Customer Reviews

The Canon of Scripture

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

FF Bruce does a great job of explaining how the books of the Bible were canonized. I was surprised to learn how many people had different opinions on which books should be canonized. Many people had mized feelings about the book of Revelation because of it being a difficult book to understand. Others felt that James should not be included because it only mentions the name of Jesus twice. Similarly, the books of esther and Song of Songs in the Old Testament barely made it in.

And right up to the present day, there are those who feel that the Apocrypha should be included in the canon of Scripture, and the Roman Catholic church regards them as such today.

Bruce takes the time to discuss individual theologians such as Jerome, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Athanasius, and many others and whenever possible, he furnishes their choices for books whoch were deemed fit for the canon of Scripture. Apparently, Athansius' trip to Rome in 350 AD was decisive for helping the western church decide on the 27 books of the New Testament that we now have today. Before this, they were hedging on Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Revelation, James and 2 and 3 John.

The book concludes with a couple of the author's lectures on the subect of the secret gospel of Mark (which he rejects) and the difference between the plenary meaning of scripture and the meaning in context.

Dr. Bruce's monograph addresses both the Hebrew and Christian canon of Scripture, spanning from Moses through the Late Middle Ages. In the final chapters, he briefly addresses some modern issues, notably those regarding original texts used for translations. Readers without a basic understanding of the History of Christianity might find most of the concepts too difficult to grasp without additional study. While targeted to specialists in the field, I would recommend the work to any serious student of Bible History.

This is the best single text that I've read dealing with the manner in which the Bible took its shape. So many Christians have the impression that our Bible floated down from the clouds. This book will open the eyes of many--the New Testament Canon wasn't firmly decided upon until nearly three hundred years after the death of Christ (!). This is an excellent piece of scholarship, doctrine, and church history. Not only will readers learn about the Bible, they will also learn about some great theologians of the early Church. A must read for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Evangelicals and everyone else who wants to understand the Bible and the ancient Christian Church. Inter Varsity Press publishes this book: I've been very impressed by many of the scholarly books they have recently published on doctrine (several books by N.T. Wright) and the ancient catholic Church Fathers (Ancient Christian Commentary on the Scriptures series).

Helpful, in-depth discussion of the issues surrounding the collection of the Old and New Testament canon.

Technical note: He uses topic sentences (much easier to follow his reasoning with this method). This book uses footnotes instead of endnotes for easier reference. His documentation is amazingly broad (he does not pull from exclusively contemporary opinion, but source documents).

He explains not only OT and NT canon, but also the criteria for canon inclusion. He is lucid. This book is clear and the progression is easy to follow.

Until his untimely death about 15 years ago, Bruce was the leading English-speaking authority on textual criticism. His only serious competitor for this position was Bruce Metzger (who the mainliners preferred due to his less evangelical theological commitments and affiliation with the more liberal Princeton Seminary). But Metzger (whose own book on the canon of Scripture is the standard in mainline circles) acknowledged in a review of Bruce in the Princeton Seminary Bulletin that Bruce's work was superior to his own. He pointed out his reasons for this in detail.

Given the bizarre conspiracy theories and claims of Dan Brown and teh da Vinci Code crowd, Bruce's book is even more relevant than when it was written. I own two copies and bought another for our church library. Get Metzger's book also.

The Canon of Scripture:
The dean of evangelical biblical scholars did a great service when he decided to get this work out of his system (Preface), since he made a very successful attempt indeed to communicate the state of knowledge on this tricky and sensitive subject. This book stands my Criterion: If I only have one book on the subject, I would buy this book. This book is methodical, written basically for Seminarians, still tickles your curious bone, but don't get tricked by the smoothness of his elaboration, being a top exegesist and a reference on biblical criticism.
Preface & Chapter one:
Read the condensed preface attentively, it highlights Prof. Bruce intended strategy to leave the more controversial issues on the OT canon to R. Beckwith and J. Barton. The short chapter defines terms that became the vocabulary of the subject, their meaning and roots. 'People of the Book' conveys his cultural standing, but he avoids elaborating on the concept of the two testaments but will not but mention Jeremiah 31:31, and later how Origen was the first to use and propagate this Alexandrine terminology (p. 192 : on First Principles 4.1.1)

TaNaKh & Wider Canon:
Bruce, who said will shy from OT canon, masterfully instructs us in his own way, starting from the authority of OT for a Christian: Jesus appeal to TaNaKh, going from the threefold division to the closing of the Hebrew canon in Jabneh. Now, with a firm foot, he delves into the Alexandrine wider Canon starting with Septuagint origin, order of books, and adoption as Ancient Churches OT, and NT evidence, but does not state citations or allusions to the Apocrypha (K. & B. Aland: The text of the NT, Eerdmans, 1979) that he mentions (p. 51)

OT Christian Canon: Prevalence of Alexandria
The Rylands chair for two decades enlighten us on how one Church transmitted the light for all others. He starts by stating the authority of the early Uncials, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus that are all products of the Alexandrine Scriptorium, and are the most reliable (contrary of Ehrman's thesis). Along side other easterners, he elaborates on Origen, and Athanasius, the first to use the term Canon, in relation to scripture.
Very interesting is his review of 17th and 18th centuries accomodation of canon, and Biblical societies. The canon in the West: Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, to the reformation: Luther, Erasmus, and Tyndale through Trentine Council to KJAV.

New Testament Canon:
If I would propose any clarification to this enjoyable treatise, it would be to copy the names and order of the bible in Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant traditions from a good study Bible, say the Harper Collins NRSV, with Apocrypha. Although differences exist in OT books, NT books are the exact 27 books. Only that the order of books in a genuine Orthodox Bible follows the Order of St. Athanasius in his Pascal letter of 367, the Catholic Epistles precede the Pauline letters.

Hebrews and Apocalypse:
The authority of Dionysius the Great, on the Apocalypse of John, followed by all the Orientals (p. 213) in spite of their Canonical diversity was never challenged by Athanasius letter, intended to compromise Rome with the eastern Church. He persauded the Romans to accept the book of Hebrews, next only to John's Bible in the Alexandrine NT theological priority (canon within the canon) of the Didaskalia and Catechetical School, compromising for the Apocalypse, then considered a liturgical text in the East.

Great Chapters to enjoy:
The Alexandrian Fathers
NT canon in the Age of printing
Criteria of Canonicity
A Canon within the Canon
Canon ,Criticism and interpretation

Further Readings:
* Barr, J. "Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism,
Westminster press, Philadelphia, 1983
* Beckwith,R. "The Old Testament Canon of NT Church,..."
Eerdmans, Gr. Rapids, 1985
* Metzger,B. "The Canon of the NT, its origin, development, and significance",Oxford U. Press, 1987

I've read part or all of this book several times, as the multiple highlightings & margin notes in my treasured copy attest. It is readable and accessible to the reader just beginning to learn about how we received our Christian canon of Scripture, while it is not the least beneath the intelligence of the advanced student of the Bible. I've used it in teaching Bible Classes on the canon at our Lutheran church & have seen its appeal to those making honest inquiry at all levels of familiarity. Bruce is unapologetic and effective in his "conservative" approach, & make his case convincingly. I've been impressed at how even "liberal" commentators who arrive at different conclusions nevertheless feel compelled to quote him -- with respect -- as THE authority of the counterpoint to their position. If you read only one book on the formation of the Christian Biblical canon, THIS is the one I MUST recommend. It is scholarly but not in the least arrogant. While Bruce is confident in his orhthoxy, he is also completely intellectually honest and is unafraid in appreciating the most probing, critical inquiry. This book has my highest recommendation.

The book is easily organized into four parts: the introduction, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the conclusion. Bruce's book concludes with two appendixes, and also includes an extensive bibliography and index arranged alphabetically.
Although, the main body of the book is divided into the Old and New Testaments, it is further subdivided into the history concerning each of those areas of Scripture. For example, the very first topic concerning the Old Testament canon describes Jesus' appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures (a very early scriptural support), and the author ends the section describing what order the books were collected during the 17th and 18th century. He also expounds upon how the apocrypha was either added to or taken away from the canon. In order to describe the canon and how it was compiled in history, the author uses a historical chronology. He asks such questions as: How did the biblical characters and the books themselves shed light on their contents and importance? Did Josephus, a Jewish historian, mention the contents and was the "classification of the books" his own (33)? Because of the great length of history that comprises the Old Testament, the question is asked, "Was the canon developed in three stages?" .... which are "corresponding to the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible (36)." He also mentions the so-called `Dead Sea Scrolls,' which represent all of the Hebrew Scriptures, except the book of Esther. The writer always indicates that differences of opinion existed between groups. For instance, the Sadducees may not agree with the Pharisees in acknowledging Daniel's "most explicit statement of the resurrection hope in the whole of the Old Testament (41)." But, when "we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles,....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 scriptures', they appealed to an authority which was equally acknowledged by their opponents. .... it is probable that, when the canon was `closed' in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community (41-42)". So in clarification of these comments by the author, there has always been a body of collected writings that had authority. After writing about the particular aspects related to the original Hebrew writings, the author discusses how the Greek Old Testament arose, the order of the books, thoughts concerning its translation, and how it was used in the church. The author stated that "the Jews of Alexandria gave up using the language their ancestors had spoken in Palestine and spoke Greek only (43)". So, my first question was whether or not Jesus actually used the Hebrew Scriptures, or was he using a Greek translation? I then discovered that when Jesus read the scroll of the Isaiah in the temple, which is recorded in the Book of Luke (4:17), that "it was most probably a Hebrew scroll that he received. But even in Palestine, and not the least in Jerusalem itself, there were many Greek-speaking Jews, Hellenists, and there were synagogues where they might go to hear the scriptures read and prayers recited in Greek (49)". The author also discusses some differences in Hebrew and Greek translations, and even later discusses in detail, how different personalities in church history viewed the two translations. For instance, Justin Martyr "evidently regards the Septuagint version as the only reliable text .... as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures' plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ (70)". The author writes further how the Old Testament is fulfilled in its witness to Jesus and how the New Testament supports the authority the Old.... although they were not yet known specifically as Old and New Testament. He states, "Jesus is the central subject of the Old Testament revelation; it is to him that witness is borne throughout (60)". Concerning the Old Testament canon, Bruce finally makes three geographical and historical distinctions; the Eastern Church, the Western Church, and the Reformed Church. He begins the discussion of the early church with the uncial codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus; and then continues with a description of the early fathers Justin Martyr, Melito, Origen, and Athanasius. In the West, the largest discussion involves the translation of the scripture into Latin. This was helpful in my later study of the Council of Nicea, that some of the attendees had disagreement or further discussed issues because of words being in both Latin and Greek. The Latin, in this case, did not have an all-encompassing word for the two Greek words being discussed: homoousios (being) and hypostasis (substance). Anyway, until "Jerome produced a new translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew text at the end of the fourth century, the Latin Old Testament was a rendering of the Septuagint, .... (83)". The author also mentions Tertullian and Jerome leading up to the Reformation. In the discussion of the Reformation period he mentions, the impetus of `sola scriptura' or scripture alone. He also mentions the Council of Trent, the Elizabethan Settlement, and different compilations of the scripture.
The section concerning the New Testament begins with a discussion about early evidence and confession of the canon. There is an emphasis on the Gospels and Pauline corpus being accepted rather quickly, and Acts following closely behind to make a connection between the two bodies of scripture. "The gospel collection was authoritative because it preserved the words of Jesus, .... the church knew no higher authority. The Pauline collection was authoritative because it preserved the teaching of one whose authority as the apostle of Jesus Christ of the Gentiles was acknowledged .... The bringing together of these two collections into something approximating the New Testament as we know it was facilitated by another document which linked the one to the other. This document was Acts of the Apostles .... (132-133)." The author talks about the movements led by Marcion and Valentinus before discussing the Catholic response concerning these heresies, and consequently, what should be included in the canon. At this point in the book, the writer mentions the Muratorian Fragment, which appears to come from the end of the second century. In discussing the fragment, mention is made of the authority concerning the compiling of this canon list. Concerning the book of Luke, Bruce says, "based on eyewitness testimony and on his own participation in the course of the events which he narrates (Luke 1:1-4). The patristic idea that his gospel owes something to the apostolic authority of Paul is quite unfounded (266-267)." This point is interesting because of a discussion concerning apostolic authority. The Muratorian Fragment lists "Acts as `the Acts of all the apostles'. .... What was the reason for the Muratorian exaggeration? Possibly it marks a reaction against Marcion: Marcion claimed that Paul was the only faithful apostle of Jesus, but the compiler of our list implies, in accordance with the judgment of the catholic church, `We acknowledge all the apostles, and not Paul only; here is an authoritative document, which records their acts and not only Paul's (162-163)." "The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John was well-established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well-established in tradition, but it was felt desirable to buttress the authority of tradition with arguments which gave those two Gospels a measure of apostolic validation (257)." The book makes clear that the disagreements between the church and various heretical movements led to a discussion of what should be included in the canon. The Muratorian list also mentioned two letters which were said to be Marcionite forgeries (166). Even another development was the leader Montanus, "who launched a new charismatic movement. .... he claimed that the age of the Paraclete, foretold by Jesus, had now arrived, and that he was the mouthpiece of the Paraclete. .... their utterances presented a challenge to the catholic view of the faith as something `once for all delivered' (Jude 3) (168)." A large number of personalities are listed in the main body of the book, along with the details of what they considered to be issues surrounding the canon. The list contains Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Novatian, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Eusebius, Constantine, Athanasius, Chrysotom, Jerome, and many others. There is a chapter on Augustine and a large section on Luther, which further discusses Tyndale's New Testament, Calvin, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Before continuing into the concluding chapters of the book, there is a section entitled, "a fixed canon." The statement is made, "the New Testament consists of the twenty-seven books which have been recognized as belonging to it since the fourth century is not a value judgment; it is a statement of fact (250)."
The introduction and closing sections bring all of the historical information written in the body of the book together by explaining the importance of the canon, not only for modern scholarship, but for the believer. Bruce admits in the closing, that the theological aspect of canonization was not the subject of the book, but rather historical aspects (281). But, this does not prevent the author from discussing such topics as inspiration. "In the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that the Spirit would be the disciples' teacher and bring his own words (with their significance) to their remembrance, the scriptures have been, and continue to be, one of the chief instruments, which the Spirit uses (281)". The closing sections also mention apostolic authority, antiquity, orthodoxy, tradition, and other issues. The author spends a good deal of time dealing with canonical criticism .... concerning which text is canonical; and also, which criteria are acceptable for determining canonicity today. Some scholars want to argue, "that those who accept the traditional canon of scripture today cannot legitimately defend it with arguments which played no part in its formation (275)." He also makes the point that those who are "interested in the Bible chiefly as historians of religious literature have naturally little use for the concept of a canon. Old Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha are as relevant to their studies as the contents of the Hebrew Bible; for them, there is no distinction in principle between the New Testament writings and other early Christian literature from (say) Clement of Rome to Clement of Alexandria. But for theologians and indeed for members of Christian churches in general, the principle of the canon is one of abiding importance (276)." I found Bruce's comment especially ironic and extremely factual, predominantly because of what Clement of Alexandria wrote on using the scriptures in response to heresy. I recently have been reading some of his material. Clement said, "we overturn their teachings by clearly showing that their doctrines contradict the scriptures." Overall, I found Bruce's book to be extremely detailed historically, highly informative, and furthermore, even interesting for the average Bible student. This book can surely also be used as a reference work because of its historical detail. For many of the personalities that I mentioned above, he goes into much detail about what they considered to be the canon, so historically accurate that he lists the books to be included for each. In that, it includes tedious, but helpful information!

... Bruce organizes this indispensable volume in simple chronological order using simple language. He explains how every book of the canonized Christian Scriptures achieved its canonical status and why other popular Jewish and Christian works did not. A layperson with no knowledge whatever of how the Bible came to be recognized as authoritative would do well to read this succinct, yet complete, work.

A lot of people have made a lot of money translating and publishing ancient manuscripts which they claim should have been included in the scriptures. Real ancient Christianity was purportedly destroyed by a process of fraudulent suppression on the part of the insidious compilers of the Canon. Bruce takes this baloney and slices it very thin indeed, demonstrating the early Christians' painstaking efforts to admit only the most accurate and authoritative documents into the Canon of scripture.

There may be room for disagreement as to the wisdom of including or excluding certain books (2 Peter, Revelation, and the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books for instance), but there can be no disagreement that the compilers were highly motivated to arrive at the correct conclusions. Cursory examination of some of the literature proposed as additional scripture readily shows that they were not only highly motivated, they were highly successful in arriving at the correct conclusions. Compare the recently-ballyhooed Gospel of Judas to the Gospel of Mark. You don't need a Ph.D. to figure out which of these manuscripts is closer to the historical Jesus.

Bruce's exposition is frequently tedious, but a little perseverance will pay the reader great dividends.