Has the original Bible reached us?

[part II)

By  Andrey Desnitsky

The Biblical Canon. The Boundaries of Scripture

The Bible stands on the bookshelf – you can pick it up and look at the contents. But it turns out that in different editions the list of books that are included in the Bible is not quite the same. Why is this so? And where did this list (which is sometimes called the “canon”) come from? What does the inclusion of a book in this list mean?

The word canon itself is of Greek origin and means “rule, measure, pattern”. In the Church it is used quite widely – this is how, in essence, any norms of church life can be called: iconographic canons determine the technique of iconography, canon law determines legal issues. But here we will talk only about the Biblical Canon, that is, the list of books that make up the Holy Scripture.

Today it is easy for us to open the Bible and see what is printed under its cover, but it was not always so. Before the invention of printing, the complete Bible was a great rarity: books were extremely expensive, and with the technology of that time, one volume came out very voluminous and heavy. Therefore, most often individual books or collections needed for worship were copied. For example, the famous Ostromir Gospel (a Slavic text from the 11th century from Novgorod) is not at all what we are used to seeing in modern editions – it is a liturgical collection with Gospel readings for various Sundays and holidays, starting with Easter. Such books in the Middle Ages were much more common than complete editions of biblical texts, because the need for them was greater. Indeed, in traditional society, Scripture existed primarily in the context of church life, and those who turned to it “in their free time” were very few – not least because of the enormous price of books.

This was more or less the case in Palestine during Christ’s earthly life: the only time we see Him with a scroll of Scripture in His hands is on the Sabbath, when He reads the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue.

But ordinary people also turned to the biblical text: they could read or listen to it during worship and often quoted it (often inaccurately). Christ in His sermons constantly reminds us: as it is written, they have the Law and the Prophets – these are, of course, references to Scripture. But Christ never specifies which books includes this Scripture. He considers many other controversial issues, but not this one. From this we can conclude that in His time there was no significant dispute about the composition of Scripture. The apostles, who entered into disputes with pagans, with the first heretics and with Jews who did not recognize Christ, constantly referred to the authority of Scripture – and nowhere defined its boundaries. What is more – the apostle Jude, the brother of James, in the 9th verse of his epistle even retells an episode from the apocryphal book “The Ascension of Moses”, which is not part of the Scripture. And this is the most obvious, but by no means the only connection of the New Testament texts with the apocrypha of that time. It turns out that the apostles also used books in their preaching that are not part of the Holy Scriptures today.

Foreign books

Was there a clearly defined canon during the earthly life of Christ and His first disciples? Obviously not. People read the same books, but their authority seemed to be different: one thing is the Law, that is, the Pentateuch, on which the entire life of the community was based, and quite another – a tradition such as the Ascension of Moses, which would never have occupied a central place.

In the middle of the 20th century, in the caves near the Dead Sea, especially in a place called Qumran, many manuscripts were discovered, hidden there around 70 AD, during the unsuccessful uprising of the Jews against Roman rule. The books in this collection were very diverse. In one scroll, one could find both the psalms that we know from the Bible and others similar to them. Of course, this is too little to speak of any special “Qumran canon” – after all, collections of texts and prayer books are still being published today, where canonical psalms coexist with other prayers and hymns. In addition, the Qumran inhabitants themselves probably stood aside from the mainstream of Judaism at that time, represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees, so their example is not particularly indicative.

When did the canon actually appear?

Of course, first the list of books of the Old Testament had to be formed. According to Jewish tradition, which is also shared by many Christians, this happened immediately after the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity, during the time of the scribe Ezra. But it is difficult to believe this, because too much time separates Ezra from the first known lists of canonical books.

In addition, we have the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Bible, which includes books absent from the modern Jewish canon: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Maccabees, and others. Some of them were written directly in Greek, but others also existed in Hebrew – a large part of the Hebrew original of Sirach has already been discovered in our time.

It seems reasonable to draw the following conclusion: the main sacred books were the same for all Jewish communities, but the “additional list” could differ somewhat in different communities. This, it seems, suited everyone, but only until the end of the 1st century AD. It was then that the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, the books became, in essence, the main shrine of the Jews, and on the other hand, the final break between Jews and Christians occurred. Although both had a common Law and prophets, Christians added to them their own sacred books, which the Jews categorically refused to recognize.

It was at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries that the Jewish canon was finally formed, and from all the existing versions of the text, one was chosen, which we today call the Masoretic Text. As far as we can judge, it was the most widespread in Palestine, but still not the only one.

The Jews divided the Old Testament into three parts: “Law” (in ancient Hebrew Torah), “Prophets” (Nevi’im) and “Writings” (Ketuvim). The name of the entire Bible – Tanakh – is formed from the first letters of these three names (the final “k” of Ketuvim is pronounced as “x”). At the same time, the Jewish internal division of the books in the canon does not coincide with the Christian one: the Prophets also include the early historical books, and Daniel is included in the Scriptures, probably because this book was written when the composition of the Prophets was already fully established and nothing new could be added to it.

What to read in the Church?

The first Christians, as is easy to assume, had nothing to do with the decisions of the rabbis, so in the 1st century it is still too early to talk about a Christian canon of Scripture. The desire to compile a list of biblical books arose later, for exactly the same reason that the Jews created theirs: various sects and heresies began to appear, offering their own “sacred” books, and believers needed to be protected from them. That is why lists had to be compiled.

But anyone who begins to compare the lists of biblical books compiled by Christians in the first centuries after the birth of Christ will rather be puzzled: why do these lists differ so noticeably and why do the Fathers of the Church themselves seem to not pay attention to these differences?

It would be understandable if one theologian declared: “I consider the Epistles of Clement of Rome to be part of the New Testament,” and another objected to him: “No, by no means, they are not part of it, nor is the Revelation of John the Theologian.” But there were no such disputes, it was simply that some included these books and others did not.

For example, Western lists often omitted the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is unlike the other New Testament epistles, while Eastern lists omitted the Revelation of John the Theologian, because it was too difficult for ordinary believers to understand.

As for the Old Testament, there was no complete unity here either: some offered an abbreviated list that coincided with the Jewish canon, while others offered a more complete list, including all or at least some of the books of the Septuagint.

It is obvious that the Fathers of the Church sought not so much to give a single and definitive rule for all times as to show their flock which books should be accepted as sacred and which should not. For example, in the 4th century, Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Easter Epistle, listed the books that were “canonized” (this is the first mention in Christian literature of the canon as a list of sacred books) and those that were “non-canonized, but recommended by the Fathers for reading.” In the first category he included all the books of the Hebrew canon, with the exception of the book of Esther, as well as the 27 books of the New Testament known to us today. In the second group he placed Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and also books related to the New Testament corpus, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes. All other books, says St. Athanasius, should not be read, but he does not give a specific list of these “unnecessary” books. Does this mean that he rejected the Maccabees? Not necessarily. It is possible that these books were simply not available at that time and place, so there was no need to mention them.

Interestingly, among the Dead Sea Scrolls there is not a single copy of the book of Esther, the only one of all the biblical books that is missing there. This may be just a coincidence, but it is possible that even then some people were embarrassed by it – there is too much hatred for enemies in it. However, we can only guess.

As a result of all these processes, by the 4th–5th centuries all Christian communities agreed to recognize 27 books in the New Testament – ​​the same ones that are still present in every Bible today, except in the Ethiopian, where the canon is wider.

Is there a boundary between Scripture and Tradition?

So, the New Testament contains practically the same 27 books for all Christians, but as for the Old Testament, there is no complete unity here. The Russian Orthodox Church recognizes 50 books, approximately the same number (with minor differences) as other Orthodox and Catholics. However, Protestants recognize as biblical only those 39 books that are included in the Jewish canon – one could say that they simply borrowed it. But why did such a situation arise for Catholics and Orthodox?

It is usually believed that all the most important decisions were made at Church Councils. In connection with the biblical canon, the Council of Laodicea in the East (about 360) and the Third Council of Carthage in the West (397) are usually mentioned. But in reality, the decrees of these councils are far from giving a final solution to all issues.

The decrees of the Council of Laodicea have come down to us in several different lists. In some of them there is a 60th, final rule, which contains a list of the biblical books; in other lists it is missing and the collection ends with rule 59. This raises doubts about the authenticity of rule 60, which lists the “books that should be read” – a short list of the books of the Old Testament with the addition of the books of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, as well as 26 books of the New Testament, but without the Revelation of John.

Rule 47 of the Third Council of Carthage decreed that “except the canonical Scriptures, nothing should be read in the church under the name of Divine Scriptures” and lists the complete list of the Old Testament known to us today, as well as the 27 books of the New Testament.

For a very long time this disagreement did not bother anyone. When in 691–692 at the Council of Trullo the bishops set about collecting and codifying the decisions of the previous councils, they confirmed the authority of both the Council of Laodicea and the Council of Carthage, but did not specify which of the two lists of books should be followed. In addition, they also referred to a text called the “Apostolic Decrees”. In the 85th (also the last) rule of this collection, a list of canonical books is given, where the New Testament is presented without Revelation, but with the two epistles of Clement of Rome.

One gets the impression that the exact composition of the Bible was not a primary concern for the Fathers, and they did not even particularly strive to eliminate the obvious differences between the individual lists: there was simply no particular practical need for such a strictly defined canon. The rules of the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage do not draw a clear line between true and heretical books – they only specify which books can be read in the church as Scripture. If in one church they read the Revelation of John the Theologian, and in another they do not, this was not considered a problem – the important thing was that its place was not taken by a heretical work.

Truly fierce disputes on this issue erupted in the West during the Reformation, and only regarding the Old Testament. In fact, these disputes concerned not only the exact composition of the biblical canon, but also its meaning and authority. Protestants claimed that only Scripture has an exclusive authority, which is essentially different from all other books. This principle received the Latin name Sola Scriptura and stated that “Scripture alone” can serve as the basis of the Church’s faith. If this is so, then the question of which books belong to Scripture and which do not acquire vital importance.

For example, Catholic theologians, in support of the doctrine of purgatory (and in general of the idea that the earthly Church can influence the fate of souls after death), cited the story from the Second Book of Maccabees (12:39–45), which speaks of a cleansing sacrifice offered by Judas Maccabee for his deceased comrades. For Catholics, this book is part of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, prayer for the dead is a biblical commandment. But according to Protestants, this book is not biblical, and even if it is good and interesting, the statements of its author do not have theological authority. The Orthodox world does not know such large-scale and principled disputes about the dignity of books such as Tobit, Judith, and others. As a result, a situation has developed in which the Orthodox, following the decisions of the Laodicean Council, recognize the same books as the Protestants as canonical, but at the same time include non-canonical books in their editions of the Bible, as Catholics do. Thus, the biblical canon is smaller than the Bible itself! This may seem strange only in the context of the Reformation, but not in the East, where the task of separating Scripture from Tradition has never been. Orthodox theologians sometimes depict this ratio in the form of concentric circles: in the very center is the Gospel, further on – the other biblical books (it is clear that the Epistles of the Apostle Paul are more important for us than, for example, Leviticus), then – the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the works of the Fathers and other elements of Tradition, right down to the pious customs of individual parishes. The periphery must necessarily be in agreement with the center, be verified through it – but it is not so important where exactly Scripture ends and Tradition begins, or to which category, for example, the Books of the Maccabees or the Epistles of Clement of Rome should be attributed. It is more important to determine the degree of their authority in relation to the remaining books and church customs.

The boundaries between truth and falsehood, between faith and superstition, between ecclesiasticism and heresy are much more important than the boundaries between Scripture and Tradition, which, like many other things in the Church, testify to the action of the same Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10).

Published in: “Thomas” (Phoma) magazine, Oct. 2013, https://foma.ru/