What's Canonical for Us?

E. Earl Ellis, "The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church," Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 674.

Cf. Augustine, De Civ Dei: Although 'some writings left by Enoch...were divinely inspired..., (they) were omitted from the canon of scripture...of the Hebrew people' (15:23). 'Three books (of Solomon)...are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs'; two others, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, 'are not his but the church old old, especially the Western received them into authority...' (17:20). The books of Maccabees are not recognized by the Jews as canonical, but 'the church accepts (them) as canonical because they record the great and heroic sufferings of certain martyrs' (18:36). Cf. Augustine, On the Soul 3:2: 'Scripture has spoken' (Eis 1:5).

As you can probably tell, this is a footnote, documenting the claim that Augustine believed in the Scriptural status of certain deutero-canonical writings.

He seems to use inconsistent criteria: he excludes Enoch because the Jews reject it from their canon, yet he embraces other books that the Jews have not included. He does so on the basis of their long acceptance by the church, as well as the message that they convey.

For my French exam, I'm reading L.E. Tony Andre's 1903 book, Les Apocryphes de L'Ancien Testament (The Apocrypha of the Old Testament). For each deutero-canonical book, Andre includes a discussion of its canonicity within the ancient Christian church. The way that he presents the situation, the church fathers were pretty much divided over the books of Maccabees. There was a lot more support for Wisdom and Sirach, with a few excluding the latter from their lists of biblical books. That may be why Augustine appeals to church authority for Wisdom and Sirach, while searching for another justification for Maccabees' canonicity.

I'm intrigued by Augustine's statement that the church honors Maccabees because of its story about martyrs. Maybe the church by his day had become serious about honoring those who were killed for the faith. The statement intrigues me because it seems to suggest that the church just liked the books, and that's why it included them in their canon. Personally, I'd prefer for there to be another justification, one that is not so subjective.

But I'm reminded of something a religion professor told me when I asked him about the anonymous authorship of the Gospels in the Bible: he said that their authority did not rest on their authors being apostles, for they were first deemed authoritative because of their message, then they were associated with apostles (or, in the case of Mark and Luke, someone who knew apostles). I'm not sure how true this is. One New Testament professor told me that the earliest church fathers don't cite the Gospels according to the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. On the other hand, I have read that a criterion for canonicity was authorship by an apostle or by someone who knew an apostle.

My friend Scott Gray may appreciate Augustine's justification for Maccabees' canonicity, since he has written that a book is canonical if it speaks to us, instructs us, inspires us, challenges us, or if we can see ourselves in the characters. (At least that's my understanding of his position, and I welcome correction if I am wrong.) That reminds me of how a theology professor of mine portrayed Martin Luther and Karl Barth's view on the Bible: the Bible can be a bunch of words to a lot of people, but it becomes the word of God when it challenges someone with a message that demands a response, namely, that of God's love through Jesus Christ. My impression is that Luther and Barth believed the Holy Spirit was what made the word come alive.

A lot of conservative Christians criticize Barth's approach as too subjective, however, as if it says that the Bible's authority rests on a person's belief in it. For them, the Bible has authority even over those who do not embrace it. The ancient Israelites rejected the words of the prophets, and God punished them accordingly, since the truth of his word did not depend on their subjective response to it (whether they felt inspired or challenged). Rather, according to conservatives, the Bible is God's clear word to humanity about his will, whether they accept it or not.

These are relevant points, but (as James McGrath has pointed out) there is obviously subjectivity in our approach to the Bible. Some things jump out at us, while others do not. Some things we understand, while others confuse us. In that sense, what clearly jumps out at us is what is canonical and authoritative for us, regardless of our stance on the inspiration of all Scripture. At the same time, shouldn't we assume that the stuff that escapes our radar also is true, even though we may not appreciate its truth until a certain time? I'm not saying that God harshly judges us if it escapes our radar, but rather that it's a valuable observation of the world that we have not yet grasped.