The Two Canons: The Biblical Books and the Great Books
How Do We Know What Is Scripture or What Makes a Book Truly Great?
One of the famous songs from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado is called “I’ve Got a Little List.” It is sung by Koko, the town tailor who has been elevated to the position of Lord High Executioner. Koko has been told that if there is not soon an execution, the town will be downgraded to a village, and so he compiles a list of those he finds irritating and undesirable and puts them on the list for execution:
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat —
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that —
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-á-têtes insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
[Chorus]
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed
When the canon of Scripture was debated through the years, some books were put on the list for dismissal. Marcion excluded Matthew, Mark, and John in 144 AD; the Book of Revelation was often on various lists; Luther excluded the book of James which he regarded as “an epistle of straw. James was on Luther’s list and to him, anyway, it would not be missed.
It is in the last chapter of the last book of our Bible that we read (Rev. 22:18.19):
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
The scroll described here is the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible, but the principle is clear: no one may add to the writing of Holy Scripture. Just what, then, is Holy Scripture? Who gets to decide? What criteria are used to determine if a book is part of the biblical canon and thus regarded as Scripture?
The Biblical Canon
The word canon is derived from the Greek kanon, which means simply “measure” or “rule.” It is a standard by which something can be measured, and “ruled in” or “ruled out.” Does the Book of Revelation meet the standard–is it ruled in and regarded as part of the biblical canon? If we think that there could be a “canon of great books,” what criteria would we use to rule a book in or out of, say a “cannon of great books?” Traditionally, there have been two canons: a canon of Scripture and a canon of great books outside of Scripture. Behind the development of these two canons is a simple human truth: to select is to canonize.
Everyday we must choose. When we choose from among multiple possibilities, we choose for meaning, we choose for what we esteem, for what we love or prefer. Even reading these words involves a selection process, as you choose for meaning as you select the pattern these letters form, selecting them for meaning. The Latin word legere (to read) and the noun lectio (reading) have “selection” at their root. Note the relationship between, elect, select, collect, and lectio. All involve choice. The same is true with our word intelligence which is from intelligere which means “to choose from among.” When you read, you choose to pattern the letters before you, making them mean; when you understand anything, you have also come to see how “things fit together.” This is intelligence.
A canon is therefore a collection (from the Latin collectio and colligere)--a gathering together of books that (by a process of selection) deserve to be in the same group. Just as humans collect butterflies, coins, and stamps, they collect books.
The word Bible is derived from biblia–a Greek word that simply means “books” for the Bible is a collection of books, all selected by criteria–criteria applied by people who determined that these books deserve to be in the same group called Holy Scripture. Using the word “canon” to describe the books of the Bible does imply that it is quite an important collection, and it is. Nonetheless, the Bible is a book list, even if a particularly important one.
Christians regard the Bible as the supreme book list, the mother of all lists, the chief, authoritative list, that which measures and assesses all other lists. But here enters a paradox. Humans seems to select the list but the list seems not to be passive, calmly waiting our assessment and decision. It appears to be living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and calls out for us, even judges us. Thus some regard the list as self-attesting and self-authenticating, such that the books of the Bible are simply recognized for what they are, the inspired Word of God, and therefore the ultimate criterion that judges all things and which is judged by none. Some will say that in a sense the canon of Scripture chose itself.
Those familiar with ancient church history will know that there were in fact debates and discussion about what books should comprise a list of books considered to be Holy Scripture–inspired by God and thus valuable for all Christians to read. If the canon chose itself, it did not do so by some clarion proclamation or declaration; it was rather that by a broad consensus the church recognized the canon for what it was by virtue of its own display of authority.
Christ did not publish a definitive list of all the books that should be considered part of the Old Testament canon. Nor did the Apostle John, when he completed the Book of Revelation (regarded as the latest book written in the New Testament) add a postscript telling that there were 26 other books (plus Revelation) that comprised the New Testament canon.
So then, how do we know what books comprise the Old Testament and New Testament canon? The short answer is that these questions were addressed by individuals and groups of people and eventually by church councils. It was an organic process that evolved with various arguments set forth for what criteria should be used to assess whether a book was canonical or not. The church did not quickly resolve these questions either. There was no council held at say 125 AD to fix the canon and give direction to the church. Competing lists were suggested though in practice there was a good deal of common use of the same books in the ancient church.
Marcion was a heretic who believed that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator whom Jesus came to destroy. He was also one of the first to suggest a canon of books in about 144 AD. His New Testament list contained only the gospel of Luke and the writings of Paul. It was Marcion's published list that sparked a sharp and ongoing response by other theologians (like Tertullian) and a concerted effort to create a clearly-defined canon.
What standard did Tertullian and others use to determine what writings were inspired and should be in the canon? Tertullian and others responded by detailing what the church already was acknowledging in its practice as the authoritative books. Surveying the practice and beliefs of thousands of churches, bishops, and theologians, a number of factors were considered: What writings were generally accepted by the churches? What writings were universally read with edification? What had the bishops of the church said and taught on the subject? How often was a book quoted by great theologians and fathers of the church? In the case of the New Testament, what writings were clearly penned by an apostle of Christ?
Though there was a significant unity of practice and belief in the ancient church, addressing these questions was not a formulaic process and it took the church centuries to “close the canon.” It is not unlike the way science proceeds. Science, too, asks questions that involve many factors, many potential causes. Why does the sun rise? Why do objects fall to the ground? Should Pluto be considered a planet? What makes the continents move? Why is fire hot?
Scientific theories are never true or false but rather strong or weak and subject to revision or being replaced altogether. The geocentric, Ptolemaic theory was considered strong and established–for a while. It was eventually replaced by the Copernican heliocentric theory.
The development of the biblical canon proceeded in a similar fashion–the canon evolved. The great bishop Athanasius wrote his Festal Letter 39 for Easter in 376 AD. In that letter, more than 200 years after Marcion, we have recorded (for the first time) the list of 27 books of the New Testament; the same books regarded as canonical today by the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Protestant churches.
The canon for the Old Testament also evolved but without a clear consensus. The list of the Old Testament books cited by Athanasius includes the Book of Baruch and excludes the Book of Esther. Athanasius also creates a category for edifying, valuable books that Christians should read but which are not canonical: Book of Wisdom, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd of Hermas. He also mentions a third category of books that should not be read because they are misleading: the Gospel of Thomas, 1 Enoch.
There is not a present consensus today among Christians regarding the canon of the Old Testament. The Orthodox and Catholics include several books as canonical (like the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, and Judith) that Protestants regard as apocryphal.
Discussions continue regarding the canon of Scripture, especially among Protestants. Should the apocryphal writings be read and studied by Christians at all? If they can be read, can they be read for spiritual edification or just for historical purposes?
As we study the development of the biblical canon, we have note the organic, paradoxical nature of the enterprise–it appears to be both human and divine. Have people (albeit highly qualified people) really chosen the canon–such that the canon owes its authority to those authorities that have selected it? Or has the canon been merely recognized for the authority it possesses? However we try to see the matter, we see the human blended with the divine like we do with the two natures of Christ. There is present the aroma of mystery. If the Scriptures are God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16 ), well then God’s breath was put into the apostles Paul, Peter, and John such that when Paul writes “See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!” (Gal. 6:11) we take these not only as Paul’s letters but the very words of God.
Christians can enjoy the comfort of knowing that there is universal consensus (now) regarding the canonical status of the 27 books of the New Testament. They must live with some moderate discomfort regarding the canon of the Old Testament.
The Great Books Canon
By now, you can likely see the analogy: The canon of Scripture has evolved and developed over time without a crystalline consensus; so has the canon of the great books. In both cases, the creation of the canon was a process, not an event. One canon (Scripture) is closed and no new books can be added; the other canon (the great books) remains open and new books can be added, even books not yet written. Both canons qualify books by a set of criteria; both canons are set by people who apply those criteria, and often with differing results. Paradoxically, both canons also seem to choose themselves; the criteria we use to select them are provided to us by the books themselves. Considered this way, the canons are not so much selected as recognized.
Since ancient times, when books were available, readers have recommended books, and a list of books to other readers. Humans share what they love with others, whether it be recipes to prepare, towns to visit, or books to read. Educators, charged with a responsibility for their students, have had to wisely consider what books to require students to read, what books to recommend, and what books to pass over. Basil, writing in the 400s AD, offers such advice to his students in his short book To Young Men on the Reading of Greek Literature. We can find such general advice as well in Augustine’s On Christian Teaching. In Basil’s case, he recommends that young scholars “be like the bees” which with natural discernment alight on some flowers but pass over others. Augustine suggests that readers should “refine the gold” of literature, removing the impurities but keeping what is good and true in pagan literature. Both Basil and Augustine cite Moses and Daniel as examples of figures who were learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians (Moses) and the Babylonians (Daniel) but who filtered their pagan learning and put it to use for godly purposes.
Following the counsel and exhortations of Basil and Augustine in the fifth century, Christians have generally been glad to read edifying literature from outside the church (e.g., from the Greek and Roman tradition) though with discernment and care. Basil warns scholars not to swallow the poison with the honey and not to mistake the thorn for the rose. Augustine warns his readers to take only the gold from pagan writers and reject the dross. In both cases the criterion for filtering pagan literature is biblical teaching, or that which is true, good, and beautiful as we understand those things in light of the Incarnation of Christ.
Basil and Augustine understood what is obvious to us all: We only have so much time and we can’t read everything nor should we even if we had the time. What, then, should we read? What is it that we really should know and understand? How do I wisely, practically gain access to the best that has been thought and said. Who will be my guide?
Such natural and important questions lead us to plan our reading with care–and to the making of lists, book lists. Educators, in particular, should carefully craft the lists their students will read. Will Christian educators, seeking to wisely guide their students, recommend the same books to their students? Do you imagine that Professor Basil would have you read the same books as Professor Augustine? Certainly their books lists will be the same if they are using the same standards of the true, good, and beautiful–books of enduring excellence, in harmony with biblical teaching, that ask the profound, continuing, universal questions. What about Professor Aquinas teaching in Paris in the 1200s? Or Erasmus teaching at Cambridge in the early 1500s?
Well, no, their book lists will not be the same, though they might be similar in some important respects. Basil spoke and read Greek, Augustine Latin. Aquinas knew Latin but not Greek, and accessed Greek by translation into Latin. In Aquinas’ day, Aristotle had just recently been discovered (or rediscovered); Aquinas essentially brought Aristotle (who wrote in 300s BC) into the literary canon. Erasmus knew Latin and Greek and was a leading figure in the late Renaissance–a period that recovered and brought many ancient texts back into the canon. The literary canon was evolving not by forward, straight line growth but also by backward study, seeking, and recovery. All of them would have recommended Augustine’s Confessions, except Augustine himself, and Basil who did not get his hands on it. Sadly, none of them would have read Dante for the inconvenient fact that he had not yet been born.
While the canon was growing “backwards” of course it was also growing forward, as Dante would eventually be born and write The Divine Comedy. From the 400s AD to Erasmus in the 1500s many new great books were written, enlarging the canon. The Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, the Song of Roland, Summa Theologica, The Divine Comedy were all written during this time. The pool of books from which Erasmus might create a student reading list was necessarily larger than that of Aquinas, just as the pool from which Aquinas would choose was larger than that of Basil and Augustine.
Each of these four professors would also make selections based on language, culture, and region. While Latin was the standard academic language in the time of both Aquinas and Erasmus, Aquinas had no direct access to Greek. Aquinas teaching in Paris might influence his selection in a way that differed from Erasmus teaching in Cambridge or Basel. And the difference between the factors that would influence the choices Erasmus made would be wider still between him and Augustine or Basil.
For all of these reasons, the book lists created by these four scholars, spanning almost a 1000 years, would vary widely and understandably. The canon has not been static but living and growing. It has grown not only forward in time, but grown retrospectively by discovery and rediscovery.
Unlike the canon of Scripture, there has not been a focused, intense, high-stakes movement (over centuries) to fix and finalize a western literary canon. There were lists made to be sure, but not with the urgency and sense of crisis the church encountered over the question of what comprised the canon of Scripture. At various times, creating authoritative (if not final) lists have been important. We see this with the anthologies collected by Cassiodorus and Isadore of Seville, for example, both of whom were trying to preserve reading of the great ancient authors after the Barbarian invasion and the fall of Rome. Book lists and manuscript hunting and collecting increased during the Renaissance, which was a time of rediscovery and rereading of the ancient authors. If the Renaissance was a time of going ad fontes, is not the current renewal of classical education a kind of renaissance? The current renewal is also going ad fontes, and our book lists therefore are growing and shifting as a result.
Witness the various lists that have been created in the last 100 years: The Harvard Classics (1909); the list compiled by Mortimer Adler and friends in The Great Books of the Western World (1952). There are lists compiled by school committees like the list presented in The Classical Reader (2015) and the reading list published by established classical schools like the Ambrose School. There are lists compiled by individuals, like the list in Honey for a Child’s Heart (1969) by Gladys Hunt and John Senior’s “1000 Good Books” in The Restoration of Christian Culture (1983), and David Hicks’ list in Norms and Nobility (1987), and Harold Blooms’ list in The Western Canon, the Books and School of the Ages (1994). The Classical Learning Test team has compiled its own list (the author bank) by way of a committee that includes a large list of leaders in the classical education renewal. None of these lists even pretends to be final and closed.
Google tells us that since the invention of the printing press, there have been about 129 million books published. Each year about 500,000 to 1,000,000 titles are added to that number. Of these millions, what books are good books? Which ones are great? Obviously we depend on others to give us guidance, to give us lists, even if it is a list of one. My wife has been reading Charles Taylor’s book, A Secular Age. Apparently now I will be reading this book.
There are so many lists, that are even lists of lists–like this Wikipedia site that contains hundreds of lists…of lists.
If you are a college president, or chair of a department, or a single professor, you work with authoritative lists either that you receive or create or both. If you are a school administrator, department chair, curriculum committee member, or a single teacher, you must do the same. We work with bibliographies–lists of books selected for us by authorities of one kind or another; we create bibliographies for our students; we create reading lists for our students that often contain three tiers: 1) books that must be read for class 2) books that are recommended for reading 3) books for further reference.
While the biblical canon is fairly fixed (the New Testament anyway) there have been many times at which the church has been concerned to protect the biblical canon. As we have noted above, the biblical canon is not merely selected by thoughtful readers, it is recognized for what it is; the biblical books themselves speak with authority that commands our attention and respect. Charles Spurgeon used to say: “The Word of God is like a lion. You don't have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself.” The Bible has also been called on many occasions an anvil that has worn out many hammers. There is no need to fret about the status and authority of the biblical canon: it can take care of itself.
The same is true of the canon of the great books. They too speak with authority that has not been assigned to them but with which they already possess. They too have been recognized for what they are. These books, too, can take care of themselves. You might know that the word author and authority are related. It was the great auctores (authors) who created books with auctoritas. Before the age of the printing press, who would go through the bother, time, and expense of hand copying a book–unless it was perceived to have authority? The majority of ancient books we have survived because people recognized them as worthy of having, reading, copying, and passing on.
So, then, what if someone argues that an old book should be read again as a great book? What if, for example, someone should argue that Christine de Pizan should be read in our classical schools? First, if de Pizan has been copied from medieval times and then printed for generations, she already likely has authority. Second, if de Pizan is a great work of authority, she can take care of herself. There is nothing at all wrong with someone suggesting we read her; some will take up this suggestion and indeed read her–and if she speaks with authority to many in our time, word will spread and more will read her. But she will be read not because someone suggested we do but because de Pizan herself will compel her own reading and attention. Apparently Tolkien suggested we start reading Beowulf. We did, and Beowulf made its own case for reading. Yes, we suggest books, but at root they suggest themselves, and they make their own case–and the best case–for why they should be read.
There are reasons why old, great books get more or less attention at a given time and in a given culture. Lewis tells us to read the old books because our own culture will have its own peculiar blind spots (like all cultures) that the old books, from a different time, can illuminate. All cultures err, he says, but not all cultures err in the same way. We might not know our culture is growing soft and intolerant of hardship until we read The Journals of Lewis and Clark, or Ben Franklin’s Autobiography or Caesar's Gallic Wars or Gibbons’ The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. Will de Pizan’s The Book of the City of Ladies (which recounts and describes numerous classical and Christian women who exemplify virtue, wisdom, holiness, and leadership) be a timely read today? Let some of us read her: she will make her own case. If enough of us think she is a timely, authoritative voice, the word will spread and she will be read more often.
Let us not forget, though, the prudent distinction between good and great books. Lewis recommended that we read the old books but also the new ones. Let us use Tolkien and Lewis again, as authors, as our examples. The Fellowship of the Ring cannot yet be considered a great book until it has been assessed for about 100 years. The same is true of The Chronicles of Narnia. Virtually every classical school I know of requires the reading of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Fellowship of the Ring. These are recent books; they are good books; perhaps someday they will be great books. Classical schools already follow a kind of informal 80-20 rule: about 80% of the books required are great books, that have proven their worth, and are at least 100 years old. About 20% of the books required are more recently published, some even by living authors like Marilyn Robinson (Gilead). These are good books.
Let schools read some good books that are not yet great without objection. Let some schools read some old books with which we are not yet familiar (like de Pizan) and see what happens. The great books canon, analogous to Scripture, is living and active and can take of itself.