Disarming the Canon

Recently a friend asked me: "Who decided that the Bible is as-is? Whose voices were included? Whose voices were omitted? Why these texts?" This is a great question, and gives me an excuse to write briefly about the process of "canonizing" the texts that would make up the Bible. This starts by defining terms. First of all, the Bible. The Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblia" meaning "Library of Texts". We think of the Bible as a single book, but in reality it is a library of at least 66 separate texts (but probably 80 or more!). These texts were written over a thousand years, from as early as 1000 BCE to as late as 100 CE, by dozens of different authors from wildly different walks of life, across different languages, different cultures, and different religious backgrounds. 

So the question being asked is: Why did these books "make it in" to the Bible, while other texts did not? 

This brings up the question of "canonization", or the process by which we came up with a "canon" of books to include in the Bible. The term "canon" comes from Greek kanon, meaning "measuring rod", "rule", or "list". The term, used also in a larger sense for a list or catalogue, gradually acquired a technical meaning for the Books which were officially received as containing the rule of the Christian faith. In this sense the words "canon" and "canonical", which had already been employed by Origen (200's CE), came into general use in the 300's.

So as you might guess, there is a conflicted narrative about the formation of canon mainly because we do not possess definitive documents that outline how certain Scriptures became canonical, while others didn't. So we have a smattering of declarations, polemics, and other documents that quote certain Scriptures, and don’t quote others. The short answer is that "The Canon" was determined by majority community usage over centuries in a largely informal process. We only get authoritative declarations and lists of “what books are in the Canon” after those books have already been used de facto as Scripture, by a majority of faith communities, for decades or centuries. And it’s a largely evolutionary process of “survival of the fittest” documents that were best adapted to the needs of the people using them. This is especially true since the formation of the Hebrew Canon (circa 300 BCE-100 CE) and the formation of the Christian Canon (circa 100-300 CE) largely happened when these religions were minority sects which were either declared officially illegal, or generally disdained, by Greco-Roman culture. 

Thus they did yet not have state-sanctioned, power-wielding officials with the right to define orthodoxy and punish heterodoxy. For Judaism, this kind of "power politics" was never fully possible, because Jewish faith always existed within the control of other empires. And in Christianity, this version of "power politics" didn’t come until the mid-300’s when all Christian groups had already decided on the canon of the NT, and most of the canon of the OT. Rather, when the canon was formed Judaism and Christianity were organically connected communities, with diverse doctrines, that came to a slow collective agreement across the Mediterranean world that certain texts were foundational, and other texts were not. And this agreement was largely informal and practice based: Go to Churches or Synagogues around the ancient Mediterranean and you would find the same collections of main texts, with some optional texts of a more regional nature. 

And when you read early Church writers, occasionally you will get a list of accepted Scriptures (such as found in the historian Eusebius writing in 325 CE or Athanasius’ Easter letter of 367 CE). More often than not, we can only look at early Church literature and identify which Bible books they are quoting, and which they are not. But it wasn't really until the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 1500's that we get official doctrinal statements, enforced by state power, which define which books are in and which books are out. By that time, all groups already had the exact same 27 books of the Greek New Testament and the exact same 39 books of the Hebrew Old Testament. Where they disagreed was on certain Greek language books that sat between the two testaments. 

A similar long, messy process happens within Judaism, and we can look at what Scriptures are being quoted (and not quoted) by ancient Jewish writers (such as the writers of Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, or the authors Philo or Josephus). By the first century there was consensus of use that the foundational books were the five books of “Torah”, supplemented by the “Prophets”, and the “Writings”. All of these collections had commonly recognized contents which largely corresponds to Jewish Bibles today. We have even unearthed libraries of ancient Jewish texts hidden in caves in Qumran from over 1500 years ago, only to find basically the same canonical books. And some of them, such as Isaiah, are nearly word-for-word the same as our modern versions. 

The criteria for inclusion into these collections really came down to usage and language. If the texts had been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and had been commonly used and recognized across the Jewish world, they were recognized as foundational. If not, they might still be devotional literature, but not foundational literature. These collections of the Hebrew language Torah, Prophets, and Writings were recognized in a quasi-official list supplied by the Rabbinic school in Yavne (Jamnia) in Palestine sometime in the late first century, after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. This list is more or less agreed upon by global Judaism as it entered into its long diaspora across the Roman Empire and Middle East starting in the second century onward. And despite the massive amounts of diversity across global Judaism, these same Hebrew books have been remarkably consistent across time and space as the Foundational literature for Jewish faith.

The Christian New Testament (NT) had criteria that was a bit more debated and a bit more objective. While the main Hebrew texts were written 900-300 BCE, and eventually recognized as canonical around 100 CE, the timeframe for the Christian writings was much shorter. The books we recognize as the NT were all written 50-100 CE, and largely recognized as canonical by around 300 CE. And we only possess perhaps 30 to 40 early Christian documents that can be reliably dated by 100 CE, and of these 27 of them (the vast majority) made it into the NT. So, out of all the early Christian literature that was written in the “Apostolic period” (when the apostles could have still been alive) almost all of it is actually in the NT. If you dig into almost all of the other “secret books” of the NT that are frequently popularized in news articles, you find they were written at least a century after the Apostolic period, and sometimes two or three centuries later. Of the non-NT books that were written in the Apostolic period, most were accepted by later Christianity as beneficial literature in accord with the rest of the NT, but not foundational (such as the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas or the Letter of Barnabas). Others, such as the writings of Clement or Ignatius, explicitly say they are not Scripture but are building on the teachings of the Apostles. Only a couple of documents, notably the Gospel of Thomas, are BOTH early written AND heterodox compared with the NT. And, as a side note, the Gospel of Thomas is both fascinating and delightful, but does say problematic things such as that a woman must become a man to be saved. 

Overall, if a book didn’t make it into the NT, it almost certainly wasn’t written until a century or more after the time of Jesus. Furthermore early Church writers from the first 4 centuries usually only quote writings as “Apostolic” that are found in the NT. There are very few cases where someone quotes a writing as Apostolic which is not also in the NT (again, examples of this include quotes from the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letter of Barnabas). It does seem that other religious communities— loosely called “Gnostic”— flourished alongside early Judaism and Christianity from the late 100’s to the early 300’s. They had their own Scriptures which mashed up ideas from Judaism and Christianity and Neo-Platonic philosophy and Hellenistic Mystery religions into a variety of fusions. Kind of like forms of “New Age” spirituality in our culture. The Gnostics also had their own leadership structures and communities, and there was clearly antagonism between Gnostics and early Christians, and polemic writings back and forth between the communities. Yet it does NOT seem that Gnostic Scriptures were used as foundational texts in early churches (especially since they didn’t exist for the first century or more of the Christian Movement). And Gnosticism does not seem like it had a broad base of membership (unlike Paganism or Christianity), and seems to have died out entirely by the time of the fall or Rome in the late 400’s. 

An over-simplified way of thinking of the formation of the NT Canon is to use the "notes of the Church" found in the Nicene Creed (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic). By and large, the early Church looked at the following factors:

• ONE: Is the writing one with, and in unity with, the ancient "rule of faith" which was passed down from the early Church (see "Rule of Faith"). If the writing was at variance with the rule of faith (as in the case of Gnostics and other heretical groups), then it was rejected. 
• HOLY: Did the writing contribute to the holiness of those who read it? Did it create "saints" who were faithful within the Church? If a writing was associated with schismatics or apostates, it was usually rejected. 
• CATHOLIC (universal, or found everywhere): Was the writing widely accepted and distributed across the Church from antiquity? If a writing was new, or not well known in Church history, or only accepted by a small section of the Church, it was usually rejected. 
• APOSTOLIC: Was the writing written by the associate of an apostle (like Mark or Luke), or said to come from an apostle's pen (like John, Matthew, or the letters of Paul)? Is there a record, preserved by bishops and churches in apostolic succession, of the antiquity and authenticity of the writing? If not, it was frequently rejected.

So, we have two collections of canonical Scripture that are largely agreed upon. The first collection is the Hebrew Bible, or what Christians often refer to as the "Old Testament" (in the sense that it is preparatory for understanding the New Testament).  This canonical collection is agreed on by all historic forms of Judaism, and historic forms of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant). Depending on how you number it, this Hebrew Bible includes 17 books (for Jews) or 66 books (for Christians). But they both have the same content, it is just that some books are combined for Jews (such as 1Kings and 2Kings being combined into one book of Kings, or the 12 Minor prophets being combined into one Book of the Twelve). However you number it, everyone agrees on this content being included. The second collection of books all Christians agree on is the 27 books of the New Testament. No ancient ongoing Christian group has added or deleted books from this collection of 27. Some groups that died out long ago, such as Marcionites or Gnostics, did add or delete books, but they did not survive. And some very new Christian groups have added Scriptures (such as the Latter Day Saints, or Mormons). But none of the Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant groups that are more than three centuries old disagree on the 27 books of the New Testament. 

Where do historic Christian groups disagree? There is a list of around a dozen pre-Christian books-- depending on how you number them and/or combine them with other books-- that Christians historically disagree about. They are Jewish books written BEFORE the time of Jesus, but which were written and/or distributed in the Greek language rather than in Hebrew. These books include Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Esdras, and other later Greek additions to Biblical books such as Daniel. If you look at the chart above, you will note that Protestants tend to reject them all as canonical, certain Orthodox groups accept them all, and other Orthodox and Catholic groups accept only portions of them. While these books are often quoted and alluded to by the New Testament, some Christians do not consider them to be part of the official catalogue or canon of the Old Testament. These Christians call these books "Apocryphal", which means books that have been "Hidden Away" from the Canon. Other Christians consider them to be a Secondary part of the Canon, and hence call them "Deuterocanonical". Either way, these books do not change any essential teaching of the Old or New Testament, and offer a great deal of background information to understand the rest of Scripture. And, put in perspective, all Christians agree on the 39 OT books and the 27 NT books. They only disagree on these dozen or so Deuterocanonicals.

Overall, it seems to me that our Canon of Scripture accurately reflects the texts which the vast majority of Jews and Christians have viewed as foundational to their faith. Furthermore, it seems that the textual criticism of the Bible reveals that the texts we have today accurately reflect the texts as ancient Jews and Christians read them. Although nothing is certain, the overwhelming probability is that our canon of Scripture is an accurate record of what most Jews and Christians, across most places, across most of history, have received as authentic Scripture. For those who believe in God, and who see aspects of History as orchestrated by God's Spirit to lead us into the fullness of God's Truth, then this probability is embraced by faith. The Holy Spirit inspired the messy processes of ancient Jewish and Christian communities to record and recognize certain texts as foundational to communal life and vibrant faith. 

But, it is hard to read about the formation of the Biblical Canon because our culture is so irrationally divided. On the far “right” are folks that insist the Bible is absolutely inerrant and the process of canonization was objective and definitive. The Bible is often treated as a kind of Golden Text handed down out of heaven directly from God, or at least dictated word-for-word by God to the authors. But this is clearly not anywhere near the truth. On the far “left” are folks that insist the Bible is nothing but a product of power politics, as history written by the winners to subjugate the losers in favor of an oppressive orthodoxy. Needless to say, both extremes are simplistic and cherry pick evidence. So here’s some further resources: The moderate left is found in “Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrman. The moderate right is found in “The Canon of Scripture” by FF Bruce. Also linked in this article are charts I have created, as well as online resources that I have found helpful. Even a rap song that I made to memorize the canon of Scripture. And if you want a really short video presentation of the process of Canonization and how Canon differs from Protestants to Catholics to Orthodox, here you go.