...the Scriptures themselves do not contain a list of which books must be included (nor even very explicit instructions about how to determine the list – is Luke or Mark an apostle?).
i) Why would you need a list if you have the Scriptures in hand? You can make a list from the Scriptures themselves.
ii) Likewise, why would you need explicit instructions about how to determine the list if you have actual examples? Just by looking that the OT and NT, you can see the kinds of books that made the cut. And by implication, the kinds of books that didn't make the cut–since they were not the same kinds of books.
iii) The church inherited the OT from the Jews. In that respect, it didn't begin with explicit instructions, but the end-product. And if you have the end-product, there's a sense in which you can reengineer the canon.
Same thing with the NT. By the time formal canonization debates were underway, the church already had the NT books. Indeed, those are the first extant Christian writings. They were written long before the canonization debates. They were in circulation long before the canonization debates. Widely distributed and used by Christians.
In that regard, the church at the time of canonization debates was in the same position as the Protestants. At that stage, it already had the end-product.
By then there were other books floating around. Some legitimate (subapostolic fathers) and some illegitimate (apocrypha). But they weren't the same kinds of books we find in the NT. They didn't have the same characteristics. The Bible itself is a model.
iv) Assuming traditional authorship (which is eminently defensible), when we look at the NT books, they were all written in the 1C. All written within living memory of Jesus. Written by apostles, protégés of apostles, or members of Christ's nuclear family. Written by eyewitnesses of Jesus or those who interviewed eyewitnesses of Jesus.
That doesn't give you a set of instructions, but a set of characteristics. What's the competition?
On the topic of Canon, keep an eye out for this
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bookdepository.com/Canon-Covenant-Christology-Matthew-Barrett/9781783595440?ref=grid-view&qid=1580859742433&sr=1-10
Interesting thesis
DeleteIt seems to me that Sola Scriptura doesn't require an exact knowledge of the canon. Even if we were wrong about the antilegomena, the homologoumena (the virtually undisputed core books) is enough to establish the essential doctrines of salvation.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Protestants who convert to Catholicism (Orthodoxy, etc.) often do so because they fall for the lie about a "true church" and the error of thinking we need to have clear cut doctrines on issues that aren't essential. And I'm not sure that having the correct canon is an essential.
It seems to me that we can derive all essential doctrines like the Trinity, the incaration, the personality of the Holy Spirit, sola fide, sola gratia, the resurrection of Christ, the future bodily resurrection, Final Judgment (etc.) from the NT homologoumena and the core books of the OT which most 1st century Jews would have virtually all agreed on (with the exception of the Sadducees who accepted only the Torah; or other minority of Jews who rejected books like Esther etc.). The "22" (i.e. 39) books that were stored in the Temple which Josephus mentioned were the core books most Jews around the world accepted, even if some of them held to additional books.
Between the time of the publishing of the Torah/Pentateuch and the last book of the Old Testament I suspect there were many times when the people of God weren't absolutely sure what the extent of the canon was. There wasn't always a prophet on hand to provide an inspired index to the canon, Though, at times there might have been [likely IMO]. New books were constantly being venerated and not everyone were quick to accept certain books or writings as canonical.
DeleteFor example, the various Psalms had probably been reworked and redacted multiple times and took time to be considered canonical. Maybe as a whole, or in groups at different times. For example, some scholars speculate that Ps. 42 and 43 were once a single psalm that was eventually divided. Or the fact that Ps. 14 and 53 are so similar suggests one is the ancestor of the other, or that both the ancestor of an earlier version.
Nevertheless, during that time of uncertainty, the people of God had, at the very least, the core books of the Torah. The official, and undisputed books delivered by God through Moses to the Israelites [I'm assuming here that the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong]. Given that core set of books, all further alleged written or verbal revelations needed to be tested by the Torah. Then providentially the Israelites gained a general consensus concerning the 22/39 books which Protestants also accept. And that despite the fact that some Jews added more books to the 39, or questioned some books even within the 39.
So, again, I don't think an infallible knowledge of the canon is necessary given Sola Scriptura, since it wasn't necessary even when ongoing Revelation was being given. The people of God (whether Jews in the OT period or Christians after NT times) were required to be faithful to the books that they were persuaded were canonical, even when they may have been wrong concerning various books.
CONT
For example, some Christians in the early years may have believed that 1 Clement [and other books] were canonical. They were wrong, but it was understandable for them to think so given its general orthodoxy. And they would have been judged for their faithfulness to its teachings because of the combination of the true principles that were eventually expressed in Paul's statement "for whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23b); and James' statement, "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (James 4:17). Though, that doesn't extend to things that contradict core Scripture. That's why Jesus was even able to say regarding those who "sit in Moses Seat", "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3). Some apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books of the OT and NT had degrees of truth and error and the people of God were to attenuate their allegiance and obedience to them to the degree that they appeared to be orthodoxy given their group's/sects' particular sense of which books were core. Since they weren't sure of their canonical status at the time.
DeleteThe story of salvation/redemptive history is messy, but God know how to save His elect even in their errors. The various Catholics groups set the bar too high regarding certainty and fail to meet it themselves. I lean toward the belief that the Protestant canon is correct, but I haven't rejected outright that it's incorrect. Because, as I said, I don't think it's necessary to know or have the correct canon to be among the saved.
To use some analogies, one doesn't have to be mutation free to be human. In fact, all humans have some mutations, yet God can providentially fulfill His purposes for humanity despite that fact. Similarly, a message doesn't have to be error free for it to sufficiently communicate the meaning that's meant to be conveyed. The God's truth has built-in in redundancy in the core books of Scripture that even non-canonical books which from the human perspective are plausible candidates for canonical status contain them too. That's what makes determining the canon difficult. That even non-canonical books have truth in them. To the degree that a doctrine is ubiquitous in the various writings that are candidates for the canon, to that degree ought professing believers in the God of Jesus and the Apostles believe them too.
typo corrections:
Delete"...or that both the ancestor [descendants] of an earlier version. "
"Then providentially the Israelites [gradually] gained a general consensus concerning the 22/39 books which Protestants also accept."
"Some apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books of the OT and NT had degrees of truth and error and the people of God were to attenuate their allegiance and obedience to them to the degree that they appeared to be orthodoxy [orthodox] given their group's/sects' particular sense of which books were core."
"The [eliminate "The"] God's truth has built-in in [eliminate the second "in"] redundancy in the core books of Scripture that even non-canonical books[,] which from the human perspective are plausible candidates for canonical status[,] contain them too. "