to a secondary status as an Old Testament appendix in Zwingli’s Zurich Bible (1529), the Calvinist Olivetan Bible (1534-1535), and the English Bibles such as Coverdale (1536), Matthew (1537), and the second edition of the Great Bible, (1540), Bishops (1568) and the King James Version (1611).159 This shows that they still valued these books although they did not want to accord them the same status with those that they considered to be inspired.
However, hard line Reformers excluded the Apocrypha totally from their Bibles.
According to Raymond Brown and Raymond Collins, examples of such a stance can be found in the Gallican Confession (1559), Belgian Confession (1561), the Anglican Confession (1563) and the second Helvetic Confession (1566). The Puritan Confession also declared the Apocrypha to be of a merely secular nature. Indeed, the Westminster Confession (1648) stated that ‘the books commonly called apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are not part of the canon of scripture; hence no authority to the church of God’.160 This means that they were not to be approved or used in worship or in religious instruction in these Protestant areas. However, the Roman Catholic Church through its councils of Trent (1545-63) and Vatican I (1869-70) and Vatican II (1962-65), endorsed the apocrypha and maintained that it should be used just like any other Scripture. To this end the Catholic canon contains seventy-three books whereas the Protestant Bible contains sixty-six books.
instrumental in the formation of doctrine and the charting of the way that the church was to take in its growth and belief system. A few examples can help us understand their contribution in the growth of the Canon of scripture.
An example of the earliest Church Fathers is Papias (c. AD70 –AD140/160). He was Bishop of Hierapolis. In one of the letters of Ignatius, he is described as ‘well known as Bishop of Hierapolis, a man well skilled in all manner of learning and well acquainted with scriptures’.161 His words concerning the canon of Scripture are quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History. Papias is quoted saying that,
if I met with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders. What did Andrew, Peter, or Philip say.
What was said by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord … for I do not think I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving.162
Papias shows that he was close to the disciples of Jesus. He gives authority to the sayings of the apostles. He also acknowledges the Gospel writers as authentic. His contribution, therefore, is crucial since he was closer to the authors of scripture.
Concerning the four Gospel writers, Papias says different things that point to the fact that the Gospel writers were much closer to him, with some being his contemporaries.
Concerning John Eusebius suggests that Papias professed to have received the declarations of the apostle from those who were in company with them and said also that he was the first hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. Papias is also quoted by Eusebius as saying that Papias wrote that,
161 Eusebius’, Ecclesiastical History . Translated by C. F. Cruse,(New updated Edition), (Massachusettes: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) p.100.
162 Ibid. p.104.
Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded, he did so with great accuracy but not in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts163.
This shows that Papias had a high respect for Mark. About Matthew he writes little.
According to Eusebius, Papias believes that ‘Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able’164. However, Papias is silent on Luke.
Another of the Church Fathers, Justin Martyr (c.100 – 163) was one of the early Christian apologists who was born of pagan parents. He was then converted from pagan philosophy to Christianity in c.130 AD F.L.Cross suggests that at Ephesus he engaged in his first disputation with Trypho the Jew.165 In addition, later he opened a Christian school and one of his students was Tatian. Justin is outstanding due to the ‘Apologies that he produced. In one of his apologies that he wrote defending Christians, he writes that ‘on a day called Sunday, those who live in the cities or in the Country hold a meeting at which the memoirs of the apostles or writings of the prophets are read.166 These memoirs are the Gospel writings that eventually became authoritative for the Church. Again, Justin provides information on how the Gospel writings were used in the early Church.
The other Church Father to acknowledge the four-fold Gospel was Clement of Alexandria (c.AD150-AD215). He was a contemporary of Tatian and was an esteemed
163 Ibid. p.105.
164 Ibid. p.105.
165 F. L. Cross, Op.cit. p 915
166 Henry Bettenson, Op. cit. p.94.
director of the great Catechetical School in Alexandria founded by Pantaenus. Arthur G.
Patzia maintains that Clement cites four canonical gospels as Scripture although he acknowledges the existence of the other Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Egyptians167. According to J. N. Sanders, Clement also accepts Hebrews as Pauline in addition to the 13 epistles which are 1 Peter, 1&2 John, Jude, Barnabas, Acts, Revelation and also the apocalypse of Peter, 1 Clement, Didache, and Hermas. He may also have known James, 3 John and 2 Peter. This means that his list of New Testament books comprised thirty-two books.
As for Eusebius, (c.AD260-AD340), the Bishop of Caesarea and ‘the father of Church history’168, there are books that fall in the category of ‘acknowledged’ books. According to J. N. Sanders, these books include the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles, 1 John, 1 Peter, and (somewhat hesitantly) Revelations.169 It is important to note that Eusebius regarded Hebrews as Pauline. For him there are books that were ‘disputed’ but known to the majority such as James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. Amongst the books that he rejected outrightly were the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Barnabas, the so- called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He also wanted to include Revelation to this list but tradition turned out to be too strong for him.
All these Church Fathers reveal the fact that the Canon of scripture took a lot of discussion and consideration both at local as well as at regional level. Individual church leaders, with the support of their followers, could decide on which books to use and use only those books. Tradition also seems to have played a significant role down the
167 Arthur. G. Patzia, Op. cit p66
168 F.L.Cross, Op. cit. p574
169 J. N. Sanders, Op. cit. p681
centuries. This is seen in the present day with people just using a particular canon of scripture on the basis that it is the one that was used by their historical church.