Canon lectures II and III

THE CANON

GENERALIZATION: One task facing the early church was to decide what writings would and would not be accepted as authoritative scripture, "canonical." Many have argued that they made a mistake or two in their decisions, but, for the most part, it would be hard to improve on their choices. Comment.

POTENTIAL ID'S: CANON, TENACH, ECCLESIASTICUS, TOBIT, JUDITH, DEUTEROCANONICALS, APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA, GOSPEL OF THOMAS

I. Introduction

The Bible is the most revered book in the world, with good reason. The book is so respected that it become "the" book. "Biblos" is just the Greek word for book, and, just as, for Northern Californians, San Francisco is "the" city and for Aquinas Aristotle is "the" philosopher, for many, many people, the Bible is *the* book, the one that really counts.

We are so used to thinking of the Bible as *the* book, that it is hard to realize that it wasn't originally one book, but many different books, books of different types and purposes, written by many different people and at many different times. How was it that these particular books came together into one book? Why were other books excluded? Were equally important books left out? Are there some included books that should have been left out?

To answer these questions, it is important to look at the period in which these books came together as *the* book, the period of the early church. It was the task of these early Christians to decided what would/would not be accepted as authoritative scripture, "canonical." Many have argued that they made at least a mistake or two in their decisions, but it would be hard to improve on their choices.

II. How the church did not decide on the canon

First of all, it's important to note what the church *did not* do. The canon wasn't set by holding a great conference and taking a vote of assembled leaders. No such conference or council could have met before the time of Constantine. The first great ecumenical council was held at Nicaea in 325 AD, and, even then, the question of the canon didn't come up. Not until a council at Hippo in 380 AD was there any formal decision on the canon by a council.

It's important to understand that, when at last the Council of Hippo did talk about the canon, the assembled bishops by no means considered themselves to be "making" books authoritative. They were simply coming to agreement on uniformity: are we all on the same page as to what is authoritative and what is not?

To think of the Council of Hippo as anything more than a "let's make sure we're on the same page" thing is more than a bit misleading. For the most part, the books of the Bible were authoritative from the moment they were written. Paul's letters were authoritative immediately in the churches he sent them to because those churches already recognized Paul's authority as an apostle. The same think is true of the writings of the rest of the New Testament figures. They came from the apostles themselves or (in the case of Mark and Luke) they came from figures who worked directly with the apostles and had the apostolic seal of approval. There was no need to wait for a council to decide on the authority of any of these works.

But there were some questions for early Christians. One of the most important, to separate out the genuine from forgeries. There were letter that claimed to be from Paul that weren't, gospels forged by heretical groups, and other problem works. How does one sort this kind of thing out?

And notice that separating the truly sacred from what wasn't was vitally important. Roman authorities frequently demanded the surrender of sacred scripture: and to refuse meant death. So, for early Christians, there was always a question of what books were worth dying for, and which were not.

III. The Old Testament Canon

Before the church had any other sacred books (while the gospel was still primarily a spoken message), the Christian Bible was pretty much what Jews call the Tanakh (Torah, Neviim, and Kituvim: Law, Prophets, and Writings), what Christians today call the Old Testament.

The decision here was none too difficult. At a council in Jamnia (90 A.D.), the Jews got together to talk about the fate of their community. The temple had been destroyed: no more sacrifice. What was to be preserved? Jamnia reaffirmed the special status of the books now in our Old Testament. But this wasn't a new consensus by any means. Josephus some years earlier and given the same list of sacred books. The New Testament writers too seem to have this canon in mind. They quote all the Tanakh books as authoritative (except Esther), and almost never cite anything else (Jude's reference to I Enoch is a rare exception, easily explained).

But there were other Jewish books perhaps worth preserving as well. During the inter-testamental period (the period between Malachi, c. 400 BC, and the New Testament), the Jewish community created quite a few sometimes worthwhile books, books that make up what we sometimes call the Apocrypha. Among these books:

The Wisdom of Solomon
The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Tobit
Judith
I and II Maccabees
I and II Esdras (sometimes called III and IV Esdras)
I Enoch
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

There is much great practical advice in the first two. Tobit is a great story with a great lesson. Judith is likewise a great story, and focuses on an admirable woman as hero--something we don't see enough of. I and II Maccabees provide a history of the period following Alexander's conquest of Judea.

But these books come from a period where the Jews themselves believed the prophetic voice was silent. Ecclesiasticus doesn't claim to be inspired scripture, just wisdom based on the study of the scripture. Maccabees notes specifically that the stones of the desecrated altar had to be set aside to await the ruling of a "true prophet," so, apparently, affirming the idea that the inter-testamental period was a time of prophetic silence.

So, what did Christians do? They affirmed the Tanakh as sacred scripture, books they would die for, and books legitimate to use as conclusive authorities in addressing doctrinal issues.

They preserved many of the useful works. In Catholic Bibles, these are included as Deuterocanonicals.

But church authors rejected anything the claimed to be from ancient figures but weren't. I Enoch, for instance, claimed to be originally from the Enoch who lived before the flood and had seen visions of angels. It had been lost, but found again. Such a book is said to be a work of spocrpyha (literally, something that has been hidden away). Church writers saw through these claims, recognizing them as pseudepigraphal, i.e., a books that pretend to be written by authority figures but are really by someone else. Such books the church rejected. They weren't going to do much to preserve them, they wouldn't cite them in theological debate, and they certainly wouldn't die for them.

[Here's a clip from an earlier version of this material. If the above isn't clear, maybe this will help.

Last time, I made the generalization that it was the job of the early church to decide what writings would and would not be accepted as authoritative scripture, i.e. canonical. What I perhaps did not make clear is how this decision was made. It was not by holding a great conference and taking a vote of the assembled leaders. No such conference or council could exist until after the time of Constantine. The first council such council was held at Nicaea in 325 A.D.--and even at Nicaea, the NT canon question didn't come up. Not until a council at Hippo around 380 A.D. was their any attempt to impose on all the churches a uniform canon.

    Now this idea a bit upsetting to some students, particularly Protestant students. It's hard to conceive the church without our Bible exactly as it stands, and the idea that there was no fixed canon as late as 380 A.D. seems to cast at least some doubt on Biblical authority. What guarantee is there that conference at Hippo didn't make some mistakes? Should all the books we currently have in our Bibles be there? Were there equally important books left out?

    The scholarly community has often enough said yes to both these questions. F.C. Bauer and the Tubingen types, for instance, got rid of all but a few of Paul's letters. On the opposite side, there are writers like Elaine Pagels who think that the Gnostic scriptures were unfairly neglected by the church. And then there's the extreme view that all sorts of books were left out that ought to have been included. You'll see titles like "The Forgotten Books of Bible"/"The Lost Books of Eden," and "The Other Bible." One sees these things all the time in book stores, Barnes and Noble catalogues, etc. They are fairly popular, and it's easy enough to understand why.

    It's exciting to think that one is discovering a great treasure of a book that everybody ought to read for its great spiritual insights, a book that will tell you everything you wanted to know about Jesus, or heaven, or angels, but that the canonical gospels don't tell you.

    But is there anything to all this? To answer that question, it's necessary to look at how and why early church came to include books they did.

    I said a second ago that not until synod at Hippo did church decide on definitive canon. That's a bit misleading, however. In the case of most books of the Bible, the decisions were made much earlier: basically, when the books were written! Paul's letters were authoritive immediately in the churches he sent them to, because the authority of Paul himself was recognized. The same was true of Peter, Matthew, and John. No need to wait for a council! These books were authoritative right away. Questions only arose later when the problem of "authority" was complicated by forgeries and pseudepigrapha. It was complicated also by the fact that not all churches had all the books. Revelation had been sent to seven churches. There was no guarantee there would be a copy at Rome. Paul write a letter to Romans: there was no guarantee Ephesus would have a copy.

    Now, what did church do? As far as the OT was concerned, right from the beginning Christians used our OT. You see this in the NT itself. The NT writers quote every OT book except Esther and nothing else. This makes it pretty clear that NT writers regarded those books and only those books as authoritative. This was the general practice of later Christian writers as well. Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement, etc. quote almost exclusively from what we call the OT today and only occasionally from other books. Even then, they seem hesitant. The do sometimes quote other books (e.g. I Enoch), but rarely-and when they do, it's easy to guess why.

    But the early church also preserved other Jewish books (many of which were eventually included in Deuterocanonicals). These books were not generally cited as authoritative sources, but they were used as historical sources (I and II Maccabees) or as edifying/inspirational literature. My opinion is that this was pretty much the right thing to do.   It's good church chose to preserve books. Books like Judith are well worth your time if you haven't read them already.