Much is made in the Protestant sphere of the “canon” of scripture, where “canon” is often used as a synonym for the “list” of approved scriptures, if not for the Bible itself. The ancient history of Christianity shows a more flexible use of the term canon.
The term is found in the New Testament four times, all Pauline usage. It is used in its literal meaning of a measuring line or boundary — perhaps describing jurisdictions in 2 Cor. 10:13, 15, 16 — except in Gal. 6:16, where it is used more in the sense of a rule of living.
Clement of Alexandria.
Later in the Church’s life, Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd ct.) referred to the “ecclesiastical canon”: “the concord and harmony of the Law and Prophets in the covenant delivered at the parousia of the Lord.” (Stromata 6.15.125.3). Here, canon is inseparable from scriptural exegesis under a Christological hermeneutic (or a Christological exegesis under a scriptural hermeneutic, per Behr), and inherited from Christ at that. There is an inevitable subjectivity to this canon-as-exegetical-process: “The canon is found in the interpretive engagement with Scripture according to which Christ was preached by the apostles, an engagement in which the student of the Word is also ‘interpreted’ by the Word as he or she puts on the identity of Christ.” (Behr, The Tradition and the Canon of the Gospel According to the Scriptures).
The danger of canon’s exegetical dimension is that eisegesis can be mistaken for, and sold as, legitimate exegesis -- and therefore canon. The reckless eisegete innovates his own “Bible canon” so to speak – as Marcion did more explicitly – that turns the proverbial portrait of a king into a collage of a dog (AH 1.8.1). Canon ought therefore to have some measurable, historic apostolocity...
