Third edition; English translation revised by the author
The Canon of the Holy Scriptures
From the Double Point of View of Science and of Faith
Louis Gaussen · 1863
London: James Nisbet and Co., 21 Berners Street, 1863.
Overview
Gaussen argues for the canon of Scripture by combining historical evidence with what he calls the method of faith. Part One treats the New Testament canon through early catalogues, fathers, heretics, opponents, and the reception of disputed books. Part Two develops doctrinal and providential arguments for the canon of both Testaments, followed by an appendix on the Apocrypha.
Overview
Gaussen argues for the canon of Scripture by combining historical evidence with what he calls the method of faith. Part One treats the New Testament canon through early catalogues, fathers, heretics, opponents, and the reception of disputed books. Part Two develops doctrinal and providential arguments for the canon of both Testaments, followed by an appendix on the Apocrypha.
Editorial Evaluation
Purpose Fulfillment
Does the work accomplish what it claims to accomplish?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Source Quality
Does it use the appropriate primary and secondary sources?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Citation Accuracy
Are quotations, references, and claims verifiable and in context?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Evidence Coverage
Does it address the relevant evidence, including contrary evidence?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Historical Accuracy
Are people, dates, editions, events, and settings handled correctly?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Subject Competence
Does the author demonstrate competence in the relevant disciplines?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Logical Coherence
Do the conclusions follow from the premises and evidence?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Methodological Transparency
Are the method and controlling assumptions identifiable and consistent?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Strongest-Form Engagement
Does the work address the strongest opposing case rather than a caricature?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Clarity and Research Usefulness
Is it intelligible, navigable, and useful for further study?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.