Scoring the books of the canon: cumulative scores

After all of the previous work scoring various early Christian writings, here are the cumulative scores. This uses the system for evaluating strength of attestation and an initial evaluation of the canon lists reviewed. The canon lists included in this initial project were:

• The Marcionite prologues
• The Muratorian Canon fragment
• Eusebius' History
• Codex Sinaiticus
• Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter

Here are the cumulative rankings showing the combined scores for each book across those five lists for how strongly each book was attested:

Early Christian writing	Cumulative score
Matthew	28.75
Mark	28.75
Luke	36.25
John	28.75
Acts	28.75
Romans	36.25
1 Corinthians	36.25
2 Corinthians	36.25
Galatians	36.25
Ephesians	36.25
Philippians	36.25
Colossians	36.25
1 Thessalonians	36.25
2 Thessalonians	36.25
1 Timothy	28.75
2 Timothy	28.75
Titus	28.75
Philemon	36.25
Hebrews	9.75
James	9.75
1 Peter	13.75
2 Peter	13.75
Jude	24.75
1 John	28.75
2 John	24.75
3 John	9.75
Revelation	23.75
Acts of Paul	2.75
Acts of Peter	2.75
Apocalpyse of Peter	2.00
Epistle of Barnabas	2.75
Letter to the Alexandrines	-15.00
Letter to the Laodiceans	-15.00
Shepherd of Hermas	2.75
Teachings of the Apostles	-1.00

Again, I do not consider this evaluation to be the final word but a starting point. It is a move towards a more objective way of discussing the books of the canon, towards measuring rather than merely asserting the relative strength of historical attestations. Further work remains to be done. Additional canon lists could be evaluated. The history of citations by early authors could be evaluated. The scoring system itself was simply based on what seemed to me the most even-handed way to give greater weight to earlier writings, to writings which showed interest in historical value, and to early writings which discussed the relative historical merits of the different books. I would welcome comparable studies of other materials -- or the same material with other scoring systems -- to continue the discussion.

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post continues with a review of the canon as set out by Athanasius in his 39th Festal Letter. This is the earliest document we have which lists the New Testament canon with the same books as we have today. It also comments on some of the other works. This work dates from the 300's A.D., placing it in the 300-399 A.D. range for the purposes of this evaluation system and giving a weight of 1.0 to the list as seen in the calculations of the right column of the table.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Mark	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Luke	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Acts	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Romans	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Galatians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Ephesians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philippians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Colossians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Titus	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philemon	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Hebrews	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
James	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Jude	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
3 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Revelation	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Acts of Paul	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Acts of Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Apocalpyse of Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Letter to the Alexandrines	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Letter to the Laodiceans	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Suitable reading but not authoritative	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Teachings of the Apostles	Suitable reading but not authoritative	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: Codex Sinaiticus

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post continues with a review of the canon as reflected in the Codex Sinaiticus. This codex dates from the 300's A.D., placing it in the 300-399 A.D. range for the purposes of this evaluation system and giving a raw weight of 1.0. However, as it is a codex, it makes no effort to evaluate the books but simply either contains a book or does not. Because it does not discuss comparative evaluations of the books, the weight is adjusted to 0.75 (see criteria for evaluating the lists themselves in the previously-linked posts). The weight adjustment of 0.75 is seen in the calculations of the right column of the table.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Mark	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Luke	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
John	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Acts	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Romans	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
1 Corinthians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
2 Corinthians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Galatians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Ephesians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Philippians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Colossians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
1 Thessalonians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
2 Thessalonians	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
1 Timothy	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
2 Timothy	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Titus	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Philemon	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Hebrews	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
James	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
1 Peter	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
2 Peter	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Jude	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
1 John	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
2 John	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
3 John	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Revelation	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Acts of Paul	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Acts of Peter	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Apocalpyse of Peter	Not listed	0	0 x 0.75 = 0.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Letter to the Alexandrines	Not listed	0	0 x 0.75 = 0.00
Letter to the Laodiceans	Not listed	0	0 x 0.75 = 0.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Included (unevaluated list)	5	5 x 0.75 = 3.75
Teachings of the Apostles	Not listed	0	0 x 0.75 = 0.00

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: Eusebius' History

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post continues with a review of the canon as discussed by Eusebius in his History of the Church. This work dates from the 300's A.D., placing it in the 300-399 A.D. range for the purposes of this evaluation system and giving a weight of 1.0 to the list as seen in the calculations of the right column of the table.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Mark	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Luke	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Acts	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Romans	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Galatians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Ephesians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philippians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Colossians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
1 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Titus	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Philemon	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Hebrews	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
James	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
1 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 Peter	Accepted without reservations	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
Jude	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
1 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.00 = 5.00
2 John	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
3 John	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
Revelation	Mixed/neutral	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Acts of Paul	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Acts of Peter	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Apocalpyse of Peter	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Letter to the Alexandrines	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Letter to the Laodiceans	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.00 = 0.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00
Teachings of the Apostles	Rejected with reservations	-1	-1 x 1.00 = -1.00

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: the Muratorian Canon fragment

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post continues with a review of the Muratorian Canon fragment. The most likely date for the Muratorian Canon fragment is in the late 100's A.D., placing it in the 100-199 A.D. range for the purposes of this evaluation system and giving a weight of 3.0 to the list as seen in the calculations of the right column of the table.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Accepted without reservation*	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Mark	Accepted without reservation*	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Luke	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Acts	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Romans	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
1 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
2 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Galatians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Ephesians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Philippians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Colossians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
1 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
2 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
1 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
2 Timothy	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Titus	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Philemon	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Hebrews	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
James	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
1 Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
2 Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Jude	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
1 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
2 John	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
3 John	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Revelation	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 3.00 = 15.00
Acts of Paul	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Acts of Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Apocalpyse of Peter	Accepted with reservations	1	1 x 3.00 = 3.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Letter to the Alexandrines	Rejected without reservations	-5	-5 x 3.00 = -15.00
Letter to the Laodiceans*	Rejected without reservations	-5	-5 x 3.00 = -15.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Suitable reading but not authoritative	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00
Teachings of the Apostles	Not mentioned	0	0 x 3.00 = 0.00

^* Matthew / Mark: Probable; the list is fragmentary. While the beginning of the list is missing, the book of Luke is listed as "the third book of the gospel". Other lists from the same century naming the four gospels typically list them in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, so it is a reasonable supposition that if the third was Luke, the first two were Matthew and Mark. If anyone considered that to be in doubt, it would be possible to adjust the score accordingly.

---

Note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: the Marcionite prologues

This post builds on the previous ones outlining a system for evaluating early Christian writings and an initial evaluation of the canon lists I will be reviewing. This post begins the first review of an actual canon list according to the system outlined: a review of the Marcionite prologues. As mentioned before, the Marcionite prologues are dated somewhere between 100-199 A.D., which gives a raw weight of 3.0 to a list. However, the Marcionite prologues show less interest in history than in whether a writing conforms to certain theological preconceptions, and accordingly has a lower weight than the base value for its date of origin. The adjusted weight for the Marcionite prologues is 1.50, which will be used as the multiplier in the final column below to determine each book's weighted score for this particular canon list.

Early Christian writing	Classification in current list	Raw score	List weighted score
Matthew	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Mark	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Luke	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
John	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Acts	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Romans	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
1 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
2 Corinthians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
Galatians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
Ephesians*	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
Philippians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
Colossians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
1 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
2 Thessalonians	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
1 Timothy	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
2 Timothy	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Titus	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Philemon	Accepted without reservation	5	5 x 1.50 = 7.50
Hebrews	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
James	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
1 Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
2 Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Jude	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
1 John	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
2 John	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
3 John	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Revelation	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Acts of Paul	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Acts of Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Apocalpyse of Peter	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Epistle of Barnabas	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Letter to the Alexandrines	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Letter to the Laodiceans*	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Shepherd of Hermas	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00
Teachings of the Apostles	Not mentioned	0	0 x 1.50 = 0.00

^* Ephesians: If F.F. Bruce's judgment is correct that what we know as Paul's letter to the Ephesians was, in this list, mistakenly identified as being to the Laodiceans. Anyone interested can re-run the evaluations in question with the appropriate score being moved from the letter to the Ephesians and placed instead on the letter to the Laodiceans.

---

A quick note on the list of books: the list here contains all of the books named on any of the five canon lists I am reviewing in this series, regardless of whether the mention is positive or negative. The order of the books is for the convenience of the reader: since the books are listed in different orders on the various lists, the books are listed here in common canonical order for the canonical books, followed by an alphabetical listing of the non-canonical books mentioned.

Scoring the books of the canon: part 2, early canon lists

In the previous post I showed how I think it would be fair to evaluate the books of the New Testament canon based on their history while the canon was still being formed. In this post, I actually show how early Christian writings are evaluated according to several early canon lists. First, the lists:

Canon list	Century of origin	Raw weight
Marcionite prologues	100-199 A.D.	3
Muratorian Canon fragment	100-199 A.D.	3
Eusebius' History	300-399 A.D.	1
Codex Sinaiticus	300-399 A.D.	1
Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter	300-399 A.D.	1

I will say more on the use of these particular lists shortly. First, there is another level to evaluating the lists themselves: how the list itself views the question of how a book becomes authoritative. In the previous post on scaling the scores, I'd set adjustment factors so that a list that evaluated a work's historical connection to Christian origins would be scored differently from a list that evaluated a book according to how well its portrayal of Jesus and the church suited his group's ideological preconceptions apart from any historical concerns. So the next step is to adjust the weights of the works according to how they evaluated the books and how that affects the list's value as a historical witness.

Canon list	Evaluation of books listed	Adjustment factor	List final weight
Marcionite prologues	Evaluates the sources for conformity with group's theology	0.50	3 x 0.50 = 1.50
Muratorian Canon fragment	Evaluates the sources by historical criteria (e.g. date of origin, known author or forgery)	1.00	3 x 1.00 = 3.00
Eusebius' History	Evaluates the sources by strength of attestation	1.00	1 x 1.00 = 1.00
Codex Sinaiticus	Lists sources without evaluating	0.75	1 x 0.75 = 0.75
Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter	Evaluates the sources by historical origin (antiquity; authorship by apostles or those known to them; or a later work laying a false claim to antiquity)	1.00	1 x 1.00 = 1.00

Why these particular lists? Here I owe a debt to F.F. Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture. As I figure him to be a greater New Testament scholar than I am likely to become, as he has done appreciable work in the field, and as I have enjoyed his works, I want to give him a nod by beginning with the lists he thought worth including in his book. I do not expect this list to be the end of the project; I have not even included all of F.F. Bruce's work from the book mentioned but only those canon lists of the New Testament up to the point of Athanasius' letter, the first known list that matches our modern list.

I do not consider that I have made any contribution of content at all, but perhaps of method. In this system -- or the beginnings of a system -- we have a framework for giving meaningful comparative scores to the sources. It is my hope that those more knowledgeable than I am about the sources would take up such a method and work towards a more comprehensive evaluation of the books. I would enjoy seeing much more material evaluated, not only additional canon lists but also the history of each work's citations in the early church.

Scoring the books of the canon on historical attestation: part 1 the method

Every now and then in Christian history, the question of the canon is reconsidered. People ask: how can we be sure the right books were included? What about a certain book that was omitted? What about another book which had once been questioned but is now included? How do we know that "orthodoxy" did not use political power to strong-arm its way to acceptance over and against the historicists?

To this end, I have been turning over a question in my mind: What would happen if we reviewed the early Christian writings and looked for objective criteria for how to score them as far as whether they should have been included in the canon?

The first thing I did was to review the different ways in which the material was classified by early writers. The early lists classified the books into different levels of acceptance or rejection. I decided to try to find a fair formula that took into consideration the different lists of the canon and how those canon lists rated the different books.

I drafted the following system of scores to recognize the strength or weakness of the various levels of acceptance that were recognized in the early canon lists:

Score	Classification with relation to the canon
5	Accepted without reservation explicitly by name of work
3	Accepted without reservation implicitly by inclusion in an accepted category e.g. works of a certain author
1	Accepted with reservations
0	Not mentioned on a given list
0	Mixed evaluation ultimately neutral on acceptance
0	Accepted as suitable reading but not authoritative
-1	Rejected with reservations
-3	Rejected without reservations implicitly by inclusion in a rejected category e.g. works of a certain author or school
-5	Rejected without reservations explicitly

These numbers are particularly geared to reflect whether the books were considered canonical and how thoroughly the books were accepted as reflecting the best available knowledge about Christ and his apostles. A different purpose would likely have generated a different scoring system; for instance if the scoring scheme had been geared to reflect which books were considered merely suitable reading rather than actually canonical, the classification of books which were non-authoritative but suitable for reading would have been scored more positively than books which were unmentioned. This is just to clarify that this system is geared towards scoring the strength of attestation for inclusion in the canon rather than for any other purpose. Not all of these categories are actively used here; some are designated now with a view to future evaluations of the history of the citations of the various books.

Next is the matter of evaluating the different canon lists themselves. From a historical viewpoint, the earlier a work was accepted, the better its claim for inclusion in the canon. Early dates are important not only for historical value, but also because, at an early date, the "orthodox" camp was still in formation and had no political power advantages over the "unorthodox". The only clear advantage held by one camp over the other in the first centuries of Christianity was ultimately their claim to truthfulness and access to reliable knowledge about Jesus and his apostles. So it became important to rate the lists based on how early the list of books was created. Given that the date of the original lists are often known only approximately, I rated the dates of the canon lists into just a few divisions, with the earlier lists receiving more consideration:

Century of origin	Raw weight of list
100-199 A.D.	3
200-299 A.D.	2
300-399 A.D.	1

Anything later than 400 A.D. is later than I am evaluating for my present purposes. In cases where more precise dates can be determined, it may be possible for me to refine the weights in the future; but this scheme, rough as it is, captures the general intention of giving more weight to the earlier lists.

Then, finally, we come to the matter that not all lists were composed with the same respect for history and for those who knew Jesus first-hand. Some lists were composed with the question in mind, "What are the best sources of information on Christ and the apostles?"; in this they are forerunners of the historical Jesus movement. Other lists were composed with the question in mind, "Which books best support the theological outlook of our group?". The Marcionites, for example, picked and chose books not based on whether they were tied to the apostles, but whether they were tied to the right apostle, i.e. Paul, and whether the books supported a historically revised Jesus who was safely distanced from Judaism. Such a list shows little interest in the Jesus which his apostles knew or in the apostles who knew him directly; historically it is of less value. However, even such a list still has some value as a witness to books which were in circulation at the time. Still other lists are simply lists without any visible evaluation at all.

Based on this, the lists themselves will be weighted so that lists that have no interest in the historical realities of a Jewish fellow from Nazareth and his Jewish apostles are seen as having less historical value than a list which takes its cue from historicity rather than from contents. The following adjustments are applied to the lists based on the list's respect for historicity:

List's respect for historicity	Weight adjustment factor
Critical evaluation of historicity	1.00
List without visible evaluations	0.75
Historical revisionist evaluations visible	0.50

My first step, then, was to determine weighting and evaluation criteria that would score the historical value of the witnesses to the canon. This was done without seeing how any particular books fared according to this scheme. The only goal in mind was to be able to give a meaningful weight value to each book and to be able to come to a meaningful answer to the question: how strong is the early evidence that this book should be in the canon of Scripture?

In the next post in this series, I will show what kind of rating results from this scheme for each of the various books of the New Testament canon and the several non-canonical books which were mentioned (whether favorably or negatively) on the early canon lists.

Human dignity and the question of free will

Some of my blog neighbors have recently been discussing the mind and the case for the existence of free will. There are implications for how we view our thoughts, behavior, emotions, and even spirituality. I think it’s safe to say I’m of the minority opinion in Christian circles: I don't quite see why people think the mind is something other than physical or why a physical mind would imply a deterministic trap.

Mark has recently discussed free will in several posts and has hit on one of the perennial problems when discussing free will: how do we define it? What, exactly, do we mean by "free will"? There is little use discussing whether or not we have it unless we have some idea what it is. Is "free will" the ability to do something without any compelling reason, or the ability to behave in ways that cannot be predicted? I'm not sure either of those is a good thing in and of itself; unreasonableness and unpredictability are hardly what I would want to argue for in holding out dignity for humanity.

Is free will best described by creativity or especially originality? Then that leaves awkward questions about all the things even artists do that are uncreative or unoriginal, of our daily love of habit and routine, and the tendency of human behavior to form repeating, recognizable patterns. What percentage of human actions ever attain to the heights of "free will" under the definition of originality?

I suspect that pursuing a theory of "free will" leads us wrong in the quest for human dignity. Rather than defining human dignity in terms of free will, I would take a closer look at either self-control or the ability to dedicate ourselves to things beyond survival. Granted that both of these involve decision-making; but here even unoriginal, predictable decisions may have dignity in pursuit of kindness or some other form of excellence. If we value novelty and unpredictability over excellence, then a mediocre experimental artist is worth more than an excellent traditional one. But if we value devotion and dedication, then all kinds of simple human acts become dignified. The simple, repetitive fabric of human life can participate in a pursuit of gladness, joy, kindness, and love, can have dignity regardless of its repetition or its predictability. If we say that a life gains value by breaking away from the normal, then we confess that we do not value the ordinary and everyday life. If we say that a life gains value by dedicating itself toward the eternal or transcendent things of God -- which oddly enough are humble things like bread and wine and visiting the neighbor who is sick -- then even the ordinary life gains meaning and dignity from that.

---

Previous posts on related subjects:
Is man a machine or a masterpiece?
The kingdom of heaven is like ...
On natural factors in behavior, evil, reason, and faith
The image of God and the fall of man

Mark's 3000th Post: A Meme

Congratulations to Mark for reaching the milestone of 3000 posts this week. Now that's dedication to blogging!

For his 3000th post he suggested a meme: Locating Beauty in the 20th Century. Where else should I start except for Nadia Comaneci in Montreal in 1976?

The 20th century was not renowned for its beauty. Even those who ought to know better denigrate the value of beauty as either mere subjectivity or as useless. They are wrong on both counts. Here, then, are my nominations for most beautiful thing from the 20th century in several fields:

Most beautiful literature: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy
Most beautiful performances: the gymnastics of Nadia Comaneci
Most beautiful music: the guitar intro to Stairway to Heaven
Most beautiful speech: MLK's "I Have A Dream"
Most beautiful painting or architecture: haven't seen anything that really impressed me from the 20th century.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that art, beauty, and visions of paradise are important to me. But allow me to close with a telling word from a supposed atheist:

The sight [of the Aurora] filled the northern sky; the immensity of it was scarcely conceivable. As if from Heaven itself, great curtains of delicate light hung and trembled. Pale green and rose-pink, and as transparent as the most fragile fabric, and at the bottom edge a profound and fiery crimson like the fires of Hell, they swung and shimmered loosely with more grace than the most skillful dancer. Lyra thought she could even hear them: a vast distant whispering swish. In the evanescent delicacy she felt something as profound as she'd felt close to the bear. She was moved by it; it was so beautiful it was almost holy ... (emphasis added). Philip Pullman, The Golden Compass, 2002 Knopf p. 184.

When certain religious traditions disown or ignore beauty, they have disowned or ignored God's creation and part of God's own heart and mind. The sense of the holy is gone without the sense of beauty. Part of the "secularization" of this age takes the form of determined ugliness, an aloofness from even the desire for beauty. There are centuries where my list of beautiful things would have been pages long. Not so the 20th century.

Atheists disbelieve us and are bitter because they have never experienced the holy. If we give up on beauty, it's possible they never will.

How old is the lectionary?

Many Christian groups have put together lectionaries, orderly sequences of reading the Scriptures throughout the year. The practice of reading Scriptures during a worship service dates back to Biblical times, and there are various references in the Talmud to appointed lectionary-style readings. But the reference which points back furthest in history is not a record of the events in the days when the Talmud was written, but a part of the Talmud claimed to be an oral history passed along from ancient times -- even back to the days of Moses.

And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord. (Lev 23:44) It is part of their observance that the section relating to each one of them should be read in its season.

Our Rabbis taught: Moses laid down a rule for the Israelites that they should enquire and give expositions concerning the subject of the day — the laws of Passover on Passover, the laws of Pentecost on Pentecost, and the laws of Tabernacles on Tabernacles. (Megilah 32a)

If this oral history is accurate, then the principle of having a lectionary -- and some of the readings used in that lectionary, still used today -- are over three thousand years old. Those of us who belong to traditional churches may pause and consider the depth of our roots. Whenever I see a reference to Christian history as if it started two thousand years ago, I cringe inside. Christ was a long-expected branch of an ancient tree; we are more than two thousand years old.

Scenes from our front porch

This little beauty had been inside a chrysalis on the front porch. We had been watching it for at least a week now. On Saturday night the chrysalis became see-through; on Sunday the Monarch butterfly finally came out. We got several pictures before its wings dried enough for it to fly away. The chrysalis picture is one that I took; the emerged butterfly photo is courtesy of my daughter, who is quite the budding photographer.

If Wisdom is a Tree of Life ...

She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her. (Proverbs 3:18)

In reading older interpretations of Scripture, I have seen some different methods of interpretation than are currently in use. One method is to take something revealed in one setting and apply it back to another setting to see if it is fitting. The "Tree of Life" makes several appearances in the book of Proverbs, the only place besides Genesis where it appears in the Old Testament. In its first appearance in Proverbs, the Tree of Life is wisdom.

If we understand the Tree of Life as wisdom, it sheds a whole new light on the account of the Fall in Genesis. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of course, brings death; but what about the Tree of Life? What if the choice was not between Knowledge and Ignorance, but between Knowledge and Wisdom? What if our problem was not that we valued Knowledge while God sought to keep us in the dark, but that we valued Knowledge more than Wisdom? We reached for Knowledge when God wanted to give us Wisdom. The history of humanity has been filled with times when our knowledge has been to our downfall because we valued knowledge over wisdom. Many technological and medical breakthroughs have been followed quickly by a wish that we had learned to understand better before we plunged forward. World literature from Oedipus Rex to Frankenstein has been filled with people who, lacking wisdom, were betrayed by their own knowledge.

It has always seemed odd to me that the pair of trees were "Knowledge of Good and Evil" and "Life"; those are hardly a natural pair. And we knew it worked out to "Death" and "Life", which are a more natural pair. It also seemed odd that God would create man and woman in his image but ask them not to go after Knowledge (even if it was Knowledge of Good and Evil), and all the while the culture that passed down this story is renowned for scholarship. And many have questioned why God would create this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil at all.

I've heard the suggestion that, if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that the day would have come when God had given them of that tree as a gift. They may have a point.

The Gospel of Mark and the Identity of Christ

The Gospel of Mark is an early gospel, widely believed by scholars of the textual traditions to be the earliest of the four canonical gospels. It is also the shortest of the four. There is a strain of scholarship that reads the synoptic gospels and does not see how Jesus became revered even as a human Christ -- much less as God. This move -- recognizing Christ as more than just a prophet but as Divine Power in human form -- is seen by some scholars as a strain on the text, an imposition by the faithful on a history which does not warrant it and which, perhaps, the earliest church did not intend.

While I am familiar with these claims simply by living in a culture in which such claims are largely taken for granted by non-Christians, I do not think a fair reading of the synoptic gospels warrants such an assessment. To that end, I will briefly recap the first chapter of the book of Mark. The following is organized by the NIV section headings in Mark chapter 1.

---

John the Baptist Prepares the Way (Mark 1:1-8)
A superficial glance shows that Jesus is important enough to have a herald announcing his arrival. Attention to detail shows some other points of interest:

1. The original prophecy has a messenger preparing the way for the LORD (using the name of God). According to Mark, the fulfillment has John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus.
2. The one coming after will John baptize with the Holy Spirit – will pour out the Holy Spirit on the people, again the work of God.

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (Mark 1:9-12)
A voice from heaven announces that Jesus is His Son. “Son of God” calls up images of the Wisdom of God, the Anointed King, and the people of God. The question becomes how many of these meanings are intended. Granted that we are all children of God, still the author of Mark has already put the title "Christ" (Messiah) on the table, so at least the meaning of the Anointed King should also be considered as intended.

The Calling of the First Disciples (Mark 1:14-20)
Jesus’ arrival on the public scene coincides with the approaching kingdom of God and the announcement of good news.

Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit (Mark 1:21-28)
Jesus is identified as the Holy One of God. He has power over evil. He is said to teach with authority. It raises the question: by whose authority? While this is the first time the question of Jesus’ authority arises in Mark, it is far from the last.

Jesus Heals Many (Mark 1:29-34)
Jesus is shown to have power also to heal diseases. He does not allow demons to speak because they know who he is. The disciples are left wondering.

Jesus Prays in a Solitary Place (Mark 1:35-39)
News of Jesus spreads.

A Man With Leprosy (Mark 1:40-45)
The only certain point is that Jesus heals leprosy. Leprosy was a disease which was considered to defile a person.

---

After only one chapter of Mark we have already had a prophecy in which someone who is supposed to be preparing the way for the LORD (God) announces the coming of Jesus, followed by several references to Jesus possessing the same power as God, a voice from heaven calling him Son, and demons calling him the Holy One of God. I know there are those who say that in the synoptic gospels there is no sure sign of Jesus being anything other than a human Messiah (and maybe not even a Messiah), but I wonder how carefully they’re reading the text.

Judaism and the foundation of Christianity

From the recent Trinity Blogging Summit, one thing that has drawn comment both here and elsewhere on my submission was the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It is a highly charged topic, to say the least. So I did want to mention a few things in places more visible than comments sections:

1. Jewish thought in Jesus' day was deeply steeped in the word of God. The Jewish nation had what was then a unique revelation and a unique insight into the mind and character of God.
2. On this basis I see the Judaism of Jesus' day as the seed of the true religion which would ultimately be for all nations, as it is now since Jesus came.
3. When I refer to Jewish thought, I include the early centuries of Christian Jews and especially the New Testament Jewish authors. To consider Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, Jude, or Paul as "un-Jewish" is an anachronism.
4. I am not interested in "using" Judaism to "validate" Christianity: after someone rises from the dead, I cannot comprehend anyone still looking over their shoulder to check a human opinion.
5. When the Jewish community divided into those for Jesus and those against, I do not see any reason to privilege the views of those Jews who deny Jesus as the Messiah as having a unique claim to Jewish identity. I do not see how it can be legitimate to deny or marginalize Jesus' Jewishness or that of his disciples and apostles. They have full right to have us acknowledge their historic Jewish identity.
6. So when I say that Jesus is to be understood in a Jewish framework, I do not intend to define that Jewish framework as the modern Jewish context of anti-Christian polemics.
7. I am, however, insisting that the New Testament writings be read in the original context. The New Testament makes frequent references to previous Jewish thought, both by quotation and by allusions. The intended meaning can be lost without that context.
8. My call, then, is to recognize that the early Christian writings are written in a Jewish context and so demand a Jewish framework in order to be understood properly.
9. This Jewish framework then includes Christ and his apostles. This inclusion has far-reaching implications in that Judaism is also transformed from within by Jesus' teachings, life, death, and resurrection.
10. In this way Christianity -- including Christianity's Jewish origins -- should not be limited to what had been anticipated by those centuries of faithful Jews before Jesus came; it would deny the Jewish context of his incarnation and revelation.

None of this is intended to deny or belittle the other cultures that made significant contributions to the early development of Christian thought beyond the confines of Judea. It is simply to acknowledge that when Jesus calls himself "Messiah", or says "My yoke is easy", or calls himself "the bridegroom", these things make allusions to Jewish thought and culture. To take a parallel example about the allusions and the cultural context: if someone were to go through life in English-speaking lands with no familiarity with Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens or Tolkien, they would miss a huge number of references. It would be easy to miss the full meaning of what was said by not understanding the reference.

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11 is Up

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #11 is up at Dr. Pursiful's blog. He has done a great job organizing and presenting the Carnival. Stop by and give him a read for the latest on Christian reconciliation from the Christian blogosphere.

Darwinists set to endorse religious affiliations

In a backlash against the militant neo-atheists, moderate atheists have decided to endorse religious affiliations, citing "survival of the fittest" concerns. This surprise move was anounced today in Atheist/Progressive Report 1 (APR-1), which cited the following reasons for their move:

1. Religious groups encourage people to have children, which some Darwinists consider to be a useful step in the survival of the species.
2. They discourage killing children in utero, again contributing to higher reproduction rates.
3. They advocate stable relationships, proven healthy for any offspring.
4. They encourage heterosexual unions, which generally leads to more offspring than same-sex unions.

Given the Darwinist dedication to survival of the fittest, these moderate Darwinists have determined that, in their own self-interest, it is best to join religious groups, raise their children in such groups, and encourage others to do the same.