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 catalogue 1. 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 Bible 3, 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
1 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. Lemche, The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey,
Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 2008, p.274. See also the
definition of Eugene Ulrich, in his article 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, p.76.
3 The name of Jewish Bible is Tanakh, and it is structured by three groups: a) The
Law (Torah), b) the Prophets and c) other books known as Writings (Cross, 198).
4 Joseph H. Lynch, Early Christianity. A Brief History, Oxford University Press, 2010,
p.71. Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, being used, since
from very beginning by Early Christianity (Lynch, 71).
1

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.
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 chronology 11. Finally, the word
canon is used in all kinds of disciplines, either humanistic or realistic12.
5 John Barton, The Spirit and the Letter. Studies in the Biblical Canon, London: SPCK
1997, p.106-107
6 Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Its origin, development and
significance, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987, p. v.
7 Metzger, 289
8 Ulrich, 57
9 Metzeger, 289
10 Metzeger, 289
11 Metzger, 290
12 Metzger, 290
2

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-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
13 Ulrich, 61-62
14 Arie van der Kooij, 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, p.29
15 Josephus, Against Apion, I, 6-I, 8.
16 Kooij, 29
17 Josephus, p.175
18 Kooij, 29
3

 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
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
19 Josephus, p.175
20 Josephus, 177
21 Encyclopedia of Theology. The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, edited by Karl
Rahner, Crossroad Publisher, N.Y., 1975, p.169-170
22 Josephus I, 7
23 Josephus I, 7
24 Ulrich, 65
25 Barton, 108. I tend to say that those three books (Ester, Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs) share a common ground in relation to the view of the Christian
canon of Scripture, when we speak about their place within canon.
4

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 idolatry 27, James Barr with
the theory of the physical object in a liturgical context 28 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 tradition 29. 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 books 31. 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
of a number of books33. Related to this notion of a standardized text 34, is the
26 Ulrich, 76. According to Ulrich, the notion of canon includes, among others, three
important aspects highlighted by Qumran: It involves books, not the specific textual
form of the books; it entails reflective judgment; and the canonical list excludes as
well as includes books (59).
27 Barton, 110
28 Barton, 111. See also 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.
29 Barton, 113-114
30 Barton, 123-127
31 Josephus, I, 8
32 Lee Martin McDonald, The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical
Development, Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996), p. 109-116
33 Kooij, 28
34 Kooij, 28
5

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
35 Kooij, 28
36 Kooij, 28-29
37 Kooij, 29
38 Kooij, 30. According to Kooij, the notion of being ancestral or ancient means
that the object concerned is considered authoritative.
39 Kooij, 30-31. I would fugitively remind in this context about the manuscripts from
Qumran, especially the section C, 28-32, regarding the interpretation of the biblical
text and the addressee (a political leader rather than a Higher Priest) of the texts
(eschatology), according to Some Works of the Torah (4QMMT) C 1-32. Some
scholars have identified similitudes to the Christian Gospel (p.191)
40 Lemche has a moderate attitude in dating this canonization, emphasizing the
subjective appreciation of the books (Lemche, 278-280). Ulrich considers that at
Qumran, have been the authoritative Scriptures but no canon (Ulrich, 66).
41 Kooij, 33
6

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
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.
42 Ulrich, 76
43 See for instance the so-called Synod from Jamnia (90 CE), when the limits of the
canon of Old Testament have been established, in Metzger, p. 2 and 109-110.
44 Ulrich, 77
45 Lynch, 71
46 Lynch, 71
47 Gerd Theissen, The Religion of The Earliest Churches. Creating a Symbolic World,
translated by John Bowden, Fortress Press Minneapolis, 1999, p. 261
7

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
and Prophets, and on the other hand, in a totally new and distinctive manner 50. 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
48 For instance, Matthew 5:14-19; Luke 10:26; Mat. 19:4; 16:42 and so on.
49 Metzger, 2
50 Metzger, 3
51 Metzger, 3-4
52 Metzger, 5
53 Metzger, 6
54 Metzger, 7
55 Metzger, 39 and following.
8

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
the Gospels, (it focuses on the Eucharistic dimension) and Paulines epistles 61;
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

56 Metzger, 40
57 Metzger, 40
58 Metzger, 40-43
59 Metzger, 48
60 Metzger, 45-49
61 Metzger, 50-51
62 Metzger, 51
63 Metzger, 52
64 Metzger, 53-54
9

stance in interpreting the Old Testament 65; Polycarp of Smyrna, who identifies
three authoritative norms of the Christian life 66, 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
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
65 Metzger, 56-57
66 Metzger, 60
67 Rahner, 171
68 Metzger, 64-72
69 Lynch, 72
70 Lynch, 72
71 Lynch, 72
72 Theissen, 261
10

Testament, and also based on the diversity74, the Christianity decided to separately
perceive the Gospels from the rest of New Testament writings 75. 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 place 77. 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
73 Theissen, 262-263. See, for the instance, the opposition of Marcion, who tried to
distort the unity and the authority of the canon. Actually, the excommunication of
Marcion for his Gnostic and anti-Jewish ideasprovided a decisive stimulus for the
formation of the Churchs canon (Rahner, 171).
74 Theisse, 264. The diversity and the particularity are also responsible for the
emergence of the apocryphal literature, that, due to the lack of time and space, we
do not discuss here, but it plays an important role in both Judaism and Christian
notion of canon.
75 Theissen, 263 and next
76 Theissen, 268-271
77 Lynch, 73. According to Lynch, the Muratorian Fragment might be perceived as a
sort of New Testament, though from twenty-seven books, the author of this
fragment includes only twenty-two (p.73).
78 Lynch, 73
79 Metzger, 199
11

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
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 today 82. 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.
80 Metzger, 199
81 Metzger, 203-204
82 Lynch, 73
83 Lynch, 75
84 Lynch, 75
85 Lynch, 75
86 According to Metzger, the rule of the faith, 251.
87 Metzger, 253 so on.
12

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.
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.
13

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.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.

14