Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Church Into Early Canonization
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Scholars Crossing LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations 2001 Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Church into Early Canonization James B. Joseph Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Joseph, James B., "Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Church into Early Canonization" (2001). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 323. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/323 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 40 Faith & Mission 18/3 (Summer 2001) 40-51 Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Church into an Early Canonization 41 threat to the proper proclamation of the gospel due to lack of agreement on Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Scripture or its meaning, it seems that the church would ha:e resp~nd~d mo:-e Church into Early Canonization slowly to heretics and worked on developing a common set of authorItatlve wrIt ings. In reality, one finds evidence from a second-century witness, Irenaeus, that the church already had a firm Scripture, and therefore recognized heresy ac cording to how a heretic altered or misrepresented existing Scripture (Heresies 1=s=1 James B. Joseph 3.15.1). ;== F Ph.D. Student in Biblical Studies (New Testament) Not until the end of the fourth century, in which the Roman government Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary influenced the church, did the Western Christians desire an agreed-upon official Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 (canonical) list of authoritative New Testament writings; this basic canon of au "= E: thoritative Scripture had already been agreed upon unofficially in most areas for centuries. Therefore, if Marcion and other heretics such as Valentinus did not Introduction cause the church to form an authorized canon of Scripture, one needs to ask if Marcion caused the churches in the various regions to change their perspective n unsettled issue that still plagues scholars today is whether or not Marcion regarding the value of different parts of Scripture. Did Marcion change the and his canon substantially effected the formation of the Canon of Scrip church's mind on the value of any particular part or parts of the New Testament, A ture that was eventually ratified by the western church through the Councils and did he really force the church to canonize in response to his heretical work? of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage {A.D. 397 and 419).2 Recently, in a cover story for the "Science and Ideas" section of U. S. News and World Report, Jeffery Sheler, writing on the formation of the early church, stated that the controversy Prevailing View of Marcion's Influence on involving Marcion had a profound impact on the formation of the New Testa New Testament Canonization ment.3 As She leI' writes to a popular audience and reflects the majority view of scholars, he is promoting an idea that first and second-century evidence does John Knox (1942) is a good representative of that majority view in the not support. Marcionism and other second-century heresies did not force the mid-twentieth century which perpetuated the view of earlier scholarship. Knox early church to produce its own set of authoritative writings in self-defense. By said that when Marcion set aside a certain set of books as important for his early to mid-second century, many churches already had their own collections community with unduplicated value, he had effectively closed the canon for his of inspired writings, writings that had canonical authority and were similar to community7; he said that Marcion did not appropriate one of four Gospels, but each other. These collections were regarded as authoritative and distinct from instead worked with a more primitive form that was known as The Gospel, which all other religious writings. required little editing.s Knox and many others look at the church's New Testa Our earliest evidence of a canonical list that was later collectively agreed ment development as a reaction to Marcion's heretical work, which resulted in a upon by the West comes from a list of twenty-seven authoritative books that New Testament creation occurring sometime between the time of Justin (A.D. comprised a New Testament listed by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, as part 150) and Irenaeus (A.D. 175). His proof is that Justin never mentions a New of his A.D. 367 Easter letter. Later, under Augustine's guidance, the West collec Testament, but Irenaeus does. 9 In addition, Knox states that through the tively agreed on the same books of the New Testament under Augustine's guid Muratorian Canon and the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the idea of a New 4 ance at the councils of Hippo in A.D. 393 and Carthage in A.D. 397 and 419. Testament clearly came into focus first at Rome. Io This canon has been used by most of Christianity up to the present time with the Knox lays out the canonization process for the New Testament as follows: exception of the Revelation of John in the East. An important consideration 1) the early church had Jewish Scripture and the words of Jesus, which had regarding this issue is that there did not appear to be an urgency for leaders of authority from the very beginning starting with oral tradition; 2) Paul's letters the various areas to come to a collective agreement on a definitive canon during had been published by many prior to the closing of the first century; and 3) or shortly after Marcion proclaimed his false teachings in the second century.s starting with Irenaeus, there was a New Testament established that had full In fact, after hearing Marcion's view of God and Scripture at a special hearing status and authority alongside the original Jewish Scriptures. New Testament before the church leaders at Rome, they immediately excommunicated Marcion canonization occurred in order to combat heresy, which was becoming a widely 6 from the church. H Marcion and other heretics had been such an imminent recognized problem by the time of Irenaeus. Knox went on to say that the church 42 Faith & Mission Second-Century Heresy Did Not Force the Church into an Early Canonization 4,3 broke the force of Marcion's authority by absorbing his Scripture and adding it immediately to publish a universally fixed New Testament canonical list; this did to their existing Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint. l1 In a preliminary summary, not occur for the West until the end of the fourth century, which was over two Knox states, hundred years after Marcion's heresy. F. F. Bruce (1987) sees the heretical work of such individuals such as We may conclude, then, that the more conservative churches, confronted Marcion and Valentinius as innovation. He states that the church responded in with the facts that various "heretics" and particularly Marcion had exalted two primary ways: 1) by forming a rule of faith called the apostolic tradition, and certain apostolic writings to the status of Scripture, were forced either to 2) by defining the identity of the Bible.20 He goes on to say, "Where the interpre canonize these writings on their own part or else to appear less apprecia tation of the Bible was at issue, there was a tendency to maintain that only the tive of them than their adversaries. The choice here was so clear that it is catholic church had the right to interpret it, because the Bible was the church's probably false to call it a choice at all: they canonized the writings, but book; but in the Marcionite controversy an answer had to be given to the more they did so by adding them to their traditional Scripture, not by substitut ing them for that Scripture. 12 fundamental question: What is the Bible?"21 Irenaeus helps to answer Bruce's question regarding the identity of the Bible in the second century, telling us that E. C. Blackman (1948) agrees with Knox's conclusion that Marcion had a definitive Bible exists, which he calls "the Scripture." the first closed canon. 13 Blackman goes on to say that because Irenaeus did not treat Pauline letters as canonical, it is safe to say that Marcion made up his mind about the canonical authority of Paul's letters before the church as a whole did. 14 The present writer believes that this is a defective premise because it im The Evidence plies that the various regions of Christendom of this era had no individual rulings on whether Paul should be considered authoritative or not. 15 Evidence drawn from Textual study of textual sources, the early church fathers, and heretical sources testifies the opposite. This paper will demonstrate that churches in general accepted the The Gospels. Although we do not have an early-second century codex four Gospels and a collection of Paul's letters as authoritative Scripture prior to containing all four Gospels, that does not prove that they did not yet exist. Bruce Marcion's false teachings. notes that 1p45, an early third-century Alexandrian codex,22 contained the four The difference between Blackman's and Knox's perspectives is that fold Gospel and Acts.