The term canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred writings acknowledged by a particular religious community.
The standard scholarly view of the history and question of the Jewish canon–of which there are various adaptations as well as numerous challenges – identifies the Torah or Pentateuch, i.e. the Five Books traditionally attributed to Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) as the first corpus to be accorded such authoritative status. In view of the stories about Ezra and the work attributed to him in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the older consensus credited him with the promulgation of the Torah as the fundamental law and ultimate written authority of the Jewish community. The current view modifies that position slightly and specifies formal canonization of the Torah around 400 B.C.
The second grouping or section of the Hebrew Bible is called the Prophets and is divided into two formally equal parts of four books each: (a) Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, (I and II) Samuel, (I and II) Kings; (b) Latter Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of Twelve (Minor) Prophets.
The collection is rather artificially organized, since the Former Prophets are actually a continuation of the narrative begun in the Torah, while the latter prophets are a distinct literary grouping, containing primarily oracles and some biographical data about the prophets of the 8th to the 6th/5th centuries B.C. the process by which this collection of prophetic books was canonized is less clear and much debated, but a date around 200 B.C. is widely viewed as probable or at least plausible.
With regard to the remaining books of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings, it is widely believed that this end of the canon remained open well into the Greco-Roman period, the permanent boundaries or limits of the Hebrew canon not being firmly fixed until the rabbinical Council of Jamnia around A.D. 90. This collection included all the major poetical Books: Psalms, Proverbs and Job, as well as the five megillot or "rolls" (Ruth, Song of songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther), the Book of Daniel, and closing off the cannon, the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah, followed in many codices by the Old Hebrew Book(s) of Chronicles.
In fixing the authoritative Palestinian canon, the rabbis ruled out books which had survived or were known only in Greek, and generally books of known or demonstrably late date. Thus books such as I and II Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira, Judith and Tobit were excluded since the marks of late authorship were only too plain, whereas the Book of Daniel, although roughly contemporary with some of the works mentioned, nevertheless was included and preserved in its Hebrew-Aramaic form because it was believed to be work of a 6th century B.C. prophet and therefore considered both authentically inspired and of early date.
The major differences between the Hebrew canon, and the Greek or so-called Alexandrian canon, involve the order of the books and their number. The Greek Bible (OT and Apocrypha only) is organized into four divisions rather than the three of the Hebrew Bible; in addition, a large number of books including some already mentioned and others (13 or 14 in all) were included in the Greek Bible though excluded from the Hebrew canon.
The divergence begins after the Torah. The Greek Bible follows with the historical books, including not only the books of the Former Prophets but others as well, such as Ruth (after Judges), the Chronicler's work (comprising, in addition to I and II Chronicles, a version of Ezra-Nehemiah and I and II Esdras), plus finally I and II Maccabees. These are followed by a collection of poetic and wisdom books, corresponding to the opening group of the writings in the Hebrew Bible, but including additional books such as Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and others. The last section of the Greek Bible contains the books of the Latter Prophets and Daniel, the latter now promoted to equality with the rest of the prophetic literature.
The Greek Bible reflects the earlier canonical decisions made for the Hebrew Bible but clearly goes its own way both with regard to the order of the books and the limits of the canon. The Hebrew canon was clearly fixed not later than the end of the 1st century A.D., but in all likelihood the major components had already been in place for a long time. The Christian church, however, adopted the Greek canon, with its additional books and different order, and this has remained the official and canonical OT of the Catholic Church to the present-day, although the Apocrypha are often described as deutero-canonical to distinguish them from the books preserved in the original Hebrew (or Aramaic). The Protestant churches generally adopted the Hebrew canon for the OT, relegating the Apocrypha to secondary status and ultimately to no status at all.
While the actual process of canonization and its concluding decisions remain somewhat obscure, and the scholarly consensus survives only because nothing better has come along to explain and date the development, the formal decisions specify that canonical status is accorded to those books believed to bear the divine imprint. In practice this means that the authorship of the books was attributed by rabbinic tradition to authentic and attested prophets. Thus Moses, Israel's supreme lawgiver and prophet, as well as being the chief personality in Israel's formative period, was its historian and record-keeper as well. Other heroic and inspired figures contributed the books that bear their names, including Former and Latter Prophets. David and Solomon were credited with the major and some minor poetic and wisdom books, while Job was attributed to Moses. Ezra was credited with his own book, and in addition, with a major role in organizing the Chronicler's work as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible. In terms of compilation, edition and publication, the Hebrew Bible was regarded as the work of the Great Assembly associated with Ezra in the latter part of the 5th century B.C.
It is generally accepted today that the books achieved their present form by a literary process, including prior and primary sources, the selections, arrangement, modification and adaptation of materials to create a literary work – a process involving persons and events over a period of time, until the point when the process effectively came to a stop, and a final form was imposed. Henceforth, one can speak of textual history as the book is copied and transmitted, the only changes being made by scribes. Canonicity refers to the point of transition from literary to textual history, when a certain version of the text is stamped with the imprimatur of an established authority and the book is given fixed and permanent status.
In looking at the finished literary product it is clear that neither arrangement of the books of the Bible adequately reflects the real connections and continuities present in the collection. Thus the largest single literary entity is the great narrative comprising the Torah and the Former Prophets of the Hebrew Bible. This work constitutes half of the Hebrew Bible and comprises the central, basic and core material – the main story on and around which everything else turns and depends. No one could claim this literary work to have been a single unified composition, but it has been edited to link each book to the next, to produce a narrative covering the people of Israel from the very beginning of time to the end of the dual Kingdom. This account records the demise of the Southern Kingdom (586 B.C.) and could neither have been written before the last recorded and dated event (c. 560 B.C., King Jehoiachin's release from prison in Babylon, II Kings 25:27-30), nor much beyond it. With the appearance of the Persian King Cyrus, his conquest of the moribund Babylonian empire, and the edict allowing and encouraging the Jewish captives to return home, a new chapter in the nation's annals could be written; this would require a revisionist approach to the antecedent history of the kingdom, as well as dramatic readjustments about the historical present and anticipated future of the people. The final editor of the Primary History must have compiled his account and completed his task in the years before the conquest of Babylon (560-540 B.C.). One can consequently speak of a major literary piece, the Primary History, as the first of the great canonical works contributing to the formation of the Hebrew Bible. Ezra, or a group of people from about that time, extracted the Torah books from this larger work thereby elevating the status of Torah to a level even higher than before and establishing Moses as the central figure of biblical religion. In laying the emphasis on Moses and his experience, this division also played down the monarchy and the traditions concerning David and his notable victories, which could have been a potentially dangerous theme for the Judean exiles in the post-exilic circumstances. This separation and shift in emphasis from David to Moses did not harm the status or prestige of either, but rather left the narrative both complete and intact, only divided in rank and importance.
It is essential to the argument that the text of the Primary History remained unchanged and intact even with the passage of time and the radical alterations in the experiences of the exilic community. For the sequel and aftermath of the events recorded in Kings, one must turn to an entirely different work, that of the Chronicler, a composite creation edited after the dramatic change in circumstances occasioned by the edict of Cyrus (539 B.C.). The power of canonicity was being affirmed even as questions arose about the scope of the canon. In Ezra at least the Torah was central and authoritative, mainly a codified law code, while the narrative emphasis of the Former Prophets (and e.g. in the Book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Pentateuch) was relegated to a secondary position.
The next unit of the Hebrew Bible, the Latter Prophets, revolves around the central themes of the decline and fall of the nation, and the imminent demise of Jerusalem and its Temple. In part this collection coincides with, and elaborates upon, the Primary History, especially the last few chapters of II Kings. Where the historical narrative is brief, laconic, and essentially a chronicle derived from chancellery archives, the prophetic literature is expansive, emotional and directly discursive. Jeremiah was the prophet on the scene when Jerusalem fell, while Ezekiel was in Babylon viewing the crisis from afar. These prophets offer eyewitness accounts of the central event and crowning tragedy of Israel's experience.
The remaining books of the prophetic corpus provide background and framework for this denouement, beginning with the terrible and terrifying events of the 8th century, which overshadowed the following 100 years or more and presaged the tragedy which was to come. In like manner, the prophets of the 8th century (Amos, Isaiah, Hosea and Micah) established the role and the message to kings, priests and commoners that could be echoed, amplified and adapted by the great prophets of the 7th and 6th centuries.
One can speak therefore of an original collection or canon of authoritative writings compiled and sponsored by the leaders of the Jewish community in the Babylonian Exile. This collection would have comprised the Primary History, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and no doubt First Isaiah, ending with the account drawn from II Kings of the critical days of the siege of Jerusalem in the 14th year of Hezekiah's reign (701). Most of the Major Prophets would also have been included, with the clear exception of Haggai and Zechariah, and possibly others such as Malachi, and perhaps Jonah and Joel.
No doubt other materials, now found in the third part of the canon, were included as well, thus the tripartite division of the canon was established at an early stage. Much, if not most, of the Psalter would have been available; the same holds for Proverbs. Of other books, Ruth and Lamentations would have been extant, and Lamentations would have made a fitting adjunct and companion piece for the narrative account and the prophetic elaboration of the fall of Jerusalem.
In addition to all of this, however, the prophetic collection contained oracles of hope and restoration as well as the ominous messages of menace and doom which accompanied the earlier crises. This material, including the works of Haggai, Zechariah, II Isaiah, and others extended the scope of the corpus past the limits of the Primary History into the Exile and beyond, to the moment of restoration and renewal, the return of the exiles and rebuilding of the Temple, into the reign of Darius I of the Persian empire.
This expanded picture is reflected in the Chronicler's work, which likewise reports the rebuilding and rededication of the Temple in post-exilic times. The fortunes, vicissitudes and destiny of Judah, Jerusalem, the Temple and the royal house, described in I and II Chronicles, come to a climax and happy conclusion with Ezra chapter 6. The Book of Ezra continues the story of II Chronicles down to the completion and consecration of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius (c. 516/15 B.C.), also being correlated with the books and reports of Haggai-Zachariah.
Beginning in 539 B.C. with the edict of Cyrus I permitting and encouraging the Jewish exiles to return to their homeland, and continuing until the rebuilding and rededication of the Temple, the new developments required acknowledgment and recognition, essentially a rewrite and revision of the whole story in the light of the great turn-around. This development, anticipated by the prophets, was now confirmed by events. New prophetic figures and utterances were added to the canonical collection, and a new account of Judah's history, parallel but distinctive, was provided as an alternative version of the basic narrative.
The next, penultimate, stage in the enhancement and extension of the canon, can be associated with the great coordinators and consolidators of the tradition, Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra or Nehemiah or perhaps both can be credited in slightly different ways with the completion in its present form of the Chronicler's work, by the supplementation of personal memoirs of the overlapping and intersecting events which brings the biblical story to a climax, and at least temporary conclusion. Israel is back on its land, the city of Jerusalem has been rebuilt with walls and gates, and the people have the laws of God as a constitution by which to live. If it is not quite like the halcyon days of David and Solomon, at least the people are at peace, the Persian empire is firmly in control of the world and the future holds promise.
As for the canon of the Hebrew Bible, it would seem to be practically complete. We must credit Ezra with the separation of the Torah as the fundamental and ultimate law of the people of Judah and of Judaism from that time forth. The consolidation and completion of the prophetic corpus was also achieved by this time, with the incorporation of the historical books from Joshua to Kings, left over when the Pentateuch was identified. The latter prophets may already have been completed in the days of Haggai and Zechariah, but it is possible that Malachi, otherwise somewhat mystifying, and perhaps the final chapters of Zechariah (9-14), came later. The third section too would now be practically complete, including all the books previously mentioned and the present version of Chronicler-Ezra-Nehemiah. It is difficult to make decisions about marginal books such as Ecclesiastes and Esther, or even Job, but there is little or no reason to date any of them later than the Persian period. The only clear and certain exception is the Book of Daniel, which in its present form must come from the Greek period (165 B.C. in the opinion of most scholars). Since none of the other books deriving from this period, such as the Books of the Maccabees, the Esdras and Enoch literature, Ecclesiasticus and some other materials, is included in the Hebrew canon, evidently the latter at least was effectively fixed, although not closed. The Book of Daniel is a special case because it was presented and understood as a product of the Babylonian-Persian period just as its hero was a leading figure in the Babylonian Exile.
In the NT, canon referred to five times (II Cor 10:13, 15-16; Gal 6:16; Phil 3:16), denotes "sphere" or "rule" and could be rendered as "guideline." It was quite natural for the early church to apply this word to the consensus it reached about which books to be treated as authoritative and which discarded. That process began with the oral tradition and reached a decisive point at the Council of Carthage (397) when the present selection of NT books was largely agreed upon.
During the intervening centuries many forces were at work. The criteria that emerged in this selection process were: apostolicity, accordance with received teaching, and wide usage in the church. They did not include inspiration, at least not directly. The fundamental criterion was apostolicity – i.e. proximity to the apostolic age or to the Christ event so that a certain degree of authenticity could be posited. Sometimes it expressed itself in the question of authorship: when as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a work was attributed to an apostle, its way into the canonical collection was easier. On the other hand Luke-Acts, although not authored by an apostle, were considered apostolic and therefore never seriously questioned. Other works encountered objections because they struck a chord which ran counter to the ethos of the early church, e.g. Philemon had great difficulty, not only because the book advocated leniency for runaway slaves but also because it was written to one person and not to a whole congregation; as a personal letter, it could be disqualified, but in the end bore such clear marks of authenticity that the early church adopted it into its canon. A different set of criteria was invoked in the case of a work like the Book of Revelation. Only part of the church was attracted to apocalyptic genre of literature; others, perhaps seeing it as a remnant of Judaism which they might jettison, favored deleting it from the list, which they achieved by allowing it to fall into disuse. Finally, however, large sections of the church drew sustenance from apocalyptic literature and some form of the latter was included. In addition to the selection of entire books, sections of books were also subjected to canonical criticism. For example, the pericope de adultera (John 8:1-11), while not represented in the manuscript tradition of the fourth gospel before the fourth century, was found in other manuscripts and attributed to other gospel writers or regarded as a disembodied morsel of gospel tradition. Modern scholars are inclined to accept it as a genuine fragment while at the same time rejecting its connection with the Johannine community. Indeed it seems to have been accepted by communities which practiced leniency towards adulterers and rejected by those who took a hard line. Another factor in the selection process was, without doubt, the prestige of the community which backed it. Any document connected with Rome or Antioch, or supported by these two centers of influence, could be assured of a place in the canon: books like II Peter or Jude, though of relatively little intrinsic value, had connections sufficiently strong to gain a place in a collection of authoritative writings.
The earliest canonical list was the Canon Muratori, dated around A.D. 180, which has almost all of our present books. It was perhaps a response to the efforts of Marcion to establish a canon according to his highly idiosyncratic value system. He sought to excise all materials which were Jewish and thus to develop a uniquely Christian God separate from the God of Judaism. Important as his endeavors were in early Christian attempts to formulate a normative position, Marcion's approach was clearly rejected by the church, even though many of its writers and leaders had a limited appreciation of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Though yet to formulate fully what they wanted to retain from Judaism or how the two sister religions related to each other, they were united in rejecting Marcion's solution.
The Gnostic approach was similar to Marcion, for Gnostics tended to develop their own literature to strengthen their interpretation of Christianity. Thus they constructed what they called a Gospel of Truth. Again the church as a whole decisively rejected more extreme Gnosticism and its vast body of literature, preferring the literature found in the received canonical corpus.
From the standpoint of the history of the nascent church an acquaintance with the canonical selection process is indispensable. Likewise the literature which hovered at the edges of the canonical process is of inestimable value in determining what the early Christians read for their entertainment and moral inspiration, and what in the last analysis the powers of the church rejected.




