The Canon of Holy Scripture:
an Anglican Note
CHRISTOPHER BRYAN
The canon (from Greek kanon: "norm," "standard," or "list") of books recognized as Holy Scripture by Anglicans, Eastern and Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and all main-line Protestants includes the books of the Hebrew Bible, written before Christ and therefore called "The Old Testament," and 27 books in Greek, written after Christ and therefore called "The New Testament."1
The Canon of the Old Testament
Thus far, it is relatively easy
to describe the canon of Scripture. As regards the Old Testament,
however, the matter is complicated by the fact that at the beginning of
the Christian era the canon of Jewish scripture was still fluid. Certainly
"the Law" and "the Prophets" seem to have been clearly enough defined.
There remained, however, a third group, including those books later to
be identified in Jewish tradition as "Writings," of which this was by no
means true. In addition to the books listed in the opening paragraph
of this note, a number of others were in use, including the Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus [or Sirach], Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras,
Tobit, Judith, the Prayer of Manasses, and various additions to Daniel
and Esther. Although some of these were originally written in Hebrew, and
fragments of them have been found at Qumran, they appear chiefly to have
circulated in Greek versions outside Palestine. Thus, all of the above
except 2 Esdras are to be found in copies of what is generally known as
"the Septuagint" (that is, the Bible of Greek speaking Judaism)2
and 2 Esdras is found in Old Latin translations of the Septuagint. Naturally,
then, these books came to be used by the largely Greek speaking Christian
church alongside the other books of the Hebrew Bible.
The New Testament writers in general
cite the books that eventually became part of the Hebrew canon (notably
the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms); but from time to time they also
echo these other books, notably Sirach (compare e.g. James 1.13 with Sirach
15.11–12, James 1.19 with Sir. 5.11), and Wisdom (compare e.g. Romans 1.20–32
with Wisdom 11–15, Romans 9.20–23 with Wisdom 12.12, 15.7, and Hebrews
1.2 with Wisdom 7.26). The claim occasionally made (for example
by Frank C. Porter in the 1898 edition of James Hastings's Dictionary
of the Bible) that "such citations do not imply that authority was
ascribed to [the books in question]" is merely specious. There is
not a shred of evidence to suggest that New Testament writers made the
distinction implied. On the contrary, we now know that such a distinction
was not made, either by their contemporaries at Qumran or by their
successors such as Clement of Rome (see e.g. 1 Clement 26.5 citing Wisdom
12.12). Therefore we have every reason to suppose that the New Testament
writers did not make it either, and the burden of proof must rest with
those who suggest they did.
The exact process, criteria, and
time frame by which the Jewish canon was eventually defined is uncertain.
It is clear that by the end of the second Christian century the additional
books that have mentioned had been excluded; it is equally clear that they
continued to be used by Christians, who had already come to regard them
as holy. In other words, though the church had inherited the Scriptures
from Judaism, it had not inherited a canon of Scripture. The
church had to determine its canon for itself. Nevertheless, once
the Jewish canon had been established, it did exercise influence on the
Christian, especially in the East. Hence Christian authorities in
antiquity as eminent as Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory
of Nazianzus, and Jerome all claimed in one way or another that a distinction
must be made between the books that comprised the Hebrew canon and the
others, and expressed varying degrees of reservation about the latter (Athanasius,
Festal. Epist. 39; Hilary, Proleg. in Librum Psalmorum 15;
Gregory Nazianzus, Carm. 33; Jerome, In Prologo Galeato 1).
It appears to have been the immensely prestigious Jerome who first called
them "apocrypha" (that is, "secret," or "of unknown origin"), and he spoke
of them also as "libri ecclesiastici" ("church books") as opposed
to "libri canonici" ("canonical books").
Following the reformation, Protestant tradition has normally referred to the books not in the Jewish canon as "Apocryphal" (that is, of unknown origin) and excluded them from its canon. Roman Catholic scholars have called them "Deuterocanonical" (implying that they were added later to the canon) in distinction from the "Protocanonical" books (which were there from the beginning): but the Roman Catholic church, following the Council of Trent, has continued to treat them as part of the canon, excluding only 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. At the time of the Reformation a brief attempt was made by Cyril Lukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, to persuade the Greek Church to adopt the Hebrew Canon, but it was not successful. The Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church accepts the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books as canonical, excluding 2 Esdras, but including Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. Slavonic Bibles approved by the Russian Orthodox Church also include 2 Esdras (referring to 1 and 2 Esdras, however, as 2 and 3 Esdras).
Anglican views of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books are in certain respects to be distinguished from all the post-reformation views touched on above. Article VI of the Anglican Articles of Religion (Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation) notes that "In the name of holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church." Following this, under the subheading, "Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books," the article lists not only the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also "other" books, namely 1 and 2 Esdras (referred to as "third" and "fourth"), Tobit, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, noting that they are read "as Hierome [Jerome] saith... for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it [the church] doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." Hence Anglicanism from its beginning shared antiquity's reservations over the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books yet remained committed to retaining them within the general category of Holy Scripture: treating them, that is to say, as both sacred and canonical.
Subsequent Anglican history bears this out. The Book of Common Prayer from 1549 onward appointed extensive lessons from the Apocrypha for daily Morning and Evening Prayer. The Bishops' Bible of 1568 spoke of the Apocrypha in its table of contents as "the fourth part [of the Bible] called Apocryphus," and provided a classified list of "the whole Scripture of the Bible" under the headings Legal, Historical, Sapiental, and Prophetical that followed, with minor changes, the Vulgate. The "authorized" or "King James" translation of 1611 distinguished "books called Apocrypha" by the running title "Apocrypha" at the top of the page, but had no separate preface or table of contents for them, and in its table of lessons at the beginning simply included them with the rest of the Old Testament. In 1615 George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury and one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, issued public notices forbidding the binding and selling of Bibles lacking the Apocrypha on pain of a year's imprisonment. Urged by Puritans to discontinue lections from the Apocrypha in the church's liturgy, the bishops of the Savoy Conference in 1661 replied tartly that it was much to be desired that all sermons should give as useful instruction as did the readings.
Despite the tendency of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century commentators to identify Anglican views with Protestant, Anglican formularies and practice have in fact continued to hold to the position of the Savoy divines. The Book of Common Prayer 1979 (USA) is typical. In the section on "The Holy Scriptures" in the "Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism" it notes without comment that in addition to the Old and New Testaments, "other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible." These are books "written by the people of the Old Covenant, and used in the Christian Church" (853). Readings from the Apocrypha are accordingly appointed on some occasions in the Lectionary for the Sunday Eucharist (for example, Lectionary A, Sundays after Pentecost, Propers 1, 11, 19) and portions of the Apocrypha are read in course at Morning and Evening Prayer (for example, Daily Office Year One, Week of 4 Easter).
The Canon of the New Testament
As regards the New Testament,
Article VI of the Church of England concluded that "All the Books of the
New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account
them Canonical"---of which books the article had already observed that
they were those "of whose authority there was never any doubt in the church."
Critical scholarship obliges us to concede that the matter was not quite
so simple as the article suggested. Various doctors of the church at various
times in antiquity had expressed uncertainties about the Revelation to
John (the Apocalypse), the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James,
the second and third Letters of John, the Second Letter of Peter, and the
Letter of Jude (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25). Such
doubts continued to be voiced as late as the Reformation. Martin Luther
said of the Apocalypse in his 1522 Preface, "I can in no way detect that
the Holy Spirit produced it... Christ is neither taught nor known in it."
He relegated it, together with Hebrews and the Letter of James, to the
appendix of his Bible. Although in 1545 Luther reversed his opinion,
his first thoughts on the subject remain powerful. Thomas Cranmer made
no statements about the canonicity of the Apocalypse, but it is notable
that (in contrast to his quite extensive use of the Apocrypha) he did not
include any readings from it in the daily office Lectionary of the Church
of England.
Nevertheless, in contrast to their continuing differences over the Old Testament, it may reasonably be claimed that Christians did move quite rapidly to a consensus on the New and have broadly held to it. Origen (born 185) and Eusebius of Caesarea (born 270) both give lists of the New Testament books that are in all important respects the same as our list (Origen, Comment. in Matt. in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25; see also 3.25). Athanasius in his Festal Letter of 326 gives a list exactly corresponding with ours (Ex Festali Epist. 39). The Council of Hippo in 393, at which St. Augustine was present, likewise established a canon identical to ours (Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana Lib.II.c.8), and the same list was presented by Pope Innocent I in his letter to Esuperius in 405. On the question of the New Testament, then, Article VI of the Church of England may fairly be said simply to have ratified the common tradition of the Church.
Other Books
Certain other books of a sacred
character, such as the Shepherd of Hermas
and the so-called Gospel
of Thomas, lingered for a while in antiquity on the edge of the New
Testament, and in some cases were accepted for a period by some individuals
and groups. Such apocryphal and pseudepigraphical ("falsely attributed")
books remain of interest to us as illustrating ideas and aspirations of
the age that produced them, but they were not in fact recognized as canonical
by the consensus of the Church, and are not so regarded by Anglicans.
Conclusions
One final note—the significance of these observations
should not be seen as polemic. In general, I incline agree with Albert
C. Sundberg: that as far as concerns the apocryphal / deuterocanonical
books, it ought now to be possible for Protestants and Roman Catholics
to agree. As for the specifically Anglican position, and Article
VI in particular, it should be noted that—even in an age of polemic—the
Article was hardly that. Its form is notably neither prescriptive
nor exhortatory, but descriptive and indicative. These books, it
observes without comment, are in fact read for the improvement of morals
and manners, and the church does not in fact use them to "establish" any
doctrine. It would be hard to see how that statement could be denied,
for even among those denominations and groups that are most adamant in
their claims for the identical authority of protocanonical and deuterocanonical
books of the Old Testament, what single significant article of faith could
be cited that has ever been established on the testimony of the latter
alone? Thus, for example, we treasure Wisdom's testimony to God's
love and faithfulness towards the faithful departed (Wisd. 3.1–9); but
we have other texts, including the words of Our Lord himself, by which
we establish that hope (Mark 12.26–27; 1 Cor. 15.1–38). Without
the testimony of Wisdom, our liturgy and our prayers would be impoverished,
but our faith would not be changed.
As for precise location of the Anglican position on the
map of ecclesiastical relations: if it is to be placed anywhere, save at
the center, of a line between Trent and the Protestant view, then, granted
the connection between lex orandi and lex credendi, the force
of continuing liturgical usage must finally place it with the witness of
Trent.
Christopher Bryan
School of Theology
University of the South, Sewanee,
Tennessee
2 The term "Septuagint" and the description here given of its sense, though convenient enough for our present purpose, are not, it should be noted, themselves beyond controversy: for a discussion see Christopher Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Techniques in the Pauline Epistles and contemporary literature. SNTS Monograph Series 74 (Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1992) 41-51 and literature there cited. (Return to Text)