For Further Reading: Wesley

CANON. The Hebrew word qaneh, "cane" or "reed," underlies both its Greek and English de­rivatives canon. In Greek it came to denote a yardstick but also acquired the secondary sense of a "list" or "index," probably from the marks it bore as a measuring rod. In either sense it was related easily to Holy Scripture, first as referring to the official list of books which comprise the Scripture, and then as constituting the rule for measuring belief.

1. 
   Canonicity does not impart authority but derives from it. That is to say, it is books already regarded as authoritative which are incorporated into the canon, not their incorporation into the canon which confers authority upon them. This means that it is of prime importance to determine the ground on which such authority rested.
   
2. 
   The kernel of canonical authority is revela­tion. The unspoken premise of a canon regarded as the measure of truth can scarcely be other. Now if it be conceded that God has revealed himself in the Jewish and Christian covenants of which we have knowledge through their literary records, there follows almost irresistibly not merely the idea of an authoritative canon, but also the providential care which is necessary for its formation and preservation. This principle rules out suggestions that the canon is a purely fortuitous creation, and that accidents in trans­mission might well have given it a shape other than it has.
   

89

This canon was evidently accepted by Jesus. In Luke 24:44 His reference to all that was written about himself "in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and the psalms" (the last-mentioned standing as representative of the Writings) ap­pears to bear this meaning. Each division appar­ently contained everything now found in its Hebrew counterpart. (This would appear to hold for the Writings as well as the Law and the Prophets. Luke 11:51 is clearly intended to be a comprehensive statement covering all the acts of violence mentioned in Scripture from first to last. If the Zechariah in question is the one mentioned in 2 Chron. 24:20-21—the book which stood last in the Writings in the Hebrew Bible—then evi­dently the Writings was at that time constituted as it is now in the Jewish Canon.)

As noted above, books were admitted into the canon on the basis of their previously acknowl­edged authority which rested on their acceptance as inspired revelation. This character derived ul­timately from their origin in prophecy. Since the prophet was immediately inspired to utter the di­vine word, the same quality attached to his writ­ten utterances (see Isa. 8:16; Jer. 36:1 ff). It cannot be shown that every OT book is of prophetic au­thorship. However, although the principle can­not be applied materially, it can be applied at least formally in the sense that much of the OT is of prophetic authorship and that which is not (e.g., the Wisdom Literature) is inspired response to the prophetic message.

Two difficulties alleged against the above reconstruction may be referred to.

1. The Alexandrian Canon. The suggestion is frequently made that the inclusion of the Apoc­rypha in LXX points to the existence of an Alex­andrian Canon which was distinct from the Palestinian Jewish Canon. Against this should be placed the fact that even Jewish writers who used the LXX do not seem to have regarded the Apoc­rypha as inspired. Philo quotes only the OT as authoritative; while Josephus, who used the Apocrypha, distinguished them from the "di­vine" books since they were written after the gift of prophecy had ceased (Against Apion 1. 8). This accords with the understanding of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus suggested above. The Apocry­pha appears first to have been canonized by Greek-speaking Christians rather than Greek-speaking Jews (Bruce, The Books and the Parch­ments, 164).

2. The Council of famnia, a.d. 90. Also alleged against the final definition of the canon by the time of Ben Sira (132 B.c.) are the discussions of the rabbis at Jamnia. It is true that they debated the inclusion of canonical recognition to such of the Writings as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, eventually deciding in the af­firmative. It is also true that they debated the in­clusion of other works such as Ecclesiasticus, and decided negatively. However, this does not nec­essarily reflect uncertainty regarding the limits of the canon. G. E Moore points out that the canon­icity of Ezekiel was also debated (Judaism, 1:235-47), though its inspiration had been un­challenged for centuries. This, together with the

general obscurity of the proceedings at Jamnia,

raises the question as to whether it was a "coun­cil" in an official sense at all, or whether it was little more than a sequence—though not unim­portant—of rabbinic debates (Childs, Intro­duction to the OT as Scripture, 66). The Canon of the NT

1. History. The Early Church had a canon from the very first: the OT Scriptures and the tra­dition of the works and teaching of Jesus. To be­gin with, the latter existed only in oral form, and the history of the NT canon is the history of the reduction of that tradition as well as its apostolic interpretation to writing and its acceptance by the universal Church. That process may be sum­marized in these stages.

The Gospels and the Epistles were gradually collected and used as Scripture, a process which was accomplished substantially by the third quarter of the second century. It is impossible to pinpoint these events with absolute precision. The collection of Paul's Epistles may have been effected as early as a.d. 100. Both 1 Clement and 2 Pet. 3:15 f attest that Paul's letters were re­garded as having authority for the Church at large, the prerequisite of canonization. As to the Gospels: the high value placed on the spoken tradition of the teaching of Jesus probably mil­itated against their early collection; but any such inhibitions had been overcome by 170 as the ap­pearance of Tatian's Diatessaron indicates. But 20 years before this, Justin referred to the "memoirs of the apostles" and the "writings of the proph­ets" (= the OT) in the same breath, saying that both were read on Sunday in worship and intro­ducing both with the authoritative phrase "it is written" (First Apology, 67. 3).

This means that by the middle of the second century the canon of the four Gospels was now completed, and the Pauline Epistles held equal standing. Such a conclusion excludes the often­



suggested theory that the heretic Marcion, who flourished about this time, was the first to con­struct a NT canon which consisted of Luke's Gospel and 10 of the Epistles of Paul. (Marcion's detestation of everything that savored of Judaism caused him to discard the entire OT and the rest of the New.) More probably Marcion's efforts constituted a response to an existing (if not fi­nally defined) Christian canon, even if his work prompted the orthodox Church to define its canon more precisely.

The next stage, which may be defined roughly as extending from 180 to 250, was marked by two characteristics. On the one hand, the use of the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles ob­served in an earlier stage was continued in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. Not only so, but additional Epistles were grouped around the Pauline core so that in the Muratorian Canon, generally held to reflect the canon recognized in Rome about 200, all the books finally included in the canon are present except for Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 2 or 3 John. It is this that has led to the widely accepted conclusion, in spite of some varied phe­nomena, that by the end of the second century agreement regarding the canon was substantially complete.

From the mid-third to the mid-fourth century the pattern just noted of movement towards con­sensus together with a degree of variation con­tinued. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing early in the fourth century, divided the books of the canon into two groups: the Homologoumena (those which were universally accepted); and the Anti­legomena (those which were subject to some degree of question). This latter category he sub­divided into "disputed" and "spurious." 1 Peter and 1 John were homologoumena; James, 2 Pe­ter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were "disputed," the struggle arising largely from a varying evaluation of these books in the Eastern and Western areas of the Church. The same was true of Hebrews and the Apocalypse.

The most important stage was that from 350 to the beginning of the 5th century, since it was then that agreement was fully and finally achieved. The immediate impulses toward exact definition consisted of the decisions of bishops and the decrees of councils and synods. No small part of the difficulty lay in the reaching of agree­ment between East and West, a problem which was solved largely through the work of "bridge personalities." Thus the 39th Festal Letter of Ath­anasius, dated 367, defines the canon as we have it today including the Apocalypse, which had long been suspect in the East; a significant influ­ence in this regard may well have been Ath­anasius' long exile from Alexandria in the West at Constantinople. Conversely, the promulgation of the same canon by the Second Council of Car­thage in 397 owed much to the influence of Jer­ome (as well as Augustine), who had migrated from the West to the East, where the Epistle to the Hebrews was widely regarded as Pauline. It took a long time for the canon thus defined to percolate down to the grass roots of the Church, but any subsequent discussion took place against this baseline.

2. 
   Principles. As with the OT, books were ad­mitted into the NT canon on the basis of their previously recognized authority. In the case of the NT that authority derived from the rela­tionship of the written works to the spoken words of Jesus which, as indicated above, consti­tuted the earliest Christian canon together with the OT. It followed naturally that those who were best in position both to report and interpret the teaching of Jesus were those who had known Him and been commissioned by Him. Inevitably, therefore, apostolicity came to be applied as a prime criterion of canonicity. This principle, however, was not applied rigidly since Mark and Luke—to mention no others—were not apostles in the narrowest sense, even though they were the associates of apostles. This shows that in re­ality the line lay farther back: namely, in con­sonance with the apostolic faith. Wherever that faith was expounded in such a manner as to evince the presence of authoritative, prophetic revelation, there was inspired Scripture. In short, the ultimate criterion for canonicity in the OT is not dissimilar from that in the NT. Whatever contribution was made by church fathers or church synods was but the recognition of this authority, not its impartation.
   
3. 
   Problems. Perhaps the major difficulty felt with regard to the shaping of the canon is the circuitousness of the process by which this was achieved. Why did it take so long? Why were some books now included, now excluded? Why were church fathers, and especially the Eastern and Western areas of the Church, at odds on this issue for so long? The assumption underlying this difficulty is that canonical authority must be im­mediately evident and therefore instantly and universally accepted. If it has been soundly ar­gued above, however, that the touchstone of canonicity is prophetic revelation in consonance with the apostolic faith, then it is easier to see how differences of opinion might arise which could be settled only by studied reflection, not by
   
4. 
   
   

the mechanical application of any literary litmus test.

It is sometimes objected, also, that other books, contemporary with or later than the NT period, might profitably have been added to the canon. This overlooks two factors: first, the uniqueness of the canonical books as the deposit of the Incarnation which, as its witnesses, are in­capable of replacement; and second, the diffi­culty of finding a page outside of the NT canon which stands on a level with the material con­tained in it. No doubt there is a degree of subjec­tivity in such a statement; but Kurt Aland's judgment would command widespread assent: "Not a single writing preserved to us could prop­erly be added" (The Problem of the NT Canon, 24). Conclusion. It may be freely admitted that there is no logical or historical argument that can prove with mathematical conclusiveness that the Jewish-Christian canon is divinely authorized and complete. Such a claim could not be made for the Christian faith itself. But that is not the question. The question is whether, having come to faith in Christ through Scripture as the written Word of God, the Christian believer can perceive with a faith that is not stretched to the breaking point "the singular care and providence of God" in the preservation and selection of these and only these documents. Ultimately, this is a judg­ment of faith. It is not a groundless faith, how­ever, but one which rests upon the coherence of the scriptural canon in its witness to God's saving activity as well as upon the inward attestation of this truth by the divine Spirit to the individual Christian and the believing community. In the light of the evidence surveyed above, it seems that the answer to this question must necessarily be in the positive.

See bible, inspiration (of the bible), biblical au­thority.

For Further Reading: Bruce: The Books and the Parch-
ments, chap. 8; Bruce, "New Light on the Origins of the
Canon," Longenecker and Tenney, New Dimensions in
NT Study, 3-18; Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of
Scripture; Aland, The Problem of the NT Canon; Von
Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible;
Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of
the New Testament. ALEX R. G. DEASLEY

CANON LAW. This refers to the rules or stan­dards of action for individuals and institutions in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and An­glicanism. From ancient times to now, in both Eastern and Western Catholicism, these rules for Christian behavior have gradually been devel­oped, often through the decisions of general councils of the church. These rules are so numer­ous and so diverse that many churchmen spe­cialize in the knowledge of their history and their significance.

While the term canon law is not common among Protestants, many denominations never­theless have their church rules, which serve the same function. These are both ethical and ec­clesiastical, the first being rules for the conduct of the members, and the second being regu­lations and laws governing church business. Ethical rules may be understood as guidelines only, in which case church members tend to re­late themselves to them as mere advice. They are thus pedagogical in nature rather than pre­scriptive and mandatory. In some denomina­tions, the ethical rules are stated conditions of membership, and their infraction subjects one to disciplinary action. The general attitude of a de­nomination to the question of rules will depend in part on (1) the depth and precision of its com­mitment to a spelled-out life-style, and on (2) its conviction that its witness before the world, its duty to its members, and its integrity as a body, depend on careful conformity to the declared standards.

See church. law and grace. freedom. For Further Reading: GMS, 545-47.

J. Kenneth Grider

CANONIZATION. Canonization is an act by which the pope decrees that a person, a member of the Catholic church and already having been cited as a venerable person and declared blessed, be included in the book of saints. The act of canonization is based on ecclesiastical, but not scriptural, authority.

This practice started very early as respect paid to persons who had been good and pious, es­pecially those who had suffered martyrdom dur­ing the persecutions of the first two centuries. These martyrs were believed to be perfect. This fact induced believers to invoke their intercession before God. The remembrance of the martyrs took the form of true veneration. The date, place of martyrdom, and the burial place were held sa­cred, and eventually their anniversaries were en­tered into the calendar. At the beginning of the fourth century, this veneration, which until then had been reserved only for martyrs, was ex­tended to those who, still alive, had defended the Christian faith and suffered for it, and to those who had lived an exemplary Christian life, or ex­celled in the Christian doctrine or apostolic faith.

During the first 3 centuries the popular fame of the person or the vox populi was the only crite­rion to determine the holiness of a person. But



92

CANONS OF DORT—CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


between the 6th and 10th centuries the number of deceased who received the cult of the saints increased so rapidly, and legendary accounts and abuses were so many, that the intervention of ec­clesiastical authority, represented by the bishop, was introduced as a regulatory measure.

The first papal canonization on record was that of St. Udalricus in a.d. 973. The pope's ac­tion consisted of simply giving his consent for the canonization. But as time went by, papal canonization developed a more definite struc­ture. Eventually the Code of Canon Law became effective on May 9, 1918. The process to become a saint is: (1) to be cited as a venerable person; (2) to be declared a blessed person; (3) two docu­mented miracles performed in the name of the person; and (4) canonization.

The NT teaching is that all Christians are to be saints, in the sense of inward and outward holi­ness. Canonization implies a standard reached by only a few. Furthermore, it fosters a super­stitious veneration of the "saints," including prayers to them.

See saint (saintliness), holiness.

ismael E. amaya

CANONS OF DORT. This refers to the third of the three official confessions of the Reformed de­nominations (and Calvinism generally), the other two being the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. While the two earlier con­fessions treat Christian doctrine in a general way, the Canons of Dort (1619) treat only the differ­ences between the Calvinists and the Arminians.

In Holland, where the break-off from Roman Catholicism had occurred in 1560, the Protes­tants became divided into two groups. There were the Calvinists, who agreed with Theodore Beza, John Calvin's son-in-law who taught at Calvin's school in Geneva; and also with Francis Gomarus, who taught at the University of Leiden in Holland. Beza and Gomarus were supra-lapsarians, teaching that long before Adam's fall, before Creation itself, God had unconditionally predestinated some individuals to eternal bliss and the others to eternal torment.

James Arminius (c. 1558-1609), who had stud­ied under Beza, and who later taught at Leiden with Gomarus, came to teach only a predes­tination that was conditioned on whether or not people freely repent and believe. There was a third significant view, sublapsarianism, which was not quite as extreme as supralapsarianism. It was—and is—the view that Adam's fall was freely willed; but that, after that, every other in­dividual's eternal destiny was unconditionally determined by God.

Prince Maurice, the Calvinistic head of state in Holland, called a synod to meet at Dort to decide this predestination issue; he stacked things on the side of Calvinism since, of the 42 delegates, all except 3 were Calvinists, and the 3 Arminians could not act as delegates because they were not willing to take a certain required "Calvinistic" oath.

Beginning in November of 1618, and finishing five months later, the Synod of Dort made sub-lapsarian predestination official and outlawed Arminianism—disallowing the Arminians from having public services, and banishing from the country all their ministers (this, from 1619 to 1623).

See calvinism, arminianism, infralapsarianism. For Further Reading: Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation; McCulloh, Man's Faith and Freedom.

J. Kenneth Grider

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. This is punishment by death. At some times, e.g., 18th-century En­gland, scores of crimes (even stealing food) were punished by hanging. In the United States and most Western nations where capital punishment has not been abolished, only such crimes as first-degree murder and treason qualify for capital punishment.

Though capital punishment has long been used and justified, it has also been vigorously disputed. Largely on humanitarian grounds it has been abolished in a number bf European countries.

Some Christians strongly support capital pun­ishment for capital crimes. The primary reason is that wantonly destroying a human life deserves the death penalty. Only in this way can the sanc­tity of human life be affirmed. Secondary rea­sons include the possible deterrence value, the removal from society of habitual criminals, and the financial relief to society.

These thinkers interpret the "sword" of Rom. 13:4 to imply a literal meaning as well as figurative—as Paul's readers would undoubtedly understand. The sword-wielding state is "the minister of God." This would seem to be a clear statement that the power of life and death, which in the absolute sense belongs to God only, has to a degree been deputized by God to the state.

Other leaders in Christendom, such as Karl Barth and Chuck Colson, oppose the death pen­alty. The claim is made that the judicial system mainly executes the poor and nonwhite; that



CARDINAL VIRTUES—CARNAL MIND

93

mistakes have been made and innocent people executed; and that no data show any correlation between capital punishment and capital crimes. Rehabilitation for the killer is always possible. Vengeance, not justice, they argue, motivates ex­ecutions. For these leaders, God alone has the right to take life and has not delegated that right to man.

See murder, punishment, revenge, retribution (retributive justice), social ethics, state (the).

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> publications
publications -> Table of Content forward introduction
publications -> Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology
publications -> Housing Counseling Research in Chicago
publications -> Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences
publications -> New Brunswick Info Sheet on First Nations Child Welfare
publications -> Paap’s Electronic Newsletter 14 November 2008 Volume 11 Number 22 towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture: lessons from recent experience in malawi
publications -> Information support of pedagogical process for the children experiencing difficulties with acquisition of preschool educational programs
publications -> Asus’ ZenFone ar has Google’s augmentted and virtual reality baked in — but not combined
publications -> School Readiness and Early Grade Success Consultation Memo Atlanta, ga

Download 6.66 Mb.

Share with your friends: