Canonicity of Scripture (Boundaries of Scripture)

7.1 What is the issue of canonicity?^[1]

“We defined biblical canonicity as a document’s having characteristics that evidence its being composed under divine inspiration.” (Feinburg, John F., Light in a Dark Place: the Doctrine of Scripture, 469)

The problem of canon refers to the fundamental question of knowing that we have the right sixty-six books in our Bible. If Christians cannot answer questions about the Bible's canonical boundaries, then on what grounds could we ever appeal to its content?

One fundamental question on the issue of canon is this: "Is the Christian belief in the canon justified?" Do Christians have a rational basis for affirming that the sixty-six books rightfully belong in the canon of Scripture?

7.1.1 Did the Christian church invent the idea of a canon?

“The Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon,”—or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible,”—that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “Canon of the Old Testament.” The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found his church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.” (Warfield, B.B., The Canon of the New Testament: How and When Formed, 3–4)

7.1.2 Summarize the origins of the canon of the Old Testament.

“It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of the present Canon of the Old Testament should be attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his time a great synagogue, consisting of one hundred and twenty men, including Daniel and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the Just. But it is very absurd to suppose that all these lived at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they are pleased to represent it: for, from the time of Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no less than two hundred and fifty years intervened.” (Alexander, Archibald, The Canon of the Old and New Testament Ascertained, 24)

7.2 What is the Historical-Critical Model?^[2]

The historical-critical model affirms that the idea of a canon, with its particular boundaries, is the product of human activities within the church during the early centuries of Christianity. Since the canon is an entirely human creation, all we can do is describe what happened in history. The canon has no metaphysical or intrinsic qualities that need to be accounted for—“canon” is not something that describes the quality of a book but is something that is done to books. If the canon is created and constituted by the community, and nothing is inherent in these books to make them canonical, it cannot exist before the community formally acts. Thus, it is not unusual for the historical-critical approach to have a fairly late date for canon and to insist on a strict semantic distinction between Scripture and canon.

7.3 What is the Roman Catholic Model?^[3]

Roman Catholicism denies that ultimate (final) authority exists in the Scriptures alone (sola scripture) and has adopted the trifold authority structure that includes (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, and (3) the Magisterium (the church's teaching authority). The Magisterium alone has the right to interpret Scripture and tradition, and it has the sole authority to define what writings constitute Scripture and tradition in the first place. To have an infallible Scripture, we need an infallible guide (the church) to tell us what is, and what is not, Scripture.

7.4 What is the Existential or Neoorthodox Model?^[4]

Unlike the historical-critical model and Roman Catholic model, the existential model tends toward an individualistic and experiential approach. Authority is not found in the Bible but ultimately in the individual who engages with the Bible. The classical existential approach is best known through Karl Barth, who believed that the Scriptures are the word of God but merely a witness to the word of God (Jesus Christ). Scripture is not the word of God in a static sense, but it "becomes" the word of God when an existential experience occurs. Therefore, if a particular document only "becomes" the word of God during an existential experience, then the canon is defined as those books through which the church encounters the living voice of God. Barth believed the sixty-six books of our canon are the only books God uses to speak to His church actively.

7.5 Explain the external model that the canon is historically determined.^[5]

This model denies that the Christian community’s reception of the canon is definitive in establishing its authority and instead seek to establish it by critically investigating the historical merits of each of the canonical books. This model puts a premium on the historical origins of a book (or its component parts). Kurt Aland argues that by an investigation into the “historical development” of these books, we can determine which parts are genuine and which are not.

A number of evangelicals have sought an answer in the “criteria of canonicity.” These criteria—apostolicity, orthodoxy, usage, etc.—are thought to be the characteristics that define a canonical book. Thus, the criteria-of-canonicity model argues that the authority of the canon can be established by doing a rigorous historical investigation of the New Testament books and showing how they meet these criteria. Paul Helm refers to this overall approach as “externalism,” which is committed to the idea that “external data are required to validate the Scriptures as the Word of God.”

Variations of this external historical model tend to downplay the intrinsic characteristics of these books and the ecclesiastical reception of these books as factors in their authentication as canon. As a result, this model leaves a canon that is so conditioned by historical investigations that its very dignity and authority are inevitably dependent upon these investigations.

7.6 What is the Self-Authenticating Model? ^[6]

The self-authenticating canonical model does not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority, but seeks to ground the canon in the only place it could be grounded, its own authority. For if the canon bears the very authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself? Even when God swore oaths, “he swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13).

Thus, for the canon to be the canon, it must be self-authenticating. A self-authenticating model of canon would take into account something that the other models have overlooked: the content of the canon itself. Rather than looking only to its reception (community determined), or only to its origins (historically determined), this model would, in a sense, let the canon have a voice in its own authentication.

The argument of the self-authenticating model is that we can know which books are canonical because God has provided the proper epistemic environment where belief in these books can be reliably formed. This environment includes not only providential exposure to the canonical books, but also the three attributes of canonicity that all canonical books possess—divine qualities, corporate reception, apostolic origins—and the work of the Holy Spirit to help us recognize them.

The canon can be defined in three different ways: exclusive (canon as reception), functional (canon as use), and ontological (canon as divinely given). These three definitions for canon generally correspond to the three attributes of canonicity in the self-authenticating model. If one looks at the canon from the perspective of corporate reception, then canon is most naturally defined as the books received and recognized by the consensus of the church (exclusive). If one looks at the canon from the perspective of divine qualities, then canon is most naturally defined as those books that are used as authoritative revelation by a community (functional). And if one looks at the canon from the perspective of apostolic origins, then the canon is most naturally defined as those books given by God as the redemptive-historical deposit (ontological).

The self-authenticating model accommodates all three definitions of canon and acknowledges that each of them has appropriate applications and uses. Biblically speaking, there is no need to choose between these definitions (and their corresponding dates) because each of them captures a true attribute of canon and also implies the other two.

7.7 What are key Bible verses that pertain to canonicity?^[7]

Scripture itself contains many passages relevant to canonicity. While the concept of canonicity is a theological construct, it is not without warrant.

• There are some Scriptures worth noting as examples of a writer referring to a book of the Bible as Scripture and then quoting it with the introductory formula “it is written,” or some other equivalent phraseology. (Ex 31:18; Deut 9:10; Lev 1:1; 4:1; Jer 29:1, 4; Matt 4:1–11)
• A second set of biblical texts relevant to biblical canonicity say that the human author was told to write in a book what God said, and the author did so. (Deut 6:6–9; Ex 13:9–10; 17:14; Num 33:2; Deut 31:9–29; Josh 24:26; Jer 30:2)
• In another group of texts, the people are commanded to obey things written specifically in the law of Moses or in some other part of the OT. (Josh 1:8; 8:30–31; 1 Kng 2:3; 2 Kng 22:11–13; Ezra 3:2, 4; Prov 28:4, 7, 9; Isaiah 24:5; Jeremiah 11:10; Daniel 9:11, 13; Hosea 6:7; Malachi 3:7; 4:4)
• A fifth group of passages refer to various historical figures. Though the author may have written much about the person in his book, he added that more is written in some other works. Some of the works cited seem to be other OT books. Others may be references to books in the OT canon as well. (2 Kings 18:17–20:11; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32; Isaiah 36:1–38:8)
• A sixth group of OT texts focuses on God’s law and the blessings that come from following it. (Psalm 1:2; 19:7; 40:8; 119:1; Proverbs 29:18)
• The first group of NT passages, our seventh group of biblical passages relevant to canonicity, speaks of OT books as God’s word or his law. (Matthew 4:1–11; 5:17, 21–26, 27–30, 31–32, 33–37, 38–42; 7:12; 11:13; 22:29, 40; 23:35; Luke 4:1–13; 16:16, 29, 31; 24:25, 27, 44, 45; John 6:45; 7:51–52; 10:34–36; 12:34, 38, 40; 20:9; Acts 13:15, 39; 18:24; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23; Romans 1:2; 3:21; 14:21; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 2:6; and 2 Peter 1:20; 3:2)
• The next group of texts refers to NT writings as Scripture and God’s word. (John 3:11–12, 32; chs. 14–16; 1 Corinthians 7:10–11; 11:23; 2 Peter 3:2, 16)
• There are NT passages where the writer refers to his own writings or to those of other NT authors and calls them Scripture, or says that what is written came from the Lord. (1 Cor 7:10–11; 11:23ff; 2 Pet 3:2, 16)
• A final set of NT texts is relevant to the canonicity of NT books. In these texts Jesus said that what he was saying came from God. Thus, whether or not one believes Jesus is God, he spoke God’s word. (John 3:34; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49; 17:6–8, 14)