Canonicity

All Christians will quickly agree that their faith is based on and grounded in the Bible. This statement makes sense since all Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. But how do we know what "the word of God" is? How do we distinguish this "word of God" from words of men? Who decided what will be scripture and what will not be scripture and how did they know?

This is an important question. If we don't know where our Bible came from, then how can we know that it is the word of God? And even if we simply "accept by faith" that the Bible is the word of God, then how can we correctly interpret it if we know not from whence it came?

This is also a very big question that I cannot answer fully. But I can provide an overview that I pray will be helpful. Helpful for aiding in an understanding of what God is saying, and helpful in knowing how God chose to forge his revelation to man.

At the heart of this question (how do we know what is scripture?) is canonicity. That is, what books are canonical (scripture)? Our word canon comes from the hebrew word "kanon" meaning a measuring rod or that with which you measure. The books that are canonical then, are those books with which we measure our lives.

When considering the question of canonicity, it is important to remember the concept of progressive revelation. That is, scripture was revealed a little bit at a time. Moses obviously knew nothing (specifically) of that part of truth revealed in say, Romans. Scripture did not come to us in the flash of a divine lightning bolt. Rather, it slowly grew into our modern Bible. It was a process, a becoming.

The development of the Old Testament is significantly different than that of the New. So much so that it would be more coherent to consider each of them separately.

The Old Testament.

Often, it is easy to forget that the Old Testament came from a very different context than the New. How the scriptures were viewed, how they were used and applied, and even the understanding the Hebrews had of them differed significantly from our understanding today. Actually, how the Hebrews viewed and treated scripture was intertwined with the concept of determining what was scripture.

Actually, the term "canon" is a Christian one. To a Jew, scripture was those books that "defiled the hands". After touching a scroll upon which scripture was written, a Jew was required to wash his hands (hence the term "defiling the hands"). The idea was that the handling of scripture (being sacred) caused your hands to become sacred. To touch a common (or worse yet, unclean) object with sacred hands was a degradation. This high view that the Jews took of scripture is (as we shall see later) important to the canonicity issue.

In the eyes of the ancient Hebrew, scripture was divided into three parts. The Torah (the law), the Nebiim (the prophets), and the Ketubim (the writings). The Torah consisted of the first five books of the Bible (what we call the pentateuch). The Nebiim was subdivided into two parts, the former prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel (we divide Samuel into two parts), and Kings (which we divide)), and the latter prophets (Isaiah, Jeramiaha, Ezekiel, and the twelve (a single book containing the twelve books we call the minor prophets)). The Ketubim contained the following books of our modern day Bible : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiasties, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (combined in the Hebrew), and Chronicles (which we divide into two parts).

The first portion of the Old Testament to be completed was the Torah (written by Moses). In this case, the books were immediately accepted as canonical. The fact that Moses served as God's spokesman could not be disputed. On several occasions God worked great miracles through him. The ten commandments were etched on stone tablets by God himself. Both God's healing and judgement for his people were executed at the hands of Moses. On occasions, Moses' face shone with the radiance of God (so that no man could

look upon it).

The Torah held special position in the eyes of the Hebrews (even above the rest of scripture). Of the Torah Max Margolis (a Jewish author) has said : "The Torah clearly possesses a higher degree of holiness than the other two parts (Nebiim and Ketubim) of the scriptures". This view was certainly held by the ancient Jews as well. It was legal, for example, to lay a scroll containing the Torah on top of a scroll containing the other two portions of scriptures. But it was not legal to lay a scroll containing either the Nebiim or the Ketubim on top of a scroll containing the Torah (this would have been a degradation). So prevalent were these views that the rabbis would not allow the Torah to be bound in a book with any other portion of scripture (since turning to a portion of scripture may cause a page containing either the Nebiim or Ketubim to rest on top of a page containing the Torah).

The completion of the Torah formed the essential first step for the development of the Old Testament. By it, all other books were measured (agreement with the Torah was only one of the qualities a book had to possess to become scripture).

For the other two sections of the Old Testament, the canonization process was different (the Nebiim was accepted as canonical by the fourth century BC, the Ketubim in the first century AD). To better understand the process a book went through to be canonized, we need to take a look at the different classes of ancient Hebrew books.

The first class of books were those considered to be "heretical" (contradicted the Torah or other canonical book, promoted a doctrine or behavior at odds with the teachings of the Torah, etc). These books were burned outright.

The next class of books were the "near-scriptural". These were the books that were not heretical, but did not "defile the hands". They were kept in a store room (the "genizah") in the temple, away from the public. Reading these books in public was forbidden, but it was however, legal to peruse them in private (these books constituted the "apocrypha" (meaning hidden, as they were hidden from the public in the ginizah)).

Finally, the scriptures. These were the only books that were allowed to be stored in the temple chests (available for public reading). Allowing a book to be stored in the temple chests was equivalent to it's canonization. Moving a book from the temple chests back to the genizah constituted it's decanonization.

The decision of were to store a book was a complex one. To be stored in the temple chests (and hence be canonical), it not only needed to be in agreement with the Torah (and other canonical books), it also must have possessed some sort of "divine stamp". Prophesies that were proven true, wisdom and insight beyond that capable of man alone, or something else along these lines. Also, things such as authorship were considered.

To better understand this process of determining what was canonical, it may be helpful to consider the fourteen books known as "the apocrypha" (in Catholic Bibles). These books were (and are) rejected as canonical by the Hebrews for the following reasons (note : this list is not complete) : First, they abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. Second, they teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired scripture. Third, they resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture. Finally, they lack the distinctive elements that give genuine scripture it's divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

The rabbis have decided that the canon is closed. To them, there can be no more added to scripture. The decision to "draw the canonicity line" between the time of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Maccabean revolt was officially reached at the council of Jabne in AD 90. Unofficially, the line was drawn much earlier. It is significant to note that their has never been a serious dispute among the Jews of either the closure of the canon or the placing of the line.

The New Testament.

The process by which the New Testament canon was formed was quite different from that of the Old. In fact, the formation happened much faster and in a much clearer and definitive style. Actually, it would be possible to track the canonicity of the New Testament (much easier than tracking the Old) and then use the fact that the New Testament so frequently quotes the Old to demonstrate the canonicity of the Old Testament (I personally feel that would not produce as strong an argument as the one given above).

Consider what happened as an apostle wrote a book. Immediately, it was read in the churches. Remembering that most first century Christians were Jews, an implication of canonicity already existed (since the books were read in public). As early as the end of the first century, the New Testament was already being used to settle disputes, address life, and address church needs (again, implying canonicity).

Shortly after (by the beginning of the second century), the New testament was being referred to as scripture by the early church and was given the same authority as the Old Testament. The first formal recognition of the New Testament was given by Irenaeus of Lyons in AD 180 (he was the first to use the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament").

Sometime between AD 180 and AD 200, the Muratorian canon was formed. This was an official list of books to be accepted as scripture. It consisted of the New Testament we know today minus I and II Peter and Hebrews with the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon tacked on.

While these first and second century activities do serve to underscore the canonicity of the New Testament, they do not give a clear indication of how the canon was chosen. There were in fact, noncanonical books being used as if they were scripture (this was, I believe, more the exception than the rule). But God was not about to let this lack of definition continue for very long...

A movement known as Montanism sprang up in the early days of the church. Montanists practiced "ecstatic prophesy". That is, prophesying while in a trance. Through this "prophesying", they produced several books and began to use them as though they were scripture. By rejecting these books in the latter second century, the orthodox church took it's first step towards the closure of the canon.

The next major step in the formation of the canon was taken by Eusebius in AD 325. He established three categories for Christian books. The first category, comprised of twenty of our New Testament books, was to be to be accepted as scripture. The second category (James, II Peter, Jude, II and III John, possibly Hebrews and Revelation) was considered questionable. The third category, spurious, contained only books not in our New Testament (Gospel of Peter, Acts of Andrew, Paul, etc).

By this time, the formation of the New Testament was almost complete. Only a few years later, in AD 367, Athanasius of Alexander listed as canonical the books we know today as the New Testament. The final step took place in AD 397 at Carthage (in North Africa). At a council held there, the New Testament we know today was officially canonized and closed.

But how did the bishops decide what books were to be accepted as canonical? Fortunately, we do know several of the criteria that were used to arrive at this far-reaching decision. Apostolicity was the first factor considered (ie - did an apostle write it?). This proved to be a difficult fact to establish (there were several books floating around that claimed to be written by an apostle, but obviously were not). But if it was possible to establish, it guaranteed inclusion in the canon. The next criteria a book had to possess to be included was orthodoxy. Did it agree with the core of teaching passed down through the apostolic successors (bishops)? Failure to meet this criteria guaranteed exclusion. Another consideration was that of antiquity. That is, it needed to be written in the apostolic age. Another extremely important factor was usage. Was the book in question used in the churches?

The decision to close the canon logically follows from the characteristics required of a canonical book. Obviously, all the books that the apostles will write have already been written. Also obvious is the fact that no more books will be written in antiquity.