ‘of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which expressions, arguments, are taken."¢ si isnt cose using the Old Testament throug! eyes of the New Testament is found in chapter 34 where he first Scrip sys" and quotes from Ls 6:3, Then be pos on 8 say: “For i Says "Eye lias ot ee ore bara Sa, ob eared ie ie rat man what things he has prepared for those who wait for him.'* This th regard to chapter 13 of Clement (Luke ightfoot sa of the New reading Clement Corinthians, quoted above. Lightfoot defends the view that the quotation is from Paul the idea advanced by some that it is also found in apocryphal writings. Lightfoot argues that those themselves are subsequent 19 Clement. Seiad de NP of mn. What God said to David in the in chapter 18 of Clement, Blement's references, including reference to the star that appeared at Jesus’220 CHAPTER 11 HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T, BOOKS 221 books, it should be pointed out that there is no negative evidence i respect but only a silence which may well be accidental. This especially true in the case of the slight evidence for Revelati ap is explanation of how Matthew wrote ‘Aramaic and Mark was “Peter's interpreter." He probably knew John's I, and certainly 1 John, and Revelation, His views on for this is puzzling. The idence as to whether Jewish background, or to personal choice, or to the fact that s0 ‘work remains, probably the is line corpus was not becausi tements have practically no context. But we do ber that Irenaeus who knew the work of Papias knew t. So we may say is most famous naeus' use of Papias is the m : fatements of the way Matthew and Mark were views. That our snippets of Papias which less significant now that we have a fragment Copy of the Gospel of John from Egypt from the days when Papias was (from about 4.0. 125). ‘The survey of the period may continu ic, Mi Westcott notes that we are With respect to the next period, 120-170 A.D., this discussion can222 CHAPTER. 11 cura cited three orthodox citations of New ena eae Basilides and must point out that Agnatius, Polycarp and the New Testament itself, as well as from Basilides, Papias's book on the four Gospels must have been a kind of commentary Bar before Heracleon. Westcott, however, is quite right, that the New ‘Testament writings were already the acknowledged standards for orthodox Certainly was a received canon in the new movement. That we do not have an early ‘ot significant. We have early usage. And the ly usage matcl later, fuller expressions. Bruce agrees that the idea th ‘canon was formed as a reaction to Marcion was ‘probably wrong.” and quotes Zahn’s judgment, "Marcion formed his Bible jin declared opposition to the holy scriptures of the church from which he 4 set of books enshrining the gospel. However, we have quoted E.Earle Ellis to the effect that the picture of the Qumran munity shows the opposite. This group was much interested in logy, yet their writings were numerous and their zeal for the Old m as has been shown in our discussion of the Old 140-46). In consideration of the heretics of this i fon to Marcion turned ccould be called canonical and that the church in reaction to its attention to the question of authority and shortly forged a canon, the first ificant for our study.” This work had long been know S in Irenaeus who discusses it and caricatures the204 CHAPTER 11 HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N. T, BOOKS 225 have four Gospels from the apostles. If this is the Gospel of Truth, then our spels. An orthodox reaction is given by Dunbar.” He allows that some the sayings of Jesus here preserved may be authentic, but argues that this not affect the validity New Testament canon, ‘That at least some i is Gnostic in tendency—though not as extreme in expressions as some e Nag treats these documents proves that they suggests that van Unnik "exaggerates. somewhat, ene examples van Unnik gives are pretty convir ie pe eatin is the word of an ancient author, Tertullian, who says that —“Althoug! mouth. This too is a subjective gment. Probably the picture will become more clear after a larger mber of scholars have studied Thomas to determine the meaning of some the arcane expressions which seem quit ot theirs. say, ‘Let us have back our 10 let them have back drt joi tip anette Gastar of ftps. ier atirasthrethgr by Stevan Davies.”* He feels that the saying has an adequate context. In Thomas guard against the world is a constant matter, iew in Matthew. As an example of a non-New | it was compiled in the the Synopties and6 CHAPTER 11 HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T. BOOKS 227 mas are in no structure and in a strange context, probably the mysteries ism. It should be added that Saying 69 adds "Blessed are the poverty,” and No. 30: Jesus sods. Where there are two or 01 "Where there are three gods, they am with them." The first of these s stic depreciation of the body as almost seems to betray some connect late third and fourth centuries, ssions of the time, 50 we can not be sure. Which brings us to say, that ‘composition of this nature, even if it was begun at an early time, there ings seem clearly to refore argue that the Gospel of Thomas composed not long a philosopher and evangelist. ing from his many travels and labors. The refers are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, nthians, Colossians, 2 Thess the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven the phrase Kingdom of Heaven is pecu uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven” "Kingdom of the Father.” Usually he uses the generally agreed that the phrase "Kingdom of was used by Matthew as a concession to the "Kingdom of that Matthew's, than the mixed ably dependent, sayings of the Gospel of228 CHAPEERENL HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N.T. BOOKS 229 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."* Here surely he is a witness to the equation of the New Testament Gospels with the Old Testament ‘canon in authority and ecclesiastical use. That is to say he considers the Gospels as canonical. Testament and the Old Testament on a par here, as in the preceding js the ext witness, the Muratorian Canon. is fragment from the seventh or eighth centu the Ambrosian Library of Milan. The portion of the fGen claims to have been written by a n -142 or 142-157), and the d: is See ie late of the Canon is ‘written in the memoirs of him (i.e. Peter) that this so happened as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee to cs."88 The name Boanerges occurs only in Mark. We shall argue in ot be received into the Catholic Church “for mixed with honey.” He adds that Jude, an ame of John may be read tive. Another quotation is on the voice of God death is spoken by the apostles and prophets. Now, the only witness of the apostles which Justin used was the canonical Scriptures, and the only voice of the prophets which he knew was the Old Testament. He clearly puts the ion from early days. Hebrews, James, and I John can best be explained by ° ; 9 assumi ‘chasm in the manuscript and he argues from some irregularities in theESS 'S I'S i caeoienti HISTORY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE N. T. BOOKS 231 phetic, it is presented as by John who is named twice and thus John's length of pages. Perhaps simpler is the explanation that some, at least, of orship is stated more clear these three expected books and possibly 2 Peter were mentioned toward the ‘end, In such a situation we cannot say that the Murarorian Canon lacked this or that book. The manuscript is incomplete at the end as it clearly is in the beginning. Bruce prints it with the ending incomplete.” In any case, these three Epistles are well enough attested from other sources. We can hardly argue against these books by the silence of an incomplete manuscript! We then have a history of the New Testament books as an authoritative collection almost exactly like our New Testament ftom someone who wrote less than seventy years after the death of the last apostle and who may well have talked with Polycarp or others who knew the apostles. The allegory called The Shepherd of Hermas, mentioned in the Canon is an extensive work purporting a series of revelations from ‘an angel, his “shepherd,” encouraging hit life of high morality and faith. The Murarorian Canon rightly says moreover, did Hermas write, very recent bishop Pius sat in the chair of the church of Rome. And therefore it ought also to be read, but cannot be made public in the church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the (Bruce translates "at the end of the times”—the seen before, the prophets and the i . ape irther discus es of reception of these books must wait for another chapter. pene ‘There are other minor witnesses of this t "The Pastor (or Shepherd) our times while his brother Peter, Jude, and Revel "dates both The Canon of Muratori and The OF ‘his Westcott approximate terms, the Canon is therefore usually dated about ‘A.D. 170 and the Shepherd shortly before. Bruce remarks that though the work, Hermas, was prophetic, it was too recent to be placed beside the “prophetic” work of the Apocalypse. It is true that the Apocalypse at the ‘end refers to the "prophecy of this book” as unamendable (Rev. 22:18-19), in version was clearly in use in the second centu ecause, among other Tertullian bears wi Aftca was ths Rome the church used Greek until which nothing can be added to the end of time. As to Revelation being232 CHAPTER II way because of the question of authors known, is the most poorly attested of the New Testament. The omission of James is less easy to expl is possible that it actually was in the Old Latin, but that our evidence is faulty and incomplete. Combining the two versions of the extreme East and extreme West sarily circular reasoning. The major portions of the at the early date of 170, we have just what we should expect from abundant bbe accepted, for the sake of the argument, as hi other evidence—the present canon of the New Testament with no additions and the omission only of 2 Peter. A few remarks on the evidence so far are in order. It is quite striking that the formation of the canon of the New Testament did not 102 Second Peter, as is well ‘one that gained any noticeable degree of recognition only to lose it. Certain books like the Gospels and the bulk of the Epistles of Paul gained, we may say, liate recognition. Other books were accepted in certain areas and of the adequacy of our full belief in Christ. On this 's word in further areas—his commands, his promises to the words of the Old Testament prophets and his apostles. These apostles themselves claim the authority and power Christ promised them The course of this argument will be further 15, CONCLUSION. As to the canonicity of the New Testament, there is no reason for tin the minds of Christians that the four Gospels belong in the canon, the Epistles of Paul. There was some debate in the early centuries ing the later portions of the volume—some of the general Epistles. most of the books were never doubted. It would be fine if we could at go on and give extra-Biblical historical evidence for the writing and of every book in the New Testament. Such evidence as we have ‘been very capably marshalled by they were universally accepted. The last one to as 2 Peter. What was that test? We have not investigated this question specifically as the evidence from the early fathers has passed in review, but this must be done after considering the Biblical teaching involved. pass the test—or was small at first, despised and bitterly persecuted. It is remarkable we have as much evidence as we di