The idea of canon in Judaism and Early Christianity INTRODUCTION From the very beginning, I shall try to present

a definition of the term canon. The Greek word meant a strait rod or bar. Metaphorically the term came to be used of the rules of art or a trade or to signify a list or catalogue1. According to Lemches definition, speaking on canonical books of the Bible, the term may be translated as staff. Perhaps the best translation would be ruler, and K does often refer to a tool. In figurative speech, K means rule or standard, e.g. within art and grammar Whatever the meaning of the Greek K, the word is now used by theologians of a selection of privileged writings. Many think that this indicates that the books included in canon are better than other books2. In our study case, we shall consider that the canon of the Judaism is the collection of the books entitled Old Testament or the Jewish Bible3, called the Septuagint4, and the canon of Christianity including the books of the Old Testament and also the collection of books called the New Testament. The particularity of the canon in both religions, Judaism and Christianity, is reflected by the formation and selection of the books which are representative and normative for them. This is a consequence of the perceiving that Gods revelation came down to mankind through those inspired or special books. Besides, according to the manner of conveying, the texts can be conveyed in the oral tradition or in writing one5.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross, third edition edited by E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 2 N. P. Le !he, The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey, "est inster #ohn $nox Press, Lo%isvi&&e, $ent%!'y, 2((), *.27+. ,ee -&so the definition of E%gene U&ri!h, in his -rti!&e umran and the Canon of the Old Testament, in #. A%.ers -nd /.#. de #onge 0eds.1, The Bi!lical Canons 0Bi!liotheca "#hemeridum Theologicarum $ovanensium CL23331, Le%ven University Press4Peeters 2((5, *.76. 5 7he n- e of #e.ish 8ib&e is 7-n-'h, -nd it is str%!t%red by three gro%*s9 -1 7he L-. 07or-h1, b1 the Pro*hets -nd !1 other boo's 'no.n -s "ritings 0Cross, 19)1. + #ose*h /. Lyn!h, "arly Christianity% A Brief History, Oxford University Press, 2(1(, *.71. ,e*t%-gint is the :ree' tr-ns&-tion of the O&d 7est- ent, being %sed, sin!e fro very beginning by E-r&y Christi-nity 0Lyn!h, 711. ; #ohn 8-rton, The S#irit and the $etter% Studies in the Bi!lical Canon, London9 ,PC$ 1997, *.1(6<1(7

Speaking on the Christian canon, we should underline that the development of the canon was inextricably bound up with the history of the ancient Church, both in its literary and institutional aspects6. After I pointing out the canon in Judaism and in Christianity, I will try to observe the differentiations and similitudes in relation to the authority of the texts and particularities of canon, in both religions perspectives. CONTENT a) A brief presentation of the canon in Greco-Roman world. According to Metzger, the Greeks emphasized the ideal or exemplary person as the canon of good (Euripides, Hecuba, 602)7, the discourse which achieves lucidity and consistency (Plato)8, and Aristotle described a good person as being a canon or measure of the truth9. Epictetus considers the integrity of life in terms of the canon for human relationships10. Pliny underlines norma, or the canon in the aesthetics of the human body, while Plutarch talks about the canon of the chronology11. Finally, the word canon is used in all kinds of disciplines, either humanistic or realistic12. We retain the stress on the ethical or esthetical dimensions (classical) from the explanation of the term canon in Antiquity, as different from the theological significance from the Judaism and Christianity. b) The canon in Judaism. First of all, I would like to point out a few prerequisites which according to Ulrich, have contributed to the canonical process: 1) starting with the Exile, there was a shift from the national literature of Israel to the sacred Scripture of Judaism; 2) the destruction of the Temple brought the shift from a religion that was Temple-

8r%!e =. =et>ger, The Canon of the &ew Testament% 'ts origin, develo#ment and significance, C&-rendon Press, Oxford, 19)7, *. v. 7 =et>ger, 2)9 ) U&ri!h, ;7 9 =et>eger, 2)9 1( =et>eger, 2)9 11 =et>ger, 29( 12 =et>ger, 29(

based to one that was text-based; and 3) the evolution of texts from the individual scrolls to a very elaborated book, or even a codex with many books13. According to Arie van der Kooij, the term canon was not consecrated in ancient Judaism, but the concept of canonical in the sense of authoritative is present14. Based on Josephus texts15, we can distinguish writing criteria in Judaism, which are considered normative. This approach is realized by Josephus based upon, on the one hand, the analogy to the ancient sources (Egyptians, Babylonians Chaldeans, Greeks and Phoenicians) and stressing the accurate transmission of Judaic books16; while on the other hand, claiming the universality of message conveyance bestowed upon them17. Josephus perceives these writings as being Gods decree and of a vital importance18. Of course, Josephus underlines the role of the chief priest and the prophets maintaining the superiority of Judaic writings through keeping and transmitting them further19, as a heritage embodied in a conservative perspective20. This perspective reflects the character of unicity and unity of Judaic texts. In order to shortly present the theory of canonicity, which is upheld by the Pharisee, Josephus distinguishes its characteristics, in Against Apion, I, 8: divine inspiration, the holiness of their content, the idea that the books were twenty-two in number, the unalterable nature of the text, and the supposition that the books were composed between the time of Moses and that of Artaxerxes I,(d.424), whose death, according to Josephus, marked the closing of the period of the prophets21. First of all, the canon of Jewish writing is placed under direct divine inspiration. As Josephus spoke about the prophets, they obtained their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to

U&ri!h, 61<62 Arie v-n der $ooi?, Canoni(ation of Ancient He!rew Boo)s and Hasmonean *olitics , in #. A%.ers -nd /.#. de #onge 0eds.1, The Bi!lical Canons 0Bi!liotheca "#hemeridum Theologicarum $ovanensium CL23331, Le%ven University Press4Peeters 2((5, *.29 1; #ose*h%s, Against A#ion, 3, 6<3, ). 16 $ooi?, 29 17 #ose*h%s, *.17; 1) $ooi?, 29 19 #ose*h%s, *.17; 2( #ose*h%s, 177 21 "ncyclo#edia of Theology% The Concise Sacramentum +undi, edited by $-r& @-hner, Crossro-d P%b&isher, N.A., 197;, *.169<17(
1+

15

God22, and therefore they were able to write a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred23. Thus, based on the divine inspiration, we can observe the fidelity of the writings. Speaking of the importance of the manuscripts from Qumran for our study, scholarship demonstrates that a number of books as containing the word of God, thus as authoritative Scripture referred to Torah and the Prophets24. Secondly, we are going to speak about the holiness character of the Jewish writings. As a particular aspect of this holiness, John Barton points out one passage from Mishnah about certain books which defile the hands25. This tradition brings to attention a different aspect of the authority of Scripture, namely the selection (inclusion or exclusion) of some books26. During the scholarships debate related to the holiness of text, few positions are developed: Martin Goodman, who suggests the intention of Pharisee to keep Jews away from the idolatry27, James Barr with the theory of the physical object in a liturgical context28 and of course, John Barton, who brings an important aspect in the discussion, the Holiness of the Name (Tetragrammaton) and its consequences to the Judaic texts tradition29. I would also fugitively mention the importance of the debates about the distinction between Oral and Written Torah (William A. Graham and Wilfred Cantwell Smith)30 for the fixation of the Judaic canon. Thirdly, there is the number of twenty-two books31. Some scholars do not agree with the statement of Josephus and his influence toward the fixation of the canon32. But, the scholarship position defines the notion of canon in the sense of a final and intertextual redaction which is meant to establish an interrelationship
#ose*h%s 3, 7 #ose*h%s 3, 7 2+ U&ri!h, 6; 2; 8-rton, 1(). 3 tend to s-y th-t those three boo's 0Ester, E!!&esi-stes -nd the ,ong of ,ongs1 sh-re - !o on gro%nd in re&-tion to the vie. of the Christi-n !-non of ,!ri*t%re, .hen .e s*e-' -bo%t their *&-!e .ithin !-non. 26 U&ri!h, 76. A!!ording to U&ri!h, the notion of canon includes, among others, three im#ortant as#ects highlighted !y umran: 't involves !oo)s, not the s#ecific textual form of the !oo)s, it entails reflective -udgment, and the canonical list excludes as well as includes !oo)s 0;91. 27 8-rton, 11( 2) 8-rton, 111. ,ee -&so Frederi!' E. :reens*-hn, Does .udaism Have a Bi!le/ 3n Studies in .ewish Civili(ation 01, ,-!red 7exts, ,e!%&-r 7i es9 7he /ebre. 8ib&e in the =odern "or&d, edited by Leon-rd #-y :reens*oon -nd 8ry-n F. Le8e-%, Creighton University Press, O -h-, Nebr-s'-. 29 8-rton, 115<11+ 5( 8-rton, 125<127 51 #ose*h%s, 3, ) 52 Lee =-rtin =!Bon-&d, The 'ntegrity of the Bi!lical Canon in $ight of 'ts Historical Develo#ment, 8%&&etin for 8ib&i!-& @ese-r!h 6 019961, *. 1(9<116
25 22

of a number of books33. Related to this notion of a standardized text34, is the perceiving of a closed or fixed canon35. According to Kooij, it is unsuitable to discuss about the closing of the Jewish canon of Scriptures before second century B.C.E.36 Besides the number of the authoritative books enumerated by Josephus (five books of Moses, 13 books of the Prophets and 4 books known as Writings)37, according to scholarship, there are two important aspects related to the texts: the ancestral character38 (Wisdom of Ben Sira) and the devotion to study (reading and interpretation) of the texts39. Fourthly, I will not insist upon the unalterable nature of the text, because this feature is based on either the divine nature of the message, or the echo of the utterance of Gods Name. Instead of emphasizing this aspect, I would shortly discuss about the time of crystallization of the so-called canon. Even though there are many skeptical voices about the dating of this canonization process40, Kooij is firmly convinced that since the second half of the second century BCE a particular collection of ancient Hebrew books was considered canonical in the sense of highly authoritative41. Concluding, we can say that, indeed, the idea of canon in Judaism is not a self-conscious one, is spite of its manifestation. It will subsequently appear, in Christianity. But the books containing Gods word were perceived as being authoritative Scripture42. The notion of a closed canon or collection is a foreign thought for the early Judaism, but during the history, there is a common agreement

$ooi?, 2) $ooi?, 2) 5; $ooi?, 2) 56 $ooi?, 2)<29 57 $ooi?, 29 5) $ooi?, 5(. A!!ording to $ooi?, the notion of !eing 2ancestral2 or 2ancient2 means that the o!-ect concerned is considered authoritative% 59 $ooi?, 5(<51. 3 .o%&d f%gitive&y re ind in this !ontext -bo%t the -n%s!ri*ts fro C% r-n, es*e!i-&&y the se!tion C, 2)<52, reg-rding the inter*ret-tion of the bib&i!-& text -nd the -ddressee 0- *o&iti!-& &e-der r-ther th-n - /igher Priest1 of the texts 0es!h-to&ogy1, -!!ording to Some 3or)s of the Torah 45 ++T6 C 0789% ,o e s!ho&-rs h-ve identified si i&it%des to the Christi-n :os*e& 0*.1911 +( Le !he h-s - oder-te -ttit%de in d-ting this !-noni>-tion, e *h-si>ing the s%b?e!tive -**re!i-tion of the boo's 0Le !he, 27)<2)(1. U&ri!h !onsiders th-t -t C% r-n, h-ve been the -%thorit-tive ,!ri*t%res b%t no !-non 0U&ri!h, 661. +1 $ooi?, 55 +2 U&ri!h, 76
5+

55

on the authority of the books43. This is valid, even though, according to Ulrich, there was no standardized texts neither was there yet a definitive canon of Scripture44. c) The canon in Christianity. The signification of the canon supposes several grounds, depending on the historical, theological, literary or theological context. The community, perceived as either physical or spiritual assembly, has played an important role in defining the notion of canon. As I mentioned above, the canon in Christianity represents the recognition and including of the Old Testament and the writings called New Testament, formed by the four Gospels, twenty one epistles, Acts and Johns Revelation. But, according to Lynch, the collection of writings called New Testament did not exist in its present form during the first three or four centuries. Christians living in the first and second centuries had no single written thing called a New Testament45. In their perception, the Scriptures were Jewish Bible, namely the Septuagint, the Greek translation46. According to Gerd Theissen, our Old Testament was a priori the holy scriptures of the Jews and therefore also the Bible of Jesus, the first disciples and the primitive Christian communities47. According to Metzger, who makes an actual radiography of the Christian biblical canon, there are several capital factors in canonical history. Thus, based on the existence of Jewish Scriptures and on Jesus agreement with them48, it was paradigmatic for the disciples and early Christians to accept those writings as their scriptures49. Secondly, there was a perception of Jesus in the first Christian communities, as speaking, on the one hand, in a classical language (of Ancient cultures) of the Law

+5 ,ee for inst-n!e the so<!-&&ed ,ynod fro #- ni- 09( CE1, .hen the &i its of the !-non of O&d 7est- ent h-ve been est-b&ished, in =et>ger, *. 2 -nd 1(9<11(. ++ U&ri!h, 77 +; Lyn!h, 71 +6 Lyn!h, 71 +7 :erd 7heissen, The :eligion of The "arliest Churches% Creating a Sym!olic 3orld, tr-ns&-ted by #ohn 8o.den, Fortress Press =inne-*o&is, 1999, *. 261 +) For inst-n!e, =-tthe. ;91+<19D L%'e 1(926D =-t. 199+D 169+2 -nd so on. +9 =et>ger, 2

and Prophets, and on the other hand, in a totally new and distinctive manner50. This aspect reflects the authoritative power of Jesuss word. Thirdly, we should take in consideration the apostolic authority and its mission to interpret and transmit the scriptures51. Fourthly, during the growing of the Christian literature, there was developed a unity between the early Christian communities, based on apostolicity52. Fifthly, besides the Gospels and apostolic epistles, there were added two other kinds of books, Acts of Apostles and the Revelation of John, which were perceived as a logical continuity of the rest of the scriptures, and as bearing Jesus and Apostles guarantee53. Last, besides the starting of the text translation, another process became more and more substantial: the selective process of fixation, namely, of sifting and rejecting books54. Another important feature in the formation of the Christian scriptural canon is traced by the Apostolic Fathers55. They represent, according to Metzger when talking about the position of the authority of the texts, a certain amount of doctrinal diversity in terms of developments within Jewish Christianity, on the one hand, and within Hellenistic Christianity, on the other56. They are important for the study of the notion of canon, not only for using some texts and providing them with authority, but also for their contribution, during the first century, to set together the documents, in a unity which subsequently will become the New Testament57. Otherwise, they represent the symbiosis between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Therein, Metzger refers to Clement of Rome, who uses in his Epistle to Romans, either quotations from the Old Testament, or from Gospels and Epistles of Paul58; Ignatius of Antioch, with his seven representative epistles, specifies that it is written59 to point out and translate some book, either from Old or New Testament60; The Didache, which also refers to
;( ;1

=et>ger, 5 =et>ger, 5<+ ;2 =et>ger, ; ;5 =et>ger, 6 ;+ =et>ger, 7 ;; =et>ger, 59 -nd fo&&o.ing. ;6 =et>ger, +( ;7 =et>ger, +( ;) =et>ger, +(<+5 ;9 =et>ger, +) 6( =et>ger, +;<+9

the Gospels, (it focuses on the Eucharistic dimension) and Paulines epistles61; Papias of Hierapolis, who had heard the apostle John preach and also a friend of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna62; Papias emphasizes the oral tradition in his work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord63, but also written accounts from the Gospels, he has two brief accounts about the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew64; The Epistle of Barnabas, which distinctively presents us a new and more accurate dimension of the New Testament and a more radical anti-Jewish stance in interpreting the Old Testament65; Polycarp of Smyrna, who identifies three authoritative norms of the Christian life66, he seems to already know of nine of the canonical letters of Paul67; Shepherd of Hermas and the So-Called Second Epistle of Clement provide us accounts of the familiarity with many writings of Old or New Testament, as they have been settled68. It is very important for our approach to mention the position of the Early Christian Church toward Marcion (d.160), who tries to develop his own canon which consisted of ten letters of Paul and a shortened version of Luke69. Besides, the Gnosticism, Montanism, and the persecutions have an overwhelming influence toward the Christian canon of the Scriptures. During this time, the Early Church manifested a selective attitude regarding which books are valuable and which are not. According to Lynch, the first writer who uses the term New Testament is Irenaeus of Lyons (about 180), who also placed the New Testament on the same footing as the Old Testament70. But like other contemporaneous sources, he did not state precisely what he included in that New Testament or why he accepted some documents and rejected others71. According to Theissen, the stages of the formation of the canon have begun with the separation of the whole canon into the Old, and respectively the New Testament72. This process developed into the early Christian community and it
61 62

=et>ger, ;(<;1 =et>ger, ;1 65 =et>ger, ;2 6+ =et>ger, ;5<;+ 6; =et>ger, ;6<;7 66 =et>ger, 6( 67 @-hner, 171 6) =et>ger, 6+<72 69 Lyn!h, 72 7( Lyn!h, 72 71 Lyn!h, 72 72 7heissen, 261

became stringent when they had to pronounce themselves in the matter of the unity and integrity of the scriptures73. But, based on the attempt of Marcion to divide the Old Testament from the New, even more, to divide inner writings of the New Testament, and also based on the diversity74, the Christianity decided to separately perceive the Gospels from the rest of New Testament writings75. It was also a counterbalanced respect toward both epistles of Paul and the rest of the writings76. Nevertheless, according to Lynch, by the later second century, a consensus had developed among them about the core of a New Testament, which included the four canonical gospels and the letters of Paul. For instance, the Muratorian Fragment, probably written in Rome in about year 200, throws considerable light on canonmaking and on the canon at that time, in that place77. But the Muratorian Fragment is important because it is a snap-shot of the as-yet-incomplete process that created the New Testament. On the other hand, it shows that about 200 the proto-orthodox consensus had embraced the gust of a New Testament, especially four gospels and Pauls letters. But differences of opinion persisted for a long time about some documents, including the Apocalypse of John, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, and some of the other letters in the back of a modern New Testament78. At the same time, according to Metzger, the terminology referring to the canonicity underlines the principle of recognition (recipere), of acceptance (habere), and of being held sacred (sanctificatae sunt)79. As norms of the authority, we mention the public reading in a service of worship and authorship by those who were eye- and ear- witnesses, i.e. apostles80. Eusebius of Caesarea, another noteworthy figure in the history of the Christian canon, besides providing information about the decisions taken by the Council of

7heissen, 262<265. ,ee, for the inst-n!e, the o**osition of =-r!ion, .ho tried to distort the %nity -nd the -%thority of the !-non. A!t%-&&y, the excommunication of +arcion for his ;nostic and anti7.ewish ideas<#rovided a decisive stimulus for the formation of the Church=s canon 0@-hner, 1711. 7+ 7heisse, 26+. 7he diversity -nd the *-rti!%&-rity -re -&so res*onsib&e for the e ergen!e of the -*o!ry*h-& &iter-t%re, th-t, d%e to the &-!' of ti e -nd s*-!e, .e do not dis!%ss here, b%t it *&-ys -n i *ort-nt ro&e in both #%d-is -nd Christi-n notion of !-non. 7; 7heissen, 265 -nd next 76 7heissen, 26)<271 77 Lyn!h, 75. A!!ording to Lyn!h, the =%r-tori-n Fr-g ent ight be *er!eived -s - sort of Ne. 7est- ent, tho%gh fro t.enty<seven boo's, the -%thor of this fr-g ent in!&%des on&y t.enty<t.o 0*.751. 7) Lyn!h, 75 79 =et>ger, 199 )( =et>ger, 199

75

Nicaea (325), when the date of Easter has been settled, develops criteria theory for the writings of the New Testament in three sections, after their importance81. The bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373) is the one who listed for the first time the canon of the New Testament exactly as it is today82. He also listed the twenty two books of the Old Testament canon83. By now, the early Christianity will have a support, and during three church councils, one at Hippo (393) and two to Carthage (397 and 419), Bishop Augustine of Hippo reaffirmed the modern canon of the New Testament84. Subsequently, Jerome (about 346-420) revised the competing Latin translation of the New Testament, he included only books in the consensus85. Resuming, we can say that, in spite of the challenges and hesitations of the early Christians, the main factors which contribute to define the canon were Jesus and the Apostles guarantee, the consensus86 and the importance and usage of the texts for the cult and knowledge87. In spite of the dynamic aspect of the Christian tradition (speaking of Roman-Catholic and Orthodox churches), the canon of the Christianity is closed, and it reflects the unity of early Christianity, despite of its diversity. I shall not insist upon the divine inspiration, the differentiation of the texts, due to the lack of time and space. CONCLUSION I have attempted to present the notion of canon both in Judaism and Christianity. I am aware that I could have focused on much more interesting aspects, such as doing a critical presentation, besides the historical one, which has been presented here. This may the the focus of a future project and investigation. However, I preferred on this occasion to present both explanations of canon as a logical continuity in a historical process. Even so, not leaving aside other realities, theological, literary, sociological, cultural, I would say that the canon for both religions represents a unifying and uniqueness factor.
)1 )2

=et>ger, 2(5<2(+ Lyn!h, 75 )5 Lyn!h, 7; )+ Lyn!h, 7; ); Lyn!h, 7; )6 A!!ording to =et>ger, the rule of the faith, 2;1. )7 =et>ger, 2;5 so on.

1(

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources: 1. Josephus. Against Apion I, pp. 28-46. 2. Some Works of the Torah (4QMMT) C 1-32. 3. The Holy Bible. Old and New Testaments in the King James Version. Regency Publishing House. Nashville, New York, 1976. Secondary sources: 1. Barton, John. The Spirit and the Letter. Studies in the Biblical Canon, London: SPCK 1997, pp.106-130. 2. Cross, F., L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Third edition edited by E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 1997. 3. Frederick E. Greenspahn. Does Judaism Have a Bible? In Studies in Jewish Civilization 10. Sacred Texts, Secular Times: The Hebrew Bible in the Modern World. Edited by Leonard Jay Greenspoon and Bryan F. LeBeau. Creighton University Press, Omaha, Nebraska. 4. Kooij, van der Arie. Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics. In J. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge (Eds.). The Biblical Canons (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovanensium CLXIII). Leuven University Press/Peeters 2003, pp. 27-38. 5. Lemche, N., P. The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey. Westminster John Knox Press. Louisville, Kentucky, 2008. 6. Lynch, Joseph, H. Early Christianity. A Brief History. Oxford University Press, 2010. 7. McDonald, Martin, Lee. The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development. Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996), pp. 95-132. 8. Metzger, Bruce, M. The Canon of the New Testament. Its origin, development and significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1987. 9. Rahner, Karl. Encyclopedia of Theology. The Concise Sacramentum Mundi. Crossroad Publisher. New York, 1975. 10.Theissen, Gerd. The Religion of the Earliest Churches. Creating a Symbolic World. Translated by John Bowden. Fortress Press Minneapolis, 1999.
11

11.Ulrich, Eugene. Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament. In J. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge (Eds.). The Biblical Canons (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovanensium CLXIII). Leuven University Press/Peeters 2003, pp. 57-80.

12