The Canon of Scripture
Lecture Notes for Topic 1.3.2- Religion 492

Last revised: 2/04/04 Explanation: Contained below is a manuscript summarizing the class lecture(s) covering the above specified range of topics from the List of Topics for Religion 492.  Quite often hyperlinks (underlined) to sources of information etc. will be inserted in the text of the lecture. Test questions for all quizzes and exams will be derived in their entirety or in part from these lectures; see Exams in the course syllabus for details. To display the Greek text contained in this page download and install the free BSTGreek True Type fonts from Bible Study Tools. Created by   a division of   All rights reserved©

Go directly to topic: Assigned Readings 1.3.2.1 1.3.2.2 1.3.2.3 Bibliography

Latham, Tony. "Canon Criticism," A Paper Presented to Dr. Lorin L. Cranford in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Course New Testament Critical Methodology, Sept. 20, 1993. ---- Note: this 65 page paper, including 15 pages of bibliography, was presented by Mr. Latham as one of the four paper presentation assignments each student did in the year long the PhD seminar that I taught at SWBTS in Fort Worth. Although completed a decade ago, the discussion is still very current and provides an excellent foundation to understanding the issue of Canon Criticism in relationship to developing an exegetical methodology for studying the New Testament. Pay special attention to his chapter four and conclusion sections. Dr. Latham is now a professor at Union University in Jackson, TN.

1.3.2.1 The Process of Canonization of the Hebrew Bible
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, "The Canon of Scripture," Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp. 25-29

Discussion
      In Prof. Bray's discussion here are some issues that you need to sort out: (1) Who played the primary role in establishing an OT canon? (2) What is the difference between a document having authoritative status and canonical status? (3) What are the parameters of the history of this process? That is, when did the collection of authoritative documents begin and when did the OT canon achieve a finalized status?
         Note especially the issue of different OT canons: (1) Hebrew canon; (2) Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canon; (3) Protestant canon. What is the connection of these to one another? Which foundation are the RC and EO canons based upon, and why is the Protestant OT canon different. The issue of the diversity of the Hebrew canon is of particular significance for NT interpretation, since it will impact our understanding of how Jesus and the apostles viewed the OT scriptures.
        Also helpful is Prof. Bray's brief synopsis of current discussion of the OT canon issue that both challenges and supports the so-called classical view of the OT canon formation.
        Come to class prepared to discuss and debate these issues as raised by Prof. Bray.

1.3.2.2 The Process of Canonization of the New Testament
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, "The Canon of Scripture," Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp. 29-34

Discussion
        The summation of Prof. Bray creates several gaps, and a few distortions of the evidence. Thus the following discussion will attempt to throw some light on this subject. The basic challenge is reconstructing a history of this process from the available primary sources of Christian writings through the fifth century of the Christian era. The following comes at this through exploring (1) the available sources; (2) guiding principles; and (3) the catalysts who spurred on this process. A brief summation of an historical reconstruction is set forth, and followed by treatment of a couple of ongoing issues related to the idea of canonization.
        One critical issue in the exploration of the issue of canonization of the writings of the New Testament is to keep clearly in mind the distinction between authoritative writings and canonical lists. Although closely related with the canonical lists growing out of those writings considered to be authoritative, the two ideas nonetheless are distinct from each other. One of the hotly debated issues by those who work in this area is when one can properly speak of a NT canon. Clearly it is not until toward the end of the process of formation of a canon. To postulate a closed canon shortly after the end of the apostolic era is sheer nonsense! No evidence exists to substantiate such a view; to the contrary, the discussions of the primary sources clearly indicate the opposite idea.

1.3.2.2.1 Sources of information
        In order to reconstruct a possible history of canon formulation, one must locate ancient sources that can provide information as primary source material. A number of early church fathers touch on various aspects of this, but don't provide all the details that modern scholars would like to have available for a reconstruction of canon history. Below we will touch on some of the more pivotal ancient sources. One very helpful resource for the study of this subject is the web site "The Development of the Canon of the New Testament" at http://www.ntcanon.org/. One of the very helpful pages is the tabular listing of many of the church fathers and the 27 documents of the NT indicating how each church father viewed each NT document.
        From these sources the scholar must work to understand the story of the NT canon.

1.3.2.2.1.1  Muratorian Canon
        This document dates around AD 200 and is in incomplete form. Glenn Davis has a helpful summation of the background and English translation text of the existing Latin text fragments in his web site, which is quoted below:

In a manuscript of the 8th century in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, probably written in Bobbio, L.A. Muratori (1672-1750) discovered a catalogue (in Latin) of the NT writings with comments. He published this text, called after him the Canon Muratori, in 1740. Four fragments of the Canon were found in 1897 in four manuscripts of the 11th and 12th centuries in Montecassino. The beginning and probably also the end of the catalogue are missing. Presumably the text derives from the West (Rome?) and was composed about 200 CE. The Latin version goes back to a Greek original.

1.3.2.2.1.2. Codex Claromontanus
        This catalogue listing of scriptures for Eastern Christianity provides some insight, although limited. This is summarized in the Introduction of the Revelation of Peter found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers:

The Catalogue Claromontanus, an Eastern list of Holy Scriptures, belonging to the third century, gives at the end the Revelation of Peter (v. Westcott, Canon, p. 55). This catalogue gives the length of the various books it enumerates measured in stichoi. Our book is said to have two hundred and seventy, which makes it rather longer than the Epistle to the Colossians which has two hundred and fifty-one.

Catalogue inserted in Codex Claromontanus
        In the 6th century codex Claromontanus (D), a Greek and Latin manuscript of the Pauline epistles, someone placed between Philemon and Hebrews a Latin list of the books of the Bible. Zahn and Harnack were of the opinion that the list had been draw up originally in Greek at Alexandria or its neighborhood ~300 CE. According to Jülicher the list belongs to the 4th century and is probably of western origin.
[An Old Testament list is followed by:]
Four Gospels:
        Matthew -----------------------------------------------2600 lines
        John-----------------------------------------------------2000 lines
        Mark--------------------------------------------------- 1600 lines
        Luke--------------------------------------------------- 2900 lines
Epistles of Paul:
       To the Romans------------------------------------- 1040 lines
       The First to the Corinthians-------------------- 1060 lines
       The Second to the Corinthians---------------- 70 (sic) lines
       To the Galatians------------------------------------ 350 lines
       To the Ephesians----------------------------------- 365 lines
       [three lines seem to have fallen out here; Philippians, I Thessalonians and II Thessalonians are missing]
       The First to Timothy------------------------------- 209 lines
       The Second to Timothy---------------------------289 lines
       To Titus------------------------------------------------ 140 lines
       To the Colossians---------------------------------- 251 lines
       To Philemon------------------------------------------ 50 lines
– The First to (sic) Peter------------------------------- 200 lines
The Second to (sic) Peter----------------------------- 140 lines
Of James----------------------------------------------------- 220
The First Epistle of John-------------------------------- 220
The Second Epistle of John---------------------------- 20
The Third Epistle of John-------------------------------- 20
The Epistle of Jude---------------------------------------- 60 lines
– Epistle of Barnabas------------------------------------ 850 lines
The Revelation of John------------------------------------1200
The Acts of the Apostles------------------------------- 2600
– The Shepherd-------------------------------------------- 4000 lines
– The Acts of Paul---------------------------------------- 3650 lines
– The Apocalypse of Peter----------------------------- 270

        The last four dashes identify works of doubtful or disputed canonicity. The dash before I Peter may be only paragraphus, or Greek paragraph mark, to suggest that I Peter and the items that follow are not part of the Pauline Epistles.

1.3.2.2.1.3 Origen
        The first church father to discuss the issue of the canon of the New Testament was Origen (AD 185-254). Again, Davis has a helpful summation of this Christian leader at the beginning of the third century:

        Among ante-Nicene writers of the Eastern Church, the greatest by far was Origen, both as a theologian and as a prolific Biblical scholar. According to Eusebius, Origen was born of Christian parents in Egypt, probably about 185, and spent most of his life in Alexandria as a teacher, but he also visited Antioch, Athens, Arabia, Ephesus, and Rome, and lived for a rather long period at Caesarea in Palestine. A Catholic Encyclopedia article is online at Origen and Origenism.
        In the year 203 Origen was appointed by Demetrius, the bishop, to succeed Clement as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. For a dozen years he carried on that work with marked success and with increasing numbers of pupils at the school. In 215, however, as a result of the Emperor Caracalla's furious attack upon the Alexandrians, Origen's work at the school was interrupted and he was driven from the city.
        Origen took refuge at Caesarea in Palestine, where he preached in churches at the request of the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea. As he was only a layman, this was regarded by his bishop, Demetrius, as a breach of ecclesiastical discipline, in consequence of which he was recalled to Alexandria, where he resumed his scholarly work at the school.
        In 230 Origen traveled to Greece on some church business and, stopping at Caesarea on his way, was ordained as a presbyter by the same friendly bishops who had invited him to preach on his previous visit. When Demetrius learned of this, he felt that his authority had been flouted, and, on Origen's return, deposed him from his teaching office and excommunicated him from the Alexandrian church on the grounds of irregularity of ordination.
        Origen now moved back to Caesarea, where he opened a new Biblical and theological school which soon outshone that of Alexandria, and where he continued his extensive literary work, as well as preaching and giving Biblical expositions almost every day. In 250, during the Decian persecution, Origen was imprisoned, cruelly tortured, and condemned to the stake. Although he regained his liberty at the death of the emperor, he died soon afterward, in the year 253 or 254, probably as a result of the torture.
        In his lifetime he was often attacked, suspected of adulterating the Gospel with pagan philosophy. After his death, opposition steadily mounted. The chief accusations against Origen's teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about pre-existent souls and world cycles; dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation, thus turning Christianity into a kind of Gnosticism, a heretical movement that held that matter was evil and the spirit good. None of these charges is altogether groundless. .....
        One finds in them [Origen's extent writings] citations of all the books of the New Testament, though he expressed reservations concerning:
                  James, II Peter, II John, and III John
        At other times Origen, accepts as Christian evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating on occasion these writings as 'divinely inspired':
                  Gospel of Peter
                  Gospel of the Hebrews
                  Acts of Paul
                  I Clement
                  Epistle of Barnabas
                  Didache
                  Shepherd of Hermas
        Origen denies the authenticity of these writings:
                  Gospel of Thomas
                  Gospel of the Twelve
                  Gospel of Basilides
                  Gospel of the Egyptians
                  Gospel of Matthias
                  Preaching of Peter

1.3.2.2.1.4. Eusebius (see especially sections 3.3.5; 3.25.3-4 in his Ecclesiastical History)
        This most influential church father has the most detailed discussion of the NT canon to be found in the first five centuries of Christian history. Glen Davis' discussion is quite helpful in summarizing Eusebius' contribution:

Eusebius of Caesarea (b. ~260 CE probably in Caesarea, d. ~340 CE)
        Although Eusebius leaves much to be desired as an exegete or an apologist for Christianity, he had one quality that was lacking in all his predecessors and contemporaries -- the instinct for historical research. His Ecclesiastical History gives us access to a host of sources and traditions otherwise long since lost. The 'Father of Church History' had at his disposal the library at Caesarea which Origen had built up after he had been forced to leave Alexandria and take up residence in Palestine. Pamphilus, an enthusiastic adherent of Origen, sought out and added many volumes to the library, and Eusebius, the pupil, coworker and friend of Pamphilus, became his successor when he died (~310) as a martyr in the Diocletian persecution.
        In the congenial setting offered by a well-stocked library in Caesarea, as well as by visiting the Christian library at Jerusalem, founded in the previous century by Bishop Alexander (Hist. eccl. 6.20.1), Eusebius indulged his appetite for Christian antiquities, and began the task of collecting and organizing material covering the history of the Church, chiefly in the East, during the previous 3 centuries.
        Regarding Eusebius and the New Testament canon, we will use only a single well-known passage in his Ecclesiastical History (3.25.1-7). In the absence of any official list of the canonical writings, Eusebius finds it simplest to count the votes of his witnesses, and by this means to classify all the writings into four categories:
 

Class	writings
homologoumena (recognized)	... the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, .....
antilegomena (disputed)	Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, ....
notha (spurious)	... the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. ... And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, ....
heretical	... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles.

        Despite Eusebius' good intentions, he has been unable to present a tidy listing. For example, he lists the Revelation of John in both the recognized and spurious classes (our table shows it as recognized). For more discussion of these problems, see [Metzger] pp. 201-206. For a visual summary of Eusebius' classification see the Cross Reference Table.

The Canon of Eusebius (from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7)

[recognized]
        At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time.

[disputed]
        These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another of the same name.

[spurious]
        Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] , as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (This last as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure.

[heretical]
        Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical, but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings.
        Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.

1.3.2.2.1.5 Athanasius
        The bishop of Alexandria Egypt played a decisive role told the end to the canonization process. In AD 367 his Easter Letter lists for the first time in ancient writings that we have access to the 27 documents of our New Testament. Once more, Glenn Davis has some helpful summations on Athanasius at his web site and and quoted here:

Athanasius of Alexandria (born ~293 CE, Alexandria -- died May 2, 373 CE, Alexandria)
        Saint Athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader, was the chief defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same, substance as God the Father. Athanasius attended the Council of Nicaea (325) and shortly thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328). For the rest of his life he was engaged in theological and political struggles with the Emperor and with Arian churchmen, being banished from Alexandria several times. He wrote many important works, including his major theological treatises, The Life of St. Antony and Four Orations against the Arians, and a number of letters on theological, pastoral, and administrative topics. A Catholic Encyclopedia article is online at St. Athanasius.
        A clear acknowledgment of the NT canon of 27 books appears in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius. Here the threefold division of Origen or Eusebius is abandoned. As 'springs of salvation' there are only the 27 writings in which 'the doctrine of piety is proclaimed'. Over against them are set the apocrypha fabricated by the heretics. Only the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas -- besides a few OT apocrypha -- are permitted for reading by those newly received into the Church, since the Fathers have so appointed. But these writings are not "canonical". We may however infer from the concession that the two writings mentioned still enjoyed very great esteem. For a visual summary of Athanasius' opinions see the Cross Reference Table.
        There is no question that the emphasis on the exclusiveness and finality of the canon is closely connected with Athanasius' total theological conception, anti-heretical and Bible-related. Over and above that it has to be observed that precisely in the years after 362, his concern was directed towards the unity of the 'orthodox' Church, and hence that for him a uniform canon was also a necessity.
        It is important that Athanasius turns sharply against all apocrypha, so that the lines are drawn as sharply as possible between canonical and apocryphal writings. Whatever they may be in terms of their origin, their content or their age, the 'apocrypha' are downgraded as heretical and therefore excluded from any ecclesiastical use. We cannot establish what effect Athanasius' letter had outside of Egypt. We may conjecture that it advanced the recognition of the 7 'catholic' epistles in the East, but it could not remove the opposition to the Revelation of John. This book only achieved its firm place in the canon of the Greek Church in the 10th century.

The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE)
        It was an ancient custom for the bishop of Alexandria to write, if possible, every year soon after Epiphany a so-called Festal Epistle to the Egyptian churches and monasteries under his authority, in which he informed them of the date of Easter and the beginning of the Lenten fast. By fixing the date of Easter, this yearly epistle fixed also the dates of all Christian festivals of the year. In view of the reputation of Alexandrian scholars who were devoted to astronomical calculations, it is not surprising that other parts of Christendom should eventually come to rely on the Egyptian Church for information concerning the date of Easter, made available to the Western Church through the bishop of Rome, and to the Syrian Church through the bishop of Antioch.
        From Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in the year 367:

      Since, however, we have spoken of the heretics as dead but of ourselves as possessors of the divine writings unto salvation, and since I am afraid that -- as Paul has written to the Corinthians [2 Cor. 11:3] -- some guileless persons may be led astray from their purity and holiness by the craftiness of certain men and begin thereafter to pay attention to other books, the so-called apocryphal writings, being deceived by their possession of the same names as the genuine books, I therefore exhort you to patience when, out of regard to the Church's need and benefit, I mention in my letter matters with which you are acquainted. It being my intention to mention these matters, I shall, for the commendation of my venture, follow the example of the evangelist Luke and say [cf. Luke 1:1-4]: Since some have taken in hand to set in order for themselves the so-called apocrypha and to mingle them with the God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers, I also, having been urged by true brethren and having investigated the matter from the beginning, have decided to set forth in order the writings that have been put in the canon, that have been handed down and confirmed as divine, in order that every one who has been led astray may condemn his seducers, and that every one who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of that.

       Athanasius now in the first place enumerates the scriptures of the Old Testament. He then proceeds:

     Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Pilippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
     These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...
     But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.

1.3.2.2.2 Guiding principles 
        In the context of challenges to orthodox Christianity in the second through fifth centuries by various splinter groups, Christian leaders increasingly became concerned over which writings should be considered reliable sources of divine revelation and wisdom. Other assigned questions deal with these dynamics and individuals who both spurred on the process and those who played an influential role in shaping the final product, the New Testament.
        Here we explore some basic principles that guided this process.

1.3.2.2.2.1 Apostolicity
        First, and foremost, was the principle of apostolicity. Could a given writing be traced back either directly or indirectly to one of the original twelve apostles that Jesus had commissioned to spread his message? If you ponder the matter carefully, you will come to realize that the New Testament that we have today is composed only of documents with this apostolic connection. The pivotal role that the original twelve and the apostle Paul played cannot be over emphasized.
        One important caution in this regard, however. To use the modern label 'author' of a document in connection to the compositional origin of the 27 documents in the New Testament, as well as the other early Christian writing, is misleading and creates false, unnecessary problems. Several factors play into this. First, the method of creating written documents was substantially different than in a modern western setting. Virtually all ancient documents for public use in the ancient world were not actually written by the individual whose name is connected to them as the originator of the material. This includes the documents of the New Testament as well. A writing secretary took dictation from the composer of the material, either in detailed content or more often in summary outline sketching, and then did the actual writing of the material. It was then submitted to the composer for checking and revision. This process usually went on through three or four revisions. Once the final revision by the writing secretary was approved by the composer, the document would be released to others for reading, and if underwritten by a patron, the process of creating hand-written copies of it would begin. Thus, the modern term 'author' can be very misleading, especially if writing style, vocabulary etc. become a modern basis for evaluating authorship identity.
       Second, an investigation into the history of the canonization process over the first four centuries of the Christian era reveals clearly that various Christian groups who used a variety of documents as authoritative written sources for their belief system did not believe that these documents had to have direct origination at the written level to one of the original twelve apostles in order to be labeled apostolic. Only Matthew and John of the four canonical gospels are traced back directly to the original twelve apostles. Mark and Luke were second generation Christians who were not present nor a part of the original group of followers of Jesus. Apostolic associations with their gospel documents came through traditional understanding of these individuals being closely associated with an apostle. The church father Papias at the beginning of the second century associated Mark with Peter and the contents of the Marcan gospel as the reflections of Peter. He also associated Luke with Paul and the Lucan gospel is a Pauline reflection, but also of a later generation of followers and one who gained stature as an apostle in early Christian tradition.
        In a culture strongly oriented toward orality more than visual written materials, that personal, living human connection to Jesus either during his earthly ministry or the resurrected Christ as in the case of Paul played a dominating role in the above determinations. Plus, early Christian was deeply convinced that these individuals were designated by the Lord to occupy as very special role in the emerging Christian religion. The term apostle, often referred to merely as 'The Twelve', increasingly came to be applied exclusively to these individuals with the understanding of this unique status as uniquely authoritative sources for understanding the teachings of Jesus. What could be traced back to these individuals as the written repository of their understanding of Jesus would gradually take on the status of sacred writings and would achieve the same authoritative status as the writings of the Old Testament. The two collections of documents would gradually combine into one and become the scriptural foundation for Christian faith and practice.

1.3.2.2.2.2 Breath of God
Second, early Christians utilized a somewhat practical approach to testing various writings. Would a particular document over time produce positive spiritual benefits in the lives of those who tried to understand and implement its teachings? More technically, the issue was whether or not the document bore evidence of having the "breath of God" permeating its pages. The ancient Greek word for inspiration literally means the 'breath of God,' as does the Latin word inspirio from which the English word 'inspiration' comes. Modern concepts of inspiration, however, go far afield from the ancient idea (for a detailed treatment, see my article on 'inspiration' in the 2 vol. patristics encyclopedia published by Garland Press in NY several years ago). If God had breathed his life into a document, then its proper use would produce positive spiritual benefits, they reasoned. Thus many, many documents were culled out because of the negative impact they had.

1.3.2.2.2.3 Divine Providence
Third, at some point the careful student of the process of canonization looks at the mountain of data coming out of the ancient Christian tradition and has to conclude, "God had his hand in all this providentially." No human effort could have ever pulled this off as successfully as it happened.

To be sure, many other factors played an influential role in this process of canonization, but I believe these three are the more dominant ones.

1.3.2.2.3 Catalysts prompting the process
        One of the ongoing discussions among the scholars who write in this subject relates to the question of what prompted early Christianity to move toward a written canon of the NT. Given the significant preference for orally passed down religious tradition in the ancient world, most are convinced that some triggering mechanisms led to the move toward a written canon of sacred scriptures. Three of the most commonly discussed motivations are discussed now.

1.3.2.2.3.1  Marcion
        In the middle of the second century the influence of the Christian leader Marcion unquestionably played a role in pushing orthodox Christianity toward the written documents of the NT as a reaction to his efforts. Below is cited the helpful summation of Glenn Davis at the NT Canon web site:

Marcion and the Marcionites (144 - 3rd century CE)
        At the end of July, 144 CE, a hearing took place before the clergy of the Christian congregations in Rome. Marcion, the son of the bishop of Sinope (a sea-port of Pontus along the Black Sea) who had become a wealthy ship-owner, stood before the presbyters to expound his teachings in order to win others to his point of view. For some years he had been a member of one of the Roman churches, and had proved the sincerity of his faith by making relatively large contributions. No doubt he was a respected member of the Christian community.
        But what he now expounded to the presbyters was so monstrous that they were utterly shocked! The hearing ended in a harsh rejection of Marcion's views; he was formally excommunicated and his largesse of money was returned. From this time forward Marcion went his own way, energetically propagating a strange kind of Christianity that quickly took root throughout large sections of the Roman Empire and by the end of the 2nd century had become a serious threat to the mainstream Christian Church. In each city of any importance the Marcionites set up their church to defy the Christian one. Although in definite decline in the West from the middle of the 3rd to the 4th centuries, the movement proved more durable in the East, where, after remarkably overcoming the 3rd-century Roman persecutions of the emperors Valerian and Diocletian, it continued to flourish until as late as the 10th century, especially in Syrian culture. A Catholic Encyclopedia article is online at Marcionites.
        Marcion wrote only a single work, Antitheses (Contradictions), in which he set forth his ideas. Since it has not been preserved, we must be content with deducing its contents from notices contained in the writings of opponents -- particularly in Tertullian's 5 volumes written against Marcion - Adversus Marcionem. An English translation is available at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The main points of Marcion's teaching were the rejection of the Old Testament and a distinction between the Supreme God of goodness and an inferior God of justice, who was the Creator and God of the Jews. He regarded Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God.
       The Old and New Testaments, Marcion argued, cannot be reconciled to each other. The code of conduct advocated by Moses was 'an eye for an eye', but Christ set this precept aside. Elisha had had children eaten by bears; Christ said, 'Let the little children come to me'. Joshua had stopped the sun in its path in order to continue the slaughter of his enemies; Paul quoted Christ as commanding, 'Let not the sun go down on your wrath'. In the Old Testament divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; but in the New Testament neither is allowed. Moses enforced the Jewish Sabbath and Law; Christ has freed believers from both.
        Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho 7 times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze serpent. The deity revealed in the Old Testament could not have been omniscient, otherwise he would not have asked, 'Adam where are you?' (Genesis 3:9).
        Marcion, therefore, rejected the entire Old Testament. He accepted the following Christian writings in this order:

Gospel according to Luke
Galatians
I Corinthians
II Corinthians
Romans
I Thessalonians
II Thessalonians
Ephesians (which Marcion called Laodiceans)
Colossians
Philemon
Philippians

but only after pruning and editorial adjustment. In his opinion the 12 apostles misunderstood the teaching of Christ, and, holding him to be the Messiah of the Jewish God, falsified his words from that standpoint. Passages that Marcion could regard only as Judaizing interpolations, that had been smuggled into the text by biased editors, had to be removed so the authentic text of Gospel and Apostle could once again be available. After these changes, the Gospel according to Luke became the Evangelicon, and the 10 Pauline letters, the Apostolikon.
        Marcion rejected the following Christian writings:

Gospel according to Matthew
Gospel according to John

        For a summary of Marcion's opinions see the Cross Reference Table.
        Marcion's canon accelerated the process of fixing the Church's canon, which had already begun in the first half of the 2nd century. It was in opposition to Marcion's criticism that the Church first became fully conscious of its inheritance of apostolic writings. According to [Grant] (p. 126): "Marcion forced more orthodox Christians to examine their own presuppositions and to state more clearly what they already believed".

1.3.2.2.3.2  Gnosticism
        In the second half of the first Christian century the efforts to reinterpret the Jewish based teachings of Jesus and of the apostolic gospel through the philosophical grid of Platonic philosophy, especially the dualistic views of reality in Plato, led to a counter movement that flourished in many places in the second century and was termed Gnosticism, from the Greek word gnw'si" (gnosis) meaning 'knowledge.' Although sharing some common viewpoints with the beliefs of Marcion, the various strands of second century Gnosticism took distinctly different directions. A large part of the writings of the Apologists, many of the Church Fathers in the second half of the second Christian century, was directed toward combating this movement and its various teachers. Most of the documents called the New Testament Apocrypha reflect the various viewpoints of second and third century gnosticism.
        One example of this movement is discussed and illustrated by Glenn Davis in the NT Canon web site: Valentinus. Davis also lists on this page a number of disciples of Valentinus, as well as focuses in on the documents used by this school of thought as authoritative writings, and in several instances regarded as sacred scripture.
        The spreading influence of the various gnostic teachers during these two centuries additionally spurred orthodox Christianity toward the solidification of its own set of authoritative writings considered as sacred scripture.

1.3.2.2.3.3  regula fidei (oJ kanwvn th'" ajlhvqeia [kanôn tês alêtheia])
        In the beginning centuries of Christian tradition after the apostolic era, the gospel tradition was communicated not only in the written documents that became eventually the NT scriptures, but also through the preaching and teaching of church leaders. This oral body of interpretative understanding came to be known as the rule of faith. It was viewed as authoritative because it was based on the emerging doctrine of apostolic succession. The first expression of this idea surfaces in the middle 90s in a letter written by Clement of Rome to the church at Corinth (1 Clement 42):

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

1.3.2.2.4  Historical reconstruction of the process
        The challenge of historical reconstruction is rather large, mostly because of the limited data available to serve as a foundation for building such a reconstruction. In general most of the scholars working in this area will see a process of development that moved along in stages, pretty much along the lines laid out below.

1.3.2.2.4.1 Stages of the process
        Somewhat helpful to this discussion is the article "Canon of the New Testament," in the Catholic Encyclopedia online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm. Also one should take a look at the article "Bible, Canon of the," in the Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

1.3.2.2.4.1.1  Collections of Paul's letters
        Rather clearly the evidence suggests that the first collection of documents to undergo copying and distribution as a collection were the writings of the apostle Paul. Exactly when this began is difficult to say, although 2 Pet. 3:16 seems to allude to something of this order (NRSV): "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."   Very likely this process began quickly after the writing ministry of Paul and especially after his martyrdom in the middle 60s.

1.3.2.2.4.1.2  Collections of the gospels
        Perhaps shortly afterwards toward the end of the first century, the four gospels began circulating as a collection of documents. Clear indication that this was the case in the early decades of the second century exist. Again the data for understanding the details is very limited. The late second century church father, Tertullian, reflects that by that point the four gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- were being circulated as a collection and regarded as sacred writings.

1.3.2.2.4.1.3 Acts of the Apostles
        When this NT document was added is unclear, but it became something of a bridge between "Gospel" (the four gospels) and "Apostle" (initially the writings of Paul). With its recounting of the first three decades of the beginning of the church (appx. AD 30 - 60), it became an important recollection of the period of the apostles. The focus in Acts is clearly on Peter (representing the initial Jewish phase) and Paul (a symbol of the non-Jewish expansion), although other apostles surface in the narrative.

1.3.2.2.4.1.4 Catholic letters
        In the earlier lists etc. a trinitarian symbolism seems to have been at work. In the expansion of the "Apostle" section beyond Paul, three more were added James, Peter, and John: James, 1 Peter, 1 John. Eventually, the religious symbolism of the number seven provided justification for expanding the General Letters to include seven documents, rather than the initial three: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude.
        The likelihood is that this process was not uniform, and instead developed in different communities in different ways and at different paces.

1.3.2.2.4.1.5 Apocalypses
        The Revelation of John struggled for adoption, although in some communities it gained quick acceptance and stood along side the Revelation of Peter. In a few Christian communities, however, neither book ever made it into the NT canon. One has to explore the larger background of the chiliastic movement, i.e., millenarianism, during parts of this period in order to understand the nature of this struggle.

1.3.2.2.4.2 Pivotal turning points:
      The closing of the canon, that is, the 27 documents becoming universally viewed as authoritative scriptures, is reached with but isolated exceptions by the end of the 300s. Two pivotal influences impacted this process: the influence in Eastern Christianity of Athanasius and in Western Christianity the impact of Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate.

1.3.2.2.4.2.1  Athanasius, 367 AD
        The NT Canon web site has a helpful summation of Eastern Christianity:

Closing the Canon in the East
        The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. As an example of the uncertainty in the east, the Trullan Synod of 691-692 CE endorsed these lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (~385 CE), the Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE ?), the Third Synod of Carthage (~397 CE), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE). And yet these lists do not agree. The Synod of Hippo Regius (393 CE) and the Synod of Carthage (419 CE) also addressed the canon and are discussed here.
        Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences; see [Metzger] pp. 218-228 for details. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.

1.3.2.2.4.2.2. Latin Vulgate, 4th cent.
        The NT Canon web site has a helpful summation of Western Christianity:

Closing the Canon in the West
        An eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome was convened in the year 382 CE. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter of the canon. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Pope Damasus himself, are lost to us. Some hold they are partially preserved in the Decretum Gelasianum though this is disputed. The New Testament canon presented there agrees with the present one (although, for some reason, [Metzger] p. 188 says the Revelation of John is omitted).
        Pope Innocent I, in 405 CE, reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse.
        During the Middle Ages the Church in the West received the Latin New Testament from the Vulgate, and the subject of the canon was seldom discussed. However, we still find a certain elasticity in the boundaries of the New Testament. The most notable addition in some manuscripts is the Epistle to the Laodiceans. It was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon. In consequence of the efforts of this Council to bring about reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which sought support from the West against the Turks, who were nearing Constantinople, Pope Eugenius IV published a bull setting forth the doctrines of the unity of the Old and New Testament, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and a statement of their extent. In the list of 27 books of the New Testament there are 14 Pauline Epistles, that to the Hebrews being last, with the book of Acts coming immediately before the Revelation of John. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is not even mentioned.
        One century later, the disrupting influences of opinions about the Scriptures expressed by such Catholics as Cardinal Cajetan, the humanist Erasmus, and by German, Swiss, and French Protestants, prompted Pope Paul III to convene the Council of Trent in order to consider what, if any, moral and administrative reforms needed to be made within the Roman Catholic Church. On April 8 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15 with 16 abstentions, a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) was issued in which, for the first time in the history of the Church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by anathema. In translation:

The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent, ... following the example of the orthodox Fathers receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament ... and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct ... with and equal sense of devotion and reverence (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia) ... If, however, anyone does not receive these books in their entirety, with all their parts (cum omnibus suis partibus), as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate edition as sacred and canonical, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be Anathema.

        Among subsequent confessions of faith drawn up by Protestants, several identify by name the 27 books of the New Testament canon, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books.

1.3.2.2.5 Contemporary Issues
        In the era of modern biblical scholarship a couple of issues surface periodically.

1.3.2.2.5.1 Open verses Closed Canon
        Although for most of Christian history, as well as for the vast majority of Christians today, the canon of the New Testament is viewed as closed. No other writings, even some of the possibly lost letters of Paul, where they to be discovered,  -- and there are at least two of them that can be determined from within the Pauline corpus of the NT -- should be added to the New Testament.

1.3.2.2.5.2 Canon within a Canon
       Since the days of Martin Luther in the 1500s, the second issue of canon within a canon is sometimes debated. Luther's adaptation of Origen's and Eusebius' classification system in order to relegate some NT documents to a secondary status in the NT has occasioned discussion of whether or not differing levels of authority inside the NT canon are legitimate, with some documents being more authoritative than others.

1.3.2.3 The Approach of Canon Criticism
Additional Assigned Readings for This Topic:
Gerald Bray, "The Canon and biblical interpretation," Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present, pp. 34-36

Discussion
        The work of the British Baptist Old Testament scholar Brevard Childs during the past two decades has renewed interest in studying the process of the canonization of the Bible, especially the Old Testament scriptures. Prof. James Sanders has also contributed significantly to the development of the methodology. At the heart of Canon Criticism is the emphasis of taking the final shape of the canon seriously as a theological document. Biblical exegesis through the influence of modern critical studies has tended too much to focus in the 'then' meaning of the text with essentially historical understanding as the goal. Both Childs and Sanders stress that first and foremost the Bible is the document of the synagogue and the church, not of critical scholars. Thus efforts at interpretation must focus on the theological understanding of the text with particular concern for how that applies to today's religious community. Clues for how the scripture text should link up to today's world can be gleaned from carefull analysis of how these 39 documents in the OT and the 27 documents in the NT aquired authoritative status in the respective Judeo-Christian traditions. Thus a major concern centers on a historical reconstruction of the canonical process for both segments of the Christian Bible. But additionally the emphasis here is not merely on these documents acquiring authoritative status, but how that authoritative status worked in influencing the thinking of the respective religious communities. From these insights then insights into how these same documents should shape the thinking of contemporary Christian communities should emerge. Thus, especially for Childs, this approach will directly feed into a revitalized Biblical Theology for our day. But a biblical theology that is not merely historical in its orientation -- a criticism he leveled strongly at the earlier phases of this movement in the early twentieth century -- but a theological formulation that should become normative for contemporary Christian belief and practice.
        Dr. Latham's assessment (pp. 50-55) of this discipline provides some helpful insights into the relevancy of the work of Childs and Sanders:

CHAPTER FIVE
 APPRAISAL OF A STEP BY STEP
PROCEDURE FOR USING THE METHOD

 Introduction

        One step in using canon criticism is to engage in canonical exegesis. Bruce defines this type exegesis as "the interpretation of individual components of the canon in the context of the canon as a whole."
        Greidanus suggests three steps whereby preaching can make use of the results of canon criticism. First, the canon must be taken as context. Second, messages must rest on "canonical texts understood in the context of canon." Third, the canonical text must be understood as "inherently relevant, for this channel was formed for the specific purpose of proclaiming God's good news to future generations."
        Childs gives the single most helpful discussion on the way to do canon criticism.  In his approach the act of interpretation begins and ends with the canonical form of the text.  For Childs "the text's pre-history and post-history are both subordinated to the form deemed canonical." The exegetical task brings interpreter and text together in dialogue.  The interpreter seeks "to discern how each writing within the New Testament canon construes its material in order to bear truthful witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ." The interpreter's goal is in keeping with the kerygmatic purpose of the text in the form in which it is found. The canon itself marks the boundaries of the scriptures, but the interpreter allows the shaping of the text to lead to its special message "through a particular intertextuality."
        The interpreter reads the text searching for the writers "expressed intentionality," that is "how the author intended the material to be understood, or of the effect which a particular rendering has on the literature." The warning in this process is not to pull text and authorial intention apart. There are times when the larger view of a text's function in Scripture will provide a different meaning for the text than what the original writer may have intended.
        Indications of Canonical shaping appear most often in the following places within and without the text: the overall structure of the book; the praescripts, conclusions, and superscriptions; intertextuality; message transmission; the function of the addressee; authorship; and the in-fluence of the canonical shape of the collection on the individual parts.

 Canonical Shaping

Overall Structure
        The formal structure of the book affects its content. When the formal structure is uncertain, the reader must determine "whether a book's structure is equivocal and lends itself to a variety of possible interpretations (cf. Matthew)." Childs cautions that "a construal of the structure which in fact eliminates portions of the book should be viewed with suspicion (cf. Luke 1-2)." He also reminds the interpreter to look for features in the book, such as "patterns of interchange between dogmatic and paraenetic sections (cf. Hebrews)," which may be the "significant canonical function."

Praescripts, Conclusions,
and Superscriptions
        Read with care the book's praescript (e.g., Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-5) and conclusion (e.g., John 20:30; Heb. 13:22; II Tim. 4:6ff.). Authorial intentionality or canonical setting are some-times revealed at this point in the book's structure. The superscriptions, though added later in the canonization process, "frequently give a valuable clue on how the church first heard the message (cf. Hebrews, Revelation)."

Intertextuality
        The original historical referent of a passage must be compared with the form of the pas-sage as it now stands in relation to other texts. Historical forces at work in the development of a text must be studied and evaluated as to their position in the background or foreground of the text.
        Two extremes are to be avoided at this point. First, diversity can be so emphasized that little or no unity is found in the book itself or between the book and its wider context. Second, unity can be so stressed that the exegete harmonizes all diversity, ending up with "a single monolithic block" of material.

Message Transmission
        The canonical approach insists that the very phenomenon of a canon provides a basic warrant for inferring that the material of the New Testament was shaped toward engendering faith and did not lie inert as a deposit of uninterpreted data from a past age.
        The controversy of the canonical approach with the historical critical method is strongest at this point. Childs states strongly that "the canonical approach regards it as a threat to exegesis when critics historize the New Testament material by assuming that the sharper the historical focus, the better the interpretation (cf. the debate over Romans)."

Function of the Addressee
        The original context of a text may be transcended by "the function of the addressee of a composition." The historical context may present the original setting with seemingly little at-tention to the subsequent readers; or it may address subsequent readers through textual transparency.

Authorship
        It must be understood that the canonical approach does not understand the question of authorship in the same way as the critical historical methodologies.  Authorship questions function on a canonical scale, not simply on a solution to historical referentiality.

Influence of the Canonical Shape
of the Collection on the Parts
        One strong contribution of the canonical approach is its call to see the shaping of individual parts of the collection in light of the whole collection. In the process of canonization there were obvious influences of the whole on the parts. Childs draws attention to the fact that "at times the larger corpus exerts a major influence on the individual parts."

CONCLUSION

        The methodology of Canon criticism is still in the developmental stages as a biblical discipline. Yet, a great deal of spade work has been done in this discipline through the work of Brevard Childs and James Sanders. Only time will tell whether the highly critical remarks of James Barr toward the directions the methodology has taken will be tempered by the results of those who work in the discipline.
        It seems clear that at some point there must be more preciseness in the definition of the term canon and of the term criticism. This weakness of terminology can be sensed as one reads the materials published in this area.
        Not enough time has passed to evaluate canon criticism as a discipline able to forego the spirit of battle with other biblical disciplines and to develop a full way of cooperation with them. Should this cooperation happen, canon criticism can serve as a pair of glasses to other biblical disciplines helping them to see with new perspective the text with which they work and the community of faith who hold that text dear. Should, however, the other disciplines continue to see canon criticism almost as a return to a precritical discipline, there is not likely to be as much fruit produced from either canon criticism or the other biblical disciplines.

Check Bray's bibliography in appropriate chapter of the textbook.

Check the appropriate Bibliography section in Cranfordville.com
         Canon Criticism under Exegetical Methods section

Latham, Tony. "Canon Criticism," A Paper Presented to Dr. Lorin L. Cranford in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Course New Testament Critical Methodology, Sept. 20, 1993. ----

Athanasius of Alexandra, "Easter Letter XXXIX for 367," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IV, (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm#P9700_3475833)

"The Canon of the New Testament," Catholic Encyclopedia online, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

"The Canon of the Old Testament," Catholic Encyclopedia online, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

"The Development of the Canon of the New Testament," (http://www.ntcanon.org/) A most important gateway into primary and secondary articles and texts. The Links to other sites is especially helpful.

Eusebius, "The Divine Scriptures that are Accepted and Those that are Not," Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 25, (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1923_887432)

Sawyer, M. James, "Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament, " (http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/canon.htm)

"Whose Canon? Which Bible?" United Methodist Women, (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm)

Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon)