This is important with regard to the fundamentalist's attitude towards the Bible. If the Word of God is inerrant, or something close to it, then deciding a book is a member of the canon of the Bible is to proclaim it infallible. The true believer now regards a canonical book as no mere human creation, but God-breathed and incapable of error. It now has magical powers. How can we discover which books, of thousands of religious books in the world, have these magical powers. In brief, the answer is that back in the fourth century, some bishops took a vote on it. 1B. Introduction 1C. Meaning of the Word ``Canon'' 2C. Tests of a Book for Inclusion in the Canon As quoted by McDowell: 1. Is it authoritative? 2. Is it prophetic? 3. Is it authentic? 4. Is it dynamic? 5. Was it received, collected, read and used? The first four categories require subjective judgment. Usually, the works considered authoritative, prophetic, authentic and dynamic are the books that include doctrines and material that you basically agree with. There is no one set of books received, collected, read and used by the entire Christian Church. 2B. Old Testament Canon 1C. Factors Determining Need of Old Testament Canon 2C. The Hebrew Canon 3C. Christ's Witness to the Old Testament Canon ... 3D. Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35 . In refering to Matthew 23:35 , Josh McDowell brings up a real can of worms. In Matt. 23:35, Jesus is quoted as saying, "the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." However the prophet stoned in the temple in 2 Chron. 24:20-21 is Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. There does not appear to be a plausible solution other than a mistake. However, it has been suggested that "Matthew" has picked up the name of Zechariah the son of Baruch, who was also murdered in the temple precincts in 68 CE, more than thirty years after Jesus was supposed to have spoken (Josephus, Wars of the Jews4.5.4), but within the time of the writing of the gospels. Either way, this is a honking big argument against inerrancy: the New Testament can't even quote the Old Testament straight. 4C. Extra-Biblical Writer's Testimonies 2D. Josephus, the Jewish historian. Unfortunately, Josephus says that the Jews have exactly 22 sacred texts. Our Bibles have 39 books of the Old Testament. It is likely that certain books were folded together in the same scrolls (like the Twelve Prophets), but the current Jewish tradition makes 24 books, not 22. Where are the missing books? Christian apologists can only offer speculation. 4D. Mellito, Bishop of Sardis This list, from Eusebius, does not contain Esther . Lamentations and Nehemiah are not listed, but it is speculated that they are combined into Jeremiah and Ezra , respectively. 5C. The New Testament Witness to the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture Besides the passages listed by McDowell, the NT book Jude (v.14f) quotes the noncanonical book 1 Enoch. Is it scripture? Jude 9 also quotes an unknown work. When the New Testament writers quote the Hebrew Bible (OT), they usually use the Septuagint, a Greek version prepared by Jewish scolars in Alexandria, Egypt. Unfortunately, the Septuagint contains readings widely at variance with the Massoretic text, the Hebrew Bible used as a basis for the OT used by Protestants. The Septuagint contains the Apocrypha, not accepted by Protestants. 6C. The Council of Jamnia Many scholars question whether the Council of Jamnia really took place at all. In any case, it was not universally adopted. To this day, Ethiopian Jews keep a canon closer to the Septuagint. 7C. The Old Testament Apocryphal Literature Books of the Apocrypha (not accepted by Protestants) * Additions to Esther * Additions to Daniel * 1 Baruch * Letter of Jeremiah * Tobit * Judith * 1 Esdras (also called 2 Ezra or 3 Esdras) * 2 Esdras * Ecclesiasticus * Wisdom of Solomon * Prayer of Manesseh * I, II, III, and IV Maccabees 1D. Introduction 2D. Why not canonical? 1. ``They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.'' The canonical books also contain such inaccuracies and contradictions. 2. ``They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired scriptures.'' You have to decide first which doctrines and practices to accept. This is a circular argument: the canon endorses your doctrine, your doctrine endorses your canon. Since Christians have never agreed on either, confusion reigns. 3. ``They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture.'' Canonical works are also filled with literary types and artificial style. Why are Ruth , Esther , Ecclesiastes considered inspired? Song of Solomon ? Even Jerome lamented the comparatively poor style of the Hebrew prophets compared with the polished works of the Greco-roman culture. 4. ``They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.'' Another circular argument. You have to determine what the proper religious feeling is first. Does your canon support your attitudes, or do your religious attitudes determine which books fit in your canon? ... 3D. A summary of the individual books 4D. Historical Testamony of their exclusion The books that comprise the Old Testament Apocrypha were accepted throughout the Greek and Latin world until at least the fourth century A.D., and most early Church Fathers treated them as scripture (Fundamentalism, Hazards and Heartbreaks , Evans and Berent, p. 96). Currently most of them are accepted as canon among the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Ethiopian churches, and Ethiopian Jews. Catholics accept a total of 73 books as canonical, but Eastern Orthodox accepts even more (approximately the whole list above). Ethiopian Old Testaments contain these books, plus Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion's (Josippon's) medieval history of the Jews and other nations (Bruce M. Metzger, "Bible," in Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993). Together with a larger New Testament, their Bible consists of 81 books. Do we have the complete Bible? McDowell does not deal with the considerable number of works quoted as if they were scripture, but do not appear in our Bibles. (Fundamentalism, Hazards and Heartbreaks, Evans and Berent) 'Lost' books? * The Book of the Wars of Jehovah -- Numbers 21:14 * The Book of Jashar -- Joshua 10:13 * The Annals of King David -- 1 Chronicles 27:24 * More about David written by Nathan the prophet -- 1 Chron. 29:29 * A biography of Solomon in history of Nathan -- 2 Chronicles 9:29 * Visions of Iddo the seer -- ditto * The Acts of Solomon -- 1 Kings 11:41 * Histories written by Shemaiah the prophet -- 2 Chron. 12:15 * .. and Iddo the seer -- ditto * Iddo's History of Judah -- 2 Chron. 13:22 3B. The New Testament Canon 1C. Tests for Including a Book in the New Testament Canon McDowell argues for ``apostolic authority'' as a criterion for inclusion of New Testament books. It is not clear what this means. If it means that some books seem more authoritative than others, this means that you accept the books that agree with the doctrines that you have already accepted. Once again, this is a circular arguement. Why was the Gospel of Thomas excluded? Because it was written from a doctrinal point of view that lost the political war within the established church. If ``apostolic authority'' means that we accept the books approved by the original apostles, we have absolutely no idea what these figures accepted. It is likely that none of what they wrote was considered inspired at the time it was written. 2C. The New Testament Canonical Books McDowell brushes past the considerable arguments of the early church about the Canon. For the first several generations, the idea of a "New Testament Canon" was unknown. Gradually, some books came to be used in churches for readings. As the number of works grew -- including works written much later but given out as written by one apostle or another -- the lists maintained by churches and various authorities differed widely from one another. The problem is both that there were books included that are not canonical, but that some which are currently canonical were left out. ``The Christian church lasted for its first 300 years without the Bible as we know it'' (Evans and Berent, p. 97). According to the Muratorian Canon, (c. 200), books Christians were obliged to read included only two epistles of John; one, maybe, of Peter; and no mention of Hebrews. Also included was the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Apocalypses of John and of Peter (?). (In Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church) The church historian Eusebius, a contemporary of Constantine, lists recognized books included Matthew , Mark , Luke , and John ; Acts ; thirteen Pauline epistles; 1 Peter , 1 John , and 1 Clement (which does not appear in our Bibles). Disputed books listed by Eusebius are Hebrews , James , 2 Peter , 2 and 3 John , Jude , and Revelation . Eusebius makes clear that what was in dispute was not merely the usefulness of these books, but their authenticity (Hist. of the Church, 3.24.15; 6.25.10). The earliest exact reference to the `complete' New Testament as we now know it was in the year 367, in a letter by Athanasius. It was formally accepted by a council at Rome in 382 (Evans and Berent, p. 98). ... 8D. The Church Councils. On the contrary, Martin Luther condemned the Epistle of James as worthless, an `epistle of straw.' McDowell's careful enumeration of Catholics and Protestants is much too convenient, leaving out the Eastern churches. The Syrian National Church used the Diatesseron for several centuries instead of the four-fold Gospels of the West, and held out against some of the general epistles and Revelation. The canon of the Nestorian church consists of only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter , 2 and 3 John , Jude and Revelation (A. Du Toit, "Canon: New Testament", in Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993). This East Syrian church apparently persists today (J. H. Charlesworth, ed., "Introduction: Canon," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. xxiii). R. Joseph Hoffman says that it was not until 692 CE that the church decided on the acceptibility of the book of Revelation , and even then there was considerable grumbling among the Greek bishops about its status. (R. Joseph Hoffman, "Other Gospels, Heretical Christs," in Jesus in History and Myth , R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald Larue, eds., Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986, p. 145). 3C. The New Testament Apocrypha McDowell lists a few books not accepted in today's NT canon. As we have seen, various groups of early churchmen accepted one or more of these books as 'recognized'. For instance, the Codex Sinaiticus, celebrated even by Josh McDowell in the next chapter (p.47, 4A2B3C), the Epistle of Barnabas and the Sherhard of Hermas. 1 Clement was widely regarded, and was included by Eusebius as one of the unquestioned, recognized books. Clement of Alexandria recognized obscure works such as the Preaching of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter (R. Joseph Hoffman, "Other Gospels, Heretical Christs," in Jesus in History and Myth, R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald Larue, eds., Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986, p. 145). The Copts (Egyptian Christians) add still more books even today. The Ethiopian church canon includes Hermas, 1 Clement and 2 Clement, the Apostolic Constitutions, together making 38 books for its New Testament (A. Du Toit, "Canon: New Testament", in Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lat modified 8 Mar 95. Email: mcdowell@atheist.tamu.edu . Larry Taylor.