Basic Bible, Level 1, Lesson 1: Canon of Old & New Testaments,brief, from The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1975.

Transcription

1 Basic Bible, Level 1, Lesson 1: Canon of Old & New Testaments,brief, from The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition, Canon. The term canon (Gk. kanṓn law, regulation, rule of conduct, a transliteration of Heb. qāneh reed ) refers to the whole of the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Their authority rests on their God-breathed (Gk. theópneustos; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16) nature and can be accepted only in faith through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the believer s heart. In addition, it is also used in connection with the traditional sixty-six inspired books, which are first listed in an Easter letter of Athanasius (A.D. 367). The synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confessed the canonicity of these books, meaning their divine authority. Though Roman Catholics generally believe that the authority of the canonized books is derived from the Church ( proximate and ultimate criterion is the infallible decision of the church, W. G. Most, Bible, III (Canon), NCE 2:387, but see the text of the article), Protestants for the most part claim that it is the Church s responsibility only to profess and preserve those books that have canonical status. It is more appropriate, in the words of the Belgic Confession (Art. 5): [to believe] all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God (see also Westminster Confession I.4 5). I. Scope The study of the canon is divided into the general and the specific. The latter concerns itself with questions about authorship, place of origin, and date of the individual books of the Bible, as well as about the manner in which they came to be included in the canon; it does not ask whether or not a book belongs within the canon. In this dictionary the question of special canonics is addressed in the separate articles on those books of the Bible whose canonicity has been contested. (See Esther; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Solomon; Hebrews; James; Jude; Revelation, Book of). The study of general canonics, on the other hand, is concerned with the origin, acknowledgment, and extent of the canon as a whole. Though these questions are essentially the same for both the Old and New Testaments, their different answers demand that general canonics be divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. II. Old Testament A. Origin Because the Old Testament says little about the process of its own canonization and because scholarly opinion about the historical development of the Old Testament canon has failed to reach consensus, it is best to proceed from the historic moment at which the Old Testament first appears to have been granted recognition namely, during New Testament times. That the Old Testament was then regarded as a NCE M. R. P. McGuire, et al., ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (Washington: 1967) Art. Article (of confession, etc.) 1

2 unity appears from the frequent New Testament references to it as the scriptures (e.g., Matt. 26:54) and, more cogently, scripture (John 10:35); sometimes the term scripture refers to more than one Old Testament passage, as, e.g., at John 7:42 which points to at least two different passages (Ps. 89:3 4; Mic. 5:2). Furthermore, some quotations from the Old Testament are introduced with the formula in the law it is written, even when the passage cited is not from the Pentateuch but from the Psalms or the Prophets (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:21, citing Isa. 28:11 12). These facts do not in themselves prove that the canon of the Old Testament as then accepted contained all thirty-nine books included in most English versions; some books such as Esther and Ecclesiastes are not cited in the New Testament. But Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51 strongly indicate that this was indeed the case, for in speaking of the blood of Abel and Zechariah, these two passages refer to the first and last books of the Hebrew canon (if the murdered Zechariah is the one mentioned at 2 Chr. 24:20 24), a canon identical to the Old Testament canon of most English versions. The New Testament refers to the Old Testament as the old covenant (Gk. palaía diathḗkē; 2 Cor. 3:14), a name which the Church Fathers also generally accepted. That this Old Testament canon contained the same number of books as contemporary English versions is also apparent from Josephus Contra Apionem 1.8, where twenty-two books are listed as trustworthy and as such are to be distinguished from others. These books include the five books of Moses, the thirteen prophetic books (Judges and Ruth are one book, as are Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and the twelve minor prophets; the book of Job also belongs to this group), and four books of the Writings. Thus, during the first century A.D. the canon of the Old Testament comprised all thirty-nine books present in English versions. It appears from the prologue to Sirach ( the law, and the prophets and other books ), however, that the Old Testament canon was completed prior to the first century A.D. as well. Though the dates of Jesus ben Sirach are not known with certainty, most likely he lived ca. 180 B.C. This would mean that the Jews were familiar with an Old Testament canon as early as the second century B.C.; such a canon could not have been much older, for the book of Ecclesiastes was not written until the middle of the fourth century. B. Acknowledgment It is evident that the New Testament recognizes the canon of the Old Testament as divine in origin and authority. Introduced by the words as it is written (in the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms), the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament serve as proofs to end all disputation. Furthermore, the New Testament speaks of the assured fulfillment of Old Testament predictions, while sometimes ascribing to God an Old Testament quotation in a passage where God did not actually speak (Matt. 19:5, quoting Gen. 2:24). It appears then that the entire Old Testament was recognized as God s own word, probably as early as the time of Jesus ben Sirach.

3 C. Extent The process by which the Old Testament became canonical among the Jews remains shrouded in obscurity. Accordingly, the standard nineteenth-century view, which held that the Deuteronomic Code was accepted as canonical ca. 621, the Law ca. 450, the Prophets ca. the third century, and, finally, the Writings during the second century, no longer seems tenable. The lack of consensus among contemporary scholars about the historical formation of the Old Testament may be due in part to the controversy over the theory of unbroken unity between the writing and the collection of an authoritative body of Scripture (see Childs, p. 58 for the degree of distinction between scriptural authority and canonization). Nevertheless, it does seem reasonable that the canonization of the Old Testament went through various stages of development, of which many crucial details are still lacking. The Hebrew canon had traditionally been divided into the Law (tôrâ), the Prophets (n e ḇî îm), and the Writings (k e ṯûḇîm). (For an enumeration of the Old Testament books see Bible II.). The Talmud (B. Bat. 14b) speaks of twenty-four books (the Law, or the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the Twelve [minor prophets], Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra [and Nehemiah], and Chronicles), as do 4 Ezra (14:19 48) and Josephus (see above). There was no difference of opinion among the Palestinian Jews concerning the extent of the canon; but differences did exist among the Alexandrian Jews who translated the books of the Hebrew canon into Greek and added to the LXX several other writings which they also considered sources of wisdom and insight. Nevertheless, it was not the intention of the LXX translators to expand the existing Hebrew canon, and the Jewish rabbis have never regarded these additional writings to be equal in status to the books of the Hebrew canon. The early Church, however, received the Old Testament in the Greek translation and at first ascribed canonical authority to the added books. Several years later the synods of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (397) each produced a list of the canonical books. Following Athanasius and Augustine the Church accepted the LXX; even though Jerome argued for a return to the Hebrew canon, he himself included the additional writings of the LXX in his Vulgate translation. The churches of the Reformation, on the

4 other hand, accepted the Hebrew canon but retained the Septuagintal sequence of the books. At the Council of Trent (fourth session, 1546), the Roman Catholic Church declared itself in favor of the broader Old Testament canon. Although 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras were excluded at first, they were included (along with 3 and 4 Ezra) in the 1592 edition of the Vulgate, placed after the New Testament. Concerning the extent of the Hebrew canon, then, there has been very little contention within the Christian Church; even the Roman Catholic Church came to designate the added books as deuterocanonical. Only the book of Esther was subject to some doubt, mainly in the Eastern church. Luther did not doubt the canonic character of this book, although he would have preferred that it had not been included in Scripture (it is less worthy of being held canonical than all the other [books because it] Judaize[s] too much and contain[s] much pagan naughtiness ). See Apocrypha. III. New Testament A. Origin The question concerning the origin of the New Testament canon is misleading insofar as it can suggest the absence of a canon before the New Testament books were written; in fact, the origin of the New Testament canon is found in the authority of Jesus Christ, not in a more or less fixed collection of writings. Though Christ did accept the writings of the Old Testament as canonical, he also proclaimed his own authority. As the one sent by God for the salvation of mankind (Matt. 11:27; John 5:23 24), he was given authority and power by God and acted accordingly (Matt. 9:6; John 5:27). He demanded obedience of those who followed him and bound them to his word and work the Word and work of God (John 3:17 18, 34 36). His followers, in turn, recognized Jesus authority (Matt. 8:8) and gave him the title of Son of God (Matt. 14:33; 16:16). The apostles also recognized the Old Testament books as canonical but acknowledged and preached Jesus Christ as the absolute canon. Paul made a clear distinction between his own word and that of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10 12). The early Church recognized as canonical both the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, and in their writings the Apostolic Fathers cited equally quotations from the Old Testament and the words of Jesus. Jesus made it possible for others to maintain his authority after his departure from earth. He appointed apostles who, guided by his Spirit, would preach his word and carry on his ministry. They were eyewitnesses, able to pass on (Gk. kērýssein; preach, witness ; Mark 6:12; Luke 9:2) what they had seen and heard Christ do. The substance of this preaching (Gk. kḗrygma; proclamation, witness ) is the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come for the redemption of life. This kḗrygma is also called the gospel or evangel (Gk. euangélion, the glad tidings or good news ), for to those who believe, the authoritative word of Jesus Christ is a promise of salvation. The apostles received the Holy Spirit that they might fulfill this task (Acts 1:8). Furthermore, Christ conferred authority upon them by working through them and permitting them to preach about him. As a result, his authority was present not only in their actual speaking (Acts

5 2:42; 10:44; 15:23 29; 16:4), but also in their letters (Rom. 15:18 20; 1 Cor. 2:1 5; 1 Thess. 5:27; Jude 17). The churches also acknowledged and accepted the apostles authority. At Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church which is laid by Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; cf. 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 4:11). Next, the Apostolic Fathers (ca. A.D. 100) accepted the canonicity of the words preached and written by the apostles (i.e., the Twelve and Paul). They even went so far as to make ascription of words to the apostles a guarantee of canonicity; this concept required an historically complicated explanation for the gospels of Mark and Luke, because these two canonical gospels actually were not composed by any of the original apostles. Apparently, the Apostolic Fathers had at their disposal written gospels and collected letters of Paul and the other apostles, from which they quoted the words of Jesus and others. The churches of that time also had access to such documents, for the letters addressed to certain congregations were read at their gatherings and passed on to other churches (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Pet. 3:15 16). From this it appears that the early Church recognized as canonical what is now called the New Testament (then called the Lord and the apostles ; Gk.ho kýrios kaí hoi apóstoloi). The words of early Christian prophets had no absolute authority (1 Cor. 12:29ff.) and were not recognized as canonical. The Apostolic Fathers, at least, did recognize New Testament prophecy as canonical. This spiritual gift apparently diminished during the second century, and little of the prophetic material has been preserved (cf. Acts 11:27 28). At the end of the second century, the Church Fathers set up a canon of truth (Gk. kanṓn tḗs alētheías) or rule of faith (Lat. regula fulei) as a criterion of orthodoxy. This rule was derived from the canon but was not regarded as canonical itself; rather it represented a confession of faith, for only the Lord and the apostles were considered canonical. B. Acknowledgment While it cannot be concluded on the basis of 2 Pet. 3:15 16 that during the second half of the first century Paul s letters were given the same recognition as the Old Testament, it does follow from 3:2 that the New Testament apostles were placed on a par with the Old Testament prophets. (Though in the latter passage the expressions as it is written or the Scriptures say do not occur, the Apostolic Fathers apparently used these expressions while referring both to the Old Testament and the Gospels and Letters. No doubt because their main intent was to demonstrate to others that Jesus Christ was the longexpected Messiah, these expressions were used more often with quotations from the Old Testament than from Lat. Latin

6 the Gospels and Letters.) The early Church also credited the Old Testament with authority equal to that of the Gospels and Letters; leaders read aloud from all of these writings, without discrimination, in their worship services (cf. Justin Apologia 1:67). At first, however, writings other than those now constituting the New Testament (such as the Shepherd of Hermas and other pseudepigraphal words) were also read publicly during worship services. It was only after the canonical character of a number of writings was unanimously decided that readings during the worship services were limited to the canonical writings. The authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, and some of the Catholic Letters was long held in doubt, but a qualified consensus finally evolved at the Synod of Hippo (393). The decision to recognize canonicity was adopted by the Synod of Carthage (397). At this assembly a list was compiled of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, which alone could be read during public worship. These two synods did not declare outright that these books were canonical. Rather, they acknowledged and officially sanctioned the generally accepted canonicity of those books that now constitute the Old and New Testaments and distinguished between these and other books (e.g., the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Acts of the Martyrs). The decision of the Church was accompanied by the phrase we receive, as though God himself caused his Church to confess the canonicity of the New Testament writings. This pronouncement from the North African synods met with general approval in the Western churches, and has been upheld since then (by contrast, the Syrian Church has never accepted as canonical any of the seven Catholic Letters or Revelation). This is perhaps due to the influence of Athanasius (who had already given the same list of canonical books in his Easter letter of 367) and Augustine, for the synodical decisions concurred with their views. Although the divine canon (i.e., Jesus Christ) would ultimately compel the Church to accept the New Testament, three historical factors also prompted the Church to come to such a decision: (1) the selfauthentication of the Holy Scriptures (e.g., the Belgic Confession: [these books] carry the evidence [of authority] in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled ; cf. Calvin Inst. 1:8, 5); (2) the necessity of having a New Testament to complement the Old Testament; (3) the tradition, namely, that the words of the apostles should be handed down to succeeding generations. The opposition to heretics was also a consideration in this issue, but the concern was more to close off the contents of the canon than to acknowledge the status granted to it. C. Extent As already observed, the principle of a New Testament canon existed in the authoritative presence of Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Letters were soon accorded authoritative status (ca. A.D. 130). Finally, most of the New Testament

7 writings were designated a sacred unity ca. 200 (cf. the Muratorian Fragment and Tertullian s writings: all but Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter); the expression New Testament appears along with Old Testament in the works by Clement of Alexandria (ca ) and Tertullian (ca ). The confrontation with Marcion (ca. 140; he advocated a modified canon containing only passages of divine love [as recorded in Luke s gospel and ten of Paul s letters] to the exclusion of texts dealing with divine wrath) suggests the existence of an authoritative collection of New Testament writings. Tertullian, Marcion s great opponent, appealed to such a canon in his Adversus Marcionem; Marcion s denial of the Church s larger authoritative canon only emphasized the unity of the New Testament documents. The claims of Montanus (a first-century prophet claiming to have ushered in the so-called third stage of new revelations of the Spirit) were further impetus for the Church s confession concerning a definite canon. Early acknowledgment of the canonical status of the New Testament books corresponds to Christ s ascension and the end of his earthly ministry. Furthermore, God makes himself known in his Word, in which he himself distinguishes between the old and new covenants (Heb. 1:1 2). Just as the Old Testament reveals what was necessary for the old covenant, the New Testament discloses what can be expected for the new: the first and second comings of the Messiah. Once this had been made known, the canon was complete. The fundamental argument against an open canon is that it would conflict with the nature and purpose of the canon. In an open canon there may arise an authority other than the canon itself which would decide what is or is not to be included. Bibliography. H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: 1972); B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: 1979); R. M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament (New York: 1965); S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Hamden, Conn.: 1976). 1 1 Myers, A. C. (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary ( ). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.