What do you think?
Rate this book
The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis
The Bible took shape over the course of centuries, and today Christian groups continue to disagree over details of its contents. The differences among these groups typically involve the Old Testament, as they mostly accept the same 27-book New Testament. An essential avenue for understanding the development of the Bible are the many early lists of canonical books drawn up by Christians and, occasionally, Jews. Despite the importance of these early lists of books, they have remained relatively inaccessible. This comprehensive volume redresses this unfortunate situation by presenting the early Christian canon lists all together in a single volume. The canon lists, in most cases, unambiguously report what the compilers of the lists considered to belong to the biblical canon. For this reason they bear an undeniable importance in the history of the Bible.
The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity provides an accessible presentation of these early canon lists. With a focus on the first four centuries, the volume supplies the full text of the canon lists in English translation alongside the original text, usually Greek or Latin, occasionally Hebrew or Syriac. Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade orient readers to each list with brief introductions and helpful notes, and they point readers to the most significant scholarly discussions. The book begins with a substantial overview of the history of the biblical canon, and an entire chapter is devoted to the evidence of biblical manuscripts from the first millennium. This authoritative work is an indispensable guide for students and scholars of biblical studies and church history.
The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity provides an accessible presentation of these early canon lists. With a focus on the first four centuries, the volume supplies the full text of the canon lists in English translation alongside the original text, usually Greek or Latin, occasionally Hebrew or Syriac. Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade orient readers to each list with brief introductions and helpful notes, and they point readers to the most significant scholarly discussions. The book begins with a substantial overview of the history of the biblical canon, and an entire chapter is devoted to the evidence of biblical manuscripts from the first millennium. This authoritative work is an indispensable guide for students and scholars of biblical studies and church history.
352 pages, Paperback
Published July 2, 2019
25 people are currently reading
160 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 18, 2018
A good reference work, not necessarily for light reading.
May 4, 2018
I thought about giving this 1-star just to see Dr. Meade's reaction. With that said, this is well worth the money. This work looks at the canon lists in early Christianity to get an understanding of how the early church viewed the canon. Especially helpful is the appendix which looks at some of the disputed books and summarizes the ancient views on them. Tolle Lege.
Read
September 28, 2021Tbh canon lists are more exciting than they sound
June 16, 2023
The purpose of this book is explained by the ongoing disagreements between Protestants and Catholics (and to some extent Orthodox) about the content of the bible. There are (roughly) 3 bibles which can be differentiated according to their Old Testaments. The Protestant bible has 39 books, the Catholic one has 46 books, and Orthodox Old Testaments have 48+.
This book does not directly address the denominational question of biblical canon, but its research is clearly of relevance to that wider set of issues.
The contents of the book ploughs through the sources of ‘biblical canon’, grouping and listing them. The book’s focus is canon lists, so it does not look at what ancient sources may have thought was canonical. This is an important distinction which means that the argument of the book lacks some nuance in places.
For example, we hear that St Jerome accepted (only) the Jewish and Protestant (Shorter) Old Testament. The evidence is presented that on three occasion’s Jerome’s lists say precisely that, in or around the years 391, 395 and 403. But we also know that in other places Jerome seems to say other things. For example in around the year 407 he produced a translation of the book of Judith and in its preface he said that the Council of Nicaea had said that it was inspired Scripture. As it happens, as far as we know, Nicaea did not say that. But the fact that Jerome seems to have believed it, would suggest that he took it to be part of canonical Scripture, as he thought that Nicaea had authority to settle theological questions. But Judith does not fit with his 3 published lists of biblical canons. So either he has changed his mind, or there is something more complicated going on in his thinking…
As the book just sticks to presenting canon lists we do not get any presentation or discussion of this kind of complexity in individual authors. On the one hand that makes sense in a book which is just presenting sets of evidence. But it is disappointing that the book does not flag up the fact that there are wider complexities in some cases, and so caution may be needed in how pieces of evidence is viewed. All it would have taken are some contextualising footnotes. Instead readers are left unaware, and so they are left potentially open to oversimplifying and even misconstruing the significance of some of what they read.
Apart from a few issues of ‘nuance’ like that, the book does a good job in presenting a wide range of diverse sources, all given in their original languages with an accompanying translation side by side.
By the end of the book, readers will probably be starting to see that the situation in the Early Church was very complicated. There was a lot of agreement, but there was also significant disagreements about particular biblical books, and those disagreements can be seen across timescales and in differing geographical regions, so they are not local idiosyncrasies which sprang up to challenge a previous uniformity of view.
At the end of the fourth century, approaches can be seen that are beginning to align with what were to later become particular denominational viewpoints. But it is hard to find (and thus to argue) that there was a single Early Church view or ‘teaching’ on the correctness of a specific biblical canon, before the mid to end of the fourth century. Rather, the biblical canon seems to be an issue of doctrinal development, which saw Christian practice and reflection coalescing into particular biblical canon(s).
If that is so, then it has significance for modern theologians. It means that theological questions like the biblical canon cannot be settled by ‘Scripture alone.’ But nor can it be settled by appeal to ‘Apostolic Traditions,’ ie oral teachings which go back to the 12 Apostles. If the issue was initially ‘messy’ then that would seem to be evidence that there cannot have been a single clear Apostolic Tradition on the matter.
Scripture and/or Tradition may well be relevant in the defence of a choice of a particular biblical canon. But that doesn’t mean that an evidence from either Scripture and/or a Tradition from the 12 Apostles is the actual cause for the choice of a particular Canon. This is why, modern Christians remain unable to settle their disagreements about biblical canon by appealing to a piece of evidence to determine the matter. Clearly, if there is an answer to the question of biblical canon, then some other factor is needed, to find it.
Overall, this is a useful collection of sources, albeit with caveats about its lack of nuance in places. Although its style and pitch is clearly for an ‘academic’ readership, the book is largely accessible to interested readers
This book does not directly address the denominational question of biblical canon, but its research is clearly of relevance to that wider set of issues.
The contents of the book ploughs through the sources of ‘biblical canon’, grouping and listing them. The book’s focus is canon lists, so it does not look at what ancient sources may have thought was canonical. This is an important distinction which means that the argument of the book lacks some nuance in places.
For example, we hear that St Jerome accepted (only) the Jewish and Protestant (Shorter) Old Testament. The evidence is presented that on three occasion’s Jerome’s lists say precisely that, in or around the years 391, 395 and 403. But we also know that in other places Jerome seems to say other things. For example in around the year 407 he produced a translation of the book of Judith and in its preface he said that the Council of Nicaea had said that it was inspired Scripture. As it happens, as far as we know, Nicaea did not say that. But the fact that Jerome seems to have believed it, would suggest that he took it to be part of canonical Scripture, as he thought that Nicaea had authority to settle theological questions. But Judith does not fit with his 3 published lists of biblical canons. So either he has changed his mind, or there is something more complicated going on in his thinking…
As the book just sticks to presenting canon lists we do not get any presentation or discussion of this kind of complexity in individual authors. On the one hand that makes sense in a book which is just presenting sets of evidence. But it is disappointing that the book does not flag up the fact that there are wider complexities in some cases, and so caution may be needed in how pieces of evidence is viewed. All it would have taken are some contextualising footnotes. Instead readers are left unaware, and so they are left potentially open to oversimplifying and even misconstruing the significance of some of what they read.
Apart from a few issues of ‘nuance’ like that, the book does a good job in presenting a wide range of diverse sources, all given in their original languages with an accompanying translation side by side.
By the end of the book, readers will probably be starting to see that the situation in the Early Church was very complicated. There was a lot of agreement, but there was also significant disagreements about particular biblical books, and those disagreements can be seen across timescales and in differing geographical regions, so they are not local idiosyncrasies which sprang up to challenge a previous uniformity of view.
At the end of the fourth century, approaches can be seen that are beginning to align with what were to later become particular denominational viewpoints. But it is hard to find (and thus to argue) that there was a single Early Church view or ‘teaching’ on the correctness of a specific biblical canon, before the mid to end of the fourth century. Rather, the biblical canon seems to be an issue of doctrinal development, which saw Christian practice and reflection coalescing into particular biblical canon(s).
If that is so, then it has significance for modern theologians. It means that theological questions like the biblical canon cannot be settled by ‘Scripture alone.’ But nor can it be settled by appeal to ‘Apostolic Traditions,’ ie oral teachings which go back to the 12 Apostles. If the issue was initially ‘messy’ then that would seem to be evidence that there cannot have been a single clear Apostolic Tradition on the matter.
Scripture and/or Tradition may well be relevant in the defence of a choice of a particular biblical canon. But that doesn’t mean that an evidence from either Scripture and/or a Tradition from the 12 Apostles is the actual cause for the choice of a particular Canon. This is why, modern Christians remain unable to settle their disagreements about biblical canon by appealing to a piece of evidence to determine the matter. Clearly, if there is an answer to the question of biblical canon, then some other factor is needed, to find it.
Overall, this is a useful collection of sources, albeit with caveats about its lack of nuance in places. Although its style and pitch is clearly for an ‘academic’ readership, the book is largely accessible to interested readers
April 20, 2024
A very helpful survey of early Christian commentary on the canon, with indispensable commentary on the lists themselves. Some conclusions to be drawn:
-Almost all early Christian canon lists, east and west, include Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah (as part of Jeremiah), Susanna, and Bel & the Dragon (as part of LXX Daniel). Wisdom of Solomon is less frequent than these but still common. In light of this evidence, it is difficult to argue that the Protestant canon is the canon of the early Church. But neither is the complete RCC canon of Florence and Trent. Both reflect development from early church tradition.
-Jerome’s excising of the additions to Jeremiah and the additions to Daniel is a significant departure from earlier canon lists, just as much as Augustine’s decision to put 1 and 2 Maccabees on par with the Pentateuch. Both of them represent a development from the canon lists that come before them.
-It is significant to compare the differences in Jerome's and Augustine’s canon logic. Augustine commends following the received traditions from the Church fathers that come before him. This logic is consistent with the logic of earlier canon lists. Jerome’s decision to prioritize the canon of 4th century Rabbinic Palestine is the major epistemological departure from canon precedent. All other Church Fathers follow the "apostolic orthodoxy" of the Church.
-Following the authors' introduction, it is possible the Christian canon represents a Jewish canon with roots just as old as what becomes the Masoretic canon.
-These canon lists have a consistent core: Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, 4 Gospels, 13/14 Letters of Paul. But the edges are fuzzy, and no two canon lists in the early centuries are exactly the same in list or order. While it was clear early on what the heart of the canon should be, the Church also clearly needed Councils to define the edges of the Church’s canon. Once Councils step in, the canon lists become streamlined. The biblical canon wasn’t invented by church councils, but its fuzzy edges were defined by the authority of church councils.
-Almost all early Christian canon lists, east and west, include Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah (as part of Jeremiah), Susanna, and Bel & the Dragon (as part of LXX Daniel). Wisdom of Solomon is less frequent than these but still common. In light of this evidence, it is difficult to argue that the Protestant canon is the canon of the early Church. But neither is the complete RCC canon of Florence and Trent. Both reflect development from early church tradition.
-Jerome’s excising of the additions to Jeremiah and the additions to Daniel is a significant departure from earlier canon lists, just as much as Augustine’s decision to put 1 and 2 Maccabees on par with the Pentateuch. Both of them represent a development from the canon lists that come before them.
-It is significant to compare the differences in Jerome's and Augustine’s canon logic. Augustine commends following the received traditions from the Church fathers that come before him. This logic is consistent with the logic of earlier canon lists. Jerome’s decision to prioritize the canon of 4th century Rabbinic Palestine is the major epistemological departure from canon precedent. All other Church Fathers follow the "apostolic orthodoxy" of the Church.
-Following the authors' introduction, it is possible the Christian canon represents a Jewish canon with roots just as old as what becomes the Masoretic canon.
-These canon lists have a consistent core: Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, 4 Gospels, 13/14 Letters of Paul. But the edges are fuzzy, and no two canon lists in the early centuries are exactly the same in list or order. While it was clear early on what the heart of the canon should be, the Church also clearly needed Councils to define the edges of the Church’s canon. Once Councils step in, the canon lists become streamlined. The biblical canon wasn’t invented by church councils, but its fuzzy edges were defined by the authority of church councils.
May 20, 2021
Edmon L. Gallagher received his Ph.D. in the History of Biblical Interpretation from Hebrew Union College in 2010 and is currently an associate professor of Christian Scripture at Heritage Christian University. He is well-known for his many scholarly publications, some of which include the novel Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text, and journal article “The Old Testament ‘Apocrypha’ in Jerome’s Canonical Theory.” John D. Meade received his Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has been an associate professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary since 2012. He is known for his novel A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 22-42 and published articles regarding Articles on Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and the Hexapla in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media. The primary purpose of this book is to search for comprehension of biblical history through the early sources of its time. It does so by discussing in-depth analyses of ancient sources from the biblical era that offer relevant statements regarding the Bible, specifically the books that were not accepted as canon. It is recommended for current students and scholars of church history and biblical studies.
June 22, 2022
A very detailed book regarding the acceptance of various works in the Canon of Scripture. Gallagher and Meade begin by providing an overview of the development of both OT and NT canon. The majority of the book, however, is a discussion of various lists of Scriptural works. Each list is accompanied by discussion regarding time and place, the list's compiler, and discussion around what was included or left out. Several works are further discussed at the end of the book, summarizing their treatment and current disposition.
April 29, 2022
Excellent and a very unique resource helpful for those engaging in canon debates among different Christian traditions or simply wanting to know the reception of the canon in church history. The uniqueness is that this book collects canon lists rather than just looking at which books are cited with a typical Scriptural formula, for a list of saying "these are the books given by God" is clearer than citation formulas.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews