Religion: CANON

Christianity, religion Christianity, Christianity religion. CANON:

CANON

The word “canon” derives from the Greek kan -on , a straight stick, measuring rod or ruler (cf. Latin regula ); hence, a standard or norm. At the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others spoke of the “rule of faith” or “canon of truth”, meaning the heart of the gospel as expressed in summary forms similar to the creeds.* From the 4th century onwards, conciliar decisions on doctrine and discipline were designated canons (see ecumenical councils ). “Canon law” is the way most churches regulate their life (see canon law, church discipline ); monastic rules may also be called canons. In the liturgy of the Roman (Catholic) church, the “canon” of the mass is a normative eucharistic prayer.

Ecumenically, “canon” is most widely used in connection with the scriptures of the church. Verbally, such usage goes back only to the 4th century, but the fact and idea of a “collection of authoritative writings” (intrinsic authority) or even an “authoritative collection of (such) writings” (extrinsically recognized authority) has been present to Christianity since its beginnings. To the scriptures of Israel – which it claimed for its own – the earliest church added writings that told the story of Jesus the Christ and recorded the preaching, teaching and life of the primitive Christian community. The question of which writings were to be properly so treated arose acutely in the mid-2nd century. The catholic “canon” established itself over against, on the one hand, the reductionism of Marcion (whose own canon comprised only a doctored Luke and a mutilated corpus paulinum ) and, on the other hand, the pullulation of apocryphal gospels, acts and apocalypses that were largely Gnostic in character and, perhaps, the more recent oracles considered by the Montanists as further revelation. Positively put, the catholic canon consisted of those writings which had been accepted for reading in the worship of the church and, in the case of the “New Testament”, were held to be derived from an apostle or his surrogate (e.g. Mark writing for Peter, or Luke writing on the authority of Paul).

There was no conflict between such writings and authentic tradition. Indeed the scriptures* were intrinsic to the tradition – a vehicle for transmitting the Christian message and faith. Preaching, catechesis, sacramental rites, episcopal teaching and the confessions of martyrs and everyday saints were also instruments of the Tradition. But a special role and value attached to the scriptures – reflected in the care taken to protect them in times of persecution – as the permanent legacy of the original witnesses and of inspired writers who had been normatively guided by the same self-consistent Spirit as indwelt the believing community. According to an ecumenically influential formula of Oscar Cullmann: in establishing the principle of a canon, “the church, by an act of humility, submitted every later tradition that she would elaborate to the higher criterion of the apostolic tradition fixed in the holy scriptures” ( La tradition , 1953). Thus the canonical scriptures of Old and New Testament constitute, for the continuing life of the church, the decisive written testimony to God's history with Israel, the incarnation of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit. In times of doctrinal and ecclesiastical controversy, however, there has been conflict over their interpretation and over their operative relation to the other vehicles of tradition.

At the fourth world conference on Faith and Order (Montreal 1963), a remarkable convergence was registered between Protestants and Orthodox on Tradition (the “great T radition”, which is to be distinguished from the particular ecclesiastical “ t radition s ”, even if these are its channels) as the “ paradosis of the kerygma ”, the handing on of the message, “the Tradition of the gospel” – with the scriptures as a privileged and normative element within the Tradition. As “the Tradition in its written form”, the scriptures have “a special basic value” and serve as “an indispensable criterion” for distinguishing “faithful transmission” (Montreal 1963, paras 38-76). At the same time Vatican II, in line with the historical work of J.R. Geiselmann on the limits of the formula of the council of Trent* concerning “scriptures and (et) unwritten traditions”, rejected a draft text on “the two sources of revelation” and adopted instead the constitution Dei Verbum , which was much closer to Yves Congar's systematic notion that the scriptures and the oral-practical tradition of the church are diverse and interactive modes of transmitting one and the same gospel.

Thus there has been growing ecumenical agreement on the sufficiency of the scriptures, even if varying emphases continue to reflect historical controversies. The Protestant principle of sola scriptura was first erected against some practical and doctrinal tradition s which were tolerated or even endorsed by the pastoral authorities of the medieval West but in the reformers' eyes contradicted the original gospel and faith. Understood absolutely, “scripture alone” implies that the Bible is self-interpreting, at least under the Holy Spirit's direct guidance; but in fact the “living voice of the gospel” (viva vox evangelii) is always mediated by preachers who actively expound – and therefore interpret – what they take to be the scriptural message within a variable cultural context. While continuing to insist on the primacy of the scriptures, ecumenically minded Protestants recognize that the church has willy-nilly a “teaching office” – and the issue is as to where such a magisterium is lodged (bishops, synods, professors, pope...). The Roman Catholic tradition has always recognized more openly the need for a teaching office and has been more willing to admit the fact of later “explication” or “development” of what was latently or germinally present in the apostolic faith recorded in the scriptures (not only as regards, say, the full formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity but also, controversially, the Marian dogmas and the “Petrine office” itself). On its side, however, Vatican II has insisted that the magisterium remains subservient to the apostolic witness ( Dei Verbum 7-10).

While not all problems regarding the sufficiency of the scriptures in relation to Tradition have found an ecumenical solution, the more explosive question now may concern the integrity of the canonical scriptures. Although Christian churches differ somewhat over the extent of the OT (see Old Testament and Christian unity ), they are officially just about unanimous over the composition of the NT, i.e. those 27 books whose precise listing is first found in Athanasius's festal letter for 367 (see New Testament and Christian unity ). Nevertheless, three recurrent issues may prove disruptive.