RussianConservative:
Heck, Luthern talked from dropping Mathews and Revolations.
Yes, Luther had his opinions, perhaps best-known for his calling of James an 'epistle of straw'. I think it raised difficulties for his theology and that caused his intemperate remarks about James. Like Luther, but even more so, Jerome held a disparaging view of Revelation and its place in the canon. Calvin said nothing about Revelations but, perhaps a bit tellingly, did not produce a scriptural commentary on its contents.
So we can regard many as holding various opinions on the canon. Let's look at some ancient Fathers:
Athanasius
(b. 296)
|
Origen
(b. 185)
|
Irenaeus
(b. 130)
|
Marcion*
(b. 85)
|
| Matthew |
Matthew |
Matthew |
|
| Mark |
Mark |
Mark |
|
| Luke |
Luke |
Luke |
Luke |
| John |
John |
John |
|
| Acts |
Acts |
Acts |
|
| Romans |
Romans |
Romans |
Romans |
| 1 Corinthians |
1 Corinthians |
1 Corinthians |
1 Corinthians |
| 2 Corinthians |
2 Corinthians |
2 Corinthians |
2 Corinthians |
| Galatians |
Galatians |
Galatians |
Galatians |
| Ephesians |
Ephesians |
Ephesians |
Ephesians |
| Philippians |
Philippians |
Philippians |
Philippians |
| Colossians |
Colossians |
Colossians |
Colossians |
| 1 Thessalonians |
1 Thessalonians |
1 Thessalonians |
1 Thessalonians |
| 2 Thessalonians |
2 Thessalonians |
2 Thessalonians |
2 Thessalonians |
| 1 Timothy |
1 Timothy |
1 Timothy |
|
| 2 Timothy |
2 Timothy |
2 Timothy |
|
| Titus |
Titus |
Titus |
|
| Philemon |
Philemon |
Philemon |
Philemon |
| Hebrews |
Hebrews |
Hebrews |
|
| James |
James |
James |
|
| 1 Peter |
1 Peter |
1 Peter |
|
| 2 Peter |
2 Peter |
2 Peter |
|
| 1 John |
1 John |
1 John |
|
| 2 John |
2 John |
2 John |
|
| 3 John |
3 John |
3 John |
|
| Jude |
Jude |
Jude |
|
| Revelation** |
Revelation |
Revelation |
|
*Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.
**The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
If you wish, I could assemble a more comprehensive list of ancient Fathers and their opinions, both positive and negative on both the canon and particularly their views on the worthiness of the Apocrypha.
TexConfederate1861:
But, as I have stated earlier, there was much which wasn't included in the Canon of Scripture, which is valuable for teaching, and also the Protestants choose to ignore the Apochrypha, which WAS in the Canon....the English Puritans just decided on their own not to include them.
To begin with, the Apocrypha were never recognized as scripture by any western church until the Council of Trent in 1546. What status the East accorded them is beyond my knowledge; googling shows that there were several canons of the Old Testament. However, there certainly was never a time prior to 1546 when the Apocrypha were granted any scriptural standing in the West. Therefore, one can make no claim that they were included in the sacred canon from ancient times, namely, that period when Rome and the East still enjoyed a substantial unity. I suspect that the Orthodox still maintain the original wall against the Apocrypha being considered scripture just as they did at the time of the Council of Hippo. They seem to regard the Apocrypha as holy books worthy of study but not divinely inspired scripture if my impression is correct.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the sources of the traditional NT canon. Athanasius, the man most responsible for assembling a full canon, endorses all of the above books as belonging to the canon. Notice the ommissions by other great authorities. So we might forgive Luther's little frustrations with a few books that ruined his relentlessly systematic and characteristically German theology.
In his 39th Festal Letter as bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius for the first time publishes a list of the canon of NT scripture. He sharply divides the true canon from the apocryphal. He concludes his list of the canon with the following observation:
Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them... But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
With regard to the Orthodox church, Athanasius also has a few interesting and little-known tidbits of history. During the preliminaries of the establishment of the canon, Athanasius made some comments that the Eastern church insisted that the book of Hebrews be included. Given the devastating applicability of the teachings in, for instance, Hebrews 10 to the claims of the Roman church, we have good reason to be glad for the prudence of the Eastern church to correctly insist on its inclusion.
But Athanasius is probably most justly famous for quelling the major Arian heresy of the fourth century. And he won the battle against Arianism
without inventing a filioque!!!