Introduction
What is a canon?
A canon is a standard, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
How is the term used in theology?
It is used to refer to those documents which are considered to be inspired by God.
What is the canon of Scripture?
You can see the list of books here.
How did the church decide which books to include in the canon and which to leave out?
The canon of the Old Testament was simply received from the Jews. The canon of the New Testament was decided on after a long process. Farrar writes (p35):
If it be asked, then, on what authority we accept as canonical the sixty-six books of our Scriptures, many will reply, ‘on the authority of the Church.’ But this answer simply means, by the general consensus of Christians; for it can hardly be said that the whole Church, as such, has pronounced any opinion on the Canon. As regards the Old Testament, the Christian Church accepted the conclusions of the Jewish Synod of Jamnia and that synod simply reflected the critical and spiritual ability of Rabbis who were far from being unanimous, were bound in an impossible system, and were by no means free from error. The churchmen assembled at Laodicea and Carthage exercised no independent judgment on their books, nor was their critical knowledge other than elementary. No ecumenical council has formally considered the question of the Canon, but only two provincial synods. Even had they been ecumenical we know from history, and are expressly warned by our own Church, that general councils, ‘forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.’ St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the most learned, profound, and eloquent of the Fathers, who himself presided at the second ecumenical council, was so far from regarding councils as infallible that he had the lowest opinion of their deliberations and said that he had never seen a good result from any synod. Luther said, ‘The Church cannot give any more authority or power than it has of itself. A council cannot make that to be of Scripture which is not by nature of Scripture.’ It follows then that the decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true Scripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no infallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well as the spiritual requirements of each age. When the Council of Trent, a small assembly in which there were very few men of high linguistic or critical attainments, declared on the authority of Pope Eugenius IV that six books of the Apocrypha were to be ‘received and venerated’ with the same feeling of devotion and reverence as all the books of the Old and New Testaments, the Reformed Churches rightly ignored their authority and laid it down as a principle that ‘any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do not feel the evidence of their contents.’ The anathemas of the Council of Trent are as complete a matter of indifference to the free conscience as those of the Synod of Jamnia.
What happened at the council of Jamnia?
First, it is not certain that there ever was an actual council at Jamnia. Harrison writes:
It has also been suggested that pronouncements that defined the limits of the Old Testament canon were made by a formal council of Jewish authorities held towards the end of the first century after Christ at Jamnia or Jabneh. Desirable though such an event might have been, it is far from certain that there ever was a Council or Synod of Jamnia in the strictest sense. To speak of such a body as though it was responsible for closing the Old Testament canon by fixing its limits as they had been arrived at by 90ad is to beg the entire question, as Moore has pointed out. As far as the facts of the situation are concerned, very little is known about the supposed Synod of Jamnia. After Jerusalem was destroyed by the forces of Titus in 70ad, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai obtained permission from the Romans to settle in Jamnia, where he proposed to carry on his literary activities. The location soon became an established center of Scriptural study, and from time to time certain discussions took place relating to the canonicity of specific Old Testament books including Ezekiel, Esther, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. There can be little doubt that such conversations took place both before and after this period, and it seems probable that nothing of a formal or binding nature was decided in these discussions, even though, as Rowley had indicated, the various debates helped to crystallize and establish the Jewish tradition in this regard more firmly than had been the case previously. Introduction to the OT, 277–278. cf Ryle (p183), chapter 22 in Rowley, Davidson (p56) and here.
Smith writes (p8):
…this Synod [of Jamnia] appears to have provided merely a few puerile reasons for confirming the canonicity of certain Books which had already for nearly two centuries enjoyed the reverence of the people. In contrast to this tardy and partial influence of a Council, it is very probable that what secured to the Prophets and the Hagiographa their canonical rank was their inherent worth and vitality as tested by popular use.
Cosin wrote in 1683 (p4):
And to know exactly what the true number and names of those books are which belong to them both [i.e. both testaments] there is no faster course to be taken then herein to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the same Church which from hand to hand receiving those books into the Divine and authentic canon of Scripture hath brought them down from the times of Moses and the prophets to the time of Christ and His Apostles and so from their time to ours successively in all Ages.
Farrar mentions two provincial synods. What were these?
These are likely the synod of Hippo (393) and the synod of Carthage (397); see Schaff p519.
Why are these synods important for our discussion of the canon?
Because the books they listed as canonical included several books which were not included in the Jewish canon. The books Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and the additions to Esther and Daniel are not found in the Jewish canon.
Why did they include these books?
It was the influence of Augustine which led them to do so. Augustine’s comments on the canon are difficult to understand; see here. Whitaker asserts (p44) that Augustine used the word “canonical” in a different sense from the other church fathers. Westcott says (p362) that Augustine was poorly equipped to do historical criticism of this kind.
Explain the process of how the early church came to regard the Bible we know today as the canon of divinely inspired writings?
First, Jesus came to earth as the revelation from God. (John 1:1) He taught the people everything that His Father had given Him to teach. When Jesus came to the end of His ministry, He handed off His mission to His disciples. The disciples carried on where Jesus left off and continued to teach and preach about the kingdom of God. Because the teaching of Jesus was handed off from one person to another, it came to be called “tradition.” Paul warns the Thessaonian believers to keep away from anyone who leads an unruly life and does not live according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6) Tschackert writes;
Primitive Christians received the apostolic message by word of mouth as well as by pen and passed it on orally from generation to generation by public preaching and catechetical instruction. Naturally, therefore, they considered and called the entire and complete message “tradition” (traditio from tradere, “to hand on”) regardless of the form in which it was delivered or preserved.
What happened next?
As time went on and the apostles died off, there was a growing need to preserve the teaching of Jesus pure. Many people would set forth doctrines in these days claiming that their teaching was a tradition handed down from Jesus or the apostles. The early church struggled hard against these false teachers. The crying need was for some way to authenticate what was really and truly apostolic and what wasn’t.
How did these first Christians resolve this issue?
The church developed a three pronged point of reference for knowing what was truly apostolic:
- apostolic creed,
- apostolic Scripture, and
- apostolic succession. (p111)
What was the apostle’s creed?
The churches of this time developed many written statements of faith very similar to the doctrinal statements or statements of faith seen in contemporary churches. They used these creeds as brief and easy summaries of apostolic teaching. This was especially useful for adults who had come to faith and wanted to join the church. These people would be taught the truths contained in these short creeds. Once they had learned these truths, they would be baptized and make a public confession of their faith before the entire church. Because the churches of this time had so much respect for the church at Rome, many churches conformed their creed to the one in use at Rome. Over time, this became known as the apostles creed. more
What was apostolic Scripture?
This is the effort to have a canon or an official list of documents which are really and truly apostolic.
What was apostolic succession?
This was also a way of being sure that a given teacher was teaching the apostolic faith. If such a teacher had been ordained by an apostle, then there was more confidence that his teaching was also apostolic. As time went on, a given teacher would have been ordained by someone who was ordained by an apostle and so on.
When was the canon as we know it today officially determined?
There is no such date. The fixing of the canon was a long process that took hundreds of years, and controversy over this continues into the present day.
Is there any evidence that the New Testament authors knew they were writing Scripture?
First, the idea of a canon was not something new. The Jewish religion was based on a canon; see chapter 106. Jesus and the apostles quote from this all the time. Consider all the references in the Bible to “the law and the prophets,” the “Scripture” or the “Scriptures.” Second, the apostles were directly appointed by Jesus as His successors in the work of the kingdom of God. Consider these two passages:
If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:15-20)
Right before His ascension, Jesus says this to His disciples:
So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:19-23)
This means that the apostles had authority in the Christian church to teach in the name of Jesus Himself. On another occasion, Jesus says, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16) To those gathered in the house of Cornelius, Peter preached:
We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. (Acts 10:39-42)
Finally, Peter himself explicitly calls Paul’s letters Scripture.
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-16)
How did the development of the canon proceed after the death of the last of the apostles?
The first document giving us a list of Old Testament books is given us by Josephus (p476 §8). His canon is the same as the Jewish canon and the contemporary canon of the Protestant churches. Josephus asserts that this list of canonical books is the common opinion of the Jewish people. (p418) Josephus is important for our discussion here because his thoughts here imply that the Jewish people had a closed canon. Nothing further was to be added to it. The second document in this regard is the Bryennios List (here) which agrees with the list of Josephus given above.
What was the Muratorian Fragment?
This is another very early witness to the canon. It is dated no later than 170ad. It is called a fragment because the document was clearly damaged and part of it is missing. It represents the first canon list of the New Testament. This list of books includes as canonical the apocalypse of Peter. Some books are missing, but it is almost certain that these were part of the document that is missing. (p222) Otherwise, the books included are the same as the New Testament canon in use today.
Which individuals spoke to the issue of which books belong in the canon?
The Christian reference to a canon is round in the writings of Melito of Sardis (§177) around 170ad. This man is interesting because he actually went to Palestine to seek information on the Jewish canon. (p224) His canon list does not include Esther, Nehemiah, or Lamentations. He also includes the Wisdom of Solomon which the Jewish and Protestant canons exclude. In all other respects, his list is the same as Josephus.
What were Origen’s thoughts on this issue?
Origen (§187) has a great deal to say on the canon; see chapter 25. Westcott writes that “the testimony which Origen gives to the books of the New Testament is more complete than any which has been yet obtained.” Origen acknowledges that there were reservations with 2-3 John, James, and 2 Peter. He also notes the difficulty with knowing the author of Hebrews which may have caused some to doubt its canonicity.
Peter has left one Epistle generally acknowledged; and perhaps a second, for that is disputed. John wrote the Apocalypse and an Epistle of very few lines; and, it may be, a second and third, since all do not admit them to be genuine.’ Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he writes, that ‘the thoughts are the thoughts of the Apostle Paul; … but who it was who wrote the Epistle, God only knows certainly.’ Elsewhere he quotes the Epistles of James and Jude, but at the same time alludes to the doubts entertained as to their right to be classed among the Christian Scriptures. (p365)
Origen’s canon of the Old Testament agrees with the current Protestant canon with one exception. He includes the letter of Jeremiah which is also included in the Roman Catholic canon. Westcott suggests (p135) that Origen made this mistake, thinking this letter was in the Jewish canon, because he found it included in the LXX. It is also not clear if Origen is giving his own personal view of what was canonical or if he was simply stating the opinions of others.
Are we able to learn anything about the canon from the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts?
Yes, these manuscripts (appendix B) are noteworthy in that they all include the books now known as apocryphal. Codex Vaticanus, for example, includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and the additions to Esther and Daniel. None of these appear in the Protestant canon of the Bible while they are all in the Roman Catholic canon. Another manuscript is the Codex Claromontanus (bottom of p308). This manuscript contains the letters of Paul. Between Philemon and Hebrews, however, some scribe inserted a list of the Old and New Testament books. For the Old Testament, 1&2 Chronicles are left out, while Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1, 2, 4, Maccabees, Judith, and Tobit are included. In the New Testament, both Thessalonian letters are missing as well as Philippians. The Shepherd (§168), the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter are included.
What light did Eusebius shed on this question?
With regards to the New Testament, Eusebius (§161) writes (p155):
Now we have come to this point, it seems reasonable that we should give a summary catalogue of the writings of the New Testament which we have indicated. And first then we must place the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. After these we must reckon the [fourteen] Epistles of Paul; and next to them we must ratify the Epistle circulated as the former of John, and in like manner that of Peter. After these books we must place—if at least such a view seem correct—the Apocalypse, the judgments on which we shall set forth in due course. And these are reckoned among the books “acknowledged.
Among the controverted books which are nevertheless well-known [and used] by most, we class the Epistle circulated under the name of James, and that of Jude, as well as the second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second and third of John, whether they really belong to the Evangelist or possibly to another of the same name.
We must rank among the spurious the account of the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter. And besides these the Epistle circulated under the name of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if such a view seem correct, which some, as I said, reject, while others reckon it among the books “acknowledged.” We may add that some reckoned in this division also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to which those Hebrews who have received [Jesus as] the Christ are especially attached. All these then will belong to the class of “controverted” books.
It has been necessary for us to extend our catalogue, even to these latter works [in spite of their questionable authority], having distinguished the writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and universally acknowledged, and the others besides these which though they are not in the Testament (Canonical), but in fact controverted, are yet constantly recognized in most of the ecclesiastical writers, that we might be acquainted not only with these but also with the writings brought forward by heretics in the name of the Apostles as containing the Gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias and some others, or the Acts of Andrew and John and the other Apostles, which no one in the different successions of ecclesiastical writers has deigned to mention. And further also, the character of the language which varies from the Apostolic spirit, and the sentiment and purpose of their contents, wholly discordant with true orthodoxy, clearly prove that they are forgeries of heretics; whence we must not even class them among the spurious books, but set them aside as every way monstrous and impious.’
Clearly, this father divided the Bible books into three categories of Acknowledged, Controverted, and the Heretical. Westcott explains (p150) these terms:
- A book was canonical if its authenticity was undisputed and its author had apostolic authority;
- A book was controverted if it failed in either one of these conditions;
- A book was spurious if it failed both of these.
About the acknowledged books, Westcott writes (p151):
As to the class of ‘acknowledged’ Books, one remark only is necessary. He [Eusebius] speaks generally of ‘the Epistles of Paul,’ without noticing the Epistle to the Hebrews specially in any place. But both from his general usage and from his former mention of ‘the fourteen Epistles of Paul,’ it seems certain that he looked upon it himself as ‘acknowledged.’ In other words, for him, like Origen, the uncertainty was simply as to ‘who wrote it;’ but whoever wrote it, he received the book as stamped with the spirit and sanction of the Apostle.
About the controverted books, Westcott writes (p151):
The second class of ‘controverted’ Books includes all those which claiming inspiration or apostolicity had obtained a partial reception in the Church. This class is again subdivided. Some were popularly admitted, though their claims were not beyond question either as to authenticity (2 Peter) or as to apostolicity (James, Jude, 2, 3 John). If 2 Peter were written by the author whose name it bore, then it was canonical. On the other hand, it was allowed that James, Jude, 2, 3 John, were written by men of that name, but it was doubted whether they were Apostles or possessed of Apostolic authority. These formed the first group. They were controverted, but yet used. The second group was made up of books, which, in the opinion of Eusebius, were positively deficient in one or other of the conditions of a canonical writing. Two of these still remain, the Shepherd and the Epistle of Barnabas; the others have been lost, and it is impossible to form any opinion as to their character. With regard to these two, it might have been plausibly urged that if the Shepherd was an authentic work of a friend of St Paul, its internal claims to inspiration must be admitted: that if the Epistle was by the ‘Apostle’ then it also was canonical. But Eusebius decided that both were certainly not works of Apostolic men, and therefore, in his sense, spurious.
Unfortunately, Eusebius gives us little information about the Old Testament. Westcott writes (p153):
Eusebius has left no express judgment on the contents of the Old Testament. In three places he quotes from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place ‘the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;’ and again, ‘the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;’ and, lastly, ‘the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.’ In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the ‘Divine Scriptures and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as ‘controverted’ books. On the other hand, like the older Fathers, he quotes in the same manner as the contents of the Hebrew Canon passages from Baruch and Wisdom. On the whole, it may be concluded that he regarded the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in the same light as the books in the New Testament, which were ‘controverted and yet familiarly used by many.’ The books of the Hebrew Canon alone were in his technical language ‘acknowledged.’
Certainly the great Athanasius would have said something on this topic.
Athanasius (§163) also published a canon list. His list of Old Testament books is the same as the current Protestant canon with the exception that it includes Baruch and the letter to Jeremiah and excludes Esther. He writes (p552):
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second [Ezra & Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
Another church father, named Cyril of Jerusalem (§168), gives the same list as Athanasius but he includes Esther. Cyril’s list is included in a series of lessons which he gave to his catechism class who were preparing for baptism and making public profession. In lecture 4, Cyril gives (p26) a list of the canonical books:
Of these, read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench [trespass] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave [Nun], and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle [the letter of Jeremiah]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.
It differs from the Protestant canon in its inclusion of the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. This “letter of Jeremiah” is included in Roman Catholic Bibles as chapter six of the book of Baruch. It is not certain whether “Daniel” here includes the additions to Daniel; i.e. The Prayer of Azariah (or Abednego), The Song of the Three Young Men (or Song of the Three Holy Children), Susanna (or Daniel and Susanna), and Bel and the Dragon. Daubney says (p160) it almost certainly does include these additions. Later church fathers named Epiphanius (§169) and Hilary (§174) gave lists that do not differ significantly from Origen, Athanasius, or Cyril; see p89 and here.
What was the first church council to deal with the issue of the canon?
The first council to address this matter was the synod of Laodicea (363ad). It laid out sixty canons governing the administration of the church. (p122) The very last canon gives a list of which books are canonical. This list agrees with the lists given above from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, and Hilary. In the New Testament, it does not include Revelation.
Then the council of hippo (393ad) addressed this issue. The canons of this council are lost; all of them, however, were confirmed and restated by the first council of Carthage (397ad) and then by the second council at Carthage. (419ad) The important thing to note here is the immense influence of Augustine.
Roman Catholic:
What does the Roman Catholic church teach with regards to this point?
They teach that the church identified which books were canonical and assigned this status to them. Thus, the canon of Scripture relies for its authority on the church by which they mean the Roman Catholic church.
What is the canon according to the Roman Catholic church?
The council of Trent gave this list (p18):
They [the canonical books] are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles], the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles [Song of Solomon], Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with Baruch; Ezekiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee [Hosea], Joel, Amos, Abdias [Obadiah], Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Sophonias [Zephaniah], Aggaeus [Haggai], Zachariah, Malachi; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse [Revelation] of John the apostle.
Do the Protestant churches accept this list?
They accept the list of New Testament books but not the list of the Old Testament books. All Protestant churches reject the books they call apocryphal.
What are these apocryphal books?
1&2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (also known as Baruch 6), Additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), Additions to Esther, 1,2,3 Maccabees. The Belgic Confession teaches:
Article 6: We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal ones, which are… The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books, but they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.
Why do Roman Catholics hold these books to be Canonical?
Because all Roman Catholics must submit to the decision of their teaching magisterium. The magisterium has declared these books to be canonical, and this decision is to be received with as much respect as the very word of Scripture itself.
Why do Protestants reject these books as Canonical?
Protestants do not submit to the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic church; and therefore, are not bound by its decisions. Protestants have chosen to accept the Old Testament canon as the Jews have given it to us.
Do the Jews not accept the apocryphal books either?
They do not; see here.
Earlier, you said that the Roman Catholic church identified which books were canonical and assigned this status to them. Thus, the canon of Scripture relies for its authority on the Roman Catholic church. How do Roman Catholics defend this idea?
Cardinal Wiseman writes (p39):
The investigation whereby he [any protestant] can reach the conclusion that the sacred volume put into his hand is really the Word of God is of a twofold character. In the first place, before any Protestant can even commence the examination of that rule which his religion proposes to him, he must have satisfied himself that all the books or writings collected together in that volume are really the genuine works of those whose names they bear and that no such genuine work has been excluded, so that the rule be perfect and entire. Then in the second place, he must satisfy himself by his own individual examination that this book is inspired by God.
The cardinal then goes on to argue that Protestants have no possible way of knowing with any kind of certainty which books of the Bible are canonical and which aren’t. Roman Catholics, however, do have certainty because they rely on the infallible teaching magisterium of their church to identify which books are inspired and which aren’t.
Above you said that the canonical books were recognized to be such by the church at large. Why are the Roman Catholics not satisfied with this?
Wiseman goes on (p47):
The authority then of history or of ecclesiastical tradition [to tell us which books are canonical], independently of the divine force allowed it by the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuineness or truth of the Scripture narrative but to be available as a proof of inspiration, it must carry us directly to the attestation of the only witnesses capable of certifying the circumstance. It may be true that the Church or body of Christians in succeeding times believed the books of the New Testament to be inspired; but if that Church and its traditions be not infallible, that belief goes no farther than a mere human or historical testimony; it can verify therefore no more than such testimony ever can that is outward and visible facts such as the publication and consequently the legitimacy of a work. The only way in which it can attest the interior acts which accompanied its compilation is by preserving the assurances of those who besides God could alone be witnesses to them. Now ecclesiastical history has not preserved to us this important testimony for nowhere have we it recorded of any of these writers that he asserted his own inspiration. And thus by rejecting tradition as an infallible authority is the only basis for the inspiration of Scripture cut away.
The Catholic Encyclopedia writes (p7) this:
Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents [Protestants] that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible. … There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.
How do we know that the Bible really is what we claim for it? The Bible itself doesn’t identify which books belong in the canon.
True enough; the early church recognized which books were inspired and which weren’t, and we accept their testimony.
How did they figure this out?
The early church began this process by recognizing in Paul’s words the fundamental criterion;
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)
This became the fundamental question, was this book written by a prophet or an apostle? Thus, in most cases this criterion was simply, who wrote the book? Other criteria were whether the doctrine contained in the book was apostolic; i.e. did it contradict what was already known of the apostolic tradition? Finally, the early church asked the question, was and is this book generally accepted by the church of God? (Geisler, Intro to Bible, 223)
Why was the early church so concerned with having a fixed canon of Scripture?
Many times in the early churches, disputes arose as to what was truly apostolic and what wasn’t. It became necessary to have some fixed point of reference for determining this. Thus, the New Testament was organized into one book as we have it today. This provided a fixed point of reference by which all disputes could be resolved.
Why did the early church care what was apostolic and what wasn’t?
Because, the apostles were the real authorities in the Christian church. If someone could prove that Paul or Peter taught such and such a doctrine, then this doctrine was known to be true to Jesus Himself. After the apostles died, however, how was the early church to know what was really apostolic? Many different people claimed that the apostles agreed with their doctrine. How could the early church know for sure? This was resolved by fixing an authoritative and authentic collection of apostolic writings and this became our New Testament. Congar writes;
But the further the Church moved forward from the apostolic age, the more necessary it became in discussion with the heretics to be supported by a “tradition” the authenticity of which was guaranteed by reference to a document which came incontestably from the apostles themselves, and hence by reference to apostolic writings. (Tradition and Traditions, 34)
It appears then, that by rejecting Roman Catholic tradition, we also reject our current canon of the Bible?
No, we are indebted to tradition for our current canon of Scripture, but this has nothing to do with Roman Catholic tradition. The Roman Catholic church did not exist at this time. The mistake here is to identify the catholic Christian church of the first century with the present day Roman Catholic church.
One more thing; if the church gave us the Bible then isn’t the church superior to Scripture and standing in judgment on it?
If the decision of the early church made a given book to be Scripture, then the church is superior to Scripture. If the early church recognized which books were Scripture and called them what they already were, then Scripture is superior to the church. Imagine that someone might pick a diamond out of a pile of common stones. The person didn’t give the diamond its beauty; she simply recognized it as such. The church is not above Scripture but is the servant of Scripture. It is misleading to say that the Bible grew out of the ekklesia [church], not the ekklesia out of the Bible.” Congar writes:
It would then be wrong to see in the fixing of a Scriptural canon an event which would suppose, which would confirm, a superiority of the Church over Scripture. The Church did no more than recognize certain writings as apostolic and by the same token recognize them as regulating her faith and life. It was for her a matter of assuring and affirming her apostolic reference. (Tradition and Traditions 39.)
But if the church existed long before we had a Bible then how can the Bible regulate the church? What regulated the church before there was a Bible?
It is true that the church existed long before the Bible was organized into a canon of sixty-six books as we have it today. Nevertheless, we must distinguish between the apostolic tradition; i.e. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and our current Bible, made up of the sixty-six books. The contents of the Bible (i.e. the apostolic tradition) existed long before there was an actual written book called The Bible. The contents of our written Bible were in people’s memories and in individual books for many years, and it was these teachings which gave birth to the church. The New Testament is simply the apostolic tradition written down. The Bible, as a written book with sixty-six books is not necessary to regulate the church.
Is there any other objection to this idea that we must accept Roman Catholic tradition if we are to accept our Bibles?
Yes, it is called the popish circle.
What do you mean by popish circle?
I mean to assert that sometimes Roman Catholic apologists argue in a circle.
How?
By using Scripture to support the idea that their teaching magisterium is infallible and then using the infallibility of the magisterium to identify the canon of Scripture. For instance, Roman Catholics will use texts like the following to prove that the Roman Catholic teaching magisterium is infallible:
- Matthew 28:19-20 (where Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught)
- John 16:13 (where Jesus promised the teaching and leading of the Holy Spirit)
- 1 Timothy 3:15 (the church is the pillar and ground of the truth).
- Luke 22:32 (Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith),
- John 21:15-17 (Feed my sheep…)
- Matthew 16:18 (You are Peter…)
When he is asked how he knows that the Bible is a divine revelation and which books make up the Bible, he points to the infallible teaching magisterium. William Cunningham (p154):
[Roman Catholics] commonly allege that it is only from the testimony of the Church that we can certainly know what is the Word of God, and what is its meaning; and thus they are inextricably involved in the sophism of reasoning in a circle; that is, they profess to prove the infallibility of the Church by the authority of Scripture; while, at the same time, they establish the authority of Scripture, and ascertain its meaning, by the testimony of the Church, which cannot err.
Francis Patton (p134):
The doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is a very convenient belief I grant and not absurd either. The only question is whether there is evidence in support of it. Convenient, of course, for consider. The Protestant asks in regard to a mooted doctrine, What do the Scriptures teach? The Anglican asks the same question, but he also asks What do the Church Fathers say? What has been the faith of the Church from the beginning? It was not strange then that a certain clergyman who left the Anglican Church and went over to Rome said to his quondam [previous] brethren Your religion is salvation by scholarship alone. The Roman Catholic, however, cannot get away from the Bible as the ultimate authority so long as he appeals to the Bible in support of the infallibility of the Church. Suppose then that a young man is seeking light on this subject and wishes first of all to know where the true Church is to be found. To what disinterested authority can he appeal? No other than the Bible. How shall he interpret the Bible? Shall he ask a Protestant minister? No, he says for he would be biased. Shall he ask a Roman Catholic priest? No, for I know what his answer would be. I must read the Bible for myself in the light of my own reason. That is to say, in order to determine whether he should become a Protestant or become a Roman Catholic, he must act on the principle that the Bible is the only rule of faith; and in the exercise of the right of private judgment, which amounts to saying that a man has to be a Protestant in order to become a Catholic.
John Owen (p507):
[Roman Catholics] say the Scripture hath its authority from the church, I ask, How shall I know that there is a church? For if I be one that own no such thing as the Scripture (which the church is persuading me to believe), withal I own no such society as the church; and how will they prove there is such an one, but by the Scripture? For I, who am supposed to acknowledge no church, do acknowledge no authority it hath, and shall not take its own word. And yet if I grant there be a church, how shall I know that such a company of men as pretend to be the church are really so? I shall not take their own testimony; I am not satisfied in their being witnesses to themselves. And if they will prove themselves to be the church by the Scripture, then either the Scripture must have authority, as to me, before the church, or else they prove one obscure thing by another. If they say there be certain signs and marks of the church inherent in it, by which it may be known, — alas! I know not those marks but by the Scripture, which describes the church. If they say the Spirit witnesseth by those marks that this is the church, why may not I say the same of the Scripture; and so, that be known without the testimony of the church to be the word of God, as well as the church to be the church of God? And yet, after all this, granting this society of men to be the church, how shall I know that this church is infallible? And if I know it not to be so, I am not so mad as to build my faith upon its authority. If they say, “Because it is governed by the Holy Spirit,” how shall I know that? for it is not obvious to me that it is. If they say, “Because Christ hath promised that it should,” I ask, Where? where can it be but in the Scripture? Sure, then, the Scripture must be owned, and have its authority, as to me, or their proof is invalid, and they do but trifle instead of arguing.
See also Wylie (p246) and lecture III in Salmon.
How do Roman Catholics defend the inspiration of the Bible without arguing in a circle?
One Roman Catholic tract attempts this (the tract’s statements are indented).
The Catholic method of finding the Bible to be inspired is this. The Bible is first approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
This is true.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, particularly the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels. We examine the account of Jesus’ life and death and his reported resurrection.
This also is true. This is an apologetic argument that both Protestants and Roman Catholics use to prove the inspired nature of Scripture. The argument is that if Jesus did miracles, then His claim to be a bearer of divine revelation is true. So far all are in agreement. The second premise is;
One thing he said He would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility.
This is just false. There’s no such church to be found in the New Testament.
We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error. … That Church now tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because it is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith, such as the status of the Bible) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book.
Here we can at least grant that this is not a circular argument. Obviously, there are very few scholars, even Roman Catholic scholars, who would defend the idea that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church. However, this argument is, in logical terms, valid. This argument does not base the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. The tract goes on to say;
On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It all reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired.
If we simply accept the consensus of the early church as to which books belong in the canon of Scripture, can we ever be infallibly certain that the books we are reading are inspired? Isn’t it possible that the early church erred and included an uninspired book or left out a book which really was inspired?
In this matter, we rest confident that God has provided us with exactly those books which He intended for us to have. We take our stand on the promise that Jesus gave us when He said that He would send the Spirit and that this Spirit would guide us into the truth:
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:13-15)
So we cannot be infallibly certain that our canon is correct?
True, we cannot.
Why do you believe that there is no error in Scripture when you are not even really sure if a given book or part of a book is inspired?
Because infallible certainty is not required in this matter. If we needed infallible certainty, we wouldn’t end up believing much of anything. What we can be infallibly certain of is that God will lead us into the truth and will protect us from error.
Bibliography:
John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture
Archibald Alexander, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained
William Taylor, A Manual on the Canon of Holy Scripture
Samuel Davidson, The Canon of the Bible
Louis Gaussen, The Canon of the Holy Scriptures
Thomas Horne, An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scripture
Christopher Wordsworth, On the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
Edwards Reuss, History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church