The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical ...

130 Bulletin for Biblical Research 6
believed that their faith was addressed and nurtured especially
through the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms and in some cases also
by other canonical literature as well as the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal
literature. On the other hand, they taught that their faith
was especially defined by the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and some
other Christian writings, some of which did not make it into our biblical
canon (1 Clement, Hermas). By the fourth century, the limiting
process of deciding which Christian writings best defined their faith
had begun in earnest but was never fully completed to everyone's satisfaction.
For example, we are hard pressed to explain how a number
of other writings were included in the OT and the NT (Ecclesiastes,
Song of Songs, and Esther on the one hand and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,
and Jude on the other) and how some churches continued to use noncanonical
writings in defining their identity and mission for centuries
after most of the churches had already made their decisions in this
matter (the Ethiopian church for instance, but also the Asian and Syrian
churches). The Church eventually agreed generally that the OT and
NT writings clarified its identity and met its worship, catechetical,
and mission needs in ways that are not as apparent to us today as they
were to the ancient Christians.
While diversity is clearly found in the biblical canon, it is clear that
there were limits to the kinds of diversity that were acceptable in the
ancient Church. The Gnostics and Marcionites were unacceptable, but
so were the Montanists, the Ebionites, and the Elkesaites. Eventually
all of the Pseudepigrapha were excluded, and the Church was divided
over the inclusion of the Apocrypha, especially in the East and West
in the fourth through the sixth centuries but even later in the Protestant
and Catholic churches. Both the diversity in the specifics of the
biblical canon and the broad general agreement that obtained in the
churches are difficult to explain. 86 It is amazing that the early Christians
allowed for far more diversity and controversy in their churches
than would generally be allowable in many of our churches today. It
is also surprising that the early Christians did not always insist on
harmonizations of the sometimes divergent texts like many Christians
do today, 87 and we do the early Christians a disservice when we think
that they might not have known of these differences especially in the
canonical Gospels. Why did they prefer the diversity in the four Gospels
over the harmony that we find in Tatian's Diastessaron? Regardless
of their motive for opting for four distinct gospel testimonies instead
86. For example, when it comes to the nature of Christ, does Matthew reflect the
orthodoxy that prevailed in the early Church, or is it better reflected in the Gospel of
John or in Paul?
87. For example, how often the cock crowed, the words of Jesus on the cross, the
differences in the resurrection narratives, etc. Some problems of harmony are dealt with