"The
history of early Christianity clearly reveals that God used His Church,
composed of flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the
process of selecting and establishing the New Testament canon, just as
He used real people —with feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds
and perspectives—to write the twenty-seven separate books."
Sometimes it is easy
to overlook the obvious. Take, for instance, the New Testament. Even though
every Christian really knows better, it is easy to forget that the New
Testament was not written as one continuous book. Rather, it is a collection
of twenty-seven shorter writings which were penned by a variety of authors
at differing times and geographical locations and compiled much later.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a list of what books belong in
the New Testament. The “canon” of Scripture is, of course,
not “scriptural.”
This brings up anther
important question which may not be so obvious. Who, then, decided which
books should be included in the New Testament canon and which ones left
out?
As a Jewish convert
to Christianity via evangelical Protestantism, I once refused to acknowledge
that the Church had anything to do with compiling the New Testament.
I wanted to believe God chose and collected these books without human
involvement. The books, I assumed, somehow validated themselves beyond
all reasonable doubt, and early Christians merely recognized their obvious
scriptural status.
Though there is some
degree of truth in this position, it is by itself naive and unbalanced.
The history of early Christianity clearly reveals that God used His Church,
composed of flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the
process of selecting and establishing the New Testament canon, just as
He used real people—with feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds
and perspectives—to write the twenty-seven separate books.
WHAT BIBLE
DID THE APOSTLES USE?
“All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God” (II Timothy 3:16). I had always
assumed that the “Scripture” spoken of in this passage included
both the Old and New Testament. In reality, there was no official “New”
Testament when this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still
in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive
list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity.
As I studied further
I discovered that early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old
Testament called the Septuagint. * This translation, which was
begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C., contained an expanded
canon which included a number of the so-called “deutero-canonical”
books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were
eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon.
In reaction to the
rise of Christianity the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded
the deutero-canonical books—although they still regarded them as
sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third
century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon
of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, which
is followed by most of the Protestant Church today.
HISTORY IN
THE MAKING
The history of the
New Testament canon and its development is a fascinating subject —
and crucial to the understanding of both the Bible and the Church. For
over two hundred years a number of books we now take for granted as being
part of the New Testament were disputed by the Church before being included.
Many other books were considered for inclusion, but eventually excluded.
I was shocked when I first discovered that the earliest complete listing
of all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was not given until A.D.
367, by Athanasius, a bishop in Egypt.
This means that the
first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today didn’t
appear until over 300 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.
Imagine it! If the New Testament were begun at the same time as the U.S.
Constitution, we wouldn’t see a final product until the year 2087!
During the first four
centuries there was substantial disagreement over which books should be
included in the canon of Scripture. The first person we know of who tried
to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion.
He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and in so doing dispense
with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only one
Gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles. That’s
it!
Many believe that
it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the
early Church determined to have a clearly defined canon of its own. The
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian
community of Jerusalem, and the threatened loss of continuity in the oral
tradition probably also contributed to the sense of urgency to standardize
the list of books Christians could rely on.
THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO WHOM?
The four Gospels were
written from thirty to seventy years after Jesus’ death and Resurrection.
In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition—the accounts
of eye-witnesses—as well as scattered documents and written tradition.
I was very surprised to discover as I first studied the early Church that
many “Gospels” besides those of the New Testament canon were
circulating in the first and second centuries.
These include the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians,
and the Gospel according to Peter, just to name a few.
The New Testament
itself speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke’s Gospel
begins by saying, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in
order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among
us. . . it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of
all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account. .
.“ In time, all but four Gospels were excluded from the New Testament
canon.
In the early years
of Christianity there was even a controversy over which of the
four Gospels to use. The Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John
rather than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion
account contained in John, Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter
on a different day than those in Rome, which resisted the Gospel of John
and instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated
to use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics also made use of
it in addition to their own “secret Gospels.”
Another controversy
arose over the issue of whether there should be separate Gospels or one
single composite Gospel account. In the second century, Tatian, who was
Justin Martyr’s student, published a single composite “harmonized”
Gospel called the Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite Gospel
in the second, third, and fourth centuries. This is the very Church to
which “the Nazares” (Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) eventually
migrated after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in A.D. 70. The Syrian
Church did not accept all four Gospels until the fifth century. They also
ignored for a time the three epistles of John, and Second Peter.
OTHER CONTROVERSIAL
BOOKS
My favorite New Testament
book, the Epistle to the Hebrews, was clearly excluded in the Western
Church in a number of listings of the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Prominent among reasons for excluding this book were concerns over its
authorship. Primarily due to Augustine and his influence upon certain
North African councils, the Epistle to the Hebrews was finally accepted
in the West by the end of the fourth century.
On the other hand,
the book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, written by the Apostle
John, was not accepted in the Eastern Church for several centuries. Once
again, questions concerning authorship of the book were at the source
of the controversy. Among Eastern authorities who rejected this book were
Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third century), Cyril
of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea (fourth century),
John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta (fourth century),
and Theodoret (fifth century). In addition, the original Syriac and Armenian
versions of the New Testament omitted this book. Many Greek New Testament
manuscripts written before the ninth century do not contain the Apocalypse,
and it is not used in the liturgical cycle of the Eastern Church to this
day.
Athanasius supported
the inclusion of the Apocalypse, and it is due primarily to his influence
that it was eventually received into the New Testament canon in the East.
The early Church actually seems to have made an internal compromise on
the Apocalypse and Hebrews. The East would have excluded the Apocalypse
from the canon, while the West would have done without Hebrews. Simply
put, each side agreed to accept the disputed books of the other.
WHO DECIDED?
With the passage of
time the Church discerned which writings were truly Apostolic and which
were not. It was a prolonged struggle taking place over several centuries
in which the Church decided what books were her own. As part of the process
of discerning, the Church met together in council. These various Church
councils met to deal with many varied issues, among which was the canon
of Scripture.
These councils met
to discern and formally confirm what was already generally accepted within
the Church at large. They did not legislate Scripture as much as they
set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the Churches
of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church
and reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition of the local
Churches represented.
The Church Councils
provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and
in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that
met during the first four centuries, two particularly stand out:
1. The Council of
Laodicea, which met in Asia Minor, around A.D. 363. This council stated
that only canonical books of the Old and New Testaments should be used
in the Church. It forbade reading other books in Church. It enumerated
the canonical books of our present Old and New Testaments, with the exception
of the Apocalypse of Saint John. This is the first council which clearly
listed the canonical books. Its decisions were widely accepted in the
Eastern Church.
2. The Third Council
of Carthage, which met in North Africa, around A.D. 397.This Council,
attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of
both Old and New Testaments. The 27 books of the present day New Testament
were accepted as canonical. It also held that these books should be read
in the Church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This
Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
A QUESTION
OF AUTHORITY
As I said at the beginning
of this article, the history of the New Testament canon and its development
is crucial to a proper understanding of both the Bible and the Church.
The implications are indeed profound, and they call for some serious heart-searching
on the part of all Christians. I would like to conclude on a personal
note by showing you exactly how profound these implications can
be. For they brought about some radical changes in my life—not only
in how I came to approach Scripture and its interpretation, but in how
I now relate to Christ’s holy Church in its historical expression.
Soon after my own
conversion to Christianity I found myself getting swept up in the tide
of Christian sectarianism which is so pervasive in the Protestant world.
In fact, I eventually became so sectarian that I came to believe that
all Churches were non-biblical. To become a member of any Church was to
compromise the Faith. A close friend of mine even wrote a book called The Bible Versus the Churches, in which he argued that the Bible
was true, and in conflict with Churches, all of which were false.
For me, Church became
“the Bible, God, and me.” My attitude towards others was,
“Tell me what you believe and I’ll tell you where you’re
wrong!” Even my Christian friends became suspect. And my friend
who wrote The Bible Versus the Churches came to believe that
the Bible was in conflict with me as well! We parted ways.
This hostility towards
Churches fit in well with my being a Jew. I naturally distrusted Churches
because I felt they had betrayed the teachings of Christ in having persecuted
or passively ignored the persecution of the Jews throughout history. As
I became increasingly sectarian, indeed even obnoxious and anti-social,
I slowly began to realize that something was seriously wrong with my approach
to Christianity. I also realized that many of my Jewish-Christian brethren
had also fallen into an elitist and sectarian “super-Christian”
mold, believing that they were on a mission to clean up “Gentile
Christianity.”
This realization led
me to a sincere study of the history of the early Church, where I discovered
four centuries of discussion and debate over which books should be included
and excluded from the New Testament canon. It soon became clear to me
that I was dealing with a larger issue— the issue of Church authority.
Biblical scholarship
had given me four criteria to determine if a book was to be included as
canonical.
1. It must be written
by Apostles or disciples of the Apostles.
2. It must be considered inspired of God.
3. It must be accepted by the Church.
4. It must conform to the oral tradition and rule of faith taught by the
Church.
I had no difficulty
accepting the first two criteria. I wrestled mightily, however, with the
thought that the Church had been given the authority to judge what books
composed Scripture. Ultimately, it came down to a single issue. I already
believed that God spoke authoritatively through His written Word. Could
I now accept the fact that He spoke authoritatively through His Church
as well—the very Church which had protected, preserved, and actively
produced the Scriptures I held so dear?
THE CHURCH
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
For the earliest Christians,
God spoke His Word not only to but through His Body,
the Church, and it was within His Body, the Church, that the
Word was confirmed and established. Without question the Scriptures were
looked upon by early Christians as God’s active revelation of Himself
to the world. At the same time, the Church was looked upon as the household
of God, “having been built on the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the
whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the
Lord” (Ephesians 2:20-21).
There was no organic
separation between Bible and Church as we find so often today. The Body
without the Word is without message, but the Word without the Body is
without foundation. As Paul says in I Timothy 3:15, “The church
of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” The Church
is the living body of the incarnate Lord. She is an integral part of the
Gospel message and it is within the context of the Church that the New
Testament was conceived and preserved.
This study was instrumental
in my eventual conversion to the Orthodox Faith. If the Church was not
just a tangent or a sidelight to the Scripture, but rather an active participant
in its development and preservation, then it was time to reconcile my
differences and abandon my prejudices. Rather than try to judge the Church
by my modern understanding of what the Bible was saying, I needed to come
into union with the Church that produced the New Testament, and let her
guide me into a proper understanding.
To make a long story
short, I am now an Orthodox priest serving in Seattle, Washington, and
am striving to witness to the power of God’s Holy Church. To those
who, like I once did, stand dogmatically on “Sola Scriptura,”
in the process rejecting the Church of God which not only produced the
New Testament, but also selected through the guidance of the Holy Spirit
those books which compose the New Testament, I would say only this:
Study the history
of the early Church and the development of the New Testament canon. Use
source documents where possible. (It is amazing how some of the most “conservative”
Bible scholars of the evangelical community turn into cynical and rationalistic
liberals when discussing Church history.) Examine for yourself what happened
to God’s people after the 28th chapter of the book of Acts.
If you examine the
data and look with objectivity at what occurred in those early days, I
think you will discover what I discovered. The history of God’s
Church didn’t stop with the first century. If it had, we would not
possess the New Testament books which are so dear to every Christian believer.
The phenomena of separating Church and Bible which we see so prevalent
in much of today’s Christian world is a modern phenomena. Early
Christians made no such artificial distinctions.
Once you have examined
this data, I would encourage you to find out more about the historic Church
which produced the New Testament, preserved it, and selected those books
which would be part of its canon. Every Christian owes it to himself or
herself to find out more about this Church and to understand its vital
role in proclaiming God’s Word to our own generation.
Fr.
A. James Bernstein is the pastor of Saint Paul Orthodox Church in Lynnwood,
Washington.
* THE PSALTER
ACCORDING TO THE SEVENTY
The Use of the Septuagint
by the Early Church
What Old Testament
text did early Christians use when they prayed the Psalms? Many are surprised
to learn that the official text was not the Hebrew or Masoretic text which
forms the basis of most modern English translations today. In order to
understand why, it is necessary to know something of the background of
the text of the Old Testament.
At the time of Christ,
the Apostles, and the early Church, Hebrew had long since ceased to be
the commonly spoken language, even among the Jews. Although Jesus understood
Hebrew, He would have spoken Aramaic – the common language of Palestine
– with His disciples. ; Jesus and His disciples were probably familiar,
at least to a certain extent, with Greek, the common language of the Roman
Empire.
Because Greek was
the most widely spoken and read language of the empire at large, a translation
of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek had been accomplished, according
to tradition, by seventy translators, in the city of Alexandria, during
the third century before Christ. The name Septuagint means “according
to the seventy.” The Septuagint, or LXX, was without question the
most common text of the Scriptures at the time of Jesus and the Apostles.
It was the Old Testament of the early Church.
The other text used
at that period was the Hebrew text that had been preserved by the rabbis
and scribes of Israel. Those who read today about scriptural manuscripts
will have undoubtedly run across references made to the “masoretic”
texts, which means the texts of the scribes (who were known as “masoretes”).
In the first century,
after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the end
of the Jewish priesthood, the authority of the rabbis in Israel became
absolute. Before that time the rabbis occupied a position secondary to
the priests. The rabbis and scribes distrusted anything that was not written
in the traditional Hebrew language, and consequently they rejected the
Septuagint text. But for the early Church the Septuagint was always used.
When the New Testament quotes the Old, which it frequently does, and when
it quotes the Psalms, which it very frequently does, it quotes the Septuagint
text exclusively. That is one of the reasons why the Orthodox Church today
still continues to use the Septuagint text.
From what Hebrew text
was the Septuagint translated? The actual Hebrew manuscripts which formed
the basis of this translation, centuries before Christ, have been lost.
The Orthodox Church believes that the Hebrew text upon which the Septuagint
is based is actually older and more venerable than the Hebrew text of
the scribes.
Though both texts, the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, are quite similar
in many ways, there are significant differences. These differences can
primarily be summed up by saying that the messianic prophecies found throughout
the Psalms and the prophetic writings are far more explicit in the Septuagint
text than in the Masoretic text.
A careful study of
the Psalms reveals how crucially different the Septuagint text is in these
messianic portions. Orthodoxy regards the intensification of messianic
prophecy that occurred in the Septuagint text to be the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit preparing Israel for the coming of the Savior. As the
time of the Messiah drew nearer and nearer, the prophecies of His coming
became more and more explicit.
For the most part,
translators during and after the Reformation, in an attempt to get back
to what they thought were the roots of the Old Testament text, chose to
use the Hebrew texts of the scribes and rejected the traditional use of
the Septuagint. Therefore the Bibles most commonly available in English,
whether they be NKJV or RSV or another English translation, are translations
of the Hebrew text of the scribes, not translations of the Septuagint.
The traditional text of the Orthodox Church, however, whether it be in
her singing of the Psalms in worship, or her study of the Old Testament,
is still the text of the early Church: the Septuagint.
From Again Magazine
Publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Volume 15, No. 3, September 1992
pp. 7-10
