We do not read an old book, but hear a living voice.

Not all of Paul’s letters are available to us. He wrote more letters to Corinth than the two in the New Testament. There is mention of a letter of Paul to Laodicea. Imagine that one of these letters would still be found; would the Bible then consist of 67 books from now on? Why do books belong or not belong to the canon?

For anyone who grew up with it, what belongs to the Bible and what does not seems so self-evident. Sixty-six books: handy to just know that from memory. But as you look around at the world-wide church and in history, it appears to be less unequivocal. The Roman Catholic Church has another eleven “deuterocanonical” writings (or additions to canonical books), which claim the same authority as the other Bible books. The canonical lists of differing Eastern-Orthodox churches are different again, as well in the number of apocryphal books, and in what kind of authority is attributed to them.

Apocryphal Books⤒🔗

Christians in the time of the Reformation had read the apocryphal books for centuries as authoritative holy writings. We can hardly imagine what it would have been like to separate oneself from them. Guido de Bres declares in the Netherlands Confession of Faith that the church may read these books, that is to say, read them in the gathering of the congregation, as people were used to. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) put an end to this usage in the worship service. The practice among Protestants has become that they are totally not read anymore. But our confession speaks positively about the apocryphal books: although they do not have godly authority and are placed under the authority of the canonical books, there is instruction to be found in them. There is no forbidding to read, or advising against reading them, and there is much worse literature.

In the early church, the apocryphal books had slowly gained more authority. They were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. That was the Bible of the early church, not the Hebrew text. When Hieronymus, in his Latin translation, went back to the Hebrew text, Augustine opposed that, among other reasons, because the Septuagint was quoted in the New Testament and points more explicitly to the Messiah. Going back to the Hebrew text and the Hebrew content of the canon, as the Reformation advocated, was a big step.

Variation←⤒🔗

New information and new research show clearly that the formation of a canon was a complex happening. That goes back even further than the acceptance of the apocryphal books in the early church. In the twentieth century, in the desert of Judah, namely in the grottos of Qumran, many book rolls were found from the centuries around the beginning of our current dating system (AD: in the year of our Lord, or more recently Common Era). On the one hand, practically all the books of the Old Testament appear to be present—apparently they were known, and had a certain authority. On the other hand, there are also other writings that occur multiple times and there is a variation in the text of some of the books. Thus, in Qumran, also different apocryphal psalms were found (numbered by scholars as 151 and following), which sometimes are placed between the canonical psalms. Were these songs also seen in Qumran as authoritative, or were they not so strict about differentiation?

In the time around the beginning of our current recording of years, there is mention of a great variety of writings which were passed on. At the same time, it is clear that in spite of all internal differences in the early time of the Jews, there was a core of authoritative holy writings. The writings of the New Testament were later added to that. It is historically accurate that the so-called apocryphal books were only accepted in the church at a later time. We confess that we receive these writings, ultimately as the Word of God, but the realization of the canon has been a moving history.

Received←⤒🔗

Apocryphal writings are sometimes greedily received in the popular formation of ideas. They would shed light on the “true” Christianity or reveal mysterious secrets, such as a marriage of Jesus. The church would then consciously have kept such books outside of the canon or would have rid itself of them. A short twenty years ago, that was the plot of the bestseller by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.

Historically, such a scenario is totally unbelievable. There was never a synod where there was a vote over writings, whether they should or should not be taken up in the canon. Indeed, there was discussion about a few Bible books, but then there were questions asked about the practice that they had already been accepted in the canon. The oldest canonical lists describe which books were generally acknowledged as godly and authoritative. There was no new decision made, but an existing conviction was described. The church does not establish a canon, but, “We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith” (Belgic Confession, Article 5).

What would we do if new letters from Paul were found? New writings out of the time of the Old or New Testament have taught us much. The letter to Laodicea or a third letter to Corinth would thus be investigated with great interest and undoubtedly would result in new insights. At the same time, the canon as a unit, is closed: a supplemented reprint of the Bible will not be necessary. These Scriptures are enough to know God and to be saved.

About a number of apocryphal books, there is a difference of insight between Reformed and other traditions, but more important is that the sixty-six books that we receive as canonical are accepted by all Christian churches world-wide. The reason for the acceptance of the Scriptures is not a historical argument, but the authority that the Scripture has of itself and of which the Holy Spirit witnesses. The Scripture is authoritative because God speaks in it. The Scripture is the living Word. That is acknowledged in Scripture itself and by the church, and whoever works with the Scriptures will notice that. We are not reading an old book, but hear, in the Scriptures, the voice of the Living God.