Week 7, Canonization

CANONIZATION
Canonization is the second link in the chain “from God to us.”

CANONIZATION: The process by which all the inspired writings were collected and recognized.

Briefly, there are some five principles that were used to determine if a book was canonical. They are as follows:
1) Authoritative: Does the book have the Authority of God?
2) Authentic: Was the book written by a prophet of God? (Was the author a prophet either office or by gift?)
a. Affirmed: Was it accompanied by the acts of God (miracles)?
3) Orthodox: Did it tell the truth about God, man, the world, spiritual things, etc.?
4) Active: Did the book have the “power” of God to transform the lives of the People of God?
5) Accepted: Did the original People of God (the people to whom the book was written) accept it?

Each point has it’s own import, though they do not all stand or fall together. A book may not meet one criterion, but clearly demonstrate through other criteria that it belongs in the Canon. It’s also important to point out that the Church does not nor did it ever determine the Canon of Scripture. The church’s role is simply to discover which books were inspired, therefore adding them to the recognized canonical books. God determines the canon, the church merely discovers the canon.

1) Authority
a. Is there any claim that the book was a revelation from God? Or does the author claim that the writing deserves the respect of the People of God?
b. Examples:
i. Any/All of the literally hundreds of “Thus Says the Lord” passages in the Old Testament.
ii. The Gospel narratives claim to be the authoritative teachings of Jesus, who they claim is God in the Flesh.
iii. Paul confirms that his message is authoritative in 1st Thessalonians 4:2, 1st Timothy 4:11, Titus 2:15, and in especially clear terms in Galatians 1:12.
iv. The Author of Hebrews confirms that the message preached is authoritative in Hebrews 2:1-4.
v. 1st Peter 2:1-3 confirms that Peter held his message to be of God and able to produce salvation.
vi. John clearly held that his writings were authoritative and able to produce salvation as well, see 1st John 5:13.
vii. The Revelation claims to contain verbatim quotations from Jesus, who is God incarnate.
2) Authenticity
a. As discussed last week, God spoke through His prophets and Apostles.
b. If a prophet of apostle did not write the book, it was not generally acceptable into the Canon of Scripture.
c. Divine Confirmation
i. Though this is not always necessary, the Author of Hebrews stated that God testified to His Word with “signs and wonders and by various miracles…” (Hebrews 2:1-4)
ii. The message of Moses was confirmed through numerous miracles.
iii. It was then substantiated against the Sons of Korah, when the earth swallowed them whole. Numbers 16:23-24, 31-32)
iv. The apostles were confirmed by signs and wonders to confirm their message, as is attested in:
1. Acts 19:11
2. 2nd Corinthians 12:12
3. Hebrews 2:4
4. 2nd Peter 1:16-19
3) Orthodoxy
a. I can’t possibly say it any clearer than Paul in Galatians 1:8.
b. God cannot contradict Himself; therefore any message that legitimately comes from Him will be in accordance with every other message that has come from Him.
c. If we know that The Old Testament is from God, than any book that is included in the “New Testament” must be in agreement with all the previous revelations from God (and also must be internally consistent).
4) “Living and Active”
a. The Book of Hebrews states, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit…” (Hebrews 4:12).
b. If it is indeed the Word of God, it will come with the life changing Power of God.
c. This is what Paul was referring to in 1st Thessalonians 2:13, “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”
5) Acceptance
a. The Books of Moses were immediately “accepted” as is evidenced by their placement besides the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:26).
b. Joshua was placed in a Holy place and also immediately accepted by the people to whom it was written (Josh. 24:26).
c. As discussed last week, Peter accepted Paul’s writings, Paul accepted Luke. The early church distributed Paul’s letters as authoritative, the Revelation was accepted by the early church (most importantly by the seven churches to whom it was addressed). The four gospels we have are the oldest and most accepted in the early church. The “other” gospels are not attested to as authoritative in the early church, nor do any of the early church fathers quote from these books as if they were scripture.
d. The non-canonical books (Apocrypha, various other New Testament Pseudepigrapha were never accepted by the early church or the Jews, and therefore were rejected by those who were in the historical position to know whether the author was a spokesperson for God or not. It is foolish for us (who have the handicap of historical distance) to try and go back and confirm something that the original audience denied (especially as they would have been eye-witnesses).

The real difficulty in canonization is not defining it, but rather determining it. However, the most important thing to keep in mind is that man never decided the Canon of Scripture; the early Church Fathers and the Jews in the Old Testament simply recognized which writings God has inspired.


First, there are three main “classes” of books in the Cannon:
1) Homologoumena: “To speak the same things.” Books accepted by all. Once these books were accepted into the “cannon”, they were never questioned or disputed.
2) Antilogoumena: “Things spoken against, to speak against these things.” These books were initially accepted into the canon, but then disputed by some. They were all eventually accepted as belonging in the cannon. There is a list of disputed books for both the Old and New Testaments included below, with explanations.
3) Pseudepigrapha: “False writings.” Books rejected by all. The Roman Catholic Church sometimes refers to these books as the “apocrypha” (these are not to be confused with the “Apocrypha” that is contained in the Roman Catholic Bible, which they refer to as the “Deutero-Canonical” books).

Homologoumena:
These books were accepted immediately, as the ink was still drying so to speak. These are the books that were described above (including several others).

Antilogoumena:

Old Testament Antilogoumena:
1) Song of Songs: This book was disputed because it seemed too sensual. However it was eventually included in the Cannon and even referred to by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph in the following terms: “for all the ages are not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.”
2) Ecclesiastes: This book was faced with objections on the grounds that seemed too skeptical. This book does, however, contain teaching that is profitable for the believer and was accepted by the majority of the ancient Hebrew community. Its rejection was a matter of inadequate interpretation, not of lack of inspiration.
3) Esther: This book was disputed because it seemed too unspiritual. The lack of the name of God in the book was a cause of concern to many. In the end, it was determined that even if the name of God is not explicitly mentioned, his providence certainly is. God is in the book of Esther implicitly.
4) Ezekiel: The book of Ezekiel was disputed because it was viewed by some as being too contradictory. It was alleged to be in contradiction with the books of Moses. However, there have been no specific examples given that are actually contradictory. The alleged contradictions were really a matter of inadequate interpretation, not lack of inspiration.
5) Proverbs: The book of Proverbs was questioned by some because it was said to be too illogical in that there were verses that are said to contradict the rest of the book. The verses in question are 26:4 and 5. In fact though, these verses represent a “on the one hand…, but on the other hand…” kind of teaching. It presents two different ways you could handle similar situations. In addition, the book of Proverbs is not intended to be Absolutes to live by, but rather general wisdom to guide you through life.

New Testament Antilogoumena:
1) Hebrews: This book was challenged because of its anonymity. Though the human author is never explicitly mentioned and there is still no definite scholarly consensus as to the author, the book carries apostolic authority, if not confirmed apostolic authorship.
2) James: James was disputed on the grounds that it contradicted Paul. Again, this was shown to be an error of interpretation, not a lack of inspiration.
3) II Peter: Some questioned this book because it did not seem genuine. There were too many differences between I Peter and II Peter, some claimed. It was also said to have been a late addition to the text of the New Testament. In response to these two challenges, I and II Peter do contain some differences, but they also contain a number of similarities both linguistically and doctrinally. Also, with the discovery of the Bodmer Papyri (P72), which dates prior to 300 AD, it has been established that the early Christian community both received and respected the book of II Peter. The differences could easily be accounted for by either the differing subject matter and/or the passage of time between the two epistles. In addition, Peter even explicitly says that he used a scribe in 1st Peter (5:12), which could easily account for the stylistic and/or grammatical differences between the two letters. The differences need not force us to the conclusion that the two epistles have separate authors.
4) II and III John: These two epistles were also questioned on the grounds of their questionable authorship. Because of the private circulation (and subsequent minimal acceptance initially) and the fact that the author designates himself as an “elder” and not an apostle, these epistles were doubted to be from the hand of John. However, there are significant stylistic similarities between 1st John and 2nd and 3rd John, which lend credence to the Johanine authorship of all three epistles. Also, the use of the term “elder” as a self designation for an apostle is not an obstacle, as Peter refers to himself as an elder in 1st Peter 5:1.
5) Jude: Jude was challenged on the basis of its quotation of the Book of Enoch, a recognized apocryphal book. However, on here separate occasions, Paul quotes secular poets (Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33, Titus 1:12). This does not disqualify the writing of Paul, and in fact these particular books were never seriously questioned by anyone in the early church. Simply because Jude quotes a non-canonical source is not sufficient grounds to exclude his work from the canon. Jude’s epistle is also contained in the Bodmer Papyrus (P72) and there seems to be traces of its influence in the Didache (a recognized early Christian writing, which neither claims canonicity nor was recognized as such by any early church leaders).
6) Revelation: Ironically, Revelation was one of the earliest books to be widely quoted by early church fathers, but one of the longest to be debated in regards to its authenticity. Around the middle of the third Century AD, Dionysius, the Bishop of Alexandria rejected the doctrine of “Millennialism” presented in the book. However, this was a matter of interpretation, not inspiration. A mistaken view of theology was at stake, not the authenticity of the Revelation of John. In AD 397, the tides were turned and the book finally received full and widespread acceptance again.

Pseudepigrapha
In light of recent cultural interest, I’m only going to look at the Apocrypha and three of the New Testament pseudepigrapha.
1) The Apocrypha
a. The books that Protestants call “The Apocrypha” are referred to by the Catholic Church as the “Deutero-Canonical books”
b. The Apocrypha contains 7 books and 4 parts of books (for a total of 11 pieces of literature) that the Church has historically rejected.
c. The Apocrypha was not “officially” accepted into the Church until the Council of Trent, in the mid to late 1500’s. (1546)
i. The Apocryphal books actually belong to the Jews, who would have had the perogrative of either accepting or rejecting these books in their canon; the Christian Church actually doesn’t really have a say in this.
ii. The Jews rejected these books as being part of the Inspired Revelation from God.
iii. It is evident that they respected and revered these books, but nowhere is it evident that they accepted them as canonical.
iv. Though the books of the Apocrypha were discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are no commentaries written on any Apocryphal book (as there were for nearly every other Biblical book)
v. The Biblical books were actually written on a different material and in a different font; this is not true of the Apocryphal books (which were written on the common material and in the common font).
vi. The Council of Trent was on the heels of Martin Luther’s Reformation and has all the earmarks of a polemic reaction to Luther’s “Sola Scriptura” cry.
d. The Apocrypha fails the “Canon” test on the grounds that it was not written by a prophet of God (Principle 1)
i. The books were composed between the “intertestimental period”, where the succession of prophets had already ended. The book of 1st Maccabees actually makes a reference to this, thereby claiming that is was not written by a prophet (9:27)
e. It also fails on the grounds that it does not tell the truth about God and man (Principal 3)
i. 2nd Maccabees 12:45 indicates not only that we ought to pray for the dead, but also that there is redemptive worth in such an action.
ii. Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that after death comes judgment, not a second chance to earn salvation.
f. Some of the stories are fanciful and do not accord with the portions of Scripture that they allegedly belong to.
i. The Story of Bel and the Dragon (Daniel “14”) would be a case in point.
ii. This is an alleged account of Daniel proving that the god Bel is not a “real god”. The character of Daniel is very divergent from the Daniel that we encounter in the rest of the book.
g. The Apocrypha adds nothing to our understanding of the Messiah.
i. The rest of the Old Testament is looking forward to the coming of the Messiah; The Apocrypha does not contain this feature.
h. Should Christians study the Apocrypha? (Per David Easaw)
i. There is no harm in reading and even studying the Apocrypha, just as there’s no harm in reading and studying books like “Pilgrim’s Progress” or “Pursuit of God.”
ii. There simply needs to be some recognition that there is a large difference between a book that is the very Words of God and a book that is about God, even if the book is very good and happens to be doctrinally accurate.

New Testament Pseudepigrapha
2) The Gospel of Thomas:
a. This “sayings” gospel was probably written around the same time as the Four Gospels in our New Testament, though it may have come much later.
b. The entire Gospel is not heretical, and contains some material that parallels the four Gospels that we have in our Bibles. However, there is an unreasonable amount of unorthodox material. For example, consider the first and last verses:
i. “And He said, ‘Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.’” [Salvation by knowledge, not by the blood of Jesus.] (Gospel of Thomas 1)
ii. “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven.’” [Is it a sin to be born a woman?] (Gospel of Thomas 114)
c. Also, consider the following verses:
i. “Jesus said, ‘Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one.’” (Gospel of Thomas 30) Polytheism.
ii. “Jesus said, ‘I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of woor; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.’” (Gospel of Thomas 77) Pantheism.
iii. “Jesus said, ‘Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh.’” (Gospel of Thomas 112) Gnosticism, compare to 2nd Corinthians 6:19-20.
3) The “Q” Gospel:
a. Perhaps my personal favorite on this list, simply because this one doesn’t exist.
i. To quote the Jesus Seminar, “’Q’ is an abbreviation of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”. It is used to designate a document which most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke used in writing their gospels. These gospel writers, it is believed, also used the Gospel of Mark. While Mark is an extant text, Q is a hypothetical construct. No independent copy of it exists. But it is widely believed that the passages in Mathew and Luke that are almost the same, and that did not come from Mark, must have come from this lost source, Q.”
ii. As if there’s no way that Matthew wrote first, then Luke used Matthew’s Gospel as one of the sources he admits to using in 1:1-2…?
b. Though this theory may be correct, the “text” of the Gospel of “Q” is simply a compilation of the material of Matthew and Luke.
c. That’s right, these “Scholars” have never seen a copy of this supposed document (that may or may not ever have existed), yet they have “reconstructed” this hypothetical document from the Gospels that do exist, then theorized that this reconstruction of theirs is the real document from which the Gospels that really exist must have been created.
d. It’s fairly easy to simply ignore this “gospel” as inconsequential. If some one ever discovers a copy of a manuscript of this alleged gospel, then I’ll be interested. Until then, I simply don’t worry about hypothetical documents. Hypothetically, if this document were found, it *might* be considered for inclusion in the canon, but since it’s never been found, it’s not eligible for canonization. If we try and include a non-existent gospel into the Bible, where do we stop? I could include a copy of the book that my pet unicorn wrote, even though no one’s ever seen it or read it. But I’m pretty sure it exists. Sort of.
4) The Gospel of Judas:
a. The authorship is not confirmed (it was certainly not written by an apostle or a prophet)
i. Despite what many might believe about the “Gospel”, it neither claims to be written by Judas, nor can it reasonably be attributed to him.
ii. It was written after his death (perhaps some time around 150 AD?)
iii. The work claims to be the “Good News [gospel] about Judas” (not the “Good News according to Judas”)
1. The other Gospels are “The Good News according to [kata] ________”
2. The Gospel of Judas reads, “The Good News about [en] Judas”
iv. Judas committed Suicide shortly after betraying the Lord; when would he have had time to write this Gospel?
v. The testimony of the other Apostles is in unanimous disagreement with the picture of the betrayal presented in the Gospel of Judas, as is all of ancient testimony from the early church. It is literally a lone voice silenced by the resounding evidence of history.
b. The book was not received by the early church
i. In fact, the earliest reference we have to the Gospel (which ironically was discovered long before we discovered the text of the “Gospel”) is that of Irenaeus of Lyons, who mentions it in his work, “Against Heresies”
1. The reference reads as follows: “And others say that Cain was from the superior realm of absolute power, and confess that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons are of the same people as themselves: for this reason they have been hated by their maker, although none of them has suffered harm. For Wisdom {Sophia} snatched up out of them whatever belonged to her. And Judas the betrayer was thoroughly acquainted with the truth as no others were, and so accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. By him, all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thrown into dissolution. And they bring forth a fabricated work to this effect, which they entitle the Gospel of Judas.”
c. The content is not only unusual; it is heretical. Some examples will suffice:
i. The introduction claims of Jesus, “Often he did not appear to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child.” Also of interest, the word for “child” is uncertain and might alternately be translated (but with less probability) as “apparition”, which would deny the physical reality of Christ.
ii. Jesus accuses his disciples of leading people astray in their worship of God. The disciples claim to have had a vision of the temple, which they inquire about. In response to the disciples, “Jesus said to them, ‘Those you have seen receiving the offerings at the altar – that is who you are. That is the god you serve, and you are those twelve men you have seen. The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray before that altar…”
iii. Jesus promotes polytheism, “Adamas [another name for “Adam”] was the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called ‘God’”.
iv. Jesus rejects the clear Biblical teaching of the Old Testament that God created everything by Himself (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24, 45:18; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), “So Nebro created six angles – as well as Saklas – to be assistants, and these produced twelve angles in the heavens, with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.”
v. According to the Jesus of the Gospel of Judas, God was not responsible for the creation of Adam and Eve, as Genesis clearly states and Jesus confirms in Mark 10:6, “Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after the image.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe.”
vi. The concept of original sin is flipped on it’s head, as it’s not the serpent who “deceives” Eve, but rather God “grants” Adam and Eve wisdom, “But God caused knowledge to be given to Adam and those with him, so that the kings of chaos and the underworld might not lord if over them.”
vii. Jesus denies His own humanity, [speaking to Judas] “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”
1. See Luke 24:39; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 2:9; 1st Timothy 3:16; and 2nd John 7 regarding the humanity of Christ. Not only is the humanity of Christ clearly taught in Scripture, it is vitally important and to deny it is to actually to be branded “Anti – Christ”. How could Jesus (who is the Christ) be “Anti – Christ”?
viii. There are also numerous references to being “led by the stars”, and to Judas having his own “star”, which are not Biblical teachings.