The canon of Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity

8/13/2019 The canon of Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity

1/12

1

The idea of canon in Judaism and Early Christianity

INTRODUCTION

From the very beginning, I shall try to present a definition of the term canon. TheGreek word meant a strait rod or bar. Metaphorically the term came to be

used of the rules of art or a trade or to signify a list or catalogue1. According to

Lemches definition, speaking on canonical books of the Bible, the term may be

translated as staff. Perhaps the best translation would be ruler, and K

does often refer to a tool. In figurative speech, K means rule or

standard, e.g. within art and grammar Whatever the meaning of the Greek

K, the word is now used by theologians of a selection of privileged writings.

Many think that this indicates that the books included in canon are better thanother books2.

In our study case, we shall consider that the canon of the Judaism is the collection

of the books entitled Old Testament or the Jewish Bible3, called the Septuagint4,

and the canon of Christianity including the books of the Old Testament and also

the collection of books called the New Testament. The particularity of the canon in

both religions, Judaism and Christianity, is reflected by the formation and selection

of the books which are representative and normative for them. This is a

consequence of the perceiving that Gods revelation came down to mankind

through those inspired or special books. Besides, according to the manner of

conveying, the texts can be conveyed in the oral tradition or in writing one5.

1 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross, third edition edited by E. A. Livingstone,

Oxford University Press, 19972N. P. Le!he, The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey, "estinster #ohn $nox Press,

Lo%isvi&&e, $ent%!'y, 2((), *.27+. ee -&so the definition of E%gene U&ri!h, in his -rti!&e umran and the Canon of

the Old Testament, in #. A%ers -nd /.#. de #onge 0eds., The Bi!lical Canons 0Bi!liotheca "#hemeridum

Theologicarum $ovanensium CL333, Le%ven University Press4Peeters 2((5, *.76.5he n-e of #eish 8ib&e is -n-'h, -nd it is str%!t%red by three gro%*s - he L- 0or-h, b the Pro*hets -nd

! other boo's 'non -s "ritings 0Cross, 19).+ #ose*h /. Lyn!h, "arly Christianity% A Brief History, Oxford University Press, 2(1(, *.71. e*t%-gint is the :ree'

tr-ns&-tion of the O&d est-ent, being %sed, sin!e fro very beginning by E-r&y Christi-nity 0Lyn!h, 71.;#ohn 8-rton, The S#irit and the $etter% Studies in the Bi!lical Canon, London PC$ 1997, *.1(6


2/12

2

Speaking on the Christian canon, we should underline that the development of the

canon was inextricably bound up with the history of the ancient Church, both in its

literary and institutional aspects6.

After I pointing out the canon in Judaism and in Christianity, I will try to observe

the differentiations and similitudes in relation to the authority of the texts andparticularities of canon, in both religions perspectives.

CONTENT

a) A brief presentation of the canon in Greco-Roman world.According to Metzger, the Greeks emphasized the ideal or exemplary person as

the canon of good (Euripides, Hecuba, 602)7, the discourse which achieves lucidity

and consistency (Plato)8

, and Aristotle described a good person as being a canon ormeasure of the truth9.

Epictetus considers the integrity of life in terms of the canon for human

relationships10. Pliny underlines norma,or the canon in the aesthetics of the human

body, while Plutarch talks about the canon of the chronology11. Finally, the word

canon is used in all kinds of disciplines, either humanistic or realistic12.

We retain the stress on the ethical or esthetical dimensions (classical) from the

explanation of the term canon in Antiquity, as different from the theological

significance from the Judaism and Christianity.

b) The canon in Judaism.First of all, I would like to point out a few prerequisites which according to Ulrich,

have contributed to the canonical process: 1) starting with the Exile, there was a

shift from the national literature of Israel to the sacred Scripture of Judaism; 2)

the destruction of the Temple brought the shift from a religion that was Temple-

68r%!e =. =et>ger, The Canon of the &ew Testament% 'ts origin, develo#ment and significance, C&-rendon Press,

Oxford, 19)7, *. v.7=et>ger, 2)9)U&ri!h, ;79=et>eger, 2)91(=et>eger, 2)911=et>ger, 29(12=et>ger, 29(


3/12

5

based to one that was text-based; and 3) the evolution of texts from the individual

scrolls to a very elaborated book, or even a codex with many books13.

According to Arie van der Kooij, the term canonwas not consecrated in ancient

Judaism, but the concept of canonical in the sense of authoritative is

present14.Based on Josephus texts15, we can distinguish writing criteria in Judaism, which

are considered normative. This approach is realized by Josephus based upon, on

the one hand, the analogy to the ancient sources (Egyptians, Babylonians

Chaldeans, Greeks and Phoenicians) and stressing the accurate transmission of

Judaic books16; while on the other hand, claiming the universality of message

conveyance bestowed upon them17. Josephus perceives these writings as being

Gods decree and of a vital importance18. Of course, Josephus underlines the role

of the chief priest and the prophets maintaining the superiority of Judaic writings through keeping and transmitting them further19, as a heritage embodied in a

conservative perspective20. This perspective reflects the character of unicity and

unity of Judaic texts.

In order to shortly present the theory of canonicity, which is upheld by the

Pharisee, Josephus distinguishes its characteristics, in Against Apion, I, 8: divine

inspiration, the holiness of their content, the idea that the books were twenty-two in

number, the unalterable nature of the text, and the supposition that the books were

composed between the time of Moses and that of Artaxerxes I,(d.424), whose

death, according to Josephus, marked the closing of the period of the prophets21.

First of all, the canon of Jewish writing is placed under direct divine

inspiration. As Josephus spoke about the prophets, they obtainedtheir knowledge

of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to

15U&ri!h, 61


4/12

+

God22, and therefore they were able to write a clear account of the events of their

own time just as they occurred23. Thus, based on the divine inspiration, we can

observe the fidelity of the writings. Speaking of the importance of the manuscripts

from Qumran for our study, scholarship demonstrates that a number of books as

containing the word of God, thus as authoritative Scripture referred to Torahand the Prophets24.

Secondly, we are going to speak about the holiness character of the Jewish

writings. As a particular aspect of this holiness, John Barton points out one passage

from Mishnah about certain books which defile the hands25.This tradition brings to

attention a different aspect of the authority of Scripture, namely the selection

(inclusion or exclusion) of some books26. During the scholarships debate related to

the holiness of text, few positions are developed: Martin Goodman, who suggests

the intention of Pharisee to keep Jews away from the idolatry27

, James Barr withthe theory of the physical object in a liturgical context28 and of course, John

Barton, who brings an important aspectin the discussion, theHoliness of the Name

(Tetragrammaton) and its consequences to the Judaic texts tradition29. I would also

fugitively mention the importance of the debates about the distinction between

Oral and Written Torah (William A. Graham and Wilfred Cantwell Smith)30for the

fixation of the Judaic canon.

Thirdly, there is the number of twenty-two books31. Some scholars do not

agree with the statement of Josephus and his influence toward the fixation of the

canon32. But, the scholarship position defines the notion of canon in the sense of

a final and intertextual redaction which is meant to establish an interrelationship

22#ose*h%s 3, 725#ose*h%s 3, 72+U&ri!h, 6;2;8-rton, 1(). 3 tend to s-y th-t those three boo's 0Ester, E!!&esi-stes -nd the ong of ongs sh-re - !oon

gro%nd in re&-tion to the vie of the Christi-n !-non of !ri*t%re, hen e s*e-' -bo%t their *&-!e ithin !-non.26U&ri!h, 76. A!!ording to U&ri!h, the notion of canon includes, among others, three im#ortant as#ects highlighted

!y umran: 't involves !oo)s, not the s#ecific textual form of the !oo)s it entails reflective -udgment and the

canonical list excludes as well as includes !oo)s 0;9.278-rton, 11(2)8-rton, 111. ee -&so Frederi!' E. :reens*-hn, Does .udaism Have a Bi!le/ 3n Studies in .ewish Civili(ation 01,

-!red exts, e!%&-r ies he /ebre 8ib&e in the =odern "or&d, edited by Leon-rd #-y :reens*oon -nd 8ry-n

F. Le8e-%, Creighton University Press, O-h-, Nebr-s'-.298-rton, 115


5/12

;

of a number of books33. Related to this notion of a standardized text34, is the

perceiving of a closed or fixed canon35. According to Kooij, it is unsuitable to

discuss about the closingof the Jewish canon of Scriptures before second century

B.C.E.36

Besides the number of the authoritative books enumerated by Josephus (five booksof Moses, 13 books of the Prophets and 4 books known as Writings)37, according

to scholarship, there are two important aspects related to the texts: the ancestral

character38 (Wisdom of Ben Sira) and the devotion to study (reading and

interpretation) of the texts39.

Fourthly, I will not insist upon the unalterable nature of the text, because this

feature is based on either the divine nature of the message, or the echo of the

utterance of Gods Name. Instead of emphasizing this aspect, I would shortly

discuss about the time of crystallization of the so-called canon. Even though thereare many skeptical voices about the dating of this canonization process40, Kooij is

firmly convinced that since the second half of the second century BCE a particular

collection of ancient Hebrew books was considered canonical in the sense of

highly authoritative41.

Concluding, we can say that, indeed, the idea of canon in Judaism is not a

self-conscious one, is spite of its manifestation. It will subsequently appear, in

Christianity. But the books containing Gods word were perceived as being

authoritative Scripture42. The notion of a closed canon or collection is a foreign

thought for the early Judaism, but during the history, there is a common agreement

55$ooi?, 2)5+$ooi?, 2)5;$ooi?, 2)56$ooi?, 2)


6/12

6

on the authority of the books43. This is valid, even though, according to Ulrich,

there was no standardized texts neither was there yet a definitive canon of

Scripture44.

c) The canon in Christianity.The signification of the canon supposes several grounds, depending on the

historical, theological, literary or theological context. The community, perceived as

either physical or spiritual assembly, has played an important role in defining the

notion of canon. As I mentioned above, the canon in Christianity represents the

recognition and including of the Old Testament and the writings called New

Testament, formed by the four Gospels, twenty one epistles, Acts and Johns

Revelation. But, according to Lynch, the collection of writings called NewTestament did not exist in its present form during the first three or four centuries.

Christians living in the first and second centuries had no single written thing

called a New Testament45.

In their perception, the Scriptures were Jewish Bible, namely the Septuagint, the

Greek translation46. According to Gerd Theissen, our Old Testament was a

priori the holy scriptures of the Jews and therefore also the Bible of Jesus, the

first disciples and the primitive Christian communities47.

According to Metzger, who makes an actual radiography of the Christian biblical

canon, there are several capital factors in canonical history. Thus, based on the

existence of Jewish Scriptures and on Jesus agreement with them48, it was

paradigmatic for the disciples and early Christians to accept those writings as their

scriptures49.

Secondly, there was a perception of Jesus in the first Christian communities, as

speaking, on the one hand, in a classical language (of Ancient cultures) of the Law

+5ee for inst-n!e the so

been est-b&ished, in =et>ger, *. 2 -nd 1(9


7/12

7

and Prophets, and on the other hand, in a totally new and distinctive manner50. This

aspect reflects the authoritative power of Jesuss word.

Thirdly, we should take in consideration the apostolic authority and its mission to

interpret and transmit the scriptures51.

Fourthly, during the growing of the Christian literature, there was developed aunity between the early Christian communities, based on apostolicity52.

Fifthly, besides the Gospels and apostolic epistles, there were added two other

kinds of books, Acts of Apostles and the Revelation of John, which were perceived

as a logical continuity of the rest of the scriptures, and as bearing Jesus and

Apostles guarantee53.

Last, besides the starting of the text translation, another process became more and

more substantial: the selective process of fixation, namely, of sifting and rejecting

books54

.Another important feature in the formation of the Christian scriptural canon is

traced by the Apostolic Fathers55. They represent, according to Metzger when

talking about the position of the authority of the texts, a certain amount of

doctrinal diversity in terms of developments within Jewish Christianity, on the one

hand, and within Hellenistic Christianity, on the other56.

They are important for the study of the notion of canon, not only for using some

texts and providing them with authority, but also for their contribution, during the

first century, to set together the documents, in a unity which subsequently will

become the New Testament57. Otherwise, they represent the symbiosis between the

Old Testament and the New Testament. Therein, Metzger refers to Clement of

Rome, who uses in his Epistle to Romans, either quotations from the Old

Testament, or from Gospels and Epistles of Paul58; Ignatius of Antioch, with his

seven representative epistles, specifies that it is written59to point out and translate

some book, either from Old or New Testament60; The Didache, which also refers to

;(=et>ger, 5;1=et>ger, 5ger, ;;5=et>ger, 6;+=et>ger, 7;;=et>ger, 59 -nd fo&&oing.;6=et>ger, +(;7=et>ger, +(;)=et>ger, +(ger, +)6(=et>ger, +;


8/12

)

the Gospels, (it focuses on the Eucharistic dimension) and Paulines epistles61;

Papias of Hierapolis, who had heard the apostle John preach and also a friend of

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna62; Papias emphasizes the oral tradition in his work,

Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord63, but also written accounts from the

Gospels, he has two brief accounts about the composition of the Gospels of Markand Matthew64; The Epistle of Barnabas, which distinctively presents us a new and

more accurate dimension of the New Testament and a more radical anti-Jewish

stance in interpreting the Old Testament65; Polycarp of Smyrna, who identifies

three authoritative norms of the Christian life66, he seems to already know of nine

of the canonical letters of Paul67; Shepherd of Hermasand the So-Called Second

Epistle of Clement provide us accounts of the familiarity with many writings of

Old or New Testament, as they have been settled68. It is very important for our

approach to mention the position of the Early Christian Church toward Marcion(d.160), who tries to develop his own canon which consisted of ten letters of Paul

and a shortened version of Luke69. Besides, the Gnosticism, Montanism, and the

persecutions have an overwhelming influence toward the Christian canon of the

Scriptures. During this time, the Early Church manifested a selective attitude

regarding which books are valuable and which are not.

According to Lynch, the first writer who uses the term New Testamentis Irenaeus

of Lyons (about 180), who also placed the New Testament on the same footing as

the Old Testament70. But like other contemporaneous sources, he did not state

precisely what he included in that New Testament or why he accepted some

documents and rejected others71.

According to Theissen, the stages of the formation of the canon have begun with

the separation of the whole canon into the Old, and respectively the New

Testament72. This process developed into the early Christian community and it

61=et>ger, ;(ger, ;165=et>ger, ;26+=et>ger, ;5ger, ;6ger, 6(67@-hner, 1716)=et>ger, 6+


9/12

9

became stringent when they had to pronounce themselves in the matter of the unity

and integrity of the scriptures73. But, based on the attempt of Marcion to divide the

Old Testament from the New, even more, to divide inner writings of the New

Testament, and also based on the diversity74, the Christianity decided to separately

perceive the Gospels from the rest of New Testament writings75. It was also acounterbalanced respect toward both epistles of Paul and the rest of the writings76.

Nevertheless, according to Lynch, by the later second century, a consensus had

developed among them about the core of a New Testament, which included the four

canonical gospels and the letters of Paul. For instance, the Muratorian Fragment,

probably written in Rome in about year 200, throws considerable light on canon-

making and on the canon at that time, in that place77.But the Muratorian Fragment

is important because it is a snap-shot of the as-yet-incomplete process that created

the New Testament. On the other hand, it shows that about 200 the proto-orthodoxconsensus had embraced the gust of a New Testament, especially four gospels and

Pauls letters. But differences of opinion persisted for a long time about some

documents, including the Apocalypse of John, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter

of James, and some of the other letters in the back of a modern New Testament78.

At the same time, according to Metzger, the terminology referring to the canonicity

underlines the principle of recognition (recipere), of acceptance (habere), and of

being held sacred (sanctificatae sunt)79. As norms of the authority, we mention the

public reading in a service of worship and authorship by those who were eye- and

ear- witnesses, i.e. apostles80.

Eusebius of Caesarea, another noteworthy figure in the history of the Christian

canon, besides providing information about the decisions taken by the Council of

75 heissen, 262ger, 199


10/12

1(

Nicaea (325), when the date of Easter has been settled, develops criteria theory for

the writings of the New Testament in three sections, after their importance81.

The bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373) is the one who listed for the first

time the canon of the New Testament exactly as it is today82. He also listed the

twenty two books of the Old Testament canon83.By now, the early Christianity will have a support, and during three church

councils, one at Hippo (393) and two to Carthage (397 and 419), Bishop Augustine

of Hippo reaffirmed the modern canon of the New Testament84.

Subsequently, Jerome (about 346-420) revised the competing Latin translation of

the New Testament, he included only books in the consensus85.

Resuming, we can say that, in spite of the challenges and hesitations of the early

Christians, the main factors which contribute to define the canon were Jesus and

the Apostles guarantee, the consensus86

and the importance and usage of the textsfor the cult and knowledge87. In spite of the dynamic aspect of the Christian

tradition (speaking of Roman-Catholic and Orthodox churches), the canon of the

Christianity is closed, and it reflects the unity of early Christianity, despite of its

diversity.

I shall not insist upon the divine inspiration, the differentiation of the texts, due to

the lack of time and space.

CONCLUSION

I have attempted to present the notion of canon both in Judaism and

Christianity. I am aware that I could have focused on much more interesting

aspects, such as doing a critical presentation, besides the historical one, which has

been presented here. This may the the focus of a future project and investigation.

However, I preferred on this occasion to present both explanations of canon as a

logical continuity in a historical process. Even so, not leaving aside other realities,

theological, literary, sociological, cultural, I would say that the canon for both

religions represents a unifying and uniqueness factor.

)1=et>ger, 2(5ger, the rule of the faith, 2;1.)7=et>ger, 2;5 so on.


11/12

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary sources:

1. Josephus. Against Apion I, pp. 28-46.2. Some Works of the Torah (4QMMT) C 1-32.3. The Holy Bible. Old and New Testaments in the King James Version.

Regency Publishing House. Nashville, New York, 1976.

Secondary sources:

1. Barton, John. The Spirit and the Letter. Studies in the Biblical Canon,London: SPCK 1997, pp.106-130.

2. Cross, F., L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Third editionedited by E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 1997.

3. Frederick E. Greenspahn. Does Judaism Have a Bible? In Studies in JewishCivilization 10. Sacred Texts, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the

Modern World. Edited by Leonard Jay Greenspoon and Bryan F. LeBeau.

Creighton University Press, Omaha, Nebraska.

4. Kooij, van der Arie. Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books andHasmonean Politics. In J. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge (Eds.). The Biblical

Canons (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovanensium CLXIII).

Leuven University Press/Peeters 2003, pp. 27-38.

5. Lemche, N., P. The Old Testament between Theology and History: ACritical Survey. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky, 2008.

6. Lynch, Joseph, H. Early Christianity. A Brief History. Oxford UniversityPress, 2010.

7. McDonald, Martin, Lee. The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of ItsHistorical Development. Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996), pp. 95-132.

8. Metzger, Bruce, M. The Canon of the New Testament. Its origin,development and significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1987.

9. Rahner, Karl. Encyclopedia of Theology. The Concise Sacramentum Mundi.Crossroad Publisher. New York, 1975.

10.Theissen, Gerd. The Religion of the Earliest Churches. Creating a SymbolicWorld. Translated by John Bowden. Fortress Press Minneapolis, 1999.


12/12

Documents

The canon of Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity