Explain the meaning and significance of the biblical canon. (NCFCA)

Analyze and respond to the statement, "The Bible is simply the work of a great conspiracy, where people sought to create a religion of their own." — Anonymous (NCFCA/Stoa)

How did we get the biblical canon we have today, and how can we trust that it is truly the Word of God? (Stoa)

Defining the Topic

Canon as a "measuring stick"

Dr. Eugene Ulrich (professor of Hebrew Scripture at Notre Dame, translator of the New Revised Standard Version) notes that the Greek word for canon "meant a 'rod' or 'measuring stick' and acquired the figurative senses of 'norm' or 'ideal'; in the realm of sculpture it meant the 'perfect form of the human frame.'"

What are some possible perspectives?

Dr. Michael Kruger

Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh in New Testament studies

Canon formation happened early, and proceeded naturally from Jesus' declaration of a new covenant. While other writings existed, they were far less commonly cited.

Ian Mills

Ph.D. candidate in New Testament studies at Duke University

Early churches differed in the texts they used, and some of those differences are reflected even today (the Syriac and Ethiopian Orthodox churches both use different canons). The first list of New Testament books matching our modern canon wasn't made until the mid-fourth century.

Possible Arguments

Criteria for inclusion in the canon (under construction)

Dennis Jowers (PhD [Systematic Theology], M.Th. [Systematic Theology] from University of Edinburgh), "The Sufficiency of Scripture and the Biblical Canon," https://search.proquest.com/docview/346985617?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Dennis Jowers defines the canon as the set of books that the church ought to receive as scripture. For the Old Testament, Jesus and his contemporaries seemed to be referring to the same books as ‘scripture’, ‘the law’, and ‘the law and the prophets’ which implies a consensus as to the contents of the scriptural canon. The New Testament canon follows from three principles: (1) characterizing the author as an apostle, divinely sent, (2) prophesying that Jesus’ true followers would find the apostles’ teaching, and (3) giving the apostles the ability to work miracles (Matt. 10:1, Mark 3:15 and Luke 9:1). Jesus also approved of the apostolic doctrine (John 15:20) thus showing his confidence in the accuracy of their proclamation.

The main difficulties in proving New Testament canonicity are largely to do with authorship. Fist Jowers addresses Paul, James (the Lord’s brother), Jude, Mark, and Luke who did not belong to the twelve apostles. However, he cites 2 Peter 3:15-16 where Peter confirms the canonicity of Paul’s writings, 1 Tim 5:18 where Paul confirms the scriptural character of Luke-Acts, and 1 Cor. 9:5 where Paul declares both James the brother of the Lord and Jude to be apostles.

Jowers also contends that Hebrews’ author was an associate or disciple of Paul because (1) The author is a co-worker of Timothy (Heb 13:23); (2) the letter exhibits striking affinities with the theology and language of Paul; and (3) its author’s failure to reinforce his argument by reference to the temple’s destruction strongly suggest that he composed it prior to 70 C.E. His main point of these examples go to show that the composition of New Testament books by people other than the Twelve does not disqualify apostolicity, or the books’ canonicity.

Jowers argues that “The church, therefore, not only can, but must, determine the canon's boundaries by the kind of historical reasoning that we have proposed: viz., determining what Jesus' contemporaries thought about the biblical canon and which books have a reasonable claim to apostolic authorship or endorsement.”

His main point is that Scripture is sufficient because it satisfies the four conditions: (1) contains all of the articles one must believe in order to attain salvation, (2) it contains all precepts one must obey to live piously before God, (3) it sufficiently conveys all of this information to an attentive reader, and (4) it is self-authenticating.

The order of the canon matters too

Gregory Goswell (Master of Theology [Australian College of Theology] Doctor of Philosophy [University of Sydney]), "The Ordering of the Books of the Canon and the Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament" https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jtheointe.13.1.0001

Gregory Goswell argues that the order in which Biblical books are placed can help illuminate their meanings. The sequential ordering of the canon is a component of the paratext of the Scripture (elements that are adjoined to the text but not part of the text necessarily like verse numbers).

Goswell uses the book of Ruth to prove his claim. In the Greek Old Testament, it is placed after Judges among the books classified as Histories, recording the prehistory of the Davidic house since the gospels include Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. However, in the Hebrew Bible Ruth is read from a wisdom perspective because it is places after the characterization of the “woman of worth” found in Proverbs 31. Goswell concludes: “Reading a biblical book in relationship with other biblical books both narrows its range of possible meanings and opens up new interpretative options as the contents of one canonical text throw light on another.”

The Bible was written "for us, but not to us"

Dr. Jackson Wu (PhD in applied theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), "The Doctrine of Scripture and Biblical Contextualization: Inspiration, Authority, Inerrancy, and the Canon," https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-doctrine-of-scripture-and-biblical-contextualization/

Dr. Wu affirms “the importance of contextualization and identifies biblical boundaries for contextualization which stem from and evangelical view of the Bible.” He argues the God revealed himself through culture and history to convey the truth, especially existing institutions for his theological purposes. This, Wu contends, explains the similarities between Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern religious writings.

Likewise, the Bible needs to be understood within its particular context as John Walton reminds: “the Bible was written for us, but not to us.” Wu also notes that the Bible was recorded in a culture which passed down stories orally and reassures Christians that “accuracy or biblical fidelity depends on how precise their words match their written Bible.” He concludes by sharing that the canon, the written text that we have now, is purposeful because it creates a collective identity for those who believe in its stories.

The Old Testament canon is... complicated

Dr. Lee Martin McDonald (B.A., Biola University, B.D., Talbot Theological Seminary, Th.M., Harvard University, Major in New Testament History and Patristics, Ph.D., University of Edinburgh, Focus: New Testament Studies), "Fluidity In The Early Formation Of The Hebrew Bible," https://www.jstor.org/stable/26950401?seq=1

“There is considerable fluidity throughout the history of the Hebrew Bible, from its development, when the primary story that gave rise to the Jewish people was transmitted initially by memory, to the time when no other books were seriously considered for inclusion.” This, McDonald argues, comes from a plethora of motives behind sacred Jewish texts such as the preservation of stories which spoke to Israelite national identity, teaching wisdom, offering hope, worship, etc.

The tripartite collection of the Hebrew Bible (Writings, Wisdom, and Prophecy) was not settled until the Amoraic period (200-500 AD) and different groups included and excluded different books after that time also. For example, “A number of religious texts that were not included in the Hebrew Bible or most Christian Old Testament canons were evidently significant literature among the Essenes at Qumran, for example, the Book of Jubilees.” It is also worth noting that half of the large scrolls at Qumran are non-biblical texts.

McDonald also stresses caution when drawing conclusions from the Dead Sea Scrolls since what was discovered was not necessarily a complete library. Likewise, the Qumran scrolls also show varying degrees of additions and redactions in their sacred texts. McDonald concludes the essay evidencing the Hebrew Bible’s fluidity even into the Middle Ages: “Only a few Christian Old Testament manuscripts predate the fourth century CE.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the best evidence we have for the OT canon

Eugene Ulrich (Litt.B., Xavier University; Ph.L., Loyola University; M.Div., Woodstock College; M.A., Ph.D., Harvard University), "Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls," https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725135

Eugene Ulrich’s main argument is that the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal a pluriformity of biblical texts as well as the process of textual development in antiquity. He begins by providing a comprehensive history of the Qumran scrolls. Ulrich uses two Isaiah scrolls to illustrate his thesis, lQIsab and lQIsaa. lQIsab appeared to agree nearly word for word with the traditional Masoretic Text while lQIsaa exhibited many variants including verses and passages that were taken out or added in.

Scholars deemed lQIsaa as “vulgar” or “worthless” because it diverged so widely from what the biblical text was “supposed to look like.” However, Ulrich pushes back by contending that lQIsaa was preserved more carefully in linen and a sealed jar rather than lQIsab, which was not found in this condition. Likewise, as more scrolls were uncovered in Qumran, many showed textual divergences from our modern text.

Ulrich uses a large portion of his essay to list and explain the variations of biblical texts. Ulrich stands in agreement with Lawrence Schiffman who writes, “they are the oldest, the best, and the most authentic evidence we have for the shape of the Scriptures at the time of the beginning of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism.” The Qumran scrolls, he argues, also reveal that the Scripture we have now began as oral traditions that became important or popular which were still being developed near the end of the first century C.E.

Ulrich concludes with the idea that community was instrumental in forming and endorsing the tradition as scripture as a stage in the Bible’s development.

Applications

Gen. 1/2: metaphor matters

Pete Enns (PhD from Harvard University), "Let's Talk About Genesis," Published on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8D73x83dFY

Professor Enns points out that there are clear differences between the two accounts which can't be easily resolved. For example, chapter 1 begins with an excess of water from which God raises the land. Chapter 2 begins with the opposite: dry land. Rather than quibbling, over the details, Enns suggests that the two accounts are intentionally written as metaphors to describe different aspects of God, rather than literal accounts meant to be taken as historical fact.

Gen. 1/2: can be reconciled

Jiří Moskala (professor of Old Testament exegesis at Andrews University), "A Fresh Look at Two Genesis Creation Accounts: Contradictions?," Published by Andrews University Seminary Studies, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3127&context=auss

Professor Moskala takes a scholarly approach to resolving twelve differences between the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis. He agrees that the two accounts paint different pictures of God (Genesis 1 being universal, and Genesis 2 being personal), but suggests that they were written purposely together and are complementary.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse