2.04. Canonicity of Scripture

Canonicity of Scripture The canonicity of a book means its right to a place in the collection of inspired writings; and this depends upon the fact that it was composed by an inspired man or under his direction. Canonicity therefore is very closely connected with authenticity or genuineness, and some would merge the two in one. If a book can be proved to be the genuine product of an evangelist or apostle, its canonicity is established. To determine whether a writing is canonical is to determine whether it originated in the very restricted circle of inspired men or in the very wide circle of ordinary men. In answering this question, some assistance is derivable from the nature and contents of the book. Absurdities and contradictions, sentiments contradicting the general tenor of revelation, and such like characteristics would prove that a writing is not the product of inspiration and therefore not canonical. Thus the subject of canonicity is also connected with that of credibility. At the same time, the question “who is the author of the book?” is different from the question “is the book credible?” The former is the question when the subject of canonicity is under consideration. (See supplement 2.4.1.) The inquiry respecting the authorship of a writing is mainly historical. To answer it requires the testimony of competent witnesses; and the most competent witnesses are those who lived nearest to the time of the alleged origin and authorship. An eyewitness is the best of all; and the next best witness is one who personally heard the testimony of an eyewitness and so onward. Consequently, the primitive church was better situated and qualified than the modern church to testify respecting the authorship of the Gospel of Luke or the Epistle to the Hebrews. More documentary evidence and more personal testimony was accessible in the year 150 than in the year 1880. An Alexandrine scholiast had more data for determining which of the Platonic dialogues are spurious than any English or German philologist of the nineteenth century. The generation of Americans who lived at the close of the eighteenth century had the best advantages of any for settling the question whether Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence. The canonicity of a New Testament book is not settled by the authority of the primitive church, but by its testimony. This mistake is frequently made. Coleridge (Table Talk for 31 March 1832) says that “we receive the books ascribed to John and Paul as their books on the judgment of men for whom no miraculous discernment is pretended. Shall we give less credence to John and Paul themselves?” The modern church does not receive John’s Gospel and Paul’s epistles as canonical on the “judgment” or decision of the primitive church respecting their contents, but on their testimony respecting their authorship. Testimony respecting canonicity is like testimony respecting miracles. The modern church does not rest its belief in the miracles of our Lord on the authority of the first Christians, but on their witness and attestation. The authority of the first Christians is no higher than that of any other Christians, but their testimony is.

Neither is the question of canonicity to be answered by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the consciousness of the believer. The teaching of the Holy Spirit, while indispensable to a saving apprehension of biblical truth, is not available at this point. The Holy Spirit teaches in regard to the credibility, but not in regard to the canonicity of Scripture. The divine Spirit does not inform any man or class of men who composed the Book of Chronicles or of Joshua. This would be a revelation. God leaves the question respecting the authorship of particular books of Scripture to be settled chiefly by historical testimony and, from the nature of the case, by the testimony of the earlier generations rather than of the later. The testimony to canonicity is in this respect like the testimony to miracles. It is not inspired and infallible, yet it is credible and trustworthy. We go to the very first Christians of all for the testimony to miracles; and we must go to the earlier Christians for the testimony to canonicity. And as the proof of miracles does not depend upon the inward teaching of the Holy Spirit, neither does the proof of canonicity. Says Dorner (Christian Doctrine 1.96), “The testimony of the Holy Spirit gives us no immediate information upon the historic origin of a book, upon its source in an inspired author. It gives us no divine certainty as to the manner and method in which certain writings have arisen in history, so that it will not do to found the certainty of the truth and divinity of Scripture upon the experience of the divinity of the form of Holy Writ.” With this Westminster Confession 1.5 agrees in mentioning as the first of the grounds of a historical faith in the Scriptures “the testimony of the church” and making no mention at all of the inward teaching of the Spirit in this connection. (See supplement 2.4.2.) The history of the Old Testament canon is obscure, owing to its very great antiquity. Were it a modern product, as some assert, there would be more historical data. That the books of Moses were collected and arranged before Samaria was taken and the ten tribes carried away by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser (724 b.c.) is evident from the fact that the Samaritans must have obtained the Pentateuch from the ten tribes and not from Judah. It is an ancient and widely current tradition that Ezra made a complete collection of the books of the Old Testament, excepting those few which were written after his time. Another tradition, mentioned in 2Ma 2:13, attributes this work to Nehemiah. There is no good reason for doubting that upon the return from the Babylonian captivity in 536 b.c. the revision and collection of the Old Testament canon occurred. The same divine guidance that brought about, in such an extraordinary manner, the return of the Jews from their long captivity in the heart of Asia and the restoration of the temple under Ezra and Nehemiah would naturally have led to their re-collecting and reediting those sacred writings upon which the future prosperity of the chosen people and the accomplishment of its mission in the world absolutely depended. The Jewish church and state without the Old Testament canon would have been a mere empty shell. In this redaction of the Old Testament canon, the ancient and previously acknowledged writings of Moses and the earlier prophets were of course accepted and to these were now added the later writings up to the time of Ezra. The division was threefold: Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. It is the same that Christ refers to in Luke 24:44 under the names of law, prophets, and psalms. By “psalms” is meant the whole third part or the Hagiographa. Josephus mentions this threefold division in Against Apion 1.8. According to him the Law contains the “five books of Moses”: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; the Prophets comprise “thirteen books”: Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve Minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; the Hagiographa includes “four books of Hymns to God”: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon’s Song. In all there are twenty-two books, equaling the number of the Hebrew alphabet. The Jews, following the Talmud, now make the Hagiographa to consist of eleven books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles.

Prideaux (Connection 1.5) is of the opinion that Malachi was written after the time of Ezra. He argues also that the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:19-24, being carried down to the time of Alexander the Great in 330 b.c., shows that this part of Chronicles was composed subsequently to Ezra. “It is most likely,” he says, “that the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi were added to the canon in the time of Simon the Just (300 b.c.) and that it was not until then that the Jewish canon of the Old Testament was fully completed. And indeed these last books seem very much to want the exactness and skill of Ezra in their publication, they falling far short of the correctness which is in the other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Rawlinson, on the contrary (Bible Commentary on 1 Chronicles 3:19-24), regards Prideaux as in error in reckoning thirty years to a generation. He himself reckons only twenty, and attributes Chronicles to Ezra, who died about 435 b.c. “The style of Chronicles is like that of Ezra,” says Rawlinson. Movers makes the date of Chronicles 400 b.c. Ewald assigns it to the time of Alexander the Great in 336-323 b.c.

More is known respecting the manner of collecting the New Testament canon, though no particular action in defining and authorizing it can be mentioned until after it has become universally received in the church. The four gospels were from the first distinguished from the apocryphal. Justin Martyr (163) speaks of “memoirs” of Christ as the work of the evangelists. Irenaeus (202) cites passages from all four of the canonical gospels (Against Heresies 2.22-24 and elsewhere). Clement of Alexandria (220) and Tertullian (220) do the same. Tatian (175) and Ammonius (200) arrange harmonies of the four gospels. Theodoret (457) found two hundred copies of Tatian’s harmony in the Syrian churches, which he took away from them, because of some heresies it contained. Neander supposes that Tatian mixed some things with the canonical gospels from the apocryphal. Origen (250) writes a commentary on Matthew and John. These facts prove the general acceptance of four and only four gospels as canonical prior to a.d. 250. Yet there was no action of the church in a general council to this effect. The epistles began to be collected very early. Ignatius (To the Philadelphians 5) speaks of the gospels and the “apostolic writings.” The epistles were sent from church to church, either in the original or in transcript. In Colossians 4:16 Paul bids the Colossians to send the letter he had written to them to the Laodiceans and to obtain his letter to the Laodiceans and read it themselves. This custom would naturally lead to the multiplication of copies and the collection by different churches of the whole series of epistles as fast as they were written. The Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts belong to the middle of the fourth century (a.d. 325-50). The former contains all the gospels and all the epistles excepting Philemon, Titus 1:1-16 -2 Timothy, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. The latter contains all the gospels, all the epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Muratorian canon (a.d. 150) is much older than these oldest uncials and mentions as accepted and canonical the four gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, two and perhaps three epistles of John, Jude, and Revelation. And it is possible that 1 Peter is mentioned (provided tantum¹[Note: 1. tantum = only] is an error for unam).²[Note: 2. unam = one] It mentions Hebrews, perhaps, under the title “Epistle to the Alexandrians.” It omits 2 Peter and James. The New Testament canon was thus collected and adopted by the custom and usage of the churches, not by conciliar action. The formation of a creed was similar; for the Apostles’ Creed was not the work of the apostolic college. The first conciliar action respecting the canon was by the Council of Laodicea in 360. This adopted the whole New Testament, excepting Revelation. It was a small council and of little influence. The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) established similar catalogues. But there was little call for this conciliar action, because the practice and usage of the church had already anticipated it.

S U P P L E M E N T S

2.4.1 (see p. 146). In the instances in which a sacred book has no author mentioned, like the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is claimed to be apostolic, that is, composed under the superintendence of one of the Twelve. Respecting Hebrews, Calvin remarks: “I include it without controversy among the apostolic epistles. As to the question ‘who composed it?’ we need not trouble ourselves” (“Hebrews” in Speaker’s Commentary, 3). Calvin here means that it is of no consequence who was the amanuensis, provided an inspired apostle superintended him. Bleek (Introduction to the New Testament 2.115) remarks that it was “within the circle of Paul’s friends and fellow laborers that those early writers who did not admit Paul to be the [immediate] author looked for the authorship, their choice lying between Luke, Clemens Romanus, and Barnabas, to whom in modern times have been added Sylvanus and Apollos.” The oriental church, from the first, ascribed this epistle to St. Paul. The churches of Jerusalem, Palestine, Syria, Asia, and Alexandria concurred in this opinion. The Council of Nicea received it as a genuine work of St. Paul. “Doubts existed in the Western church,” says Wordsworth, “concerning the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet we have little evidence of distinct assertions that it was not written by the apostle. The doubts of the West were dispersed in the fourth century and did not appear again until they were revived by one or two persons in the sixteenth.” Wordsworth, in his introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, gives a full account of the opinions that have prevailed respecting the authorship.

Respecting the anonymous books of the Old Testament, their inspiration depends upon their having been composed within the circle of the inspired prophets, the “holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” And the principal voucher for this is Ezra, who revised and settled the Old Testament canon on the return from the exile: “That one final author and collector edited the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, as a whole, is to be concluded from many signs.” Ezra stands in reference to the final form of the Old Testament, as a whole, very much as Moses does in reference to the Pentateuch. He was an inspired prophet who examined the questions of authorship and inspiration and whose judgment was accepted by the Jewish church first and by the Christian afterward as final and authoritative.

2.4.2 (see p. 147). Belief in the canonicity of a sacred book being the result of historical evidence comes under the head of historical faith, not of saving faith. This explains the phraseology of some of the Reformed creeds. Belgic Confession 5 declares: “We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves.” Gallican Confession 4 says: “We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the church as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, upon which, however useful, we cannot found any articles of faith.” In these statements two forms and grades of belief of divine revelation are mentioned, one weaker and one stronger. The first results from “the common accord and consent of the church”; the second from “the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit.” The former is “not so much” as the latter; but it is something valid and of probative force, so far as it extends. Saving faith itself depends upon it in some measure, because it presupposes historical faith. The Holy Spirit does not work saving faith in an infidel. The infidelity must first be removed. The historical evidence and belief prepare the way for that illumination and teaching of the Spirit by which saving faith is produced. Locke (Understanding 4.16.10) states the rule for the value of historical testimony as follows: “Any testimony, the farther off it is from the alleged fact, the less force and proof it has. A credible man vouching his knowledge of it is a good proof; but if another equally credible do witness it from his report, the testimony is weaker; and a third that attests the hearsay of a hearsay is yet less considerable; so that in traditional truths each remove weakens the force of the proof.”

Channing (Evidences of Christianity, 202) answers the inquiry how we determine the genuineness of books in general, as follows: “It is not necessary that we should ourselves be eyewitnesses of the composition of a book. The ascription of a book to an individual during his life by those who are interested in him and who have the best means of knowing the truth removes all doubt as to its author. When the question arises whether an ancient book was written by the individual whose name it bears, we must inquire into the opinion of his contemporaries or of those who succeeded his contemporaries so nearly as to have intimate communication with them. On this testimony we ascribe many ancient books to their authors with the firmest faith. There are many books of which no notice can be found for several ages after the time of their reputed authors. Still, the fact that as soon as they are named they are ascribed, undoubtingly and by general consent, to certain authors is esteemed a sufficient reason for regarding them as their productions, unless some opposite proof can be adduced.”

Historical faith is the contrary of skepticism. It is merely belief in the authenticity and canonicity of Scripture and results from historical testimony and external evidence in distinction from inward and experimental. A person may believe in the genuineness and apostolic origin of the four gospels without the saving faith in their teachings which is effected by regeneration. Yet this historical faith precedes and is necessary in order to saving faith. A person who is skeptical, asserting that the life of Christ is not the product of the apostles but of forgers and unknown persons, cannot receive Christ and his doctrines into his heart with saving faith. The divine Spirit regenerates only those who stand upon the Christian position, not the infidel, in respect to the historical credibility of the gospels. Tested by this, that class of biblical critics who are infidel respecting historical Christianity and historical Judaism cannot be the subjects of regeneration nor have a spiritual comprehension of the Christian religion. What sympathy had Spinoza and Strauss with St. Paul and St. Augustine? The schools of infidel and rationalistic criticism destroy all saving faith in Christendom because they destroy all historical faith. In making men unbelieving or doubtful respecting the genuineness and historical credibility of the several books of Scripture, they preclude that inward agency of the Holy Spirit by which regeneration and saving faith are produced, because this is never exerted in the mind of a skeptic as such. As matter of fact, vital religion invariably dies out under such influence as that of Strauss, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and their followers. Materialism and atheism prevail extensively in those countries where this species of biblical criticism occupies the professor’s chair and pulpit.