Page History

...

Marxsen sometimes seems to reason that, for the ancient church that canonized the New Testament writings, "canon" originally had the meaning, simply, of "list," "inventory," "index." What was "canon" for that church in the further sense of "standard," "norm," "rule," or "authority" was neither this list of writings nor any of the writings on the list, but rather the original and originating and therefore constitutive witness of the apostles – -- according to the principle, canonical = apostolic. Only after the church had determined, by howsoever questionable procedures, that a given writing was apostolic did it become "canonical" in the sense that it was placed on the "list"; and only then did it itself, together with the other writings on the list, become "canonical" in the further sense of "authoritative."

...

Because, as the Reformers taught us, "even popes and councils can err," all of these decisions, including the decision of Athanasius, are in principle revisable – -- as much so, indeed, as any of the decisions following them. But, again, Marxsen is exactly right in stressing that little is gained by merely superficial criticism of the scope of the canon. Of course, there is no question that the ancient church was profoundly concerned with the apostolicity of writings and, to that extent, with the question of their authorship. Consequently, if it could have been as certain as scholars can be today that Hebrews was not written by Paul or 2 Peter, by Peter, it would not have accepted these writings into its canon. Still, criticism simply of the scope of the canon is superficial.

A deeper criticism becomes possible as soon as one asks why the ancient church so unhesitatingly made apostolicity the criterion of canonicity. It did so, beyond any question, because, in face of heresies and alleged later revelations, it wanted to remain oriented, first and last, to the decisive historical moment of its own creation as a community in the once-for-all revelation of God through Jesus Christ. This revelation, like any other "special" revelation in history, was not only a revelation of something or someone through something or someone, but also a revelation to someone. And those to whom it was a revelation belonged to it in a unique way – -- namely, as its original and originating witnesses who, as such, were the constitutive members of the community and to whom alone the term "apostles" strictly and properly refers. Consequently, for all other members of the community, to belong to it means and must mean to believe in God through Jesus Christ with the apostles – -- in communion with their witness of faith. The ancient church, in its way, recognized precisely this in making apostolicity the principle of canonicity. But to follow the ancient church in recognizing this is to have the basis for a more profound criticism of its judgments in canonizing the New Testament writings. It is to recognize that the sole primary authority for the Christian community is no more "scripture alone" than it is "scripture and tradition," but is solely the witness of the apostles to which scripture (= early tradition) no less than tradition (= later tradition) always remains subject.

...