There has been some good discussion of canon on the blog of late, and as usual, the matter of the meaning of canon arises. Does “canon” apply to particular text forms of books (e.g. the Gospel of Mark with or without the longer ending; or the longer and shorter versions of Daniel)? Note the results of the recent poll here. Should we translate the term “canon” as “list” and describe books as “listical” rather than canonical (per Peter Williams)? Does canon refer to an authoritative list of books or to a list of authoritative books (à la Bruce Metzger)? What is the relationship between the ontological canon and exclusive/historical canons?There are many questions about the nature of the canon, and the evidence of the canon lists remains part of the answer. First, “... lists often (not always) date to a time when the major formative stages of the biblical canon had already taken place. We usually see in the lists the results of a long process of development” (The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity [BCLEC], p. xviii). This is probably more true for the Old Testament than the New, since some of the NT lists (e.g. Muratorian Fragment [regardless of date] and Eusebius’s list) seem to be drafted in the midst of the process. The point here is that the lists do not initiate a canonical process, rather usually, they appear near the end of the process. By the time Josephus commented on “only twenty-two” books, it appears that the OT canon was long established with some on going dispute over Esther and perhaps Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes. Much of the NT canon solidified by the end of the 2nd century before a NT list was drafted.
Second, terminology in the early sources. It is difficult to find the use of the noun κανών with the sense of “list” to describe a list of books in early Greek sources, even in the fourth century (cf., e.g., Amphilochius of Iconium in BCLEC, p. 154n411). An author could use different terminology or derivatives of the term “canon” to describe the books within the list (cf. Athanasius in BCLEC, p. 124). The use of “canon” and derivatives seemed to catch on more readily in Latin authors. Augustine would use the term to describe the list (cf. BCLEC, p. 227; but on the same page, cp. his usage of “canonical scriptures”), while the Breviarium Hipponense used the adjective for “canonical scriptures” (BCLEC, p. 223). The list of the Synod of Laodicea described the books in its list as possessing or having authority (BCLEC, p. 132). The evidence for an authoritative list of (authoritative) books is not strong in the early period. Not only did early Christians refrain from speaking of their lists this way, but the variance between the contents of the lists themselves manifest that there was no single authoritative list of scriptural books. Furthermore, logically, the list would be a recognition or acknowledgement of books long considered authoritative scripture and there does not seem to be any evidence from the early period that a list conferred more authority on a book than it already possessed.
Even today, the New York Times Best Sellers List does not confer more popularity on a book than that book already had in order to get on the list in the first place. The act of recognizing a particular book highlights it as already possessing the qualities necessary to be placed on the list in the first place. Probably, the canon list defined more clearly the books, more or less, that already possessed authority and divine characteristics, which the churches had already long recognized. Perhaps a list of recognized books was useful to promote these certain books, but it did not add anything essential to them that was required for their inclusion in the list in the first place.
Third, does a list of authoritative books imply an authoritative list of books, even though an author does not say this explicitly? Perhaps, but it is important to remember that the list of an author or synod would only have had a limited measure of authority. In later collections of Byzantine canon law patristic letters such as the kind Athanasius wrote had diminished authority compared to an ecumenical council or even a regional synod. These letters were included in the canon law collection but were recognized to have reduced authority. This must be true regarding Athanasius’s 39th Festal letter on the canonical books since Eastern Orthodox churches continue to discuss the matter today and Athanasius’s letter does not settle the debates. Therefore, no one seems to recognize an authoritative list of books that would settle the debates.
Second, terminology in the early sources. It is difficult to find the use of the noun κανών with the sense of “list” to describe a list of books in early Greek sources, even in the fourth century (cf., e.g., Amphilochius of Iconium in BCLEC, p. 154n411). An author could use different terminology or derivatives of the term “canon” to describe the books within the list (cf. Athanasius in BCLEC, p. 124). The use of “canon” and derivatives seemed to catch on more readily in Latin authors. Augustine would use the term to describe the list (cf. BCLEC, p. 227; but on the same page, cp. his usage of “canonical scriptures”), while the Breviarium Hipponense used the adjective for “canonical scriptures” (BCLEC, p. 223). The list of the Synod of Laodicea described the books in its list as possessing or having authority (BCLEC, p. 132). The evidence for an authoritative list of (authoritative) books is not strong in the early period. Not only did early Christians refrain from speaking of their lists this way, but the variance between the contents of the lists themselves manifest that there was no single authoritative list of scriptural books. Furthermore, logically, the list would be a recognition or acknowledgement of books long considered authoritative scripture and there does not seem to be any evidence from the early period that a list conferred more authority on a book than it already possessed.
Even today, the New York Times Best Sellers List does not confer more popularity on a book than that book already had in order to get on the list in the first place. The act of recognizing a particular book highlights it as already possessing the qualities necessary to be placed on the list in the first place. Probably, the canon list defined more clearly the books, more or less, that already possessed authority and divine characteristics, which the churches had already long recognized. Perhaps a list of recognized books was useful to promote these certain books, but it did not add anything essential to them that was required for their inclusion in the list in the first place.
Third, does a list of authoritative books imply an authoritative list of books, even though an author does not say this explicitly? Perhaps, but it is important to remember that the list of an author or synod would only have had a limited measure of authority. In later collections of Byzantine canon law patristic letters such as the kind Athanasius wrote had diminished authority compared to an ecumenical council or even a regional synod. These letters were included in the canon law collection but were recognized to have reduced authority. This must be true regarding Athanasius’s 39th Festal letter on the canonical books since Eastern Orthodox churches continue to discuss the matter today and Athanasius’s letter does not settle the debates. Therefore, no one seems to recognize an authoritative list of books that would settle the debates.
Attempting to weigh all of the evidence, it seems clear that a canon list did not add authority to books already recognized as fit to be on the list. Those discussions happened before the drafting of lists. Thus there is not an authoritative list which confers authority to the books within it. Rather, canon as an exclusive list of authoritative books is what is more plainly rooted in the church’s history.