This work seeks to cover a range of topics concerning the canon of Scripture. From historical to contemporary perspectives to get an in-depth look at both the Old and New Testament formation, which together as a whole constitute the whole canon of God’s eternal word. During the research for this project, a significant number of factors were examined at length to grasp the weight and concentration of activity and inspiration that went into the assembly of the Bible down through the centuries. The origination, delivery, and assembly of the Bible are placed into our hands today by providence from our all-merciful Lord and King. We have a debt of eternal gratitude for its place in our lives.
Introduction
Contents
Today, the Holy Bible is reportedly the best-selling book in the world.1 With its deep and lasting influence upon individuals, society, governments, and institutions; it reaches deep into our common realm of existence to have an everlasting impact upon conduct, policy, culture, law, lifestyles, art, sciences, and everyday living. The word of God is venerable and represents a class of literary work of its own. Extending back for thousands of years, with the events of mankind upon the Earth, it has recorded the activity of creation and humanity to such an extent that it shapes the thinking and worldview of billions among both the living and the dead.
The weight and substance of Scripture’s authority are somewhat supported by its canonization. Through sovereign orchestration and ordained use of God’s word read publicly and privately, the selection of communicated texts was produced and distributed for the development and well-being of the Church throughout Christendom. As written, collected, and meticulously reproduced over thousands of years, a formative process to codify recognition, understanding, and acceptance of divinely inspired writings came about to shape what is today defined as the canon of Scripture. More specifically, the canon is the “list of all the books that belong in the Bible.”2 Etymologically speaking, the term canon originates from the Greek word “kanōn” (κανών), which is translated as “rule” or “measuring stick” among other common terms as a way to size, quantify, or gauge dimensions of truth. This word is likely a derivative of the Hebrew term “kaneh” which means “reed’. To also mean from the Latin, the canon is the source of absolute divine authority in the lives of both Jew and Gentiles or peoples of the Earth for all time.
When God breathed out His word over a period of time, they were recorded through a series of events concerning His plan to restore creation throughout redemptive history. Both literally and theologically, the canon of Scripture gains acceptance in meaning through the recognition of root-word definitions over time and canonical discovery among Church fathers. Ultimately, God determines canonicity.3 Whereas canonization refers to the method by which sacred texts are brought together by their usage and authority.
The process of canonization involves recognizing what was always canonical. Where there is a canonical consciousness in Scripture, ecumenical fathers and councils come to recognize its authority and divine inspiration while in use among church gatherings. Scripture itself correlates to what is true from among its various separate authors. At a macro level, the entire body of Scripture is systematic and fixed as a single entity. It is not to be tampered with, appended, or redacted. From Deuteronomy to Malachi in the Old Testament, there is an expectation about a forthcoming prophet woven together in the text across various genres.
For example, the Pentateuch of Scripture is together sealed as a cohesive unit prior to covenants becoming the redemptive backstory of history. Long before the new covenant was developed and communicated in the New Testament, the formation of the Old Testament canon was recognized by the prophets and people throughout the centuries as having authority. It was self-declarative then as God’s word with support extending throughout the remaining Old Testament over time and all the way through the New Testament to communicate the new covenant and the work of Jesus, His apostles, and the early church. From beginning to end, the revelation of God was recorded throughout the New Testament, just as it was in the Old Testament.
God spoke through Scripture from Revelation all the way back to Genesis. As the prophetic activity began in Deuteronomy and extended throughout the Old Testament among major and minor prophets, the fulfillment of those prophesies come about with new prophetic meaning is formed through revelation as articulated in the book of the Apocalypse, or the book of Revelation. This range of revelation communicates God’s intent through His prophets and apostles to demonstrate the interwoven nature of Scriptural messaging. Where together they are spiritually and canonically synchronous and guided by providence to reach us today.
The interconnected nature of the Old and New Testaments are an eternal witness to the canonicity of Scripture. As God spoke through the apostles and prophets, they wrote and spoke what was revealed to them, the early church, and to us today. The cascading effect of reference among both Old and New Testament writers gives extraordinary weight to the authenticity of God’s word. There is the credibility of appointed and ordained people sequentially building upon one another to thread together coherent spiritual and supernatural meaning for generations. Without uncertainty, Scripture consists of these canonical writings to further reinforce its total authority as intended.4
The canon of Scripture is not a passive expression of interconnected texts. It is a binding testimony recognized by Church history concerning the revelation of God through the prophets and writings of the apostles. While the canonization process throughout history was messy, it has a formative background across large geographical distances, large spans of time, and human languages. As supported by its canonical status, the authority of Scripture transcends scrutiny to withstand social and cultural pressures across the same stretches of time, geography, and language. The Bible itself declares its canonicity, and as a living entity, without being sentient, it is self-aware.
Old Testament Canon
Three Old Testament categories are contained in the Bible that has a bearing on their formation and recognition within the Church. Within the Bible, the first books of the law include Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Known as the Torah or Pentateuch, these are the beginning books of the Bible. Following the books of the law, there are thirteen total historical books of the Bible, including Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra Nehemiah, and Esther. There are additional apocryphal non-canonical books of history, including 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Continuing through the Bible, after the books of the law and historical writings, there are five books of wisdom and poetry. Namely, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Finally, the books of the Bible are separated in notoriety and substantive impact as Major and Minor prophets are a total of seven and twelve, respectively. The seven books of the Minor Prophets are Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The five books of the Major Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, and Daniel. All of these books of the Bible listed here are their English language renderings by name or title.
The historical development of the Old Testament canon involved three operative principles as a matter of process. They are an inspiration, recognition, and preservation. Together these principles concern the three steps of placement and delivery of the total canon of Scripture. Among all 39 books of the Old Testament, they were first introduced by God so as to exclude other writings that were not inspired. These are the closed canon of the Old Testament as progressively revealed and inspired truth originating from God. The recognition of revealed and inspired truth that became transmitted and circulated were thereafter preserved as a collection of interconnected writings on ancient media originating from the oral tradition and copied from texts produced by Old Testament authors.
Historical Developments
There is separate historicity to each area of Scripture. Specifically, concerning the books of the law, the prophets, and other writings. While it is recognized that the Antilegomena5 pertains to disputed New Testament books, there were contested books of the Old Testament also. Historical attestation of the Hebrew canon extends back to numerous influential people involved in church leadership, translation, textual analysis, and ecumenical policy. Also known as the Masoretic canon, the Hebrew bible was largely compartmentalized as separate books that were recognized as having informational validity, but it was necessary to recognize those which were divinely inspired. Through a lineage of lists, authors, and historians, Jewish people of long ago held a tripartite view of canonical Scripture as a total homogenous effort.
There is separate historicity to each area of Scripture. Specifically concerning the books of the law, the prophets, and other writings. While it is recognized that the Antilegomena5 pertains to disputed New Testament books, there were contested books of the Old Testament also. Historical attestation of the Hebrew canon extends back to numerous influential people involved in church leadership, translation, textual analysis, and ecumenical policy. Also known as the Masoretic canon, the Hebrew bible was largely compartmentalized as separate books that were recognized as having informational validity, but it was necessary to recognize those which were divinely inspired. Through a lineage of lists, authors, and historians, Jewish people of long ago held a tripartite view of canonical Scripture as a total homogenous effort.
It was Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, who concluded that after the closure of Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, there were no other prophetic books from about 424 B.C. that communicated revelation from God to the Jewish people. Therefore, while there was yet chronological prophetic activity, there was no other way to substantiate or safely conclude other writings outside the Masoretic canon to confirm they were authentic or even divinely inspired. The books listed by Bishop Melito of Sardis in A.D. 170 account for the earliest listing of all Old Testament books except for a few that were later recognized, among others. Nearly one hundred years later, Origen recognized the same 22 canonical books as Josephus. Even Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome recognized the 22 canonical books.
In contrast, for hundreds of years after about 425 B.C., the Old Testament remained understood as divinely inspired and the revealed word of Truth. Aside from the remaining books to follow within the tripartite of the modern Old Testament, it was Athanasius who confirmed that the Old Testament count was 22. These were the same as those in the Masoretic Text and were in roughly the same order of the Protestant Bible at the time. Athanasius died in A.D. 365.
From among the remaining books of today’s Old Testament, there were historical books named and collated differently. For example, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were 3, and 4 Kings or Jeremiah is thought to have included Lamentation. Of the total 39 books currently in the Old Testament, they are found among the 22 recognized by how they were kept in ancient times.7 With other writings and texts combined and later separated, few other books were recognizing other books of Wisdom and the writings aside from the minor prophets. The sequence of historical recognition included the law, the major and minor prophets, and finally, the Writings (Hagiographa). Not in chronological order within the Masoretic Text, or Hebrew Bible, then and from what we have today, but by a sequence of assembly and later recognition. By the time the first century Christians arrived, Hebrew canon was set as canonical and authoritative, and no one dared, or have been so bold to take, add, or change anything to them.8
Genre & Formation
As elaborated earlier, each of the three areas of the Old Testament has its own formative background. The law, the prophets, and the writings have their origins from divine inspiration and share commonality among the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, and Syriac traditions. All categorical types of faith use the same Protestant Old Testament, but their order is somewhat different from the Hebrew Bible. The story about their collection and formation originates from the idea that the listed books of the Old Testament are a catalog of sacred texts. Such that the modes of communication were of a large literary range. From a study of hermeneutics, a student of Scripture immediately sees this wide range to express meaning in a way that goes beyond type designations as “the law,” the prophets,” and “the writings.” Genre pertains to a style of communication presented within Scripture to include explicit instruction, poetry, apocalyptical, wisdom, narration, and revelatory, among others.
These types within the Old Testament are partitioned by book but can also be found at a passage level as well. Interwoven among stories, proverbs, prophecies, hymns, songs, poems, genealogies, and historical references, are separate types that interface with one another as spoken or written by the patriarchal fathers and prophets from within the Biblical text. As one Biblical author writes within an area of Scripture and refers to these explicit types of genre. Even further, the substance of meaning of specific stories involving people, places, and events is often brought into view by the reader or listener of Scripture. From one passage, and one book to another, a continuous interface is progressively formed at an increasingly granular level. The propagation of historical and spiritual meaning as guided by God gives Old Testament writers a foundation and certainty by which truth unfolds for delivery to people of the relevant time period and even people today.
With continued conviction among historical figures in the Bible, readers of Scripture observe the divinely authoritative status of the written word as the Old Testament. From Josiah in 2 Kings 22 to the readings of Nehemiah, we see the preeminent attention placed upon God’s word as it was in use for the safety and well-being of the Lord’s people. In fact, during the time when early Old Testament texts were collected, the Jews recognized the importance of Scriptural adherence. As written in 2 Kings 17:13, the Lord warned His people through every prophet and every seer “Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments and My statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” Their acknowledgment, comprehension, and compliance were necessary and made certain through oral tradition and what was read and circulated from the prophets. To illustrate and reinforce the authoritative nature of what was communicated to hold an enormous weight of meaning.
Along with the inspired canon of Scripture, there were various extra-biblical, or non-canonical writings read alongside the full canon. They were among peoples who inhabited Israel, Greece, Italy, the Middle East, and Ancient Mesopotamia. In addition to the authors of Scripture, there were numerous historical, philosophical, and deuterocanonical authors of similar genre that gained the attention of many among the Jewish people and Gentile nations beyond. Ingrained into religious and pagan cultures from about 400 B.C. to the second and third centuries A.D., the pseudepigrapha writings occupied the thoughts and activity of those who were also subject to the full counsel of God’s word. The works of the Apocrypha,9 were also well-known and popular then as they are today. Recognized and accepted as ancient books of cultural and religious value, they were a substantial source of historical reference to deeper understand Biblical backgrounds.
While some within the Roman Catholic and Ethiopic Church systems accept the noncanonical apocryphal books alongside the canon, Protestant Christendom does not view them as carrying nearly the same weight. At least in terms of authority or inspiration as given to us by the Lord Most High in His revealed words through Scripture. To further elaborate on what the books of the Apocrypha were and where they were included, there is a virtual matrix to understand their noncanonical and widespread use. Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, to include the Peshitta, Vulgate, Roman Catholic Canon, Greek Orthodox Canon, and the Authorized King James Version (1611) all have a mix of different apocryphal books. However, generally, the inclusion of Apocryphal books is numerous across all texts.10 There are approximately 20 books of the Apocrypha including Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter to Jeremiah, additions to Daniel, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Odes.
Criticisms, Responses, & Implications
Liberal scholars of theology and the doctrine of Scripture advocate positions of authorial dating, origination, and content contrary to Scripture itself. In an effort to deconstruct the Biblical accounts of direct and indirect communication from Yahweh to His chosen people, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, and others, new dates of authorship are set, with authors other than what was written about in Scripture. For example, it is recorded in Joshua 1:8 that “this book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it in order to do all that is written in it.” If in context Joshua really could not have instructed the people of Israel to understand and know the Torah, or the first 5-books of the Bible, the books of the law because the text did not exist at the time, then deconstructionists are propagating error at best or a harmful lie. The contentious perspectives from those working against God’s word span across all three major divisions of the Old Testament.11 It appears in every area of Scripture, it is dissected and with attempts to thereafter “prove” forgery, or unsubstantiated social contributions to the origination, recognition, and assembly of Scripture. Where the attack is not on the message of Scripture itself per se, but its inspiration and ultimate source.
The specific criticisms of the books of the Law of Moses, the books of the Prophets, and the Kethûbîm (Writings), concern anti-supernatural presuppositions that attempt to cast doubt on the authority and inspiration of Scripture to affect its validity among adherents negatively. Especially as an effort to damage its power to reveal the truth of God’s redemptive history and plan. By divine authority, the canon of Scripture is self-attested to demonstrate the valid substance of the Biblical authors at the time they wrote. The recognition and acceptance of intended readers were immediate down through the centuries, and contradictions otherwise are deceptive and likely nefarious to some extent. Speculative theories founded upon critical thought reveal a disconnect between dated times of authorship as compared to when actual events occurred or when the activity took place to give Scripture its content and meaning.
Canonical criticism concerning Old Testament canonicity was pioneered by Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders.12 The term canonical criticism was coined by Sanders as it introduced challenges to traditional studies in Biblical Theology and as new perspectives on interpretive developments were occurring in the 1970s. There was disagreement between Childs and Sanders concerning critical methods of Biblical analysis because Sanders held the view that biblical authority is outside the province of historical study. Furthermore, canonical criticism, from Childs’ view, is that the community and final form of the Bible largely shape the canon and the authority of Scripture. A corresponding response from Sanders articulated a dispute to detail a valid method of interpretation itself from a historical and theological framework. A framework involving a process of prophetic hermeneutic of the writers of Scripture.13
Objections to Childs’ view of the community shaped canon began to form in defense of proper recognition of Biblical authority and historical accuracy. Christopher R. Seitz, in his work, “The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible, argues for an approach to canonical interpretation that takes into serious account the facts of history and its stages of development. In the context of original inspiration, an unbalanced and low view of Scripture must not rest too much on one testament at the expense of another.14 Others have argued for a canonical approach to interpretation where theological tension is somewhat relieved in favor of clarity and application through hermeneutics. For example, any perceived tension between Paul and James in the biblical record is eased as suggested. Such that the epistle of James is written in support of the canonical timeline of the gospels to balance what some may view as opposition to later Pauline epistles (see Robert W. Wall on James 4:13-5:6).
The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics about the canon appears around the doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation. Where during the Reformation, the doctrine of “Solus Christus,” which means “in Jesus Christ and in Him alone the Divine has become man, in him alone the revelation of God appears to us, in him alone God speaks to us,” 15 we see a position of unmediated interpretation through the fallibility of people who were involved in the gathering and recognition of the canon. As everyone stands in a direct personal relationship with Christ, the doctrine of sola Scriptura then comes into view with its expression, “for through the word of Scripture alone can man meet Jesus Christ directly.” From the Roman Catholic perspective articulated by Nicolas Appel, the intermingling of the human condition bears a problem and somewhat accounts for the struggle in canonical acceptance and recognition. This somewhat explains why some books of the Apocrypha appear within the Catholic Bible. Specifically about how the interjection of the human condition affects the testimony of the Holy Spirit about the Word of God. Some would argue that this position remains unresolved.
Differences between a theological and historical process in canonical recognition stem from the doctrine of incarnation specifically through Christ (Solus Christus; Protestant) as compared to Christ and the Church (Christus Totus; Catholic) as Christ inhabits His body by the Holy Spirit within the Church. Christus Totus in Latin means “The Whole of Christ.” The incarnation of Christ in bodily form through Himself as Jesus the Messiah and the incarnation of the Holy Spirit through His body, the Church. It is concluded that since the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth concerning canonical Scripture, its pertinent recognition and acceptance come from the Catholic Church. Not exclusively through canonical consciousness by the Holy Spirit’s work in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). This view about the incarnation of Christ throughout Protestant and Catholic Christendom, therefore, has significant implications for the recognition, acceptance, and authority of Scripture which would affect worship and practice.
New Testament Canon
The canon of the New Testament parallels that of the Old Testament. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., the New Testament was closed, and the consciousness of the canon was made clear through exegetical interpretation and sound hermeneutical practices. The work of the Holy Spirit began in the Scriptures to communicate the inspired word of the Lord. As the Old Testament was already canonized and in use among first-century Jewish peoples, it continued to gain acceptance and wider use among the Gentiles throughout the Greco-Roman world. As the writings, teachings, and oral traditions of the Apostles were making their way through the early church; there is little doubt that fledgling believers and followers of Christ were presented with the Old Testament subject matter as well. Details about the old and new covenants that concern the revelation and witness of the Gospel completed the full counsel of God’s word.
Historical Developments
The underlying strength and authority of Scripture are supported by its canonicity. From the interconnected relationships within itself and throughout the Old and New Testaments, Scripture affirms its meaning across books or writings by genre. Historically, the Lord chose to use numerous authors over time to communicate revealed meaning about Himself, His plan, and what He has done through Creation. His activity to originate, configure, and maintain Creation in perfect order is accomplished through His word. Just as His word brings together all of Creation to accomplish His purposes, by God’s sovereign and perfect will, He is able to originate and inspire His written word where it is brought into existence and formed to accomplish His objectives. To demonstrate how our Lord accomplishes this, He uses means among fallible and sinful yet redeemed people through the work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:12, Luke 24:49).
Notice in Paul’s letter to Timothy that he refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). Incredibly, the work of Luke that records the words of Jesus, “The laborer deserves his wages,” is referred to by Paul as Scripture. Outside the Old Testament, the biblical text itself within the New Testament begins to form a historical perspective. Modeled for immediate church fathers to follow with the help of the Spirit of grace, no doubt (Zechariah 12:10). So down through time, over the course of history, we see the beginning of Scriptural meaning communicated in an interconnected way to stitch together both ancient codices and modern texts that serve as Holy documents that bring hope, wisdom, virtue, but most of all the revelatory intent of Yahweh.
We further see Paul’s letters referenced as “Scripture” by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:16). Paul was endowed “according to the wisdom given him” to demonstrate that just as our God spoke through the prophets, He did so through Paul, and here we have the apostle Peter in acknowledgment of that in truth and love. So first, we have Paul to Jesus, the second person of the Lord God incarnate referenced in Scripture as recorded in the book of Luke. Now we have Peter referring to Paul. As the communicative changes continue, we have Polycarp (125 A.D.), a disciple of John,16 as corroborated by Irenaeus and Tertullian, quoting Ephesians, 2 Timothy, and 1 John as Scriptures destined to the New Testament canon.17 Further along in time, Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) refers to the gospels as “Memoirs of the Apostles” in his First Apology discourse.18 Irenaeus (180 A.D.) refers to the fourfold form of the written gospels to indicate that there was a quantity of four written accounts of Jesus’ ancient biography and record as Scripture.19
Given there was a cascading sequence of Scriptural use occurrences in public life, and in personal study among the early church fathers, there were lists that began to form in forthcoming centuries that gave birth to the canon that the Church has today. From papyri to manuscripts, scrolls, and codices, the inspired content of the canon selected itself by various intertestamental references, and what belongs in the New Testament books were not originated from a human source. As various Gnostic and Montanist writings were rejected as formative lists were assembled, a clearer view of what the full counsel of God should look like in the form of the Holy Bible in the world today. To further elaborate on the genres and formation of the canon, various additional historical perspectives appear in antiquity. This was to demonstrate that there was a selection process concerning books of the whole Bible involving recognition, council review, affirmation, and acceptance. Not selection per se according to some vetting criteria, but by simple recognition of how Scripture held inherent value due to its subject matter as written by the inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit at work in the church at the time.
Genre & Formation
Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, were largely responsible for establishing a canonical view of Scripture within the early church. As recounted by Eusebius of Caesarea (260 – 340 A.D.), there was again a tripartite grouping of Scripture as outlined and written about. All three categories constituted a body of writings that were produced after the revelation of Christ through His apostles by their witness, testimonies, oral traditions, and written work. Within these categories were the two separate second and third-hand series of recorded events within the first and second centuries. Standing among them in the first category were the homologoumena, later recognized as the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. The second category was that of the Antilegomena, recognized as the questionable books of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Finally, the books that were not authentic, or accepted were The Acts of Paul, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Teachings of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) of John. One would notice that the book of Revelation was both in the homologoumena camp and the Antilegomena camp at the same time. Eusebius was, at times, uncertain about the canonical status of the book of Revelation, but he eventually recognized its acceptance and valid use within the Church as inspired Scripture.
The genres of the New Testament are varied as they are for the Old Testament. While there are no books of the law, wisdom, or poetry, produced within the New Testament, it consists of the Gospels of Christ, historical narratives, letters from apostolic fathers, and prophetic writings. As the term gospel translates from the Greek term euangelion,20its definition corresponds to “good news.” Prior to the use of the term in the New Testament, it was a word applied in another era concerning a victory of military conquest or political achievement. The gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are narrative stories loaded with deep theological meaning and significance. They are ancient biographical stories of good news for people during the time of apostolic ministry. “To the ends of the Earth,” they are good news to everyone today.
The book of Acts is a narrative story, like the gospels. It is a story of theological history with deep and meaningful significance. It traces the events and activities of the apostles throughout geographical regions in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Canonically, the book of Luke interfaces with the book of Acts as described within their content between Luke 24:49 and Acts 1 – 2. Specifically, instructions to remain in the city for power to follow from the Lord as written in Luke and then the follow-up fulfillment of the promise. To include Christ’s ascension and the arrival of the Holy Spirit at the occurrence of Pentecost. The church’s growth, its persecution, Paul’s missionary journeys, and his encounters with culture, including political and legal systems, provide a clear and natural transition from the gospels. Peter shared the gospel and built the church within Jerusalem, while Paul also obeyed Christ’s commission to bring the same good news to Gentiles outside of Israel.
The New Testament canon includes the apostle’s letters produced from the early church. These were all of a correspondence genre that was read and circulated throughout the church at the time. Even today, this subject matter’s spiritual and theological development was regarded as Scripture as it is today (2 Pet 3:16, 2 Tim 3:16). Between Acts and the apostolic letters written to the churches in Asia Minor and to the Hebrews and Romans, there were disputes about their validity through the centuries and still remain today with objections surrounding authenticity, dating, and historical validity.
As its own New Testament genre, the book of Revelation consists of three different literary types combined into one. It is a letter from John to seven churches in Asia Minor concerning prophecy and apocalyptic events to come. The three literary types of correspondence, prophecy, and apocalypse concern the revelation of Jesus involving judgment and events to come during the last days prior to His return.
Recognition of what books belonged in the New Testament canon was not obvious to the early church. There were numerous early lists that cataloged the written work of the apostles and authors to gather a full view of the inspired word of God as authoritative Scripture. Traditional dating from about 160 – 200 A.D., the earliest list was the Muratorian Fragment or the Muratorian Canon.21 While written in Latin, it was probably translated from an original Greek copy, and it still resides today in Milan, Italy. It consists of all the books of our New Testament today except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. This canon identified forgeries excluded from Scripture, and it accepted the Apocalypse of Peter for private reading.22
All the way from the first and second centuries, there were additional listings that formed up to the fourth and fifth centuries. Namely, formations from Origen of Alexandria (215 – 250 A.D.), Eusebius of Caesarea (311 A.D.), Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.), Cheltenham canon (359 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (367 A.D.), Amphilochius of Iconium (375 – 394 A.D.), and the Third Synod of Carthage (393 A.D.). The pattern of recognition among all of these formative canons was by iteration and successive approximation among different individuals to get to a final and closed New Testament canon. With all of these lists, the final recognized canon at the Third Synod of Carthage was that of Athanasius. The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were then formed, recognized, and accepted. From the Synod of Carthage, the canon of Athanasius was locked in place.
As these lists were produced separately and independently, a number of observations and suggestions are offered about what revealed the canon’s selected books of Scripture.23 Specifically, among the canonical lists and later all books in the New Testament, a pattern or criteria emerges to discount any idea that selection was arbitrary, incoherent, or without a sensible human rationale. Together the criteria or selectivity pattern included apostolicity, orthodoxy, relevance, widespread, and longstanding use.
Criticisms, Responses, & Implications
Defending the canon from critics entailed quite a bit of effort against liberal scholars’ objections to the process of recognition and affirmation from councils long ago on ideological grounds. Namely, Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code is founded upon philosophies originating back to the emerging Gnostic era during the time of early church fathers. Bart D. Ehrman’s written work of “Jesus Interrupted” claims that the canon was the arbitrary selection of people among councils that did not put written works of the apostolic era up to vote.24 Where others were left out of the selection or recognition process of the canon. Others who produced lists of writings from among early Christians and church leaders were left out as they objected to the transpired formation of the canon to recognize and affirm God’s revealed word. Additional modern critics that object to the formation of the canon, inerrancy, authority, or tradition of Scripture include John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.
Each critic that presents objections to the validity of Scripture or the value and necessity of redemption, worship, service, and a life of faith generally comes from a storied period of time in academic work who have had life experiences or hardships in their faith that caused a departure of orthodox critical thought. Their work in finding other books outside the canon, or to champion socially liberal worldviews more palatable to the culture of scholars inevitably makes detailed, thorough, and self-justifiable efforts to work against Scripture and not with it to validate its meaning and truth. To apply a standard of humanistic rationale from presuppositions somewhat rooted in naturalism or unreconciled contradictions without explanation, assertions are concluded about errors in Scripture that remain unaccounted for to their satisfaction. Whether or not there are satisfactory explanations, or that there are no explanations whatsoever, in the view of the critical liberal scholar, there must be valid explanations answerable to human thought and reason as necessary to justify confidence or belief in Christ with or without the help of the Holy Spirit through the inspired Word of God as provided within the canon. There can be no justifiable or viable rationale about variances or errors among manuscripts found within the formation of the canon. Aside from the self-affirming nature of the canonical books of the Bible, there is an inferred insistence that all facts and details about revelatory writings line up according to the standards of scholars or liberal academic leaders that must abide by the requirements and social, behavioral, philosophical, and economical preferences of social pressures and personal inclinations even if they run contrary to the truth of Scripture.
Naturally, as false teachers, liberal academics, secular scholars, or apostates who learn about Scripture have an influence among the formative minds of people who seek the truth of God’s revealed word, critical observations, hasty conclusions, and obfuscation can have a deep and lasting negative effect on morality and the salvific status of individuals. Reminiscent of Bildad, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Elihu in the book of Job, even objective efforts among critics to understand and recognize the truth of Scripture can surface erroneous or deceptive conclusions. Propagated by lectures, written work, and social interaction that have implications of serious personal and social consequences. Unfavorable outcomes that break down social, government, family, and spiritual order inevitably bring about the demise of people at an unimaginable scale. Not due to an inability to recognize and understand Truth, but to accept and abide by it without causing harm to others. The absence of a commitment to Truth according to Scripture as revealed through the Holy Spirit by the work of the apostles and prophets lead to enslavement and misery in one form or another.
Conclusion
Throughout this project, a substantial effort was made to research and communicate background, formation, development, and criticism details concerning the canon of God’s Word as revealed to the world throughout Scripture. Involving a wide-spread set of resources to get a topical yet comprehensive view of what occurred over the centuries to bring us the teachings and theological principles of the prophets, apostles, and God Most-High through our Lord Jesus. The Old and New Testaments together represent the full counsel of God’s Word. Just as the words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and genres convey substantial and everlasting meaning, the stitching together of books by various authors adds a progressive and revelatory way of recognizing what is necessary for the explicit will of God in Creation to include His redemptive work for humanity.
The fundamentals of the canon are necessary to understand across all eras throughout the Middle East, from the far reaches of Mesopotamia through Asia Minor and into modern Europe. With the earliest writings conveyed through the Pentateuch or the Mosaic Law, we see the beginning of what it is to recognize God’s written word from His hand (Exodus 31:18). His message beginning with the people of Israel initiated a process of revelatory instruction that extends through a series of covenants across a timeline that reaches us today. From promises made to promises kept, we see the writings of numerous people of the Lord bring to humanity the stories, psalms, and songs of meaning from the mind of God. Book by book, authenticated by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we have confidence that people can find Him by their time and effort spent engaged in His word.
The composite nature of Scripture is developed such that its modularity is coherent with overlapping, interlinking, and interwoven messages by narration and various types of suitable expression. It is a self-authenticating work of the Spirit of God, through His people to originate its substance as a recording of texts and their assembly. Beneath what was written about in historical activity and events of the Bible that testify to what occurred as prophesied and fulfilled. All the way from the garden to the ascension, we have an end-to-end view of what Truth is providentially given to us through the canon of God’s Word.
Citations
1. Guinness World Records. Guinness World Records. 2020. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction (accessed March 10, 2020).
2. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 54.
3. Norman Geisler, William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1986), 221.
Van Pelt, Blomberg & Schreiner, Lecture 7: Seams in the Canonical and
4. Covenantal Structure, (2020) accessed March 11, 2020, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/seams-canonical-covenantal-structure/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner.
5. Dictionary.com, Antilegomena, 2020, accessed March 12th, 2020, www.dictionary.com/browse/antilegomena.
6. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 64.
7. Sumner, Tracy Macron. How Did We Get the Bible (Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing, 2009), 65.
8. Josephus, The Works of Josephus – Against Apion 1.8 (Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 776.
9. Easton, M.G. Easton’s Bible Dictionary, 1893, (Logos Systems, Inc.).
10. Estes, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Apocrypha (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham, 2016).
11. Meeks, “Overview of the Canon,” Lexham Bible Dictionary / Encyclopedia, Canonical Criticism.
12. Ibid., Central Concepts and Practitioners.
13. Ibid., Critics and Criticisms.
14. Carson, Woodbridge, “Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon,” Four Approaches to Canon History.
15. Ibid. Carson, Woodbridge.
16. Pierce, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Polycarp, Life. (Logos Systems, Lexham Press, Bellingham), 2016.
17. Ibid. Pierce. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians.
18. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), Volume 2, 222-223.
19. Wood, Marshal, The New Bible Dictionary, 430.
20. Duvall, Hays, Grasping God’s Word, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2012), 270.
21. Strong, Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1970), 146.
22. Powell, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper, 2011).
23. Licona, How the Canon of the Bible Was Formed – (YouTube, March 31, 2016), accessed March 08, 2020, https://youtu.be/s0BCm2cRx9w?t=317.
24. Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, (New York, HarperOne), 190.
Comments are closed.