The Canon of Scripture (F.F. Bruce)

There are millions of Christians in the world today, and they base their beliefs on this book called the Bible.  The Bible today consists of 66 books divided in two testaments (39 in the Old Testament, or OT, and 27 in the New Testament, or NT).  Who decided which books made up the Bible?  What was their criteria?  F.F. Bruce, noted scholar in the field, looks at just these questions in The Canon of Scripture.  This isn't a normal book review, in a sense- it's as synopsis of Bruce's work, and any quotes presented here are his.

Background

Why does the Bible matter to Christians?

Many religions have sacred books associated with their traditions or their worship . . . the 'book' has a regulative function: conformity to what the book prescribes is a major test of loyalty to their religious faith and practice.

Why does Christianity have two testaments?

It comes down to covenants.  In the OT, God made a pact- or covenant- with Abraham and his descendants (the Jews).  The Lord would be their God, and they would be His people.  There was a problem, though- the Jews were unable to be faithful to God due to fallen human nature, and the covenant was constantly broken.  In the NT, Jesus Christ claimed to be Son of God , and permanently restored a right relationship between God and His people through a sacrifice- Himself.

Each of these covenants- the ancient covenant of Sinai and the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus- launched a great spiritual movement.  Each of these movements gave rise to a special body of literature, and these bodies of literature came to be known in the Christian church as 'the books of the ancient covenant' and 'the books of the new covenant' . . . It was not until the end of the second century AD that the two collections began to be described, briefly, as the Old Covenant (or Testament) and the New Covenant (or Testament).

Why do both the OT and NT matter to Christians?

The OT matters because its events and prophecies all point to Jesus.  He was no Savior that came out of the blue- His appearance and actions were foretold centuries before, by more than one prophet in the OT.  And,

Jesus . . . regularly appealed to the Hebrew scriptures [the OT] to validate his mission, his words and his actions.

Therefore,

The church's use of those writings was based on Jesus' use of them.

Again,

The earliest Christians . . . 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 NT matters because it's about Jesus.  His words, works, and sacrifice are all displayed therein, as recorded by his followers-

. . . what he [Jesus] said was treasured and repeated by those who heard him, and by their hearers in turn.

Since Jesus himself left nothing in writing, the most authoritative writings available to the church were those which came from his apostles.

What qualified one as an apostle?

Those whose apostleship was recognized by fellow-Christians were acknowledged to be Christ's agents, speaking by his authority.

With this backstory, we can now look briefly at the canon of Scripture, and how the OT and NT came to be.

The Canon of Scripture

What is a canon?

In a Christian context, we might define the word as 'the list of the writings acknowledged by the Church as documents of the divine revelation.'

 Those writings are

understood to be the list of books which are acknowledged to be, in a unique sense, the rule of belief and practice.

How did the OT canon come to be?

Basically, it was passed down from ancient times.  The Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic texts have been in use for centuries.

The books of the Hebrew Bible are traditionally twenty-four in number, arranged in three divisions.  The law (5 books of Moses), the prophets (8 books), and writings (11 books).

These twenty-four books are identical with the thirty-nine of the Protestant [current] Old Testament; the difference in reckoning arises from counting the twelve ('minor') prophets separately and dividing Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into two each.

Bruce mentions three OT books that at various times were disputed: Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.  The order of books, too, at times changed, as the originals were on separate scrolls and not bound together in books like we have today.  Still, this OT canon was well understood in Jesus' day.

When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles, then, we may be confident that they agreed with contemporary leaders in Israel about the contents of the canon . . . when in debate with Jewish theologians Jesus and the apostles appealed to 'the scripture', they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents.

The OT in most Bibles today is translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic Masoretic texts; some Churches (likes Eastern Orthodox) base their OT on a Greek translation of the same text (called the Septuagint).

How did the NT canon come to be?

Basically, the NT today consists of the gospels (4 books), the acts of the apostles (1 book), and the apostolic letters (22 books, most of which are by Paul).  Most of these has been accepted from the start as having apostolic authorship (and thus authority).  Athanasius (in 367 AD) was the first to list exactly 27 NT books [our current NT] with distinction of status.

The Gospels and Acts never appeared to be in serious dispute, and

From the early second century onward Paul's letters [13 books] circulated not singly, but as a collection.

A handful of books have been disputed by various people in various times- predominantly Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation.  For example, Origen (185-254) agreed with 21 of the current 27 but disputed Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, and Jude (but was fine with Revelation).  In another example, the authorship of Hebrews was questioned- some said it was Pauline, others that it was canon but not of Paul.  Bruce looks at statements like these from many historical heavyweights through ancient times, to include the above as well as Josephus, Jerome, Eusebius, Tertullian, Augustine, Marcion, Valentinus, and Ptolemy.  Most of these agreed (either through overt lists or implications) with the bulk of the books; they squabbled over the aforementioned ones.

Through the Ages

Throughout the ages, the NT (and OT) have been re-evaluated.  Biblical scholars, literary critics, and other experts use various criteria to include:

Antiquity

If a writing was the work of an apostle or of someone closely associated with an apostle, it must belong to the apostolic age.  Writings of later date, whatever their merit, could not be included among the apostolic or canonical books.

Orthodoxy

By 'orthodoxy' they meant the apostolic faith- the faith set forth in the undoubted apostolic writings and maintained in the churches which had been founded by apostles.

Most Christians believe the Bible is self-authenticating, and that's where orthodoxy comes in.  If a 'new' apostolic-age book were discovered, for example, deciding to include it in the Bible would be based in part on its claims about Christ.  Does what it says mesh with the undoubted apostolic writings?

Catholicity
By this they meant 'universal'.  Was the text held as canon in all Churches?  If not, why not?

Conclusion & Review

The Bible is an immensely important book, and understanding how it came to be in its present form is important.  It's been so for ages:

An issue of high importance for theologians in the church was the distinguishing of those books which might be used for settling doctrinal questions from those which were generally edifying.

Bruce, a professor in England for decades, does an excellent job stepping through the centuries and discussing, at a high level, "who said what when" about the canon of Scripture.  His book is an overview, considering things at a high level.  It is not a book-by-book analysis of exactly which book was written at which date by which authors.  That part disappointed me, but I can get that information elsewhere (in the Reformation Study Bible, for example, available here).  That Bruce is well-informed and a scholar of highest magnitude is without doubt; numerous in-page annotations make for easy reference lookup, and he brings a critical eye to everything, which is necessary and welcome.  In addition to learning about how we got the present Bible, he impressed upon me

the importance of the historical dimension in biblical interpretation

and that

It is not enough to say 'the Bible says . . .' without at the same time considering to whom the Bible says it, and in what circumstances.

The historical dimension has often been overlooked by Christians and non alike, with potentially disastrous consequences over the years.

As a final comment, the Bible is all about Christ, and that comes through when you look at the formation of the OT and NT.  It's not, as some Churchgoers say, "an instruction manual," or "guide to life," or history book, or science book.  Yes, we can learn from it- both instructions for life and historic situations- but the Bible is about Christ.  Old Testament and New alike point to Christ.  Remember that when reading.

Overall, I really liked The Canon of Scripture.  It was academic, but easy enough for a layman like me to follow.  I want to learn more.  I believe the Bible, and it's important to know what you believe.

Rating: A