Canon

[JM]

(Protestant, Reformed, Calvinists Only)​

How do you explain how canon came into existence?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Tree of Life]

Are you asking how the church recognized God's word to be God's word?

 

[Jonaitis]

It is to be noted, as Tree of Life said, that we didn't come up the canon, it is the recognition of the divinely authenticated word as inspired by God himself.

"The testimony of the church of God may stir and persuade us to adopt a high and reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures. Moreover, the heavenliness of the contents, the power of the system of truth, the majesty of the style, the harmony of all the parts, the central focus on giving all glory to God, the full revelation of the only way of salvation, and many other incomparable qualities and complete perfections, all provide abundant evidence that the Scriptures are the word of God. Even so, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures comes from the internal work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." - 2LBC 1:5

The accepted canon did go through a few revisions over these several thousand years, eventually leaving only sixty-six remaining in what is known as the Protestant Canon. I recently finished Augustine's book De Doctrina Christiana, in which he acknowledged a number of the apocryphal writings of Tobias, Judith, I and II Maccabees, II Ezra, Wisdom, Sirach, and Ecclesiasticus.

"Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books...they have attained recognition as being authoritative."

But, even Augustine acknowledged that the general consensus of what was considered canonical in his day differed from church to church (although the catholic consensus did have the major weight), as some churches would accept or reject some books as being authoritative (mainly the apocryphal books).

The concern for tota scriptura was about as important as sola scriptura to the reformers, there was a lot of reexamining what was previously accepted as the received canon for the first four centuries, especially in light of gospel principles and the accuracy of the historical accounts of the books. I suppose it became traditional to the early 17th century to accept what was generally understood as authoritative.

I have little knowledge on this subject, I have a friend who is more knowledgeable in this area and topic of history.

 

[disciple Clint]

(Protestant, Reformed, Calvinists Only)​

How do you explain how canon came into existence?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture

 

[JM]

I've been reading VanHoozer, Kruger and now F.F. Bruce on the issue of canon. VanHoozer and Kruger are similar in saying that (this is brief for CF purposes and may even be misleading due to brevity but here goes anyway) scripture has the marks of inspiration, marks of the Holy Spirit and Christians have the Holy Spirit which allows use to recognize scripture. Bruce takes a different approach using historical evidence, however, Kruger warns not to prove the ultimate authority of scripture using a fallible source. (ex history)

All of this seems highly subjective and experience based.

So, how do "we" recognize canon? By what process?

The Jews had several different canons depending on location and time (1st and 2nd Temple period being one example). From the articles I've read I get the impression the Jewish canon is more like a bulls-eye with fuzzy edges. Certain books are clearly understood to be scripture, however, some books are less clear. Esther is one book that seems to be missing from many of the ancient finds and leaves one with the impression it may not have been considered scripture. (1) Enoch is one that Christ seems very familiar with and is alluded to often in the Gospels but, due to corruption, is not regarded today as scripture.

If we look at early Christian canon we find a similar situation where canon was a lot more open. I believe it was Bruce who said the early church was concerned with devotion not doctrine so many books we would consider apocryphal would have likely been held as 'scripture' or 'canon' depending on or if you separate the two. It has been suggested that books were buried at Nag Hammadi after the "Festival Letter" by Athanasius and that canon was closed at a church council. If this is the case, and it seems highly plausible, the issue of canon was settled by Bishops and not, as Kruger would suggest, the community of Holy Spirit filled believers.

So, how do "we" as believers, come to terms with ideas of canon?

If the Bishops were Spirit lead how did they error on eccleisology? If we accept the "communities/councils" decision on canon why not accept other decisions made at that council?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: this is a rambling post, but I only had 15 minutes to post it

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How do you explain how canon came into existence?​

The short answer is: the providence of God, the superintendence of the Spirit guiding the people of God.

I posted this useful information and links to my blog awhile ago, this looks like a good opportunity to re-post it:

"It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collection may have — and indeed is historically shown actually to have varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in handcopies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon — the complete Bible — obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e.g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the "canon" of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their "Instrument," or "Law," or "Canon" — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of "The Gospel and the Apostles," — Justin tells us were "written by the apostles and their companions." The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written." B.B. Warfield, The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament (1892)

"It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his.

Other circumstances which demanded clear definition of those books which possessed divine authority were the necessity of deciding which books should be read in church services (though certain books might be suitable for this purpose which could not be used to settle doctrinal questions), and the necessity of knowing which books might and might not be handed over on demand to the imperial police in times of persecution without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1959)Chapter 3

Further Study

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament evidences in the Early Church

The Canon of Scripture

• Introduction to the Canon and Ancient Versions. A brief and non-technical review of the development of the canon and the role of ancient versions in this process.

Biblical Canon:

• The New Testament Canon. Comparative table of books treated as Scripture by Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius.
• Disputed Books of the New Testament. Comparative table of the disputed New Testament books and other writings as they were included in catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
• The Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha. Table of books included in the Hebrew Bible, Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, and the King James Version; comparison of Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant canons; brief descriptions of the Apocryphal books; statements on the Apocrypha from the Reformation era.
• Disputed Books of the Old Testament. Table showing which of the disputed Old Testament books were included in Christian catalogs of canonical books up to the eighth century.
• Samples of Ancient Heretical Literature. Excerpts from the Gospel of Phillip, Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Gospel of Thomas.
• Ancient Canon Lists Quoted in Full. 22 sources from 170 to 730 A.D.
• Apostolic Use of the Septuagint. Notes on the influence of the Septuagint in the New Testament, and a complete list of OT quotations.
• Chronology of Scripture. Listing all canonical and significant non-canonical books in their historical order and context.
• Decree of the Council of Trent. Fixing the canon for Roman Catholics in 1546.
• Bibliography on the Canon for beginning students.
• The Canon of the New Testament, an essay by F. F. Bruce.
• The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament, an essay by Benjamin Warfield.
• The Formation of the New Testament Canon, by Stephen Voorwinde.
• The New Testament Canon, by Glenn Barker.
• Luther's Treatment of the Disputed Books of the New Testament.
• Articles on the Canon and Apocrypha on other sites. More than 30 links.

A free and downloadable online seminary course brought to us by Reformed Theological Seminary entitled:

"The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon" by Dr. Michael J. Kruger a series of 24 lectures!

About Dr. Kruger

Education
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, B. S.
Westminster Theological Seminary in California, M. Div.
University of Edinburgh, Ph. D.

Bio

Dr. Michael J. Kruger (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is President and the Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He is one of the leading scholars today in the study of the origins of the New Testament, particularly the development of the New Testament canon and the transmission of the New Testament text. He is the author of numerous books including The Gospel of the Savior (Brill, 2005), The Heresy of Orthodoxy(Crossway, 2010, with Andreas Köstenberger), Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012), The Question of Canon (IVP, 2013), and Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (SPCK, 2017; IVP Academic, 2018). He is also the editor of and contributor to A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Crossway, 2016) and co-editor of The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012) and Gospel Fragments (Oxford, 2009). Dr. Kruger is ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America and also serves (part-time) as Pastor of Teaching at Uptown PCA in downtown Charlotte.

Dr. Kruger also runs a blog called "Canon Fodder"

Great topic brother

 

[Jonaitis]

I actually have a book on this by F.F. Bruce...but I haven't read it

 

[Hazelelponi]

nvm..

 

[redleghunter]

So, how do "we" as believers, come to terms with ideas of canon?

If the Bishops were Spirit lead how did they error on eccleisology? If we accept the "communities/councils" decision on canon why not accept other decisions made at that council?

You are getting some good theological points here, but maybe I could regale us with an example of how it came about through human means yet inspired of God.

I guess the first point would be can those who are in Christ recognize what 'is of God' when they hear or see it? I believe so. Why? Because people followed and believed a man crying out in the wilderness yelling for everyone to repent and be baptized. They also followed an itinerate preacher from simple means Who demonstrated the Power of God confirming the words He spoke. Both men did not come of the then sitting magisterium (seat of Moses) or Sanhedrin or Scribes or priestly class. There was no sanction for their ministry from the 2nd Temple establishment. In fact both men were in opposition to the ones sitting in those magisterial positions, yet did not and could not condemn the very institution as it was of God.

Yet from Jesus Christ the itinerate preacher mentioned above we have through His disciples the very NT Scriptures.

So back to the early Christian church with its own magisterium to resolve matters of faith (Westminster Confession supports synods and councils to settle matters of faith and church government etc.). It was their charge to settle the matter of the NT books which to them (if you read their works and I know you all do) they considered writings apostolic as authoritative. Yes there were some exceptions of course with some liking the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes.

But what can we paint the picture with regards to an example of what they faced with something more mundane?

Think of the Mona Lisa why is it in the Louvre. If you were an art critic one would no doubt when first seeing the Mona Lisa that someone who was an artist truly created it. After further examination of how the Mona Lisa came into your hands you find out the claim was that a Master named Leonardo da Vinci created it. You on the one hand notice that what you are truly seeing is in fact art. You have 'an eye' for art and many others who as well have 'this eye' say it is art as well. Then you also find out there is solid evidence from your art critic colleagues that da Vinci was the creator of the work.

You and your art critic colleagues then build a museum, let's say it's called the Louvre. In it are the best works of art and you all decide to add the Mona Lisa to the collection.

It is true now the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre because the art critics put it there identifying it as a work of art from a master of art; but is the Mona Lisa a work of art because the art critics put it in the Louvre?

Not a perfect example but makes sense. The difference with the canon and with regards to the early church is they had multiple (in some cases many) copies of the same works 'of art' from differing geographic locations in a time of persecution, therefore the authenticity question was a bit less daunting than having one piece of art to examine. So my example can be poked and prodded but I think we get the idea.

I believe it was DA Carson (can't find the quote but read it many years ago) went something like (so paraphrasing) this:

The determining of the canon is like a bunch of music experts getting together to listen to Beethoven's works and concluding and proclaiming his works were of the highest order. Thank you very much but I have ears too!

​

Edit: I would also add most of the early fathers quoted from or alluded to the very 27 books of the NT in their works. Irenaeus 25 of 27. Very good research at the link below to explore at your leisure.

Early Christian NT References

 

[JM]

Thanks folks, I appreciate it, I really do. It just seems like we have history (tradition) on one hand and subjective experiential knowledge on the other. I’m not opposed to considering history but Kruger wrote that history was fallible and therefore could not prove the infallible. Subjective knowledge of God is just that, subjective…every religious group claims to have subjective knowledge of God.

I’m just thinking, nothing to be concerned about, just thinking...that's all.

 

[hedrick]

If the Bishops were Spirit lead how did they error on eccleisology? If we accept the "communities/councils" decision on canon why not accept other decisions made at that council?

It seems that the Gospels and Paul were accepted as authoritative as far back as we can see. It didn't depend upon any formal decision, by bishops or anyone else. It was obvious.

In the early discussions, it seems like the most common question was whether the books were apostolic. Implicitly this seems to say that authority rested in the apostles. After all, Jesus chose them. I, of course, don't think all the books claimed to be apostolic are, but that seems like a good answer for someone who accepts the traditional authors. It places the authority on people that Jesus gave it to. The argument that the guy who checks the signatures on the letters is the real authority always seemed weird to me.

 

[JM]

I dunno, before I was a believer I read Matthew and just "knew" it was God's word. I knew it was true. I wasn't born again but I knew it was true. By the time I got to Romans I was a believer (a full fledged Calvinist) and THEN went looking for a church.

Things got complicated, needlessly so, after that.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

but Kruger wrote that history was fallible and therefore could not prove the infallible.

It would be difficult to find anything infallible with which to prove the infallibility of scripture. We would first have to prove the infallibility of the evidence, and that would bring us back to the same problem. Ultimately, I must wonder if fallible people are even capable of ascertaining an infallible thing. It's a question of measuring perfection with an imperfect measuring stick. All we really grasp is the idea of a perfect thing, and that drags us back to the old ontological debate presented by Plato, as if a mere idea were proof of the reality. I think it would be better to only deal with God on such godly terms and use finite terms to assess finite things such as a book, because we can at least validate it to a great degree without resorting to such strict absolutes.

 

[JM]

It would be difficult to find anything infallible with which to prove the infallibility of scripture. We would first have to prove the infallibility of the evidence, and that would bring us back to the same problem. Ultimately, I must wonder if fallible people are even capable of ascertaining an infallible thing. It's a question of measuring perfection with an imperfect measuring stick. All we really grasp is the idea of a perfect thing, and that drags us back to the old ontological debate presented by Plato, as if a mere idea were proof of the reality. I think it would be better to only deal with God on such godly terms and use finite terms to assess finite things such as a book, because we can at least validate it to a great degree without resorting to such strict absolutes.

Exactly. That's why he said we must start with scripture and end with scripture. It's circular, yes, but all authority is.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It would be difficult to find anything infallible with which to prove the infallibility of scripture. We would first have to prove the infallibility of the evidence, and that would bring us back to the same problem. Ultimately, I must wonder if fallible people are even capable of ascertaining an infallible thing. It's a question of measuring perfection with an imperfect measuring stick. All we really grasp is the idea of a perfect thing, and that drags us back to the old ontological debate presented by Plato, as if a mere idea were proof of the reality. I think it would be better to only deal with God on such godly terms and use finite terms to assess finite things such as a book, because we can at least validate it to a great degree without resorting to such strict absolutes.

Comes down to methodology, axioms, and epistemology. If we start with an infallible God who can reveal Himself to mankind in infallible ways, then we find our answer in the hypostatic union, in the God-man. If we start with fallible errant man, we'll never arrive at an absolute, only things with which to compare. The Greeks danced all around the absolute comprehending the necessity of an absolute without knowing the absolute in a personal way, in other words they knew, but lacked justification for what they knew. Sorry I don't have more time at the moment to go into further details but wanted to lay out the gist of what came to mind.

 

[mark kennedy]

(Protestant, Reformed, Calvinists Only)​

How do you explain how canon came into existence?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

The churches had these scrolls, recognized as representing the Apostles doctrine. Starting in the second century gnostics in particular were producing scrolls the xhurch had not seen before. After a while the church started to recognize what books belonged in the canon and the ones that didn't. That's the short version, many a scholarly work has been produced addressing that very question.

 

[JM]

The churches had these scrolls, recognized as representing the Apostles doctrine. Starting in the second century gnostics in particular were producing scrolls the xhurch had not seen before. After a while the church started to recognize what books belonged in the canon and the ones that didn't. That's the short version, many a scholarly work has been produced addressing that very question.

Yes, they even had (1) Enoch, Shepherd of Hermes and extra letters of Clement, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, they even had (1) Enoch, Shepherd of Hermes and extra letters of Clement, etc.

Probably not from the 1st century and probably not many copies.

 

[JM]

Probably not from the 1st century and probably not many copies.

1 Enoch is at least 2nd century BC, Shepherd is late first and 1 Clement is between 70 AD and 140 AD with most guessing around 96 AD. Enochian allusions are found throughout Christ's teachings in the Gospels.

Yours in the Lord,

jm