The Canonicity of the Scriptures

The Canonicity of the Scriptures THE CANONICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES
CHAS. H. ROBERSON THE WORD “CANON” is of Christian origin and signifies a norm or rule. It came to mean a rule of faith and eventually a list. In its present usage it connotes a collection of religious writings Divinely inspired and hence authoritative, normative, sacred and binding. This address, therefore, deals with the quality of being canonical, that is, belonging to or characteristic of the canon of Scripture. It is not known how the ancient Hebrews expressed the idea of canonicity, but the idea existed long before there was any special term to express it. In the New Covenant the word “Scriptures” conveys unquestionable the concept of sacredness. The problem of how we came to have sixty-six books known as the Scriptures is largely an historical investigation. The question is not who wrote the several books, but who made them into a collection; not their origin nor their contents, but their history. The task then and the purpose before us is to summarize the stages in which the body of sacred writings became known, approved and accepted as “Scripture.”

There are plenty learned treatises on the Canon and on Higher and Lower Criticism, but a dearth of any summarization of the evidence and conclusion of these learned treatises in terms adapted to the general reader. There are many popular works on Evidences, and frequently apologetic discourses, but the evidence is too untrustworthy because taken at second-hand, and too frequently conclusions are stated with more rhetorical adorment and of impetuous invective than of judicial candor. It is an historical problem and must be solved by the rules which affect human testimony. And never was testimony more abundant and more convincing.

There are many who claim that the Canon of Scripture was determined by the Council of Nicea or of Laodicea or of Carthage, but the evidence is conclusive that the church had in her hands “a defined canon of Scripture” before any councils were held. The canon of the Old Covenant, likely, was settled in its present form as early as the days of Ezra, and only those books were accepted as the Divine standards of faith and regulative of conduct which were written for this definite purpose by those who were believed to be inspired of God.l The canon of the New Covenant may be safely asserted as founded on these principles:

First, if a book could be proved to have been written by, or under direct supervision of an apostle; and second, if its doctrines were such as the apostles taught, it was received into the canon. A book to have place in the New Covenant had to have the apostolic seal and sanction. The primitive Christians were not easily deceived for many of them were personally acquainted with the apostles, or had listened to their teaching, and were familiar with their habits of thought and methods of speech. It would be as impossible to deceive them into receiving a spurious book into the canon of the New Covenant, as to deceive persons living in the years of 1978 to 1983 about the facts of the present and preceding national administrations.

If a time can be fixed when the canon of the New Covenant was settled, the task is an easy one to show that the canon of the Old Covenant had long been received, without question, by those most competent to judge of it. Let us, then, begin with a time when the present canon of the Scriptures was received and journey backward from that point, and if the search takes us back until the words of truth from lips of Peter and of John and of Paul and of Him who spake as never man spake may be heard, the chain of the argument will be securely welded and the canon made fast to the apostolic age. At the time of the Council of Nicea, A. D. 325, the Bible as we now have it was in existence and men acknowledged its Divine authority.

Beginning here, let us summarize the testimony of the Fathers of the first three and one half centuries under Four Stages of the Process:
(1) That of the third and fourth centuries.
(2) That of the close of the second century and the opening of the third, A. D. 170-220;
(3) That of the Apologists, A. D. 120-170;
(4) That from the time of the apostles until about A. D. 120

I. THE THIRD AND THE FOURTH CENTURIES
Eusebius: The position and scholarship of Eusebius entitle his testimony to great weight. He was born about A. D. 260, was living at the time of the Council of Nicea, probably a member of it. He says of the persecution ordered by Diocletian about A. D. 300, some twenty-five years before the Council of Nicea, “I saw the inspired Scriptures consigned to the fire,” and he could not fail to know what books men loved better than their own lives and why the loved them so. One is not able to suppose that the term “inspired Scriptures” was peculiar to him, but rather in common use. He had freest access to the famous library of the learned Pamphilus of Caesarea, and summarizes the writings of the New Covenant thus:

“And first, then, we must place the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. After these we must reckon the (fourteen) Epistles of Paul (including clearly the Epistle to the Hebrews) ; and next to them we must ratify the epistle circulated as the former of John, and in like manner that of Peter. After these books we must place—if at least such a view seem correct—the Apocalypse,—and these the reckoned among the books acknowledged. Among the controverted books which are never-the-less well known and used by most, we class the epistle circulated under the name of James, and that of Jude, as well as the Second Epistle of Peter, and of the so-called Second and Third John, whether they really belong to the evangelist, or possibly to another of the same name.” This summary was written about A. D. 303.

Constantine embraced the new faith about A. D. 311, In A. D. 325 he called the Council of Nicea. At this Council “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were silently admitted on all sides to have final authority.”4 At no one of the four great councils of the fourth century were the contents and the character of our Bible, as we now have it, made a subject of discussion, except to give sanction to the canon as it already existed.5 The task which Constantine gave to Eusebius to prepare “fifty copies of the divine Scriptures” established a standard which in time gave recognition to all doubtful books. These copies were made with the greatest care and included all the present books of the New Covenant except the Apocalypse, which, however, was soon admitted to full confidence and judgment “supported by the prescription of primitive tradition.”6 The testimony is convincing that we read the same Bible which Eusebius read to the people of Caesarea.

Origen: Origen was born A. D. 184, suffered severely in the Decian persecution, died A. D. 254, just six years before the birth of Eusebius. He was a profound scholar. His testimony accords with that of Eusebius. The only doubt he records is about II Peter and II and III John, but these were in existence, were known to the churches and were received by very many as of Divine authority. His principal work was done after A. D. 200. The evidence takes us back to the beginning of the third century when every book of the New Covenant is in existence and all but three universally accepted as Divine authority.

II. FROM A. D. 170-220.
Tertullian: Tertullian was born about A. D. 150, died A. D. 220-240. He was the leading Latin writer of his age. His quotations from the Scriptures include all the books of the New Covenant, except James, II Peter, and II and III John. The “Ante-Nicene Fathers” points out apparent references to both James and Peter. One or two of these seem well authenticated, but most are too vague to be relied on with confidence. The canon of Tertullian is closely related to the old Latin versions of the Bible, and surely sets aside the claim that the authority of the canon rests upon the action of any council. “The canon does not derive its authority from the church, whether Jewish or Christian; the office of the church is merely that of custodian and a witness.”

Clement of Alexandria: Clement of Alexandria was born about A. D. 160, died about A. D. 220. He was a renowned scholar. He had access to the great Alexandrian Library, whose priceless volumes were a store-house of valuable information. He tells us that Pantaenus, whom he succeeded, left behind writings which contain the shadow and outline of what he heard from men who preserved “the true tradition of the blessed doctrine directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul.”9 He did not leave a catalog but he called the Scriptures Divine and Divinely inspired. His references cover the whole Bible, unless Philemon and III John be excepted.

Irenaeus: Irenaeus was born about A. D. 120, died A. D. 202. He is but two lengths removed from Christ and but one from the apostles. His life extends over eighty-two years of the early history of the church. He was associated with Pothinus who was contemporary with the apostle John and with Polycarp. One has said that his quotations from the Gospels would “fill eleven closely printed folio columns; while the passages' from the Old Testament would fill fifteen such columns.” (Prof. Norton). The American reprint of the Edinburgh edition of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers” states that his writings contain 765 instances in which direct quotations or allusions are made from the books of the New Covenant. He quotes from or alludes to every book of the New Covenant except Philemon and III John, and every chapter except fifty- four.”H There can be but one conclusion, and that, the books of the New Covenant were in existence in his time and were well known to those to whom he wrote, and unless III John and Philemon be excepted, were accepted by the whole church.

III. THE AGE OF THE APOLOGISTS A. D. 120-170
The heretics of the apologetic age bear unequivocal testimony to the existence of the Gospels.

Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, was born about A. D. 110, died about A. D. 172. His “Diatessaron” (Harmony of the Gospels) affords proof of the existence of the Gospels before A. D. 170.

Marcion was a contemporary of Justin. He gives the first clear attempt to define a Christian Bible. His book contained the Gospel which was a recension of Luke, and the Apostolicon which consisted of ten Epistles of Paul. The Muratorian Fragment, discovered in Milan A. D. 1740, is said to be “the earliest approach to a Scripture canon or list of the books of Scripture now extant.”12 It contains references to each books of the New Covenant except I and II Peter, James and Hebrews. But the Fragment contains a remarkable sentence which Westcott thinks was made originally in explaining the reception of Hebrews, and if this be correct, only three of the books which we now receive are omitted. If we had the missing parts, we may reasonably be assured that no book would be omitted from the list. Its formation is not later than A. D. 150-170. This brings us to the point where the evidence is clear as pertains to the making of a Scripture canon, and that such did exist as early as A. D. 150. Closely related to the Muratorian Fragment are the Old Latin and the Syriac versions which Eusebius says were in existence as early as A. D. 150. These were translations of the books that were at that time received as genuine, and show what books were recognized as belonging to the Scriptures. These prove every book of our New Covenant was received and recognized as authoritative except II Peter which had gained only a partial recognition.

Justin Martyr was the chief of the Apologists. He was born about A. D. 100, suffered martyrdom A. D. 163-165. Although he mentions by name only the Apocalypse of the books from which he quotes, it seems quite certain that a collection of the books of the New Covenant was either in existence or in the process of making.

Standing now at the threshold of the age of Peter and John and Paul, the result of our survey is briefly this:
All the books of the New Covenant, unless we except II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were accepted as of Divine authority. One can not be sure that any exceptions should be made. For some congregations received books which were rejected by others, and the conclusion is obvious that all the books which we now have in the canon were in existence during the first half of the second century.

IV. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS A. D. 95—120
Papias,13 A. D. 75-150, saw and heard many intimate acquaintances of the apostles. He was learned in the Scriptures and his testimony to the Gospels, the Apocalypse, I John and I Peter has great weight. He says that he got his facts “from the living and abiding voice” of disciples of our Lord.

Clement of Rome was a contemporary and disciple of Peter and Paul. Positive knowledge pertaining to him is meager, yet enough is known to invest him with a dignity which naturally belongs to a “companion and successor of the two great apostles.... of the early Christian world.” About A. D. 95, he wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians in which he quotes extensively from the Old Covenant and from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, the Corinthian letters, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, I Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, I and II Peter and the Apocalypse. This testimony is significant, an makes it quite obvious that the books from which he quotes and to which he alludes were in existence at close of the first century.

Ignatius: The personal history of Ignatius is not certainly known. Tradition says that it was he, when a child, that Jesus placed in the midst of the apostles. (Matthew 18:2) This indicates that he was contemporary with the Master and the apostles. The allusions to him in the writings of Polycarp and Origen give assurance that he was a conspicuous figure in the early days of the church. His writings show a familiarity with the teachings of the New Covenant which precludes the idea that the books which comprise it were not then in existence and accepted as the Word of God. Every writing of his is saturated with the thought and the spirit of the gospel. Often his language seems a paraphrase of the New Covenant. There is no way to account for the remarkable coincidences in thought, spirit and expression with its writers than by supposing that he was familiar with them. When it is remembered that he died within twenty years of the Apostle John, it certainly gives assurance that the books from which he borrowed his thought, and often his language, and which are now in our New Covenant, were then in existence, and that he knew them from the writings of the apostles and evangelists.

Polycarp: Polycarp was born A. D. 69-81. He must have been a young man of about twenty when he sat at the feet of John. He was instructed by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ. Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp related what he had heard respecting the Lord from “John, and the rest of those who had seen the Lord,” “in harmony with the Scriptures,” having thus received information from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life.” His writings bear witness of his knowledge of Matthew, Mark, Luke, ten of Paul’s Epistles, and three, perhaps five of the seven Catholic Epistles. Clement and Ignatius refer to the remainder except II and III (Jonn, and there is a possible reference to II John in Polycarp. If the latter epistles of John were spoken of together, there is then the possible reference in the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Poly carp to all the books of the New Covenant. The evidence surely points to the fact that at the close of the first century all the Gospels and all the Epistles we re in the hands of, and were known to, the churches. Here we rest the case, and hold that the testimony adduced justifies the conclusion that the books which comprise our New Covenant were known to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, and were in exis¬tence as early as A. D. 100.

Westcott says, “The Bible was formed, even as the church itself was formed, by the action of that Holy Spirit which is the life of both.” An interesting fact in this connection shows how rich the writings of the Fathers are in quotations from the Word. In consequence of the question raised by some English gentlemen as to whether the New Covenant could be recovered from the writings of the first three centuries, Sir David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, who had these writings, set himself the task of answering, and in two months discovered the whole New Covenant with the exception of eleven verses, and he thought these could be found also. The “Ante-Nicene Fathers” points out in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers more than 200 references or allusions which are from all the books of the New Covenant with only II and III John not included. Justin Martyr makes 128 quotations or allusions and in such form as can be found only in the books which comprise our text of the New Covenant. So despite modern criticism, it must stand that the books which the Christians of the first three centuries of our era held to be the Word of God are the word of God. The Old Covenant: A word is necessary to set forth the authority on which the books of the Old Covenant rest. Its canon was settled before the time of Christ. The Syriac and the Old Latin Versions, made not later than the middle of the second century A. D., contained the books of the present Old Covenant. The Septuagint Version of the books of the Hebrew Bible was made B. C. 280-150, and contains the present books of the Old Covenant. Philo, Jose¬phus and the Talmud agree in fixing the canon of the Old Covenant as we now have it. When Christ came, the Old Covenant, exactly as we now have it, was recognized and re¬ceived as the Scriptures. It was the Bible of Christ, of the Apostles and of the Apostolic Fathers. The expression “from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah” (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51) seems to set the final order and arrangement of the canon of the Old Covenant. The Hebrew arrangement of the books of the Old Covenant places Chronicles last. The murder of Zachariah is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20 f, and so it seems evident that the expression as used by Jesus would in¬clude the whole range of Old Covenant Scriptures, not unlike we would say “from Genesis to Malachi.”

Finally it should be added that the question raised about certain books of the New Covenant by the writers of the first three centuries, both friends and foes, was not whether they were in existence as early as the close of the first century, but, on the one hand, whether they were written by the men to whom ascribed, and on the other hand, whether their teaching justified the interpretation put upon them by the church. While the evidence on which these books about which doubt was raised is not as pronounced and full as the evidence for the other books, it is greater than the evidence against them and entitles them to a place in the canon. It is vastly in favor of the books of our New Covenant, and goes far to establish their Divine authority, that they withstood the keen criticism and sifting judgment of the times when the canon was forming, while the Apocryphal books disappeared the moment they came under the searching tests by which each book was tried which asked a place in the sacred catalog. THE BOOK
There are books and books. There is one which may be rightly designed the Book. You may call it a library, or a volume, or whatever you will, but it remains the Book. The Book is unique in character, in contents and in origin. It is one of its class, but one, and that class is itself. No one may read the extant literature of the first three centuries A. D. and not be impressed with the fact that the Fathers were familiar with those books which comprise our Bible. With the supreme desire to honor God and His Book, I commend to you the evidence with the prayer that God will attend it with his blessing, for the Book remains the sole authority for the facts and principles of His revealing Himself unto man’s redemption, and the proof is lacking that the record is either incorrect or fraudulent.