This is the first of a two-part indermediate series on the canon of Scripture. We will deal with the Old Testament today. The second part of this series will deal with the New Testament. After we complete this two-part series, we will return to the characteristics of the Bible. We have already dealt with the characteristic of authority of the Bible in my entry, You Can Handle the Truth.

[Note: This is intended to serve as a summary of my beliefs about the canon of Scripture. This is in no way an exhaustive narrative. Don't split hairs on this summary. At the end of this summary, I will list additional resources that will assist you in the area of the canon of Scripture.]

First, in response to a previous post about the canon [among other things] from Henry, I said that understanding the validity of the canon is of utmost importance. If words were added or subtracted from God’s word, it would prevent us from fully obeying Him. If commands were subtracted, they would not be known to His people. If words were added, it might require extra things of God’s people which God had not commanded.

The precise determination of the extent of the canon of Scripture is therefore of utmost importance. If we are to trust and obey God absolutely, we must have a collection of words that we are certain are God’s words.

So where does the idea of a canon begin? Well, let’s look at the Old Testament today.

Scripture itself bears witness to the historical development of the canon. The earliest collection of written words of God was the Ten Commandments [Exodus 31:18]. The Ten Commandments thus form the beginning of the biblical canon.

This collection of absolutely authoritative words from God grew in size throughout the time of Israel’s history. Moses himself wrote additional words to be deposited beside the ark of the covenant in Deuteronomy 31:24-26. This immediate reference is apparently to the book of Deuteronomy, but other references [Exodus 17:24; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:22] indicate that the first four books of the Old Testament were written by him as well.

The content of the Old Testament canon continued to grow until the time of the end of the writing process. According to the Illustrated Bible Dictionary in “The Chronology of the Old Testament,” if we date Haggai to 530 B.C., Zechariah to 520-518 B.C. [with perhaps more material added after 480 B.C.] and Malachi around 435 B.C., we have the approximate dates of the last Old Testament prophets. Also, according to the IBD, roughly coinciding with this period are the last books of Old Testament history-Ezra [458 B.C.], Nehemiah [445-433 B.C.], and Esther [approx. 435 B.C.].

Jewish literature outside the Old Testament clearly affirmed that the divinely authoritative words from God had ceased, particularly Maccabees and Josephus. Rabbinic literature also reflects similar conviction in its repeated statement that actually, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel during this time. [Holy Spirit is primarily a reference to divinely authoritative prophecy in Rabbinic literature]

In the New Testament, we have no record of any dispute between Jesus and the Jews over the extent of the canon. Apparently there was full agreement between Jesus and his disciples and the Jewish leaders or people. This fact is confirmed by the quotations of Jesus and the New Testament. According to Roger Nicole in Revelation and the Bible [edited by Carl R. H. Henry], Jesus and the New Testament authors quote various parts of the O.T. Scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite any statements from the Apocrypha in the same manner.

Extra-biblical literature sources cited in Jude 14-15, Acts 17:28, and Titus 1:12 do find themselves in Scripture, but are not introduced as God’s words and are not a part of the Apocrypha anyways.

As for the Apocrypha, these books were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture, but throughout the early history of the church there was divided opinion on whether they should be a part of Scripture or not. In fact, the earliest Christian evidence is decidedly against viewing the Apocrypha as Scripture, but its use gradually increased in some parts of the church until the time of the Reformation. The fact that these books were included by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible gave support to their inclusion, even though Jerome himself say they were not “books of the canon.”

It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha officially to be part of the canon [with a few exceptions]. It is significant to remember that the Council of Trent was the response of the RCC to the teachings of Martin Luther and the spread of Protestant Reformation.

In my opinion [echoing Luther], the writings of the Apocrypha should not be regarded as Scripture because: 1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the O.T. writings; 2) they were not regarded as God’s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated; 3) they were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or other N.T. authors; and 4) they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible [particularly prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works].

They do have value for historical and linguistic research, but have no binding authority for the thought or life of Christians today.

Next we look at the New Testament canon. Following that, we will jump full throttle into the innerrancy issue. I think I will be able to answer Henry’s questions from the Further Questions on Biblical Authority entry through my next few entries. Stay tuned…

Further reading on the canon of Scripture:
-F.F. Bruce: The Canon of Scripture
-D.A. Carson & John Woodbridge: Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon
-William Henry Green: General Introduction in the Old Testament: The Canon
-S.Z. Leiman: The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture
-R. Laird Harris: Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
-Meredith G. Kline: The Structure of Biblical Authority