“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17).
Introduction
Bro. Joe Hill’s article told of the wonderful way in which the Bible text was preserved and transmitted through history, and so used by those who translated it into English. But the question remains — “How did these particular texts come to be included in what we know as the Bible?” After all, many religious texts were written during the time of the Old and New Testaments. Which of these should be included and which should be rejected? What was the basis for these decisions? Who made them? Finding the answers to these questions involves looking at what has become known as the Canon of Scripture.
This somewhat odd-looking word has nothing to do with artillery, but is from the Greek kanon and probably borrowed from the Hebrew qanon meaning a reed or rod (see Ezek 40:5 and Gal 6:16). We get our English word “cane” from these and since reeds and rods were used to measure things in those times, the idea of a canon being a support, a standard or a rule came into being.
Thus, to speak of writings being “canonical,” or “part of the Canon,” is to refer to those writings which have become part of the books which are regarded as having Divine authority and were inspired by God. But it is important to understand that there is a difference between a book’s authority and whether or not it is canonical. Whether or not a book is properly included in the Canon is based on its authority (but not vice versa). For example, the Gospel of John had its own intrinsic authority from the time it was written, based on the text itself, having been Divinely inspired. Or Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, which plainly claims to be speaking on behalf of God: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:36-37).
However, both of these books only became canonical when they were generally accepted by the ecclesiastical authorities as being written under the Hand of Providence.1The books of the Bible have their own intrinsic authority, and no human group or institution can (or indeed needs to) confer this authority. These sacred writings were authoritative long before there were any religious councils deeming them so, or books to incorporate them.
It is very important to be clear about the development of the Canon. It is not an evolutionary process by which certain religious writings were increasingly accepted and given special status by a religious group (church). It was not (and remains not) a means by which sacred status was conferred on particular writings. The development of the Canon was rather mankind’s response to the Divine authority inherent in these Biblical writings from their beginnings. Said more succinctly, the Bible is not an authorized collection of books; rather it is a collection of authoritative books!
The Canon of the Old Testament
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Heb 1:1-2).
Most of the details by which the Old Testament writings were recognized as authoritative and to be set apart from other Jewish works have been lost to history, but it is clear that, by the time of Jesus, the Canon of what we now call the Old Testament had been fixed for some time.
The Jews divided their Scriptures into three parts: The Law, The Prophets and The Writings. The Law was composed of the five books of Moses (what we know as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The Prophets consisted of the four “Former Prophets” (our Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings) and the four “Latter Prophets (our Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, plus the Book of the Twelve — our Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). The Writings were a collection of eleven works (our Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1&2 Chronicles). This grouping of twenty-four Old Testament “books” (remember that our modern form of books is very different from the ancient Hebrews’) was the original count of the Jews as far back as we can trace it. Later, certain Jews appended Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah to get a correspondence with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but this seems to be somewhat of a contrivance.
The earliest Jewish scholars of whom we have records indicate that God had given his Word in twenty-four books. The Jewish historian Josephus was one of those who mentioned the Hebrew counting of twenty-two, but refers to every book in what has become our full modern list of thirty-nine. Early Christian writers, including Origen (184 – 253 A.D.) and Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.), all confirm the number of books accepted and listed by Josephus.
Much New Testament evidence clearly shows that, when the Gospel and Epistles were written, there was a definite and fixed “canon” of the Old Testament. Repeated phrases such as “the Scripture” (John 10:35, 19:36; 1Pet 1:20), “holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2), “the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40) create the unmistakable idea that there was a complete and sacred collection of Jewish writings set apart from other literature.
Jesus recognizes the tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures when he speaks of “the Law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms” and applies them and their fulfillment to himself: “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44).
In another instance, Jesus may also have alluded to this grouping (and ordering) when he says: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:35). While Abel was the first righteous man in history to suffer persecution from the wicked, someone named Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr named in the Old Testament. However, there was a Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20-21) who may have been the final one recorded in the last book of the Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus.
The Canon of the New Testament
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18).
Compared to the Old Testament Canon, we know a great deal about the development of the New Testament Canon. This is not surprising, since the books of the New Testament were written over a much shorter time period (less than 50 years versus more than 1,000 years). In addition, many more documents survived from the first few centuries after Christ than from antiquity, and Jewish practice from Old Testament times required their old scrolls to be buried rather than preserved. All of these factors make it much easier to trace the history of the New Testament texts, their distribution throughout the early Christian church, and the process of recognizing their Divine origin.
As an illustration, a surviving manuscript, written by Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century noted that at Christian services on Sunday, “memoirs of the apostles” were read together with “writings of the prophets.” It is clear that, not long after the passing of the first generation of believers, written materials were being circulated and read generally throughout the newly-formed churches.
In the early Church, there was no thought of developing a “New Testament.” The Scripture of God was the Old Testament as it had come down from the Jews. Like the Lord Jesus himself, the apostles “opened up the Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) and showed how Jesus was the fulfillment of the promises contained therein. They were living witnesses to the signs and wonders he performed, and could testify personally to his resurrection. Early believers felt that the return of Christ was imminent and they likely had no thought of creating writings which would be read two millennia later.
However, as the good news of the Gospel spread throughout the Roman Empire, and as (from the believers’ perspective) the return of Jesus was delayed, and as the eyewitnesses began to die off (from both natural and unnatural causes), written materials began to take on greater and greater significance for the new community.
From early on, the followers of Jesus had begun to write of their experiences with Jesus and of His teachings (the earliest New Testament book [James] was probably written by 46 A.D.). It was inevitable that these “first-hand” accounts would become accepted as authoritative and be collected into a single whole. From the time they were written, the Apostle Paul’s letters were seen as valuable, not just to whom they were addressed, but to the community as a whole. As a result, they were copied and circulated across what was becoming a far-flung community of believers.
There is a natural progression we can see in the development of the New Testament Canon. Christ stressed to his followers the importance of the Scriptures and how he came not to abolish but to fulfill them. The initial authority of the early church was the words of Christ and the events of his life, death and resurrection. He chose his apostles as his witnesses, and their words (whether oral or written) would have carried Divine authority.
The need to preserve these early testimonies was also driven by the need to protect the Truth from the false teachers of whom even Jesus warned his believers. In particular, the rise of a group known as the Gnostics in the late first and early second centuries made it imperative that the authentic writings of the apostles, as well as Luke and Paul, be preserved.
Other religious writings were also in circulation at the same time, some of which have survived until today, including “The epistle of Barnabas” and “the Shepherd of Hermes”. Although beyond the scope of this article, you can find more about them on the internet.
As these “collections” of materials were assembled at different times and in different places, it was inevitable that there would be some differences in these early volumes. Not all of the books in what we now know as the New Testament were received without hesitation. For example, uncertainty over the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews presented a temporary obstacle to full acceptance. However, most of the writings were generally embraced as having inspired authorship from the first.
Fragmentary evidence shows that a list of canonical books existed as early as 170 A.D. The “Muratorian Fragment,” published in 1740 A.D., indicates that even that far back there were four Gospels, the book of Acts, thirteen epistles from Paul, John’s Revelation, as well as letters from Jude and 1&2 John as having full acceptance as
canonical and being read in the churches. The only New Testament books missing from this list are the letters to the Hebrews (uncertain authorship), James, 1&2 Peter and (possibly) 3 John. The Fragment also mentions two documents, but indicates that “some of our people do not want to have them read in the church.”
By the third century, according to Origen of Alexandria, even these other works were being accepted by most believers, albeit with some still holding reservations. One of Origen’s later writings compares these New Testament writings with the trumpets which felled the walls of Jericho, and, with certain dramatic flourishes, enumerates all of the books we know as the New Testament. All of the uncertainties are gone by the mid-fourth century; in 367 A.D., Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament that were accepted in his time. These are the same books which are recognized today, and he adds the following postscript: “these are the springs of salvation … Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them.”
Good advice then and good advice now. The Bible owes its authority to no individual, group, or religious body. It has been fairly said that no churches control the Canon, but the Canon controls the churches. Divine authority was (and remains) inherent in the books of the Bible themselves.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One