CANON
OF
THE
NEW
TESTAMENT
Apocryphal
writings.
Nevertheless
he
himself
accepts
it.
He
notes
that
2
and
3
John
have
been
attributed
to
a
presbyter
whose
tomb
at
Ephesus
is
still
pointed
out.
The
immense
personal
influence
o(
Augustine
and
the
acceptance
of
Jerome's
Vulgate
as
the
standard
Bible
of
the
Christian
Church
gave
fixity
to
the
Canon,
which
was
not
disturbed
for
a
thousand
years.
No
General
Council
had
pronounced
on
the
subject.
The
first
Council
claiming
to
be
(Ecumenical
which
committed
itself
to
a
decision
on
the
subject
was
as
late
as
the
16th
cent.
(theCouncilofTrent).
We
may
be
thankful
that
the
delicate
and
yet
vital
question
of
determining
the
Canon
was
not
flung
into
the
arena
of
ecclesiastical
debate
to
be
settled
by
the
triumph
of
partisan
churchmanship,
but
was
allowed
to
mature
slowly
and
come
to
its
final
settlement
under
the
twofold
influences
of
honest
scholar-ship
and
Christian
experience.
There
were
indeed
local
councils
that
dealt
with
the
question;
but
their
decisions
were
binding
only
on
the
provinces
they
represented,
although,
in
so
far
as
they
were
not
disputed,
they
would
be
regarded
as
more
or
less
normative
by
those
other
churches
to
which
they
were
sent.
As
representing
the
East
we
have
a
Canon
attributed
to
the
Council
of
Laodicea
{c.
a.d.
360).
There
is
a
dispute
as
to
whether
this
is
genuine.
It
is
given
in
the
MSS
variously
as
a
60th
canon
and
as
part
of
the
59th
appended
in
red
ink.
Half
the
Latin
versions
are
without
it;
so
are
the
Syriac
versions,
which
are
much
older
than
our
oldest
MSS
of
the
canons.
It
closely
resembles
the
Canon
of
Cyril
of
Jerusalem,
from
which
Westcott
sup-posed
that
it
was
inserted
into
the
canons
of
Laodicea
by
a
Latin
hand.
Its
genuineness
was
defended
by
Hetele
and
Davidson.
JUlicher
regards
it
as
probably
genuine.
This
Canon
contains
the
OT
with
Baruch
and
the
Epistle
of
Jeremy,
and
all
our
NT
except
the
Revelation.
Then
in
the
West
we
have
the
3rd
Council
of
Carthage
(a.d.
397),
which
orders
that
'besides
the
Canonical
Scriptures
nothing
be
read
in
the
Church
under
the
title
of
Divine
Scriptures,'
and
appends
a
list
of
the
books
thus
authorized
in
which
we
have
the
OT,
the
Apocrypha,
and
just
our
NT
books.
Here
we
have
a
whole
province
speaking
for
those
books;
when
we
add
the
great
authority
of
Augustine,
who
belongs
to
this
very
province,
and
the
influence
of
the
Vulgate,
we
can
well
understand
how
the
Canon
should
now
be
considered
fixed
and
inviolable.
Thus
the
matter
rested
for
ten
centuries.
4.
Treatment
of
the
Canon
at
the
Renaissance
and
the
Reformation,
—
Thequestionof
theCanonwas
revived
by
the
Renaissance
and
the
Reformation,
the
one
movement
directing
critical,
scholarly
attention
to
what
was
essentially
a
literary
question,
the
other
facing
it
in
the
interest
of
religious
controversy.
Erasm
us
writes:
'The
arguments
of
criticism,
estimated
by
the
rules
of
logic,
lead
me
to
disbelieve
that
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
is
by
Paul
or
Luke,
or
that
the
Second
of
Peter
is
the
work
of
that
Apostle,
or
that
the
Apocalypse
was
written
by
the
Evangelist
John.
All
the
same,
I
have
nothing
to
say
against
the
contents
of
these
books,
which
seem
to
me
to
be
in
perfect
conformity
with
the
truth.
If,
however,
the
Church
were
to
declare
the
titles
they
bear
to
be
canonical,
then
I
would
condemn
my
doubt,
for
the
opinion
formulated
by
the
Church
has
more
value
in
my
eyes
than
human
reasons,
whatever
they
may
be'
—
a
most
characteristic
statement,
reveal-ing
the
scholar,
the
critic,
the
timid
soul
—
and
the
satirist
(7).
Within
the
Church
of
Rome
even
Cardinal
Cajetan
—
Luther's
opponent
at
Augsburg
—
freely
dis-cusses
the
Canon,
doubting
whether
Hebrews
is
St.
Paul's
work,
and
whether,
if
it
is
not,
it
can
be
canonical.
He
also
mentions
doubts
concerning
the
fiveGeneral
Epistles,
and
gives
less
authority
to
2
and
3
John
and
Jude
than
to
those
books
which
he
regards
as
certainly
in
the
Holy
Scriptures.
The
Reformation
forced
the
question
of
the
authority
of
the
Bible
to
the
front,
because
it
set
that
authority
In
the
place
of
the
old
authority
of
the
CANON
OF
THE
NEW
TESTAMENT
Church.
While
this
chiefly
concerned
the
book
as
a
whole,
it
couldnot
preclude
inquiries
as
to
its
contents
and
the
rights
of
the
several
parts
to
hold
their
places
there.
The
general
answer
as
to
the
authority
of
Scripture
is
an
appeal
to
'
the
testimony
of
the
Holy
Spirit.'
Calvin
especially
works
out
this
conception
very
distinctly.
The
difficulty
was
to
apply
it
to
par-ticular
books
of
the
Bible
so
as
to
determine
in
each
case
whether
they
should
be
allowed
in
the
Canon.
Clearly
a
further
test
was
requisite
here.
This
was
found
in
the
'analogy
of
faith'
(Analogia
fldei),
which
was
more
especially
Luther's
principle,
while
the
testi-mony
of
the
Holy
Spirit
was
Calvin's.
With
Luther
the
Reformation
was
based
on
justification
by
faith.
This
truth
Luther
held
to
be
confirmed
(a)
by
its
necessity,
nothing
else
availing,
and
(6)
by
its
effects,
since
in
practice
it
brought
peace,
assurance,
and
the
new
life.
Then
those
Scriptures
which
manifestly
supported
the
fundamental
principle
were
held
to
be
ipso
facto
inspired,
and
the
measure
of
their
support
of
it
deter-mined
the
degree
of
their
authority.
'Thus
the
doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
is
not
accepted
because
it
is
found
in
the
Bible;
but
the
Bible
is
accepted
because
it
contains
this
doctrine.
Moreover,
the
Bible
is
sorted
and
arranged
in
grades
according
as
it
does
so
more
or
less
clearly,
and
to
Luther
there
is
'a
NT
within
the
NT,'
a
kernel
of
all
Scripture,
consisting
of
those
books
which
he
sees
most
clearly
set
forth
the
gospel.
Thus
he
wrote:
'
John's
Gospel,
the
Epistles
of
Paul,
especially
Romans,
Galatians,
Ephesians,
and
1
Peter
—
these
are
the
books
which
show
thee
Christ,
and
teach
all
that
it
is
needful
and
blessed
for
thee
to
know
even
if
you
never
see
or
hear
any
other
book,
or
any
other
doctrine.
Therefore
is
the
Epistle
of
James
a
mere
epistle
of
straw
(erne
rechte
strokerne
Epistel)
since
it
has
no
character
of
the
gospel
in
it'
(Preface
to
NT<,
1522;
the
pas-sage
was
omitted
from
later
editions).
Luther
places
Hebrews,
James,
Jude,
and
the
Apocalypse
at
the
end
of
his
translation,
after
the
other
NT
books,
which
h3
designates
'the
true
and
certain
capital
books
of
the
NT,
for
these
have
been
regarded
in
former
times
in
a
different
light.'
He
regards
Jude
as
'indisputably
an
extract
or
copy
from
2
Peter.'
Nevertheless,
while
thus
discriminating
between
the
values
of
the
several
books
of
the
NT,
he
includes
them
all
in
his
translation.
Luther's
friend
Carlstadt
has
a
curious
arrangement
of
Scripture
in
three
classes,
viz.
(1)
The
Pentateuch
and
the
4
Gospels,
as
being
'the
clearest
luminaries
of
the
whole
Divine
truth';
(2)
The
Prophets
'of
Hebrew
reckoning'
and
the
acknowledged
Epistles
of
the
NT,
viz.
13
of
Paul,
1
Peter,
1
John;
(3)
the
Hagiographa
of
the
Hebrew
Canon,
and
the
7
disputed
books
of
the
NT.
Dr.
Westcott
suggested
that
the
omission
of
Acts
was
due
to
its
being
included
with
Luke.
Calvin
is
more
conservative
with
regard
to
Scripture
than
theLutherans.
Still
in
his
Commentaries
he
passes
over
2
and
3
John
and
the
Revelation
without
notice,
and
he
refers
to
1
John
as
'
the
Epistle
of
John,'
and
expresses
doubts
as
to
2
Peter;
but
he
adds,
with
regard
to
the
latter,
'
Since
the
majesty
of
the
Spirit
of
Christ
exhibits
itself
in
every
part
of
the
Epistle,
I
feel
a
scruple
in
rejecting
it
wholly,
however
much
I
fail
to
recognize
in
it
the
genuine
languageof
Peter
'(Com.
on
3
Pcier,
Argument).
Further,
Calvin
acknowledges
the
existence
of
doubts
with
respect
both
to
James
and
to
Jude;
but
he
accepts
them
both.
He
allows
full
liberty
of
opinion
concerning
the
author-ship
of
Hebrews;
but
he
states
that
he
has
no
hesitation
in
classing
it
among
Apostolical
writings.
In
spite
of
these
varieties
of
opinion,
the
NT
Canon
remained
unaltered.
At
the
Council
of
Trent
(1546)
for
the
first
time
the
Roman
Catholic
Church
made
an
authoritative
statement
on
theCanon,
uttering
an
anathema
(
'anathema
sit')
on
anybody
who
did
not
accept
in
their
integrity
all
the
books
contained
in
the
Vulgate.
Thus
the
Apocrypha
is
treated
as
equally
canonical
with
the
OT
books;
but
the
NT
Canon
is
the
same
in
Roman
