The Canon of the New Testament

Two Competing Models of Canon Formation

Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2013)

The Extrinsic Model - the church created the canon.

The current dominant scholarly paradigm. This view argues that the idea of a defined Christian canon was largely absent in the earliest church. It was imposed later by ecclesiastical and socio-political forces in the second through fourth centuries.

The Intrinsic Model - the church recognized the canon.

This is the conservative historic alternative. On this view, the canon arose organically from within early Christian belief and practice. The very nature of the gospel created conditions that inevitably led to the recognition of a particular set of authoritative writings.

In the Intrinsic Model, there are criteria

The concept of “criteria”
- Definition: standards, markers, or indicators to evaluate and recognize.
- Criteria function as tests of recognition and discernment.
Necessary but not sufficient criteria
1. These criteria functioned negatively: they could exclude writings from consideration but could not, by themselves, establish canonicity.
  1. Orthodoxy - Consistency with the regula fidei (rule of faith) as confessed and transmitted in the apostolic churches.
  2. Catholicity - Widespread, continuous, and geographically diverse use within the churches, especially in public reading and teaching.
  3. Antiquity - Credible origin within the apostolic age, ruling out later compositions regardless of theological quality.
2. A writing could satisfy all three and yet still not be recognized as Scripture, e.g.,
  1. Shepherd of Hermas
  2. Didache
  3. 1 Clement
The sufficient criterion is Apostolicity
1. This criterion functioned positively: it was decisive for recognizing a writing as canonical.
2. Apostolicity defined broadly
  1. Authorship by an apostle
  2. Or by an apostolic associate writing under apostolic authority (e.g., Mark/Peter; Luke/Paul).
  3. Tertullian called the latter “apostolic men.”
  4. The decisive test was apostolic origin.
3. The distinction between authorship by an apostle and by an apostolic man is not sharp - authorship was often a communal project
  1. Paul’s network of “fellow workers”
    1. Clement “and the rest of my fellow workers” (Phil 4:3)
    2. Epaphroditus, “my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier” (Phil 2:25)
    3. Epaphras (Col 1:7; 4:12; Phm 23)
    4. Luke, “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phm 24)
    5. Mark (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11)
    6. Philemon (Phm 1)
    7. Priscilla and Aquila, “my fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Rom 16:3; cp. Acts 18:1-3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:9).
    8. Silvanus/Silas (Acts 15:40; 16:25; 17:1-4; 18:5; 1-2 Thess 1:1)
    9. Timothy (Acts 16:1-4; Rom 16:21; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1-2 Thess 1:1)
    10. Titus (2 Cor 8:23; Gal 2:1; Titus 1:4-5)
    11. Tychicus (Eph 6:21; 2 Tim 4:12)
    12. Unnamed “brother” who was “famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel” (2 Cor 8:18).
  2. Not all of these brothers would have helped write letters, but some did:
    1. Romans: Paul wrote his most important letter with the help of Tertius (Rom 16:22) while staying at the home of Gaius (v 23) and accompanied by Timothy and others (v 21).
    2. 1 Cor: “Paul, called as an apostle … and Sosthenes our brother” (1 Cor 1:1).
    3. 2 Cor: “Paul, an apostle … and Timothy our brother” (2 Cor 1:1).
    4. Gal: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers who are with me” (Gal 1:1-2).
    5. Phil: “Paul and Timothy” (Phil 1:1), and “The brothers who are with me greet you” (Phil 4:21).
    6. Col: “Paul, and apostle … and Timothy our brother” (Col 1:1).
    7. 1-2 Thess: “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy.” (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).
  3. Peter’s fellow workers overlapped with Paul’s
    1. Silvanus, “our faithful brother,” through whom Peter wrote his first letter (1 Pet 5:12)
    2. “My son, Mark” (1 Pet 5:13)
    3. “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow presbyter … shepherd the flock of God” (1 Pet 5:1-2).
      1. Peter identifies himself as a “fellow presbyter.”
      2. Suggests network of presbyters across Asia Minor (1 Pet 1:1).
    4. 2 Peter was probably authored by Peter’s circle while he was still alive and under his supervision and with his final blessing.
4. Only writings of apostolic origin were received as the normative, foundational witness to Christ and thus recognized as belonging to the NT canon.

Apostolic Authorship

If the NT writings have apostolic authority from the outset (immediately upon being written and published), then it becomes important to establish “apostolic” (broadly defined) authorship of each NT book.

A central criterion by which the subapostolic church recognized the books of the New Testament canon was apostolic origin.

NT books authored by an Apostle (but not excluding apostolic helpers)

The Gospel of Matthew
1. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130 AD): “Matthew put together the oracles [logia], in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able” (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).
2. Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church” (A.H. 3.1.1).
3. Origen: “Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism” (Commentary on Matthew).
The Gospel of John
1. AD 170: Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch: “Hence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired writers teach us as one of these, John, says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God’” (To Autolycus 2.22).
2. AD 180: Irenaeus: “Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (A.H. 3.1.1).
3. Irenaeus: “I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse – his going out, too, and his coming in – his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar discourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance” (Letter to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.20).
4. AD 170-200: The Muratorian Canon: “The fourth book of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow disciples and bishops urged him, he said, ‘Fast together with me today for three days and, what shall be revealed to each, let us tell it to each other.’ On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that with all of them reviewing it, John should describe all things in his own name … What marvel, therefore, if John so constantly brings forward particular matters also in his Epistles, saying of himself: ‘What we have seen with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you.’ For thus he declares that he was not only an eyewitness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.”
5. AD 200: Clement of Alexandria: “John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel” (apud Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.7).
6. AD 400: Jerome: “John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James … most recently of all the evangelists wrote a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the then growing dogma of the Ebionites, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. On this account he was compelled to maintain His divine nativity” (On Illustrious Men).
7. Jerome: “Last is John, the Apostle and Evangelist, whom Jesus loved most, who, reclining on the breast of the Lord, drank the purest streams of teachings and who alone merited to hear from the cross: ‘Behold, your mother.’ He – when he was in Asia, and at that time the seeds of the heretics, Cerinthus, Ebion, and others, who deny that Christ came in the flesh, whom he himself also calls Antichrists in his epistle and [at whom] the Apostle Paul frequently lashes out, were already shooting up – he was urged by almost all the bishops of Asia at that time and by delegates of many churches to write more profoundly about the divinity of the Savior and, so to speak, to break through to the very Word of God – not so much with boldness as with fortunate haste*, as the Ecclesiastical History relates. When he was urged by the brethren to write, [he is said] to have replied that he would do so, if, when a general fast had been proclaimed, all would pray to God. When it was carried out, saturated with revelation, he burst forth into that heaven-sent prologue: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and this Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.’” (*Fortunate in view of the fact that John died shortly afterwards.) (From Jerome’s preface to his Commentary on Matthew.)
8. Theodor Zahn: “All tradition which is ancient and in general worthy of notice agrees in representing John as writing after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at a great age, and during his residence in the province of Asia, or more specifically in Ephesus” (Introduction to the New Testament, 3.179).
9. NT books authored by the Apostle John
  1. Gospel of John
  2. First, Second, and Third Epistles of John
  3. The Apocalypse of John
The Epistles of Paul - 13 or 14 Epistles 7. E.g., Papyrus 46 (c. AD 175–225)
1. Contains Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, Hebrews
2. Bound as one codex
3. Epistles arranged by length, not chronology (Romans first)
4. Missing Pastorals likely due to loss, not exclusion (final leaves are gone)
5. Pauline letters were already circulating as a defined literary unit by the early 3rd century and probably earlier.
6. Consistent Ordering across Manuscripts
  1. Early Pauline manuscripts show a remarkably stable internal order:
    1. Romans
    2. 1–2 Corinthians
    3. Galatians
    4. Ephesians
    5. Philippians
    6. Colossians
    7. 1–2 Thessalonians
    8. Hebrews (variable position)
    9. Pastorals (later placement)
  2. Ordering principle: longest to shortest letters to churches, then individuals.
7. Marcion’s Apostolikon
  1. What this was
    1. Collection of Pauline letters used by Marcion (mid-2nd cent)
    2. Deliberately edited and theologically reshaped to support his anti-Jewish, dualistic theology.
    3. 10 Pauline epistles shortened and altered by Marcion
      1. Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews excluded
      2. Because they affirmed continuity with Israel’s Scriptures
    4. Paired with his Gospel (an edited form of Luke)
  2. Marcion’s editing
    1. Removing Old Testament quotations
    2. Eliminating positive references to creation
    3. Softening or excising affirmations of judgment
    4. Reframing Christ as a revealer from a higher god, not Israel’s God
8. The Significance of Marcion’s Apostolikon
9. It presupposes a clearly identifiable Pauline corpus in the early 2nd cent.
10. Marcion’s project only makes sense if:
  1. Pauline letters were already circulating together
  2. Their number and identity were broadly known
  3. Churches could recognize omissions and alterations
11. Tertullian in Against Marcion was able to show how Marcion had edited and mutilated Paul’s letters.
The Two Epistles of Peter
Origen: “Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, for this is disputed” (cited in Eusebius)
Eusebius: “One epistle of Peter, called the first, is acknowledged; the second is disputed, but nevertheless known to most” (H.E. 3.3.1).
Jerome: “Peter wrote two epistles which are called catholic, the second of which is denied by many because of its difference of style from the first” (On Illustrious Men 1).
The Epistle of James - unique case
James (the man) never called an apostle, but arguably functioned like an apostle
Paul refers to him as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).
Self-identification: “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1; cp. Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Tit 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1).
Resurrection appearance: “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7), placing James immediately prior to the collective apostolic body.
Named alongside Peter and John as a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:9).
James delivered the decisive speech at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13-21).

NT books authored by an apostolic associate

The Gospel of Mark
1. Authored by John Mark, Peter’s interpreter and transmitter of Petrine testimony.
2. Papias (ca. 130): “And the Presbyter used to say this: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord’s sayings; consequently, Mark, writing some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing – not to omit anything of the things he had heard or to falsify anything in them” (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.15-16).
3. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180): “When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and had declared the Gospel by the Spirit, those who were present—they were many—besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this, he gave the Gospel to those who had asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended it” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14.5).
4. Tertullian: “The Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was” (Against Marcion 4.5).
5. Jerome (ca. 400): “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, when asked by the brethren at Rome, wrote a short Gospel according to what he had heard Peter reporting. When Peter had heard of this, he approved it and authorized it to be read in the churches … He (Mark) died in the eighth year of Nero (AD 62) and was buried at Alexandria.”
6. Peter calls him “my son, Mark” (1 Pet 5:13).
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (Luke-Acts)
1. Authored by Luke
2. Luke belonged to Paul’s missionary network of co-workers (Col 4:14; Phm 24)
3. Travel companion of Paul on his journeys: the “we” sections, from Troas (Acts 16:10) to Rome (28:16).
4. Irenaeus: “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” (A.H. 3.1.1)
5. Muratorian Fragment: “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his journey, composed it in his own name.”
6. Tertullian: “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.” (Against Marcion 4.2).
7. Origen: “The third Gospel is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, who wrote it for those who were from the Gentiles” (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.6)
8. Eusebius: “Luke, who was by race an Antiochian and a physician by profession, was long a companion of Paul and had associated with the other apostles. He has left us two inspired volumes” (H.E. 3.4.6)
9. Jerome: “Luke, a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. He was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the author of the Gospel and Acts” (On Illustrious Men 7)
The Epistle to the Hebrews
1. Author unknown, but probably a member of the Pauline circle.
2. Heb 13:23 (“our brother Timothy”), situates the author within Paul’s network.
3. His theological perspective is Pauline.
4. Clement of Alexandria “says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s, but that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks” (Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.2)
5. Origen: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows” (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.13-14)
6. Athanasius includes Hebrews among Paul’s fourteen epistles in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367).
7. Jerome: “The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered to be Paul’s by many, because of the difference in style and language, but it is reckoned among his epistles by the churches of the East” (On Illustrious Men 5).
The Epistle of Jude 4. Jude 5. Self-identification: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). 6. Jude’s letter, sharply polemical against heretics and calling for believers to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3), implies a high degree of authority. 7. Jude’s authority derives from his close kinship with James. 8. He may have been a member of the Jerusalem leadership alongside his brother James.

In sum, every New Testament writing can be accounted for as “apostolic” in some way, either directly authored by an apostle or coming from apostolic circles.

Eusebius’ Three Categories

This is from Ecclesiastical History 3.25. Eusebius said the potential books that the early church considered fell into three main categories: Acknowledged, Disputed (including Spurious), and Heretical.

Acknowledged Books

These are writings that were “acknowledged” (homologoumena) by the entire church as apostolic and authoritative.
Sometimes referred to as the “undisputed” books.
Eusebius lists:
1. The four Gospels
2. Acts of the Apostles
3. The Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews)
4. 1 Peter
5. 1 John
These books are the uncontested core of the NT.

Disputed Books

The word “disputed” (antilegomena) is a bit strong and perhaps misleading.
1. Some of these books were well known and widely read in many of the churches, but not yet fully accepted everywhere.
2. And in some cases (esp. Rev) doubts were expressed in certain parts of the church.
3. It isn’t that they were “disputed” so much as that it took longer for these books to be recognized by the whole church.
Eusebius mentions the following under this category:
1. James
2. 2 Peter
3. 2-3 John
4. Jude
5. Revelation - but Eusebius is cautious and says he is unsure which category Rev belongs to. “Some reject it, but others count it among the Acknowledged books.”
Spurious Books
1. This is a sub-category under the Disputed books.
2. These writings were rejected by the church as not genuinely apostolic, even if they contained edifying material.
3. Examples given by Eusebius:
  1. Acts of Paul
  2. Shepherd of Hermas
  3. Apocalypse of Peter
  4. Epistle of Barnabas
  5. Didache
  6. Gospel of the Hebrews
4. These writings might be read for edification, but they are definitely not received as canonical because not apostolic.

Heretical Books

Eusebius: “But the writings which are put forward by heretics … are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics” (HE 3.25).
Irenaeus: “They put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing ‘The Gospel of Truth,’ though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy” (AH 3.11.9).

Evidence pointing to the Intrinsic Model

Internal Evidence within the NT Writings
1. Explicit authorship and authority claims
  1. Self-identification (e.g., “Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus”)
  2. Claims to apostolic authority (Gal 1–2; 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 10–13)
  3. Claims to eyewitness status (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3; 2 Pet 1:16)
  4. Claims to write “command of the Lord” or divine authorization (1 Cor 14:37; 1 Thess 4:15)
2. Inter-textual recognition within the NT
  1. Paul’s letters referred to as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16)
  2. Use of Jesus traditions with scriptural authority (1 Tim 5:18 citing Luke alongside Deut)
  3. Circulation instructions (Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27)
  4. This shows an emerging consciousness of authoritative Christian writings alongside Israel’s Scriptures.
Early Reception and Attribution in the Subapostolic Period
1. Patristic testimony on authorship and origin
  1. Papias on Matthew and Mark
  2. Irenaeus (ca. 180): “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church. After their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he too handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke also, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by that one. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord who also leaned upon his breast, he too published a Gospel while residing in Ephesus [in] Asia.”
  3. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen
  4. Eusebius as a compiler and evaluator of earlier testimony
2. Liturgical and pastoral use
  1. Use in public reading (cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67)
  2. Use in catechesis and preaching
  3. Assumed authority in pastoral instruction
  4. Regular liturgical use functioned as a powerful canon-recognition mechanism long before formal canon lists.
Manuscript and Codicological Evidence
1. Titles, subscriptions, and superscriptions
  1. Gospel titles (Κατὰ Ματθαῖον, etc.)
  2. Pauline letter attributions in early papyri
  3. Early and remarkably uniform across manuscript traditions
2. Manuscript groupings and codices
  1. Which books are copied together
  2. Ordering of books
  3. Inclusion or exclusion of disputed works (e.g., Shepherd of Hermas)
  4. Large codices (e.g., 4th-5th cent. pandects) indicate received collections.
Canon Lists and Catalogues
1. The Muratorian Fragment (3rd cent.)
  1. 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul, Epistles of John, Jude, Rev
  2. Omitted: 1-2 Peter, James, and Hebrews
2. Origen (d. 254)
  1. Origen was the foremost biblical scholar of his time.
  2. He does not provide a formal canon list.
  3. But we can derive his NT canon from statements in his commentaries.
  4. His NT canon corresponds to the traditional canon of 27 books.
3. Eusebius (c. 325)
  1. It is unclear whether Eusebius himself has doubts about the books he classifies as Disputed.
  2. A case can be made that he did not, and that he was only reporting that these books were not fully acknowledged in some quarters.
  3. Why? Because he clearly marks off the Spurious as a sub-category of Disputed.
  4. By implication, Eusebius does not regard the 5 disputed Catholic Epistles (James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude) as Spurious.
  5. Remarkably, if we combine his first two categories– Acknowledged and Disputed-but-not-Spurious–then Eusebius’ canon corresponds to the traditional 27 books (although he places a metaphorical asterisk next to Rev).
4. The Claromontanus Catalogue (first half of 4th cent.)
  1. 4 Gospels, Paul, 7 Catholic, Rev, Acts
  2. This is an early canon list but it has anomalies
  3. The anomalies are in the Pauline corpus: Philippians, Thessalonians, Hebrews are missing
  4. These are Acknowledged books, so their omission is probably due to accidental scribal error.
  5. If so, then this is one of the earliest canon lists that supports the traditional 27 books of the NT.
5. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350):
  1. “Then of the NT there are the four Gospels only … Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Letters of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank.”
  2. 4 Gospels, Acts, 7 Catholic, 14 Paul
  3. Omitted: Rev
6. Athanasius’s Festal Letter (367) - all 27 books
  1. 4 Gospels, Acts, 7 Catholic, 14 Paul, Rev
7. Jerome (c. 400) - all 27 books
  1. Gospels, 14 Paul, Acts, 7 Catholic, Rev
Discussion and Debate
1. The fact that there was debate even over orthodox books is evidence that the church had strict criteria for canonicity.
2. The books that in some regions lacked certainty but eventually became universally recognized.
3. The books that were widely used and viewed as pious and orthodox, but ultimately excluded, e.g., Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and 1 Clement.
4. These discussions illuminate the thinking of the early church leaders: they were not engaging in canon creation, but in canon recognition.
Patristic Commentary and Citation
1. This is strong evidence that these writings were received as authoritative by the early church.
2. The Fourfold Gospel
  1. Irenaeus: late 2nd cent. witness to the fourfold Gospel
  2. Matthew
    1. Origen (Greek commentary)
    2. Chrysostom (full homilies)
    3. Jerome (Latin commentary)
  3. Mark
    1. No commentaries, but many clear references (Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.).
    2. Origen cites Mark throughout his commentaries on Matthew and John.
  4. Luke
    1. Origen (commentary)
    2. Ambrose (Latin exposition)
    3. Cyril of Alexandria (fragments)
  5. John
    1. Origen (commentary)
    2. Chrysostom (homilies)
    3. Augustine (Tractates on John)
3. The Acts of the Apostles
  1. Chrysostom
  2. Augustine
  3. Bede
4. Pauline Epistles
  1. After the fourfold Gospel, Paul’s letters formed the earliest recognized Christian Scripture collection.
  2. Romans
    1. Origen (commentary)
    2. Chrysostom (homilies)
    3. Augustine (expositions)
  3. 1-2 Corinthians
    1. Origen (fragments)
    2. Chrysostom (full homilies)
  4. Galatians
    1. Origen
    2. Chrysostom
    3. Jerome
  5. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians
    1. Chrysostom
    2. Theodore of Mopsuestia
    3. Jerome
  6. Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy, Titus)
    1. Chrysostom
    2. Jerome
    3. Theodore
  7. Hebrews - initially regarded as Pauline in the East
    1. Origen
    2. Chrysostom
    3. Theodore of Mopsuestia

Core and Periphery

The uncontested core of the NT
1. Eusebius’s universally “Acknowledged” books
2. 4 Gospels, Acts, 14 Paul, 2 Catholic (1 Peter, 1 John)
The periphery
1. Remaining 5 Catholic Epistles: James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude
2. Revelation (but may belong to “Acknowledged”)
The Catholic Epistles
1. No patristic commentaries, but cited as authoritative.
2. James
  1. Origen: “James the brother of the Lord has left one epistle, which is acknowledged by many.”
  2. Didymus the Blind: “The divine Scripture says, ‘Faith without works is dead.’”
3. 1-2 Peter
  1. Irenaeus: “As Peter says in his epistle…”
  2. Tertullian: “Peter says that Christ suffered for us…”
  3. Origen: “Peter has left one epistle acknowledged; perhaps also a second, for this is disputed.”
  4. Eusebius: “One epistle of Peter is acknowledged… the so-called second epistle has been disputed, yet has appeared useful to many.”
  5. Didymus the Blind: “Scripture says, ‘That the day of the Lord will come as a thief’” (2 Peter 3:10).
4. 1-3 John
  1. Polycarp: “Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist.”
  2. Irenaeus: “John, the disciple of the Lord, says in his epistle…” (AH 3.16.8).
  3. Origen: “John left behind one epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third, for not all consider these genuine.”
  4. Eusebius: “Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are the so-called epistles of James, Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the second and third epistles of John…”
  5. Athanasius’s Festal Letter.
  6. Jerome: “John the apostle wrote one epistle which is acknowledged by all; the other two are reckoned among the seven catholic epistles.”
5. Jude
  1. Clement of Alexandria: “Jude, in his epistle, speaks of the angels who did not keep their proper domain.”
  2. Tertullian: “Enoch also has a testimony in the Apostle Jude.”
  3. Origen: “Jude wrote an epistle of few lines, but filled with the powerful words of heavenly grace.”
The Book of Revelation (aka The Apocalypse of John)
1. The book was widely attributed to the apostle John, quoted, and commented on.
  1. Justin Martyr attributes it to “John, one of the apostles of Christ” and goes on to say that John prophesied the millennial reign of the saints in Jerusalem (chiliasm).
  2. Irenaeus explicitly attributes it to the apostle John: “John also says in the Apocalypse: ‘Grace be with you and peace, from him who is, and who was, and who is to come.’”
  3. Tertullian cites Rev in connection with its theology of martyrdom: “The souls of the martyrs cry out beneath the altar.”
  4. Hippolytus: “John says in the Apocalypse, ‘And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.’”
  5. Cyprian: “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” … “The Lord says in the Apocalypse: ‘I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire.’”
  6. Athanasius: “The Lord who is and who was and who is to come.” “The Revelation of John” (Festal Letter 39).
  7. Epiphanius: “John, the holy apostle and evangelist, was exiled to the island of Patmos, and there he received the Apocalypse.”
2. Rev. had widespread support in the early centuries of the church.
3. However, as Eusebius notes (c. 325), many churchmen in the Greek East expressed doubts – for following reasons:
  1. Its susceptibility to abuse in support of speculative, enthusiastic, and sectarian versions of chiliasm (e.g., Montanism).
  2. Its interpretive difficulty and obscurity (the symbolism of the visions; the number of the beast).
  3. Its uncertain authorship. The Greek style of Rev differs markedly from that of John’s Gospel and Epistles—so much so that Dionysius of Alexandria proposed that Rev was written by a different “John” than the apostle.
4. Eventually, church fathers developed a non-chiliastic (amillennial) interpretation (Tyconius, Augustine). This reduced its susceptibility to abuse and encouraged wider recognition.
5. Intramural exegetical debate over the millennium of Rev 20 presupposes the book’s canonical authority. The church would not argue at length over how to interpret a text unless it was regarded as Scripture.