Navigating The Contours of The Canon - A Basic Presuppositional Defense (Pt. 4)

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 1^st 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 2^nd 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)

---

^[1] Thomas Witton Davies, “Apocrypha,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 182.

[2] Geisler, Noman L. & Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 272-273

[3] Ibid. 275

Navigating The Contours of The Canon - A Basic Presuppositional Defense (Pt. 3)

New Testament Canon

The question of the New Testament canon is no less significant than that of the Old Testament. The most important concept of this discussion is framing it in a way that is consistent with the Christian doctrine of Scripture so that our view is a true reflection of the teachings of Scripture. The protestant-reformed view of Scripture demands that the Scripture itself inform our view of the canon.

As I stated above, the canon and the Scripture are one and the same. The Church, as of late has suffered from several deficient models of the canon. Michael Kruger writes, "What is needed, then, is a canonical model that 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."[1] In his mastery work on the Institutes, Francis Turretin quotes Cardinal Bellarmine, "Nothing is better known, nothing more certain than the sacred Scriptures contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles, so that he must be in the highest degree foolish who refuses to believe in them."[2]

The evidence strongly suggests that the NT canon began to form almost immediately. 1 Tim. 5:18 reads, For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages." In this instance, Paul is referring to Deut. 25:4 and to Luke 10:7. In other words, Paul has deliberately, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed Luke on the same level with the Jewish Torah. Paul's identification of Luke as Scripture points toward his recognition of that gospel as such and indicates canonical recognition at a very early stage in the Church.

Peter is another apostle that places NT writings on par with Scripture and indicates that a collection of Paul's letters had already taken place as early as his second epistle in 2 Peter 3:16. He uses the phrase pasais tais epistolais or "all the letters." This suggests a collection of Paul's letters since they were all originally sent directly to churches all over the region. This also suggests that copies of Paul's letters were produced either at the very start or very close to the start of his ministry among the churches.

In the second century we see four significant pieces of evidence that demonstrate the NT canon was formed much earlier than the fourth century, even though this view is commonly held by those who either have not studied the subject well enough or perhaps fail to comprehend from the start the nature of the Scriptures. The first piece of evidence is from a man named Marcion. Marcion lived sometime during the late first into the second century. His theology drove his view of Scripture. Of course, this is the case with each one of us. Because Marcion held to heretical views of God, he excluded the OT from his canon and in the NT only permitted the letters of Paul and the gospel of Luke. He denied that Christ came in the flesh and believed that the God of the OT was inferior to the Father of Jesus. The significance of Marcion is that he created a list of books that he regarded as Scripture. It contained a healthy portion of our current canon, but his heresy led him to cut out much of it. The point is that as early as Marcion we have evidence of a canon. Moreover, it is unlikely that Marcion created the first list. What is more likely is that he took an existing list and cut out what he did not like. We should not be surprised. Men are still excising those pieces of Scripture they despise to this very day.

Valentinus

Valentinus lived in Rome between 135-160. He is thought to have written the Gospel of Truth, which alludes to most of our current NT and refers to these writings in terms which presuppose that they are authoritative.[3] Hence, Valentinus, also a first-century gnostic heretic, provides our second witness to the NT Canon from the second century. The fragment mentioned above alludes to Matthew, Luke, the gospel and first letter of John, Paul's letters excluding the Pastorals, Hebrews and Revelation.

The Anti-Marcionite Prologues

As one might expect, the Church responded to the heresy of Marcion and heretics like Valentinus. This response came in the form of certain prologues attached to some of the NT gospels. These prologues are dated to the late second and early third century. They address some of the heresies associate with Marcion's theology.

The Muratorian Fragment

The Muratorian Fragment is a Latin list of NT books dated to somewhere around the end of the second century. According to F.F. Bruce, The document is best regarded as a list of New Testament books recognized as authoritative in the Roman Church at the time.[4] This list contains 21 books from our current canon.

It is important that one remember the purpose of referring to this evidence. The historical evidence is not intended to prove that the canon was the canon. It is not used to show how the Church determined or decided upon the canon. It is merely a witness to the fact that the idea of canon and Scripture are bound up together from the very beginning of the gospel. This evidence has produced too many errors when it is combined with deficient reasoning inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of Scripture. There is much more than could be said by way of these brief accounts, but I think this is sufficient to the purpose.

Athanasius

One of the most important figures from all of Church history is the former bishop of Alexandria, Egypt. Athanasius was not only a great champion of Christian orthodoxy during the Arian controversy at the council of Nicea. He is also a very important witness to the history of the NT Canon. In his thirty-ninth festal letter in the year 367, Athanasius lists out our present NT Canon. The question this brings to bear is how long had this list been in place. Indeed, this is a very important witness to the historical development of the NT Canon.

The first synod in the Church to officially recognize and speak about the canon was the Synod of Hippo 393. We only know this because of the reference made to this council at the Synod of Carthage in 397.

---

[1] Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited (Weaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 89.

[2] Turretin, Francis. The Institutes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), 1:90, 2.6.11.

[3] Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill; InterVarsity Press, 1988), 147.

[4] Ibid. 159.

Navigating The Contours of The Canon - A Basic Presupposition Defense

Old Testament Canon

Paul records in Romans 3:2 that it was to the Jewish people that God entrusted His Word. These words are the words of God the Holy Spirit as He is revealing through Paul that the Jewish people knew the identity of the Old Testament Canon. Christ referenced this canon on numerous occasions. We have numerous historical records that witness to the identity of the Jewish canon from writers like Josephus and Philo. We can also examine other Jewish writings and events concerning the canon to help us in our understanding of what Christ and the religious leaders of His day meant when they used the term "the Scriptures." The greatest witness for the Old Testament Canon then is actually found in the New Testament Canon here at Romans 3:2. For it is here that God reveals to us the identity of that collection of authoritative writings that Christ Himself called, the Scriptures.

Christ's view of the Jewish can be understood through a review of His own comments as recorded by the gospel writers. Luke 24:44 records Christ's belief in a tripartite division of the Jewish canon. "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." There is strong evidence to support the view that the use of Psalms here is a reference to the writings. Hence, the Psalms referred to more than what we know as our canonical book of Psalms. Jesus repeatedly used and referred to the very same Scripture as His religious opponents. There can be little doubt that Jesus' understanding of the canon was identical to the rest of the Jewish leaders.

Flavius Josephus was born into an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem around 37 A.D. He was an important Jewish historian and politician from the first century A.D. He is also an important witness to the Jewish canon during this period. "With regard to the canon, Josephus's writings are of considerable value. As we shall find, the complete contents of the Jewish canon can be inferred from his various statements."[1] Beckwith says in another place regarding Josephus, "In Against Apion, Josephus goes on to give his Gentile readers an account of the Jewish canon as a whole. He states that the inspired books are of prophetic authorship and are only twenty two in number."[2] Josephus's twenty-two book list is identical with the Protestant thirty-nine book Old Testament Canon. The difference is how Josephus groups his books together and then numbers them.

Judaeus Philo is another important witness to the Jewish canon from the first century. He lived from around 25 B.C. to approximately 40 A.D. He was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher whose Greek philosopher presented the first major challenge for biblical faith. Regrettably, much of Philo's Greek philosophy still influences the church to this present day. Nevertheless, Philo was an important witness to the Jewish canon. Now, the Da Vita Contemplativa gives a significant account of the things, which each Therepeutae takes with him into his oratory. He takes none of the common things of life, but "(the) laws, and (the) Oracles given by inspiration through (the) Prophets, and (the) Psalms, and the other books whereby knowledge and piety are increased and complete."[3] Hence, Philo seems to refer to the very same structure of the canon that Jesus and other's referred to during this time.

The List of the Jewish Canon

The Law (Torah)	The Prophets (Nebhim)	The Writings (Kethubhim or Hagiographa)
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy	A. Former Prophets Joshua Judges Samuel Kings B. Latter Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel The Twelve	A. Poetical Books Psalms Proverbs Job B. Migolloth (Five Rolls) Song of Songs Ruth Lamentations Esther Ecclesiastes C. Historical Books Daniel Ezra-Nehemiah Chronicles

In the 22-book Jewish canon, Jeremiah – Lamentations are listed as one book and so too are Ezra – Nehemiah.

Jamnia

Many scholars have argued that the Jewish canon of the OT was not closed during the time of Christ. To support their view, one of the events they point to is the supposed council at Jamnia, which took place around 90 A.D. According to scholar, F.F. Bruce, "So far as the Scriptures are concerned, the rabbis at Jamnia introduced no innovations; they reviewed the tradition they had received and left it more or less as it was."[4] It is also probably not appropriate to call this event a council at all. Rather, there was an academy at Jamnia that had been established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai. In addition, no authoritative decisions were reached at Jamnia regarding the identity or structure of the canon.

Athanasius

We do not know the time and place of Athanasius's birth. He was very likely an Egyptian. During his youth, he was in close contacts with the monks of the desert. "From the monks, Athanasius learned a rigid discipline that he applied to himself, and an austerity that earned him the admiration of his friends and even the respect of many of his enemies."[5]

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows."^[6] What is even more significant that Athanasius's list of canonical books is his view of the nature of these books.

"These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’"^[7] There is no room for doubting Athanasius's high view of the canon. Clearly, the Scripture and the canon were one and the same in the thought of Athanasius. In addition, Athanasius also provides us with an important witness to the canon of the New Testament.

Jerome

Jerome was born around 348 A.D. in northern Italy. Jerome took up the study of Hebrew in order to occupy his mind with something other than the pleasures of Rome. His greatest work was the translation of the Bible into Latin. Jerome was one of the most important figures from Church history and few men influenced the Church more than he. Jerome was the greatest scholar of ancient Hebrew during his time. And he was one of the only Hebrew scholars of the church.

"Looking back over Jerome's account, it will be seen that he knows of the two Jewish numerations of the canonical books (both independently and attested in ancient Jewish sources), 22 and 24. He states the identity of the canonical books, as the Jews receive them, their order according to the first numeration, and their distribution among the Law, prophets, and Hagiographa according to both numberations."[8]

In summary then, we see that Christ maintained the traditional view of the Old Testament canon. In addition, we see the same view expressed by Paul in his writings. As we examine other evidence from the early Church and early Rabbinic literature, the support for the 39-book canon of the Protestant has overwhelming support from history.

---

[1] Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Great Britain; SPCK, 1985), 24.

[2] Ibid. 79.

[3] Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Great Britain; SPCK, 1985), 117.

[4] Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 1988), 34.

[5] Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2010), Vol. I, 200.

^[6] Athanasius of Alexandria, “Festal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Burgess and Jessie Smith Payne, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 552.

^[7] Athanasius of Alexandria, “Festal Letters,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry Burgess and Jessie Smith Payne, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 552.

[8] Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Great Britain: SPCK, 1985), 121.