accepted completely in the East, however, and at Alexandria both Clement and Origen recognized Paul as the author. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius,a pp. 233, 234, 246) It also contains many Pauline constructions and similarities of language, especially to Romans and Corinthians. But as Westcott remarked, “We have been enabled to acknowledge that the apostolic authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship . . . no book of the Bible is more completely recognised by universal consent as giving a divine view of the facts of the Gospel.”⁵ Internal evidence produces the strongest reasons for canonical acceptance.

The book of Revelation is attested to by a unanimity of early commentators including Papias, Justin, Melito and Irenaeus.⁶ (Fragments of Papias 8) It was rejected by some in the East because its teachings were unacceptable to certain schools of thought. But this did not disturb its general reception Even at this early date due regard was also paid to having a correct text, as Irenaeus informs us in referring to Revelation 13:18 when he remarks, “The number is thus found in all the genuine and ancient copies.”—Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 188.

This leaves James and Jude and the epistles of Peter and John. There was never any difficulty with First Peter and First John, Papias and Polycarp being among the early testimonies for their authority. (Fragments of Papias 6; The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 2, 7) When it is remembered how small each of the remaining five writings is, we are not surprised to find a paucity of references to them, comprising as they do only one thirty-sixth of the Christian Greek Scriptures. They are all referred to by one second-century Christian or another, but it is only to be expected that shorter works would not be quoted so often and, as they might have had a slower circulation, they would be known in some regions and not others. Second Peter has been questioned most by critics, but Irenaeus uses it, (Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.23.2 and 5.28.3) and internal evidence shows it to be an early work and not of the second century.

PRESENCE OF APOCRYPHAL WORKS

But why does the manuscript Codex Sinaiticus include after the book of Revelation the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Codex Alexandrinus add the two Clementine epistles? Many similar writings have been discovered recently claiming apostolic status, and among these the so-called Gospel of Thomas has evoked much discussion. Should some of these works be included in our Bible today?

The historian Eusebius, in summing up the position, sets out three categories of writings. First the acknowledged ones are enumerated and then the disputed ones, both classes being considered canonical. The third group, in which he names the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas and others, he calls spurious, although they were read in various congregations at times. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 110) The Muratorian fragment states that the Shepherd could be read but was never to the end of time to be recognized as canonical.⁴

When it was found that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly at the end of the second century, it was ordered to be rejected as false. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231) Tertullian tells us that the author of the “Acts of Paul” was punished for posing as a first-century writer. (De Baptismo 17) In a letter written by Theodore of Egypt in the fourth century the apocryphal writings are referred to as “the lying waters of which so many drank,”⁷ and the Muratorian list speaks of them as gall which should not be mixed with honey.⁴ So the Christian community was careful to protect the integrity of its writings.

It was often a matter of convenience to bind into a codex an apocryphal work, for it might be read by some, though they would have in mind the distinction shown by the fact that in the two codices cited (the Sinaitic and the Alexandrine) the apocryphal writings followed Revelation, the last of the canonical books. Or we might possess a manuscript today that belonged to an apostate congregation giving too much attention to such works, just as in the case that Serapion of Antioch discovered at the end of the second century.

Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.

INSPIRED OF GOD

The true test of canonicity is the evidence of inspiration. (2 Tim. 3:16) The twenty-seven books of the Christian Greek Scriptures found their place, not by the mere caprice of men, but by the spirit of God. Nothing is missing and nothing extra has been added. John could already see the beginning of a vast additional literature in his old age, but was it needed? (John 21:25) Even if a genuine saying of Jesus could be found in one of these works, that would not make it an inspired writing. God’s Word in its sixty-six books is our guide and its complete harmony and balance testify to its completeness. All praise to Jehovah God, the Creator of this incomparable Book! It can equip us completely and put us on the way to life. Let us use it wisely while we yet have time.

REFERENCES

¹ The Problem of the New Testament Canon, by Kurt Aland, 1962, page 18.

² The Text of the Epistles, by G. Zuntz, 1946, pages 14, 279.

³ Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, 1958, page 58.

⁴ The New Testament Documents, G. Milligan, 1913, pages 214, 290, 291.

⁵ The Epistle to the Hebrews, Greek Text and Notes, by B. F. Westcott, 1889, page lxxi.

⁶ Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament, by S. P. Tregelles, 1852, pages 61-63.

⁷ The New Archaeological Discoveries, 2d Ed., by C. M. Cobern, 1917, page 334.

Bible Statistics

Bible Statistics

Hebrew Greek

Scriptures Scriptures Total

Words 592,493 181,253 773,746

Verses 23,214 7,959 31,173

Chapters 929 260 1,189

Books 39 27 66

As contained in the King James Version Bible.