The authoritive list of books of the Bible is called the canon. The process by which the books came to included in this list is called canonization. These English terms are derived from a Greek work (kanon) which means rule or standard. Usually discussions of the canon of the New Testament ignore the use of the term itself in the New Testament documents. In this essay we will explore the significance of Paul's use of the term "canon" (kanon) for his understanding of his own writings and for the theological issue of the canon of scripture.
The term "canon" (kanon) is used in the New Testament documents five times. All of these occurrences are in the writings of Paul. (2 Corinthians 10:13, 15, 16; Galatians 6:16; and Philippians 3:16) The King James Version translates this word four times as "rule" and once as "line." In the last two instances, Galatians 6:16 and Philippians 3:16, the term is used for the standard by which Christians ought to live.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16) and Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. (Philippians 3:16 )
These two biblical texts are not unrelated to the technical question of the canon of the New Testament Scriptures. The canon of the New Testament is the question of which documents are to be regarded as the literary sources that contain "this rule" by which we are to walk. When we think of canon, we usually think of a list of documents. Since our earliest list is rather late, and since there are differences between the various ancient lists, we can wrongly conclude that the New Testament did not become a rule for the Church until it was "canonized." Sometimes Roman and Orthodox writers dismiss the Protestant idea of sola scriptura on this basis. The implication is made that the books of the New Testament became canon by the action of the Church. In fact, the documents of the New Testament are cited as a rule for the Church in virtually every Christian document we have outside the New Testament. If the New Testament documents were not, first of all, a canon (rule, standard) for the Church, it would not matter nearly so much which books were counted as part of the New Testament. At times this truth is forgotten in discussions of the process of canonization of the New Testament documents. Our sources for the canon of the New Testament are not extensive, and they are relatively late. There were debates in ancient Church over the authenticity of a some of the New Testament documents. But these debates took place because the writings of the Apostles were from the beginning regarded as authoritative for the Church, that is to say, as canon for the Church. Long before we had any literary evidence of a debate concerning the correct list of authoritative documents for the Church, the New Testament documents were functioning as canon. Indeed, at least as far as Paul's writings are concerned, they were canon from their composition. Paul wrote with the intention that his letters would be a rule by which the Church was to be governed. He wrote "canonical" letters, that is to say, he wrote letters intended to govern the faith and practice of the Church.
Paul expressed this canonical intent in his second letter to the Thessalonians when he wrote: But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions (taV paradoseiV) which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15) Paul's concern was that the Thessalonians hold to the traditions they have received from him. What Paul had taught the Thessalonians was both "the truth" and "our gospel." Paul refers to his teaching as "the traditions which you were taught." Paul desired that the Thessalonians not lose hold of these traditions. Later in 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Corinthians Paul also refers to his teaching as" the tradition(s)." But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6) and Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
Paul regarded his teaching, that is to say, the traditions he delivered to the Churches, to be the very Word of God. They were not traditions in our common usage, i.e., merely human customs. Rather, these traditions are God's self-revelation to men. Paul had written earlier to the Thessalonians: For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Paul's teachings are the Word of God because he received them from Christ directly. Paul introduces his version of Eucharist by saying: For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you . . . (1 Corinthians 11:23) In Ephesians Paul says that his message is by revelation from God. For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles -- if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation (apokaluyin) He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy Apostles and prophets: (Ephesians 3:1-5)
Thus Paul's teachings, the traditions he delivered to the Churches, are the Word of God. They are inspired by the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to the way the New Testament documents regard the Old Testament documents as inspired. That is to say, they are a result of the immediate action of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostle. But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit . . . These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:9-10,13)
Therefore, Paul's teaching is Word of God as much as the Scripture (Old Testament) is the Word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since these traditions are "in truth the word of God," to depart from them was to depart from Christ. It was to turn aside to merely human traditions that have no power to save. As Paul said to the Colossians: Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8) The traditions Paul delivered to the Churches stand in contrast to "the tradition of men." Paul's teachings are divine, heavenly, and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, these traditions form a rule for the Church.
These traditions, however, were presented to the Churches, not only by oral teaching but also by letters. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) For the Apostle the form of the communication is secondary. The content and the function are the same for both written and oral instruction. Therefore, we can say that the letters of Paul functioned as canon for the Church just as much as his oral preaching and teaching. His teachings, written or oral, represented the will of God for the Church. Those who did not abide by those traditions were to be separated from the community. But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6) Indeed, Paul regards his writings as the very commandments of God. If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments (entolai) of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37) No one can rightly claim leadership in the Church unless he acknowledges that Paul's writings are canon for the Church. Paul places his writings on a par with those of Moses who also wrote down the commandments of the Lord. (Romans 13:9)
Let us summarize. Paul's teachings, oral or written, are the commandments of the Lord, the tradition received from Christ, the very Word of God. This is the way Paul presents his teaching to the Churches. Thus from the very beginning Paul's writings were a canon, a rule, a standard for the Church. It is unlikely, therefore, that he made no provision for the distribution of his writings. And in fact, he did make such provision. First of all, he insisted that his writings be read to the congregation. This itself put them on a par with the Old Testament documents that were read in synagogue and Christian assembly. And Paul instructed that his letters not only be read in the congregations to which they were sent (1 Thessalonians 5:27), but that the congregations exchange his letters. Paul writes to the Colossians: Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16)
Neither congregation, Colossae or Laodicea, had seen Paul face to face. But his letters are sent to them as authoritative instruction that was to be shared between them. It is unlikely that the Colossians simply gave away their original of the Paul's letter. It is much more likely that they sent the Laodiceans a copy of their letter and vice-versa. In other words, the copying and collecting of a corpus of Pauline writings would have begun when the letters were first sent out. In light of this, we can speculate that the absence of "to Ephesus" in some manuscripts of Paul's letter reflects this collecting and passing around of Paul's letters. It has been suggested that the letter to the Ephesians was a circular letter sent to a number of Churches and only the one to the Ephesians has survived. However, it is also plausible that when the Ephesians made copies of their letter for others, they left off the inscription since it was not needed. What Paul had written to the Ephesians was as binding in Laodicea as it was in Ephesus.
We find confirmation of the collection process in Peter's second letter. Peter writes: Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16) This is a remarkable passage. Its attribution of the term "Scriptures" to Paul's writings has led some to doubt its authenticity. On reflection, this actually buttresses its authenticity. In the first place, Paul refers to Peter in his letter to the Galatians so there is nothing strange about Peter referring to Paul. This is all the more the case if 2 Peter was sent to the same Churches as 1 Peter since many of these Churches were evangelized by Paul (1 Peter 1:1-2). Likewise, while Paul does not call his writings "Scriptures," he regards them as the equivalent of the Old Testament in inspiration and authority. If Peter respected that claim, it would not be implausible for him to refer to Paul's writings as a part of the "Scriptures."
If we regard 2 Peter as authentically Petrine, (or even as composed pseudographically prior to the destruction of Jerusalem), then we have an early witness regarding the "canonization" of Paul's writings. Peter knows about, and has apparently read Paul's writings. He himself can testify that sometimes Paul's writings are a bit oblique: "in which are some things hard to understand." Furthermore, Peter is aware of a definite collection of Pauline writings. He speaks of "all his epistles (pasaiV epistolaiV)." This phrase suggests both that 2 Peter is written not long before Peter and Paul's martyrdoms, and that by the time of its writing Paul's letters have been collected and distributed among the Churches as a very well-defined collection. Peter apparently has access to such a collection, and he expects his readers to also be acquainted with all of Paul's writings. . . . as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles . . . Whoever Peter's intended readers were, they had received letters from Paul, and they were acquainted with letters Paul has sent to other Churches. Paul's letters were a part of the writings (Scriptures) that were a canon (rule) for the Church. Those of unstable minds might distort the writings of Paul, but so too had they distorted the writings of Moses and Isaiah.
If then the Churches were collecting Paul's writings within his lifetime as Colossians 4:16 and 2 Peter 3:14-16 suggest, it is also plausible that Paul himself kept copies of his correspondence. Perhaps such a collection was included in the books and parchments that Paul wanted Timothy to bring to him. Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come -- and the books, especially the parchments. (2 Timothy 4:13) It is much more plausible that Paul kept his copies of the Old Testament Scriptures with him, but left his copies of his own writings at Troas, than that he failed to keep hold on Scriptures from which he taught. Further, it is reasonable to assume that such copies of his own writings would be on durable parchment.
What, then, can we conclude from this study of Paul's understanding of his writings? First of all, Paul wrote his letters as a rule or canon for the Church. What he wrote was to be received as the commandments of the Lord. Failure to keep what he wrote meant that such a transgressor was to be removed from the fellowship of believers. However we interpret the centuries-later process of listing the authentic documents of the New Testament, Paul's writings do not become canon by this process. They began as canon and functioned as canon from their composition.
Furthermore, Paul's writings were collected and distributed among the Churches at his instruction. As 2 Peter 3:14-16 witnesses, a definite corpus of Pauline writings was known prior to Peter's death, was known by Peter, and regarded by him as a part of the authoritative writings that governed the Church, that is to say, as a part of the Scriptures. Therefore, we must regard the canonization process of later centuries as a "second" canonization, that is, a recognition by later generations of the Church of what was already recognized and received by the first generation of the Church. We must be careful, therefore, in drawing theological conclusions from this later canonization process.
It may, in fact, be inaccurate to describe the later discussions of a list of New Testament books as a process of canonization. The various sources on the canon in the second to the fourth centuries may be isolated from each other. Each responding as best they could to questions of which writings were authentic. Such questions would inevitable arise with the passing of the first generation, the effects of Roman persecution, and intensity of doctrinal controversies in which heretics cited New Testament texts to support their heresies. (This later phenomenon was already happening in Peter's day when the unstable were distorting Paul's writings to their own destruction. Perhaps some were questioning Paul's writings as a result. This could explain why Peter defended Paul's writings.)
We need to remember that the same people who drew up lists of authentic Apostolic documents, also appealed to those same documents in the controversies with the heretics. It is implausible that Athanasius understood his "canon" as anything other than an accurate list of books received from the beginning as the canon of the Church. And if he had, his understanding of Paul's writings would be in conflict with Paul's understanding of Paul's writings as expressed in his writings. Any "theology" of canonization that views the Church's act of drawing up a list of apostolic writings as conferring authority on those writings is inconsistent with those writings (as least as far as Paul's writings are concerned). Rather, the later canonization process (if it was a process), was a recognition of what had been from the beginning.
The question of whether the Church produced the New Testament canon or the New Testament canon produced the Church turns out to be a poor question because of the potential equivocation of the term Church. However, if we rephrase the question in unequivocal terms, then we can answer the question. Did the Church found the Apostles or the Apostles found the Church? Certainly, the Apostles founded the Church. At least, that is what Matthew, Luke and Paul taught (Matthew 16:18, Acts 2:1ff, Ephesians 2:20). The Apostles founded the Church both by their oral and written teachings. Admittedly, the Church was being established before the Apostles (as far as we know) put pen to parchment. However, in the founding of the Church, the Apostles provided the rule of the Church both by their oral teaching and their written teaching. This is Paul's understanding of the relationship of himself and the other Apostles to the Church.
On the other hand, the Apostles do not stand outside the Christian community, but are at its center. And their writings do not fall from heaven like the Koran, but are written with needs and even the questions of specific Churches and persons in mind. Thus we can say the Church is the context of the New Testament Scriptures, but it is not their source. The New Testament documents are written in the context of the infant Church but they are the teaching of the Holy Spirit, the commands of the Lord to that Church.
This analysis does not solve the troubling question of the exact limits of the New Testament canon. Was the Church of later centuries correct in including 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation in its confession of faith? The question is formulated this way because we ought to understand the later canonization of the New Testament, not at as a creative but a confessional activity. The Church did not make the New Testament documents to be Scripture; it rather confessed such documents as Scripture. If they were not already Scripture by their very nature, the Church erred in its confession. Thus the later canonization of the New Testament is parallel to the canonical formulation of the Trinity. The Trinity did not become the truth about God because of the actions of Church councils. Rather, the councils came to confess the truth about God. In a similar manner, the Church's canon is her confession that these books are "of the Holy Spirit." This, at least, is Paul's understanding of his writings. Paul rejects any suggestion that he received his gospel from men. He consistently claims to have received it by revelation from the Lord. As we struggle with the history of the Church's recognition of the canon of the New Testament, we must take care not to end up with a formulation inconsistent with the New Testament documents themselves. The commonly expressed view that the Church in canonizing the New Testament made the New Testament to be authoritative, falls into this inconsistency. Rather if we start with Paul's understanding of his writings, then we are lead to the conclusion that the Church did not "canonize" the New Testament documents, but only confessed to be canon those documents which had from there composition been an authoritative canon (rule, standard) for the faith and life of the Church.
Dr. Jack Kinneer