QUESTIONS OF CANON

Here's another of my book reviews for class. This book was on how the Bible was pulled together:

Review of F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1988. 

Introduction: The Question of Belonging

Unlike Muslims or Mormons, orthodox Christians lack the easy solace provided by a mythology of sacred writings delivered by heavenly messenger, simultaneously dictated, recorded, and canonized. On the other hand, many believers simply never question the Bible’s origin, blissful in their ignorance. The risk, however, is falling prey to forces intent on attacking the validity and authority of Scripture, sometimes even from within the church. Without some familiarity with the canonization of the Bible, even basic questions can foster doubt and uncertainty: How was the Bible compiled? Who decided what would be included and what excluded? When was the canon closed, who closed it, and by what standard? In the hands of the worldly, these questions can be wielded as weapons against faith. Ignorance, then, is dangerous for the faithful. 

In The Canon of Scripture F. F. Bruce examines the historical record to reveal the process which led to the canonization of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Interested in writing for the common man, he acknowledges the existence of other trustworthy scholarship on the topic but justifies his book as “an attempt to communicate the present state of knowledge [on canonization] to a wider public” (10). Considering the author’s definition of canon as “the list of books which are acknowledged to be, in a unique sense, the rule of belief and practice”, questions regarding the formation of the Bible canon are deserving of thoughtful answers (18, emphasis in original). 

The Old Testament

Bruce first gives attention to the millennium-long process leading from oral traditions to what Christians today would call the Old Testament. He contends this process was complete by the time of Jesus and there seems to have been general agreement even among the various Jewish factions of the day as to established books of “the law and the prophets” and their place of authority (42). Although Jesus would have likely read the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was produced centuries before his time and seems to have been accepted as trustworthy by his contemporaries around Jerusalem, including the writers of the New Testament, who quoted it often in their own books. Bruce points out, though, that while the early church continued to revere the established law and prophets as inherited by God’s chosen people,  they now read it differently in light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, focusing on how it pointed to Jesus (64).  

Bruce pieces together surviving historical records, from both the east and west, indicating which books specifically were considered Old Testament canon in various places across the early centuries after Christ. Several books seem to have been contested, drifting onto and off surviving lists. Notable among those is Maccabees, now firmly off the list, and Esther, now on. In the 4th century A.D., Jerome made an interesting distinction, sorting the known books into three categories: canonical (those considered sacred), edifying (those useful for spiritual development), and apocryphal (those to be avoided) (90). Surprisingly, Bruce points out that even following various councils and the Reformation itself, agreement on Old Testament canon still does not exist across all believers (113). Nevertheless, in essence the Old Testament canon was settled by the time of Jesus.   

The New Testament

Bruce next turns his attention to a comparable examination of the history of the formation of the New Testament canon. He documents how in the early days of the church, the stories of Jesus found in the four gospels and the collection of Paul’s letters along with the book of Acts formed a proto-New Testament (132). According to Bruce, the first known publication of a “New Testament” was created by Marcion in the 2nd century A.D., but it was misshaped by certain unorthodox convictions he held (134 ff.). Marcion’s approach to canon, especially the fact he rejected the Old Testament altogether, gave the wider church a reason to clarify the usefulness of a broader definition of scripture. The relatively recent discovery of the Muratorian Fragment illustrates the church’s response to Marcion, in that it offered “a list of New Testament books recognized as authoritative in the Roman church at that time” with a “number of observations” about each (159). Unfortunately, the document is incomplete, and it is unclear how widely held were the opinions it expresses. 

Bruce next demonstrates that at least from the time of Irenaeus, in the 2nd century A.D., the church understood its sacred scripture as consisting of both the Old and the New Testaments (177). Indeed, the church was referring to the gospels and epistles collectively as “the New Testament” by the beginning of the 3rd century, as demonstrated in the writings of Tertullian (180). Bruce also shows, though, that just like the Old Testament, the shape of this New Testament shifted somewhat over time and place. There were certain books which nobody doubted as belonging to the canon: the four gospels, Acts, and most of the letters of Paul. Over time there was some dispute about the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation. Nevertheless, these were all included (along with every other book in our current New Testament) in Bibles published by Eusebius in the 330’s A.D. at Emperor Constantine’s request (204). Still, certain books remained somewhat controversial and unsettled, especially in the east. 

During his studies, it became clear to Bruce that when it came to the Old Testament, the fact that “it was good enough for” Jesus and the apostles meant that the early church considered it good enough for themselves (255). And as for the New Testament, the major consideration for what was to be understood as required reading was apostolic authority (256). Bruce brings his book to a close with an important reminder: Although The Canon of Scripture explores the historical dimension of canonization, for the believer, the more important dimension to consider is the theological, i.e., scripture’s inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: A Thorough Exploration

The depth of Bruce’s knowledge of the historical events and individuals who gave shape to the Bible as it stands today is apparent throughout The Canon of Scripture. Almost as important is his appreciation of the limitations of historical research. It is admirable that Bruce refuses to use fragments of documents and records to stretch speculation into certainty. This thoroughness of research, carefulness in documentation, and understanding of limitations leads the reader toward great confidence in Bruce’s conclusions, and thus toward greater confidence in the trustworthiness of the canon he has dedicated his life to studying.