Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Faculty Publications Theology & Christian Philosophy

June 2008

The Biblical Canon: Do We Have the Right Bible?

John C. Peckham
Andrews University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theology-christian-

philosophy-pubs
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of
Religion Commons

Recommended Citation
Peckham, John C., "The Biblical Canon: Do We Have the Right Bible?" (2008). Faculty Publications. Paper 23.
http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theology-christian-philosophy-pubs/23

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theology & Christian Philosophy at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 fact contain not only the transmission of objective
data, but also the interpretation of that data.
Indeed, it is impossible to communicate history
without the inclusion of interpretation. Such
interpretations, however, may or may not be
accurate. This becomes a special problem when
the conclusions communicated by the historian
or scholar are uncritically received as correct,

The biblical without recognition that the presentation

includes interpretation impacted by presupposi-
tions of the author.
Thus, definitions of canonicity are greatly

canon: impacted at the level of presuppositions, whether

these presuppositions are expressed or implied.
The crucial presupposition regards the origin of

Do we have the the biblical books. In particular, a major driving

force of the diversity of canon definitions is
the preconception regarding the possibility or

right Bible? impossibility of divine revelation. Is the canon

determined by humans or by God? If one rules
out the possibility that God has communicated
about Himself to humans, one will also rule out
the divine appointment of the canon. On the

D
John C. Peckham an Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code other hand, faith in divine self-revelation would
became famous or infamous for permit a definition which views the canon as a
suggesting a romantic relation- divinely appointed standard.
ship between Mary Magdalene
and Jesus. A lesser known charge Two major definitions of canon
of this work however, is its frequent assertion For the sake of this discussion, let us consider
that the biblical canon was arbitrarily imposed two main definitions of canonicity which flow
by church authorities in the fourth century A.D. from these positions. The first, community canon,
and has little or no inherent authority. Brown also views the canon as “something officially or
suggests that there were other sacred books with authoritatively imposed upon certain literature.”1
equal, or even greater, validity than the Bible. It is Here the canon is defined as a set of writings
widely recognized that Brown’s fictional retelling selected by the community as a standard.
of history includes glaring inaccuracies at nearly Accordingly, canonicity is viewed as imposed
every turn. Even though a brief survey of history upon the writings that do not necessarily merit
would easily discredit Brown’s fanciful and fictional canonicity. Thus, the contents of that canon
hypotheses, the question of canonicity deserves may be flexible, and the authority resides in the
a careful study. In fact, the essential root of the community to select the writings in the canon
question is even now under heavy discussion in used for theology.
John C. Peckham, scholarship. This central issue pertaining to biblical The second definition, intrinsic canon, holds
MDiv, is a PhD canon may be summarized in two closely related that the canon was determined by God, and
candidate in questions: Is the origin of the canon divine or recognized (not determined) by humans.2 Here,
systematic theology human? What or who determined the contents the books of Scripture are intrinsically canonical
at Andrews University, and authority of the canon? The answers to these due to their divine origin. This inherent canonical
Berrien Springs, questions ground the conception of the nature authority is bestowed by divine authority, inde-
Michigan, United States,
and authority of the Bible. pendent of human recognition for its inherent
and also pastors
authority. Only the divine origin gives the books
Seventh-day Adventist
churches in Presuppositions and definitions their authority; the recognition of that divine
Jeffersonville, Diverse and competing definitions and origin leads to the proper function of the canon
New Albany, and interpretations regarding the canon exist in in the lives of individuals and believers.
Scottsburg, Indiana, scholarship. What is the reason for such diverse Thus, the formative factor of the possibility
United States. interpretation? Presuppositions may be identified of divine revelation often leads to the difference
as major factors. In matters of history, it is impor- between the position that the community
tant to recognize that statements presented as determines the canon and the position that God

16 M I N I S T R Y June 2008
determines the canon, with the commu- canonical books, or intrinsic canonicity. revelation, requires that the contents
nity recognizing the canon. In the former, Thus, the intrinsic-canon approach will of the books must not contradict, but
the books are granted their place in the apply criteria to identify the books that be in accord with all past revelation
canon by humans, while in the latter, God determined and intended to be a (Deut. 13:1–3; Mal. 3:6; Isa. 8:20;
God grants the placement in the canon. part of the canon. Matt. 5:17, 18; Matt. 24:35).9 The last
This difference is crucial to the nature of Furthermore, this intrinsic-canon criterion, self-authentication of divine
the canon. If one states that the com- approach values the internal data of purpose, is perhaps the most important
munity makes such determination, then Scripture that supports the crucial need but also the most difficult to identify
the focus will be placed on the history to correctly identify the divinely intended objectively. It means that true canonical
of that determination and the possibility canon. The Old Testament (OT) explicitly merit lies in the action of God in the
of contemporary changes in the scope mentions divine revelation and the revelation, inspiration, and preservation
of that canon. If one, on the other intentional preservation of that revelation of the books and may be recognized in
hand, believes that God determines the as an authority for the community.4 The the contents of the books.10
canon, the central question is how the New Testament (NT) records abundant It should be noted, however, that this
community should recognize the scope evidence that supports the existence of presentation of the criteria and applica-
of that canon. an OT canon and its acceptance by Jesus tion is necessarily oversimplified. I am not
who passed it on to His followers.5 The suggesting that the mere presentation of
Implications of the definitions NT is also clear about its own authority these criteria lays to rest the questions
According to the community-canon as the Word of God.6 Thus, it seems that about canonicity. However, it does move
definition, any data that does not include internally, the biblical writers suppose an the question from the history of canon
specified lists of canonical books is authoritative collection of OT and NT lists to the question of the rightful,
dismissed as lacking relevance. Notably, books, in other words, a canon. Also of intrinsic place in the canon of the books
in this view the quotations and usage interest, although not conclusive, is the themselves. It would be naïve to believe
of the canonical books in early church early record of the usage by the church that the debate would be quieted based
ages, the first to fourth century, are not documented in the writings of the early on this perspective. However, it seems
evidence of an authoritative canon since church fathers.7 I suggest that if we quite valid to move from this definition
they are not canon lists, and thus do not accept the reality of divine revelation of canon to an investigation of the books
meet the requirements of this definition. to humans, then we should adopt the themselves to a decision based on their
Rather, the data deemed conclusive for intrinsic-canon definition and focus on merits as canonical. I have personally
the history of the formation of the canon the correct identification of the books conducted just such an investigation and
is restricted to the sample of extant lists themselves based on criteria that identify am satisfied that the 39 books of the OT
of books that have come down to us the books as sound, reliable conduits of and the 27 books of the NT do in fact
through history. This will then lead to divine revelation. meet all criteria of canonicity and are
a fourth century A.D. dating, based on thus worthy of acceptance as the divinely
the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, or Suggested criteria for the commissioned word of God, authorita-
later, for the formation of the canon recognition of the divinely tive for all faith and practice.11 Moreover,
since lists from before this time are few determined canon I have found no other books that can
and deemed inconclusive.3 Admittedly, The main criteria that aid in the meet these criteria.12 Therefore, I have
this is an argument from silence, since recognition of the divinely appointed concluded that the 66-book canon is the
we only have what has come down to canon include: (1) divinely commissioned correctly recognized revelation of God.
us through history. authorship, (2) consistency with other At this point, the issue of the closing
However, if the canon is approached revelation, and (3) self-authentication of of the canon must be briefly addressed.
from a different definition, the history divine purpose. Divinely commissioned Because the revelations contained in
then is interpreted much differently. The authorship simply means that the the OT and NT contain all the necessary
history of canon lists is a valid endeavor author has divine authority to transmit revelations of God’s activity in the history
of study in its own right. However, if one revelation with such divine commission of salvation, the canon is fittingly closed
applies the intrinsic-canon definition, seen in the work of prophets throughout by the NT writings. The canonical books
then such history should not be taken the OT. In the NT, this commission contain purposely selected information
to provide conclusive answers regarding is seen in the work of apostles and that make up the full revelation of God in
the rightful scope or authority of the first generation Christians who were Jesus Christ. The NT teaches that Christ
canon. It may provide information about directly connected to the apostles and fulfilled the entire OT as the complete
the books accepted by the author of a thus had apostolic guidance available.8 revelation of God (Matt. 5:17). More-
given document and perhaps to a spe- This, of course, requires that the books over, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit
cific community, but it does not provide be written during the time of the would guide the apostles into “all truth”
much information beyond that which prophets and apostles, respectively. The (John 16:13). If we have the authentic,
reaches to the level of the merits of the second criterion, consistency with other divinely commissioned apostolic writings

18 M I N I S T R Y June 2008
along with the OT, we have all canonical confidently utilize it as the authoritative 7 For instance, the NT canonical books were so
revelation and no need exists for further rule of faith and practice. widely used that the entire NT except 11 verses
could be reconstructed from the church fathers
covenant revelation. This, however, In summary, then, the canon of of the second to fourth centuries. For a full
does not mean that the Holy Spirit no Scripture consists of books of divine tabulation see Norman L. Geisler and William E.
longer bestows the prophetic gift; but, revelation appointed by God to serve Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and
Expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 419–433.
it does mean that no postapostolic as an authoritative rule of faith and 8 In Against Apion 1.8, Josephus points out a clear
prophet will be canonical. practice. These books are, afterward, succession from Moses to the prophets who
recognized by the community to be testified with “an exact succession of prophets.”
He also suggests a closed OT canon at his time
Summary and conclusions divinely commissioned, whether pro- (ca. A.D. 70) since he states “no one has been so
It is no coincidence that these criteria phetic or apostolic, of proper antiquity, bold as either to add anything to them [the OT],
lead to the recognition of the 66-book consistent with previous revelation, to take anything from them, or to make any
change in them.” An example of the importance
canon. These books were providentially and self-authenticating. On the basis of authorship in the NT is Paul’s emphasis of his
preserved through the agency of the of its intrinsic canonicity, Scripture is handwriting that marked the letter as truly from
church, and further proof that God has accepted and used as the revelation of him (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess.
3:17; Philem. 19).
aided in the recognition of these books. God. I propose that all 66 books of the 9 An important historical example of this criterion
However, without supposing this as Protestant canon belong to the divinely was the case of Serapion at Rhossus, who
fact, one may still come to recognize inspired, preserved, and intended canon originally allowed usage of the so-called Gospel
of Peter but later rejected it altogether because it
this same collection of books through of Scripture, to which no books may be implied docetism. Eusebius, 216. H.E. 6.12.3.
the application of criteria such as those removed or added. As such, the canon 10 It should be noted that inspiration alone does
suggested in this article. One who of Scripture is the only authoritative and not equal canonicity. It is true that in numerous
places the Bible records prophetic books that
does not already believe that God has trustworthy foundation for theology are not part of the canon. Other books, such as
communicated revelation to humanity and practice. Shepherd of Hermas, were considered by some to
may suspend judgment and proceed be inspired but were not recognized as canonical
because they did not meet the other criteria, such
to engage the Bible on its own terms. 1 James A. Sanders, “The Issue of Closure in the
as apostolicity. Inspiration is thus required, but is
Canonical Process,” in The Canon Debate, eds.
The awareness of such presuppositions, Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders
not the only indication of a canonical book.
then, may allow movement past the 11 Of course, the primary objection that might be
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 252.
leveled against this claim is the questions of dat-
a priori dismissal of revelation to the 2 “By virtue of their inspiration, and its resultant
ing and authorship that are popular in historical
internal self-authentification and self-validation,
matter of how one might recognize biblical books were ‘recognized’ as canonical.”
critical approaches to the Bible. I would contend
such revelation if it existed. that the conclusions that contradict the internal
Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Inspiration and the
testimony of the books are speculative, inconclu-
The church, on the other hand, Canon of the Bible,” Journal of the Adventist Theo-
sive, and contested. There is a great deal of data
logical Society 5/1 (1994): 69.
operates in the arena of faith and 3 It should be noted that there is an abundance
that may support the prophetic and apostolic
cannot operate within the framework authorship of the OT and NT respectively. Some
of data open to interpretation. Much of the
data that supports such a position is laid out in
of secular presuppositions. To be sure, interpretation, as noted previously, is directly tied
studies such as Archer, A Survey of Old Testament
to the pre-existent definition of what constitutes
there is room for patient dialogue, but canonicity.
Introduction, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press,
the pressure to adopt common presup- 1998), and D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and
4 God commanded Moses that His revelation be
Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament
positions would drastically impact the written, preserved, and passed on (Exod. 17:14;
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992). For an in-
24:4; 31:18; 34:27; Deut. 10:5; 31:9, 25, 26). After
church. Frankly, the believer has the Moses, other inspired writers such as Joshua,
vestigation of the history, consult F. F. Bruce, The
same right to their presuppositions or Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, just to name a few, car-
sity Press, 1988), and Lee Martin McDonald, The
worldview as any others. The believer ried on the recording of revelation (Josh. 24:26;
Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody,
1 Sam. 10:25; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 30:2). Later writers
who affirms faith in the possibility or referred to and revered earlier Scriptures (1 Kings
MA: Hendrickson, 1995).
actuality of divine revelation will be 12 The OT Apocrypha are ruled out by the Jews’
2:3; Ezra 3:2; Jer. 26:18; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Dan. 9:2;
self-testimony regarding the cessation of proph-
able to employ these standards in Mic. 4:1–3, etc.).
ecy after the time of Artaxerxes (ca. 450 B.C.).
5 Jesus is clear about the authority of the OT
recognizing the divine merits of the (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56; Luke 24:44, 45; Josephus, Against Apion 1.8, clearly specifies that
canon without accepting that the the authoritative prophets were only “till the
John 2:22; 5:39; 10:35; 17:12). The rest of the
reign of Artaxerxes” (Cf. 1 Macc. 9:27), Regarding
canon is determined by a community NT testifies to the OT writings as authoritative
the NT, the Shepherd of Hermas might be the clos-
Scripture (Acts 17:2; 18:28; Rom. 1:2; 4:3; 9:17;
or tradition. Such an approach may aid 10:11; 11:2; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Gal. 3:8; 2 Tim. 3:16; est book but was ruled out because, according to
believers to further ground their faith the Muratorian Fragment, it was written in the
2 Pet. 1:20, 21).
mid-second century and thus not by an apostle.
in the Bible and may also facilitate an 6 1 Tim. 5:18 quotes directly from Luke 10:7. Peter
Recently touted, so-called gnostic books, such
declares the writings of Paul to be Scripture along
unbeliever’s ability to honestly engage with the OT and collects them (2 Pet. 3:15, 16). as the Gospel of Thomas, fail all the criteria with
the issue of the scope of the canonical pseudonymous authorship, contradiction to
Moreover, the gospel is regarded as the very word
previous revelation, and a total lack of evidence
books, sift through interpretations, and of God (Acts 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:46; 17:13; 18:11;
of divine origin or appointment.
19:20). Paul is clear that he does not speak on his
potentially come to faith in the Bible own authority but by that of God (Rom. 15:15;
as the recognized revelation of God. 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:5; 1 Thess. 2:13) and
Concurrently, the church can continue commands his letters to be read (Col. 4:16;
Tell us what you think about this article. Email us at
1 Thess. 5:27). Finally, Revelation testifies of itself
to testify of the life-changing power of [email protected] or write to us
as direct revelation from God and adds that no
the Bible through the Holy Spirit and one should change its words (Rev. 1:1; 22:18, 19).
at 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904.

June 2008 M I N I S T R Y 19