1514 | The Formation of the New Testament
Old Testament Canon but rather they received Scripture moving in the direction of being considered a Canon. Because of this, Sundberg believed Harnack’ s answer was difficult to sustain. The church fathers cited documents not in the closed Old Testament Canon as Scripture. Thus, one cannot claim, as Harnack did, that citation of a document as Scripture proves canonicity. If the church did not receive a closed Old Testament from Judaism, but rather Scripture on the way to canonization, then the comparison of the citations of Chris tian literature with Old Testament citations cannot establish canonicity for Chris tian writings.
Sundberg’ s research has led some to agree that an essential distinction be made between the terms“ Scripture” and“ Canon.” 6 Sundberg thus argued that“ Scripture” should be understood as writings that are held in some sense as authoritative for religion.“ Canon,” on the other hand, should be understood as a defined collection that is to be held as exclusively authoritative with respect to all other documents. The issue here is one of anachronism: We should not refer to a document as“ Canon” that would historically have been referred to as“ Scripture.” Thus, we cannot claim canonicity for a New Testament document that is cited with the same formula as an Old Testament document unless we are prepared to say that the church fathers had a larger Old Testament Canon than we currently have. Based on these conclusions, Sundberg argues that a New Testament Canon did not appear in Chris tian ity until the latter half of the fourth century when lists of canonical books begin to appear.
The definition of the term“ Canon”— which has become increasingly narrow— is influential in determining the date and therefore composition of the New Testament Canon. Zahn and Harnack understand“ canonical” as referring to a writing that functions authoritatively. If we accept this definition, then a Canon emerges quite early( later first to the end of the second century). Sundberg, on the other hand, views“ Canon” in a stricter sense— as a closed list of writings. If we accept this definition, a Canon emerges much later in the fourth century when such lists began to appear.
These three answers are often viewed as mutually exclusive. However, as John Barton points out, when we look at the actual arguments, each position makes some good points. 7 Zahn is correct that most New Testament documents did have authority in the late first and early second centuries; Harnack is correct that these books were discriminately added to in the second and third centuries; Sundberg is correct that it is only from the fourth century onward that authoritative rulings about the exact limits of the Canon appear.
However, we could also call each position overstated. Zahn asserted that the New Testament books would one day form a Canon, but it is an overstatement to claim that this was the intent of first-century Chris tians. Harnack does not give enough attention to the reality that, in the second century, there was still an openness to receive other books— that is, to add them to the“ Canon.” Sundberg states that the latter part of the fourth century is decisive because this is when strict canonical lists began to appear, but it is probable that these lists were documenting what were already accepted earlier lists.
The frequency with which a particular book was cited by church fathers appears to be a more helpful consideration. As Barton explains,“ The picture that emerges is surprisingly clear. From the Apostolic Fathers onwards, the Synoptic Gospels( especially Matthew), the Fourth Gospel, and the major Pauline letters are cited much more often than one would predict, if one supposed that the whole of the New Testament we now have was equally‘ canonical’ or important. Correspondingly,
6 Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning( Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985); compare Christopher R. Seitz, The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets( Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009). 7 John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Chris tian ity( Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 11 – 14.