Study 2 The Canon of Scripture
The term canon of Holy Scripture refers to the Bible’s body of literature, the 66 books which comprise it. It is regarded by the Christian Church as sacred, serving as a rule and norm for the Christian life and faith. This Canon of Scripture, that we normally refer to just as ‘the Bible’, is divided in two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament has 39 books in it, the first being Genesis and the last being Malachi. The New Testament has 27 books , the first being the Gospel of Matthew and the last being Revelation of John. All sections of the Christian Church recognise these 66 books of the Bible as sacred and canonical. The Greek word ‘Kanon’ translates as ‘reed’ or ‘measuring stick’.
How did our Bible come to have these 66 books in it?
Concerning the Old Testament, the Jewish religious leaders, when considering canonisation, were confronted with a larger number of books than those that were eventually canonised. They decided which books would be included and which would be excluded from their canon. The early Christian Church leaders did the same thing for the New Testament.
For a canon to be created, some books had to be included and others excluded. The term used for this process is the closing of the canon. Some books were included, others excluded and that was final. Once the decision was made there was to be no alteration - the canon was closed. It is still closed. The Church has not decided to open the canon; i.e. to allow other books to be included and/or to exclude some existing ones or to make any other change. The present canon has remained unchanged for approximately the past 1800 years.
Distinct from the canons of the Old and the New Testaments, there are another 15 books that are referred to as the Old Testament Apocrypha. This is sometimes printed with the Old and New Testaments as part of a single volume Bible; however none of these books was finally included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. These Apocryphal books were written in the time between the Old and the New Testaments and as such exercised some influence on New Testament thought. There are still differences in the ways the different branches of the Christian Church regard these 15 books of the Apocrypha. The Catholic Church regard some as sacred while others are not; the Anglican Church regard them as deuterocanonical (a secondary canon) and the Protestant Churches generally disregard them as not being part of the Scriptures at all.
There were also other Jewish and Jewish-Christian writings, dating from the centuries immediately before and after the beginnings of' the Christian era, that had some degree of popularity among the Jews and early Eastern Christian Churches. Some of these have been loosely lumped together and called the Pseudepigrapha. There is little doubt that some of the teaching/instruction that Jesus himself was given, involved at least some contact with Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings. Some of the notions surrounding the ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels were probably influenced by one of the Pseudepigraphical books, the Second Book of Enoch.
It needs to be emphasised that Christianity was born in the midst of a people who already possessed Scriptures and as such, part of the inheritance of Christianity from Judaism was a Scripture. The early Christian community laid claim to the Hebrew Scriptures as its own, even though it was not then in the form that we have today. The Christian Church still regards the Old Testament as part of its sacred Scriptures.
The history of the creation of the canon is vaguely similar for the Old and the New Testaments, in that it was, for both, a gradual process taking place over a number of years. The secular historian would state that neither the Jewish nor the Christian canon of Scripture was something given, but was something debated and decided by humans.
The Old Testament, it is suggested by many scholars, was officially canonised (or the canon was closed) late in the first century AD (now referred to as CE . the Common Era), at the Council of Jamnia. However, others believe that the basic canon of Hebrew Scriptures could have been finalised as early as the 2nd century BC (now referred to as BCE, before the Common Era).
The Jewish tradition divided the books of the Old Testament into three categories, the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets) and the Writings (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1&2 Chronicles). Later, four divisions were made; the Law, Historical Books, Wisdom Books and the Prophets.
Late in the Jewish discussions about what should be included and what should be excluded, some books were doubtful inclusions. The doubts concerned Ecclesiastes, because of its considered negative attitude to life, the Song of Solomon, because of its perceived eroticism, Ezekiel, because it was considered that it contradicted the Torah, Proverbs, because of its internal contradictions and Esther, because its Hebrew text never specifically mentions God.
The fact that these discussions even took place demonstrates that canonisation was in the minds of many Rabbis for some time. However, as there were no widespread vehement objections to the mentioned books, they continued to be part of the Old Testament canon.
How all these books came to be regarded as canonical among Jews is not entirely clear. It seems that there could be at least two historical reasons for the creation of the Jewish canon.
Firstly, it is suggested that, as it was felt that the voice of religious authority was no longer being heard, it was necessary to assemble those writings in which the religious community agreed that the voice of God had been heard in the past. Even though the voice of authority seemed to be silent, there were a number of popular writings about the last times with grandiose visions of the future which weaned people away from their past in which the religious life of the community was rooted. These writings, in a subtle way, tried to supersede the older literature. Some of these writings claimed to be superior to the old traditional writings. This fascination for the ‘new’ was countered by the official move to canonise the old and accepted books and reject the more recent ones, thus reminding the whole community of their great God.centred heritage.
Secondly, there was the threat that accompanied the writing and circulation of a variety of Christian writings. In the eyes of the Jewish leadership, the Christian heresy had to be stopped. It was corrupting the faith. The Jewish canon was a definite attempt to exclude those Christian writings which were exercising a dangerous attraction for many Jews. Consideration of this suggests a later date of canonisation, ie. after Jesus. With these moves for exclusion, there had to be a similar movement for inclusion. The process was protracted over a number of years but eventually the Hebrew canon was finalised.
The New Testament story is similar in some respects. The process took many years and was precipitated by the same perceived need for exclusions and inclusions which would give rise to an authoritative and sacred body of scriptures.
Two historical movements early in the Church's life hastened the development of a New Testament canon. Marcion, an influential leader in Rome, wanted a very small Christian Scripture, - no Old Testament, only one gospel, that of Luke, and some of Paul’s letters. This would have meant a rejection of the Christian past’s connection to Judaism. This was unacceptable to many churches and their leadership at that time.
The other movement was in the opposite direction. Some groups within the Church wanted to accept a great variety of literature as ‘profitable for Christian guidance and instruction’.
All the decisions about the Old and the New Testament books were made by different people at different times. Decisions were also made about many other books.
There existed many different gospels, other than those in our present New Testament. Approximately 15 gospels other than the four we now have in the New Testament were written and available for inclusion, including the gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, the gospel of Thomas, of Peter, of Philip, of Bartholomew, of the birth of Mary, of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of the Nazarenes - to name a few. There were many other documents called ‘the Acts’ of various people, including the Acts of Andrew, of Barnabas, of James, of Peter, of Philip, of Thomas, of John - to name a few. There were still other documents which could be lumped together under headings such as epistles, apocalypses, Gnostic writings etc. Scholars generally agree that the literature, available to the church at the time of the canonising process which was eventually excluded from the New Testament, varied enormously in its value and in its claim to be part of what was to be recommended as sacred. Much scholarly comment about these early writings is now available.
The question confronting the Church about all this literature was one of significance. Which books were to be taken most seriously and commended to be read in churches? The criteria for decisions were orthodoxy, apostolic authorship, origin and general acceptance within the existing church worshipping groups and assemblies. Opinions of scholars and leaders of the church also played a significant role in the whole process. There seems to have been no conscious movement in the very early days of the church to produce a New Testament canon. However, because of the above mentioned movements, by about 200 CE there was a general acceptance of most of the 27 books that now comprise our New Testament. Like the process of canonising the Old Testament, there were disputes about certain books. Questions were raised about James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 & 3 John as well as about Revelation. Hebrews and some of the Epistles came in for some questioning as well. All the books mentioned were eventually included. Numbers of other books, letters and gospels, etc., were however excluded.
Origen, one of the then greatest Biblical scholars, a church leader at the turn of the 3rd century, was very influential in determining the extent of the canon. Early in the 4th century different bishops in the Greek Church issued formal lists of canonical books but they did not agree completely. A Bishop of the Church in 376 CE. called Athanasius, listed the 27 books that now form our New Testament canon and he decreed, ‘In these alone is the teaching of true religion proclaimed as good news; let no one add to these or take anything from them.’
It has been stated that the canon was determined by usage, by common consent of the worshipping Christian community, testing the books in its daily life over centuries, and not by formal authority. However, councils of the church at both Hippo in 393 CE and Carthage in 397 CE resolved that nothing should be read in Christian worship except these 27 canonical books. Augustine, who presided at both these councils, and being very influential in the latter, declared, ‘Apart from these canonical Scriptures, nothing may be read in the church under the name of divine Scriptures.’
To give some insight into a reasonably current situation regarding the official church attitudes to the Bible and its inspiration, the statements below come from the Catholic Church and the Uniting Church in Australia.
For the Catholic Church the Vatican Council 11 states -
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Holy Mother Church, relying on the belief of the apostles, holds that the books of the Old and the New Testaments, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him, they made use of their powers and abilities, so with Him acting in them and through them, they as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.
The Basis of Union of the Uniting Church in Australia states -
The Uniting Church acknowledges that the Church has received the books of the Old and the New Testaments as unique and apostolic testimony, in which she hears the Word of God and by which her faith and obedience are nourished and regulated. When the Church preaches Jesus Christ, her message is controlled by the Biblical witnesses. The Word of God on whom man’s salvation depends is to be heard and known from Scripture appropriated in the worshipping and witnessing life of the Church.
Other denominations have variations to both these statements and as has already been stated, have different attitudes to the literature of the Apocrypha.
An important addition to the text of the booklet.
The Bible as we have it now, the Canon of Scripture, is there whether we like it or not and I don’t think we can change that, at least not in the foreseeable future. However, I think such a change is what some confronting biblical scholars are moving towards when they have called for the Canon to be opened and revised. I think they are calling for some very serious ‘faithful questioning’ and ‘faithful re-appraisal’ to be done with the Bible and its content as we have it now.
Some church leaders think that parts of the Bible as it exists now, need to be removed. Some other church leaders have suggested seriously that other ancient documents, not included in our present New Testament, could be included. One such group is called the New Orleans Council, initiated by Dr Hal Taussig, recently retired as Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He, with 19 other church leaders and scholars, both women and men, have, over an extended period of time, researched a large number of ancient documents which were available to be included in the original New Testament, but were not.
Many ancient documents, some fragmented and others more complete in their preservation, have been discovered in the last 60 to 100 years in various parts of Egypt and the Middle East. These documents include the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. Much research and scholarly discussion has taken place about many of these documents but that has not filtered down to regular church-goers and I’m not sure that it ever will. I would be surprised if many regular church-goers even know that many other gospels, other than the four in our present New Testament, were written in the first few hundred years immediately after Jesus.
This New Orleans Council, organized by Dr Taussig, asked the question as to which of these newly discovered ancient documents, if any, could be considered worthy enough to be included in a new Canon, to create A New New Testament. Taussig has actually written a book entitled, A New New Testament. He could have been burnt at the stake in some previous periods of church history for presuming to undertake such an enterprise. After their deliberations, the New Orleans Council voted that 10 more documents were worthy to be included in A New New Testament. These extra books are the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Truth, The Thunder: Perfect Mind, The Odes of Solomon 1, 11, 111, and 1V, The Prayer of Thanksgiving, The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Letter of Peter to Philip and The Secret Revelation of John. These are all included in Taussig’s book, inserted in what was considered the appropriate places.
On Taussig’s book A New New Testament, Marcus Borg comments, -
(This book is) important both historically and theologically. Readers will not be able to see the New Testament in the same way again.
There are twenty-seven books in the traditional New Testament, but the earliest Christian communities were far more vibrant than that small number might lead you to think. In fact, many more scriptures were written and were just as important as the New Testament in shaping early-Christian communities and beliefs. Over the past century, many of those texts that were lost have been found and translated, yet are still not known to much of the public; they are discussed mainly by scholars or within a context of the now outdated notion of gnostic gospels. In A New New Testament Hal Taussig is changing that. With the help of nineteen important spiritual leaders, he has added ten of the recently discovered texts to the traditional New Testament, leading many churches and spiritual seekers to use this new New Testament for their spiritual and intellectual growth.
Having read these other ten books listed above, my experience is that Marcus Borg is correct. I found the 10 books refreshing but also couched in 1st century biblical theism, dualisms and mythology and this contributed to some of their content being rather mystifying to me. The Odes of Solomon, presented examples of joyful liturgies and songs of praise practised by the early followers of Jesus, some of which I found more helpful than some of the liturgies used in church services I attend these days. I found the gospels of Mary and of Truth very helpful.
These 10 books did present to me a better balance between the male/female imagery of God and female church leadership than is presented in our current New Testament. In the Gospel of Mary, there is dissention between the male disciples and Mary, when Andrew and Peter argue that Mary, a woman, should not be listened to as a teacher of the message of Jesus. Levi comes to her defence and suggests that the males should desist their opposition to Mary and repent of their antagonism. This sort of conversation happens nowhere in our present New Testament and, I think it presents a new dimension to the subject, giving women significant recognition, which obviously is their right. The fact that this argument is recorded is significant for me.
I quote form the Gospel of Mary -
But Andrew responded and said to the brothers and sisters, “Say what you will about what she has said. I do not believe that the Saviour said this, for certainly these teachings are strange ideas.” Peter responded and spoke concerning the same things. He questioned them about the Saviour, “Did he really speak with a woman without our knowing about it? Are we all to turn around and listen to her? Did he choose her over us? Then Mary wept and said to Peter, “My brother, Peter, what are you thinking? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am telling lies about the Saviour?” Levi responded and said to Peter, “Peter, you have always been an angry person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Saviour made her worthy, who are you, then, to reject her? Surely the Saviour’s knowledge of her is trustworthy. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves with the Perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves, and proclaim the good news, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Saviour said.”
An introduction to the Gospel of Mary written by Taussig states -
The importance of the Gospel of Mary for today’s worldwide negotiation of rights and roles of women cannot be underestimated. That an early Christian writing presents a major female figure whose leadership is actively disputed by the apostles introduces a dramatic new dimension to Christian understanding of women’s authority. ….this document still turns the tables on claims like that of the Vatican that women cannot be priests because there were no women disciples.
This particular gospel also presents a far more positive attitude to humanity and to the human relationship with God. I quote again from Taussig’s introduction to this Gospel. -
In many ways this gospel makes the promise of becoming real human beings in the most excited and clearest way of any early Christian gospel. … For many twenty-first-century readers this emphasis on the goodness of humanity, comes as a surprise. So often Christianity has been understood as praising God and judging humanity. … TV evangelists and popes alike portray humans as so thoroughly deserving of God’s condemnation that only the bloody sacrifice of Jesus can make things right. This is simply not the portrait of humanity in the Gospel of Mary. Here Jesus and his followers are united in perfect humanity. The good news is not escaping one’s human identity but in embracing it. Nor does this gospel treat Jesus’ death as a key of salvation. His death is not an act of atonement, but rather and event to overcome through the teachings Jesus told to Mary.
Regarding another book of the 10, The Secret Revelation of John, I found it particularly interesting and for me, if compared, it is better than the one we have at present. A short comment by Taussig about this book is -
In the Secret revelation of John, injustice and cruel domination are overcome by the power of the Spirit, by knowledge and by goodness without violence and destruction, offering a tradition from within the Christian movement that is both an alternative to stories of divine wrath and judgement and an affirmation of hope and trust.
Having read The Secret Revelation of John, it was full of mythical characters who supposedly have power over certain aspects of humanity in the world and the different heavenly layers about the Earth, that were thought to exist. Without having the necessary academic or historical background, I found much of the book somewhat mystifying. However, when compared with what is in the Book of Revelation in the present New Testament, this Secret Revelation has far less violence in it and when violence does occur, it is only used by the false gods. The True God, in it, works through the illuminating light of truth, compassion and moral goodness. It this Secret Revelation, God is sometimes referred to as Father-Mother; different from the New Testament we have at present.
Another of these 10 ancient documents is the Gospel of Truth. Of this gospel, Haussig’s commentary states -
The Gospel of Truth takes seriously human pain and error but concentrates on affirming the ways the goodness and beauty of life continue to overflow everywhere. The Son revealed to people who God is, which “became the way for those who strayed and knowledge for those who were ignorant, discovery for those searching and strength for those who were shaken, purity for those who were defiled” (16:10) .. The results are that “the Father is within them and they are in the Father. They are full and undivided from the one who is truly good. They need nothing at all, but they are at rest, fresh in spirit, and will listen to their root.” (27:6-8). For the Gospel of Truth, this is not a beatific vision of Heaven, but one of humans fully alive in the present moment.
Without ignoring the issues of conflict and difficulty, the Gospel of Truth is perhaps the most joyous and ecstatic book of early Christianity. It provides a stunning contrast to the kinds of 21st Century Christianity that feature condemnation and dark prophesies.
It would appear that maybe a sort of panentheism is as ancient as early Christian times, with ‘in-ness’ a major theme.
I personally found much of the content of these 10 ancient documents stimulating, however, I would need to do a great deal more study and research, particularly of the then current cosmology, if I am to understand more of these books and their messages. However, from my brief introduction to these 10 books, it makes me wonder what Christianity would look like today if the Canon of the New Testament was different from the one originally decided upon, that which we actually have now.
The fact that these biblical scholars have done this work, is very significant to me.
Questions for discussion
A Bishop of the Church in 376 CE. called Athanasius, listed the 27 books that now form our New Testament canon and he decreed, ‘In these alone is the teaching of true religion proclaimed as good news; let no one add to these or take anything from them.’
What do you think of this decree of Athanasius?
Do you think the church should change the ‘canon’ of Scripture? Do you think the church would ever consider such a change?
Does this process, by which our Bible eventually came into it present form affect the way you view it?
If you had supreme authority, what parts of the Bible, if any, would you delete and what parts, if any, would you refuse to have deleted?
What do you think about the statements by the Catholic Church at the Vatican Council II and the Uniting Church in its Basis of Union? Are there differences of emphasis? If so, do you think they are important?
Do you think the church should 'open' the canon and then re-constitute it?
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text above has the text of the bookblets edited and, for this study, an important additon is included. Because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.