THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE: CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION

In my earlier posts on “The Canon of Scripture” (both Old Testament and New Testament), I described how the Protestant canon of the OT basically limited it to the books present in the Hebrew Bible. We can look back in hindsight on this decision and realize the wisdom in not considering the books of the Apocrypha to be inspired by God. Some are filled with fantastic details such as exploding dragons, magic potions, and evil night demons. Others include dubious theology such as people praying to dead prophets. And yet others contain detailed pseudo-scientific descriptions of the universe. Then there are the books obviously written during the Hellenistic period falsely attributed to or describing incidents in the lives of long-dead Old Testament characters such as Solomon, Ezra, Jeremiah, Daniel, Azariah, and Manasseh.

In his book The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce begins his discussion of the factors used to decide which books to be included in the New Testament with these words: “The earliest Christians did not trouble themselves about criteria of canonicity; they would not have readily understood the expression. They accepted the Old Testament scriptures as they had received them: the authority of those scriptures was sufficiently ratified by the teaching and example of the Lord and his apostles. The teaching and example of the Lord and his apostles, whether conveyed by word of mouth or in writing, had axiomatic authority for them. Criteria of a kind, however, were found to be desirable quite early.” This is one of several demonstrations that the early heretics paradoxically forced the church to formulate their own beliefs more specifically to guard against error.

The reason for Bruce's last statement was the rise of Christian teachers and writings that purported to have come from Jesus or one of the apostles. This situation prompted the formulation of guidelines the church could use as some sort of authority against which these new teachings could be measured. Keep in mind that the Greek word kanon means a ruler or measuring stick. As to which writings were accepted as genuine, several criteria were utilized, both formally and informally, to include all authentic works and exclude those that were not considered worthy enough of inclusion. Each of these criteria will be discussed briefly below:

Apostolic Authority

This is obviously one of the prime considerations the early church took into account. For example, we can see from the traditional names given to the four gospel accounts that reliable oral and written sources assigned two of these to Matthew and John, both of the original Twelve followers of Christ. As to Luke, he was not only a close associate of the last apostle, Paul, but also (as he explains in the prologue to his two-volume history work Luke-Acts) went to great pains to get his information directly from eyewitnesses of the events themselves. John Mark, by early church tradition, was an friend and associate of the apostle Peter and got most of his facts from him. Some confirmation of that tradition is found in I Peter 5:13.

And then Jesus' earthly half-brothers James (a recognized leader of the Jerusalem Church) and Jude were held to be reliable sources also. The anonymous Book of Hebrews would seem to be an outlier here, but it was felt that it was Pauline in style and either came from Paul himself or one of his close associates. Thus, although most early lists of acceptable books included Hebrews, there is indication that its authorship was a little in doubt. Paul's letters were almost always arranged with the longest ones first and the shorter ones afterward. However, Hebrews is placed at the end of the list rather than toward the front. The actual author is unknown, but a combination of early church history, my structural own studies (see my post on “Hebrews 1-2”), and arguments of writers such as David L. Allen (see his Lukan Authorship of Hebrews) lean toward Luke being the actual author.

However, a number of additional writings purporting to have come from the apostles and other prominent NT figures began to surface from time to time under names such as The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Acts of John, and The Protevangelium of James. There needed to be additional means for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Antiquity

One of the most highly regarded writings in the early church was the devotional book The Shepherd of Hermas. But as much as Christians admired it, ultimately it was rejected from the canon because it was well recognized that it was a very recent writing. The same could be said for some of the authentic writings coming from the “Apostolic Fathers” of the post-apostolic age. The Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp were widely circulated and read in many congregations. And they are still very valuable to read today. However, there was no pretense that they had arisen within the apostolic time frame.

Orthodoxy

Admittedly, this is a somewhat more subjective criterion than those above, but it was necessary that any book being considered for the NT canon have teachings consistent with those of the authentic books. One prime example is the Gospel of Thomas, about which much fuss has been made starting in the twentieth century. It is not a gospel in the NT sense of the word, but instead is a listing of individual sayings of Jesus. Many of these are taken almost verbatim from the Four Gospels, others resemble authentic sayings with obviously Gnostic changes, and still others which are clearly Gnostic or proto-Gnostic stories manufactured from scratch to bolster up unorthodox teachings. It is even possible to purchase from Amazon all “five” gospels presented in parallel columns so that you can compare the real from the fake for yourself to see if you agree with the decision not to include it in the NT.

Catholicity

By this, I do not mean that the work must adhere to Roman Catholic teachings. Instead, catholicity has to do with how broadly across the whole early Christian world a certain writing was accepted as worthy of being read in a congregation. If you look at some of the early NT canons found in my post “The Canon of Scripture: New Testament,” you can readily see that some books were universally accepted in a number of various local congregations whereas other books only pop up in isolated churches. Eventually a consensus was reached between all the widespread church world.

Traditional Use

Bruce adds this criterion to his list. In essence, all it means is that the universal Christian church has always been somewhat conservative (and rightly so) in accepting new innovations. Thus, there is a built-in resistance to accepting any recent writing, no matter how seemingly inspired and helpful it may be, into the NT canon. Just look at any Christian best sellers such as The Late Great Planet Earth or The Prayer of Jabez. No matter how enthusiastic numerous churches and church leaders might be over such works, even the most devout believer in these books would not dare even suggest that it should take its place on a par with Scripture.

Of course, there is one way for such new works to officially or unofficially enter into the canon. That is for such writings to be introduced as authoritative notes to the Bible itself. One need only look at the popular and influential Scofield Study Bible or its successors. I have heard people in Sunday school class even argue with the teacher by saying, “But that is not what my Bible says!” And by that, they mean that it does not agree with the notes at the bottom of their study Bible. Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures is an example of a whole heretical group being founded around one person's “interpretation” of the Bible being accepted as the only way to understand it.

Inspiration

F.F. Bruce quotes a church historian as stating that “apostolicity was the principal token of canonicity for the west (centered in Rome), inspiration for the east (centered in Constantinople).” Although the two cannot really be separated from one another, inspiration sometimes boils down to whether the writing has “the ring truth,” as J.B. Phillips puts it. In other words, the Spirit not only inspired the writing, but also placed the Spirit of truth within believers so that they could distinguish the true from the false. The importance of inspiration in this regard can be seen in such passages as John 14:26; 16:12-16; Acts 2:17; I Corinthians 2:14-16; II Corinthians 13:3; II Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 3:7-11; and Revelation 2:7; 12:11; 19:10; 22:9,19.

In addition to the above standard criteria for determining which books to include in our present canon, I would like to add another one – literary characteristics. I will admit that this is not of primary consideration for inclusion in the Bible, but it can be used as confirmatory evidence that the decisions made based on those other criteria were sound ones.

Literary Value

This is a rather subjective subject. But it is well recognized that the accepted books in the Protestant canon are, for the most part, great works of art that have inspired generations of later writers as well as artists and composers. In this regard, see my posts entitled “The Literary Influence of the Bible” and “Art and Faith.”

The best way to see whether a given writing demonstrates J.B. Phillips' “ring of faith” is to compare two works side-by-side. As one example from the Old Testament, look at the Book of Esther in comparison to one of the additions to that book present in the Apocrypha. These included nine different passages, some a chapter long. They were apparently created in order to beef up the book by adding some of the dramatic and religious elements someone felt were missing in the original. Just look at the accounts of Esther's preparation to go before the king so you can compare their style of writing with that of genuine OT historical accounts.

Biblical: “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)

Apocryphal: “And Esther the queen, seized with deathly anxiety, fled to the Lord; she took off her splendid apparel and put on the garments of distress and mourning, and instead of costly perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she utterly humbled her body, and every part that she loved to adorn she covered with her tangled hair. (Esther 14)

Notice that the added adjectives and adverbs make it read like a rather poorly written, modern romance novel.

Below is a similar comparison between a canonical NT book and an example of NT pseudepgrapha, both dealing with the birth of Jesus:

Biblical: “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:1-7)

Notice the straightforward account and all the underlined historical details of specific time and place.

Pseudepigraphical: Consideration of the birth stories in the Protoevangelium of James (140-170 AD) and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (600-625 AD) demonstrates how incidents were manufactured to address doctrinal concerns and beliefs of the later church:

    Joseph's son leads the donkey on which Mary is riding.

    Mary has a vision which explains that the Jews will lose the salvation given to the Gentiles.

    They stop at a dark cave which conveniently lights up when Mary enters it.

    A midwife happens to show up and doubts that Mary is still a virgin after the birth, and so she performs a gynecological exam.

    God sets her hand on fire (or “dries it up” in other versions) for her lack of faith.

    The midwife prays to God and He promises her eternal salvation if she just touches the baby.

This account is totally lacking in any specific historical details, but just happens to “prove” later doctrines such as Mary's eternal virginity; the fact that the Jews are cursed by God (leading later to widespread persecution in Europe); gratuitously miraculous events involving Mary; and the idea of salvation by works or rituals.

Literary Structure

Since God is a God of order, a related characteristic of all the genuine books of the Bible is a factor that I have probably beaten to death on this site through repetition – literary structure or organization. For much more detail concerning this ubiquitous and overarching property of canonical books, see my posts titled “Introduction to Structural Analysis: Parts 1 and 2” or any post with the sub-title “: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

Basically, this approach begins with the recognition that various forms of literary symmetry are the hallmark of the books in the Bible, both OT and NT. I felt, in this regard, that it would be enlightening to look to see if the same type of order and symmetry exists in other proposed additions to the Jewish and Christian canons. The main problem with this proposed exercise is that if no such marks of “divine”structure are detected, one can still not state with any surety that they do not in fact exist. It is somewhat like proving a universal negative. But, the next best approach is to canvass the literature for supposed examples of chiasm (mirror-image symmetry) or parallel cycles outside of the Bible that have already been proposed by others and critique whether those analyses are valid. If not, then I felt that this criterion might be used as a reasonable method of distinguishing between Spirit-inspired writings and those which are not. For discussions of these examinations, see posts going under the titles of “Symmetry in the Apocrypha,” “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” “Symmetry in Ignatius Letter to the Romans and the Didache,” and “Chiasms in the Book of Mormon.”

The results from all these studies yielded a fairly straightforward historical trend:

    Old Testament canonical books – extensive symmetry of structure on multiple levels of organization

    Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic Era – some traces of first-level symmetry accompanied by occasional disruption in the existing symmetry in authentic OT writings

    New Testament canonical books – extensive symmetry of structure on multiple levels of organization

    Writings of the early Church Fathers – definite signs of symmetry in a number of the writings, at least within the first level of organization.

    New Testament Pseudepigrapha in later centuries – little to no literary symmetry at all

    The Book of Mormon – claimed symmetry does not exist except for some scattered individual verses and short passages

The consistent story this trend reveals is that literary symmetry in the form of parallel structures and mirror-image (chiastic) arrangements is a definite hallmark of authentic Scripture. However, traces of that style can still be seen from writings by believers who were heavily influenced by the inspired biblical authors during two historical periods: the Hellenistic Era between the Testaments and immediately following the close of the official canon in the early Christian Era.

I would conclude that some form of overall literary order is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion to establish biblical canonicity.

Computer Analyses of Literary Characteristics

With the arrival of computer programs capable of analyzing literary texts for the stylistic characteristics of a given author, this new tool has been applied to some of the biblical writings for which we have genuine works by a given author to use for comparison. Thus, starting with letters by Paul which are accepted as genuine even by liberal critical scholars as standards, the “dubious” Pauline writings can be looked at to see whether they possess the same quirks of that author. As some might have expected, the resulting conclusions range all over the map and vary widely depending what criteria are used. As just one example, look at the results from so-called objective and scientific computer analyses of the particular language used.

Study                         Authentic Books

Morton (1966)          5 (Romans, I&II Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon)

Kenny (1986)          12 (all but Titus)

Neumann (1990)     10 (all but the Pastorals)

Mealand (1995)       8 all but Pastorals, Colossians, and Ephesians

Ledger (2011)         6 (Romans, I&II Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, II Thessalonians)

                                                    (Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the NT, p. 588)

It is highly doubtful, in my mind, that any such studies will ever result in one of the NT books being actually removed from the Canon of Scripture. After all, we really have no idea who the authors of most Old Testament books are either, when it comes down to it.