CONSPIRACIES AND COMPETING GOSPELS:

THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

BY

JEFF SCOTT KENNEDY

SUNDAY, MAY 8, 2009

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 2

Introduction 3

The Precedent for a New Testament 4

The Old Scriptures Anticipate the New 4

The New Scriptures Authenticate Each Other 5

The Apostolic Fathers Affirm the New Scriptures 6

Clement of Rome 6

Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna 7

Ignatius of Antioch 8

Papias of Heirapolis 8

The Canon and Response to Heresy 10

Justin and Tatian 10

Marcion 10

Montanism 11

A Preliminary Canon: The Emergence of A Definite Authoritative Word. 12

Irenaeus 12

Muratorian Canon 13

Tertullian 13

Conclusion 14

2
 Introduction

The majority of Evangelical believers today uncritically accept the twenty-seven books of

the New Testament (hereafter NT) as authoritative and inspired scripture.1 Yet, few are

motivated to understand how these books came to be, and the factors that lead to their acceptance

by the early church. It is easy for the believer to imagine that shortly after the close of the first

century, the early church unanimously endorsed these books with little discussion or controversy.

Upon further investigation, it becomes apparent to the student of history that this view is grossly

over-simplified.

However, the view that there was a centralized conspiracy to suppress competing Gospels

is equally fraught with educated imagination.2 Today, the exclusive status of NT books is

routinely challenged through popular literature, blockbuster films, and cable documentaries.3

When readers or viewers encounter sweeping claims about ancient documents such as the Nag

Hammadi Texts or the Gospel of Judas, it may leave them with the impression that the currently

accepted NT list is the result of some kind of ecclesiastical lottery. To be sure, only the twenty-

seven documents included in Christian scripture have come to be accepted as the “canon,” or the

rule of faith and practice. But how did these books gain this exclusive distinction?4

This study will seek to show that the eventual establishment of a closed canon of NT

scripture was an organic process that later developed into an official position of the church, not

the other way around. In order to do this, it will first be necessary to track the initial progression
1
George Barna, Growing True Disciples (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2001), 62. Barna points
out that 95% of Christians say they believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant, and 62% of Evangelical believers
stated they read the Bible outside of Sunday regularly.

2
Darrell Bock, The Missing Gospels (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 206-207.

3
Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make it Into the New Testament (London, New York:
Oxford University Press, 2003). 2-4. See also Lost Christianities by Ehrman.

4
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 18.

3
of the scriptures’ authoritative status, and then to briefly explore the criteria and cultural forces

that lead to the inclusion or exclusion of certain books.

The Precedent for a New Testament

Originally the Greek word kanon meant “reed, stick, or ruler.” Similar to the modern

ruler, these ancient rods were marked with a series of measuring units, which lead to its general

use as a series or a list.5 In order to fully appreciate the application of the term “scripture” and

“canon” to apostolic writings, one must first understand the high view of Hebrew Scripture that

first century Christians possessed.

The Old Scriptures Anticipate the New

The Christian notion of “scripture” was inextricably linked to that of the Old Testament

(hereafter OT) sacred writings.6 Though not considered to be a closed canon, the Hebrew

scriptures were the source material for Jesus’ authority and that of the early church as well.7 In a

sense, the OT was an established text but not a finished one. By virtue of its prophetic nature,

the Jewish scriptures anticipated the need for a future and final authoritative word from God.8

Steven Sheeley remarks, “Both Jesus and Paul seem to take advantage of this open view of the

scriptures. Certainly Paul interprets and re-interprets Scripture in the light of God’s new

revelation in Jesus.”9 For this reason, Jesus’ statement that he had come to fill the Torah full

5
Bruce, The Canon of Scripture,18.
6

Randall Price, Searching for the Original Bible (Eugene: Harvest House, 2007), 139.
7

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: It’s Origin Development and Significance (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987), 2. Both Jesus and Paul refer to the OT as h grafh, ai grafai, meaning “the scriptures.”

8
The Jewish council of Jamnia in AD 90 officially closed the canon of the OT. A century or more later,
the Mishnah and the Talmud became the codified “Oral Torah” of the rabbis. This ongoing commentary on Torah
was viewed by many Jewish sages as on par with the written Torah.

9
Steven Sheeley, “From Scripture to Canon: The Development of Scripture as Canon, in Review and
Expositor, 95 (1998), 514. See also Metzger, The Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 2.

4
(complete it) was well received by his listeners. The NT scriptures claim to fulfill the old, and to

re-interpret it in light of an already high messianic expectancy.

The New Scriptures Authenticate Each Other

In addition to this, the Jews viewed their ongoing interpretations of Torah as an extension

of Torah’s authority.10 Both Jesus and Paul argue that the oral traditions of the pious Jews were

not sufficiently authoritative to warrant a reversal of God’s commands (Matt. 5:3-6; Mark 7:3-

13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8).11 However, it is curious to note that both Jesus and Paul claim to speak

authoritatively for God, and at times amend and augment the Jewish Scriptures (Matt. 5-7; Lk. 6;

Mk 13:31; see Paul below).12

As well, other writings closely associated with the Apostles were beginning to be

accepted by the early church. In his epistle to Timothy, Paul stated in chapter 5 verse 18, “For

the scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain’ and ‘The worker

deserves his wages.’” The first quote is from the book of Moses, and the second statement

regarding the worker is an unambiguous quote from Luke 10:7. Both quotes are prefaced with

the phrase “for the scripture says.” The implication is that Paul knew about Luke’s Gospel, and

that he puts Luke’s Gospel on par with the Torah itself.

Again, Peter states in 2 Pet. 3:15-16, that Paul’s writings were difficult to understand as

were the “other scriptures.” Therefore, Peter viewed the well-known Pauline corpus as equal to

Torah. Additionally, 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 5:20; 1 Thess. 2:13 all show that Paul viewed his own

10
Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), xi. The halakah and the issue of authority was a
very circuitous matter filled with legalisms and much protocol. Typically the rabbis viewed it as their prerogative to
affirm, relax, or amend the law.

11
Philip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible, (Wheaton: Tyndale Publishing House, 1992), 63.
12

Kate Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed., 2007,
sections 17.5.2 and 24.6.1-4. All abbreviations of Biblical books taken from Turabian’s guide for abbreviations.

5
writings to be on par with the very words and commands of God himself.13

Thus, Jesus and the Apostles had a very low view of the rabbi’s expansive Midrashic

amendments to Torah but a very high view of the Jewish scriptures and their own teachings,

commands, and writings.

However, it is fair to note that these NT books did prevail in a contest for scriptural

supremacy. Bart Ehrman, for example, makes much of the fact these scriptures were the

“winners,” while others were the “losers” in the battle for orthodoxy.14 Therefore, he argues, it

begs the question somewhat to quote from the scriptures that emerged from the conflict.

However, as F.F. Bruce has asserted, we must be open to the possibility that these

scriptures “won” because they deserved to win.15 In other words, it is somewhat misleading to

say that the controversy was between books that were qualitatively equal. Therefore, an appeal

to the internal witness of the NT can partially be adjudicated by examining the use of it among

prominent early church leaders.

The Apostolic Fathers Affirm the New Scriptures

Clement of Rome

Christian writings that began to quote the NT books started to emerge toward the end of

the first century and the beginning of the second. Clement was an influential leader in the church

at Rome and wrote to the Corinthian church in his epistle called I Clement (AD 95), to persuade

them to repent and re-install their leaders.16 This lengthy epistle makes many quotations from
13
Peter Richardson, “I Say, Not the Lord: Personal Opinion, Apostolic Authority, and the Development of
Early Christian Halakah,” 68. The Thess. Passage is interesting. Paul states that there is a qualitative difference
between God’s word and Man’s word, then proceeds to tell them that he has God’s word, not man’s.

14
Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 2-3.

15
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 277.

16
Clement, I Clement, accessed www.newadvent.org/fathers.

6
the OT, and some from the New.17 Curiously, Clement quotes very precisely from the

established Septuagint OT (LXX), prefacing his citations with the typical formulas of “it is

written” or “the scriptures says.”18

However, he does not preface his NT citations with these familiar designations. Instead,

he seems to paraphrase apostolic and Lukan writings.19 It should be noted that some of his NT

quotes come on the heals of OT citations which he has already identified as scripture. Moreover,

in some cases Clement quotes an OT passage through a NT one.20

Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna

Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna (AD 110) and is well known for his Philippian

correspondence.21 At the request of the Philippian church, Polycarp sent the letters of the

martyred Ignatius, including a cover letter of his own.22 In his letter to them, Polycarp

unambiguously shifts the authority of Christian life and practice to the New Scriptures. In this

brief epistle, he quotes the NT 100 times and the OT only 12 times.23

Several places in the correspondence, Polycarp unambiguously refers to the four Gospels

and the Pauline corpus as “the Word of the Lord,” and “Scripture.” His quotations are a

veritable pastiche of scriptural allusions, which combine passages from Peter, Paul and the

17
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 41.

18
Ibid.
19

A.J. Carlyle, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 36-51.
20

Ibid. 48. Namely, the citations of Numbers 12 via the Hebrews 3 quote. Also, the Psalm 88 and 1 Sam. 13
quotes in Acts 13. Clement surely quotes these OT passages through the Acts passage, which also conflates the two
texts. See 1 Clement 18.1.

21
Polycarp, Letter to the Philipians. accessed www.newadvent.org/fathers

22
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 59.

23
Ibid.

7
Gospels.24

Ignatius of Antioch.

Eusebius mentions that Ignatius was the third Bishop following Euodius, who followed

Peter.25 The information we have about him comes primarily through Polycarp’s testimony, and

the letters that he presumably wrote en route to his demise and Martyrdom in 110 AD.

Apparently cited from memory, the Pauline writings are the very fiber of his thoughts.26

Likewise, he mentions the “scriptures” in three OT allusions, and states that Jesus is the

“foundation” of the Christian faith. He quotes from Matthew, Luke, and John, and

unambiguously cites Romans, Ephesians, I Corinthians, Hebrews and 1 Peter, and vaguely

references the Pastoral Epistles.27 Ignatius’ primary authority for the church was clearly the NT

documents.28

Papias of Heirapolis

Born shortly after the 60’s, Papias was called by Irenaeus “the hearer of John, the man of

old. The friend of Polycarp.”29 Papias is also known for being a very early inquirer to the

“living voices” of the Gospel. His primary concern was to find those still living who had

migrated from Jerusalem to Asia Minor. If they had sat under an Apostle, his aim was to commit

24
Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2. Reihe. 134, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebek, 2002), 191.
25

Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 43.

26
Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London:
McMillan and Co., 1881) 30.
27

Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 45-49.

28
Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 65.
Chadwick mentions that the Ignatius texts are preserved for us in three editions.
29

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 33. 3-4 (Oxford: James Parker and Co, 1872). Irenaeus’ phrase “man of old”
refers to more than his age. It is likely a reference to his eldership in the church as well.

8
to memory their accurate teaching concerning Christ. Referring to this he states,

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their
sayings—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas,
or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples:
which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I
imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what
came from the living and abiding voice.30

It seems that there at least two observations from this quote that are inescapable. First, Papias

stated that he preferred the quality of the oral teaching concerning Christ by those hearers of the

disciples. This accentuates the role of oral proclamation in that culture, and the high degree of

accuracy through community memorization.31 Second, Papias’ preference for the oral tradition

over the “books” presupposes that these books were available very early to the church.

Conclusion

The Apostles placed their words, teachings, and writings on the same level as OT words

and prophecy. Likewise, the Apostolic Fathers recognize the New Testament as having an

authoritative status, and are transitional figures between peripatetic proclamation and epigraphic

transmission of the Gospel. It is significant that this elevation of the NT documents occurs

before the encroachment of internal heresy, which will force the church to accelerate its

recognition of a set collection of authoritative books.

The Canon and Response to Heresy

Justin and Tatian

Responding to external threats to Christianity preoccupied much of Christian apologetics

early on, which delayed the establishment of the NT canon. At first, Christian apologists such as
30
From Eusebius’ History of the Church, 39.4.
31

James D.G. Dunn, Remembering Jesus, vol. I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 238-241. See also Birger
Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early
Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

9
Justin the Philosopher (also known as the “Martyr”) wrote to Emperor Antoninius Pious, and to

Trypho the Jew.32 These were polemical defenses of the Christian faith to outsiders. It is curious

to note that Justin refers to the Gospels as the “memoirs of the Apostles.”33

Likewise, Tatian, the student of Justin, defended the faith against outsiders. However, his

apologies were far more terse and sarcastic than Justin’s defenses. Justin attempted to placate his

opponents by acknowledging that there was some overlap between the best of philosophy and

Christian thought.34 However, Tatian cleverly articulated a full frontal assault on Greek

philosophy, showing it to be internally incoherent and self-refuting.35

While the church was preoccupied with staying alive and defending its existence to

Greco-Roman culture and oppression, internally it was facing a heresy that would threaten to

genetically alter Christianity if not dealt with.

Marcion

Marcion grew up in a Christian family. Though his father was a bishop at Sinope in

Pontus, Marcion quickly developed a disdain for the OT and leaned toward the anti-materialist

philosophy, viewing the phenomenal and sense world as evil. He gained followers and began to

teach his peculiar strain of Christianity in Rome. His teaching was characterized by a brand of

Gnosticism that was less speculative, revered some NT books, and represented an “anti-Jewish

and pseudo-Pauline” school of thought.36 His teachings were utterly bereft of historical

continuity, and he viewed Christ as a divine singularity rather than the fulfillment of ancient OT

32
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), 710.
33

Justin Martyr to Athenogoras, Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1871), 64-65.
34

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, (Vol. 1) (New York: Harper, 1984), 54-55.

35
Ibid.
36
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 483. Though Schaff states that his system was more critical and
rationalistic than mystical.

10
prophecy.37

Marcion was the first to contrive a canon list of authoritative books. He preferred the

Gospel of Luke and select documents among the Pauline Corpus. However, even these he edited

to erase any traces of their Jewish background. It is interesting to note that this first canon list is

a reductionist list, meaning that he actively rejected known literature, reducing it to a minimal

canon in support of his theology.

Though some would characterize the canon list of Marcion as the “Big Bang” of canon

discussion, it is clear that this was more a defining moment for an already existing process.

Gonzalez states, “But Marcion’s challenge required a response, and thus the church at large

began to compile a list of sacred writings.”38 The collection of writings that Marcion had to alter

already existed and had already experienced ubiquitous acceptance among the church.

Montanism

Though Marcion challenged established Christianity by reducing and distorting their

sacred writings to a few select books, Montanus took just the opposite approach. The Montanists

rejected the rationalism of the Gnostics and also rejected the indulgence of the universal

church.39 Though they were doctrinally close to the universal and established church in many

ways, they referred to themselves as the pneumatics, meaning the “spiritual” church.

As a result, they had a very open view of God’s continuing voice. Their highly charged

apocalypticism and charismatic theology shaped their view of God’s ongoing activity through

the ecstatic utterance of living prophets. Though most of their writings and records of these

37

Ibid.
38

Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 62.

39

Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 417.

11
ecstatic prophetic messages have disappeared (likely due to having been burned later by the

Catholic Church), it was clear to the early church that a continuing revelation through prophetic

inspiration was incompatible with the established Word of God in the Scriptures. Metzger

remarks, “By rejecting the extravagances of Montanism, the Church took the first step toward the

adoption of a closed canon of Scripture.”40 It will now become clear that the church’s response

to ever increasing internal threats undoubtedly shaped the development and recognition of the

canon, which ultimately lead to an official proclamation of canon.

A Preliminary Canon: The Emergence of A Definite Authoritative Word.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp, was the Bishop of Lyons and the chief opponent of

Gnostic heresy. In his monumental work Against Heresies, Irenaeus asserts that the Gnostic

claim to have esoteric knowledge as passed down by the disciples was false.41

In his defense of the Christian faith against various heresies, Irenaeus reveals a simple but

elegant “rule of faith.”42 He established that the original Gospel that was orally proclaimed was

faithfully transmitted in writing. He argued that because he and the other Christian bishops were

the true lineage of the apostles, that there existed no extra-biblical tradition or revelation. Had

Jesus left any such tradition, he would certainly have left it through his Apostles and their

successors.43 In 180 AD he recognized 22 books and a clearly defined “canon,” which he

equated with OT writings, and this collection he believed to be materially sufficient for faith and

practice.44
40
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 106.
41

Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 171-172.

42

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book I.5.

43
Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 65.
44

Irenaeus, Adversus Haeresus, III.3.

12
The Muratorian Canon

Published in 1740 by Lodovicio Antonio Muratori, the Muratorian Canon contains 21 of

the 27 books of the NT, excluding James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Hebrews. It was composed around

AD 170 in Latin45 and reflects the books accepted as scripture by the Roman church.46 The

Muratorian commentary in the fragment reveals that the rule of faith employed by the compiler

was the general and universal recipere (recognition), the apostolicity (apostolic origin), and the

ecumenicity (universal acceptance by the church).47

Tertullian

Tertullian was an intellectual giant who had become a believer in 195 AD. It is with

Tertullian that we have the unambiguous use of the term regula fedei, or “rule of faith.” He

believed the churches teachings to be descended from the Apostles, and stated that the belief of

Christians as taught in the scriptures and reflected in their baptismal creed was the rule of faith.48

Tertullian employed many of the same arguments of Irenaeus, but because of his legal Roman

background, he was able to ground them in a forensic form unrivaled in the Ante-Nicene

period.49 Though he was certainly not alone. Space does not permit the mention of others such

as Hippolytus, Novatian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Dionysius. All of these

45
Hill, C.E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.” Westminster
Theological Journal 57, (1995). It is fair to note that the date of the Muratorian fragment is disputed. However,
Metzger views it as no later than the end of the 2nd century, and Bruce puts dates it slightly earlier.

46
Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 158-160.
47

Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 199-201.

48

Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 830-832. However, it is clear that Irenaeus used the phrase regula
fedei, and regula veritas as well.
49
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 830-832. Though Tertullian became a Montanist later, and was
certainly thought of as a Charismatic, he largely defected because of the intolerable moral laxity he encountered in
the universal church. It is further interesting to note that the phrase testamentum began to be used by him first –
likely due to his legal background.

13
men contributed to the progression of the canon.50

Conclusion

This brief survey has shown that a general sense of what ought to be and what ought not

to be considered sacred scripture was evident from the beginning of the second century, and

arguably from the books of the NT themselves. Later ecclesiastical councils, synods and official

lists would further define and codify the canon. However, Eusebius and Athanasius (4th cent.)

did not have to pull these books out of thin air, or contrive an ad hoc process of determining

authoritative books. Similarly, when it came time to officially recognize the canon, they did not

have to invent the terminology “rule of faith” for it was already in use. Nor did they have to

hatch the criteria for canonization ex nihilo, but instead they drew from a rich history of debate,

defense and application of an already authoritative body of literature among the bishops and

churches. The official process under Constantine and the post-persecution era would have much

to draw from.

This study ends where it began. It has been shown that the Old anticipated the New, the

New authenticated itself, the Apostolic Fathers implicitly recognize the authority of the New, the

Ante-Nicene Fathers accelerated an already unfolding process, which would lead inexorably to

the recognition and establishment of an official canon in the fourth century. Though the church

certainly had many books from which to choose, not all these books proved to be authentically

apostolic in origin, consistent in doctrine and quality, and accepted by the church universal. It is

also fairly clear, that the 27 books currently found in the modern NT did meet this criteria.

50

Philip Comfort, The Many Gospels of Jesus, (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008), 12.

14
 WORKS CITED

Barna,George. Growing True Disciples. Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2001.

Bock, Darrell. The Missing Gospels. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

15
Carlyle, A.J. The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 36-
51.

Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Comfort, Philip. The Origin of the Bible. Wheaton: Tyndale Publishing House, 1992.

_____________. The Many Gospels of Jesus. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008.

Dunn, James D.G.. Remembering Jesus, vol. I. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart. Lost Scriptures. Books That Did Not Make it Into the New Testament.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. vol. 1. New York: Harper, 1984.

Hartog, Paul. Polycarp and the New Testament: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2. Reihe. 134. Tubingen: Mohr Siebek, 2002.

Hill, C.E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the
Canon.” Westminster Theological Journal 57, (1995).

Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses. Oxford: James Parker and Co, 1872.

Justin Martyr to Athenogoras. Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1871.

Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Price, Randall. Searching For The Origin of the Bible. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2007.

Peter Richardson, “I Say, Not the Lord: Personal Opinion, Apostolic Authority, and the
Development of Early Christian Halakah,” The Annual Lecture of the Institute of Biblical
Research. 68, no. 1 (1978): 68.

Polycarp, Letter to the Philipians. accessed www.newadvent.org/fathers

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 1 Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1960.

Sheeley, Steven M. From Scripture to Canon: The Development of the New Testament
Canon. Review and Expositor, 95 (1998).

Westcott, Brooke Foss, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New

16
Testament. Cambridge and London: McMillan and Co., 1881.

17