Canonization, according to Leiman, is "the process by which a book leaves the realm of the ordinary, and instead becomes authoritative for religious practice or doctrine for all generations." 1 But, was any biblical book ever "ordinary" before becoming authoritative? The interpretive assumptions---that is, the hermeneutics---aid in determining the answer.
This article uses a canonical hermeneutic. It starts with the canonical text, accepts the information in it as historical, and seeks conclusions consistent with those facts. It deals with the development of the canon, introduces some new terms for canonical discourse, analyzes some hermeneutical approaches to canonization, and finally addresses the question of a "closed" canon. Most discussion deals with the Old Testament, although the principle applies to the New as well.
Canonization: terms and examples
The original meaning of canon is a "measuring rod," used as we use words such as "standard" or "criteria"2 today. The early church used the word to denote "the authoritative (canonical) list of books which belong to the Bible."3
Obviously, the biblical canon was not completed at one time. If we think of the canon in terms of a healthy baby born at full term, we can usefully label each stage of its gestation before its birth. A human fetus is fully human without being fully developed. So the canon from inception through gestation was fully authoritative though not fully grown.
There was time between an inspired work's composition and the time of its placement in the epichronous (at-that-time) canon. To refer to this interval, we could use the term eisocanon---that is, the individual book is authoritative from the beginning but is on its way into (eiso) the authoritative collection. The interval was brief for the majority of the Old Testament. Joshua and Samuel became part of the epichronous canon in their lifetime (see Josh. 24:26 and 1 Sam. 10:25). Daniel accepted Jeremiah as authoritative within a short time of its writing (see Dan. 9:2; Jer. 25:11-12). Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, had made note of Daniel's proverbial fame by the twelfth year of the Babylonian captivity (Ezek. 114:14, 20; 28:3; cf. 33:21 and 26:1; 29:1).
The book of Psalms is a clear example of developing or epichronous canonidty. It is also an example of subcanonicity: a smaller collection of works, as well as single works developing into a larger collection (see table on p. 27). During David's lifetime, approximately 49 percent of the psalmic canon came from his hand. However, the psalm writers, Asaph, Heman, and Ethan were David's contemporaries (1 Chron. 15:19). From internal evidence, most psalms were composed and/or compiled during David's reign (see 25:1-6).
Three approaches to canonization
We shall look at examples of two major approaches in the study of how the canon developed. We will also look at the approach of a major Adventist scholar.
An historical-critical approach. Leiman wrote as if it were a matter of indisputable fact: "Though we possess a fair knowledge of the Bible's message, we know next to nothing about its literary history. We do not know, for example, when or where the biblical books were first published, or how they gained admission into that very select group of writings which we call the Hebrew Bible."4
However, Leiman did recognize a key element in the conjectures of some historical-critical scholarship. He stated that "most of the references to canonical literature refer to the Torah or portions of it. They are particularly problematic because of the ambiguity of numerous terms used to depict the Torah or its portions, and because of the difficulty in dating passages which impute the notion of canonidty to the earliest periods of Israelite history."5
Here, methodological doubt admits having a problem with accepting the canon's internal witness to early canonicity. Leiman saw the implications of passages that attest to it (e.g., Exod. 24:4, 7,12; 32:15; Deut. 9:9ff; 1 Kings 2:3; 8:9).
A conservative approach. According to Vasholz, the view of a late Old Testament canonical development fails to take seriously at least one aspect of Old Testament canonicity into account: The "Old Testament itself vigorously and repeatedly asserts that it is the 'Word of the Lord.'... It always projects itself as binding, authoritative and God-given throughout.... The idea of 2 Samuel 23:1-3,'The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me, his word was on my tongue,' is pervasive. The Old Testament never veers from this."6
Vasholz's overstated generalization faces problems with Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiast.es. None of these Old Testament books claim that "the word of the Lord came" to their authors. Indeed most Old Testament books are not explicit on authorship. No specific claim is made for Genesis. Nor for Kings or Chronicles, other than can be inferred from the mention of prophets such as Nathan (1 Kings 1:8,10, etc.), Ahijah (11:29), Jehu (16:7), Elijah (17:1), and 100 of Elijah's unnamed colleagues (18:4). Prophetic chroniclers likely recorded the kingdom events of their own times.
Only Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, and Zechariah say they spoke on the authority of God. Adding Moses (Exod. 17:14; 24:4; Num. 33:2; and Deut. 31:24), Joshua (Josh. 24:26), and Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25) accounts for only 15 of the 39 individual books.
Prophets did not seek to explain the source of their authority. Amos even denied he was a prophet (Amos 7:14). Jesus was actually asked by what authority He spoke and astutely denied the need to answer (Matt. 21:23-27).
It is true, Vasholz held, that ancient ; Near Eastern writings have examples of religious leaders who also professed to have received words from their gods. But none claimed it in the context of a wide, public witness such as at Mount Sinai. That is unique to the Old Testament.7
Adventist hermeneutics. Seventh-day Adventist canonical research is a virtually untilled field. Only the late Gerhard Hasel has made a significant contribution in this area. According to Hasel, "Inspiration is... the essential, internal quality of Scripture from which its authority derives." 8 Either "The Bible is the product of human decisions based on sociocultural norms and events in the history of the past which can be reactualized in the present," or "Humans came to recognize the authority of Scripture because of an inherent nature and quality of the writings of the Bible as the self-authenticating, self-validating Word of God."9
If so, how have communities known how to "affirm" true inspiration? Passages such as Deuteronomy 13:1-5, 18:5-22, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:15-16, 1 Corinthians 14:29, and 1 Thessalonians 5:20,21 among others reveal the role of the community of faith.
Hasel correctly argues that a particular book or section became authoritative at the very time it was written. 10 However, according to the passages above, all prophets and/or prophetic writings (after Moses and Joshua) were to be either verified or rejected by the faith communities.
Historically, the Pentateuch provided the first criteria by which to assess subsequent writings. Hasel agrees with Pentateuchal primacy.11 Passages such as Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:5-22 indicate not only that true messengers would come but also false ones. This is why Moses asks: "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?" (Deut. 18:21).
In attempting to avoid giving the faith community any determinative role in the canon's growth, Hasel advanced the theory that "the Bible is canonical before the canonicity is recognized by any community of faith." 12 Nevertheless, a body of writings is not authoritative unless it is authoritative for a body of people. There is no canon without some community of faith, and there is no community of faith without some type of canon.
Hasel proposed that "intrinsic authority, given through divine inspiration, both implies and produces canonicity." 13 The "inspired Word of God is by its very nature 'Scripture' and is canonical from the moment it is recorded in written form by the hands of the inspired writers."14 Equating canon to Scripture is useful for explaining what is in the Bible. It fails, however, to answer for what is not in the Bible.
Twelve apparently "uncanonized"15 prophetic works appear in the Bible. Why are they not in the present canon if inspiration in, of, and by itself makes a book inherently Scripture. What were the criteria for not "affirming" them?16 Obviously, all things in the canon are inspired and authoritative, but not all things inspired and authoritative are in the canon.
New Testament usage of Old Testament passages are not proof enough of the canonicity and authority of the Old. The New Testament does not quote from 15 Old Testament canonical books Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. 17 Does this mean they are not canonical? Of course not.
To summarize: Leiman's hermeneutics cannot account for the early canonicity of what is in the canon; Basel's solution cannot account for what is not in the canon; and Vasholz, though solid on the Pentateuch's early primacy, overstated part of his case for canonical authority in order to make it.
A dynamic canon
One could say that the idea of a "closed" canon is a theological construct. We can certainly say that the Bible is the "present" canon. We should also say that it shows greater prophetic activity than can be established by simply counting books.
Although we do not advocate an expanded canon, the present canon demonstrates dynamic growth rather than being static and terminal. Collectively, the canon calls us to expect, verify, and heed the continuing ministry of the Spirit.
Christ's wilderness experience in the context of His baptism exemplifies this expectation. The heavenly voice had testified that Jesus was God's beloved and pleasing Son. When tempted by Satan to doubt His divine origin, Christ resisted and rested on both the Living Word (see Matthew 3:16) and the Written Word "every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; cf. Deut. 8:3).
God has not canceled the right to be heard with authority both in preserved canon and through living prophet. The canon is paradoxically both more than and the same as its human authors, events, cultures, and literary genres. Divinity and humanity are equally involved. That much human involvement should help us see the Scriptures for what they are on a human level a wrenching reality for some. That much divine involvement should help us see the Scriptures for what they are from a divine perspective---a troubling truth for others.
1. Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, vol. 47 of the Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences (Hamden, Conn.: The Shoe String Press, Inc., 1976), p. 9.
2. Gerhard F. Hasel, "Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible," Journal of Adventist Theological Society (Spring 1994), p.71.
3. Ibid., p. 71.
4. Leiman, p. 9. Emphasis supplied.
5. Ibid., p. 19. Emphasis supplied.
6. Vasholz, p. 2.
7. Vasholz, p. 9.
8. Hasel, p. 68.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., p. 73.
11. Ibid., pp. 93, 94.
12. Ibid., p. 98.
13. Ibid., p. 99.
14. Ibid., p. 79.
15. "Uncanonized" because they are notindividually in the present canon. They were obviously "canonical" in the sense of inspiration and authority and are no doubt subcanons of books such as Kings and Chronicles.
16. In the New Testament canon, for example, Paul's letter to the Corinthians preceding 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), and to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16).
17. See "Index of Quotations: Old Testament Order" in The Greek New Testament, 3rd corrected ed., Kurt Aland and others, eds. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), pp. 897,898.
