In the first 123 years of Christianity, a large number of literary works were produced; some orthodox, and some heretical. The rise of Montanism in 156, with its self-styled Testament of the Paraclete, forced orthodox Christians to establish fixed collections of apostolic works. By the middle of the second century, the idea of a New Testament to accompany the Old Testament was firmly established in the Christian Church.
By the middle of the forth century, there were a number of different lists of New Testament books, or canons. Neither the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, nor the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 addressed the lack of unity on this point. In 382, Pope St. Damasus I convened a synod in Rome to resolve this problem.
Pope Damasus himself likely presided over the deliberations of this synod. He also summoned St. Jerome, who gave us the Latin Vulgate (the first vernacular translation of the Bible), from the East to assist at this synod. The result of this synod was the Damasan Canon; fittingly named after Pope Damasus.
Although Pope Damasus and Jerome are credited with the Damasan Canon, they were not the primary leaders. Like all doctrinal issues in the Catholic Church, it is the Holy Spirit that leads the Church into all truth. The human participants of the Roman synod of 382 did not decide what books should be in the New Testament, but discerned what book what books should be in the New Testament. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Magisterium of the Catholic Church produced the Damasan Canon.
This discernment process was not without effort. There may have been as many as 250 different literary works to consider for inclusion in the Damasan Canon; however, the vast majority of these works were obviously non-canonical. As well, preceding canons, some of which are given below, were consulted.
The Roman synod that produced the Damasan Canon was not ecumenical, and therefore not binding on the universal Church. This caused problems, particularly in Africa. Four African synods were held that declared the Damasan Canon as the canon of the African Church: one in Hippo in 393, and three in primary African See of Carthage in 393, 397 and 419. The main problem for African Church was the acceptance of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Once this issue was resolved, the Canon of the New Testament was considered definitely fixed, and the discussion closed; that is until the sixteenth century.
The Protestant pseudo-reformers, principally Martin Luther, rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. Some went event further than Luther by rejecting 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John. To end any questioning of the Damasan Canon as the complete and perfect canon, the Ecumenical Council of Trent defined it as a doctrine of faith in 1546.
Although the Damasan Canon was "original," it was identical to the canon described in St. Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter from the year 367. Thus, we can assume that the Alexandrian Church was already using what became the universally accepted New Testament Canon.
It must be pointed out, however, that while the New Testament Canon in Athanasius¦ letter was correct, the Old Testament Canon was not. It is close to the canon used today by Protestants with exception of the addition the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and the exclusion of the Book of Esther. A number of the books that this letter excluded from the Old Testament later lists as "designated by the Fathers to be read by those who join us and who wish to be instructed in the word of piety." These are: Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobias. Along with these Old Testament books, Athanasius also lists the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Protestant fundamentalists cannot use this letter as proof that the New Testament Canon was in order before the Damasan Canon without changing their Old Testament Canon to include the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and exclude of the Book of Esther. They would also have to accept Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas as valuable Christian literature. The Didache is particularly problematic for them because it specifically says, "pour water three times on the head," and "fast on Wednesday and Friday." Both of which are very Catholic.
These are some New Testament Canons that influenced the Damasan Canon. There are others, but the authenticity of most is even more questionable than the Canon Approved by the Synod of Laodicea, which is likely based on the Damasan Canon.
|
included:
|
excluded:
|
The Muratorian Fragment was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and was published by him in 1740. The manuscript itself dates back to the seventh century, but the list may date as far back as to 170 because it refers to the pontificate of Pope Pius I, which was from 140 to 155, as recent. This makes it the oldest known New Testament Canon.
It is called a fragment because the first part of the manuscript is missing. It does, however, refer to Luke's Gospel as being in the third place, and John's in the forth place, so we can assume that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark came before.
In addition to listing the books that should be in the New Testament, the Muratorian Fragment specifies two books that should not be in the New Testament: an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians. By singling out these two books as non-canonical, it implies that some church were using them.
|
excluded:
|
The Mommsen's Canon, or Cheltenham Canon, comes from a tenth-century Latin manuscript that once belonged to the library of Thomas Phillipps at Cheltenham, England, and was identified in 1886 by Theodor Mommsen. The original likely came from West Africa about the year 360.
A century earlier, St. Cyprian testifies to a similar African canon that excluded 2 Peter.
This African canon would have been in use for at least a couple of centuries prior to the imposition of the Damasan Canon on the African Church, which is why it was met with much resistance.
|
contested:
|
Origen, who was active in the first part of the third century, was an influential teacher in Alexandria. He gives us a witness of what the Alexandrian Canon would have looked like. His canon is known from the composite account made by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.
It should be noted that this is not actually Origen's Canon, but a recording of the canon in use. The books of the Damasan Canon not listed to the right were those universally received, and the ones listed to the right were those whose Apostolicity was questioned. This, however, did not deny that they were Divinely inspired.
|
contested:
|
Eusebius Pamphili was the Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, who live from 260 to 341. He is known as the "Father of Church History."
Again, it should be noted that this is not actually Eusebius's Canon, but a recording of the canon in use. Personally, Eusebius rejected the Apocalypse of John as un-Biblical, but had to acknowledge its almost universal acceptance. The books of the Damasan Canon not listed to the right were those universally received, and the ones listed to the right were those whose Apostolicity was questioned. This, however, did not deny that they were Divinely inspired.
|
included:
|
excluded:
|
This canon was inserted into the sixth century Codex Claromontanus (D). Scholars assign it to an early Alexandrian origin.
|
excluded:
|
We know very little about this canon other than it was one of the first attempts to canonise the New Testament and that it was reactionary to heretical canons. The letters and Apocalypse of John were actually believed to be the works of Cerinthus, a contemporary of John and a Gnostic-Ebionite heretic.
|
excluded:
|
Very little is known about the Synod of Laodicea. Theodoret, the Bishop of Cyrus who lived from 393 to 457, testifies that this assembly was actually held, but other than the sixty canons of the council, nothing else is known.
It is canon No. 60 that lists the council's New Testament Canon; however, this canon is missing in most Latin and Syriac manuscripts. Most scholars agree that this canon was added to the decrees of the council at a later date; likely some time after 382, thus this canon is based on the Damasan Canon.
Usually the year 363 is the given date of this council; however, this is purely speculation. The best estimate is some time after the Council of Nicaea in 325, and before the Council of Constantinople in 381.
This lack of historical facts is used by some Protestant fundamentalists to suggest that the Canon of the New Testament predates the Catholic Church. First they claim that the Catholic Church was created by the Council of Nicaea, then they claim that the Council of Laodicea and its Canon of the New Testament came before the Council of Nicaea. To do this, all they have to do is reject the Apocalypse of John as non-canonical.
Other than conflicting with the more grounded hypotheses of most scholars mentioned above, this hypothesis has one major flaw: the Council of Laodicea was a Catholic council. Here are some its more obvious Catholic decrees:
Canon 12. Bishops are to be appointed to the ecclesiastical government by the judgment of the metropolitans and neighbouring bishops, after having been long proved both in the foundation of their faith and in the conversation of an honest life.
Canon 13. The election of those who are to be appointed to the: priesthood is not to be committed to the multitude.
Canon 14. The holy things are not to be sent into other dioceses at the feast of Easter by way of eulogiae.
Canon 21. The subdeacons have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord's vessels.
Canon 22. The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium, nor to leave the doors.
Canon 41. None of the priesthood nor of the clergy may go on a journey, without the bidding of the Bishop.
|
included:
|
|
excluded:
|
|
included:
|
|
included:
|
|
excluded:
|
|
excluded:
|
