Canon, Scripture, and Authority: Part 2

“You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me! And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life.” – John 5:39-40

A few months back I visited a Zen Buddhist temple and sat in for a few hours on their morning service. The people were all very nice, but it was difficult to get straight answers to questions about why they practice the way they do. Zen Buddhism does not hold to any specific authority. To put it in the simplest terms, each individual person is their own authority, deciding how the ceremonies should be practiced and what they mean. There are leaders, of course, to facilitate the service, but matters of theology are seen as personal and differ from person to person; what is true to you may not be true to me, as neither of us is in a position of authority.

Zen Buddhism is based on an entirely different set of assumptions than Christianity. One of the most significant is that truth is relative; again, the idea that what is truth is a subjective experience and and can differ from person to person. Zen Buddhism also lacks the urgency found in Christianity- salvation is a matter of inner peace, not an outward, objective experience.

I talk about this group not to disparage it, but to have a ground for comparison. Christianity makes an exclusive claim, that salvation is found only through Christ. We may differ slightly on how one comes to attain this salvation (i.e, what about people who’ve never heard the gospel?), but orthodox Christianity makes objective claims.

This is why the source or sources of authority are so necessary to understand. Christianity is based on unwavering truths. Who or what decides what those are? Historically, Christians have claimed three sources of authority. One, obviously, is the Bible. Another is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Nearly all subgroups within Christianity accept these two. A third, more controversial source is Church History/Tradition.

While researching different theories on the nature of the Bible, one theology book (Theology of the Old Testament by Edmond Jacob) pointed me to examine the Hebrew word debar. Hebrew grammar books will almost always translate debar as “word” or “thing.” It is important to note that “word” and “thing” are not two separate phenomena described by the same set of consonants and vowels. “Word” and “thing” are the same phenomenon in the Hebrew understanding. This observation is key to understanding the biblical conception of the debar elohim, “the Word of God.”

The Divine Word of the Hebrew Bible permeates history and intervenes in physical and historical events. Israel’s exodus out of Egypt is an example of the Word of God. History reveals God’s word. The Law represents a record of God’s actions in the founding of the nation, and the Prophets (which contains the historical books in the Hebrew canon) represents God’s continued intervention into the history of the nation. Please note the word “represents.” The Word of God is the action, not the record. The record is how we know and remember, but the action is the element that brings salvation and deliverance.

Jump ahead to the New Testament, where John so famously declares that Jesus is the true Word of God. The Word of God here represents God’s ultimate act: the intrusion of his very self into history. This is the Word above all words; the Word by which all other words are understood by. In light of this ultimate Word, all Words that came before are reinterpreted, and all Words that come after are understood by this Word.

The Bible is then a record of the Word of God, first through a series of Words directed towards a particular people, and then the ultimate, end-all Word of the Incarnation. Again, notice “record.” The Bible is a record of the Word of God; Christ himself is The Word, the ultimate intrusion into physical and temporal history. Of course, given that the act is the Word and the Scriptures are recordings, we necessarily understand that the scriptures are written in the vernacular and understandings of the writers. This is where hermeneutics, the study of proper interpretation, becomes a necessity.

How do we know the Bible is a reliable record, or that the 66 (or more) books that we have collected are the only valid recordings of the Word? This is where the additional means of authority I first spoke of come into play. As I stated in my last post, the Bible cannot speak on its own authority any more than a defendant can speak definitively on his own innocence. Given the classical sources of Christian authority, we have two possible responses. We can make the claim that the Holy Spirit testifies to this particular canon of scripture (as per John Calvin and Karl Barth), or that Church Tradition has dictated this collection as authoritative and therefore it is. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist denomination, harmonized these two nicely. He claimed that God would not allow his church to be deceived to the point of false gospel, and therefore traditions held over a long period of time can be seen as proper, either because the Spirit has guided it or the church has dictated it. As my Hebrew professor says, “pay your money, take your shot.” Either way, the Bible, not the ultimate Word in itself, becomes a unique and authoritative record of the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Canon, Scripture, and Authority: Part One

As of lately I’ve been working through some issues regarding the doctrine of Scripture. I’ve noticed several problems with the way it is typically described, namely:

1) The Bible cannot be the final word on what the Bible is. To grossly oversimplify the argument I usually hear, The Bible claims to be inspired. How do we know that claim is true? Because the Bible says so, and the Bible is inspired. This is circular reasoning, and it is unsupportable in this form.

2) The Bible never speaks about “the Bible.” Any references are to “scripture,” not “The Bible.” These are not quite synonymous, as “scriptures” refers to singular portions of what we now call the Bible. When Paul says that “all Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16), he does not refer to the Bible as we know it today, but to what we now know as the Old Testament.

3) If the Bible is a collection of inspired scriptures, how do we know that the collection was inspired? After all, the Bible did not, as one of my professors likes to put it, “fall out of the sky, King James Version.” A group of people had to decide what would and would not be considered authoritative, as the Bible was not written as a single unit. How do I know that God inspired the Gospel of Matthew, but not the gospel of Thomas? Even the church as a whole is not in 100% agreement, as the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books (Maccabes, Esdras, etc.) are accepted in Catholic and Orthodox circles but not in Protestant.

This is the subject I would now like to meditate on: How does the fact of canonization (the process of deciding which books are scripture and which are not) affect authority? How do we know that our current canon is “correct?” To start this examination, it seems most logical to discuss how these 66 (or 73, depending on your tradition) come to be seen as authoritative?

While the composition of the Old Testament is extremely difficult to trace, it seems that by the first century Judaism had decided on its official canon. Josephus, a Jewish historian writing in the first century, recorded that

“…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 (Against Apion, Book 1, Paragraph 8).”

Compared to the New Testament, the Old Testament canon was developed fairly naturally. With writing ability limited, less material was produced, and with a definite priestly class, there was a standard for what was and was not within orthodoxy. Most of the books we now know as the Old Testament were accepted and gathered into collections between 200 B.C. (The apocryphal book of Sirach, which dates to this time, refers to most of the book in the current canon and deems them authoritative) and the very early second century, when Josephus wrote the work referenced above. Only two books faced serious debate: Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. Both of these would be accepted by the community by the end of the second century A.D.

Christians accepted the Old Testament from the beginning of the movement. Some debate did arise regarding what are now known as the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. These books, written later than the rest of the Hebrew scriptures and in a different language (Greek rather than Hebrew) were contained within the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The importance of the Septuagint cannot be overstated; being in Greek rather than Hebrew, it was the most widely used version of the (now) Old Testament, and most early Christians considered the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew scriptures, to be authoritative. The most notable dissenter was Jerome, who produced the first major translation of the Bible into Latin. Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew (rather than the Septuagint), upsetting the early Christian orthodoxy. As the Jews did not accept the  apocryphal/deuterocanonical books as scripture, Jerome did not either. Jerome’s Latin translation became the definitive version of the Bible in the Western church until the Reformation, though the popularity of the Septuagint meant that the disputed books were usually included as well.

These books were included in the canon until the Protestant Reformation, when Luther rejected them based on Jerome’s principle of the authority of the Hebrew canon tradition. Since then, Protestant groups have nearly unanimously accepted Luther’s critique and ceased to use them. Luther unsuccessfully attempted to make changes to the New Testament canon, as will be discussed later.

The development of the New Testament canon was significantly more complicated. By the end of the first century, all of the books composing our modern New Testament had been written, but not yet defined as “scripture.” Churches used the written materials they had available and tried to make sure these coincided with those used by other churches. A “canon” as we define it today was not needed in the very early church.

In the second century, a church leader named Marcion emerged and gained popularity. Marcion observed the problem of evil in the world and posited a new explanation. The God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, was not the same God as the Father of Jesus. The Father, a perfect being, created a purely spiritual world. Jehovah created the physical world, against the Father’s will.

From this standpoint, Marcion rejected the Old Testament. It was inspired, but by the malevolent Jehovah. Marcion also rejected most of the New Testament as not understanding the difference between Jehovah and the Father. Paul, he believed, did understand, and thus was authoritative. In addition, the majority of Luke was accepted as well, although without the birth narrative. In addition, he apparently edited both the Gospel and letters to suit his own theological views, although what exactly he changed is not totally clear.

Marcion presented a huge threat to the early church and created the need for a canon stating what was and was not authoritative. Around 200 AD, the church at Rome released the first known canon listing, known as the Muratorian Canon. The four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters were practically never questioned within the early church and appear in all early canon listings. In addition, the Muratorian Canon listed James, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. It also listed three books not included in our current canon, the Revelation of Peter, the Wisdom of Solomon, and The Shepherd of Hermas (to be read privately, but not in public). Around 250, the church father Origin recorded another canon list. His included the Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters, as well as 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. He lists 11 other disputed books, among which are the rest of the books contained in our current canon. In 300, Eusebius published a list of scripture that matched that of Origin. He also stated that James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were disputed but well known. In 400, a church council in Carthage officially proclaimed a settled canon, the one we use today.

This canon was stable until the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther called for the removal of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, on the grounds that they went against the Protestant doctrines of Salvation through Grace alone and Justification by Faith alone. Luther’s followers rejected this teaching, and thus the New Testament canon stayed fixed.

I believe several conclusions can be drawn from this overview, as follows:

1) The development of the canon of Scripture was fairly straightforward. As stated above, the church never questioned the authority of the Old Testament as the Jews defined it (with the important exception of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books), and the Gospels, Acts, and Letters of Paul in the New Testament were never debated. Even among those that were disputed, the only ones that faced consistent debate debate were Hebrews (probably due to its heavy use of Jewish theology) 2nd Peter (due to its disputed authorship), 3rd John (probably due to its personal nature and non-instructive nature), and Jude (due to its usage of non-canonical writings).

2) The decisions as to which books would be considered scripture was not arbitrary, but decided against a standard. For both the Jewish compilers of the Old Testament and the Christian compilers of the New Testament, books were judged based on the history of their composition, theology, and contemporary usage. Why are the gospels of Peter and Thomas not canonical? Because these were written at least a century after Jesus’ death, contain teachings differing vastly from the earlier gospels and church orthodoxy, and were utilized only by the heretical Manicheans. These later books belong in the canon no more than the writings of Thomas Jefferson belong among the collected works of Shakespeare. They were written in a different time, for a different purpose, to a different group of people.

3) The majority of the canon of Scripture was decided extremely early in the churches history. By my calculation, 91% of the New Testament was universally accepted before the writing of the Muratorian Canon around 200 AD.

This post has presented a crash-course in the history of the Biblical canon. What are the theological implications of this process? That will be the subject of my next post. Stay tuned!