The Dispute
If Scripture is truly
self-attesting, and the canon is Scripture, then the canon by its very nature
must be self-attesting. In other words, there can be no canon for the canon.
The canon serves as its own criteria. What has been framed up as criteria in
many arguments and discussions around the canon is better understood as a list
of similarities or common features shared by these very peculiar documents.
From a rational standpoint, we can easily recognize these common features.
However, these features are not the gatekeepers of the canon or what has been
called, the criteria of the canon any more than the church is. The canon is its
own gatekeeper. What we have in the canon is divine imposition applied through
the apostles and their close associates by the work of the Holy Spirit, not
only in the author, but also in the audience. It is this internal testimony
that provides external ground for the features of the NT Canon. External
grounds could never, apart from the authority of Scripture itself, provide an
adequate foundation for testing or determining which books are canonical and
which ones are not.
If the canon is Scripture, then
it is self-attesting. The canon is Scripture. Therefore, the canon is
self-attesting. Another way of stating it would be: If the canon is Scripture,
then it is self-attesting. The canon is not self-attesting. Therefore, the
canon is not Scripture. But the canon is Scripture. Therefore, the canon is
self-attesting. The prior argument is in the form of Modes Ponens while the latter is in the form of Modus Tolens. These are two rules of
inference used in formal logic to help with the evaluation of arguments. This
is also an argument against competing claims by other religions that they're
"holy" books are divine. The core issue is that books like the Qur'an
are not self-attesting. There can be only one self-attesting authoritative
revelation and it is Scripture. Since this is the case, competitors rest on
outside sources of authority to establish their status and credibility. This
inherently means they are not in the same class of divine Scripture. The
Scriptures, while they are accompanied with external support, do not rest upon
that support for anything more than providing secondary witness to their
content. One would expect to find such evidence given the claims of Scripture
and we do in fact find that evidence everywhere we look. But that evidence is
not used to lend credence to the claims and authority of Scripture. Even the
most honest person in the earth, whose word we should believe because she is
the most honest person in the earth may derive some benefit from a
corroborating witness.
Postscript: The Apocrypha
What does Apocrypha mean? The
word apokruphos means hidden, or
concealed. What are the contents of the Apocrypha? The following is a list of
the books in the Apoc in the order in which they occur in the Eng. VSS (AV and
RV): (1) 1 Esdras (150-100BC); (2) 2 Esdras (to be hereafter called “The
Apocalyptic Esdras”) (late 1st century AD); (3) Tobit (180BC); (4)
Judith (150BC); (5) The Rest of Esther(167-114BC); (6) The Wisdom of Solomon
(100BC); (7) Ecclesiasticus (to be hereafter called “Sirach”) (180BC); (8)
Baruch (100BC), with the Epistle of Jeremiah (100BC); (9) The Song of the Three
Holy Children (165-100 BC); (10) The History of Susanna (165-100BC); (11) Bel
and the Dragon (165-100 BC); (12) The Prayer of Manasses (1-2 cent. AD); (13) 1
Maccabees (end 2nd cent. BC); (14) 2 Maccabees (1-2 cent BC).[1]
The books of the Apocrypha range
from 180 B.C. to possibly as late as 100 A.D. These dates are not above dispute
of course, but there are hardly any dates from antiquity that are without
controversy.
The evidence is most certainly
against including the Apocryphal books in the biblical canon. Philo quoted the
Old Testament prolifically, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha. Josephus
explicitly excludes the Apocrypha from his list of the Jewish Scripture. Jesus
and the New Testament writers never once quote from the Apocrypha. The Jewish
scholars at Jamnia did not recognize the Apocrypha. Jerome, the translator of
the Latin Vulgate and great scholar, rejected the Apocrypha. Athanasius did not
include the Apocrypha in his list. Many Roman Catholic scholars during the
Reformation rejected the Apocrypha. It was not until 1546, in a polemical
action during the counter-Reformation at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), that
the Apocrypha received full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.[2]
Finally, the Apocrypha were composed
when there was no prophet in the land. Moreover, the only books that were
composed when there may have been prophets were composed during the life of our
Lord or His Apostles.
In addition, Norman Geisler
points out several other issues with the Apocrypha: 1) Some of their teaching
is unbiblical or heretical; 2) Some of their stories are extrabiblical or
fanciful; 3) Much of their teaching is subbiblical, at times even immoral; 4)
Most of the Apocrypha was written in the postbiblical and intertestamental
period. 5) Finally, all of the Apocrypha is nonbiblical or uncanonical, because
it was not received by the people of God.[3]
The Apocryphal books were
brought into the canon during the counter-reformation in what was likely a
polemical response to attacks from the reformers on the authority of the church
and the elevation of tradition to equal status with Scripture. The Roman
Catholic Church had centuries to declare these writings canonical, but they did
not. It was not until the Church was unable to defend herself against the
arbitrary nature of her self-declared authority that she found support in her
selective acceptance of the Apocryphal works.
It was at Trent that the Roman
Catholic Church asserted itself in a manner that heretofore it had not. At
Trent, the Church declared that the unwritten tradition, which it believed had
been handed down from the apostles, was dictated by the Holy Spirit and had God
as it's author. It declared the Latin Vulgate to be the authentic Bible of the
Church. The Church also anathematized all those who taught that free-will had
been lost at the fall. It was during this council that the same men declared
these Apocryphal books, previously denied canonical status, with a stroke of
their mighty pen, the authoritative works of God. No man or angel or demon has
ever enjoyed that sort of power from the dawn of creation until now.
Summary
When we speak about the canon,
we are speaking about Scripture. Historical evidences supporting the reasons
for the canon are, at best, corroborating witnesses that one would expect to
see upon historical investigation. They do not serve as a basis for our belief
that the canon is Scripture. If the canon is Scripture, then the canon is
self-attesting. The canon is Scripture. Therefore, the canon is self-attesting.
Recall, this is the Modus Ponens form of the argument. If the canon is
Scripture, then the canon is self-attesting. The cannon is not self-attesting.
Therefore, the canon is not Scripture. This second form is what we call Modus
Ponens. But the canon is Scripture and is therefore self-attesting. What I am
arguing is basically that the canon must be Scripture if it is to be the canon.
And as such, it stands on its own two feet. If it does not stand on its own two
feet and is in need of support from external sources, then it is not
self-attesting and if it is not self-attesting, it is not Scripture. The canon
collapses in this case and Christianity with it. Jesus said, "My Word
shall never pass away." (Matt. 5:35)
No comments:
Post a Comment