THE CANONIZATION OF SCRIPTURE

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Steven Ortiz

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the requirements for BBHST 3313-I

__________________

by

James Nathan Johnson

 May 4, 2010

THE CANONIZATION OF SCRIPTURE

Few issues are as controversial in the world or as central to the orthodox faith

of Christianity than the 66 canonical books of the Protestant Christian Scriptures.

Though there are many who acknowledge various other selections to what they hold as

authoritative writings, the words of the Bible have elicited a wide variety of reactions

including hope, disdain, faith, incredulity, worship, and hatred. There are those who say

that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative, God-breathed revelation of a triune Deity who

has existed throughout eternity in unassailable holiness. There are also those who believe

the gold-edged printed pages bound in leather are merely Jewish fairy tales accompanied

by the obscure letters from the misled students of an obscure Rabbi in ancient Palestine.

Still others hold that they carry a mystical quality, but it has been abused and marred

beyond recognition by the contrivances of a corrupt religious hierarchy. Each of these

convictions belies presuppositions about the history, validity, content, accessibility, and

relevance of the Scriptures. In the postmodern, post-Christian United States, many

popular sources have shed a negative light on the message and history of the Bible.

Therefore this paper will walk through the establishment of the canon1 of Scripture

endeavoring to clarify in an accessible format the stages of development and the reasons

for accepting as reliably authoritative those scandalously beautiful documents that Christ-

followers hold so dear. In light of the varied traditions and histories of Old and New

1
Canon, for the purposes of this paper, refers to books or writings held as authoritative
for the practice of faith. See Walter A. Ellwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 155.; F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 5th ed.
(London: Marshall Pickering, 1991), 86-7.
Testaments, they will be examined first as two distinct units and then in conjunction with

one another as those histories merge.

The Old Testament

Piecing together the history and development of the Hebrew canonical books is

a tremendous task requiring much patience, investigation, and scholarly acumen. Even a

brief survey of the materials that have been produced regarding this topic reveals that it is

a murky subject, bound to frustrate all who require hard and fast answers to the most

difficult questions. This is not to say that there are no answers – quite the contrary, in

fact. Rather, the study of the emergence of the canonical Scriptures is a developing field

and the current research is so far removed from the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures that

absolute clarity and Cartesian certainty is all but impossible for now. But enough about

what is unknown – the more fruitful focus is toward what is known.

The earliest form of the Old Testament documents was not a document at all,

but rather an oral tradition that existed for an unknown period of time before being

committed to writing, presumably for greater accuracy and reliability.2 God revealed to

his people certain laws and principles which they were to pass on to subsequent

generations.3 From the pages of Scripture it can be clearly seen that certain sections of

these writings were considered authoritative, such as the Ten Commandments tablets that

were kept within the Ark of the covenant that stayed in the Holy of Holies in the

Tabernacle. The additional laws and regulations, known as the Law of Moses, were

written down and placed next to the Ark.4 Throughout Israel’s history these highly

2
Paul D Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations, (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1999), 105.
3
Deuteronomy 4:1-8 and 6:1-9 are two such examples.
4
Deuteronomy 31:24-26; Wegner, 105.
regarded written documents played an immensely important role in reform and descent

into sin, providing the authoritative foundation on which subsequent similar writings

would build. They later came to include the historical narratives and prophetic writings

that were later referred to as ‘Scriptures.’5 So the formation of the Old Testament

Scriptures began with an oral tradition and eventually formed into a body of writings that

were considered authoritative for faith and practice in the ancient Hebrew culture.

Arguably the most influential event in the formation of the Hebrew canon was

the destruction of the Temple during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century B.C. At that

time there was an unprecedented devotion to the compilation and preservation of the

Scriptures, resulting in the structure that still exists today.6 This is largely due to the

cease of prophetic activity and the completion of the Hebrew canon by the third or fourth

century B.C.7 Even at this early stage some works in this collection of writings were

questioned and others were introduced into the mix. The Samaritan canon held only the

Pentateuch in authority while the broader scope of Jewish writings saw the apocryphal

and pseudepigraphal works incorporated into certain sects like the community at

Qumran.8 The original Hebrew collection of writings stayed intact, however, and made

its way into the hands of the early Church fathers.

Early Christians adopted the Hebrew canon and held them as authoritative

teachings, though there was a fair amount of debate that followed from the Jewish

traditions as to how much should be included in the inspired writings. One camp of early

church fathers (such as Augustine) favored the inclusion of the apocryphal and
5
Wegner, 105; R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1969), 266.; see Daniel 9:2 for the first such occurrence.
6
J.A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 6.
7
Harrison, 287; also Wegner, 106.
8
Wegner, 106.
pseudepigraphal writings, and the other maintained a strict adherence to the established

Jewish canon only.9 This debate continued until the time of the Reformers in the 16th and

17th centuries. Following the inclusive segment of Church fathers, the Roman Catholic

Church at the Council of Trent in 1546 included the apocryphal works, resulting in their

eventual adoption of doctrines that are distinctive of the contemporary Catholic Church.10

The Reformers, however, stuck with the more conservative viewpoint and backed only

the Jewish Scriptures in the traditional Hebrew canon.11 This has, therefore, been

immensely formative to Protestant and Catholic tradition, practice, and theology.

The New Testament

Though the New Testament does not enjoy the breadth of history that the Old

Testament does, it does boast a heated and impassioned debate of far-reaching

implications. One of the unique features of the Christian New Testament is that it did not

emerge as a monolithic set of writings or replace the previously established canon, but

rather it was grafted into the Judeo-Christian tradition with the New Testament providing

a fulfillment of the Old.12

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament began as oral accounts of the life,

ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ based on the eyewitness testimony of the men

who followed him.13 As Christ traveled around during his time of ministry, his disciples

learned and taught as well, taking part in his ministry. As the Scriptures testify, Christ
9
Wegner, 107.
10
P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, The Greek and Latin Creeds (with
translation) (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882), 80-2.
11
W. Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists (Cambridge: Parker
Society Translation, 1849), 51-2.
12
Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans, G.W.H. Lampe, and
S.L. Greenslade, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-70), “The New
Testament in the Making,” 1:232.
13
Carson and Moo, 739.
was crucified in Jerusalem some time around A.D. 30. His disciples were eventually

scattered as a result of persecution under the Roman government, and they began to

spread his teachings and share the gospel with those they came in contact. Eventually as

the stories spread and as the circle of influence of Christ’s disciples widened it became

necessary to have careful written documentation of these events. With Christ having died

around A.D. 30 and the first full gospel in its final form emerging around thirty years

later, a relatively short oral tradition gap exists between the accounts of Christ’s life and

the events themselves.14

As the Church grew and spread under the leadership of the original eleven

disciples and especially Paul, the need arose for authoritative reliable testimonies by

those men as to the true teachings of Christ.15 Such documents would serve to regulate

the earliest traditions and practices of the Church, protect it against heresies that were

already infiltrating the minds and hearts of Christians, and to ensure that the teachings of

Christ and the Apostles would continue after their death.16 They all took the same basic

form of a letter (those directly relating the story of Jesus’ life being designated as gospels,

all others designated as epistles) sent from one who was in authority (an Apostle or close

relation) to an individual or a group, who then circulated the letters amongst the early

Christian congregations.

The gospels were all written and circulated in the second half of the first

century, being well-recognized and referenced by the middle of the second century.17

Mark was most likely the first, followed in fairly short order by Matthew and Luke,

14
Carson and Moo, 181-2.
15
Wegner, 134.
16
Ibid, 134-5.
17
Wegner, 137.
eventually wrapping up with John’s contribution toward the close of the first century.18

They provide a foundation for understanding the person and work of Jesus, and how his

teachings both interact with and fulfill the pages of the already-established Old Testament

canon. Acts stands as an interesting and essential bridge between the gospels and

epistles, as Luke endeavored to chronicle the major influences and the first few years of

the early Church. Without Acts, those who read the writings of the New Testament

would be without a context for Paul’s authority and writings or many of the other major

happenings in the rest of the epistles.19

The epistles, particularly those of the Apostle Paul, were quite prominent in

early Church congregations. As the early Church fathers point out, they were seen as

authoritative and to be held on the same level as the Old Testament Scriptures.20 One of

the most significant evidences in support of the equality of both the Pauline writings and

that of the historical Hebrew canon comes from Peter’s writings.21 With the major

influences of the early Church being largely separated on their missionary journeys it

comes as no surprise that there would be some disparity over their acceptance and

provenance. However, even the more highly debated general epistles (Hebrews through

Jude) were understood to be authoritative and held as such by multiple sources by the end

of the second century.22

Following the example of the Hebrew canon with the Old Testament, the early

Church fathers set out to solidify a similar corpus of writings in order to provide all of the

18
Carson and Moo, 95-112.
19
Bruce, 99.
20
W.Barclay, The Making of the Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1961), 65.
21
2 Peter 3:16
22
See Wegner, 140 for a list of sources and evidence to this end.
authoritative epistles to all of the early Church.23 Taking cues from some of the earliest

established leaders in the Church, several lists of authoritative letters were circulated and

the basic elements of the New Testament canon began to surface as early as the middle of

the second century.24 Some (such as the Muratorian Canon of the late second century)

included apocryphal books, and others had all a few of the more disputed works (such as

Eusebius’ list).25

As debates and discussions concerning these lists ensued, the first ecumenical

councils gathered to work through the most important issues of the day, mostly dealing

with theology and heresy. Closely tied to those debates, however, was the recognition of

the true authoritative works of Scripture and the rejection of those that had crept in

without Apostolic backing. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to put forth a list of

the twenty-seven books in the New Testament in his Festal letter of 367.26 The next

century was one of discussion and collaboration on recognizing those epistles that had

been celebrated as authoritative for the previous three hundred years. One of the most

common misconceptions and crucial points about the ecumenical councils that gathered

during this time is that they were not ‘choosing’ the books that fit their theological

convictions, but rather were confirming the works that had been accepted as authoritative,

profitable, and in accordance with the Old Testament writings throughout the beginnings

of the early Church.27

23
Carson and Moo, 732-3.
24
F.V. Filson, A New Testament History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 30.
25
See Wegner, 142-4 for a brief discussion on each source.
26
Wegner, 144.; P. Schaff and H. Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2d series, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991), 4:552.
27
Wegner, 144-5.
 One of the complicating factors in the establishment of the New Testament

canon was the difference in accepted works between the Eastern and Western church.

With each disputing different books for a variety of reasons and accepting the majority of

the final twenty-seven for differing reasons, consensus on a unified body of authoritative

writings proved troublesome. This is not to say that these differences in opinion was

without benefit. In fact, one of the strongest apologies for the unity of the early Church

was their acceptance of the final authoritative list that the Church celebrated until both

the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic sects added several Apocryphal books to the

canon at the Council of Trent in 1546.28

At the end of all of the discussions, councils, debates, and dialogues, the

Church boasted a twenty-seven book canon in addition to the original thirty-nine of the

Hebrew canon. This ‘New’ Testament was understood to have Apostolic authorship (or

authority), a self-authenticating Divine nature, and acceptance by the Church, which, in

conjunction with the Old Testament forms a cogent, coherent body of Scripture that is

now known as the Bible.

Conclusion

Though the early Church fathers have long-since been placed in the grave, and

the original bits of papyrus and animal skins have since weathered away or been lost

somewhere in the layers of rubble, the living and active Word of God still speaks to all

who have ears to hear. While we in the 21st century do have immense resources at our

disposal with which we can explore libraries full of information at our fingertips, we are

not without the same Holy Spirit who inspired, led the Church to compile and confirm,

and ushered faithful men and women throughout history to steward God’s self-revelation
28
Wegner, 149.
to us. We Christians follow in a long line of predecessors who have given their lives so

that we might benefit from their sacrifice.

We are the beneficiaries of a rich and wonderful tradition that celebrates

millennia of interaction with God as he moves in and through history to reveal more of

himself. This does not come without an immense responsibility to future generations,

however. The same schemes and ill-meaning influences that plagued the faithful Jews

and early Church fathers are still at work today through popular culture, apathy, and

misled and inaccurate scientists who compromise their research in order to undercut the

foundations of the Christian faith, just to name a few.

We must therefore be diligent to both study and teach this Word as it was

meant to be and as it has been passed down to us, for we are not engaged in mere

trivialities, but rather things of immense eternal importance. Regardless the opposition,

regardless the critical arguments and attempts to discredit the very Scriptures on which

our faith is based, we must hold fast to that in which we have believed, knowing that our

time is short, our Savior is near, and Heaven awaits those who remain faithful to the end.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, W. The Making of the Bible. New York: Abingdon, 1961.

Bruce, F.F. The Books and the Parchments, 5th ed. London: Marshall Pickering, 1991.

Cambridge History of the Bible. P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans, G.W.H. Lampe, and S.L.
Greenslade, eds. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-70.

Ellwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2001.

Filson, F.V. A New Testament History: The Story of the Emerging Church. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1964.

Harrison, R.K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Sanders, J.A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Schaff, P. The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, The Greek and Latin Creeds (with
translation). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882.

Schaff P. and H. Wace, eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, 2d series, 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Whitaker, W. A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists. Cambridge: Parker

Society Translation, 1849.