The Canon of Scripture

 

1.       The Church has historically believed that there are a certain set of documents; letters, writings, etc. —a canon of Scripture—that belongs in the Bible. This canon (reed, or rule. The measure) makes up what we know, understand, and believe about God, Jesus, humanity, creation, and the relationship between all these.

 

2.       Although this canon has been debated and sometimes changed, it has remained fundamentally the same for thousands of years. The Protestant canon differs today from the canon of the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant canon consists of sixty-six books. The Catholic canon has a number of additional books. These are generally known as the Apocrypha. Evangelical churches follow the Protestant canon.

The Canon in the Early Church

 

1.       From its beginning, the early church has considered the Hebrew Bible to be the inspired Word of God (2 Tim 316,17; 2 Peter 119-21). In today’s Bible this section of Scripture is called the Old Testament. The make-up of the Old Testament had been set for hundreds of years prior to the coming of Jesus Christ. The Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37-100) noted: “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes [464-423 BC] king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time;”[8] While there were many other Jewish writings (e.g., 1st and 2nd Maccabees) circulating at the time of the early church, none of them were seen fit to be included in the Hebrew canon.

 

2.       What did the Hebrew canon look like (according to the Talmud[9])[10]?

a.       The Law (or Torah) – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (5)

b.      The Prophets – Joshua, Judges,  (I,II)Samuel,(I,II) Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Twelve Minor Prophets (8)

c.       The Writings – Ruth , Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, (I,II) Chronicles (11)

 

3.       Some scholars have suggested that while Josephus named 22 books and this list contains 24, he considered Ruth part of Judges and Lamentations part of Jeremiah; as the Christian translator Jerome recorded in the 4th century CE.[11] Other scholars suggest that at the time Josephus wrote, such books as Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.

 

4.       Following the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, a new period of God’s revelation to man began. Now, there was a new realization that not only did the Hebrew exist, but the revelation concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ was being born. Since Jesus was the source of this truth, “I am the way, and the truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me.(John 146)”  Irenaeus (c. 125 – c.202) spoke out against the heresies of the day by saying we should follow “the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ”[12]

 

5.       So God, through Jesus, revealed what was to become the church. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) affirmed this when he wrote, “For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him.”[13]  Polycarp also urged the early church to be obedient to Jesus, “Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us].”[14]

 

6.       Beginning with the second century, heretics began to argue an apparent conflict between the prophets and the new Christian truth being taught[15]. But the problem was they failed to recognize the difference: the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied the coming of the Christ, while the church told the same story, only after the fact. Note Irenaeus’ comments:” Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons.”[16]

a.       Both the old and the new revelations composed a unity. This was not because the canon of the New Testament had been formed yet, but that the oral traditions handed down from one generation to the next had been consistent with apostolic teaching. Even after the last of the writings had been completed the church continued to rely on unwritten traditions for the first several centuries.

b.      The church, however, relied on both the written and unwritten tradition as two parts of a single instrument.  This tradition was essentially fixed and agreed upon by all the churches.[17]

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions27902790    Probably referring to the Churches in Palestine. of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

c.       The recipients and heralds of this unified tradition were the successors of the apostles, the bishops who led the churches. These were the overseers of the doctrine, the preservers of the faith. Today, they are the elders of the various churches. Unfortunately, many of the different denominations have abandoned the office of elder and deacon. And rely solely on the “preacher” to be doctrinally correct.

d.      The bishops were not a source of “new” revelation that stood alongside of written Scripture, but transmitters of the faith received from the apostles Ē and ultimately from God himself. Tertullian stated that “all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches Ē those molds and original sources of the faith Ē must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.”[18]

e.      Eventually some of this apostolic tradition was written down and was collected with the already authoritative Hebrew Scriptures which began the expansion of the canon of Scripture. Peter spoke of the letters of Paul as “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 314-16).

f.        The apostolic and early church fathers continued to recognize the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the apostles as Scripture. Note the reference of Polycarp a portion of Paul’s letter to the Philippeans: “[19]

7.       During this time a critical question arose: Which of the writings from the early church should be included in the expanding canon—consisting of both the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) and the New Testament?[20] While the letters of Paul were clearly divinely inspired, what about the anonymous letter to the Hebrews? Matthew and John were apostles, but should Mark and Luke’s gospels be included? Two of the earliest Christian writings were the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas. These two also had wide circulation among the churches. Should they be included?

 

8.       This issue became critical when the false teachers began circulating their own writngs. For example, Marcion, whose teachings were obviously false, had his own “canon” (the Gospel and the Apostle) consisting of a mutilated version of Luke’s gospel and ten letters of Paul. This is thought to be the first writing canon, although it was never accepted by the church.

 

9.       The church soon defined the canon of Scripture using two key criteria: (1) apostolicity: does the writing have an apostle as its author or is an apostle associated with its writing (e.g., Mark’s gospel)? (2) antiquity: Has the church historically hear the voice of God speaking to his people in this writing?[21]

 

10.   Numerous views and opinions have come to us over the centuries. The following shows several attempts at defining the canon.

 

 

Muratorian Canon (AD 170)

Canonical Writings

Missing from this list*

Rejected Writings

The four Gospels

Hebrews

Paul to the Laodiceans

Acts of the Apostles

James

Paul to the Alexandrians

Thirteen letters of Paul

1st and 2nd Peter

Shepherd of Hermas

Jude

3rd John

(Other Gnostic writings)

1st and 2nd John

 

 

Revelation of John

 

 

Wisdom of Solomon

 

 

Revelation of Peter

 

 

* Due to the fragmentary nature of the Muratorian Canon, we cannot be sure that some or all of the books missing from the list were not listed in the canon.

 

                                Origen’s Canon (Mid Third Century)           

Canonical Writings

Disputed writings*

The four Gospels

Hebrews

Acts of the Apostles

2nd Peter (?)

Thirteen letters of Paul

2nd and 3rd John

James

 

Jude (?)

 

1st Peter

 

2nd Peter (?)

 

1st John

 

Jude(?)

 

Revelation

 

*Origen claimed that the thoughts in Hebrews were Paul’s but the diction and phraseology were from someone who recorded what the apostle had said.

 

Eusebius’s Canon (Early Fourth Century)

Accepted books

Disputed books*

(yet known to most)

Spurious works

Absurd works

(heretical works)

The four Gospels

James

Acts of Paul

Gospel of Peter

Acts of the Apostles

2nd Peter

Shepherd of Hermas

Gospel of Thomas

13 letters of Paul

2nd and 3rd John

Didache

Gospel of Matthias

1st John

Jude

Letter of Barnabas

Acts of Andrew

1st Peter

 

Revelation of Peter

Acts of John

Revelation of John

(may be spurious)

 

Gospel according to the Hebrews

Acts of others

 

 

Revelation of John

(may be accepted)

 

*While most books were accepted without question, some were on the “fringe”. James were called into question because of the difficulty in determining who the author was: was it James the apostle, James the half brother of Jesus, or another James in the early church?

Since there were so many letters bearing the name Peter, churches were reluctant to accept this as being written by the apostle.

2 and 3 John are so brief and seemingly unimportant that the church easily overlooked them. Determining authorship is also difficult for these since they are attributed to the “Elder”.

Jude cites extra biblical sources (Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch).

Hebrews was accepted by those churches that credited it to Paul. Others (primarily in the West) disputed Pauline authorship and refused it.

 

 

 

 

Athanasius’s Canon (AD 367)

Canonical writings

Canonical writings (cont.)

Noncanonical writings

Four Gospels

Fourteen letters of Paul

Wisdom of Solomon

Matthew

Romans

Wisdom of Sirach

Mark

1st and 2nd Corinthians

Esther

Luke

Galatians

Judith

John

Ephesians

Tobit

 

Philippians

Didache

Acts of the Apostles

Colossians

Shepherd of Hermas

 

1st and 2nd Thessalonians

 

Seven general letters

Hebrews

 

James

1st and 2nd Timothy

 

1st and 2nd Peter

Titus

 

1st, 2nd and 3rd John

Philemon

 

Jude

 

 

 

Revelation of John

 

The difference between this and the canon we have today is the placement of the general letters.

This canon was approved by the Council of Hippo in AD 393. Two other Councils approved this as well; the third Council of Carthage in 397 and the Fourth Council of Carthage in 419.

The noncanonical writings were “appointed by the fathers to be read by those who newly join us and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”[22]

 

11.   The Septuagint is more extensive than the Hebrew Bible. It is divided into four sections: (1) The Pentateuch, (2) historical information, (3) Psalms and poetry, (4) Minor prophets and other writings. The writings added to the Hebrew bible are called the apocryphal (or hidden) writings.

 

12.   In 382 the bishop of Rome commissioned Jerome to write a new Latin translation of the Bible. This became known as the “Vulgate” which means “the common speech of a people; the vernacular”. In the process of this writing, Jerome conducted his translation from the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint, believing the Septuagint to be an inferior translation. He then concluded that only the original Hebrew bible was to be considered Scripture. All the additional writings that were included in the Septuagint were apocryphal and were added at the end of the Hebrew text. 

 

13.   Augustine’s (354 – 430) view of Scripture was that “one and the same Spirit” had spoken through both the writers of the Hebrew bible and the translators of the Septuagint and both were therefore of equal value. He then urged Jerome to translate the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint. This resulted in the inclusion of the Apocrypha along with the rest of the Old Testament.  The Council of Hippo (393), the Third Council of Carthage (397), and the Fourth Council of Carthage (419) all ratified the Latin Vulgate (Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament) and it became the Scripture of the church without challenge until the sixteenth century and the Protestant Reformation.

The Canon in the Middle Ages

 

1.       Two major developments occurred doing the Middle Ages (6th – 16th centuries) relating to the canon of Scripture.

a.       The elevation of the Catholic Church to that of supreme authority.

                                                               i.      This authority even superseded Scripture itself. The Catholic Church firmly believed only it had the power to define the canon.

1.        Gabriel Biel (1410-1495)[23] wrote in In Defense of Apostolic Obedience,”The truth that the holy mother church defines or accepts as catholic is to be believed with the same veneration as if it were expressed in Holy Scripture.”[24] In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church said it, all Christians were to believe and obey it!

b.      The rise of the humanist movement. This is not to be confused with today’s secular humanism, which is anti-Christian in nature. This was a cultural and educational attempt to restore the eloquence in both speaking and writing. It was born in the Italian Renaissance and extended into northern Europe. It was supported by many of the churches leaders. This movement led to several developments and questions.

                                                               i.      What is the difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Latin Vulgate, which included the Apocrypha?

                                                             ii.      The ancient distinction between canonical and apocryphal established by Jerome was raised again.

1.       Jerome argued that the Apocrypha could be read by the people for edification, but could not be used to establish doctrine.

2.       Augustine blurred the lines between the two and based on his influence, some of the church’s doctrines were based more on the Apocrypha than Scripture. For example, the classical proof text for purgatory and praying for the dead was 2 Maccabees 12:38-45.

                                                            iii.      A comparison of the Latin translation with the Greek New Testament revealed that the Vulgate was a poor translation of the original in numerous places. This was important because several of the church’s doctrines were based on these poor renderings.

1.       For example: the Vulgate’s rendering of Matt 417 had “do penance.” This led to the church’s sacrament of penance or receiving God’s grace after sinning by prayer, giving to the poor, forgoing certain pleasures, and so on.

2.       Erasmus, a leading humanist scholar, insisted that the Greek translation was “repent.” Therefore, it was a matter of the heart, not an external practice imposed by the church.

The Canon in the Reformation and Post-Reformation

 

1.       In response to the questions raised during the middle ages, the reformers responded as follows:

a.       First, the church’s Old Testament should be based on the shorter Hebrew Bible, not the Septuagint. The reasoning behind this was that it was the Hebrew text that Jesus and the disciples used; so, it should be the Bible of the church. In addition, the Apocrypha contained several historical and chronological inaccuracies, and many of the apocryphal books were not accepted by the early church.

b.      Second, based on Jerome’s classical distinction, the Reformers claimed that the church could only base its beliefs and practices on canonical Scripture and not the Apocrypha. Therefore, the belief in purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead were not biblical and should be stopped. This included the paying of indulgences. This is not to say that the Reformers found the Apocrypha worthless, it was still considered worth reading, but should not be used as authority for church doctrine. For example, Martin Luther said about the Wisdom of Solomon, “It pleases me beyond measure that the author here extols the Word of God so highly and ascribes to the Word all the wonders God has performed, both on enemies, and in his saints.”[25]

c.       Third, just as the Reformers urges the Old Testament be based on the Hebrew Bible, they argued that the New Testament should be based on the original Greek. The Latin Vulgate contained numerous inerrancies and church teaching was being based on these inerrancies. Luther, in his Ninety-five Theses, posted on the door of the Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517, started with these two points:

                                                               i.      Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said, “Repent” (Matt 417), willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

                                                             ii.      This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.[26]

d.      Luther’s explanation of these points was published in the autumn of 1518 [this is not available online for free]. Regarding repentance, Luther went back to the original Greek and concluded the Latin Vulgate was an inferior translation. This process resulted in his dismissal of penance as a sacrament of the church and established the original Greek as the foundation for the church’s canonical New Testament, not the Latin Vulgate.

e.      John Calvin (1509-1564) a French theologian, offered additional support for the idea of using the Scriptures only – sola Scriptura as the foundation for all Christian doctrine. This was against the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that it possessed the authority to override, explain, and add to Scripture. This was based on the church’s belief that it had established the accepted canon. But Calvin appealed to the Apostle Paul, affirming the that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 220); thus, Scripture preceded the church, not the other way around.

f.        The reformers, with the exception of Luther, strongly supported the canon of sixty-six books. Luther problem with the book of James was not typical. He called it “an epistle of straw”[27] and threatened, “Away with James, I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove. . . .”[28] In fact, Luther place Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the end of his New Testament because of his doubts concerning their apostolicity.

 

The Canon in the modern Period

 

1.       The division between the Roman Catholic and Protestant continues even unto this day. While both groups have uniformly acknowledged the Old and New Testaments as canonical, there have been attempts at changing this.

 

2.        Allison says, “The greatest challenge to the church’s understanding of the canon began with hast and intensity as the modern period progressed. With the rise of historical criticism came a thoroughgoing suspicion of the authorship of most biblical writings.”[29] Some examples are:

a.       Hugo Grotius doubted that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter and that Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon.

b.      Baruch Spinoza and others argued against the Pentateuch having been written by Moses.

c.       There developed a belief that there was a division between the Bible and the Word of God. This boiled down to The Word of God effecting men’s salvation while the Bible contained many other aspects. This is most clearly explained by Johann Salomo in his Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon (1771-75), “Holy Scripture and the Word of God are clearly to be distinguished, for we know the difference. . . To Holy Scripture (Using the particular historical expression that originated among the Jews) belong Ruth, Esther, the Song of Songs, etc., but not all the books that are called holy belong to the Word of God, which at all times makes men wise unto salvation.”[30]

 

3.       It didn’t take long for historical criticism to drive men to think of the Bible like any other human book. The vary idea of canonization of the biblical writings become viewed as a process of human action without any divine oversight of the process.  Some would prefer the term canon had never been used and saw the process of collecting the various writings of both the Old and New Testaments as a pure human effort.

 

4.       Not all scholars viewed canonization through the lens of historical criticism however. The evangelicals championed by B. B. Warfield recognized the Protestant view of the church believing certain writings as being canonical. Warfield affirmed that, “in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.”[31]

 

5.       David Dunbar emphasized the Christological or salvation-historical development of the canon: “The oral and written apostolic witness to Christ was that from which the primitive church drew its life. The process by which the written form of the witness rose to increasing prominence and was gradually defined in the canonical understanding of the church was both natural and spontaneous.”[32]

 

6.       An important implication for canonical discussions today is that “the canon is in principle closed.”[33]

 



[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1969), 143.

[2] Kenneth S Kanstzer, A Systematic Biblical Dogmatics: What is it and How is it to be done? in Doing Theology in Today’s World: Essays in Honor of Kenneth S. Kantzer, ed. John D Woodbridge and Thomas E McClomiskey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 466.

[3] Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2011.

[4] 1 Tim 110; 2 Tim 43;Titus 19; 211

[5] McGrath, “Importance of Tradition.” 167.

[6] Stoughton, Introduction to Historical Theology, 8.

[7] Euan Cameron, Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches’ Past (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005),5-6.

[8] Josephus, Against Apion, 1.8. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/book1.htm

[9] The Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד talmūd "instruction, learning", from a root lmd "teach, study") is a central text of mainstream Judaism. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh.

[10] Some claim the Hebrew canon was set at the Council of Jamnia (c. AD 90); however, most scholars today claim that while the canon was much discussed and debated, it was not changed, but remained the same as it was as far back as 435 BC.

[11] Jerome (c. AD 347 – 420), Prologus Galeatus (English translation) http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=218

[12] Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 5, preface; http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/irenaeus-against-heresies-book-v

[13] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 80.1; http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

[14] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 6.1; http://ecmarsh.com/fathers/anf/ANF-01/anf01-11.htm#P826_152613

[15] 1 Pet 116, 33, 1 Tim 13,4, 47, Tit 114

[16] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.preface: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.i.html

[17] Ibid, 1,10.2: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html

[18] Tertullian, Perscription against Heretics, 21

[19] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 12.1: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

[20] Allison, Historical Theology, p.41.

[21] Ibid, p.42.

[22] Athanasius, Thirty-ninth Letter, 7: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

[23] Beil, Gabriel was a German Philosopher, Theologian and a Professor of Theology at Tübingen University.

[24] Allison, p.50.

[25] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, eds., Jaroslav Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), 35:339.

[26] http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html.

[27] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, eds., Jaroslav Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-1986), 35:362..

[28] Ibid, 35:317

[29] Allison, p.55

[30] Johann Salomo Semlar, Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon, cited in David G Dunbar, “The Biblical Canon,” in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woolbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986; Baker, 1995), 344-45.

[31] B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Phillipsburg, N.J.:P & R, 1948), 415

[32] Dunbar, “Biblical Canon,” 357.

[33] Ibid., 358.