The Canon Of The Bible

We want to touch upon the canon of the New Testament briefly. The word canon hails down from the Hebrew original qaneh, meaning (measuring) reed (cf. Ezech. 40. 3). This word entered the Greek language (e.g. Gal. 6. 16) and via the Latin it was received by the modern languages. Canon m50ii price in pakistan

​

The early church fathers used the word in the same sense as in the N.T. 'rule.' Origenes (184-254 A.D.) called the Scriptures the canon and meant 'the rule for our faith and lives.' In the time of Athanasius (296-373) the word denoted 'the list of books with divine authority.' In this way the word is used till today.

Scholars distinguish between active and passive canonicity. According to the former a (bible) book is canonical, because it addresses us with authority in ethical matters. In the latter sense a book is regarded as canonical, because it fulfills the standards according to which a book is accepted as having been inspired by God.

In the past never did a church leader, council or anybody of note impart authority to any book of the bible. Instead what they did, was to accept the authority with which the various bible books address us! If a book expressed divine authority, then it was regarded as canonical. The bible books have never been declared canonical merely because people decided to do so. To think that, is to confuse the active and passive meanings of canonicity. What God, in His providence, has left up to us, was whether we would recognize a book as divine. For instance the book of the Upright (Josh. 10. 13) and the book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21. 14) have never been admitted into the canon. Also many of Solomon's proverbs and all of his songs (except the Song of Songs) have never been recognized by leaders as Ezra and Nehemiah.

The books and epistles of the N.T. have been written by men with a special calling and wisdom, particularly the apostles; among whom principally Paul. They were all called by Christ Himself. Also James, Christ's brother, according to Galatians 1. 19 was reckoned among the apostles. So also Jude, James' brother (cf. Acts 15. 27). Somebody, then could be called to be an apostle without being of the twelve (cf. Rev. 2. 2). The condition was that during or after the (earthly) life of Christ one was called by Him and that the signs of an apostle testified to you (2 Cor. 12. 12). The role the O.T. prophets fulfilled, was taken over, so to speak, by the apostles of the N.T. The evangelists Marc and Luke can be reckoned among the N.T. prophets (cf. Eph. 2. 20; 3. 5).

That early Christians entertained doubts about some epistles or books, is not proof of their ignorance; but actually demonstrates their caution and care. A book was rejected if they were not convinced that it had been inspired by God Himself. This ability to discern was given by the Holy Spirit, Who Himself had inspired the writings (not as a dictation however). Non-canonical books and letters at best were considered pious literature that could be read besides the bible. Christ Himself tested the Pharisees when He asked them whether the authority of John the Baptist came from God or from people. But the Pharisees did not recognize or acknowledge this authority. This is the test for everybody-the recognition and acknowledgment of Gods authority. If one does not or simply refuses to do that, then no miracle or argument will help.

Yet other criteria were wielded to decide on the canonicity of a book, besides that it had to be considered prophetic and divine. A book or epistle had to have spiritual power (cf. Hebr. 4. 12; 2 Tim. 3. 15-17; 1 Pet. 1. 23 and 2. 2). A fourth criterion was whether the book or epistle was congruent with the preceding writings as to factuality and doctrine. Since God=s word cannot be self-contradictory, a book was immediately rejected if it were inconsequent. Therefore the Bereans (Acts 17. 11) checked Paul's assertions with the Scriptures and writings as known to them. The fifth criterion was whether a book or epistle was accepted originally, If a book had been rejected by the original addressees, then it was considered non-canonical. Because slow transportation hindered the communication between long distances, it took a long time before there had been agreed on a commonly accepted canon.

To further the unity between Christians it was necessary to arrive at a commonly acknowledged canon. Moreover the gnostics rejected various important books and epistles and in the first half of the second century the notorious gnostic Marcion based his false doctrines on his own canon. The church fathers then faced the task not to establish an alternative canon, but to decide what had been the right canon from the beginning. Every Christian was to know on which books and epistles he or she had to base his or her articles of faith, so that as far as doctrinal questions were concerned the right sources were known. There existed also an ecclesiastical reason. In many communities also non-canonical books were read as they also were considered to be constructive. Also translators had to know which writings were authentic. During the persecution under emperor Diocletian there was a secular reason to establish the right canon. People tried to fool the authorities by handing in non-canonical books. For the government had decided that all Christian, that is of the New Testament, writings, had to be burned.

Although it took quite a long time before the final determination of the canon of the New Testament was finalized-because Christians in those times lived wide apart, which made communication difficult; we can safely assume that from the very beginning there was not much difference of opinion about which epistles and books were to be considered as authentic. This is apparent from the manuscripts and also from the history of the Church.

The earliest fathers of the Church, whose writings have been handed down faithfully-such as Ignatius, Clemens, Justinus Martyr and Irenaeus (end of second century; bishop at Lyon)-give us a rather good insight about the fact that the NT canon was widely accepted even before the Church institutionalized it. Also they made a clear distinction between themselves and the writers of the Bible. They afforded themselves far less authority. About the epistle of James and the epistle to the Hebrews, however, some did disagree. Tertullian (about 200 A.D.) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, 13 letters by the apostle Paul, first Peter, first John, Jude and Revelations. From the very beginning it must have been sort of an absolute given that there were only four Gospels.

The discovery of the Canon Muratori (called after the discoverer in 1740) is striking. This canon was probably drawn up in reaction to heretics such as Marcion. The already mentioned books are found in here, as well as yet another letter by John. The 'Revelation of Peter' is called into question here and the 'Pastor of Hermas' is rejected as non-canonical. Very striking is the absence of the epistle to the Hebrews and first Peter. Scholars have suggested that the manuscript with this canon, was incomplete.

The earliest translations of the N.T. show how primitive the communication was between the Greek East and the Latin West. In the old-Syriac translation 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation are missing; but in the old-Latin one Hebrews, James and 1 Peter are missing. The books that were widely known in the East were missing in the Greek part of the empire and vice versa. Yet these two oldest translations together contain the entire new testament canon, with the exception of 2 Peter.

Origen, who lived in the first half of the third century b. C. on the common edge of the East and the West, in Egypt, gives the canon as we have it today. He states that all these books were commonly recognized by Christians and that only the authenticity of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation was argued about. However he himself believed that Hebrews had been written by the apostle Paul. In the first half of the fourth century Eusebius gives the same canon and mentions the same books that were doubted (except for Hebrews).

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, gives us the oldest knows list of 27 new testament books and letters. He did so in his paschal letter in the year. Some decennia later Jerome and Augustine mention the same canon.

The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) confirm this canon. We repeat that these councils did not determine which books did belong in the canon, but they ratified only the fact that these books and epistles always already had been considered authentic.

Based on the Greek language theologians have coined a few learned words to picture the early battle for the canon. The homologoumena [from 'equal', 'congruous' and 'word', 'reason(ing)' (I agree, I concur); so 'the things (books and epistles) agreed upon (by everybody)' (participle passive voice)] were the writings about which from the earliest beginning there was no disagreement; with the exception of course of the heretics that each decided on their own canon. The pseudepigrapha [from 'lie' and 'writings', 'inscriptions'] were the books and epistles that were not taken seriously from the beginning. The antilegomena were writings about which existed doubt.

For some Christians harbored doubts about the epistle to the Hebrews, because it was an anonymous letter and because heretics based some of their indoctrinations on it. Eventually the consensus obtained that the apostle Paul must have written it and heretics abused just about anything to substantiate their ideas.

In the Latin West the epistle of James was doubted, because one was n ot certain whether its writer had been the famous apostle in Jerusalem. And Christians had great doubts about the idea that faith must produce works. Even Luther experienced difficulty to understand this. Some thought that this letter was contrary to the teachings of Paul and that it taught justification by works. But the disagreements and doubts subsided when they understood that James meant that without works faith is not sincere; just as a body is dead without a soul in it. The two belong together. Paul taught that Abraham was justified by faith and James explained that his acts were a result of that faith.

About 2 Peter Christians have discussed till recently. This was because its style differs from the 1st epistle. Many scholars thought that it was a false writing from the second century. However Clement of Rome already quoted it in the first century. Moreover we know that Coptic Christians valued this epistle greatly.

2 And 3 John were not considered very important; hence the limited circulation. But nobody would have dared address the addressees as 'elder' than only John himself.

Of Jude people later understood that he did not believe in the pseudepigrapha, but in certain in- formation contained in them, just as Paul referred to the magicians Jannes and Jambres. How this is possible, remains a subject of the faith and about which one can guess whether this is based on Jewish tradition ratified by the Holy Spirit or directly revealed by Him.

Also the book of Revelation caused much altercation. Also because heretics used it for their indoctrinations. After these were countered that book was generally accepted.

A great number of New Testament pseudepigrapha is extent, about 300. According to a certain Photius in the 9th century, already then there were about 280. Tens of so-called gospels (according to one of them Jesus as a child made birds of clay and then they flew away. This cannot be true, for in John 2.11 the changing of water into wine was the 'beginning of signs'); writings claiming to be acts of the Apostles; others claiming to be letters of Christ, Paul and revelations.

As far as New Testament apocrypha are concerned we can say that nobody recognizes them, neither the Roman Catholic Church. This was a problem of the past when this or that church father recognized this or that writing. However this gives us inside knowledge in the various aspects of Christian teaching, the development of its theology and it shows us how the canon developed.

The apocryphal works (not the often unhealthy and speculating pseudepigrapha) can be divided into the writings of the first church fathers (1st and 2nd century) and the other works. To the first belong the letters of Ignatius, of Clemens, the 'didachè' [teaching] and the 'pastor' of Hermas. To the second group belong the so-called acts and revelations.

These things show that the canonical writings have a unique character. Even the most noble and religious books and letters do not have the character of the canonical ones. The character of the canonical writings was and remains so striking that only a few of them have caused controversy. This can be seen as evidence for divine inspiration. About this we talk the next time.

The Bible says about itself that it has been inspired by God. Key texts in the N.T. are: 2 Tim.3.16; 1 Pet. 1.10,11; 2 Pet. 1.21 and 2 Pet. 1.20. In the O.T. characteristic words are: 'God spoke', 'God said', 'The word of the Lord came'. Does that mean that the Bible has been dictated. Quite often yes, but the Bible also has an important human side. It should be clear that even in translations the specific language of an individual writer is simpler than that of another. God then certainly used the individuality of the authors. There is then both a divine and a human side to the Bible. That is wonderful. The Person of Christ, called the Word, also has these two natures, even though He is one Person.

It is not then just a question of poetic inspiration, but according to the first key text the entire Scripture was infused by God. The Greek here employs the word theopneustos-breathed by God. That is the divine side. The human side is that the writer allowed himself to be inspired, using his own talents and character.

According to the second key text inspiration came about 1. Through the Holy Spirit; 2. Christ is the focal point of prophecy; 3. the writers did not understand fully what they wrote about. As far as point 1 is concerned the Bible states elsewhere (1 Cor. 2.10-16) that the Holy Spirit searches all things, even the greatest mysteries of God. The Holy Spirit therefore is the One Who inspires them and the attentive reader of the Bible would do well to read in a prayerful fashion and to ask the Lord to have the Holy Spirit guide and explain it.

According to the third key text inspiration is caused by the will of God and not of man. The writers of the Bible were driven by God. Again, God also used their individuality; so one can view the whole as an orchestra and the individual writers as the instruments.

And finally, according to the fourth key text, no prophecy has its own explanation. That means that one always must compare scripture with scripture, that one must read within the context and not ascribe an idea or theory to a single verse. A golden rule is that 'you read what it says, 'believe what it says' and then 'you have what it says.'