document_title: Languages of the Roman Empire

question_text: the eastern empire adopted which language in replacement of latin

text: Languages of the Roman Empire

text: Latin[edit]

text: Latin was the language of the Romans from the earliest known period. Writing under the first Roman emperor Augustus, Virgil emphasizes that Latin was a source of Roman unity and tradition. In Virgil's epic Aeneid about the founding of Rome, the supreme deity Jupiter dictates that the refugee Trojans who have come to settle in Italy will use the language of the native Latini as a means of unification: "they will keep the speech (sermo) and mores of their fathers ... and I will make them all Latins with one mode of expression" (uno ore, literally "with one mouth").[15] The Julio-Claudian emperors, who claimed descent from the Virgilian hero Aeneas, encouraged high standards of correct Latin (Latinitas), a linguistic movement identified in modern terms as Classical Latin, and favored Latin for conducting official business.[16]

text: Latin became the language of conquered areas because local people started speaking it, and not because the population was displaced by Latin-speakers.[17] Latin was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule.[18] Saint Augustine observed that Romans preferred for Latin to be adopted per pacem societatis, through a social pact.[19] This language policy contrasts with that of Alexander, who aimed to impose Greek throughout his empire as the official language.[20] Latin was not a requirement for Roman citizenship, and there was no state-supported schooling that privileged it as the medium for education: fluency was desirable for its "high cultural, political, legal, social and economic value".[21]

text: Latin was needed for Imperial service and advancement, and was the language used for the internal functioning of government.[22] Edicts and official communications of the emperor were in Latin, including rulings on local laws that might be in another language.[23]

text: The Romans placed a high value on the written word, as indicated by their obsession with documentation and public inscriptions. The Imperial bureaucracy was so dependent on writing that the Babylonian Talmud declared "if all seas were ink, all reeds were pen, all skies parchment, and all men scribes, they would be unable to set down the full scope of the Roman government's concerns."[24] Estimates of the average literacy rate in the Empire range from 5 to 30 percent or higher, depending in part on the definition of "literacy".[25] The lack of state intervention in access to education was a barrier to literacy, since formal education was available only to children from families who could pay for it.[26]

text: The birth certificates and wills of Roman citizens had to be written in Latin until the time of Alexander Severus (reigned 222–235).[28] Illiterate Roman subjects would have someone such as a government scribe (scriba) read or write their official documents for them.[29] Laws and edicts were posted in writing as well as read out.[30] Public art and religious ceremonies were ways to communicate imperial ideology regardless of language spoken or ability to read.[31] An early form of story ballet (pantomimus) was brought to Rome by Greek performers and became popular throughout the multilingual Empire in part because it relied on gesture rather than verbal expression.[32]

text: Latin was the official language of the Roman army until the mid-6th century, and remained the most common language for military use even in the Eastern empire until the 630s.[33] By contrast, only two bishops are known to have spoken Latin at the ecumenical councils held during the reign of Theodosius II (d. 450 AD).[34]

text: Greek[edit]

text: Koine Greek had become the common language of the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor after the conquests of Alexander the Great.[35] Lucian even imagines that Greek is the universal language of the dead in the underworld.[36] In late antiquity, a Greek-speaking majority lived in the Greek peninsula and islands, major cities of the East, western Anatolia, and some coastal areas.[37] Greek continued as the language of the Byzantine Empire, and developed into a distinctive medieval Greek that gave rise to modern Greek.[38]

text: The emperor Claudius tried to limit the use of Greek, and on occasion revoked the citizenship of those who lacked Latin. Even in addressing the Roman Senate, however, he drew on his own bilingualism in communicating with Greek-speaking ambassadors.[40] Suetonius quotes him as referring to "our two languages,"[41] and the employment of two imperial secretaries, one for Greek and one Latin, dates to his reign.[42]

text: The everyday interpenetration of the two languages is indicated by bilingual inscriptions, which sometimes even switch back and forth between Greek and Latin. The epitaph of a Greek-speaking soldier, for instance, might be written primarily in Greek, with his rank and unit in the Roman army expressed in Latin.[43]

text: In the Eastern empire, laws and official documents were regularly translated into Greek from Latin.[44] Both languages were in active use by government officials and the Church during the 5th century.[45] From the 6th century, Greek culture was studied in the West almost exclusively through Latin translation.[46] Latin loanwords appear liberally in Greek texts on technical topics from late antiquity and the Byzantine period.[47]

text: Language reform movements[edit]

text: Atticism was a trend of the Second Sophistic. Intellectuals such as Aelius Aristides sought to restore the standards of classical Greek characteristic of the Attic dialect, represented by Thucydides, Plato, Demosthenes, and other authors from the Classical period. Prose stylists who aspired to Atticism tried to avoid the vulgarisms of koine—an impractical goal, but this linguistic purism reflected also the 2nd-century flourishing of grammarians and lexicographers.[48] Expertise in language and literature contributed to preserving Hellenic culture in the Roman Imperial world.[49]

text: Among other reforms, the emperor Diocletian (reigned 284–305) sought to renew the authority of Latin, and the Greek expression ἡ κρατοῦσα διάλεκτος (hē kratousa dialektos) attests to the continuing status of Latin as "the language of power."[50] The scholar Libanius (4th century) regarded Latin as causing a decline in the quality of Greek rhetoric.[51] In the early 6th century, the emperor Justinian engaged in a quixotic effort to reassert the status of Latin as the language of law, even though in his time Latin no longer held any currency as a living language in the East.[52]

text: Regional languages[edit]

text: The dominance of Latin and Greek among the literate elite may obscure the continuity of spoken languages, since all cultures within the Roman Empire were predominantly oral.[53] In areas where Syriac, Coptic, Hebrew and Aramaic were spoken, they coexisted with Greek.[54]

text: Aramaic and Syriac[edit]

text: Aramaic was the primary language of Syria and Mesopotomia, with several dialects.[55] Syriac was in use around Antioch, one of the three largest cities of the Empire, and particularly by Christians.[56] Syriac literature is known from the latter 2nd century, spreading from the Christian community in Edessa.[57] Early Syriac literature was produced in a largely Greek intellectual milieu until the 4th century, but was distinctive for its use of rich symbolism and verse forms, and influenced Greek writers such as Eusebius, Basil and Theodoret.[58] Among the earliest Syriac literature was the Diatessaron of Tatian, and translations of sections from the Bible.[59]

text: The prolific Syrian scholar Bardesanes knew Greek and sent his son for schooling in Athens, but chose to write in his ethnic language. In addition to Syriac homilies and treatises, Bardesanes wrote 150 hymns "of enormous influence and doubtful doctrine".[60] Other Syriac literature of the time included Christian treatises, dialogues, and apocryphal Acts.[61] Some Syriac literature had Gnostic elements, and also played a role in the dissemination of Manicheanism. From the 5th century onward, it included Monophysite and Nestorian writings.[62]

text: Works by the Syriac writer Ephraim were translated into Greek.[63] The satirist and rhetorician Lucian came from Samosata in the province of Syria; although he wrote in Greek, he calls himself a Syrian, and a reference to himself as a "barbarian" suggests that he spoke Syriac.[64]

text: Soldiers from Palmyra even used their dialect of Aramaic for inscriptions, in a striking exception to the rule that Latin was the language of the military.[65]

text: Coptic[edit]

text: "Coptic" is the modern term for the form of ancient Egyptian that had developed in late antiquity.[66] Written Coptic as a literary language seems to have resulted from a conscious effort among Egypt's educated class to revive their cultural heritage.[67]

text: In the 4th century, Coptic script—based on the Greek alphabet with additional characters from Egyptian demotic to reflect Egyptian phonology—is found in documents in several dialects, including Old Bohairic, Fayumic, Achmimic, and Sahidic.[68] At this time Coptic emerged as a fully literary language, including major translations of Greek scriptures, liturgical texts, and patristic works.[69] From the 4th to 7th centuries, original works—including homilies, saints' lives, monastic rules, letters, and exhortations—were composed in Coptic, primarily in the Sahidic dialect.[70] As a writing system, Coptic was used for everyday purposes such as inventories and real estate transactions, as well as for poetry.[71] By the 640s, when Egypt came under Arab rule, Coptic-speaking Christians constituted the majority of the population.[72] At the end of the 7th century, legal texts might still be written in Coptic: in one example, a bilingual Greek-Arabic protocol with a reference to Mohammed precedes a document entirely in Coptic that invokes the Trinity.[73]

text: Punic[edit]

text: Punic, the Semitic language of the Carthaginians, continued to be used in North Africa during the Imperial period.[74] Before the Roman conquest in 146 BC, nearly all Punic inscriptions had been votives to the deities Tanit and Ba'al or funerary commemorations, but during the Roman era a broader range of content is found in Neo-Punic, often appearing with parallel texts in Latin or Greek.[75] A striking occurrence of Neo-Punic is found at the otherwise thoroughly Roman temple of Roma and Augustus, built 14–19 AD at Leptis Magna.[76] One of the latest Neo-Punic inscriptions on a monument dates to the reign of Domitian (81–96 AD).[77] No inscription in Punic script on stone can be dated later than the 2nd or 3rd century.[78] Latin script was used to write Punic in the 4th and 5th centuries.[79]

text: Punic was spoken at the highest level of society: the emperor Septimius Severus (reigned 193–211) was born in Leptis Magna and spoke Punic as well as Latin and Greek, while his sister supposedly had little command of Latin at all.[80] Augustine, who was from North Africa, several times mentions Punic; he observed that it was related to Hebrew and Syriac, and his knowledge of Punic helped him figure out transliterated Semitic words from the Bible.[81]

text: Celtic[edit]

text: Celtic languages at the beginning of the Imperial period include Gaulish, spoken in Gaul (Gallia, present-day France, Belgium, Switzerland and northern Italy); Celtiberian, in parts of Hispania (Spain and Portugal); Brittonic in Britannia (Roman Britain), and Galatian, a branch of Celtic brought to Anatolia by the Gallic invasions of the 3rd century BC. The place name Galatia, a Roman province, derives from the Greek word for "Gauls" or "Celts", Galatai. Loanwords from Gaulish are recorded in Latin as early as the time of Ennius (ca. 239–169 BC), due to the presence of Celtic settlements on the Italian peninsula.[82] By late antiquity, some Gaulish words had become so Latinized that their origin was no longer recognized as such.[83]

text: Celtiberian is documented as a written language only after contact with the Romans in the 2nd century BC.[84] Of 103 Celtiberian inscriptions, thirty in Iberian script are hospitality tokens (tesserae hospitales), twenty of which are in the shape of animals.[85] The social custom of pledging mutual support among families or communities was compatible with hospitium in Roman culture, and the Celtiberians continued to produce the tokens, though switching to Latin, into the 2nd century of the Imperial era.[86] Under Augustus, the territory of the Celtiberians became part of the Tarraconensis province.[87] Written Celtiberian ceases early in the reign of Augustus, if not before.[88]

text: Several references to Gaulish in late antiquity may indicate that it continued to be spoken. Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (present-day Lyon) from 177 AD, complains that he has to communicate with his parishioners in their "barbarous tongue", probably Gaulish.[89] The jurist Ulpian (170–228) mentions the need to recognize Gaulish verbal contracts.[90] Lampridius says that a druidess made a prophecy in Gaulish to Alexander Severus (208–235).[91] Jerome (331–420), who had first-hand knowledge, observes that the Gallic Treveri speak a language "more or less the same" as that of the Galatians.[92] The collection of pharmacological recipes by Marcellus of Bordeaux (late 4th- or early 5th-century) contains several Gaulish words, mainly plant names, and seems to indicate that the language remained in use for at least some purposes such as traditional medicine and magic.[93] Sulpicius Severus (363–425), also from Gallia Aquitania, takes note of Gaulish-Latin bilingualism, with Gaulish as the first language. Other mentions of people who speak "in the Gallic manner" (gallice) or similar may refer to speaking Latin with a regional Gaulish accent.[94]

text: Germanic[edit]

text: Next to nothing is recorded of the Germanic languages spoken in the Empire, with the exception of Gothic. A phrase of Gothic is quoted in an elegiac couplet from the Latin Anthology,[95] and more substantially parts of the Gospels were translated into Gothic and preserved by the 6th-century Codex Argenteus.[96] While Latin gained some Germanic loanwords, most linguistic influence ran the other way.[97]

text: Bilingualism in a Germanic language and Latin was especially important in the military for officers in command of units recruited from Germanic-speaking areas. Tacitus observes that Arminius, the Cheruscan officer who later led a disastrously successful rebellion against the Romans, was bilingual.[98] The emperor Julian employed a bilingual Germanic military tribune as a spy.[99] The officers and secretaries who kept the records preserved in the Vindolanda tablets were Batavian, but their Latin contains no hint; the common soldiers of their units, however, may have retained their Germanic speech.[100] Less commonly, Latin-speaking officers learned a Germanic language through their service and acted as interpreters.[101] Acquiring Germanic might be regarded as a dubious achievement inducing anxieties of "barbarism": in 5th-century Gaul, Sidonius thinks it funny that his learned friend Syagrius has become fluent in Germanic.[102]

text: Multilingualism[edit]

text: Trilingualism was perhaps not uncommon among educated people who came from regions where a language other than Latin or Greek was spoken. The Latin novelist Apuleius also wrote in Greek, and had learned Punic from his mother.[103] The Babatha Archive is a suggestive example of practical multilingualism. These papyri, named for a Jewish woman in the province of Arabia and dating from 93 to 132 AD, mostly employ Aramaic, the local language, written in Greek characters with Semitic and Latin influences; a petition to the Roman governor, however, was written in Greek.[104]

text: One striking example of multilingualism as well as multiculturalism in the Empire is a 2nd-century epitaph for a woman named Regina, discovered in 1878 near the Roman fort at South Shields, northeast England. The inscription is written in Latin and Palmyrene Aramaic, the language of Regina's husband, Barates, who has been identified with a standardbearer (vexillarius) of that name from Palmyra, Syria.[105] He was most likely in the military stationed along Hadrian's Wall. The Latin, however, is constructed grammatically in the manner of Greek honorific inscriptions typical of Palmyra, suggesting that Barates was bilingual in Aramaic and Greek, and added Latin as a third language. The Latin portion is larger and longer, and provides most of the information. The Palmyrene is carved in a fluid cursive script, and conveys only the name of Regina and an expression of grief. Since few people in Britain could have read Palmyrene, its use may be Barates' personal statement of his identity and emotions. A fourth linguistic element is the name Regina, which can be either Latin or Celtic. Such names seem often to have been chosen for their deliberate duality. Regina herself is identified as from the British Catuvellauni, a people whose civitas capital was Verulamium, but the Gallo-Brittonic spelling Catuallauna (feminine) is used in the Latin inscription.[106]

text: Geographical distribution[edit]

text: Italian peninsula and Sicily[edit]

text: In Italy, the written use of Latin had replaced Oscan—like Latin, an Italic language—and Etruscan by the end of the 1st century AD.[107] Oscan graffiti are preserved by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD at Pompeii, which was in the Oscan region, and a couple may date after the earlier eruption in 63.[108] In the mid-1st century, the emperor Claudius, who had keen antiquarian interests, knew Etruscan and wrote a multivolume history of the Etruscans, but the work has not survived.[109]

text: Multilingualism had been characteristic of Sicily for centuries, resulting from occupations by the Carthaginians, Greeks, and Romans. While the slave trade during the Republican period brought speakers of Greek and other languages from the East to the island, Greek was the language of higher-status persons such as government officials and businessmen during the Imperial era.[110] Immigration to Sicily in the early Empire originated more often in places where Latin was spoken than in Greek-speaking areas. African speakers of Latin were a significant presence in Sicily.[111] Christian inscriptions are far more likely to be in Greek.[112] In late antiquity, Greek-Latin bilingualism was common enough that it would have been acquired through everyday personal interaction.[113] The Jewish communities of Syracuse seem to have been bilingual in Greek and Hebrew.[114] There is some Sicilian evidence of Syriac.[115]

text: Western provinces[edit]

text: In the Western Empire, Latin gradually replaced the Celtic languages, which were related to it by a shared Indo-European origin. Commonalities in syntax and vocabulary facilitated the adoption of Latin.[116] Mediterranean Gaul (southern France) had become trilingual (Greek, Latin, Gaulish) by the mid-1st century BC.[117] The importance of Latin in gaining access to the ruling power structure caused the rapid extinction of inscriptions in scripts that had been used to represent local languages on the Iberian peninsula (Hispania) and in Gaul. Among other aspects of a distinctive Gallo-Roman culture was the creation of Gallo-Latin text.[118] In Latin commemorative inscriptions, individuals with Celtic names rarely identify themselves as "Celtic" or "Gallic"; they are much more likely to name the people of their civitas (such as Aedui, Remi, Pictones)[119] or their voting tribe (tribus) as Roman citizens. Several major writers of Latin came from the Iberian peninsula in the Imperial period, including Seneca, Lucan, Quintilian,[120] Martial, and Prudentius.

text: Most of the 136 Greek inscriptions from Mediterraean Gaul (the Narbonensis), including those from originally Greek colonies, are post-Augustan.[121] Their content indicates that Greek was used increasingly for specialized purposes: "education, medicine, acting, agonistic activities, art, magic, religion, including Christianity".[122] Inscriptions from Marseilles (ancient Massilia), founded as a Greek Phocaean colony around 600 BC, show the continued use of Greek, especially in education and medicine, into the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Imperial era.[123] In the 4th century, the Latin poet and scholar Ausonius, from Gallia Aquitania (present-day Bordeaux), characterizes his physician father as speaking Attic Greek with more eloquence than Latin.[124]

text: Basque, not an Indo-European language, survived in the region of the Pyrenees.[125] The people of southwestern Gaul and northeastern Hispania (roughly present-day Aquitaine and Navarre) were regarded by Julius Caesar as ethnically distinct from the Celts, and the Aquitanian language they spoke was Vasconic like Basque, judging from place names. The Aquitani adopted Latin under Roman rule.[126]

text: Gaulish was probably spoken in central and northern parts of Gaul into the 4th and possibly 5th century, and in Brittany (ancient Aremorica) perhaps into the 6th.[127] Latin did not become as deeply entrenched in the province of Britannia, and may have dwindled rapidly after the Roman withdrawal around 410 AD, although pockets of Latin-speaking Britons survived in western Britain until about 700 AD.[128][129] The evidence of Latin loanwords into Brittonic suggests that the Latin of Roman Britain was academic, in contrast to the everyday conversational Latin ("Vulgar" Latin) on the continent.[130]

text: African provinces[edit]

text: In the provinces of Africa westwards of Cyrenaica (a region colonised by Greeks since the 7th century BC), the people of Carthage and other Phoenician colonies spoke and wrote Punic, with Latin common in urban centers. Other Roman Africans spoke Afroasiatic languages (Libyan, Numidian), debatably early versions of Berber.[131]

text: Punic was used for legends on coins during the time of Tiberius (1st century AD), and Punic inscriptions appear on public buildings into the 2nd century, some bilingual with Latin.[132] Inscriptions might also be trilingual: one pertaining to Imperial cult presents "the official Latin, the local Punic, and the Greek of passing traders and an educated or cosmopolitan elite".[133]

text: Inscriptions in Libyan use a script similar to tifinagh, usually written vertically from the bottom up. The 23 characters are "of a rather rigid geometric form".[134] Bilingual examples are found with either Punic or Latin, and indicate that some people who could write these languages could also at least transliterate their names into the Libyan script. Although Libyan inscriptions are concentrated southeast of Hippo, near the present-day Algerian-Tunisia border, their distribution overall suggests that knowledge of the language was not confined to isolated communities.[135]

text: Notable writers of Latin from Africa during the Imperial period include the novelist Apuleius, and the Church Fathers Tertullian and Augustine. Latin-speaking communities remained in North Africa, particularly around Carthage, during the period of the Vandal Kingdom (435–534), but died out by the late 7th century, with the Arab conquest.[136]

text: Egypt[edit]

text: In Egypt, Coptic predominated,[137] but Greek had been in use since the conquest of Alexander, and Latin and Greek were the administrative languages during the Roman Imperial period.[138] Alexandria, founded in 331 BC under Greek rule and one of the three largest cities of the Roman Empire, was a leading city in Greek intellectual life during the Hellenistic and Imperial periods. Famed for the Library of Alexandria, it was also a center for the dissemination of Christianity, which spread first among Greek speakers in Egypt.[139]

text: Around 700 AD, Greek was replaced for administrative use by Arabic, the language of the conquerors. Coptic began to decline, and from this point was preserved mainly for liturgical purposes.[140]

text: Eastern empire[edit]

text: Although Greek was in common use around the Mediterranean and into Asia Minor even beyond Imperial borders, linguistic distribution in the eastern part of the Empire was complex. Now-extinct languages in Anatolia included Galatian (the form of Celtic introduced by invading Gauls in the 3rd century BC), Phrygian, Pisidian, and Cappadocian, attested by Imperial-era inscriptions.[141] Christian sources also mention the survival of Galatian, Cappadocian, Mysian, and Isaurian in Asia Minor.[142] Like Greek and Latin, these are categorized as Indo-European. Phrygian is not named as a language in a literary text until the 6th century, but is preserved in about a hundred funerary inscriptions in Greek script, most accompanied by Greek text as well and dating from the 3rd century.[143] A Cappadocian accent in speaking Greek seems to be mentioned in a few sources.[144]

text: Outside the military, Latin never became the language of everyday life in the East. An exception was the Roman colony of Berytus (present-day Beirut), where a Latin education could be obtained, and which became famous for its school of Roman law.[145]

text: Danubian provinces and Balkans[edit]

text: The Danubian provinces lay within a geographical area encompassing the middle and lower Danube basins, the Eastern Alps, the Dinarides, and the Balkans. Provinces in this general region include Noricum, Dacia, Dalmatia, Moesia, Thrace, Scythia, and Pannonia.[146] The relative influence of Latin versus Greek and vice versa in this area and in the Balkans in general, is sometimes demarcated by the Jireček Line.

text: Greek had been in use in the southern part of the Balkans since the late 4th century BC, as a result of the Macedonian conquests of Philip and Alexander. The ancient Macedonian language, perhaps a Greek dialect,[147] may have been spoken in some parts of what is now Macedonia and northern Greece; to the north of this area, Paeonian would have been used, and to the south Epirot, both scantily attested.[148]

text: Illyrian was spoken in the northwest, and to the northeast Thracian and Dacian.[149] These three languages, all Indo-European, are sometimes thought to be earlier forms of Albanian.[150] From his exile in Tomis on the Black Sea (present-day Constanța, Romania), the Augustan poet Ovid learned Getic and Sarmatian, and noted that Greek was spoken with a markedly Getic accent.[151] Inscriptions from Tomis in the Imperial period are generally Greek, with Thracian personal names and religious references.[152]

text: Jewish diaspora[edit]

text: Inscriptions in Greek and Latin set up by Jews attest to Jewish bi- or multilingualism, and their distribution in the Empire reflects the Jewish diaspora.[153] These may have the Hebrew tag shalom at the end.[154] Evidence for Jews in Egypt is preserved by papyri until the Jewish revolt of 116–117.[155] In the first half of the 5th century, Greek coexisted with Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic in the Jewish communities of Palaestina Prima and Secunda, and is found in mosaic inscriptions even in synagogues.[156]

text: Like the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that predated the Imperial era, Jewish literature in Greek under the Empire was written mainly for Jews who spoke Greek.[157] Some Jews writing in Greek during the late Hellenistic and early Imperial period—notably the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus—included gentiles among their intended audience.[158] The Sibylline Oracles and the Wisdom of Solomon are other examples of Jewish literature in Greek from this general period.[159]

text: No surviving Greek texts written after the year 100 can be securely identified as having a Jewish author. After this time, Jewish writings in Greek became irrelevant to Christians, who were thus unlikely to preserve them. The manuscription tradition of medieval Jewish culture has preserved only writings in Hebrew and Aramaic.[160]

text: Christian communities[edit]

text: The Epistle to Diognetus states that language was not a determining factor in Christian identity; Christians might speak any language.[161] By late antiquity, at least some Christian literature had been created for virtually every language in regular use throughout the Empire.[162]

text: The international use of Greek was one factor enabling the spread of Christianity, as indicated for example by the use of Greek for the Epistles of Paul.[164] Constantine, the first emperor to convert to Christianity, presumably knew some Greek, but Latin was spoken in his court, and he used an interpreter to address Greek-speaking bishops at the Council of Nicaea.[165] In the Christian Latin West, Greek became associated with "paganism" and regarded as a foreign language (lingua peregrina).[166] Saint Augustine confessed that he loathed Greek and found it hard to learn.[167] By late antiquity, however, it was possible to speak Greek as a primary language while not conceiving of oneself as a "Hellene" in matters of religion and culture.[168] In the first half of the 5th century, Greek was the standard language in which bishops communicated,[169] and the Acta Conciliorum ("Acts of the Church Councils") were recorded originally in Greek and then translated into Latin, Syriac, or Coptic.[170] During this period, Latin played only a subordinate role in the ecumenical councils, as did representatives from the Western empire.[171] Although traditionally Armenian is regarded as having been established as a Christian language by this time, it does not appear in the Acta.[172] There are hints that Coptic might be spoken at the councils, but no secure record.[173] On-the-spot translation into Greek was available for the participant who used his own language, including some who are referred to as "Arabs", "Saracens" or "Ishmaelites".[174] Christian content has been found in a few Arabic inscriptions from the 6th century.[175]

text: Ritual language[edit]

text: The form of private or personalized ritual characterized as "magic"[176] might be conducted in a hodgepodge of languages. Magic, and even some therapies for illnesses, almost always involved incantation or the reciting of spells (carmina), often accompanied by the ritualized creation of inscribed tablets (lamellae) or amulets. These are known from both archaeological artifacts and written texts such as the Greek Magical Papyri, a collection of spells dating variously from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD. Although Augustus attempted to suppress magic by burning some 2,000 esoteric books early in his reign,[177] magical practices were disseminated widely throughout the Greco-Roman world, and attest to an awareness of multilingualism among the peoples of the Empire.[178] Spells were not translated, because their efficacy was thought to reside in their precise wording;[179] a language such as Gaulish thus may have persisted for private ritual purposes when it no longer had everyday currency.[180]

text: The Greek Magical Papyri (PGM) reflect Greco-Egyptian syncretism, incorporating not only Egyptian and Hellenistic religion, but Near Eastern elements, including Jewish magic and dashes of Christian magic. Egyptian and Greek deities, the God of the Jews and Judaic angels, and Jesus are named. The PGM are written primarily in Greek with substantial passages in Demotic Egyptian[181] and inserted strings of syllables that are "pronounceable, though unintelligible".[182] These voces magicae ("magic words") occur throughout magic texts and inscriptions,[183] and often suggest corrupt Coptic or Egyptian,[184] Hebrew,[185] Aramaic or other Semitic languages,[186] and Celtic.[187] Hebrew and Greek appear in Demotic magical texts; Coptic magic incorporates Hebrew; Egyptian pops up in Latin spells.[188] While many voces magicae may be deliberate neologisms or obscurantism,[189] scholars have theorized that the more recognizable passages may be the products of garbled or misunderstood transmission, either in copying a source text or transcribing oral material.[190]

text: Inscriptions for the practice of magic in Gaul show the characteristic use of Greek for spells in the Imperial period. A 2nd-century curse tablet from Autun (Augustodunum) lists the names of those to be cursed in Latin, two magic words in Greek, and a series of voces magicae.[191] A defixio (binding spell) from Amélie-les-Bains seems composed in Celtic with bits of Latin.[192] A lamella from Roman Britain has been interpreted as Hebrew written in Greek characters.[193]

text: Christians in late antiquity might insert Hebrew into Greek exorcisms.[194] Saint Jerome reports an odd story about a Frankish-Latin bilingual man of the Candidati Imperial bodyguard who, in a state of demonic possession, began speaking perfect Aramaic, a language he did not know.[195]

text: Legal language[edit]

text: Roman law was written in Latin, and the "letter of the law" was tied strictly to the words in which it was expressed.[196] Any language, however, could be binding in more general verbal contracts and procedures grounded in the ius gentium or international law.[197] The ius gentium was not a written legal code, but was thought to exist among all peoples as a matter of natural law. Roman jurists show a concern for local languages such as Punic, Gaulish, and Aramaic in assuring the correct understanding and application of laws and oaths.[198]

text: While the birth certificates and wills of Roman citizens had to be written in Latin until the 220s,[199] in the legal opinion of Ulpian (ca. 215), fideicommissa (bequests in trust[200]) were not limited to Latin or even Greek, but could also be created in "Punic, Gaulish or any other" language.[201] Originally, a testator's fideicommissum placed the heir under a moral rather than legal obligation,[202] and Ulpian asserted that "any kind of speech contains the obligation of its words, provided that each party understands the other's language himself or through accurate interpreters".[203] The jurist Gaius distinguished between verbal contracts that derived their validity from formulaic utterance in Latin, and obligations expressing a mutual understanding of the ius gentium regardless of whether the parties were Roman or not.[204]

text: Linguistic legacy[edit]

text: After the decentralization of political power in late antiquity, Latin developed locally in the Western provinces into branches that became the Romance languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian and Catalan. As an international language of learning and literature, Latin itself continued as an active medium of expression for diplomacy and for intellectual developments identified with Renaissance humanism up to the 17th century, and for law and the Roman Catholic Church to the present.[205]

text: Greek continued as the language of the Byzantine Empire, but never replaced certain Afroasiatic languages with which it had long coexisted—primarily Coptic in Egypt, and Aramaic in Syria and Mesopotamia.[206]


document_title: Cytokinesis

question_text: when does a cell membrane pinch together to divide

root

text: Cytokinesis

text: Etymology and pronunciation[edit]

text: The word cytokinesis (/ˌsaɪtoʊkaɪˈniːsɪs, -tə-, -kə-/[2][3]) uses combining forms of cyto- + kine- + -sis, New Latin from Classical Latin and Ancient Greek, reflecting "cell" and kinesis ("motion, movement").

tag: p

text: Originally origin of this term is from Greek κύτος - kytos = a holow, Latin derivative cyto = cellular + κίνησις – kínesis = movement.

text: Animal cell[edit]

text: Animal cell cytokinesis begins shortly after the onset of sister chromatid separation in the anaphase of mitosis. The process can be divided to the following distinct steps: anaphase spindle reorganization, division plane specification, actin-myosin ring assembly and contraction, and abscission.[4] Faithful partitioning of the genome to emerging daughter cells is ensured through the tight temporal coordination of the above individual events by molecular signaling pathways.

text: Anaphase spindle reorganization[edit]

text: Animal cell cytokinesis starts with the stabilization of microtubules and reorganization of the mitotic spindle to form the central spindle. The central spindle (or spindle midzone) forms when non-kinetochore microtubule fibres are bundled between the spindle poles. A number of different species including H. sapiens, D. melanogaster and C. elegans require the central spindle in order to efficiently undergo cytokinesis, although the specific phenotype described when it is absent varies from one species to the next (for example, certain Drosophila cell types are incapable of forming a cleavage furrow without the central spindle, whereas in both C. elegans embryos and human tissue culture cells a cleavage furrow is observed to form and ingress, but then regress before cytokinesis is complete). The process of mitotic spindle reorganization and central spindle formation is caused by the decline of CDK1 activity during anaphase.[5] The decline of CDK1 activity at the metaphase-anaphase transition leads to dephosphorylating of inhibitory sites on multiple central spindle components. First of all, the removal of a CDK1 phosphorylation from a subunit of the CPC (the chromosomal passenger complex) allows its translocalization to the central spindle from the centromeres, where it is located during metaphase. Besides being a structural component of the central spindle itself, CPC also plays a role in the phosphoregulation of other central spindle components, including PRC1 (microtubule bundling protein required for cytokinesis 1) and MKLP1 (a kinesin motor protein). Originally inhibited by CDK1-mediated phosphorylation, PRC1 is now able to form a homodimer that selectively binds to the interface between antiparallel microtubules, facilitating spatial organization of the microtubules of the central spindle. MKLP1, together with the Rho-family GTPase activating protein CYK-4 (also termed MgcRacGAP), forms the centralspindlin complex. Centralspindlin binds to the central spindle as higher-order clusters. The centralspindlin cluster formation is promoted by phosphorylation of MLKP1 by Aurora B, a component of CPC. In short, the self-assembly of central spindle is initiated through the phosphoregulation of multiple central spindle components by the decline of CDK1 activity, either directly or indirectly, at the metaphase–anaphase transition. The central spindle may have multiple functions in cytokinesis including the control of cleavage furrow positioning, the delivery of membrane vesicles to the cleavage furrow, and the formation of the midbody structure that is required for the final steps of division.[6]

text: Division plane specification[edit]

text: The second step of animal cell cytokinesis involves division plane specification and cytokinetic furrow formation. Precise positioning of the division plane between the two masses of segregated chromosomes is essential to prevent chromosome loss. Meanwhile, the mechanism by which the spindle determines the division plane in animal cells is perhaps the most enduring mystery in cytokinesis and a matter of intense debate. There exist three hypotheses of furrow induction.[7] The first is the astral stimulation hypothesis, which postulates that astral microtubules from the spindle poles carry a furrow-inducing signal to the cell cortex, where signals from two poles are somehow focused into a ring at the spindle. A second possibility, called the central spindle hypothesis, is that the cleavage furrow is induced by a positive stimulus that originates in the central spindle equator. The central spindle may contribute to the specification of the division plane by promoting concentration and activation of the small GTPase RhoA at the equatorial cortex. A third hypothesis is the astral relaxation hypothesis. It proposes that postulates that active actin–myosin bundles are distributed throughout the cell cortex, and inhibition of their contraction near the spindle poles results in a gradient of contractile activity that is highest at the midpoint between poles. In other words, astral microtubules generate a negative signal that increases cortical relaxation close to the poles. Genetic and laser-micromanipulation studies in C. elegans embryos haven shown that the spindle sends two redundant signals to the cell cortex, one originating from the central spindle, and a second signal deriving from the spindle aster, suggesting the involvement of multiple mechanisms combined in the positioning of the cleavage furrow. The predominance of one particular signal varies between cell types and organisms. And the multitude and partial redundancy of signals may be required to make the system robust and to increase spatial precision.[8]

text: Actin-myosin ring assembly and contraction[edit]

text: At the cytokinesis furrow, it is the actin-myosin contractile ring that drives the cleavage process, during which cell membrane and wall grow inward, which eventually pinches the mother cell in two. The key components of this ring are the filamentous protein actin and the motor protein myosin II. The contractile ring assembles equatorially (in the middle of the cell) at the cell cortex (adjacent to the cell membrane). Rho protein family (RhoA protein in mammalian cells) is a key regulator of contractile ring formation and contraction in animal cells.[9] The RhoA pathway promotes assembly of the actin-myosin ring by two main effectors. First, RhoA stimulates nucleation of unbranched actin filaments by activation of Diaphanous-related formins. This local generation of new actin filaments is important for the contractile ring formation.[10] This actin filament formation process also requires a protein called profilin, which binds to actin monomers and helps load them onto the filament end. Second, RhoA promotes myosin II activation by the kinase ROCK, which activates myosin II directly by phosphorylation of the myosin light chain and also inhibits myosin phosphatase by phosphorylation of the phosphatase-targeting subunit MYPT. Besides actin and myosin II, the contractile ring contains the scaffolding protein anillin. Anillin binds to actin, myosin, RhoA and CYK-4, and thereby links the equatorial cortex with the signals from the central spindle. It also contributes to the linkage of the actin-myosin ring to the plasma membrane. Another protein, septin, has also been speculated to serve as a structural scaffold on which the cytokinesis apparatus is organized. Following its assembly, contraction of the actin-myosin ring leads to ingression of the attached plasma membrane, which partitions the cytoplasm into two domains of emerging sister cells. The force for the contractile processes is generated by movements along actin by the motor protein myosin II. Myosin II uses the free energy released when ATP is hydrolysed to move along these actin filaments, constricting the cell membrane to form a cleavage furrow. Continued hydrolysis causes this cleavage furrow to ingress (move inwards), a striking process that is clearly visible through a light microscope.

text: Abscission[edit]

text: The cytokinetic furrow ingresses until a so-called midbody structure (composed of electron-dense, proteinaceous material) is formed, where the actin-myosin ring has reached a diameter of about 1–2 μm. Most animal cell types remain connected by an intercellular bridge for up to several hours until they are split by an actin-independent process termed abscission, the last step of cytokinesis.[11] The process of abscission physically cleaves the aforementioned midbody into two. Abscission proceeds by removal of cytoskeletal structures from the intercellular bridge, constriction of the cell cortex, and plasma membrane fission. The intercellular bridge is filled with dense bundles of antiparallel microtubules that derive from the central spindle. These microtubules overlap at the midbody, which is generally thought as a targeting platform for the abscission machinery. Microtubule severing protein spastin is largely responsible for the disassembly of microtubule bundles inside the intercellular bridge. Complete cortical constriction also requires removal of the underlying cytoskeletal structures. Actin filament disassembly during late cytokinesis depends on the PKCε–14-3-3 complex, which inactivates RhoA after furrow ingression. Actin disassembly is further controlled by the GTPase Rab35 and its effector, the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 5-phosphatase OCRL. Understanding the mechanism by which the plasma membrane ultimately splits requires further investigation.

text: Timing cytokinesis[edit]

text: Cytokinesis must be temporally controlled to ensure that it occurs only after sister chromatids separate during the anaphase portion of normal proliferative cell divisions. To achieve this, many components of the cytokinesis machinery are highly regulated to ensure that they are able to perform a particular function at only a particular stage of the cell cycle.[12][13] Cytokinesis happens only after APC binds with CDC20. This allows for the separation of chromosomes and myosin to work simultaneously.

text: After cytokinesis, non-kinetochore microtubules reorganize and disappear into a new cytoskeleton as the cell cycle returns to interphase (see also cell cycle).

text: Plant cell[edit]

text: Due to the presence of a cell wall, cytokinesis in plant cells is significantly different from that in animal cells, Rather than forming a contractile ring, plant cells construct a cell plate in the middle of the cell. The stages of cell plate formation include (1) creation of the phragmoplast, an array of microtubules that guides and supports the formation of the cell plate; (2) trafficking of vesicles to the division plane and their fusion to generate a tubular-vesicular network; (3) continued fusion of membrane tubules and their transformation into membrane sheets upon the deposition of callose, followed by deposition of cellulose and other cell wall components; (4) recycling of excess membrane and other material from the cell plate; and (5) fusion with the parental cell wall [14][15]

text: The phragmoplast is assembled from the remnants of the mitotic spindle, and serves as a track for the trafficking of vesicles to the phragmoplast midzone. These vesicles contain lipids, proteins and carbohydrates needed for the formation of a new cell boundary. Electron tomographic studies have identified the Golgi apparatus as the source of these vesicles,[16][17] but other studies have suggested that they contain endocytosed material as well.[18][19]

text: These tubules then widen and fuse laterally with each other, eventually forming a planar, fenestrated sheet [8]. As the cell plate matures, large amounts of membrane material are removed via clathrin-mediated endocytosis [7] Eventually, the edges of the cell plate fuse with the parental plasma membrane, often in an asymmetrical fashion,[20] thus completing cytokinesis. The remaining fenestrae contain strands of endoplasmic reticulum passing through them, and are thought to be the precursors of plasmodesmata [8].

text: The construction of the new cell wall begins within the lumen of the narrow tubules of the young cell plate. The order in which different cell wall components are deposited has been determined largely by immuno-electron microscopy. The first components to arrive are pectins, hemicelluloses, and arabinogalactan proteins carried by the secretory vesicles that fuse to form the cell plate.[21] The next component to be added is callose, which is polymerized directly at the cell plate by callose synthases. As the cell plate continues to mature and fuses with the parental plasma membrane, the callose is slowly replaced with cellulose, the primary component of a mature cell wall [6]. The middle lamella (a glue-like layer containing pectin) develops from the cell plate, serving to bind the cell walls of adjoining cells together.[22][23]

text: Forces[edit]

text: Animal cells[edit]

text: Cytokinetic furrow ingression is powered by Type II Myosin ATPase. Since Myosins are recruited to the medial region, the contractile forces acting on the cortex resemble a 'purse string' constriction pulling inwards. This leads to the inward constriction. The plasma membrane by virtue of its close association with the cortex via crosslinker proteins [24]


document_title: Development of the New Testament canon

question_text: all of the new testament except revelation was recognized at the council of

question_tokens: all of the new testament except revelation was recognized at the council of

text: Development of the New Testament canon

text: The Early Collections[edit]

text: Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[a] Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets." [4] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[5][6]

text: By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation,[7] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[8] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[9]

text: In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[10] and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regards to them.[11][page needed] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[12] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[13][14][15] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[10] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[16] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[17] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[13][18][19]

text: Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon,[20] and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[2][21] Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[2] the Gallic Confession of Faith of 1559 for Calvinism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

text: Early Christianity (c. 30–325)[edit]

text: In the one-hundred-year period extending roughly from 50 to 150, a number of documents began to circulate among the churches, including epistles, gospels, memoirs, apocalypses, homilies, and collections of teachings. While some of these documents were apostolic in origin, others drew upon the tradition the apostles and ministers of the word had utilized in their individual missions. Still others represented a summation of the teaching entrusted to a particular church center. Several of these writings sought to extend, interpret, and apply apostolic teaching to meet the needs of Christians in a given locality.

text: Clement of Rome[edit]

text: By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were known to Clement of Rome (fl. 96), together with some form of the "words of Jesus"; but while Clement valued these highly, he did not regard them as "Scripture" ("graphe"), a term he reserved for the Septuagint. Metzger 1987 draws the following conclusion about Clement:

text: Clement... makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering 'the words' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a 'gospel'. He knows several of Paul's epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative 'Scripture'.

text: 2 Peter[edit]

text: Within the New Testament itself, there is reference to at least some of the works of Paul as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 says:

text: He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.[22]

text: The reference to, presumably the Septuagint, as the "other" Scripture denotes that the author of 2 Peter regarded, at least, the works of Paul that had been written by his time as Scripture. It is difficult to determine the date of composition; commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160.[23]

text: Marcion of Sinope[edit]

text: Marcion of Sinope, a bishop of Asia Minor who went to Rome and was later excommunicated for his views, was the first of record to propose a definitive, exclusive, unique list of Christian scriptures, compiled sometime between 130–140 AD.[24] (Though Ignatius did address Christian scripture,[25] before Marcion, against the perceived heresies of the Judaizers and Docetists, he did not define a list of scriptures.) In his book Origin of the New Testament[26] Adolf von Harnack argued that Marcion viewed the church at this time as largely an Old Testament church (one that "follows the Testament of the Creator-God") without a firmly established New Testament canon, and that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.

text: Marcion rejected the theology of the Old Testament entirely and regarded the God depicted there as an inferior Being. In the Antithesis, he claimed that the theology of the Old Testament was incompatible with the teaching of Jesus regarding God and morality. Marcion believed that Jesus had come to liberate mankind from the authority of the God of the Old Testament and to reveal the superior God of goodness and mercy whom he called the Father. Paul and Luke were the only Christian authors to find favour with Marcion, though his versions of these differed from those later accepted by mainstream Christianity (also termed Proto-orthodox Christianity).

text: Marcion created a definite group of books which he regarded as fully authoritative, displacing all others. These comprised ten of the Pauline epistles (without the Pastorals) and Luke's Gospel. It is uncertain whether he edited these books, purging them of what did not accord with his views, or that his versions represented a separate textual tradition.[b]

text: Marcion's gospel, called simply the Gospel of the Lord, differed from the Gospel of Luke by lacking any passages that connected Jesus with the Old Testament. He believed that the god of Israel, who gave the Torah to the Israelites, was an entirely different god from the Supreme God who sent Jesus and inspired the New Testament. Marcion termed his collection of Pauline epistles the Apostolikon. These also differed from the versions accepted by later Christian Orthodoxy.

text: Marcion's list and theology were rejected as heretical by the early church; however, he forced other Christians to consider which texts were canonical and why. He spread his beliefs widely; they became known as Marcionism. In the introduction to his book "Early Christian Writings", Henry Wace stated:

text: A modern divine... could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marcion, whether there is such opposition between different parts of what he regards as the word of God, that all cannot come from the same author.[30]

text: Ferguson 2002 quotes Tertullian's De praescriptione haereticorum 30:

text: Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation.

text: Note 61 of page 308 adds:

text: [Wolfram] Kinzig suggests that it was Marcion who usually called his Bible testamentum [Latin for testament].

text: Other scholars propose that it was Melito of Sardis who originally coined the phrase Old Testament,[31] which is associated with Supersessionism.

text: Robert M. Price argues that the evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear, and concludes that Marcion was the first person to collect Paul's writings to various churches and to treat ten Pauline letters, some of them Marcion's own compositions, together with an earlier version of Luke (not the Gospel of Luke as now known):

text: But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.[32]

text: Justin Martyr[edit]

text: In the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr (whose writings span the period from c. 145 to 163) mentions the "memoirs of the apostles", which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[4][33][34] Scholars are divided on whether there is any evidence that Justin included the Gospel of John among the "memoirs of the apostles", or whether, on the contrary, he based his doctrine of the Logos on it.[35][36] Justin quotes the letters of Paul, 1 Peter, and Acts in his writings.[37]

text: In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. In addition, he refers to an account from an unnamed source of the baptism of Jesus which differs from that provided by the synoptic gospels:

text: When Jesus went down in the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him. The apostles of our Christ wrote this.[38]

text: Tatian[edit]

text: Tatian was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 and, after much instruction, returned to Syria in 172 to reform the church there. At some point (it is suggested c. 160) he composed a single harmonized "Gospel" by weaving the contents of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together along with events present in none of these texts. The narrative mainly follows the chronology of John. This is called the Diatessaron ("(Harmony) Through Four") and it became the official Gospel text of the Syraic church, centered in Edessa.

text: Irenaeus[edit]

text: Irenaeus of Lyons referred directly to a defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph), c. 180.[5][39] In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various early Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Marcionism which used only Marcion's version of Luke, or the Ebionites which seem to have used an Aramaic version of Matthew, as well as groups that used more than four gospels, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6–10, of God's throne borne by four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion (Mark), ox (Luke), eagle (John), man (Matthew). Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. By reading each gospel in light of the others, Irenaeus made of John a lens through which to read Matthew, Mark and Luke.

text: Based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.[40] Against Heresies 3.11.7 acknowledges that many heterodox Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 acknowledges that some use more than four.[41] The success of Tatian's Diatessaron in about the same time period is "...a powerful indication that the fourfold Gospel contemporaneously sponsored by Irenaeus was not broadly, let alone universally, recognized."[41]

text: Irenaeus apparently quotes from 21 of the New Testament books and names the author he thought wrote the text.[42] He mentions the four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles with the exception of Hebrews and Philemon, as well as the first epistle of Peter, and the first and second epistles of John, and the book of Revelation.[c] Irenaeus argued that it was illogical to reject Acts of the Apostles but accept the Gospel of Luke, as both were from the same author;[43] in Against Heresies 3.12.12[44] he ridiculed those who think they are wiser than the Apostles because the Apostles were still under Jewish influence. He may also refer to Hebrews (Book 2, Chapter 30) and James (Book 4, Chapter 16) and maybe even 2 Peter (Book 5, Chapter 28) but does not cite Philemon, 3 John or Jude.[45][46]

text: He does think that the letter to the Corinthians, known now as 1 Clement, was of great worth but does not seem to believe that Clement of Rome was the one author (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3) and seems to have the same lower status as Polycarp's Epistle (Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3). He does refer to a passage in the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (Mandate 1 or First Commandment), but this has some consistency problems on his part. Hermas taught that Jesus was not himself a divine being, but a virtuous man who was subsequently filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son[47][48] (a doctrine called adoptionism). But Irenaeus's own work, including his citing of the Gospel of John (Jn. 1:1), indicates that he himself believed that Jesus was always God.

text: Early proto-Orthodox definition attempts[edit]

text: In the late 4th century Epiphanius of Salamis (died 402) Panarion 29 says the Nazarenes had rejected the Pauline epistles and Irenaeus Against Heresies 26.2 says the Ebionites rejected him. Acts 21:21 records a rumor that Paul aimed to subvert the Old Testament (against this rumor see Romans 3:8, 3:31). 2 Peter 3:16 says his letters have been abused by heretics who twist them around "as they do with the other scriptures." In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 6.38 says the Elchasai "made use of texts from every part of the Old Testament and the Gospels; it rejects the Apostle (Paul) entirely"; 4.29.5 says Tatian the Assyrian rejected Paul's Letters and Acts of the Apostles; 6.25 says Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul "did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."[49]

text: Between 140 and 220, both internal and external forces caused Proto-orthodox Christianity to begin to systematize both its doctrines and its view of revelation. Much of the systemization came about as a defense against the diverse Early Christian viewpoints that competed with emerging Proto-Orthodoxy. The early years of this period witnessed the rise of several strong movements of faith later deemed heretical by the church in Rome: Marcionism, Gnosticism and Montanism.

text: Marcion may have been the first to have a clearly defined list of New Testament books, though this question of who came first is still debated.[50] The compilation of this list could have been a challenge and incentive to emerging Proto-orthodoxy; if they wished to deny that Marcion's list was the true one, it was incumbent on them to define what the true one was. The expansion phase of the New Testament canon thus could have begun in response to Marcion's proposed limited canon.

text: Muratorian fragment[edit]

text: The Muratorian fragment[51] is the earliest known example of a defined list of mostly New Testament books.[52] It survives, damaged and thus incomplete, as a bad Latin translation of an original, no longer extant, Greek text that is usually dated in the late 2nd century,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] although a few scholars have preferred a 4th-century date.[61][62][63] This is an excerpt from Metzger's translation:[64]

text: The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke... The fourth... is that of John... the acts of all the apostles... As for the Epistles of Paul... To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh... once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians... one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy... to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion... the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John... and [the book of] Wisdom... We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently... And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church.

text: This is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the 27-book NT, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[8]

text: Clement of Alexandria[edit]

text: Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed "practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered."[65] In addition to books that did not make it into the final 27-book NT but which had local acceptance (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first[citation needed] to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than II Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.

text: Alogi[edit]

text: There were those who rejected the Gospel of John (and possibly also Revelation and the Epistles of John) as either not apostolic or as written by the Gnostic Cerinthus or as not compatible with the Synoptic Gospels. Epiphanius of Salamis called these people the Alogi, because they rejected the Logos doctrine of John and because he claimed they were illogical. There may have also been a dispute over the doctrine of the Paraclete.[66][67] Gaius or Caius, presbyter of Rome (early 3rd century), was apparently associated with this movement.[68]

text: Period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787)[edit]

text: Eusebius[edit]

text: Eusebius, in his Church History (c. 330), mentioned the books of New Testament according to him:[69][70]

text: 1. […] it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings [Homologoumena].

text: 3. Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

text: 4. Among the rejected [Kirsopp. Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.

text: 5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles ... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

text: The Apocalypse of John, also called Revelation, is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp. Lake translation: "Recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. The disputation perhaps attributed to Origen[71] (see also Pamphili & c. 330, 3.24.17–18).[72] Pamphili & c. 330, 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." Pamphili & c. 330, 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul], in order to improve their style."

text: Codex Claromontanus[edit]

text: The Codex Claromontanus ,[73] c. 303–67,[74] a page found inserted into a 6th-century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the Old Testament, including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2,4 Maccabees, and the New Testament, plus Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and Hermas, but missing Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.

text: Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that the list had been drawn up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighborhood ~300 AD. According to Jülicher the list belongs to the 4th century and is probably of western origin.[citation needed]

text: Constantine the Great[edit]

text: In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus may be examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.[75]

text: Cyril of Jerusalem[edit]

text: McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, notes the following list of New Testament books from Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) from his Catechetical Lectures 4.36:

text: Gospels (4), Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude,[76] Paul's epistles (14), and Gospel of Thomas listed as pseudepigrapha.

text: Council of Laodicea[edit]

text: The Council of Laodicea, c. 363, was one of the first councils that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60, sometimes attributed to the Council of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22-book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).[77][78]

text: Athanasius[edit]

text: In his Easter letter of 367,[79] Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,[10] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[80]

text: Cheltenham/Mommsen List[edit]

text: The Cheltenham List,[81][82] c. 365–90, is a Latin list discovered by the German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th-century manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of Thomas Phillips at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in North Africa soon after the middle of the 4th century.

text: It has a 24-book Old Testament[83] and 24-book New Testament which provides syllable and line counts but omits Jude and James, and perhaps Hebrews, and seems to question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first.

text: Epiphanius[edit]

text: McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, writes the following list for Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 374–77), from his Panarion 76.5:

text: Gospels (4), Paul's epistles (13), Acts, James, Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, Rev, Wisdom, Sirach

text: Apostolic Canon #85[edit]

text: In c. 380, the redactor of the Apostolic Constitutions attributed a canon to the Twelve Apostles themselves as the 85th of his list of such apostolic decrees:[84][85]

text: Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. [A list of books of the Old Testament ...] And our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.—(From the Latin version.)

text: It is said that the Coptic translation and some Arabic version include Revelation.[84]

text: Amphilochius of Iconium[edit]

text: Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus[86] written some time after 394, discusses debate over the inclusion of a number of books that should be received, and seems uncertain about the later Epistles of Peter and John, Jude, and Revelation.[87]

text: Pope Damasus I[edit]

text: Pope Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible to Jerome,[2] c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[17] Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the Catholic canon, since what is thought as his list corresponds to the current Catholic canon.[2] Purporting to date from a "Council of Rome" under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called "Damasian list" which some attributed to the Decretum Gelasianum[88] gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent,[10] and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable 6th century compilation.[89][90]

text: This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:

text: [A list of books of the Old Testament ...], and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.

text: The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492–496 AD. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the Catholic New Testament.

text: Jerome[edit]

text: McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, lists the following New Testament books according to Jerome, (c. 394), from his Epistle 53:

text: "Lord's Four": Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul's Epistles (14), 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude, James, Acts, Rev.

text: Augustine and the North African councils[edit]

text: Augustine of Hippo declared that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority." (On Christian Doctrines 2.12, chapter 8).[91]

text: Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage (397), and another in Carthage in 419 AD (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: "nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures" except the Old Testament (including the Deuterocanonicals) and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. It seems these decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject.

text: The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Synod of Carthage (397) and Council of Carthage (419).[12] These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[13][14][15] This North African canon reaffirmed at the Council of Trent of 1546.[2][3]

text: Pope Innocent I[edit]

text: In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse,[92] identical with that of Trent.[93][94][95] It states "fourteen" Epistles of Paul, but F.F. Bruce prefers "thirteen" excluding the Hebrews.[92] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, by the turn of the 5th century, the Western Church under Pope Innocent I recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which was previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419).[2]

text: Eastern canons[edit]

text: The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.[citation needed] Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences.[96][page needed] The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; in the East, chiliasm and Montanism brought it under suspicion;[97] it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether in Byzantine or modern times. However, its canonical status is recognized.[98]

text: Outside the Empire[edit]

text: This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: Syriac Canon[edit]

text: In the 4th century, the Doctrine of Addai lists a 17-book NT canon using the Diatessaron and Acts and 15 Pauline epistles (including 3rd Corinthians). The Syriac Doctrine of Addai (c. 400) claims to record the oldest traditions of the Syrian church, and among these is the establishment of a canon: members of the church are to read only the Gospel (meaning the Diatessaron of Tatian), the Epistles of Paul (which are said to have been sent by Peter, from Rome), and the Book of Acts (which is said to have been sent by John the son of Zebedee, from Ephesus), and nothing else.

text: For centuries the Diatessaron, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books in the Syrian churches, meaning that Tatian's stricter views, resulting in the rejection in 1 Timothy, did not win out. Moreover, after the pronouncements of the 4th century on the proper content of the Bible, Tatian was declared a heretic and in the early 4th century Bishop Theodoretus of Cyrrhus and Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (both in Syria) rooted out all copies they could find of the Diatessaron and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels (M 215). As a result, no early copies of the Diatessaron survive—although a very early fragment suggests it would have been crucial evidence for the true state of the early Gospels (see IX).

text: By the 5th century, the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, was formalized, accepting Philemon, along with James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but excluding 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. After the Council of Ephesus, the Church of the East became separated, and retained this canon of only 22-books (the Peshitta) up to the present day. The Syriac Orthodox Church uses this text as well (known in the West Syriac dialect as the Peshitto), but with the addition of the other books normally present in the New Testament canon.

text: The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox Church[99] includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon.

text: McDonald & Sanders 2002, lists the following Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine's, c. 400:

text: Gospels (4): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Gal, Rom, Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, 1–2 Thess, 1–2 Tim, Titus, Phlm.

text: The Syriac Peshitta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22-books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347–407) and Theodoret (393–466) from the School of Antioch). It also includes Psalm 151 and Psalm 152–155 and 2 Baruch. Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22-books of the original Peshitta.[99][better source needed]

text: Armenian canon[edit]

text: The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, also found in the Acts of Paul, which became canonized in the Armenian Church, but is not part of the Armenian Bible today. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200, when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text.[100] Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas.

text: The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in its Old Testament and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books.

text: Coptic and Ethiopian canons[edit]

text: The Coptic Bible (adopted by the Egyptian Church) includes the two Epistles of Clement, and the Ethiopic Bible includes books nowhere else found: the Sinodos (a collection of prayers and instructions supposedly written by Clement of Rome), the Octateuch (a book supposedly written by Peter to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (in two parts, the first details rules of church order, the second relates instructions from Jesus to the disciples given between the resurrection and the ascension), and the Didascalia (with more rules of church order, similar to the Apostolic Constitutions).

text: The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.[100] The canon of the Tewahedo Churches is somewhat looser than for other traditional Christian groups, and the order, naming, and chapter/verse division of some of the books is also slightly different.

text: The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia" (Apostolic Church-Ordinances). However, these books have never been printed or widely studied. This "broader" canon is also sometimes said to include, with the Old Testament, an eight-part history of the Jews based on the writings of Flavius Josephus, and known as "Pseudo-Josephus" or "Joseph ben Gurion" (Yosēf walda Koryon).[101][102]

text: Protestant developments (from c. 1517)[edit]

text: The Encyclopedia of Theology says that the 27 books which make up the New Testament canon of Scripture are not based on a Scriptural list that authenticates them to be inspired, thus their legitimacy is considered impossible to be distinguished with certainty without appealing to another infallible source, such as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which first assembled and authenticated this list at the Council of Rome.[103] Catholicism considers the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority, has equal position and linked together with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, each acts in its own way for the goodness of the Church.[104] Rejecting these, Protestant reformers focused on the doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e. the supreme authority of Scripture alone. Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Protestant Reformation.[105]

text: Martin Luther[edit]

text: Martin Luther was troubled by four books, referred to as Luther's Antilegomena: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. He did propose removing them from the canon,[106][107] echoing the consensus of several Catholics such as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus, and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[108][109]

text: Protestant confessions[edit]

text: Among confessions of faith drawn up by Protestants, several identify by name the 27-books of the New Testament canon, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) during the English Civil War. The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books.

text: Evangelical canons[edit]

text: This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Many Evangelical Christian groups (which have their origin in c. 1730 England) do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated", made their official declarations.

text: These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11–13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18–19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. Some note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27-books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers. (Books not attributed to these three are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, and Jude. The authorship of Hebrews has long been disputed.)

text: Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following:

text:
Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century).
Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

tag: ol

text: The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord. See Apostolic succession.

text: It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all books in the accepted canon, however, and some point to books that Protestants hold as apocryphal which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.

text: Catholic developments (from c. 1546)[edit]

text: Council of Trent[edit]

text: The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, approved the enforcement of the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books as an article of faith (the contents of the canon itself having already been reaffirmed unanimously), and the decision was confirmed by an anathema by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[110] This is said to be the same list as produced at the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[111] Augustine's 397-419 Councils of Carthage,[3] and probably Damasus' 382 Council of Rome.[10][112] Because of its placement, the list was not considered binding for the Catholic Church, and in light of Martin Luther's demands, the Catholic Church examined the question of the Canon again at the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed the canon of previous councils and added the anathema against attempts to change the contents of the canon.

text: Later developments[edit]

text: Vatican I on April 24, 1870 approved the additions to Mark (v. 16:9–20), Luke (22:19b–20, 43–44), and John (7:53–8:11), which are not present in early manuscripts but are contained in the Vulgate edition.[113]

text: Pope Pius XI on June 2, 1927 decreed the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.

text: Pope Pius XII on 3 September 1943 issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed translations based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate.

text: Orthodox developments (from c. 1672)[edit]

text: Synod of Jerusalem[edit]

text: The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox Canon which is similar as the one decided by the Council of Trent. They "call[ed] Sacred Scripture all those [books] which Cyril collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding to Scripture those which he foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, called Apocrypha; specifically, [List of deuterocanonical books...]."

text: But it is to be noted that this was simply an affirmation of tradition, not a new canonization. As the Confession goes on to state, "ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which has delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, has undoubtedly delivered these [deuterocanonical books] also as parts of Scripture.... And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture..."[114]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Three forms are postulated, from Gamble, Harry Y, "18", The Canon Debate, p. 300, note 21, (1) Marcion's collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last.
Jump up ^ John Knox[27] (the modern writer, not to be confused with John Knox the Protestant Reformer) was the first to propose that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel and Acts,[28] although still maintaining that Marcion edited the sources available to him.[29]
Jump up ^ * Matthew (Book 3, Chapter 16):

Mark (Book 3, Chapter 10)
Luke (Book 3, Chapter 14)
John (Book 3, Chapter 11)
Acts of the Apostles (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Romans (Book 3, Chapter 16)
1 Corinthians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
2 Corinthians (Book 3, Chapter 7)
Galatians (Book 3, Chapter 22)
Ephesians (Book 5, Chapter 2)
Philippians (Book 4, Chapter 18)
Colossians (Book 1, Chapter 3)
1 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 6)
2 Thessalonians (Book 5, Chapter 25)
1 Timothy (Book 1, Preface)
2 Timothy (Book 3, Chapter 14)
Titus (Book 3, Chapter 3)
1 Peter (Book 4, Chapter 9)
1 John(Book 3, Chapter 16)
2 John (Book 1, Chapter 16)
Revelation to John (Book 4, Chapter 20)