Intro lecture on "The Canon" by Dr. Micheal Kruger and the whole course

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/intro-lecture-to-the-canon-by-dr-michael-kruger-phd/

Additional comments to Dr. White's excellent recent series on Sola Scriptura

Dr. James White recently did a 5 part series on Sola Scriptura.  I had planned to go through it again and type out more of his comments and analysis, but all I have had time for is to make about 5 additional points that I would make; additional points to his already excellent series.  See the link to John Samson's blog post of putting all 5 together in one post.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/sola-scriptura-series-by-dr-white/

Two respectful discussions about the Qur'an and the Bible - Dr. James White and Imam Muhammad Musri

The world at this time needs this kind of discussion and debate.  We can disagree without resorting to sinful anger, ad hominem arguments, insults or violence.

Dr. White did an excellent job; and the Imam was very respectful and showed better knowledge of the issues than most Muslims.  He had to be corrected on the common mistake that Muslims repeat that "The Council of Nicea and Constantine decided which books belong in the canon".

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/two-respectful-and-peaceful-discussions-about-the-bible-and-the-quran/

Canon Issues have to be constantly talked about, because:
1.  Liberal scholarship constantly attacks the dates of the NT books and distorts the canon process.
2.  The claims of the Roman Catholic Church put the Church over the canon, and that needs to be challenged also.

Dr. White gave the Imam 2 books on the canon by Dr. Michael J. Kruger.

The Canon Revisited

The Question of Canon

These are two good blog series also by Michael J. Kruger on the canon:

http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon/

http://michaeljkruger.com/the-complete-series-ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize/

"the church wrote the Bible" claim of Roman Catholicism

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/the-church-wrote-the-bible-claim-of-roman-catholicism/

Be Careful the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early church

Andy Stanley, Pastor of NorthPoint Community Church outside of Atlanta, Ga, said, in his recent Easter sermon, "History's Mystery", basically, "the Bible didn't exist until around 300 - 400 AD".  "for 300 years there was no Bible" and "they had no New Testament for really, 400 years".  (at the 5:56 time mark to 6:20 mark) This is a sloppy and misleading statement, because it sounds like the individual NT books didn't exist, but they all did, by 96 AD.  They were individual scrolls and early churches used them, read them, taught them, and quoted them in the first 3-4 centuries.  They only didn't have all 27 books all together under "one book cover" or "canon list".  Originally, "canon" meant "rule" or "standard" or "criterion", and later came to mean a "list of God-breathed books" or "a list of inspired books".

Whatever is "God-breathed" Scripture, is therefore "canon" or rule or standard.  2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed . . . "  Whatever God inspired as revelation that was written down, by reason of the character of the writing being from God Himself, those were the books that were discerned as "canon"/ standard / rule.

Andy's main point, that Christianity is based on the person of Christ (and His crucifixion and resurrection), and not philosophy or ideas, is basically true, but he should have expanded and clarified with more; something like, "Christianity is primarily based on the person of Christ; but also His works and doctrines and teachings, which were written down by His apostles in God-breathed Scripture, and that includes all the 27 books of the NT, including the writings of the apostle Paul, as fulfillment of the coming of the Holy Spirit to led the apostles into all the truth." (John chapters 14, 15, 16)

Andy needs to read Michael Kruger's books and blog on the canon and NT history, as Dr. White suggests. (on the video below) 

Dr. Micheal Kruger's blog. 

The Question of Canon.

The Canon Revisited. 

The Heresy of Orthodoxy.  (with Andreas Kostenberger) 

Statements like "the Bible did not exist for the first 3 centuries", can make people in the audience vulnerable to Roman Catholic apologetic claims.  That is what happened to my friend Rod Bennett; he was not well taught in the canon issues as a Protestant, and so fell prey to that kind of argument. They claim that the church authoritatively decided and determined the canon (the list of which books are inspired/ "God-breathed").  No; rather they were determined by God the Holy Spirit to be "criterion" / "standard" / (the original meaning of "canon", as soon as they were written as individual books / scrolls.  It just took time to collect them all under one "book cover" or "canon list", so to speak.   The early church discovered, discerned, witnessed to which books were already "God -breathed" and therefore, by nature, were "canon" / criterion / standard. 

Dr. White rightly points this out in this screen flow.  If Andy means the final form of where there was unanimous agreement as to the canon list, as in Athanasius' list in 367 AD, then that is right, but the way he communicated his statement makes it seem like the individual letters / gospels did not exist in churches to guide them into the truth and doctrine and practice.  But even long before Athanasius in 367, Origen around 250 AD indicates the same 27 NT book list.  See here.

Below is a compilation of statements that I originally tweeted yesterday and today, but expanded here in this article.

The Scriptures existed and were "God-breathed" right when the ink dried, therefore "canon" when written. (R. C. Sproul, Sola Scriptura: The Protestant position on the Bible, page 82 - "For the Reformers, the Bible was canon as soon as it was written."); they were individual books, to be exact scrolls; later collected under one "book cover"/canon list.

For a Protestant to say, "the Bible did not exist until 300s or 400s AD", gives credibility to Roman Catholic apologetic claims. Andy Stanley needs to clarify his statement.

Clement of Rome, in 96 AD, wrote, "take up the epistle of Paul to the Corinthians", affirming that 1 Corinthians was written in 55 AD, and considered God-breathed Scripture by Clement.

Clement of Rome (Letter of 1 Clement) quoted and alluded to (hinted and pointed to) several of Paul's letters & at least one of the written gospels (Matthew, written sometime from 50-65 AD) - Clement writing in 96 AD, refers to these earlier writings. (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 294.)

Tertullian and Ireneus quoted from most of the NT books in 180-220 AD.  Ignatius (107-117 AD), Justin Martyr (150 AD), Polycarp (165 AD) quote from some books of the NT.   Origen (250 AD) actually lists all of the 27 books and discusses many of them. (see link above) Cyprian (250 AD), Clement of Alexandria, (215 AD),  quote from and allude to most of the books of the New Testament.  (Ignatius and Polycarp quote from and allude to some; Justin Martyr quotes and alludes to some, and seems to know all the Gospels, and uses the Logos theology of John 1:1 and 1:14 to speak of Jesus, etc.)

All the 27 NT books existed by 96 AD, they were just not collected together under 1 canon list or "book cover" yet.  

The nature of the NT documents-they were individual letters/gospels written on scrolls: the Codex form did not even exist in common usage until about 150-200 AD.  Before then, books and letters had to be individually rolled up as scrolls.  So, the form of a modern book, with a binding, flat, etc., did not even exist when the individual letters were written to different areas in the first century.  

The apostles Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD.  This means that all their letters were written and existed before then.  The book of Hebrews also was clearly written before 70 AD, because he presents his argument based on the fact that the priests were currently offering sacrifices and the temple was still standing; but He says Christ was the final, once for all time, sacrifice.  If he was writing after 70 AD, he would have said, "And we have proof that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the sacrificial system, because God ordained the Romans to come and destroy the temple in 70 AD, thus proving that Christ is the final sacrifice.  

The Gospel according to Mark (written sometime between 48-60 AD), James, Galatians, written around 48-50 AD; these are the earliest NT documents; they existed, and churches used them and quoted from the them in the first 3 centuries.  So it is misleading to say, "The Bible did not exist until the 300s or 400s AD".    We know Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in 48-49 AD (Carson, Moo, Intro to NT, p. 464), because if Galatians was written after that, Paul would have mentioned the decisions in his letter to the Galatians to bolster his case.  The fact that he does not mention those decisions is proof that the letter to the Galatians was written sometime before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

We know that Luke wrote the book of Acts shortly after his release from the 2 year in house prison because of the abrupt ending and lack of other details as to what he did after that.  ("other considerations suggest a date not long after 62 AD".  (See Carson and Moo, Intro to NT, page 300.)  This means The Gospel of Luke was written before then, in 60 or 61 AD, or before Acts early in the year of 62 AD.

Most conservative NT scholars believe the Gospel according to John, the letters of 1, 2, 3 John, and the book of Revelation were written somewhere between 80-96 AD, but some argue for a pre- 70 AD dating. That leaves the little book of Jude to be around 80 AD, and "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) (or verse 3) may indicate it was the last book written or one of the last NT books written.

The main reason liberals date Matthew, Mark, and Luke after 70 AD, is because they don't believe in supernatural, predictive prophesy, but Jesus clearly predicted the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:1-3 as future to Him (spoken in 30 AD before the cross), and, it indeed happened in 70 AD. It is interesting that "a generation" was generally considered "40 years". This has implications for Matthew 24:34 - "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place". Does Jesus' woes and judgment pronouncements on that generation living at that time extend from Matthew 23:36 ("all these things will come upon this generation") to Matthew 24:34 ?

As John A. T. Robinson argued, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been written after 70 AD, they would have surely added something like, "and this was fulfilled when Titus' armies rolled in and destroyed the temple in 70 AD." (Redating the New Testament, pages 13-30)
The 27 books of the NT and generally accepted dates by conservative students and scholars:
Galatians - 48- 49 AD
James - 48-50 AD (?)
Gospel according to Mark - 48-60 AD
Council of Jerusalem - 49 AD
1 Thessalonians - 50 AD
2 Thessalonians - 51 AD
Matthew - 50-65 AD
Luke - 60-61 AD
Acts - 62 AD
1 Corinthians - 55 AD
2 Corinthians - 56 AD
Romans - 57-58 AD
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (60-62 AD - in Paul's first imprisonment at end of Acts.)
Paul released from prison; seeks to go to Spain. (Romans 15:20-24)
I Peter - 64 AD
I Timothy, Titus - 63-65 AD
2 Timothy - 67 AD
2 Peter - 67 AD (Dictated to a student from prison; to Jude, possibly, the half brother of Jesus, which would explain similarities of style and vocabulary.)
Apostles Paul and Peter executed by Nero. (67 AD)
Nero commits suicide - 67 AD
Hebrews - 68 AD
70 AD - Destruction of Temple
80-96 AD - Gospel of John, letters of 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation
80 AD - Jude - "the faith was once for all delivered to the saints"

So, when admitting that the Bible in its final book form or canon list was not available until either 250 AD (per Origen) or 367 AD (per Athanasius Festal Letter 39), we should make clear that the books of the NT were already written from around 48-96 AD, and that the early churches each had either one gospel (maybe 2 or 3) and one or more NT letters; that they were never without some portion of Scripture. Pastors and teachers should be careful the way they communicate the issue of the canon and the history of it in the early church.

Determining the Canon and Picking the Pope

On the canon, Roman Catholics frequently argue that an infallible decision of the Roman church is needed to secure the exact table of contents of the Bible. The canon was definitively settled for Roman Catholics at Trent. Roman apologists argue that the Holy Spirit worked through Trent to secure an infallible canon.

Now, consider the recent cardinals that picked a new pope. Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin recently wrote:

God Guides the Church: We can be confident of the general principle that God guides his Church. This is something we have biblical assurance of. But his guidance does not prevent human free will from operating, and that means there is the potential for humans to abuse their free will. That applies to the college of cardinals, too, even when they are electing a pope. They do not lose their free will.

Human Failure in History: We have been very fortunate in recent times to have a series of very holy, wise popes, but this has not always been the case. If you look at history, certain popes have been real scoundrels, like Pope Benedict IX (first elected in 1032). He was elected pope when still a boy. His reign was scandalous. He insisted upon monetary compensation in order to get him to resign. And then he didn't stay resigned. He was the only man to ever hold the papacy more than once. (In fact, he may have held it as many as three times.) Without going into all the scandals attributed to him, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter." 

Now, why is it, God can use fallible men who may pick the wrong pope (and that pope, in theory, has the power to speak ex-cathedra), yet Akin says God still guides the church, but when it comes to the canon, there has to be an infallible magisterium, or the canon cannot be certain?

Here with the election of a Pope, a Roman apologist like Mr. Akin has no problem that a fallible council of cardinals can pick a pope who might be the wrong choice.

In summary For Romanism:

A fallible assembly of cardinals can pick the wrong pope, and that pope will then have the ability to make infallible statements.

A fallible assembly cannot make a definite statement on the canon (a book of infallible statements).

I would argue that for the canon, an infallible church is not needed. God can determine His canon using a fallible church in the process.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon

Originally posted on the aomin blog 06/07/10

I've been fascinated by the selective use of history by those who convert to the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes it can be attributed to ignorance. I don't expect each person making a worldview shift to have the academic abilities to weigh certain levels of complex information. On the other hand, when a PhD from Fordham University, a man who's authored numerous theological books, and taught philosophy and church-state studies appears ill-informed on basic issues of church history, I'm left with far more questions than answers about the legitimacy of that conversion story.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon
Consider the following from mega-revert Francis Beckwith's book, Return to Rome (Michigan: Brazos Press, 2009). While he served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2006 the membership passed a resolution stating: "For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)." Beckwith says, "But the Chicago Statement not only does not provide a list of canonical books, it states that 'it appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne.' " The Chicago Statement is indeed accurate. The Old Testament canon was fixed during the ministry of Christ and the apostles.

This statement though from ETS provoked Beckwith to conclude, "This, ironically, means that the ETS is implicitly showing sympathies for the Catholic canon" (p.123). Rather, the irony is Beckwith's statement. Most Roman Catholics I've squabbled with over the Old Testament canon want to argue that it was still in flux during the apostolic era. The argument is presented that the Hebrew canon wasn't actually closed until very late, perhaps as late as A.D. 90-100. They argue this in order to legitimize the apocrypha. Previous to A.D. 90-100, the Greek Septuagint (the very Bible used by Christ and the Apostles) appears to have included the apocrypha.

For Beckwith, if ETS wants to affirm a closed Old Testament canon during apostolic times, they are admitting to the legitimacy of the apocrypha. Beckwith doesn't apear to be concerned with typical Roman Catholic polemic concerning an open Old Testament canon.

J.N.D Kelly: The Bulkier Old Testament Canon Included The Apocrypha
To seal the deal of this argument, Dr. Beckwith offers the following quote from Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly:

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than... the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism... It always included, though varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint... In the first centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and treated them without question as Scripture.

If you Google search this quote, it proves itself to be a Roman Catholic favorite. I recall the first time I heard it being used was by Gerry Matatics against Dr. White (here's a short mp3 clip from Matatics from this debate). In response, Dr. White pointed out that current research into the Old Testament canon had reached much different conclusions than that put forth by J.N.D. Kelly.

If you actually read this section from Kelly from which Beckwith took the quote, he readily admits the Palestinian canon was "rigidly fixed". This of course, was left out by Dr. Beckwith. Kelly does indicate (though with seeming hesitation) that the Hebrew canon was finally universally closed for Judaism in A.D. 90-100 at Jamnia. During this time period he says the Jews were actually uniting against the apocryphal books. They were in the process of finally being repudiated. Kelly goes on to say this was the reason certain Christians like Melito of Sardis eventually went to Palestine to get to the bottom of the confusion of the Jewish canon. By the fourth century, the more scholarly within the Alexandrian church likewise were against the apocrypha, in varying degrees. The Western church though was much more favorable toward the apocrypha. By common use it gained acceptance.

This extra information and context from Kelly shows at least Beckwith didn't read him carefully. Kelly argues for a fixed Palestinian canon during apostolic times, with the apocryphal books in the larger Greek canon being eventually repudiated by the Jews later in the first century. Kelly's quote does though still serve Romanist argumentation. If in fact no specific Hebrew canon was fixed for Judaism as a whole, how does one know that Jesus and the Apostles did not use and revere the apocrypha? If the Bible they used included it, and Christ deemed his church the only organization capable of infallible dogmatic proclamation, the fallible Jews late in the first century finalized a fallible collection of infallible books. They left out the apocrypha. Protestants therefore follow the fallible tradition of the Jews rather than the infallible Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

This Romanist methodology though is flawed in a number of ways.

What Books Were in the Septuagint?
Sometimes the error isn't what's said, it's what isn't said. Indeed, if one surveys the oldest extant copies and fragments of the Septuagint, one will find apocryphal books. That should settle it for the Roman Catholic side, shouldn't it? Hardly. William Webster explains:

One of the reasons Roman Catholics argue for a broader canon is that the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint do contain a number of Apocryphal books. These manuscripts are: Vaticanus (early 4th century), Sinaiticus (early 4th century), and Alexandrinus (early 5th century). The Apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit are included in all three, but there are also differences. Vaticanus does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and a work known as the Psalms of Solomon. If inclusion of a book in the manuscript proves its canonicity, as Roman Catholics assert, then 3 and 4 Maccabees were canonical. However, we know with certainty that this was not the case. It is also true that the Septuagint included a number of appendices to the canonical Old Testament books such as Esther, 1 Esdras, the additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon and Susanna), and the additions to Jeremiah (Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy). But as Henry Swete points out, none of these books, or the rest of the Apocrypha, were part of the Hebrew canon:

The MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, but the fullest collections contain the following: I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.-iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon.

The only Septuagint manuscript evidence we have now was created by the Christian church. Webster notes: "We do not know for certain that the Septuagint itself included the books of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Secondly... there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, just because a book was listed in the manuscripts did not mean it was canonical. It simply means that these books were read in the Church." Webster cites Lee McDonald who notes,

The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE. Since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE. Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.

When Dr. Beckwith assumes the Septuagint used during the Apostolic era included the apocrypha, that's indeed what it is, an assumption. There isn't historical evidence to verify the claim.

Dr. Beckwith, Meet R.T. Beckwith
Francis Beckwith probably should know the closed Hebrew canon was divided into three major categories: Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. He did approvingly cite J.N.D. Kelly, and Kelly argues for a fixed Hebrew canon. When Jesus and the apostles appealed to Scripture, they had a specific set of books in view. Biblical and historical testimony affirm this. This threefold specific set of books did not contain the apocrypha. Commenting on this, R.T. Beckwith describes the argument of those who disagree with these facts:

Doubt has sometimes been cast, for inadequate reasons, on the antiquity of this way of [threefold] grouping the Old Testament books. More commonly, but with equally little real reason, it has been assumed that it reflects the gradual development of the Old Testament canon, the grouping having been a historical accident and the canon of the Prophets having been closed about the third century B.c., before a history like Chronicles and a prophecy like Daniel (which, it is alleged, naturally belong there) had been recognized as inspired or perhaps even written. The canon of the Hagiographa, according to this popular hypothesis, was not closed until the Jewish synod of Jamnia or Jabneh about A.D. 90, after an open Old Testament canon had already been taken over by the Christian church. Moreover, a broader canon, containing much of the Apocrypha, had been accepted by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, and was embodied in the Septuagint; and the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Christian church. These two facts, perhaps together with the Essene fondness for the pseudonymous apocalypses, are responsible for the fluidity of the Old Testament canon in patristic Christianity. Such is the theory.

Beckwith spends a considerable time demonstrating the historical evidence demonstrates the unity and closure of the threefold Old Testament canon, comprising a specific set of twenty-two books. He then describes the Septuagint and the broader canon:

How, then, has it come to be thought that the third section of the canon was not closed until the synod of Jamnia, some decades after the birth of the Christian church? The main reasons are that the rabbinical literature records disputes about five of the books, some of which were settled at the Jamnia discussion; that many of the Septuagint manuscripts mix apocryphal books among the canonical, thus prompting the theory of a wider Alexandrian canon; and that the Qumran discoveries show the apocalyptic pseudepigrapha to have been cherished, and perhaps reckoned canonical, by the Essenes. But the rabbinical literature records similar, though more readily answered, academic objections to many other canonical books, so it must have been a question of removing books from the list (had this been possible), not adding them. Moreover, one of the five disputed books (Ezekiel) belongs to the second section of the canon, which is admitted to have been closed long before the Christian era. As to the Alexandrian canon, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha. In the Septuagint manuscripts, the Prophets and Hagiographa have been rearranged by Christian hands in a non-Jewish manner, and the intermingling of Apocrypha there is a Christian phenomenon, not a Jewish one. At Qumran the pseudonymous apocalypses were more likely viewed as an Essene appendix to the standard Jewish canon than as an integral part of it. There are allusions to this appendix in Philo's account of the Therapeutae (De Vita Contemplativa 25) and in 2 Esdras 14:44-48. An equally significant fact discovered at Qumran is that the Essenes, though at rivalry with mainstream Judaism since the second century B.c., reckoned as canonical some of the Hagiographa and had presumably done so since before the rivalry began.

The Septuagint manuscripts are paralleled by the writings of the early Christian Fathers, who (at any rate outside Palestine and Syria) normally used the Septuagint or the derived Old Latin version. In their writings, there is both a wide and a narrow canon. The former comprises those books from before the time of Christ which were generally read and esteemed in the church (including the Apocrypha), but the latter is confined to the books of the Jewish Bible, which scholars like Melito, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome take the trouble to distinguish from the rest as alone inspired. The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. In the New Testament itself, one finds Christ acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, by various of their current titles, and accepting the three sections of the Jewish canon and the traditional order of its books; one finds most of the books being referred to individually as having divine authority- but not so for any of the Apocrypha. The only apparent exceptions are found in Jude: Jude 9 (citing the apocryphal work, The Assumption of Moses) and Jude 14, citing Enoch. Jude's citation of these works does not mean he believed they were divinely inspired, just as Paul's citation of various Greek poets (see Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12) does not attribute divine inspiration to their poetry.

What evidently happened in the early centuries of Christianity was this: Christ passed on to his followers, as Holy Scriptures, the Bible which he had received, containing the same books as the Hebrew Bible today. The first Christians shared with their Jewish contemporaries a full knowledge of the identity of the canonical books. However, the Bible was not yet between two covers: it was a memorized list of scrolls. The breach with Jewish oral tradition (in some matters a very necessary breach), the alienation between Jew and Christian, and the general ignorance of Semitic languages in the church outside Palestine and Syria, led to increasing doubt concerning the canon among Christians, which was accentuated by the drawing up of new lists of the biblical books, arranged on other principles, and the introduction of new lectionaries. Such doubt about the canon could only be resolved today, in the way it was resolved at the Reformation- by returning to the teaching of the New Testament and the Jewish background against which it is to be understood [R.T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003) pp. 57-64].

Perhaps in Dr. Beckwith's zeal to convert, he didn't get a chance to read the materials put out by the other Dr. Beckwith. The other Dr. Beckwith's major work on the Old Testament canon is entitled, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). While no longer in print, it is available in electronic form from Logos. I've only presented a sparse overview. The extent of the Old Testament canon is much more complicated than simply posting an edited snippet from J.N.D. Kelly. Perhaps if Francis Beckwith revises Return to Rome, we can look forward to sympathy for the actual Old Testament canon fixed by the time of Jesus and the apostles.

The Canon as Infallible Sacred Tradition

Originally appeared on the aomin blog, 03/20/2010

"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.

One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it. For those of you who've listened to Dr. White's debates on sola scriptura, this is his pen example. In his old debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura, Dr. White held up his pen and said:

If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate.

In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality, and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than depending upon an illogical demand; or, he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." That is, he must prove to us what the Council of Trent said was true. I quote, "It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand."

An argument like this is pointed directly at what Romanism claims to have: God's voice elsewhere besides the Sacred Scriptures. Most often those defending Romanism claim to have God's voice in Sacred Tradition. Getting them to throw this Tradition up on the table to take a look at is the problem. Typically only one thing is thrown up on the table as Sacred Tradition, the canon of Sacred Scripture. The canon is said to be an example of God's voice of special revelation outside the Bible.

The first problem with this argument is that it goes to battle alone. If I quote a verse from the Bible, I can also have that verse joined by the entire text from which the verse is found. When someone uses the canon as an example of God's voice in Sacred Tradition, the entire contents of Sacred Tradition still hides back up in the hills. Roman Catholics can't produce what they claim to have. They aren't even unified as to whether Sacred Tradition is simply the same material as found in the Bible, or if it's information of another kind. One bucket of water in a desert is not proof that a large lake is just over the mountain.

The second problem is a misunderstanding by Roman Catholics as to what the canon list is. The canon list is not revelation, it's an artifact of revelation. It is Scripture which Christians believe inspired, not a knowledge of the canon which is inspired. The church has discovered which books are canon, they haven't infallibly determined them to be canon. For a detailed explanation of this, track down a copy of Dr. White's book, Scripture Alone, chapter five.

Third, Roman Catholics have often jumped on R.C. Sproul's statement that the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books. The statement itself originates from Sproul's mentor, John Gerstner. This statement is not an admission that there is an error in the canon. It is a statement simply designed to acknowledge the historical selection process the church used in discovering the canon. By God's providence, God's people have always identified His Word, and they didn't need to be infallible to do so. Remember that large set of books in your Bible before the Gospel of Matthew? The church had the Old Testament, and believers during the period in which the Old Testament was written also had God's inscripturated word, this despite a lack of magisterial infallibility.

Fourth, there is no reason to assume church infallibility in order for the church to receive the canon. That is, there is no reason to assume God's voice of infallible pronouncement via an infallible magisterium. I recognize the Christian church received the canon. It does not though infallibly create the canon, or stand above the canon. The church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian church in providing them with the books of the New Testament. This same process can be seen with the Old Testament and Old Testament believers. The Old Testament believer fifty years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority.

First century Christians had the Old Testament, and had "certainty" that it was the very word of almighty. Clement of Rome frequently quotes the Old Testament. He does so, with the understanding that the words of the Old Testament are the very words of God. He was certain of it, this despite not having the alleged infallible ruling of an infallible authority. His use of Old Testament passages show a certainty that the words were God's words. Or, think of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Paul notes that from infancy Timothy "knew" the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15): "and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." How was it Timothy could know the Scriptures were the words of God without an infallible church council declaring which books were canonical?

Obviously, the notion that an infallible authority can only provide canon certainty cannot be an accurate explanation of Christian reality. Think of all the New Testament writers. They freely quote the Old Testament with the certainty that it was the Word of God. Yet, no infallible source defined the canon for them. A "source" definitely received the Old Testament canon, but that "source" was not infallible, nor do I recall Rome arguing that the Jewish Old Testament leadership was infallible. There is no logical reason why the entirety of the Bible needs an infallible authority to declare the canon. It wasn't needed previous to Trent, Damasus, or the pre-Christ Jewish authority.

How was it that Timothy had "certainty" the Old Testament was the word of God? It is God's sovereign power that reveals the canon to His church, for His purposes. The people of God are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It is they, who are given spiritual life and continually fed by its words. Jesus did this himself, as recorded in Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." As to how a Protestant can have certainty on the canon, my certainty is in the providence and work of God. Only faith will read the Bible and hear the voice of God. God used means in giving us His canon, but like the Old Testament believers, those means don't need to be infallible for one to know they are reading and hearing God's word.

If sola scriptura isn't sola, this certainly isn't proven by Roman Catholic claims or argumentation. If Roman Catholic have God's voice somewhere else other than the Scriptures, they need to prove it. Till then, I'll stick with that which is God breathed and which can thoroughly equip a believer (2 Tim. 3:16). I'll stick with that which is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Oscar Cullmann on the relationship between oral tradition and the canon of the New Testament, part 2

Continuing from my previous post.

Slight clarification here. In the citation from Cullmann that follows, he is using the words "apostolic tradition" to describe "the sum of what the Apostles taught, both orally and in written form." He makes a distinction between "apostolic tradition," which was the definitive, eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, and what later became "ecclesiastical tradition," that is, the traditions of the church.

Cullmann is in the process of making the case that the canon of the New Testament became fixed, as a necessity, because of the damage that was being inflicted by various gnostic heresies: "oral" tradition was no longer reliable because it was becoming an admixture of too many things. The only reliable "apostolic tradition" was that which had been written down by the apostles and their associates during the lifetimes of the apostles.

By establishing the principle of a canon the Church recognized that from that time the tradition was no longer a criterion of truth. It drew a line under the apostolic tradition. It declared implicitly that from that time every subsequent tradition must be submitted to the control of the aposotlic tradition. That is, it declared: here is the tradition which constituted the Church, which forced itself upon it. Certainly the Church did not intend to thereby put an end to the continued evolution of the tradition. But by what we might all an act of humility it submitted all subsequent tradition to be elaborated by itself to the superior criterion of the apostolic tradition, codified in the Holy Scriptures.

To establish a canon is equivalent to saying this: henceforth our ecclesiastical tradition needs to be controlled; with the help of the Holy Spirit it will be controlled by the apostolic tradition fixed in writing; for we are getting to the point where we are too distant from the apostolic age to be able to guard the purity of the tradition without a superior written norm, and too distant to prevent slight legendary and other deformations creeping in, and thus being transmitted and amplified(90).

Well, while the early church understood the danger of "legendary and other deformations creeping in, thus being transmitted and amplified," it would seem that this has become the creed of the Roman Catholic Church: "We know that legendary and other deformations have crept into our dogmas, where they are transmitted and amplified. And we embrace these legendary and other deformations, and we press them on the consciences of loyal Roman Catholics."

But I digress. After some further justification of the process above: the need to fix a norm by fixing the Canon of the New Testament, Cullman notes something about the character of the Apostolic Fathers that I had noticed and have even commented on, but have not until this time been able to put it all together:

For a long time it has been noted that, apart from the letters of Ignatius, the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who do not really belong to the Apostolic age but to the beginning of the second century—[1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas]—despite their theological interest, are to a considerable distance from New Testament thought, and to a considerable extent relapse into a moralism which ignores the notion of grace, and of the redemptive death of Christ, so central to apostolic theology. [See Torrance’s “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers,” 1948].

It has also been noted that the Church Fathers who wrote after 150—Irenaeus and Tertullian—although chronologically more remote from the New Testament than the authors of the first half of the century, understood infinitely better the essence of the gospel. This seems paradoxical, but is explained perfectly by that most important act, the codification of the apostolic tradition in a canon, henceforward the superior norm of all tradition.

The Fathers of the first half of the century wrote at a period when the writings of the New Testament already existed, but without being vested with canonical authority, and so set apart. Therefore they did not have any norm at their disposal, and, on the other hand, and on the other hand, they were already too far distant from the apostolic age to be able to draw directly on the testimony of eye-witnesses. The encounters of Polycarp and Papias with apostolic persons could no longer guarantee a pure transmission of authentic traditions, as is proved by the extant fragments of their writings.

But after 150 contact with the apostolic age was re-established through the construction of the canon, which discarded all impure and deformed sources of information. Thus it is confirmed that, by subordinating all subsequent tradition to the canon, the Church once and for all saved its apostolic basis. It enabled its members to hear, thanks to this canon, continually afresh and throughout all the centuries to come the authentic word of the apostles, a privilege which no oral tradition, passing through Polycarp or Papias, could have assured them (96).

The written fixation of the witness of the apostles is one of the essential facts of the incarnation. The church of 150 AD consciously set about to formulate a canon, to put an end to the numerous apocryphal works that had been appearing in the first part of the second century, fueling the expansion of the different heresies.

Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger largely concur with this process, adding that first, the Apostles would have been more than familiar with the concept of covenant, the need for covenant documents. The books of Moses provided this very set of documentation. In their own era, there were, of course, the Apostles saw to o that the Gospels, and the various letters that they knew had been written. Kostenberger and Kruger then note:

Although the term “closed canon” is most commonly used to refer to fourth-century ecclesiastical decisions, there is a real sense in which the canon, in principle, was “closed” long before that time. In the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170), the very popular Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned as a book that can be read by the church but is rejected as canonical. The grounds for this rejection are due to the fact that it was written “very recently, in our own times.” In other words, the author of the fragment reflects the conviction that early Christians were not willing to accept books written in the second century or later, but had restricted themselves to books from the apostolic time period. They seemed to have understood that the apostolic phase of redemptive history was uniquely the time when canonical books were produced. [Jason Engwer has commented on this section, noting that they could have expanded this so much more than they did. See here.]

Thus, from this perspective, the canon was “closed” by the beginning of the second century. After this time (and long before Athanasius), the church was not “open” to more books, but instead was engaged in discussions about which books God had already given. In other words, due to the theological conviction of the early Christians about the foundational role of the apostles, there was a built-in sense that the canon was “closed” after the apostolic time period had ended.

Note that the books themselves carried the marks of “canonicity.” Kostenberger and Kruger cite Herman Ridderbos:

When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received from Christ and from the commission he gave to them to be witnesses to what they had seen and heard of the salvation he had brought. The result of this power and commission os the foundation of the church and the creation of the canon, and therefore these are naturally unrepeatable and exclusive in character.

Meanwhile, it was not the authority of “the Church” which determined the canon. In reality, as Cullmann notes, it was the decision of the church (in fixing the canon) determined that “oral tradition” was becoming too corrupted to be useful.

By establishing the principle of a canon the Church recognized that from that time the tradition was no longer a criterion of truth.

Oscar Cullmann on the relationship between oral tradition and the canon of the New Testament, part 1

There is a discussion going on at Green Baggins on the topic of Oral Tradition. I contributed the following, which I've expanded and edited a bit; this has also gotten long enough that I'm going to relate it in two posts:

Nick asked: The $64 million question is: how do you know these inspired oral teachings were eventually enscripturated?

In his work, "Scripture and Tradition," (c) 1956, Oscar Cullman noted that something like this was precisely the Roman Catholic response to his 1953 work, “Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr”.

One argument especially is brought forward: scripture, a collection of books, is not sufficient to actualize for us the divine revelation granted to the apostles. (Oscar Cullmann, “The Early Church,” London: SCM Press LTD., pg 57.

Some things don’t change.

Fortunately, Cullmann had the background and resources in his day to research the issues and to think it through. One of the things that I’m most excited about in reading Kostenberger and Kruger’s “The Heresy of Orthodoxy” is that they make essentially the same argument, and relate essentially the same facts.

I’m not sure why this work hasn’t been picked up by more Protestants. Cullmann puts forth this argument:

1. For Paul, the paradosis (“oral tradition”), in so far as it refers to the confession of faith and to the words and deeds of Jesus, has a parallel in the Jewish concept of paradosis.

2. This tradition relates to the direct apokalypsis of the Lord to the Apostles. That is, the office of the Apostles was unique because they provided unique eyewitness testimony to the life of Christ.

3. This tradition lived and died with the apostolic office. No other source had the eyewitness authority of the Apostles.

4. The development of the canon was a conscious decision on the part of the earliest church, born from the consciousness of the heresies spinning out of control, to establish a superior written norm, and to stake out the boundaries of orthodoxy and heresy.

Essentially, he says, the early church made a key distinction between “apostolic tradition,” that is, what the Apostles taught orally and in writing, and “post-apostolic” or “ecclesiastical” tradition.

This is the place to speak about the establishment of the canon by the Church of the second century. This again is an event of capital importance for the history of salvation. We are in complete agreement with Catholic theology in its insistence on the fact that the Church itself made the canon. We even find in this fact the supreme argument for our demonstration. The fixing of the Christian canon of scripture means that the Church itself, at a given time, traced a clear and definite line of demarcation between the period of the apostles and that of the Church, between the time of foundation and that of construction, between the apostolic community and the Church of the bishops, in other words, between apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition. Otherwise, the formation of the canon would be meaningless.

We must recall the situation that led the Church to conceive the idea of a canon. About the year 150 there is still an oral tradition. We know this from Papias, who wrote an exposition of the words of Jesus. He tells us himself that he used as a basis the viva vox and that he attached more importance to it than to the writings. But him we have not only this declaration of principle; for he has left us some examples of the oral tradition as he found it, and these examples show us well that we ought to think of an oral tradition about the year 150! It is entirely legendary in character. This is clear from the story that Papias reports about Joseph Barsabbas, the unsuccessful candidate, according to Acts 1/23 f., for the post of twelfth disciple rendered vacant by Judas’s treason. Above all there is the obscene and completely legendary account [in Papias] of death of Judas Iscariot himself.

The period about 150 is, on the one hand, relatively near to the apostolic age, but on the other hand, it is already too far away for the living tradition still to offer in itself the least guarantee of authenticity. The oral traditions which Papias echoes arose in the Church and were transmitted by it. For outside the Church no one had any interest in describing in such crude colours the death of the traitor. Papias was therefore deluding himself when he considered viva vox as more valuable than the written books. The oral tradition had a normative value in the period of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses, but it had it no longer in 150 after passing mouth to mouth (Cullmann, 88-89).

[It's important to note here that, while Cullman capitalizes the word "church," he uses the word in the proper sense; not in the sense that Roman Catholics use the word.]

What Cullman relates here is that the church (as reported by Papias) had greatly valued the living voice of the Apostles. But they recognized the thing that we (Protestants) have all along been saying: the “living voice” is not a reliable transmitter, after a point. As with the game of “telephone,” where a message becomes badly distorted after being passed from person to person, the value of this “living tradition” had seriously degraded.

The traditions reported by Papias are not the only ones. From the same period we have the first apocryphal Gospels, which were collections of other oral traditions. It is sufficient to read these Gospels, one of which tells of the infant Jesus making living sparrows, carrying water in his apron, and miraculously killing companions who were annoying him, or to read the numerous apocryphal Acts, in order to realize that the tradition, in the Church, no longer offered any guarantee of truth, even when it claimed a chain of succession. For all these traditions were justified by [various chains] of transmission reaching back to the apostles. Papias himself also makes this claim when he says that he got his information from people who had been in contact with the apostles. The teaching office of the Church in itself did not suffice to preserve the purity of the gospel (88-90).

This selection is long enough for now. But I wanted to make the essential point: the early church did recognize the weakness of relying on "the living voice."


For more information, see also: Jason Engwer's series on The New Testament Canon.

The Divine Nature of Scripture and the Magisterium

Whitaker comes to the defense of four arguments from Calvin, which Stapleton attempts to refute, the first of which is (in the words of Calvin, not the summary Whitaker provides) as follows (emphasis mine):

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?¹

Yet what is Stapleton's reply? He claims that the Magisterium's judgment is not merely human, but really is both divine and infallible, therefore Calvin's argument fails to be of relevance.

Here Whitaker raises a point I would raise as well, one that is equally relevant today: "But what is the meaning of this assertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human? Be it so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and supported by a testimony purely divine."²

What, exactly, is meant by saying that the nature by which the Magisterium has come to identify the canon for us is not just human opinion, but is divine and infallible, yet not totally divine and infallible? Scripture, we would say, has been inspired by God in a completely and totally divine manner, therefore it is binding and authoritative. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Scriptures such that in no way did any of it originate or arise through human wisdom, creation, thought or contribution (even if human means--learning, intelligence, writing ability, etc.--were still used). It is completely and totally the intentions, thoughts, words, etc. of God toward humanity, therefore we should respect it as if God himself were speaking directly and presently to us.

But does the Magisterium, in its judgment that Scripture is really the Word of God, claim to be inspired, superintended, etc. by the same process as that which the Holy Spirit used to write inspired Scripture? I don't see how that's the case. Consider CCC #66 where the revealing of revelation proper is considered to have ended in the Apostolic era:

The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And since the infallible identification of the canon within Roman Catholicism first occurred at Trent, it cannot be said that this proclamation was purely divine. And if it is not purely divine, why is it ultimately binding?

Only the thoughts of God are infallible. These can be expressed through various means (the burning bush, dreams, written Scripture, etc.), yet all are categorized as revelation. If Roman Catholicism denies that the Magisterium has received additional revelation by which to identify the canon for believers, it is difficult to see how the pronouncements of Trent would be authoritatively binding in any real sense. Where in Scripture are the words of the uninspired ever held to the same authoritative standard as those who said or wrote inspired material? For Scripture there are two categories: inspired and uninspired. By placing itself in the latter camp, the Magisterium has denied itself access to binding, infallible authority.

But, returning to the line of argumentation provided by Whitaker, let us suppose it is divinely inspired in the same manner Scripture is divinely inspired. If it is divine, then it carries the same nature and authority as Scripture. But if that is the case, why do we need the former to know the latter? Cannot the divine nature of Scripture speak to us directly, just as the divine nature of the pronouncements of the Magisterium speaks to us directly? What is preventing us from accessing the authoritative of Words of God in Scripture directly?

_____________________________


1. Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1.

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 340.