Facts about Bible VII : The Canon

continued from Facts About Bible VI : Autographs, Manuscripts and Translations

If one is to believe the Bible is the Word of God, certain reasonable questions must be addressed to satisfy the curious nature in us all. Why are these books inspired by God and others not? Who decided this? How did they come to this decision? Asking these questions does not have to weaken ones faith, but answering them will certainly strengthen it.

Basically the Old Testament (as we know it today) was accepted by the early church for at least two reasons: 1) Hebrew tradition endorsed those books. 2)The apostles and other New Testament writers implicitly endorsed them by quoting from almost every OT book. If one believes in the authority of Christ, one should not have difficulty in trusting the endorsement of His closest disciples.

The history of the canon of the New Testament, however, is a bit more complex. Early on the decision as to which books would be accepted or rejected was made locally by elders or bishops. Lists of approved books were published at different times as the New Testament writings became available for examination. Though churches made these decisions independently, by the year 170 A.D. most churches were in agreement as to which writings were inspired. These became known as the "canon" of Scripture (Canon being the Greek word for "ruler" or "rod"). The New Testament canon would become the rule of faith for Christians.

With the proliferation of heretical doctrines and small church factions, christians became weary and doubts were raised about a few New Testament books that had been previously accepted. Athanasius c. 296 accepted all 27 NT books. The Revelation of John, accepted at first, was later rejected by a great number of churches in Asia Minor. Origen c. 185 accepted all 27 books with the exception of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude. Irenaeus c. 130 rejected the same books Origen did plus Hebrews.

Why were these books doubted? Hebrews was doubted because its author was unknown. Eventually it was later judged as having at least apostolic authority if not the authorship of an apostle. James appeared to contradict Romans' message. This is solved though in light of works being the natural fruit of genuine faith. 2 Peter had a different style than 1 Peter. It later became clear that Peter had used a scribe (1 Pet. 5:12). The author in 2 and 3 John calls himself elder and not apostle. This was evidently okay since the apostle Peter calls himself an elder as well (1 Pet. 5:1) Jude cites two non-canonical books. This is justified when one observes Paul quoting pagan poets (Acts. 17:28, Titus 1:12) The author of Revelation does not call himself an apostle. This doesn't prove he didn't write it. Furthermore, this book meets other criteria for canonicity.

Despite these minor disagreements, the majority of churches still accepted the 27 New Testament books and firmly rejected all others.

These were the criteria for determining which books should be accepted as canonical:

1) Was the book written or endorsed by a prophet or apostle?
2) Is the book authoritative?
3) Is the book in agreement with prior revelation?
4) Does the book have a transforming effect on its readers?
5) Was the book accepted by the people of God?