A Question of Canon

When one mentions the word “canon” there are many things that come to mind.

1. The group of works by a certain author—e.g., the Hemingway canon
2. A group of accepted rules in a discipline—e.g., the Neoclassical canon
3. Ecclesiastical rules—e.g., the Orthodox canons
4. A portion of the Mass or Divine Liturgy

We will, however, consider another canon, namely the canon of Scripture. When used in this sense, the word “canon” refers to that group of books which are accepted as authentic and inspired. Books that make the list are referred to as “canonical.”

While the Old Testament canon is a subject of some dispute (between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants), the canon of the New Testament is the same in all major branches of Christianity. Thus, all of them accept the 27 books that are found in the New Testament and no others are placed on equal or greater footing than these.

So how did we come to have twenty-seven books? Who decided it would be these and not others? The answers to these questions is both interesting and (for some) disturbing.

First, let us consider how the NT was written. As books were written during the Apostolic period, they were generally circulated. Some areas had some books; other areas would have other books. As time went by there began to be a general acceptance of some books; others (Revelation and II Peter are two examples) took much longer to gain general acceptance.

As strange as it may seem, the first person to attempt a canonization of books was the arch heretic Marcion. He rejected all the Old Testament and accepted the following New Testament books: the Gospel of Luke, Galatians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Romans, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Even these were subject to emendation by Marcion.

As has often happened throughout church history, when heresy arose, the Church was impelled to respond. In reaction to Marcion’s mangling of the Scripture, various individuals prepared lists of accepted books. While these vary, there were some books that appeared almost universally.

The Council of Laodicea (362) formalized the list of books at 26, excepting only the book of Revelation. The first list that exactly matches the present-day canon is found in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letter of 367(Letter XXXIX NPNF 2-04). Then at the Third Council of Carthage (397) the final formulation was made.

Since that time this has been (pretty much) THE canon. As we stated above, it is accepted by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. The question Protestants need to think about is why they accept it? Why do they take this list as authoritative?

After all by 367 (according to most accounts anyway), the Church has already crash-landed into full-blown Catholic heresy. If this is the case, how can we trust these apostates to tell us which books are canonical? As a matter of fact, if, as some maintain, the Church fell into apostasy shortly after the Apostles died, we need a list from the pre-100 A.D. era in order to get one that is not blighted by false doctrine and “Catholicism.” Since such a record does not exist, we can only hope to guess which books are authoritative but will never be able to say definitively. We are left with everyone being able to pick and choose for him/herself which books are authentic. (A horrid thought to say the least.)

But everyone knows that is not the way it is. We do have 27 authoritative books. How can that be? The fact is these are accepted because the Church said they were to be accepted—that’s right, that apostate, backslid, formalistic Church is the one who gave us the received list.

It makes me wonder why we can accept the books on the Church’s authority but reject other things that are based on that same authority. How can one in sincerity reject the Church itself and yet accept its authority to choose the books of the New Testament?

The Church existed before the New Testament and the Church was the one who (by the Holy Spirit) gave us the New Testament. If they were apostate, why do we accept their judgment? In truth, the same question might be posed in regard to the Creed of Nicaea also which is almost universally accepted as valid by Christian groups.

If the Church was guided by the Spirit to choose the correct books, it is no great leap to believe that they were also guided by the same Spirit in other areas. If this is the case, it would certainly affect our belief system dramatically. Think about it: can we reject the Church as apostate and still trust them to codify which books are authoritative? It seems exceedingly implausible at best and categorically preposterous at worst.