Question 6: Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?

We are continuing our overview of Plummer's 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible.  It is my intention to get through this book in 2011, with hopes of writing, at least, every week.  One of my resolutions is to finish what I begin - so here goes.

This week's question is "Who Determined What Books Would Be Included in the Bible?"  Most people take the Bible for granted, giving little thought, study and reflection about the process of how the Book became our "only authoritative rule [canon] of faith and practice."

Plummer approaches the subject from a Protestant point of view.  It is a view that I too, presuppose and value greatly.  From the Protestant perspective, it is important to understand that the canon is not an authorized collection of writings (in that the church conferred its authority or approval upon a list of books).  Rather, the canon is a collection of authoritative writings.  Plummer adds, "The biblical writings have an inherent authority as works uniquely inspired by God.  Canonization is the process of recognizing that inherent authority, not bestowing it from an outside source."

It is often not until one is confronted with a differing view (like that of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox canon), that certain questions are asked.  Who determined that 39 books would be in the Old Testament, and that 27 would be in the New?  Why did they choose these books and not others?  What am I supposed to do about certain "gospels" that I hear about on the Discovery Channel? Is the canon closed?

Old Testament Canon.  To summarize the canonization of the OT, Plummer quotes Kaiser: [There was a] progressive recognition of certain books as being canonical right from their inception by readers and listeners who were contemporaries with the writers and who are thereby in the best position to determine the claims of the writers."  Plummer continues, "It seems clear that by the time of Jesus, most Jews were in agreement as to their own canon - a list that matches our current OT in content."

New Testament Canon.  About the New Testament, Plummer writes, "Compared to the OT canon, we know much more about the formal recognition of the books of the New Testament."  He then lists the criterion by which the early church recognized the New Testament books.  They had to be: 1) Apostolic.  That is, they had to be written by or tied closely to an apostle (an authorized eyewitness of Jesus); 2) Catholic, in that they were widely, if not universally (hence the term "catholic"), recognized by the churches; and 3) Orthodox, or, not in contradiction to any recognized apostolic book or doctrine.

The first 27-book list that matches what we have today, is the list by Athanasius in his Easter letter (letter 39) of A.D. 367.  Further, there were two early church councils (Hippo Regius, A.D. 393, and Carthage, A.D. 397) that confirmed the 27-book list.

Though much more can be said about the formation and recognition of the NT canon, I will cite two quotations that I found very helpful.  First, on the process of recognition.  T.C. Hammond describes the historical process in four points: 1) The NT books were written during the period A.D. 45-100; 2) They were collected and read in the churches A.D. 100-200; 3) They were carefully examined and compared with spurious writings A.D. 200-300; and 4) Complete agreement was obtained A.D. 300-400.

Second, on the agreement of recognition.  Barker, Lane and Michaels observe: "The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same 27 books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived.  All that thee several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character.  When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essential of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the NT serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level."

To learn more about the Apocrypha, I would suggest reading getting a copy of the book and reading.  I would also recommend Carson's work on the subject titled, Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: An Evangelical View.

Is the Canon Closed?  Plummer ends the chapter by answering this very significant question.  He writes, "According to the early church's categories for canonicity (apostolic, catholic, orthodox), it would be impossible to have any additions to the canon.  For example, even if a genuine and orthodox letter of the apostle Paul were discovered, that letter would not have had widespread usage in the early church (that is, it could never claim catholicity).  The canon of Scripture is closed."

This chapter does a great job of informing us on a very large and significant subject.  This is a great introduction for any Christian who desires to know their Bible better.  And it serves as a good beginning to any student for further study.