text:_ Canon?

An answer to several of the questions texted in this past Sunday...)

Can we trust that the books that are in the Bible are suppossed to be in the Bible? How did the church decide what was included and what was excluded? What was the process of inclusion? What were the criteria? These are all cannonical questions, questions about the composition of the Bible. In this post, I'll suggest some answers and ways of thinking about the cannon that I think are helpful. This will obviously not be exhaustive as this can be a complicated subject, but I think it will be helpful to some.

First, the church did not create the canon.

This is often asserted and I think it is clearly wrong both historically and theologically. Historically, the first church wide ecumenical council happend in Nicea 325. This is two and a half centuries after the NT was written. Local churches have been proclaiming the gospels, Paul's and Peter's letters and so on for a very long time. The idea that local churches weren't collecting, gathering and proclaiming the NT until they were told to by some great council is absurd. They were already doing this for hundreds of years. It is simply bad history to suppose that church councils created the canon.

And I also think it is bad theology to suppose that the church created the cannon. If the church decided way back way what to include and exclude, then it can continue to do so today. If the church wants to add or subtract from the Bible than it should be able to do that. If the church was above the word (deciding what's in and what's out), then it should still be above the word (deciding what to accept and what to reject). But (at least in protestant Christianity) the church has always been understood to be beneath the word not above it. No the church did not create the cannon, it recognized the cannon. The church did not create the bible, it recognized the bible. The church doesn't create God's word, God word creates the church.

Second, I think it's important to realize that the formation of the cannon was a grassroots, bottom uip process. A church like Colossians had one letter written to them. But they were told by Paul to share this letter with the good folks of Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). And the good folks of Laodicea were to share their letter (lost to us) with the Colossians. Letter sharing was introduced by Paul in his lifetime. This continued after his death. So the church of Rome shared their letter and their gospel (Mark) with the church of Corinth who shared their letters with Rome. And on and on until all the churches had all the letters and all the gospels. This took time as copying letters was both very expensive and time consuming. But it proceeded nonetheless.

Third, there was no debate over the majority of the NT. There were four gospels. Not five. Not three. They were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There was never any serious discussion over their inclusion. They was never any discussion over the inclusion of the so-called gnostic gospels because they were written well after the acceptance of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Paul's letters also were not debated.

Fourth, there was debate was only over a few books: 2Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement. Some made it in, others did not. What was the criteria? The criteria was simple. Was the book form an apostle (either he wrote it or was the source)? Was the book received throughout the church (or did only the church at Rome consider it 1 Clement Scripture)? Did the book agree with the others?

2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation struggled at times because of the first criteria. Did an apostle write it or was otherwise a source? 2 Peter is so different than 1 Peter in terms of language and style that some think the same person couldn't have written both. For two thousand years we've been trying to figure out who wrote Hebrews. And there is a lot of John confusion. There are so many important NT John's it's easy to get them mixed up. John wrote Revelation. Great which John?

But they all made it in because while they were some doubts about the 1st criteria they were no doubts about the second and third. Churches embraced 2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. They were found throughout churches in the Mediterranean. And these book agreed with rest of the NT.

But books like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas did not make it. They did not make it because while there is nothing in them that disagrees with the NT (third criteria), they were definitely not from an apostle (1st criteria) and most churches did not have them (second criteria).

For the NT, I think it's quite clear why certain books made it in and others didn't. It's not particularly mysterious nor even controversial. And the more I've studied the issue the more confidence I have in the NT.