Apostolic Bias, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the Catholic Canon
The problem of apostolic bias is more directly felt by a modern church that derives its methodologies and standards of belief from the inerrant nature of stable, unshakeable written tradition.[1] Dobschütz is convinced that “from the beginning there had been degrees of authority. The Lord was more than the apostle; a letter of Paul was appreciated more than an anonymous epistle.”[2] It is this gradation of authority that leads some to deny the inspiration[3] of documents that did not share clear proximity to apostolic authority, but they did so on the basis of defending the integrity of a written, and consequently fixed, document. Indeed, some even went to great lengths to wed the works of Luke and Mark to apostolic writers like Peter and Paul even though these Gospels claimed eyewitness authority and were widely accepted by tradition. While few of the apostolic and Ante-Nicene fathers rejected large portions of the canon,[4] some excluded certain documents. These exclusions were presumably based on a hierarchy.[5]
The primacy of the Gospels and the Pauline epistles is widely recognized by the Ante-Nicene fathers. There is no proof, to speak of, that calls the inclusion of the Gospels[6] or the Pauline epistles into question.[7] This, of course, is representative of the hierarchy held by the early church, and comes as no surprise. What may be surprising to most is the scant objection by the orthodox leaders to most of the New Testament documents. Critical scholarship has grossly overestimated the case against these documents.
“Critical scholarship has grossly overestimated the case against these documents.”
The remaining material to be covered also follows the hierarchy noticed by scholars. The Catholic Epistles were disputed by only two noticeable writers, though. Cyprian lavishes praise on the Gospels and Pauline epistles but does not mention the Catholic Epistles.[8] Interestingly, Origen calls 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude disputed books, and will not endorse them as Scriptural.[9] Origen, largely a speculative theologian and given to Gnosticism, appears as a surprising opponent to the Catholic Epistles because he so freely utilizes documents that are universally denied by the rest of the church. Also not included in the Pauline corpus by those who would not recognize it is the letter to the Hebrews. Cyprian, however, is the only father to object seriously to the letter to the Hellenistic community.[10]
The only remaining document to receive criticism, which is of special interest to the present study, is also the only document that contains large amounts of prophecy and apocalyptic literature, the Revelation. Dionysius, a former pupil of Origen, rendered the Apocalypse the work of the Apostle John, but still refused to hold it in the same light as the other canonical works.[11] This is perhaps one of the clearest examples of bias toward a document, and, accordingly, the establishment of an inner canon in the patristic writings.[12] As such, it is interesting that Eusebius[13] also lists the Apocalypse as a spurious book, not because of apostolicity, but because of content. According to Bruce, “he could not reconcile himself to its millenarian teaching,”[14] and concludes, “He would simply prefer it not to be in the canon.”[15] This is certainly not enough to justify an affect on either the framing of the canon or the doctrinal beliefs of the church. Why is there not a fragmented canon, or an inner canon for that matter, evident in the writings of the early church, then?
First, it should be increasingly clear that the very notion of a canon is contrary to the preference of one document over another or of one author over another. Apostolicity, and the inspiration it precluded, is a better criterion for inclusion than originally thought. While there were a few documents within proximity to Christ or the apostles not included in the canon, their content was largely Gnostic. These documents were dismissed on conditions subsidiary to apostolic authority, and the bishopric disallowed their consideration. Additionally, in the framework of the canon, each document stood on its own authority and did not rely upon outside sources for consideration. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult to label a document canonical if it did not posses the same attributes as the others.
Second, the rejection of Marcion’s list that spurred the organization of the canon was an event that drove the early fathers toward solidarity. Marcion’s list was a direct affront to the catholic church, and as such, it was necessary for the church to re-evaluate its standing on material fit for consumption.[16] Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament and of three of the Gospels constituted the greatest attack on what the church felt was the heritage of Christological doctrine. Though certain individuals may have questioned the suitability of certain documents, their intent was still to participate in the gathering of all suitable documents, not to deviate from it. As such, the response to Marcion on behalf of the early fathers makes a purposeful identification of special or more inspired material a non sequitur.
Conclusion
Many of the early fathers did express preference for the Gospels and Pauline corpus as those documents best expressed the standard of apostolicity; however, the careful process and widespread acceptance of the canon made the presence of an inner canon a virtual impossibility. Undoubtedly, Dionysius and Eusebius exhibited the preference for some documents over others within the canon of Scripture. For reasons that may be considered inconsequential by some, these writers held the Apocalypse in lower regard than the rest of the canon. Their solidarity with the community of believers made it untenable that this would have affected the outcome of the canon or of doctrine, however.
“Many of the early fathers did express preference for the Gospels and Pauline corpus as those documents best expressed the standard of apostolicity”
The early church’s reliance upon apostolicity as a criterion for canonization, and later inspiration, proved to be exceptionally insightful if not providential. The criteria for canonization ultimately shifted into the criteria for inspiration as the doctrine developed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers. As such, a shift from the authority and influence of a person to that of a document and written tradition was inevitable. Thankfully, though, this progression leaves recourse for discussion and elaboration on the intent of those founding leaders. The development seems inevitable in hindsight. Therefore, the process for canonization of apostolic material seems to have been as thorough and as reliable as the process of declaring those writings inspired in later centuries. This leaves the modern reader with the assurance the sacred writings of the Christian bible are truly reliable and that the canon is justifiably closed.
[1] See Robert Morgan, “Can the Critical Study of Scripture Provide a Doctrinal Norm?” The Journal of Religion, 76 (April 1996): 206-232. Morgan discusses the many pitfalls that the demand of written tradition has had on doctrinal norms and methodologies not only for theological study but also for daily spiritual living.
[2] Ernst Von Dobschütz, “The Abandonment of the Canonical Idea.” The American Journal of Theology, 19 (July 1915): 419.
[3] Again, it is important to read apostolicity here.
[4] Charles H. Cosgrove argues that Justin Martyr had no use for any of the Pauline writings because of the supremacy of the teaching of Jesus. See Charles H. Cosgrove, “Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon: Observations on the Purpose and Destination of the Dialogue with Trypho.” Vigiliae Christianae, 36 (September 1982): 209-232.
[5] E.g., Origen thought that the canon was given by the Spirit of God, but that he could discern levels of inspiration within the Old Testament and New Testament. See Commentary on John 1.4 – 1.6 in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds, The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 9, Gospel of Peter, Diatessaron, Testament of Abraham, Epistles of Clement, Origen, Miscellaneous Works, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1999), 297-298.
[6] John’s Gospel was questioned by some, but none placed it on a disputed or spurious list.
[7] Justin Martyr is a notable exception with his denial of Paul, but his writings may have come before a time when scholars can make a serious examination of canonical study in the fullness of its cultural impetus.
[8] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds, The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1999), 267-575.
[9] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds, A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), 273.
[10] Roberts, The Writings of the Fathers Vol. 5, 267-575.
[11] Schaff, A Select Library, 309-311.
[12] Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 196.
[13] Eusebius is included in the list to be considered because of his extensive work in communicating the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the modern reader. It is through his lens that we receive much of this content.
[14] Ibid., 199.
[15] Ibid., 200.
[16] Some have argued that this liturgical sense is the only way to understand “canon” in the early church.
In the conclusion of his work on the history of canonization, F.F. Bruce cites the hypothesis of Professor Kurt Aland that the New Testament canon has undergone the same narrowing of scope that the Old Testament received at the inception of the early Christian church. This narrowing has altered Christian thought so that there is an “inner canon” within those works recognized as Scripture.[1] This process is already acknowledged in the New Testament utilization of the Old Testament canon. While the authors of the New Testament professed that every word of Scripture is “θεόπνευστος” and therefore inspired, preference was clearly given to certain documents in their writing. This process continued through the early church, especially in relation to the apocryphal literature, until the Christian version of the Old Testament canon was established.
Bruce, then, interacts with Aland’s conclusion that this same process has begun for modern believers, but will not directly agree that the practice is a concerted effort to narrow the content of the modern canon. Rather, preferential usage is the de facto response of emotional and relational beings interacting with a living document. Bruce’s concern, of course, is to establish the integrity of the “rule” of faith for Christians. His conclusions are wise and fair, especially in that they defend the obligatory integration of centuries’ worth of historical thought and teaching on the matter. Additionally, Bruce contends that the discussion of an inner canon attempts to identify canonicity or inspiration in degrees, and digresses into a process of seeking material that is more inspired within that which has all been declared inspired.[2]
This arouses a question regarding the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers, though. According to Bruce, discussions regarding the doctrine of inspiration within the context of the early church must be understood in terms of canonicity and, especially, apostolicity.[3] If this is the case, is it not evident that the early church spent a great deal of effort disseminating the authority of documents based upon their proximity to Christ? Indeed, they only gave precedence over apostolicity to the very words of Christ expressed through eyewitnesses. Did this practice reveal that Aland’s narrowing of Scripture was not only endemic to a Christological view of the Old Testament canon but also in the earliest efforts to organize a canon, thereby biasing the formation of New Testament collection with the preference for an inner cannon among inspirational documents?
If a discussion about inspiration in the early church must be held within the context of apostolicity as Bruce has argued, then said discussion must include a review of the early fathers’ writings on apostolic authority regarding the canon. Specifically, did the early fathers exhibit biases for or against documents based on the idea of apostolicity, which, if proven, was a bias for documents that were more inspired? Though the notion is provocative, the reduction of the entire process of canonization that appropriates the early church’s acknowledgment and preference for apostolic authority to the whole product is not fair. Many of the early fathers undoubtedly expressed preference for some New Testament documents over others; however, the final product of canonization was a declaration that ultimately discouraged the emergence of an inner canon by virtue of its lengthy and ubiquitous process.
Apostolicity and Inspiration
If a patristic bias for certain apostolic documents did alter the formation or understanding of the New Testament canon, then it must be proven that apostolicity and the notion of inspiration[4] are indeed synonymous. Bruce contends that inspiration in the first century CE was most directly related to the work of the Holy Spirit in directing the prophets to write; and while the early fathers thought of New Testament documents in this regard, most of these authors do not base their authority on any such claim.[5] When most New Testament writers do find occasion to assert authority, they do so on the basis of apostolic authority or eyewitness testimony and not directly on the influence of the Spirit on their writing.[6] At the very least, this is evidence that the biblical writers carried no notion of a mechanical dictation; instead, their calling and separation by God to an apostolic ministry is what gave them authority. Looking back into the first century context, the modern reader cannot superimpose notions of textual authority.
“When most New Testament writers do find occasion to assert authority, they do so on the basis of apostolic authority or eyewitness testimony and not directly on the influence of the Spirit on their writing”
The derivation of authority does not originate from the occasion of their writing or the exact syntax of words and vocabulary. Rather, their authority is derived from concepts and the individuals who delivered them; the most important of these individuals was Jesus Christ and the Spirit through which his words were communicated.[7] This is also the perspective through which the early fathers would have seen the authority of documents in the first two centuries of the church. Without having established a doctrine of inspiration, their notion of authority was derived from an office, much like the authority afforded a prophet.
The important distinction is still that the Spirit led the endeavor, however. Interestingly, though, inspiration was not the trump card that the modern church would think. Clement, a contemporary of the apostolic writers claimed that Paul wrote with “true inspiration” and then makes a similar claim for his own letters, though he does not go as far as equating himself with Paul, though they had received the same Spirit of inspiration. Clement sees that there is a stark contrast between his authority and that of Paul, apostolicity.[8] Ignatius claims to write according to the mind of God, but will not command other churches that are under the authority of other bishops because he lacks the apostolic authority of someone like Peter and Paul.[9] The major concern was that the document displayed at least proximity to apostolic authority, because it was believed that a post-Pentecost community would display a wide range of gifts, including prophecy[10], but not everyone was called to be an apostle.
“It seems, looking back into the first century context, the modern reader cannot superimpose notions of textual authority without violating the early patristic testimony on apostolic authority. For them, it was one thing to write with the inspiration of the Spirit, and quite another to write with the authority of an Apostle.”
While this was not the only criterion for canonization, a document definitely would not have been recognized had there been no justification for apostolicity. Apostolic authority, where not directly necessary, was certainly implied in other criteria for canonicity in the early church. Bruce identifies that the antiquity and the orthodoxy that was so often demanded of documents functioned merely as concerns directly subsidiary to apostolicity.[11] In fact, even the occasion of understanding traditional use or catholicity in a document would be difficult without citing apostolicity at this point in history. For instance, according to Walls, Papias’ claim for the authority of the Gospels rests in the apostolicity of the authors, “To guarantee the truth of traditions was to demonstrate that they derived from an apostolic or quasi-apostolic source.”[12]
Walls also argues that authenticity was certainly the intended meaning behind apostolicity, but the early fathers like Papias would have still been concerned with literary preservation.[13] The culture of the early church, at the very least, was drastically different from the conditions in which the Jews maintained oral tradition for centuries. Consequently, the impetus behind the concern for literary preservation after Christ was not much different from problems the Jews faced in Babylonian exile.
Gonzalez believes that the main impetus behind such literary preservation would have been the rebuttal of Marcion and the Gnostics, but still maintains that canonization was a process and the Gospels and Pauline corpus received approval long before some other documents.[14] This may be an indication that there was some flexibility in oral tradition that could not be afforded in a written tradition. For this reason, the early church may have been careful about endorsing documents too eagerly. Nonetheless, it is clear that the early church was biased toward certain documents and the basis of that preference was apostolicity.
The early church’s understanding of inspiration, as a doctrine, appears even more circular. According to Bruce, “Books were included in the canon, it is believed, because they were inspired; a book is known to be inspired because it is in the canon.”[15] The church, when forming the canon, would have had little use for the modern sense of the doctrine. By the time Athanasius made his list in the fourth century, there was already a strong preference for documents that held inspiration and authority, but based on apostolicity. It is evident that this preference was not only tied to apostolicity, but that the apostolic authority of certain documents was presumed long before councils were arguing about the Catholic Epistles. This bias was so prevalent that some cities had been questioning the last documents to be approved for decades. A survey of patristic material will prove this bias to an extent, but the scope of its effect is yet to be seen.
[1] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1988), 270-271.
[2] Ibid., 273.
[3] Ibid., 263-264.
[4] This must also be different from our doctrine of inspiration at this point in history.
[5] Ibid., 264-265.
[6] Ibid., 265-266.
[7] See Ernst Von Dobschütz, “The Abandonment of the Canonical Idea.” The American Journal of Theology, 19 (July 1915): 416-429. This is the conclusion at which Dobschütz arrives during the turn of the 20th century, but for different reasons. He seems to prefer a more allegorical approach to Scripture, but traces the origin and abandonment of these principles in the catholic tradition nonetheless.
[8] 1 Clem. 47.3, 63.2 cf 59.1, 47.1
[9] To the Romans 8.3, 4.3
[10] A notion widely accepted as the biblical equivalent to θεόπνευστος, which was originally a pronouncement of the Old Testament and the Spirit of prophecy.
[11] Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 259.
[12] A.F. Walls, “Papias and Oral Tradition.” Vigiliae Christianae, 21 (September 1967): 138.
[13] Ibid., 139.
[14] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: Harper, 1984), 63-66.
[15] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1988), 263.
Flux II: Why Old Stuff Matters
May 29, 2009
“Flux” is a continuing series on my year visiting churches of various Christian traditions.
|
I first experienced Eastern Orthodoxy as a 21-year-old traveling through Ukraine. Even then, the tradition enchanted me. At the time I was interning with a missions organization working in Eastern Europe. I knew that many of the churches we were helping to plant were located in heavily Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic areas. It was also become increasingly clear that these traditions were undoubtedly Christian, perhaps in some ways even more Christian than me. So why are we evangelizing Christians? I wondered.
It was the opening spark of a lesson that took me a few years to learn: old stuff matters.
By “old stuff,” I mean the bulk of the ancient practices and symbols many modern Evangelicals (both intentionally and unintentionally) learned to de-emphasize or ignore. In my studies, I realized there were a number of questions I’d never fully explored: where did the Bible come from? who first outlined concepts like the dual-natures of Christ and the Trinity? what is our modern conception of hell based on? Many of the answers to these questions were found in studying the first few centuries of Christianity, an area of scholarship sometimes called Patristics or a little more broadly, Christian Origins.
I learned that whether one recited the creeds in church or not, they were formative and part of our shared Christian heritage. Whether one appreciated liturgy or found it dull, it was influential in shaping modern forms of worship. I learned that Sacramental theology left a precedent for how we expected to experience God–even if one didn’t look for Him in Eucharist anymore. Most importantly I learned that issues like church governance, division, authority, human sexuality and the role of the Church in the world were problems as old as Pentecost.
Perhaps most poignantly, however, I was struck by how bewitching the tradional forms of worship could be. The ancient liturgies enchanted me, the Icons arrested me–I felt myself being pulled into something older and bigger and altogether more enveloping than my previous, more individualistic Church experiences had been. All my life, I had endeavored to maintain the right belief or “Apostolicity*” of my faith. But it wasn’t until my year of visiting Churches, that I was first introduced to its commanility or “Catholicity**.”
* (Apostolicity in this case, just means the faith of Apostles, or what was handed down to us.)
** (Catholic not in the Roman sense, but in it’s older meaning of ‘universal’ or ‘entirety).
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
