200 AD TO 350 AD
200-350 AD
Author’s Note: As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the historical record becomes substantially richer, allowing the development of the canon to be examined in far greater detail.
This is the middle period of the early Church, for our purposes. By the end of this period, with the conversion of Constantine, and the Edict of Milan finally granting freedom from persecution, the early Church will enter a new phase, which will include the vast majority of the canon lists.
But unfortunately, with so few canon lists during this middle period, there is almost no evidence to understand what people thought about the canon. It is 150 years of utter and complete blankness, during which no one cared at all about what Books were being read and preached every Sunday.
Of course, that is not remotely true. We actually have plenty of evidence to discuss, and in fact clear documented evidence starts to grow rapidly—it is just not assembled in list form. But anyone who focuses only on lists is, indeed, skipping over a vast swath of history. And there is no good reason at all to pass over the evidence that comes outside of lists.
After 200, citation evidence starts to grow enormously for all the New Testament, Old Testament, and Apocryphal Books, and we will be able to make comparisons among them. But also, this is the era when the types of writings we find begin to diversify—some citations are sermons and homilies on the Apocrypha themselves, some citations are Scriptural commentaries on the Apocrypha, some (like the letter from Origen) are treatises on what is Scripture, why it is Scripture, and how the decision is being made.
Citation evidence also helps us understand the lists we will see in the later era (350 AD+). We will know what was going on before the lists, which will be useful information when Fathers in later years give us conflicting versions of what they claim “was handed down from the beginning.”
The double standard for citation evidence is endemic to canon scholarship. E.g., the book Scribes & Scripture by Professors John D. Meade and Peter J. Gurry – the “Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible”. Meade and Gurry claim to have proof that Daniel was Canon to Jesus:
“Daniel… Jesus still considers authoritative in his Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:15).” Scribes & Scripture, p. 119
But on p. 110 they note that “a citation doesn’t necessarily indicate that the author thought the book belonged in the canon [defined as a list of authoritative books, p. 108].”
If you take their dismissal of the evidence for the Apocrypha and apply it to the Canon, they admit that they failed to prove that Jesus considered Daniel authoritative. They have two completely different standards of proof, one for things they like and one for things they don’t.
But also, what they dismiss as a “mere citation” consists of the words of the actual early Christian – yet with Jesus, we do not have the words as He wrote them. We have the words of documents allegedly written by alleged disciples, claiming He said it. They dismiss more conclusive evidence than what they accept.
And further: the proof that the Gospels were not frauds putting false words in the mouth of Jesus depends on the writings of the early Christians claiming they were. P. 154: “Evidence [for certain New Testament books]… before Origen consists mostly of references … Papias used 1 Peter and 1 John .. More attestation … includes Polycarp … Irenaeus … Clement of Alexandria … and Tertullian …”
In fact, this sort of evidence of inclusion in the canon is stressed with an eye-catching chart on P. 118: an “X” for every “Biblical” (Old Testament) book quoted as such – it even includes an entire column dedicated to providing an “X” for books receiving even a single quote from one single Jew (Philo).
But not included: a chart of the thousands of times that early Christians quoted the “Apocrypha” as the Old Testament Biblical books they were given by the Apostles.
And also not noted: that each and every early Christian who left us substantial material quoted at least one of the “Apocrypha” as such an Old Testament Biblical book.
Personally, I was a skeptic simply trying to figure out which Bible I was supposed to be reading to see if it was true – and as I was reading about the Protestant canon, I grew very suspicious of this sort of misdirection. I tired of being told how worthless the citation evidence is on the one hand (so worthless they do not even present it), and how conclusive it is on the other. I wanted to see the evidence I wasn’t being shown, and judge it myself.