For the Non-theologian

As a child I heard my father read from the Bible at the end of every meal. That Bible had a special place in the house. I knew it was the Word of God, and I learned from it in Sunday School and church services.

As an adolescent in a youth service I heard a minister say that Paul taught that it was alright to marry, but that it was better to stay single. "For I would that all men were even as I myself ((Paul was single)). I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:7-9).

That statement peaked my interest and caused my first feelings of doubt in regard to the divinity of Paul's letters. It started my thinking about the canonicity of the Bible.

At one point I asked my father why he believed the Bible was the Word of God. He could not answer that question. Many people cannot answer it, in all religions, even in the New Christian Church. Many more do not even ask that question. Yet they are very certain that their scriptures are the Word of God.

Canonization is the process of accepting the divinity of sacred scriptures. For the Bible that process has a history of more than 2000 years, and it will probably continue forever. I want to describe this process in a simple words.

My first finding was that I was not the only one who asked why the Bible is thought to be the Word of God. Many people in the Jewish Church asked this question. People in the Christian Church had asked that question before me, and many church fathers were among them. So it is a normal and reasonable question that should be asked.

My second finding was that over a long period of time (like 1000 years) there had been discussions of the canonicity of many books. Even today we are facing a Catholic bible that has a different canon than the Protestant bible.

The history of the canonicity process has been well written in the annals of religious history, but seems to have been forgotten by those Christians who can say with such great aplomb that "the Bible clearly teaches this" or "the Bible does not teach that".

You will also meet such people in the New Christian Church, who will tell you that the Writings (the writings of the second coming) clearly teach this or that, but they could not tell you why they believe the Writings to be a sacred scripture. Nor could they tell you which books of the Writings are divinely inspired.

New Church people could discuss the history of canonicity of the Writings, where our "church fathers" still do not agree on the canon of the Writings.

My third finding was that while the reasons for the divinity of certain scriptures is somewhat vague in the Jewish and Christian Church, that vagueness is removed in the New Christian Church.

In the New Christian Church where we have a divine revelation beyond the Old and New Testament, it is known that there is more to the literal sense of the Old and New Testament books. There are also three internal senses in that literal senses, and so in the New Christian Church we can look at a book, and if it has the three internal senses from beginning to end (in other words, when they are continuous), then we know we have a divine scripture

CRITERIA OF INSPIRATION IN THE NEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The Lord could not give us any criteria of inspiration for the Old and New Testament. Humans had done little thinking in this area. There was nothing in human minds the Lord could use. It is all in the list of criteria in the previous paragraphs. But at His second coming the Lord was in a different position. There had been much thought on this subject, and the Lord could reveal new things Himself to His chosen revelation. He could make it much clearer what internal qualities make a divine scripture, and so He could purify the canon and make it much better than before.

LISTING THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

At His second coming the Lord gave us a list of the inspired books of the Bible (HD 266). In the Old Testament these are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, the Psalms of David, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jona, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, , Malachi (29 books) In the New Testament these are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Apocalypse (5 books).

The other books of the Bible are useful books in the life of the church, but they are not divinely inspired and therefore do not have divine authority.

LISTING THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE WRITINGS

While the Jewish and Christian Churches had to wrestle with lists of divine scriptures, the New Christian Church has much less of a problem. There is a listing of inspired books of the Second Coming. "The books are to be enumerated which were written from the beginning to the present day, by the Lord through me (Swedenborg)" (Ecc. Hist. #3).

There is a list at the end of CL, and two lists which Swedenborg sent to Oetinger and to the Landgrave of Hesse D. The first letter was written Sept. 23, 1766, and the second July 1, 1771, shortly before Swedenborg’s death on March 29, 1772.

Bringing these lists together, we get:

1. Concerning Heaven and Hell (HH).

2. Concerning the New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine (HD).

3. Concerning the Last Judgment (LJ).

4. Concerning the White Horse (WH).

5. Concerning the Inhabitants of the Planets. (EU).

6. Concerning the Lord (LORD).

7. Concerning the Sacred Scripture (SS).

8. The Doctrine of Life for the New Jerusalem (LIFE).

9. Concerning Faith (Faith).

10. Concerning the Spiritual world (CLJ).

11. Angelic Wisdom concerning Divine Providence (DP).

12. Angelic Wisdom concerning Divine Love and Wisdom DLW).

13. Apocalypse Revealed (AR).

14. Arcana Coelestia (AC).

15. Conjugial Love (CL).

16. Brief Exposition (BE).

17. Influx (Inf).

18. True Christian Religion (TCR).

But this is not the total list of the Writings, and this does not totally close canonization discussions. There is still the possibility of New Church "church fathers" discussing the final canon of the New Christian Church.

Seeing divinity in a scripture still remains an individual sight. Even when we say that the church sees divinity in a scripture, it still is a conglomeration of individuals who agree that they individually see the divinity of a scripture.

Some individuals see divinity very quickly, while others pain over it for a long period of time. Some spend a lot of thought and reasoning on the decision. The individuality is of seeing the divine inspiration of a scripture is recognized and respected in this document. We respect the simple approach as equally valuable to a more scholarly approach.

The canon is a LIST of books that have been accepted or recognized by the church as divine scriptures. Divine scriptures are books that are penned by humans but inspired and authored by the divine. Canonization is the process by which a book reaches the status of inspired writing (see par. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12).

CRITERIA OF INSPIRATION FOR THE BIBLE

We should ask what distinguishes a divine scripture from a human scripture. These criteria will play an important role in the process of canonization that took place in the Christian Church in the past 2000 years. Here are the criteria I discovered for the Old and New Testaments:

1. It is worthy to rule our life.

2. It shows signs of divinity.

3. It is highly regarded in the church.

4. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

5. It is preserved in the church and put in a collection of other inspired book.

6. It is used in the liturgy of the church.

7. It goes back to apostolic times.

8. It has views that are consonant with the rules of faith.

These are the criteria I have been able to distill from Jerome’s Commentary on the Bible. It is easy to argue that these are not the best of criteria. But they are the best available, and especially after I discovered what criteria was added by the Lord when He came the second time, I gained more appreciation for the quality of perception of the early church fathers, who had so little to work with, and yet who did so well with it.

DIVINE INSPIRATION IN THE JEWISH CHURCH

In the Jewish Church it took over 1000 years to settle the canon. They had various lists in various communities. They made no fine distinction between a closed canon and other texts. There is talk about two canons(lists) in ancient Juda. The early Christian Church was not any further with the Old Testament than the Jews were. (See 21, 36, 37, 40, 53, 61)

DIVINE INSPIRATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The canon of the Old Testament in the early Christian Church was not as rigid as we are led to believe today. The same situation exists in regard to the New Testament books. Various New Testament books were regarded with a variety of respects as were the books of the Old Testament.

Authorship is not really important, as it is not clear at all who the authors were. When we think of it, why would we be interested to know who was the human instrument that penned a divinely inspired book. The all important thing to determine is the fact that it was inspired by God.

It is especially interesting to see how the Book of Revelation popped in and out of various canonical lists even as late as the time of Luther.

Today Christians use a statement in the last chapter of this book to prove that it is impossible for God to reveal more divine scriptures. "If anyone adds to the words of the prophecy of this book, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18). But this statement only says that humans cannot add to this book, but it does not see that God cannot add to this book.

It is interesting to read about the problems surrounding the formation of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant canons of the Bible (see 81, 82, 85, 86).

Even today there is a difference between these two canons, and this does not seem to bother anyone, especially the fundamentalists (literalists) of the Protestant Church.

There is little connection authorship and canonicity, so that it ceases to be interesting and worthwhile to determine authorship (87).

Actually today most Christians know very little about the people who are connected with the books of the Bible. All interest is focused on the text.

The same thing will happen to the authorship of the Writings of the second coming. Today we still delve into the person and life of Swedenborg, but a few hundred years from now, our interest in his person will fade, and we will delve exclusively in the meaning of his writings.

Whether the accepted name of the author of a sacred scripture is a pseudonym or not, whether another name or no name is used, will become a very uninteresting subject of discussion. But it is useful and interesting to read section 88 and 89.

A special subject is the finality of the canon that is clearly implied in the fundamentalists’ attitude towards the Bible (see 90).

While the Council of Trent was firm about the books that should be accepted as canonical and inspired, this same council never said that they were the only inspired books. Nor did that Council say anything about the possibility of divine inspiration for other books , written in much more recent time.

In the Council of Trent (see 90) a list of books was approved as canonical, both by the church fathers there and by the authorities in Rome, although these also knew that there were errors in the Vulgate translation, This then still leaves in doubt the canonicity of certain passages, except more intense.

But Trent did not say that they were the only inspired books. However, the criterion for determining canonicity was the long use of the books in the church, and so the longer the church would exist without new books, the less likely it would be that a book would discovered that later on would be accepted as inspired. In other words, the criterion of inspiration is as it were selflocking.

Even while there may have been some books which some church father accepted as inspired, once the Council of Trent took place, the discussion was effectively closed, though it would continue for many centuries (see 15).

When the Council of Trent decreed the divine inspiration biblical books, they specified the text in the ancient Latin Vulgate. It may be wondered why this specification was added, because at that time it was known in Trent and Rome that there were mistakes in that Vulgate edition (91). Church father obviously realized the weakness of this specification, and so they asked for better versions of the Vulgate.

We can speak about the canon within the canon (92), or about degrees of canonicity. While all books are divinely inspired, some are more authoritative than others, and have more value than others. It can also be observed that the church uses certain books much more than other books.

Differences between the Old and New Testaments can be solved by a new revelation (the New Testament). But this could also be done, if there are differences between the Bible and the Writings (the new, second coming, revelation). (see paragraphs 40, 55, 61, 63, 67, 68).

CRITERIA OF INSPIRATION IN THE NEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH

The Lord could not give us any criteria of inspiration for the Old and New Testament. Humans had done little thinking in this area. There was nothing in human minds the Lord could use. It is all in the list of criteria in the previous paragraphs. But at His second coming the Lord was in a different position. There had been much thought on this subject, and the Lord could reveal new things Himself to His chosen revelation. He could make it much clearer what internal qualities make a divine scripture, and so He could purify the canon and make it much better than before.

A CONTINUOUS INTERNAL SENSE IS THE NEW CRITERIA

When the Lord was on earth some 2000 years ago, He regretted to tell us that He had lots more to tell us, but He could not do it, because we were not able to receive it. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now (John 16.12).

But at the second coming, the Lord brought new information about the nature of revelation. This new information helps to much better define the criterion of an inspired book.

This new criterion is the continuous internal sense of the literal sense. Each divine scripture has a literal sense, which is the sense that we read when we read the book. It is the sense that exists in this world.

This literal sense may be of various natures. It may be historical, but actually be symbolic, like Genesis 1 through 12. It may be historical, describing the history of the Jewish people, or the history of the life of Jesus Christ. It may be poetic like the psalms. It may be apocalyptic like the Book of Revelation. It may be prophetic like the many prophets of the Old Testament. Regardless of the nature of the literal sense, it is not a divine scripture unless it also has a continuous internal sense.

There are two concepts here, namely the concept of an internal sense, and the concept of the continuity of that internal sense. The internal sense exists within the literal sense, because it exists in the three heavens that are in the spiritual world. Each internal sense has its own subject, which depends on the nature of the heaven in which it exists. In the highest or celestial heaven, that contains angels who are in love to the Lord, the subject is the glorification of the Lord. In the middle or spiritual heaven, where the angels are in love to the neighbor, the subject is the regeneration of humans. In the lowest or natural heaven, where the angels are in simple obedience to the Lord, the subject is the history of the church. All three subjects run parallel, and from level to level also correspond.

There is a correspondence between the literal sense and each internal sense, so that there is a living connection between each portion of the literal sense and its three internal sense. Each internal sense is continuous from beginning to end on its own level. This is true for each book, but also for the whole literal sense.

A scripture is divinely inspired only when it has the three continuous internal senses. This new criterion of a continuous internal sense, is so much better than all previous criterion. While each previous criteria was rather subjective, the new criteria is purely objective, and can be seen outside of ourselves. It can be tested objectively and repetitively, which test comes close the nature of a scientific test.

We can apply this new criterion to each book of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, and thereby separate books that are divinely inspired from those who are authored by humans.

Once we have made this separation, we can then view the divinely inspired scriptures, penned by so many humans at so many different times in history, as one gigantic unified Word of God. We can begin to see these many books as one book that proceeds from the mouth of God. The first time one has this view of divine inspiration, it is overwhelming. Then in the process of time it becomes more and more overwhelming.

More and more can we see how there are two gigantic creations of God in this world, namely the natural world and the Word of God, both to be observed and understood with very similar principles of investigation.

LISTING THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

At His second coming the Lord gave us a list of the inspired books of the Bible (HD 266). In the Old Testament these are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, the Psalms of David, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jona, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, , Malachi (29 books) In the New Testament these are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Apocalypse (5 books).

The other books of the Bible are useful books in the life of the church, but they are not divinely inspired and therefore do not have divine authority.

LISTING THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE WRITINGS

While the Jewish and Christian Churches had to wrestle with lists of divine scriptures, the New Christian Church has much less of a problem. There is a listing of inspired books of the Second Coming. "The books are to be enumerated which were written from the beginning to the present day, by the Lord through me (Swedenborg)" (Ecc. Hist. #3).

There is a list at the end of CL, and two lists which Swedenborg sent to Oetinger and to the Landgrave of Hesse D. The first letter was written Sept. 23, 1766, and the second July 1, 1771, shortly before Swedenborg’s death on March 29, 1772.

Bringing these lists together, we get:

1. Concerning Heaven and Hell (HH).

2. Concerning the New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine (HD).

3. Concerning the Last Judgment (LJ).

4. Concerning the White Horse (WH).

5. Concerning the Inhabitants of the Planets. (EU).

6. Concerning the Lord (LORD).

7. Concerning the Sacred Scripture (SS).

8. The Doctrine of Life for the New Jerusalem (LIFE).

9. Concerning Faith (Faith).

10. Concerning the Spiritual world (CLJ).

11. Angelic Wisdom concerning Divine Providence (DP).

12. Angelic Wisdom concerning Divine Love and Wisdom DLW).

13. Apocalypse Revealed (AR).

14. Arcana Coelestia (AC).

15. Conjugial Love (CL).

16. Brief Exposition (BE).

17. Influx (Inf).

18. True Christian Religion (TCR).

But this is not the total list of the Writings, and this does not totally close canonization discussions. There is still the possibility of New Church "church fathers" discussing the final canon of the New Christian Church.

DISCUSSING THE NEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH’S CANON

Swedenborg wrote scientific works as a scientist. There is a Swedenborg Scientific Association that publishes these works and talks about them. Some see much in them, but I do not know anyone who believes these works are divinely inspired.

Then Swedenborg began to search for the soul in the human body, and this resulted in more scientific works, but still they are not seen as divinely inspired. They are mostly seen as works that prepared Swedenborg for the process of inspiration.

Then Swedenborg began to study the Bible, and wrote down his findings and ideas. While some New Church theologians study these works, they do not see any divine inspiration in them.

Then Swedenborg spiritual senses were opened, and he began to see things in the spiritual world. He wrote down these experiences in a Spiritual Diary. A number of theologians begin to see divinity there. Others want to keep this Diary clearly separated from the Theological Writings he now begins to produce.

These theological Writings are separated into published works and unpublished works. While these writings may be kept separated, hardly any theologian rejects the fact of their divine inspiration.

TOTAL LIST OF THE WRITINGS

THE ARCANA COELESTIA (AC), or Heavenly Mysteries which are

in the Word of the Lord, Disclosed. Being the revelation of

the internal sense of the Books of Genesis and Exodus.

Eight parts published in London 1749-56.

THE SPIRITUAL DIARY (SD and SDM), containing the record of

Swedenborg's experiences in the spiritual world from 1748 to

1765.

ON HEAVEN AND ITS WONDERS, AND ON HELL (HH), From things

heard and seen. Published in London 1758.

ON THE EARTHS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM AND IN THE STARRY HEAVENS,

AND THEIR INHABITANTS (EU). Published in London 1758.

ON THE LAST JUDGMENT AND BABYLON DESTROYED (LJ), Showing

that all the things predicted in the Apocalypse at this day

have been fulfilled. Published in London 1758.

ON THE NEW JERUSALEM AND ITS HEAVENLY DOCTRINE (HD).

Published in London 1758.

ON THE WHITE HORSE DESCRIBED IN THE APOCALYPSE, AND ON THE

WORD IN ITS SPIRITUAL OR INTERNAL SENSE (WH). Published in

London 1758.

THE APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED ACCORDING TO THE SPIRITUAL SENSE

(AE). Six volumes written in 1759.

ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED. Written in 1760.

ON THE LORD. Written in 1760.

SUMMARIES OF THE INTERNAL SENSE OF THE PROPHETS AND THE

PSALMS OF DAVID. Written in 1761.

ON THE SACRED SCRIPTURE, OR THE WORD OF THE LORD, FROM

EXPERIENCE (VERBO). Written in 1762.

ON THE PRECEPTS OF THE DECALOGUE. Written in 1762.

ON THE LAST JUDGMENT (LJP). Written in 1762.

ON THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. Written in 1762.

ON THE DIVINE LOVE. Written in 1762.

ON THE DIVINE WISDOM. Written in 1763.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CONCERNING THE LORD (L).

Published in Amsterdam 1763.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CONCERNING THE SACRED

SCRIPTURE (SACRED). Published in Amsterdam 1763.

THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE FOR THE NEW JERUSALEM (LIFE).

Published in Amsterdam 1763.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CONCERNING FAITH (FAITH).

Published in Amsterdam 1763.

CONTINUATION CONCERNING THE LAST JUDGMENT (CLJ). Published

in Amsterdam 1763.

ANGELIC WISDOM CONCERNING THE DIVINE LOVE AND THE DIVINE

WISDOM (DLW). Published in Amsterdam 1763.

ANGELIC WISDOM CONCERNING THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE (DP).

Published in Amsterdam 1764.

THE APOCALYPSE REVEALED (AR). Published in Amsterdam 1766.

CONVERSATIONS WITH ANGELS. Written in 1766.

CONCERNING CHARITY (CHAR). Written in 1766.

FIVE MEMORABLE RELATIONS. Written in 1766.

ON MARRIAGE. Written in 1766.

INDICES TO A WORK ON CONJUGIAL LOVE. Written in 1767.

THE DELIGHTS OF WISDOM IN RESPECT TO CONJUGIAL LOVE, AFTER

WHICH FOLLOW THE PLEASURES OF INSANITY IN RESPECT TO

SCORTATORY LOVE (CL). Published in Amsterdam 1767

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW CHURCH (BE).

Published in Amsterdam 1769.

ON JUSTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS. Written in 1769.

A SKETCH OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW CHURCH. Written in

1769.

THE CANONS OF THE NEW CHURCH; OR THE ENTIRE THEOLOGY OF THE

NEW CHURCH. Written in 1769.

ON THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE SOUL AND THE BODY (ISB).

Published in London 1769.

ON THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE HORSE AND THE EGGYPTIAN

HIEROGLYPHICS (WHAPP). Written in 1769.

MEMORABILIA FOR THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Written in

1770.

AN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW CHURCH. Written in

1770.

THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, CONTAINING THE WHOLE THEOLOGY

OF THE NEW CHURCH (TCR). Published in Amsterdam 1771.

NINE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TRINITY (QUEST). Written in

1771.

THE CORONIS, OR APPENDIX TO THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

(CORO). Written in 1771.

ON THE CONSUMMATION OF THE AGE, THE SECOND ADVENT OF THE

LORD, AND THE NEW CHURCH. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN INVITATION

TO THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN WORLD INTO THAT CHURCH (INV).

Written in 1771.

(from Liturgy and Hymnal, General Church of the New Jerusalemm 166, page 236-238)

______________________________________________________

CANONICITY

Section 66 of the Jerome Commentary of the Bible

by Raymond E. Brown, S.S. and Raymond F. Collins

Paragraphs 1 through 101.

Here Quoting Only Certain Paragraphs

5 (I) The Word "Canon." A transliteration of Gk kanon, "canon" is derived from a Semitic word for "reed" (qanu in Assyrian, qaneh in Hebrew, qn in Ugaritic). Classically, kanon was a straight rod or bar-a tool used for measuring. A mason's or carpenter's measuring stick, kanon metaphorically connoted a rule, norm, or standard (of excellence). In chronology, kanones (pl.) were the principal eras or epochs in history, and kanon (sg.) designated a chronological table. Occasionally, however, kanon simply meant "series" or "list."

6 In the LXX kanon appears only in Mic 7:4; Judg 13:6; and 4 Macc 7:21--the last a metaphorical reference to a philosophical rule. In the NT the term is used four times, always metaphorically. In 2 Cor 10:13, 15,16, it designates territorial limits; in Gal 6:16, the Christian rule of life, apparently in opposition to non-Christian standards.

7 In early ecclesiastical usage kanon referred to the rule of faith, the norm of revealed truth. (See W. R. Farmer, Second Century 4 [1984] 143-70.) The "glorious and holy rule [kanon] of our tradition," in contrast to "empty and silly concerns," is the guiding norm for Christian preaching and the Christian ethos (1 Clem. 7:2; AD 96). Irenaeus (ca. 180) mentioned frequently the "rule of truth" to which the Scriptures and tradition attest, but which is nonetheless perverted by heretics (Adv. Haer. 3.2.1; 3.11.1; etc.). In the early 4th cent. Eusebius employed kanones for the lists he compiled, e.g., the dates of the monarchs of the Assyrians, Hebrews, Egyptians, et al. The famous Eusebian canons are lists of Gospel references contained in his letter to Carpian: the second parallel passages in the Gospels except John; and so forth until the tenth cites passages found in just one Gospel. Eusebius listed the books of the NT (HE 3.25, 6.25), but he called this a catalogue (katalogos). The decisions of the Council of Nicea (AD 325) were designated as canons, as were the disciplinary decisions of synods, which functioned as rules for Christians to live by.

8 In his 39th festal letter (Easter, 367) Athanasius contrasted "the books included in the canon [ta kanonizomena], and handed down, and credited as divine," with the "books termed apocryphal [apokrypha]," which the heretics mixed up with the books of the divinely inspired Scripture (PG 26. 1436). Athanasius's distinction between "canonical" and "apocryphal" books recalls a threefold distinction that Eusebius (ca. 303) had made in reference to "testamentary" books (endiathekos; HE 3.3. and 3.25): the homologoumena, which were indisputably accepted by all, the antilegomena or disputed works, and the notha or clearly spurious works. (Eusebius attributed a similar division to Clement of Alexandria [ca. 200], but most contemporary scholars regard that attribution as a fiction by Eusebius, seeking a precedent for his own work.) Athanasius's canonical books and Eusebius's testamentary homologoumena are largely but not totally coextensive.

9...In current terminology, a canonical book is one that the church acknowledges as belonging to its list of sacred books, as inspired by God, and as having a regulating (rule) for faith and morals. In Roman Catholic terminology OT books are divided into protocanonical books (39) and deuterocanonical books (7). The latter are Tob, Jdt, 1-2 Macc Wis, Sir, Bar (plus parts of Esth and Dan). This distinction, which seems to have been contributed by Sixtus of Siena (1520-1569), does not imply that protocanonlcai books are more canonical than deuterocanonical, or were canonized first. Rather, protocanonical books were accepted with little or no debate, whereas there was serious questioning about deuterocanonical books.

11..II) Canonical Listing of Scripture. By the end of the 4th cent., "canon" describing a collection of scriptural books had become common ecclesiastical usage in both East and West. There had been earlier lists of biblical books, e.g., in the 2d cent., the Muratorian Fragment (EB 1-2) and Melito; and, in the 3d cent., Origen. But now the lists took on ecclesiastical status and became more set in content, which thus gave rise to the twofold thrust of "canon" that would dominate subsequent theology (norm for the church and list).

12...In regard to the contents of the list, the debates in Judaism and the church (Marcion) will be discussed below, as will the theological impetus to select and reject. Athanasius is the oldest witness to the citation of 27 NT books. Both he and Jerome list 22 books from the Jewish Scriptures corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebr alphabet. Since the 12 Minor Prophets were considered a single book, and there were 5 double books (= 10: 1-2 Sam; 1-2 Kgs; 1-2 Chr; Ezra-Neh;Jer-Lam), and Ruth was joined to Judg, their 22 books correspond to 39 (protocanonical) books in a modern Bible. In De doctrina christiana 2.8.13 (AD 396-97) Augustine listed 44 OT books (=46, since Lam and Bar are part of Jer) including the deuterocanonical books (9 above), and his great stature tended to close discussion in the West on the extent of the canon. Thus the Western councils mentioned above (11) and the letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 (DS 213; EB 21-22) agreed on a list of 46 OT and 27 NT books. Yet the reproduction of several lists lists in 692 at the Quinisextine Council of Constantinople, known as Tullo II (Grosheide, Some Early Lists 20-21)warns against being too simplistic about the fixity of the consensus that existed at the end of the 4th cent.

13 In continuity with the dominant tradition, there were 46 OT books and 27 NT books (73 total) listed in the bull Cantate Domino of the (ecumenical) Council of Florence, promulgated in 1442 as a document of union between Rome and the Coptic Christians (jacobites; DS 1335; EB 47). The discussions at Trentrevealed doubt about the binding force of the bull; and so, reacting to Protestant questioning, in 1546 that council at its fourth session promulgated De Canonicis Scripturis (Church Pronouncements, 72:11), "so that no doubt may remain as to which books are recognized." Trent listed as sacred and canonical "with all their parts and as inspired by the Holy Spirit 73 books, including the OT books (deuterocanonical) not accepted by many Jews and Protestants (> 35 and 44 below)

15...(III) Theological Reflections. Canonicity and inspiration designate different realities: a book from the biblical period is canonical to the extent that it is part of a closed collection that has unique status in the church; a book is inspired to the extent that the Holy Spirit was its source. Yet there is a somewhat circular relationship: inspiration preceded canonicity but could not be affirmed with surety by all without canonical recognition. In extending that canonical recognition, the church had to reflect on tradition thought to derive from apostolic origins. The NT books, for instance, were composed for lst-cent. churches; but the "church catholic" (Ignatius of Antioch) or "great church" preserved those books and organized them into collections, using them in her liturgy. In an ongoing process, other works were rejected as not stemming from apostolic times or as containing views not consonant with the rule of faith. Various debates caused a listing of the biblical books. Once solemnly categorized, these books became an even more decisive norm for judging developments in faith and morals.

20 As indicated by our discussions of the deuterocanonical books (or Apocrypha; 9 above), the Roman Catholic Church and some Eastern Orthodox churches accept a longer OT canon (46 books) than that acknowledged by most Protestants (39) and by Jews (39 also, but arranged differently). The difference centers on Tob, Jdt, 1-2 Macc, Wis, Sir, Bar (including Ep Jer) and parts of Esth and Dan. A classic thesis hitherto espoused to explain this is that by the end of the 1St. cent. AD there were in Judaism two canons, or lists of sacred books, a shorter Palestinian canon drawn up by the rabbis at Jamnia, and a longer Alexandrian canon represented by the LXX. The early Christian church adopted the Alexandrian canon; but the Reformers, following a minority view among the Fathers, decided to revert to the Palestinian canon. The respective results were the Roman Catholic and Protestant canons. Almost every detail of this thesis has been subjected to serious challenge and modification.

21 (I) formation of Sacred Writings in Judaism. The composition of the OT was a process that took over 1000 years. The first poetic composition, e.g., the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:1-18) and the Song of Deborah (Judg 5), probably go back to the 12th cent. BC. The latest books in the Jewish-Protestant canon, Dan and Esth, were composed during the 2d cent. BC; the latest books in the Roman Catholic canon, 2 Macc and Wis, were composed ca. 100 BC. During this long paroled of composition there was a gradual accumulation of material into books and then into collections of books. In addition to the books that found their way into canonical acceptance, there were others, some composed during the period when the biblical books were being written, some composed slightly later. Some of these other books were lost; some were preserved but did not receive acceptance.

36 (III) The Canon at Qumran. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has given us much more evidence for our discussion of the canon among Jews in the first century BC and the 1st century AD. The situation apparent in the books preserved from the Qunram collections betrays the very type of freedom about the canon that we sketched above (P. Skehan, BA, 28 [1965] 89-90). Of the books that would ultimately find their way into the standard Hebr Bible, only Esth is absent from among the Qunram scrolls and fragments. This could of course be accidental, although several factors suggest that the Qumran Essenes may have rejected the book: it makes no mention of God, and it places emphasis on the Purim festival (which may not have pleased the rigid Qumran outlook on the calendar and feasts). Esth is also absent from some Christian lists up to the time of Gregory of Nazianzus (380). The Law and the Prophets seem to have been accepted at Qumran, with each collection arranged in the order that would become standard, though often in recensions differing from the MT (Texts, 68:20). Of the collection that would become known as the Writings, Pss has the best attestation; Ezra/Neh and Chr have the poorest. Although the Essenes probably knew the canonical Psalter, it is an open question whether the collection of Pss was considered rigidly closed during the lifetime of the Qumran community. In several mss., noncanonical psalms are mixed in with canonical ones (Texts, 68:31).

37 The really important factor pertaining to the canon is that the Qumram sectarians preserved copies of many other books. Of the deuterocanonical books, the Letter of Jeremiah (Ep Jer=Bar 6), Tob, and Sir are represented, the latter two in several copies. Moreover, there are many copies of Job, 1 Enoch, and various sectarian documents. We cannot be sure that an essential distinction was made between these works and "biblical" works. The thesis that a different type of script and format was used by the Qumran scribes in copying the "biblical" books has no validity. In fact, some of the canonical books were copied on papyrus, a practice forbidden later in Judaism, because only parchment (skin) was thought to be fitting for a biblical book (Texts, 68:14). The conclusion of Skehan is worth quoting: All in all, the Qumran library gives the impression of a certain selectivity, but hardly of any fine distinction between a closed canon and all other texts.".

38 (IV) The Canon at Alexandria. We spoke of the thesis that there were two canons in ancient Judaism: the shorter Palestinian canon fixed at Jamnia and the longer Alexandrian canon (20 above). Just as the fixing of the canon at Jamnia has been challenged, so also the thesis of an Alexandrian canon has undergone penetrating questioning (see Sundberg, OT). This thesis, apparently first proposed by J. E. Grabe ca. 1700, is intimately related to the acceptance of the LXX by the early church.

40 (V) The Ancient Christian Canon of the Old Testament. The conclusion that there was no rigidly closed canon in Judaism in the 1St. and early 2nd cents. AD means that when the church was in its formative period and was using the sacred books of the Jews, there was no closed canon for the church to adopt. This is exactly the situation in the NT. The NT writers cite the sacred books that ultimately found their way into the Hebr canon, especially the Law, the Prophets, and Pss. But they also echo some of the deuterocanonical books.

55 (II) Composition and Collection of New Testament Works. All the works eventually accepted into the NT were probably written before AD 150. The dates for their collection into recognized groups are hard to specify. Moreover, when these works were acknowledged as sacred or inspired writings, they were not necessarily placed in the same category as the OT Scriptures. Even when the latter step was taken, 2d-cent. church writers who did speak of NT works as "Scriptures" sometimes quoted alongside them (but less frequently) other gospels and writings--an indication that a sense of closed canon had not yet developed. Thus one must distinguish the acknowledgment of Christian writings as sacred works, as Scripture, and as canonical (Keck, "Scripture").

61 The canonical Gospels were written in the period 65-100. Mark most likely (Synoptic Problem, 40:6-12) was the earliest, having been written between 65 and 75. In it the pre-Gospel written tradition was systematized along chronological and theological lines. The material to be narrated was fitted into a simplified sequence of the public ministry of Jesus (baptism, ministry in Galilee, ministry outside Galilee, journey to Jerusalem, passion, death, and resurrection), with the evangelist placing incidents where they seemed logically to fit-not necessarily on the basis of a correct historical chronology. The choice of the material to be incorporated and the orientation given to it were determined by the evangelist's theological outlook and by the needs of the community for which Mark was written. In the period 75-90, an unknown Christian wrote the Gospel that has come down to us as the Gospel according to Matthew (some have suggested that the name is explicable because the evangelist was a disciple of Matthew or drew on an earlier collection of sayings by Matthew). In the period 80-95, another writer (later identified, correctly or incorrectly, as Luke a companion of Paul) undertook an elaborate project that produced not only a Gospel that had more formal historical pretensions but also a history of the origin and spread of Christianity in the post resurrectional period (Acts). Theological orientation is clearer in Matt and Luke than it is in Mark, precisely because of the changes those evangelists made while using Mark (for redaction criticism, Hermeneutics, 71:28). The development of preJohannine tradition probably lasted several decades, and the Gospel according to John was written in a substantial form ca. 90. (A final redaction of John may have taken place some 10 or 15 years later after 1-2-3 John.) Why the name John was associated with this Gospel remains a disputed point among scholars: few would identify the writer as the son of Zebedee, or identify the Beloved Disciple (the source of Johannine tradition) as one of the Twelve. Although John does preserve some historical reminiscences about Jesus (lost or oversimplified in the earlier Gospels), it has profoundly rethought and rewritten the Jesus tradition. Much of the peculiarly Johannine outlook may be explicable in terms of the unique history of the community that preserved this tradition (Joannine Theology, 83:9-17).

63 This question is closely related to the problem of other gospels ultimately not accepted as canonical. In the mid-2d cent. we find one clue to the selection of those that were accepted, i.e., the apostolic identity or association of their authors (Justin, Dial. 103.7: "the Memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those that followed them"; (49, 51 above). But that was a growing appreciation--apparently Tatian was not regarded as audacious in his project of a harmonized gospel not composed by any apostle. Moreover, ca. 125, Papias, although he knew of written apostolic Gospels, was still anxious to improve upon them with oral material of an eyewitness pedigree. Eventually, however, the apostolic aura won out, and the church took pride in having two Gospels (Matt and John) derived from the Twelve, in addition to Mark related to Peter, and Luke related to Paul.

67 (b) REVELATION. The Gk designation of this work, Apokalypsis, gave a name to a genre of literature that would have been familiar to the first Christians as part of their Jewish heritage (OT Apocalyptic, 19). Two Jewish apocalypses written about the same time as Rev (late 1St. cent. AD), 2 Apoc. Bar. and 4 Ezra, are pseudonymous, using names of famous men who lived centuries before. But there is no reason to think that Rev 1:4,9 is not to be taken literally in describing the author as an otherwise unknown Christian prophet named John (A later period too simply identified him as John, son of Zebedee--whom in turn was too simply identified as the author of a Gospel and three epistles). Besides the clearly apocalyptic elements of the book, there is a strong tone of prophecy in a feature that is not found in the Jewish apocalypses, i.e., the prefatory letters admonishing the seven churches of Asia Minor. This feature may indicate that Christians were already accustomed to epistolary writings. The letters have led some to relate Rev to the Pauline corpus; but there similarities to the Gospel of John as well, and the work may have had remote connections with the Johannine tradition.

The first evidence of Christian usage of Rev is in the mid-2nd cent. in Justin, Dial.81.4. In the West around the end of that century, it was accepted by the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, with only the Alogi (ca. 200?) attacking it (and the Gospel of John) on theological grounds. In the East, Melito of Sardis (170-190) is supposed to have written a commentary on it (Eusebius, HE 4.26.2) and Origen endorsed it. However, Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 250) perceptively maintained that the author of John (whom he thought to be the son of Zebedee) did not write Rev. Dionysius's worry about the use being made of Rev by heretical chiliasts (millenarianists) had the effect of weakening the acceptance of it as a biblical book in the Gk church. Eusebius (HE 3.25.2-4) wavered whether to list Rev as genuine or spurious. It was not included in the list of Cyril of Jerusalem (350) or in Canon 59/60 of Laodicea or in the list of Gregory of Nazianzus that was accepted in Trullo II (692; 12 above). Rev was not accepted in the Syrian church. Luther showed hesitancies about the millenarianism of Rev (86 below).

68 There was also apocryphal apocalypses (Apoclypha, 67:55). The most important was Apoc. Pet., which the Muratorian Fragment mentioned with a notation that some do not wish to read it in church. Written ca. 125-150, it seems to have been accepted as canonical by Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, HE 6.14.1). The Lat list (ca. 300) of the Codex Claromontanus listed it last in questionable context, and ca. 325 Eusebius (HE 3.25.4) placed it among the serious books, stating neither in the earlier days nor in his time had any orthodox writer made use of it. Jerome also rejected it, but in the 5th cent. it was still being used in the Good Friday liturgy in Palestine.

81 (III) Problems about the Formation of the Canon. By 200, then, the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Pet, and 1 John had come into general acceptance. By the end of the 4th cent. in the Lat and Gk churches there was general acceptance of the 27-book canon of the NT. This development cloaks some difficulties which must be discussed and which may help to explain why K. Aland (A History of Christianity [Phl, 1985] 1. 111) can state "until the seventh century, in some parts of the church either an abbreviated canon existed or people possessed an expanded canon through accepting apocryphal writings."

(A) Concept of a New Testament. Above (55) we insisted that in discussing the acknowledgment of Christian writings one must distinguish their evaluation as sacred works, as Scripture, and as canonical. Now we ask when the collection of these writings just described was considered to constitute a NT comparable to the Jewish Scriptures, which then became an OT. This issue is complicated by the fact the Gk diatheke means both "covenant" and "testament," and already Heb 8:7 spoke of a first covenant and a second. 2 Pet 3:16 put the writings of Paul on a par "with the other Scriptures," but we are not certain that this indicates total equality with the OT. By the mid-2d cent. Justin (Apol. 1.67) witnessed to the fact that the Gospels and the writings of the apostles were being read in conjunction with the OT at Christian liturgical services. 2 Clem. 4 cited Isa and then Matt as "another Scripture." Marcion, by rejecting the OT in favor of a truncated collection of 10 Pauline epistles and Luke, helped to gel by way of opposition the belief that the Christian writings form a unity with the OT. (Opposition to Marcion catalyzed but did not create this view; see Farkasfalvy, Formation.) Ca. 170-190 Melito of Sardis (Eusebius, HE 4.26.14) spoke of the Jewish Scriptures as "the books of the Old Covenant," but that was still not clearly a concept of an OT and a NT. Ca 200 in the East Clement of Alexandria and in the West Tertullian were deveoping the basic language of the two Testaments. In the same general period, the Muratorian Fragment and Origen gave lists of NT books--a sign that the concept of a collection of Christian Sciptures had taken hold.

82 (B) Value of Patristic Citations. In discussing the formation of the New Testament , we frequently resorted to citations of a NT book by one of the Fathers to show that a given book was known and used with some authority. Indeed, patristic citations and lists of books are the two main criteria for judgment of the canon. Yet neither criterion is totally satisfactory. For instance, when Clement of Rome, or Ignatius, or Polycarp cited a book that ultimately was recognized as canonical, just what authority was he giving to this book, since we do not know that the concept of either a NT or a canon was yet formulated? Past discussions often simply assumed that these early Fathers had a concept of canonical and noncanonical. And, indeed, even later when there was a concept of a NT, we find strange phenomena in patristic citations. Origin cited 2 Pet at least six times; yet in his canonical list (Eusebius, HE 6.25.8) he doubted whether 2 Pet should be included. In other words, even a 3d-cent. patristic citation of a book ultimately accepted as canonical does not mean that the Father thought it canonical. On the other hand, absence of a citation of a NT book (e.g., during the 2d cent.) does not necessarily mean that the Fathers did not know the book or did not consider it of value. There would be little occasion to cite some of the shorter NT works like Phlm and 2-3John.

85 (D) Oriental Churches. In the East, the picture remained more complex. In the 4th cent. when the Greeks and Latins were beginning to move toward a standard canon of 27 books, the NT of the Syrian church included the Diatessaron (not the four Gospels), Acts, and 15 Pauline epistles (including Heb and 3 Cor). Thus a canon of 17 books was used by Ephraem (320-373) and given as authoritative in the Doctrine of Addai (ca. 370) at Edessa. In the early 5th cent. the four Gospels replaced the Diatessaron (Texts, 68:123), 3 Cor was omitted, and three of the Catholic Epistles (Jas, 1 Pet, 1 John) won acceptance. The Syrian church, however, never fully accepted the other Catholic Epistles or Rev. Coptic NT lists contained 1-2 Clem.; and the Ethiopian church seems to have had a canon of 35 books, the additional eight including decrees, called the Synodus, and some Clementine writings. Moreover, one may legitimately wonder whether such lists represented universal practice in the respective churches. On the Eth canon, see R. W. Cowley, Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974) 318-23; S. P. Kealy, BTB 9 (1979) 13-26.

These considerations should make it clear to the student just how much one is generalizing in speaking about the NT canon of the early church.

86 (IV) The Canon in the Reformation. The Protestant movement generally maintained the traditional 27-book NT canon. Some 16th-cent. humanists, however, revived the earlier hesitations about certain NT books. Erasmus, whose Gk NT essentially served as the basis for Luther's translation into German, was censured by the Sorbonne for not refuting ancient doubts about the apostolic origin of Heb, Jas, 2 Pet, 2-3John, and Rev. Luther, who judged books to be canonical according to their inherent quality and valued NT books to the extent that they proclaimed Jesus Christ, esteemed Heb, Jas, Jude, and Rev to be of lesser quality than "the capital books," i.e. "the true and certain, main books of the New Testament." Thus he placed these books after the rest of the NT in his earlier Ger editions. Oecolampadius had a lower rank for Rev, Jas, Jude, 1 Pet, and 2-3 John.

Tyndale's prologue to the NT, printed in Cologne in 1525, enumerated 23 NT books. Separated from the list by a space and special indentation, and without an assigned number, were Heb, Jas, Jude, and Rev. Although the preface was omitted from the 1525 Tyndale ed. (Worms), he and his successors followed Luther's early arrangement of NT books, until the Great Bible of 1539 reverted to the traditional order. Subsequently, Eng Bibles have followed the traditional order, and Western Christendom may be said to agree on a NT canon of 27 books.

87 (I) Authorship, Pseudonymity, and Canonicity. We have seen that early-church judgment on the sacred character and canonicity of books was often determined by tradition about their writers. Accepting the canon that emerged from such ancient judgments does not mean being bound to accept the reasoning behind the judgments. Modern scholarship agrees that the Fathers were often quite wrong in identifying the writers of biblical books. The issue of who wrote a book is a historical question to be settled by scientific criteria of style and content; it is not a religious question in the same way that inspiration and canonicity are. Thus the church has wisely refrained from dogmatic statements about the authorship or writing of biblical books. Even the PBC responses of 1905-1915 which dealt with authorship were not dogmatic but precautionary, and subsequently Roman Catholic scholars were given complete freedom with regard to those responses (Church Pronouncements, 72:25). The fact that within 50 years of being issued those responses were no longer in harmony with the consensus of centrist scholarship about authorship is a good indication of the complexities of the problem and the danger of taking official positions (even precautionary) on it. In fact, there is no longer an official Roman Catholic position about the identity of the writer of any biblical book.

88 Pseudominity, i.e., using a false name, is a term employed to describe the self-attribution of a book to someone (usually of renown) who actually did not write it. (Note that pseudominity is a matter of self-attribution. If it is certain or probable that Heb was not written by Paul, nor Matt written by Matthew, those are not cases of pseudonimity, because the works themselves make no claim as to who was their author. Scholars of today would simply be rejecting the oversimplified attributions of the 2d cent. in denying the reputed authorship of such works.) When there are cases which match the definition of pseudonymity, that term should be applied with serious reservation to the biblical books. The claim in Jewish and Christian sacred books to authorship by famous figures who did not write them was made without any intention to deceive; rather it reflected a belief that the books were written faithfully in the tradition or school of the named "authors." Thus to call Eph pseudonymous is a distortion if one implies that the epistle has nothing to do with Paul or his thought. Granted that reservation, the OT certainly contains pseudonymous works: Moses did not write all of Deut (despite 1:1); Solomon did not write Eccl (Qoh--despite 1:1) or Wis (despite chap. 7). If the facts warrant it, then, in principle there can be no objection to designating as pseudonymous 2 Pet, Jas, Jude, the Pastorals, Col, Eph, and 2 Thess.

89 Some distinctions should be made in the concept of authorship as applied to biblical books, esp. in regard to the relationship of authority to writing. (1) An author could write a book with his own hand-perhaps the author of Luke-Acts. (2) An author could dictate a book or letter to a scribe who copied slavishly. This was not a popular way of composing since it was tiring (for Paul and dictation, NT Epistles, 45:19-21). (3) An author could supply ideas and statements to another who would write the work (the equivalent of a modern "ghost writer"). Some who do not think that 1 Pet is pseudonymous have argued that Peter, a Galilean fisherman, composed this well-written Gk letter by thus using Silvanus (5:12). These first three categories would merit the designation "author" in modern parlance too. (4) In antiquity one could be considered an author if a work was written by disciples whose thought was guided by both the master's past words and by his spirit (even a long time after his death). Such authorship is exemplified in the composition of parts of Isa and Jer, and probably in 2 Pet and in the Pastorals. Some who have argued that Matthew or the son of Zebedee were sources of tradition would explain the authorship of the final respective Gospels in this way, but this suggestion is more debatable. (5) In the broader sense, someone could be considered an author if a work was written in the literary tradition for which he was famous. The whole Law (Pentateuch) could be attributed to Moses the law-giver as author, even though the final writing of parts did not take place until 800 years after his death. The Davidic authorship of the Pss and the Solomonic authorship of the wisdom literature fall into this category. In modern estimation, these last two classifications (4 and 5, which clearly involve pseudonymity) do not meet the standards of authorship; the fourth is an issue of authority; the fifth is an issue of patronage.

90 (II) The Finality of the Canon of Trent. This council was firm about which books, along with their parts, should be accepted as canonical and inspired. But Trent did not say that these were the only inspired books, and the question is sometimes raised whether some lost books may have been inspired, e.g., lost Pauline writings. (For the possible role of chance in the preservation of biblical books.) What judgment about inspiration would the church render if a lost epistle of Paul were to be discovered today? The problem becomes academic when we realize that the criterion for inspiration found applicable at Trent was the long use of the books of Scripture in the church (as evidenced in the Vg). Since a newly discovered book would hardly have been in long use, what could be the church's criterion for determining inspiration? Pauline authorship would really not be sufficient, for if lack of apostolic authorship does not exclude inspiration, the existence of apostolic authorship should not automatically imply it. A less romantic problem is that of the possible inspiration of ancient works considered sacred by NT writers or by the early Fathers but not accepted into the canon of Trent (1 Enoch, Did., etc.). By virtue of not having been accepted at Trent, today these books no longer have a claim to continuous use as Scripture in the church, and almost certainly they will never be recognized as inspired. But they remain important witnesses to God's salvific action in the intertestamental and immediately posttestamental periods.

91 (III) The Vulgate and Canonicity. Trent insisted on its list of books "as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all their parts, according to the text usually read in the Catholic Church and as they are in the ancient Latin Vulgate" (DS 1504). Among the "parts" mentioned in the discussion were Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44; John 7:53-8:11 (Jedin, History of the Council of Trent 2. 81)-pericopes that are absent from many textual witnesses. Although they used the Vg as a yard-stick, the council fathers of Trent and the authorities in Rome who approved the decree were aware that there were errors in the Vg transl. and that not all copies of the Vg were in agreement. Even the official Sixto-Clementine Vg (1592), produced in answer to Trent's request for a carefully edited Vg, leaves much to be desired by modern standards; and in many places it is not faithful to Jerome's original Vg (Texts, 68:144-47). Which Vg is to serve as a guide when we raise the question of whether certain passages or verses are canonical Scripture? Both Jerome's Vg and the Sixto-Clementine Vg contained the long ending of Mark and the pericopes of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11), and Roman Catholic scholars have no real problem in accepting these passages as Scripture (although they were not originally parts of their respective Gospels and were added at a much later period-once again the distinction between canonicity and authorship). But in other instances, where the Sixto-Clementine Vg has passages that Jerome's Vg did not have (John 5:4, the angel stirring the waters; 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine comma), the problem of acceptance should be settled on the grounds of scholarship rather than by any mechanical application of the principle of Trent, which was not meant to solve all difficulties or to end scholarly discussion. (For a clarification of the authority of the Vg by DAS, (Church Pronouncements, 72:20). Roman Catholics must solve textual problems as others do, viz., by the laws of criticism--a principle that holds for other questions too (authorship, dating, history). The church's guidance covers primarily the meaning of Scripture for faith and morals.

92 (IV) The Canon within the Canon. As mentioned above (86), the Reformation raised acutely the question of degrees of canonicity. And even when it is agreed which books of Scripture are inspired and canonical, are some more authoritative than others? Obviously some have more value than others and treat more directly of formal religious questions than others do. Obviously, too, some books claim to be more directly from God than others do; e.g., the prophets claim to convey the word of God that came to them whereas the wisdom writers, although inspired, seem to be giving us the fruit of their own human experience. Finally, the church in her liturgy uses some biblical books extensively and others very seldom, thus forming an "actual canon" within the formal canon.

93 This question has become more acute as we have recognized that there are dissimilar outlooks and differing theologies in the books of Scripture. When these differences exist between the two Testaments, one can solve them in terms of a new revelation, e.g., Job's formal and explicit denial of an afterlife (14:7-22) contrasted with Jesus' clear affirmation of it (Mark 12:26-27). But, even within the NT, works of roughly the same period contain divergent theologies. The outlook on the law in Rom 10:4 certainly is not the same as the outlook in Matt 5:18. One may explain that there is no contradiction between Rom 3:28 ("justified by faith apart from the works of the law") and Jas 2:24 ("justified by works and not by faith alone"), but one can scarcely imagine that Paul's attitude was the same as that of Jas. The thesis that that there was a uniform and harmonious development of theological understanding from the time of Pentecost to the end of the apostolic era is not supported by the NT critically read (see R. E. Brown, New Testament Essays [NY, 1982] 36-47). But then the question arises: If there are two divergent views in the NT which one is to be considered authoritative? Within the canon of Scripture and in particular within the NT, what is the canon or rule of what we are to believe?

94 Modern NT scholars have made this a major question. (For some the problem is even more acute since they press divergencies, like the one between Jas and Rom, to the point of contradiction, whereas a Catholic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture would seem to preclude contradictions.) If we focus upon the topic of early Catholicism in the NT, we can see the importance of the question of the canon within the canon. "Early Catholicism" designates the initial stages of sacramentalism, hierarchy, ordination, dogma--in short, the beginning of the distinctive features of Catholic Christianity. A. von Harnack maintained that in the NT there was no early Catholicism; rather, such theology and church organization were a 2d-cent. development distorting the pristine evangelical character of Christianity (to which the Reformation returned; What is Christianity? [orig. 1900; Harper Torchbook ed., NY 1957] 190ff.). But E. Kasemann (NT Criticism 70:65), a Protestant, recognized that there is "early Catholicism" in the NT itself, particularly in 2 Pet, the Pastorals, and Acts. If so, are these early Catholic developments normative for Christianity? Kasemann's solution was to fall back on the canon within the canon or "the center of the NT." Just as Paul distinguished between the letter and the Spirit (2 Cor 3), so the Christian cannot make an infallible authority out of the canonical NT but must distinguish the real Spirit within the NT. For Kasemann this is not found in such Deutero-Pauline writings as the Pastorals with their early Catholicism, but in the Great Letters such as Gal and Rom with their spirit of justification by faith. There is the really authoritative teaching.

95 A Roman Catholic answer was given by H. Kung (Structures of the Church [NY, 1964] 151-69); he accused Kasemann of judging canonicity on the basis of an a priori Protestant bias. Kung reasoned that, if there is early Catholicism in the NT, then only Catholics can accept the whole NT. The theory of a canon within the canon means an implicit rejection of some books. The answer may not be so simple, however; and later in his career Kung would probably have been more nuanced. All we shall attempt to do here is to make some observations. If Roman Catholics accept the "early Catholic" developments in the later NT books and regard them as normative for Christianity, are they not to some extent establishing a canon within a canon, for are they not implicitly rejecting the looser church organization of the primitive period and the less dogmatic theology of the earlier days? In other words, to Kasemann's reduced canon, which depends heavily on the more pristine NT works, does one oppose a canon consisting of the more developed NT works? Perhaps we are approaching the problem in the wrong terms when we speak of preferring later books to earlier books. If some features of early Catholicism prominent in the later books of the NT, have become characteristic of the Roman Catholic Church, it was not because the church consciously preferred one group of NT books over the other. Rather it was because features such as sacramentalism, hierarchy. and dogma were meaningful within the life of the church. In a process of development, the church made these features a part of herself, so that what truly normative was not a group of writings but the Spirit acting within the living church. It was church usage that led Trent to determine which books should be accepted as canonical; so also it is church usage that determines the degree of normative authority (canonicity) to be attributed to a NT practice or doctrine.

96 Yet we must qualify this understanding of church usage as a normative factor. If the Spirit of God has guided the church in her usage, there has been also a human factor in the historical process of Christian development, so that we cannot simply equate church usage with the will of God. Scripture can be a great help in distinguishing between what is of the Spirit and what is human in the development of church usage. Thus we get a two-sided picture: church usage is a guide to what is normative in Scripture; yet in a way the church itself stands under the judgment of Scripture ("This teaching office [of the church] is not above the word of God, but serves it" [Vatican II, Dei Verbum 2:10]). In particular, the church must constantly reassess her usage in light of those biblical theologies that she has not followed in order to be certain that what God meant to teach her through such theological views will not be lost. For example, if the church has chosen to follow as normative the ecclesiastical structure attested in the Pastorals (bishop/presbyters, deacons), she must ask herself does she continue to do proportionate justice to the charismatic and freer spirit of the earlier period. A choice between the two was necessary, and in our faith this choice was guided by the Spirit of God; but the structure that was not chosen still has something to teach the church and can serve as a modifying corrective of the choice that was made. Only thus is the church faithful to the whole NT. In NT times the church was ecumenical enough to embrace those who, while sharing the one faith, held very different theological views.

98 (V) Recent Reactions to the Canon. In the last quarter of the 20th cent. there was much scholarly discussion of the canon, sometimes supporting it, sometimes undermining it. B. S. Childs and others, by developing a theory of canonical criticism (Hermeneutics 71:71-74), emphasized the importance of the canon in a unique way. Against an exaggerated source criticism they insisted that the final form of a biblical book is what we possess and a far more reliable subject of study than disputably reconstructed antecedents. Moreover, even an individual book was not really biblical until it was made part of a Bible in general and an OT or a NT canon in particular. The tendency to treat passages or books in isolation neglects the context of the canonizing community (Israel and the church), which listened to the different theological voices of the authors not in isolation but in constructive tension. In the NT, for instance, the church did not accept the Johannine preexistent Word without the modification of a Marcan Jesus who did not know things and who objected to being called "good" because that was a term that applied to God alone (Mark 10:17-18). This canonical approach was helpful overall, although, in the judgment of many, Childs himself overstated its value by neglecting the considerable theological results obtained by historical analysis.

All these references can be found in the chapter on Canonization that you can find in the Jerome Commentary of the Bible. I recommend you read the whole chapter, for that will really enlighten you. But if that is too much, then at least read the references I give you in the back of this web page.