Canonicity

Definition – The English word “canon” is derived from the Greek word κάλαμος (kah-lah-mahs), translated “reed” in Matthew 11:7; “pen” in 3 John 1:13; and “measuring rod” (Revelation 11:1). “Canon” is also transliterated from its Hebrew usage (only in Ezekiel 40:3, 5; 42:16, 17, 18, 19): ֶנה ָק  (kah-neh), where it is translated “measuring rod” (LXX: “ measuring reed’). The word was originally used in the sense of measuring straightness, hence a rule or standard. It came to be applied to the Scriptures, to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the standard of doctrine and duty. A book is said to be of canonical authority when it has a right to take a place with the other books which contain a revelation of the Divine will. Such a right does not arise from any ecclesiastical authority, but from the evidence of the inspired authorship of the book. The canonical (i.e., the inspired) books of the Old and New Testaments, are a complete rule, and the only rule, of faith and practice. They contain the whole supernatural revelation of God to men. “Canonization” is the word which describes the process by which the community of God’s people accept certain books of Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative. This process has been described as including three noteworthy aspects: (1) Progressive collection of authoritative scriptures; (2) Written by recognized and especially chosen men of God such as prophets and apostles; and (3) Recognized and accepted as authoritative by the community of God’s people. No person or church council made a book ‘scripture.’ Rather, God’s church (human believers) through an orderly process over time came to a common recognition which books were indeed inspired and inerrant.

 

This blog is the third in a current series on the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible. The first two were entitled “Inspiration” and “Inerrancy.” It would be beneficial, I believe, for you to read these studies as introductory to this one. Simply put, inspiration is the doctrine that assures us God wrote the Bible. That God used human authors in the process of this divine revelation does not diminish this preeminent fact. The doctrine of inspiration is clearly spelled out in 2 Timothy 3:16:

NAS 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

“Inspired” in this context means breathed out, as the ESV Bible clarifies:

ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

It follows logically that if God wrote the Bible, the Bible in its original transmission was without err. It is saddening, in my opinion, that these scripturally reliably and rational facts do not settle the question of biblical integrity and trustworthiness once and for all for all Christians. However, the reality is that they do not. Inspiration and inerrancy are subjects of often heated debate among a considerable number of Christians today, and if this is true, the question of canonicity is even more controversial. These three blogs are my humble way of challenging the doubts some Christians have.

ESV Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

NKJ John 17:17 “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Without complete confidence in the Scriptures as God’s inspired and inerrant Word, it is difficult to see how any Christians can function in such a way as to bring glory consistently and meaningfully to God. Unless the Bible is believed to be entirely trustworthy, the believer is doomed to rely primarily on his or her own feelings or experiences, both of which must be judged in the end as unreliable, especially in spiritual matters. Subjective man needs objective truth.

As we begin this discussion of canonicity, I want to make it clear that I respectfully acknowledge the real difficulties involved herein. The fact is, there is no biblical verse that I can point to that satisfactorily proves canonicity. Truth must be arrived at deductively. Human beings are much more involved in canonicity than they are in either inspiration or inerrancy. These things being true, I posit it would be a mistake to ignore the facts I will present. I believe you will see the positive facts contained in this blog far outweigh any perceived as negative. If inspiration and inerrancy are true – and they are – it is illogical to deny canonicity. If God revealed Himself and His will in the pages of Scripture, it is irrational to think that He would not have preserved His Word for us today.

Additionally, in this introductory section of the blog, I would like prominently to acknowledge the main sources I used in my research. Aside from my own notes, these sources, in no order of preference, are as follows: Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible; Grasping God’s Word (Duvall & Hays); Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Bray); Systematic Theology (Chafer); Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, and The Inerrant Word (MacArthur). In listing these sources thusly, I feel free to draw from them without attention to noting specific authors or using footnotes. Unless otherwise noted, all of the bullet notations are from these fine sources. I think this somewhat unorthodox method is the best way to cover the most information in the fastest and shortest manner. No matter how successful I am in making this blog comprehensive, however, it must be understood that much had to be left out due to limitations of space. I often must remind myself, this is a church blog and not a seminary dissertation.

Finally, there is another preliminary comment I would like to make. It has to do with emphasizing the importance of getting it right about the Bible, seeing it as it is meant to be seen. In order to do so, I feel it is incumbent upon me to not only list the information supporting canonicity but to include also information that for some casts doubts on canonicity. For example…

• It is one thing to say that the Bible is the normative, common witness to God’s revelation, but quite another to decide what belongs in the Bible and what does not. This question exercised both Jewish and Christian writers in ancient times, though probably not as much as is sometimes assumed today.

• To many, the most persuasive objection to inerrancy is the Word of God could not have been reliably transmitted down to us. This particular objection has manifested itself in two ways. The first is the problem of canonicity. It is argued that there was no reliable process by which the church could be assured it possessed the right books. Over thousands of years, new books were written, some books were forged, and others were forgotten. Even the church did not agree on which books were Scripture. The second is the problem of textual criticism. It is said that there was no reliable process by which the church could transmit the text of Scripture. Even if the church possessed the right books, the text was corrupted over thousands of years through both accidental and intentional scribal changes. The implications of these objections for inerrancy are immediately clear. If the concept of inerrancy applies only to the inspired words of God, and we no longer possess these words (either because we have the wrong books or because the text has been corrupted), then the concept of inerrancy is meaningless. We have no grounds to claim the Scriptures are inerrant when we have no reason to think that we actually possess the Scriptures. So, the critics argue, the concept of inerrancy is merely hypothetical – it applies to a situation that does not exist.

I believe these objections to canonicity will not only satisfactorily be answered in this blog, but will be shown to be no less than assaults on the very integrity of the character of God Himself. After many years of teaching and preaching in defense of the inspired, inerrant Scripture, as well as the 66 books of the canonized Bible, I have become convinced that, aside from the essential doctrines of salvation, these biblical issues are the most important issues of all.

It has long been my belief that the best way to resolve any question about the Bible is to study the Bible. Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it, but in my experience at seminary and the churches I have pastored, I have found this essential step to be missing. It is my hope that as you consider the information from my study to follow, you will not only seriously consider it and will be convinced by it, but will be permanently impressed by the soundness of its cumulative argument and will likewise be amazed at how meager the alleged evidence of the critics. When you study the subject of canonicity, I believe you will see that for the Christian, it is not really a fair fight.

• One key factor, not to be overlooked, is that the books of the Bible themselves can provide evidence of their divine origins. Canonical books possess certain qualities that set them apart from non-canonical writings. Some examples of these special qualities would include Scripture’s beauty and excellency (Psalm 19:8; 119:103), its power and efficacy (Psalm 119:50, 98, 105, 111; Hebrews 4:12-13), and its unity and harmony. These sorts of qualities would have been expected to be evident in the books that were genuinely from God, allowing God’s people to rightly recognize them.

• The New Testament Canon was formed gradually under divine guidance. The different books as they were written came into the possession of the Christian associations which began to be formed soon after the day of Pentecost; and thus slowly the canon increased till all the books were gathered together into one collection containing the whole of the twenty- seven New Testament inspired books. Historical evidence shows that from about the middle of the second century this New Testament collection was substantially such as we now possess. Each book contained in it is proved to have, on its own ground, a right to its place; and thus the whole is of divine authority. The Old Testament Canon is witnessed to by the New Testament writers. Their evidence is conclusive.

It should not be viewed as a source of embarrassment by defenders of the inspired, inerrant Word of God to acknowledge the fact that the canon was, to a measurable extent, determined by men. Yes, human beings are prone to mistake, but that does not mean they continuously make mistakes or are incapable to producing works of great quality. When one is willing to admit to the truth of these statements and remembers that God penned the Scriptures through divinely guided dual-authorship, that is, God and man, one can see the process of canonization is quite credible. But there is more.  Man’s ability to assess the divine qualities of the books of the canon is dependent upon whether or not he is a believer. Canonicity is a process for true believers alone. How can a person who is not in possession of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God ever hope to or claim to have the ability to determine which books are inspired and inerrant and which are not?

NAS 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2 clearly tell us that the only way to meaningfully know the things of God are by His Spirit. It is the Spirit, not man himself, who reveals the deep things of God. In these illuminating verses, Paul illustrated this by pointing out that nobody can fully fathom the thoughts of anyone else. How much more necessary, then, is the work of the Spirit if the thoughts of God are to be known. I do not mean to be clever or unkind but only true to Scripture when I say bluntly that only believers in possession of the Spirit are capable of truly assessing the authenticity of the books of the Bible. With all respect due, it is no wonder that unbelievers attack inspiration, inerrancy, and canonicity.

• A recent Reformed blog included these relevant words: “Human knowledge is inescapably revelational. Man knows because God is. Reason nor science can function properly without radical transformation by God’s regenerative work of grace.”

• Because people are fallen and corrupted by sin, they must have the internum testimonium Spiritual Sancti (I know the Latin sounds Catholic, but it’s the proper term – TAR): the “internal testimony of the Holy Spirit,” if they are to rightly recognize the qualities of scriptural books. The internum testimonium is not private revelation, but the powerful work of the Spirit to overcome the noetic effects of sin and to help a person see the qualities of Scripture that are objectively present. It is the internum testimonium that gives us confidence that the church has rightly recognized the books God has given. The church, as God’s corporate people, is filled with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16), and thus we have every good reason to think that the consensus of the church is a key indicator of which books are canonical.

In closing, consider these final brief facts, which on their own (several of which singularly on its own), make a strong case for traditional, orthodox canonicity:

• The divine qualities present in the canonical books, and the consensus of the church throughout the ages, already give us good grounds for thinking we have the right books in our canon, but we have additional confirmation of this reality though solid historical evidence about how the canon developed.

• In regard to the Old Testament, we have good reasons to think that the contours of the canon were well established by the time of Jesus. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus plainly lists the books of the O.T. canon – which matches the thirty-nine books in our canon today – and he does so in a manner that suggests the canon was universal, clearly defined, and long settled.

• The earliest evidence for a new canon of Scripture comes from the New Testament writings themselves, where 2 Peter 3:16 tells us that Paul’s letters were already viewed as Scripture on a par with the Old Testament, and 1 Timothy 5:18 contains a possible citation of Luke 10:7 as “Scripture.” Both of these texts suggest that canonical consciousness was already present in the first century.

• Our earliest canonical list, the Muratorian fragment, which dates from about the same time period as Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180), affirms the canonicity of the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 and 2 John (and possibly 3 John), Jude, and Revelation. In sum, the core of the New Testament canon was already in place by the early second

• Of particular relevance are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, and are dated approximately between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D.

As can be gathered from even a cursory reading of this blog, which is much abbreviated, the subject of canonicity is vast. Suffice it to say, however, that the information already provided should, I believe, be adequate to convince all but the hardened critic committed to the age-old agenda of disproving the Bible. While one can respect the doubts of honest seekers – not only is the subject of canonicity massive, it is also exceedingly complex. There is much to digest. As convincing as the information surely is, faith is required. And this is where disbelief in the inspired and inerrant books of the canon are nothing less that a blight on the very character of God Himself.

For me in writing this blog, the fact immediately below was the one that made me think most the most about the purpose and value of the biblical canon. I had not previously thought through fully of the strength of this particular point.…

• A powerful impetus toward the formation of the N.T. came from the Church’s resistance to heretical books. When sects, Gnostic and otherwise, claimed support for their doctrines from secret sources and secret books, the need for the orthodox Church to make clear its own authentic sources became urgent. The purpose of the N.T. canon was not only to define the authorized books, but also to exclude the spurious and

It is simply a fact of life that every person comes to every question with a bias, that bias being formed through experience and knowledge. If you are a believer, that is your positive bias in studying a question regarding Scripture; if you are an unbeliever, liberal, or doubter, that is your negative bias. It’s just the way it is. Therefore, in the end, it comes down to belief in God. On the basis of the volumes of supporting historical facts supporting canonicity, surely it must recognized that the burden of proof rests with the critics.

• But our confidence does not lie merely in historical evidences, as strong as they may be. Rather, throughout the many years of transmission, Christians ultimately have to rely on the providence of God. If God intended His people to have His Word, then it is reasonable to think that He providentially oversaw the entire process so that His word was faithfully transmitted. And if God has faithfully and sufficiently delivered His Word to His people, then there is nothing problematic about affirming its inerrancy.

– Professor Thomas A. Rohm