(F. F. Bruce's book has been available now for over two decades, but it still remains at the forefront with respect to the historical account of canonization.)
There is a growing historical illiteracy and apathy within Christendom today that is serving to deepen the chasm between those who view the Bible as a mere collection of ancient writings gathered together through political hegemony against others who see God’s providence at work in the process of recognizing the canon of Scripture. F. F. Bruce delivers a cogent historical narrative that sets the record straight to demonstrate that while some view the second century catholic church as a body of believers who were disorganized and whose collections of inspired writings were at open variance with each other, the truth is something far more compelling. Known worldwide as the "dean of evangelical scholarship," the late F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) offers some helpful insight into a topic that used to be reserved for scholars only. Bruce taught at the Universities of Edinburgh, Leeds and Sheffield before serving as Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester in England. Bruce dedicated a life-time to textual criticism and his corpus of writings includes New Testament History, The Books and the Parchment, How We Got our English Bible, and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Bruce’s chief focus is to counter the growing accusations within scholarship of those who repudiate the idea that the universal church possessed a consensus as to the extent of the New Testament canon by the end of the second century. As one key piece of evidence, Bruce points out that the catholic response to the publication of Marcion’s canon in the middle of the second century caused universal condemnation. That is to say, Bruce writes that the church recognized that the teaching of Marcion—through his canon—was not what the earliest Christians had heard from the beginning. But if the church recognized an aberration of teaching from men such as Marcion, how was one to defend the orthodox faith and which books should one use to do so? This was the question that confronted the early church and it was the historical narrative Bruce sought to undertake.
While the Canon of Scripture is not a seminal work in the area of historical canonization, the overall canonical story provides a framework of understanding the historical background to the Old Testament and the formation of the New. The historical process that is often fraught with heavy technical jargon usually reserved for the world of academia is communicated to a wider audience in easy to understand diction.
By the time of Jesus and the Apostles, the limits of the Old Testament had already been established. What was not universally agreed upon, however, was the arrangement or the division of the books, but traditionally the Hebrew Bible contained 24 in number and was arranged by the law, the prophets, and the writings. Evidence to support this limitation of books is found in the writings of the first century historian Josephus. Further support for a limited Old Testament canon at the time of Christ comes from Philo of Alexandria—a representative of Alexandrian Judaism. As Bruce points out, Philo would give us the best indication if non-Palestinian Jews accepted a wider canon than that of the Hebrew Bible, but there is no sign of accepting the authority of books outside the Hebrew Scriptures, including the books known as the Apocrypha.
One item that still separates Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals is the addition of the Apocrypha or the "Septuagintal plus." These are the works that were added to the Hebrew Bible during the translation into the Greek language. Since no distinction was ever made in the Septuagint, the entire corpus of writings was carried into the Greek-speaking world and was promulgated as sacred Scripture to the majority.
There were, however, some early church fathers—such as Origen and Jerome—that understood the original Hebrew tongue and recognized the "Septuagintal plus" did not belong on the same level as the traditional 24 books of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, it was the Septuagint that the early church lauded and it was the collection of writings contained in that version that stood at the vanguard of Christianity until some questioned the veracity of the Old Testament canon during the sixteenth century Reformation period.
The New Testament was a different story. The apostolic church had inherited the Old Testament canon but was not yet in possession of the New. The words and deeds of Jesus were circulating orally, but such tradition could easily and quickly become corrupted. What eventually augmented the Old Testament and the oral tradition was a first century fourfold gospel—the good news about Jesus. The Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline corpus were all circulating from the early second century onward. Extent manuscripts of these writings, surviving to us in the Chester Beatty manuscript, dates to around the year A.D. 200. It was during this same time period that the only books still in dispute were Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude and Revelation.
What, then, of the supposed lost gospels or the gnostic scrolls discovered at Nag Hammadi? Much is made today of the early church suppressing other books that should have been included in the Bible. Bruce makes clear that these books were never in serious contention for canonicity because they all failed to meet the requisites. That is to say, for a book to be given serious consider for the canon, it must have apostolic authority, antiquity, orthodoxy, and catholicity—none of gnostic text fit these aforementioned criteria.
Catholics and Greek Orthodox might gloss over the historical evidence against the inclusion of the Apocrypha, liberal scholars will inevitably deny the historic criteria for canonicity, and the conservative might find the theological aspect of canonization discussion to be lacking, but all will be thoroughly edified as they read one of twentieth centuries foremost textual scholars wax eloquent about the formation of both the Old and New Testaments. This book will serve well for those who seek to know more about the historical process—the discussions and disagreements—among the early church fathers in recognizing that which is ultimately theopnuestos, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
