Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles or Apostolic Constitutions is collection of materials on church order.  Despite its name it was composed or compiled near the end of fourth century (c. 380 AD) and consists of eight books dealing with different subjects.  In book eighth, chapter 47.85 it lists books of both Old and New Testament (English translation is from Anti Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, page 505):

Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings [Samuel and Kings], two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon-Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets [Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and twelve minor Prophets]. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach.

The list of Old Testament books has forty three books and includes Judith, 1 to 3 Maccabees and Wisdom while Lamentations might be combined with Jeremiah.  Of the New Testament it lists the following books:

But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.

The list has thirty-six books and lacks Revelation but includes two epistles of Clement and eight books of the Constitution itself.

Hilary and Canon of Old Testament

Hilary was born in c. 315 AD in Poitiers, France.  He converted to Christianity as adult and became bishop of Poitiers in 353 AD.  His famous work is On the Trinity. Because his strong belief in Trinity he was exiled in 356 AD to Phrygia at the order of emperor Constantius II who supported Arianism.   He died in Poitiers in c. 367 AD.

Hilary produced list of twenty-two Old Testament books (source: J.P. Migne: Patrologia Latina, 9, 241) comprising five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges & Ruth in one book, 1 & 2 Kingdoms (1 & 2 Samuel) in one book, 3 & 4 Kingdoms in one book, 1 & 2 Chronicles in one book, 1 & 2 Esdras in one book (Ezra-Nehemiah), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah + Lamentations + Epistle of Jeremiah in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther.  But he mentioned that some added Tobit and Judith to make 24 books of Old Testament.    Hilary also cited a number of other deuterocanonical books (English translation is from The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 25 with added scripture references).

While the religious mind was held captive by the error of its own weakness, the words of the Prophet impart to it this method for apprehending the knowledge of God’s supreme beauty: ‘For by the greatness of the work and the beauty of creatures the creator of generations is reasonably known.” [Wisdom 13:5]

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Trinity 1.7

He foresees everything, as blessed Susanna asserts: ‘O eternal God, the one who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass.” [Daniel 13:42]

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Trinity 4.8

But the revelation of the divine Scripture does not allow this explanation.  According to the Prophet, everything has been made from nothing, [2 Maccabee 7:28] ……

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Trinity 4.16

Besides Moses and Isaias, listen in the third place to Jeremias, who teaches us the same doctrine when he declares: ‘This is our God, and there shall be no other accounted of in comparison with him, who has found all the way of knowledge and gave it o Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved.  Afterwards, he was seen upon earth and conversed with men.’ [Baruch 3:36-38, cited as part of Jeremiah]

Hilary of Poitiers, on the Trinity 4.42

A High View of Scripture? Part 3

The Church and Canon of New Testament

This is the third post on the book “A High View of Scripture” written by Prof. Craig D. Allert of Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada.  His words if quoted directly are in italic.

Prof. Allert who is Evangelical would emphasize the centrality of the church in the formation of the New Testament. He noted that this approach was a somewhat foreign conception of the New Testament for many evangelicals. According to Prof. Allert one reason is they are used to the principle of “Bible, the Holy Spirit and me” approach which makes them unconnected to the rich heritage of the community of faith through history. Prof. Allert argued that to properly understand the history of the formation of the New Testament canon, evangelicals will need to reconsider the foundational role of the church in this process. In relation to canon of New Testament Evangelicals do rely on testimony of Church Fathers, i.e. when they cited a book from our present New Testament it serves as evidence of its canonicity.  Here they make mistake by equating Scripture with Canon. Church Fathers had more books or documents they considered as Scripture.  The books they consider as Scripture were not equal to either Catholic or Protestant’s Bible.  As example Prof Allert referred to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (martyred in 258 AD). In his treatise “To Fortunatus” Cyprian quoted or alluded to many documents that now belong to (Protestant) Old Testament and New Testament.  However in the same treatise Cyprian also treated as Scripture documents known to Protestants as apocrypha like Wisdom of Solomon, Bel and Dragon, Tobit, 2 Maccabees and Sirach (all of them belong to Catholic Old Testament). Prof. Allert noted that in evangelicalism the appeal rests on two foundational presuppositions about the fathers and the early church, which subsequently distort this appeal. The first presupposition is that the Bible has always been there, and the second is that the fathers appealed only to it in matters of faith and doctrine. One wonders, however, if in actuality the presuppositions are the reverse. That is, because evangelicals regularly appeal to sola scriptura as the historical doctrine of the church, the canon needs to be established as early as possible so that they [Church Fathers] indeed may appeal to the Bible alone.

After studying the role of church in the formation of the New Testament canon Prof Allert came to realize that the Bible grew in the cradle of the church. The church existed before the Bible and both are indispensable from each other. This is something that many Evangelicals will find it hard to accept and Prof. Allert explains the reason:

The appeal to the Bible alone in evangelicalism is the result, in part, of a deep suspicion and even rejection of the [Catholic] church in patristic age as somehow corrupt. In this understanding a restitutionist view of history is at work. Restitutionism “rejects traditional pre-modern history in order to restore ‘true history’ and locates ‘true history’ not in tradition or mystery of the church but in a lost yet supposedly recoverable body of ‘facts’.” The assumption is that one group or person can be closer to true Christianity solely by studying the New Testament documents. With this assumption the Reformation becomes construed not as a reform of what had come before (Catholicism) but as a retrieval of “true Christianity”. In this retrieval a selective choice of events and figures that fit the restitutionist agenda are used to bolster their case that true Christianity was maintained in a select few who rejected the corrupt church. A dualism results between institutional church history and that of the “true” believer. The church cannot be trusted, so an independent source comes to be located in the Bible as the sole guide, untouched by the corrupting tradition of the church.

A High View of Scripture?, page 76-77

Unfortunately the Bible that is set apart as being the only trustworthy guide for the Christian was shaped from within the very church that restitutionists claim was corrupt. Prof. Allert who is Evangelical wrote the following statement: ‘to reject the church means also a rejection of its canon. There is a tacit acceptance of the institution of the historical ecclesiastical community when we accept its canon. This is why I can say that my study of the canon led me to see the indispensability of the church. I wonder how many Evangelicals out there who would agree with him.

A High View of Scripture? Part 2

The Criteria of Canonicity

This is the second post on the book “A High View of Scripture” written by Prof. Craig D. Allert of Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada.  His words if quoted directly are in italic.

What are and do we have criteria of canonicity of New Testament books?   Prof. Allert brought to our attention that speaking of the criteria of canonicity is not to speak of an explicit list to which the early church referred, through which each and every document was sifted and subsequently placed in the canon as a result of satisfying each criterion. The criteria are a retrospective scheme by which we attempt to understand why certain Christian documents came to be valued above other Christian documents. Scholars have devised this scheme through an examination of the church fathers’ writings and their use of these numerous documents.  In his book Prof. Allert wrote about three criteria:

1. Apostolicity: This criterion could indicate four things: (1) authorship by real (or supposed) apostle; (2) authorship by follower(s) of an apostle; (3) derivation from the general time of the apostles and (4) Agreement with apostolic teaching. As for the last one how do we define apostolic teaching? Even for the first two we cannot produce concrete evidence that one of apostles or his follower wrote particular book. Luther denied the apostolicity of James (refer to my earlier post on this issue)

2. Orthodoxy: This criterion means the congruity of the content of the book with the faith or teaching of the church: the apostolic faith.  How do we define apostolic faith? If the answer is it is from the New Testament then we have circular argument.  Prof. Allert wrote that there is a progression of thought that moves from the teaching of Jesus, who hands it over to his apostles, who subsequently pass it on to the church, which is then charged with guarding the pure teaching. The so called Rule of Faith was used in the early church as a standard against which all teaching was measured. Here Prof. Allert appeals to the church as the guardian of the pure teaching (orthodoxy), handed over from Christ and His apostles, to which a book must comply. Thus the criterion of orthodoxy is not based on any New Testament book.

3. Catholicity and Widespread Use: This criterion is concerned primarily with the acceptance and use of a document by the church at large. Does this criterion make the church the real source of the canon’s authority? Quoting the words of other author, Campenhausen, in his book: Formation of the Christian Bible, Prof. Allert wrote: “The Church is indeed the place in which the definitive verdict on the worth or worthlessness of individual writings is handed down; for the Church – if one may complete the thought along Irenaean [Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon in second century AD] lines – has within her the living canon, the Spirit of Truth which has been active from the beginning, and to which she remains faithful.” This statement obviously represents Catholic Church position that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the (Catholic) Church chose books that entered the canon.

Prof. Allert also brought up the classic criteria of canonicity that does not belong to the above three: inspiration.  According to this criterion, only those books that the early church viewed as inspired become our New Testament. The problem with this criterion, as pointed by Prof. Allert, the early church considered not only other documents as inspired, but also many aspects of the church’s life including bishops, monks, interpreters of Scripture, martyrs, councils, and a wide array of prophetic gifts. All documents considered orthodox by the early church were, by implication, believed to be inspired. But this is not the complete picture.  In his summary of Chapter two Prof. Allert wrote: ‘we must not force a twenty-first-century perspective, wherein we have a closed canon, back onto the sources of the ancient church.  In this regard, it is important to understand that Christianity had a fairly fluid body of literature that the church used and held as authoritative. There is no doubt that amid this breadth of literature certain documents rose to preeminence in the life of the church. But their rise, in some cases, was neither immediate nor as mysterious as we have often been led to believe. I do not mean to deny the providence of God in the process, but rather to say that there were very practical reasons why certain documents came to be valued (and eventually canonized) by the church, and it is on this practical road to canonization that God providentially led his people by his Spirit. While it is proper to speak of a core collection of authoritative Christian writings in the second century, it is improper (or at least misleading) to speak of a New Testament in the second century.

To be continued