As
late as the mid-fourth century, when Athanasius published his twenty-seven book
list of NT scriptures in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, his list was
not universally accepted in the rest of the Roman Empire or even in his
homeland in Egypt in his lifetime. Universal approval of that list took much
longer. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2
vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 1:68)
It
is interesting that he omits Esther as did several church fathers . . . and
also that the occasion for this listing of books in the HB that he accepts as
the church’s OT is that some church fathers continued “to mix them [apocryphal
books] up with the divinely inspired Scripture” and he wanted to present his
own views on the matter. He acknowledges that others have included books that
he himself rejects in his OT canon and largely, but not completely follows the
books of the HB and not in the Tanak order, but following more the LXX order.
He also includes Baruch and the Epistles of Jeremiah which are not included in
the HB. (Ibid., 321)
4.
Synopsis scripurae sacrae (ca. 350-370). Similar to Athanasius is the
anonymous Synopsis scripturae sacra, which was reproduced in the works
of Athanasius, but was probably not written by him. The author lists in
accordance with the Hebrew alphabet a twenty-two book canon that separates
Judges and Ruth and omits Esther. The author specifically rejects Esther as
“not canonical” along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit.
(Ibid., 321)
Pretty
much everything that was believed to be true in the early Christian churches
was also believed to be inspired. When Paul, for instance, admonishes the
Corinthians, he claims to have the Spirit (1 Cor 7:40). This is not unlike
others in the early church, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Irenaeus who
also claimed inspiration. For example, Clement of Rome asserts that Paul wrote
with “true inspiration” (1 Clem. 47.3), but later claims that he also
wrote his letter “through the Holy Spirit” (1 Clem. 63:2). Ignatius of
Antioch claims that he took was speaking through the Spirit (Phld.
7.1b-2). The term “inspired” was not used exclusively of scripture in the early
church, but was reflected in the whole church as we see also in the fourth
century Abercius who speaks of a church council’s decision as “inspired
judgment” (Vita Abercii 76). (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of
the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017],
1:69-70)
Athanasius was probably the first to use the term
canon (κανων) in reference to a closed body of sacred
literature, and he also appears to be the first to list the twenty-seven books
of our current NT canon, though in a different order (the Catholic Epistles
follow Acts and precede Paul). As he indicated in the cosign comments, one
should not conclude from the use of the verb κανονιζομενον (“canonized” or “listed”) in Athanasius’s letter that all current and
subsequent church leaders agreed fully with his catalogue of sacred texts. He
unhesitatingly accepted the book of Revelation as part of his biblical canon,
but several other churches in the East did not agree with him. Cyril of
Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, left it out, and even today, as
we saw above, the Greek Orthodox lectionary does not include readings from Revelation.
While the canon set forth by Athanasius ultimately prevailed in the majority of
the churches in succeeding centuries—it was adopted with the help of Augustine
at the church councils of Hippo )393) and Carthage (397, 416)—there is no
evidence, however, that Athanasius’ letter had a determining impact on all of
the churches of his day whether in the east or even in his own region of Egypt,
but it is likely that his list was reflective of the majority of churches with
which he was acquainted in his generation. Certainly the list was not something
that he himself created, but it reflected the books that most, not all, of the
Christians acknowledged as Scripture. The multiple manuscript discoveries in Egypt
from this time and later periods do not support the pervasive influence of
Athanasius’ list even in Egypt but as in most cases, there was considerable
overlap. Not until almost seven hundred years later was the book of Revelation universally
accepted into the NT canon of most churches, though many churches appear to
have simply ignored it if we consider the content of the surviving manuscripts.
We saw above the considerable difference in the number of manuscripts
containing the Gospels, Acts, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles was compared to Revelation.
(Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon,
2 vols. [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 2:306-7)
