CANON AND BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF TWO MODELS OF CANONICITY, THE

Trinity Journal, Fall 2007 by Peckham, John C

What is the proper foundation for theology? Historically, Protestant theology has embraced the Bible as the standard and authority of belief and practice. Yet, this raises some important questions. Why is the Bible the correct foundation for truth? What epistemological criteria do the Scriptures meet? This inevitably leads to the question of the contents of the Bible. In other words, what books are Scripture and why are they included in the canon of the Bible? The proposition that the canon represents the special revelation of God is questioned in contemporary scholarship and society. Why some ancient books are granted status as God's word while other hagiography is dismissed is a timely question. Hence an exploration of the scope of the canon of the Bible and its importance as the foundation for a theological methodology may provide some support for the biblical canon as the foundation of theology.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the definition and scope of the biblical canon in order to shed light on its role for theology. This focuses especially upon the problem of what determines canonicity. Is the canon determined by humans or by God? At times, the biblical canon is studied from a mostly historical standpoint, focusing on lists and dates of the acceptance of the canon. The information garnered from such studies provides essential information. However, the problem before us regards not only the community's acceptance of a canon, but the intrinsic merit of the canon. Consequently, the dating of the acceptance of the canon is not the crucial issue. Rather, the fundamental question is whether the canon is determined by humans or by God. This article deals with two major views which produce far-reaching implications on this significant matter. This study thus suggests two broad models based on these general views regarding the nature of canonicity, for the sake of comparison.1

First, some consider the canonization of Scripture to be "something officially or authoritatively imposed upon certain literature."2 This view will be discussed under the general rubric of the community canon model. The second view holds that the canon was not determined, but recognized.3 This will be discussed as the intrinsic canon model. These models have different definitions of the canon, see the nature of the canon differently, and thus see different functions for the canon. Accordingly, the community canon model will date the canon at the time the lists were recognized by the church (community), while the intrinsic canon model will hold an earlier date, in accordance with divine origin of the canon, separate from the later universal acceptance by the church. Notice especially that the latter model is differentiated by its belief that God determines the canon. Accordingly, the specific dating of canonical recognition is of much less concern to this model. The recognition of the canon will bear on its function for the individual and/ or community, but it will not bear on the intrinsic merits of canonicity.

This investigation considers the continuing dialogue between scholars who hold the canon as a social construct (community canon model) and those who believe it is a divinely appointed standard (intrinsic canon model). However, the models do not necessarily correspond to any one scholar, and there is room for diversity within the models. Here the two models are simplified for the purpose of comparison.4 This article will suggest the validity of the intrinsic canon model and therefore also investigate the criteria that apply to this view of canonicity. This research is not intended to reconstruct or investigate the history of the canon specifically, but rather to interact with the question of the canon theologically.5 Accordingly, this study is not meant as an exhaustive investigation of the original sources upon which the history of the canon is based. Rather it focuses on the contemporary controversies and from that standpoint necessarily reflects some on the history of the canon and some implications. This investigation intends to shed light on the question of the authority of the books of the canon as the source for theology. Hence, the findings on the criteria and scope of the canon will hold implications for the method of utilizing the canonical books in the task of doing theology.

I. THE COMMUNITY CANON MODEL

A. The Definition and Nature of the Canon

In this model the canon is defined as a set of writings that are selected by the community as a standard. Accordingly canonicity is viewed as imposed upon writings which do not necessarily merit canonicity. Thus, the authority resides in the community to select the writings that are in the canon and thus used for theology. Two different but related examples of the community canon model will illuminate the definition and nature of the canon. In both of these examples a group accepts the canon on the basis of an external determination of canonicity by the church or community. These examples are grouped in this model based solely upon their position regarding the community's authority to determine the canon.6