In terms of philosophical analogy, the Biblicism being advocated here is akin to the Correspondence Theory of Truth - the Logos-Scriptures being the epistemological measure and our task is to reflect (or mirror) and project these teachings as they are taught (in their context). This framing (in contrast to the Coherence Theory) is usually tied to Empiricism and on that point we must depart. We communicate an analogy wherein we must acknowledge the danger of our ideas becoming a filter or playing a mediatorial role in how God's truths are understood. Our understanding always runs the risk of being slanted or tainted by how our eyes, minds, and hearts see and understand these things and so that too is a cause for caution and humility. This in contrast to the kind of 'direct realist' approach (or ethos) seen in Fundamentalist literalism - an effort that results not only in oversimplification but is often blind to its own biases. It also differs (strongly) from the systematics approach which seeks to reorganize and reframe revealed doctrine into a coherent and comprehensive theological product - I use this term deliberately.
While some might find this position to smack of dissonance, I'm suggesting that we embrace a Biblical Correspondence notion rooted in spiritual primacy and as such it is anti-empiricist and anti-Lockean. The correspondence we speak of is with reference to revelation not empirical observation or experience. The correspondence is thus rightly spoken of as a Transcendent or Revelatory Correspondence.
This state of affairs (cosmological and epistemological) cannot be bridged by the tools of Continental or Analytic philosophy. Indeed the divine Transcendent Epistemology revealed in the New Testament destroys the whole of human philosophy.
Reality has been broken (split or divided) by the Fall, leaving us dependent on revelation and our limited ability to parse its eternal/finite dynamics.
On the one hand we can speak of a plain reading but one that must embrace the multi-faceted, paradoxical, nature of revelation's categories - at which point its complexity might defy some notions of 'plain'. The dualities associated with time and eternity are (the best we can tell) to be eliminated at the eschaton. Contrary to the Hellenistic perverters of Christians in the ancient past, the extant dualism is not absolute but temporary. Unfortunately they allowed the present state of affairs to dominate their cosmology and ultimately their Doctrine of God. The rationalist-driven factions that dominate Western theological thinking face the same danger by means of a different path.
Contrary to popular Christian opinion, the creation is no longer good but cursed and handed over to death and deception. Everyone quotes Genesis 1 but fail to take into account the curse issued by God just two chapters later - something reiterated in the episode of the flood. The creation while still full of wonder and reflecting supernatural realities is no longer good but (as the New Testament teaches) subjected to futility, groaning, and handed over to the god of this world, destined to be burned up and perish. Again this is not an inherent or intrinsic evil connected to matter, but one that is nevertheless thorough or pervasive and characterizes this present evil age. We are pilgrims looking for a new Heavens and a new Earth and this should affect how we live and think.
In connection to previous writings, this is why (I argue) the gnostic teachings gained a foothold. There is a similarity in doctrine but it's only at the surface level. The New Testament framework rejects both the gnostic framing of cosmology as well as the world-affirming posture found in Thomism (with its low view of the Fall and the idea that grace can perfect nature). The latter category can also be tied in with the erroneous Lutheran view of Vocation and the later dominionism of someone like Abraham Kuyper. The latter while different and more limited in scope also seeks to sanctify and renew creation in a way utterly foreign to the New Testament.
It could be argued that in Eden mankind possessed a kind of spirit-material existence that openly interacted with the transcendent realms of the angels and indeed God Himself seemed to interact with them in a different way - walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Eden was in fact a mountain, the Throne/Kingdom of God, the place of His Presence, but unlike the Shekinah in the later (and veiled) Holy of Holies which required blood to access even the heavenly type - He would walk and talk with His people face to face (as it were).
The Fall erected a veil, a curtain, the angel-guarded sword-gate that sundered post-Edenic man from this reality. We can (through the Spirit) still experience both realms, but the 'integrated' experience was lost - though a hint of it is revealed to us in the torn veil and the resurrected Christ. But again, the parousia has not yet been completed. Our experience of eschatological Zion is (at present) only in the Spirit who operates in our hearts and through the Church.
The attempt to re-integrate the two realms through man's efforts only results in confusion and divided loyalty - and ultimately erects a counterfeit, the cross-topped Babel that I often have referenced. That integration so craved by the Dominionists is eschatological and not possible in this present evil age - else it would cease to be a present evil age and Paul's words would fail. If glory is found in this age for the Kingdom, then how can we speak of either a present evil age, a world subjected to vanity, or the groaning associated with the awaited redemption? We'll have our best life now. Don't be fooled, Dominionism is but a high-brow and more comprehensive version of the prosperity gospel.
The restoration brought by Christ is experienced in this age by life in the Spirit and thus life in the Church. The Word (including the sacraments) and prayer represent bridges to the Kingdom. An examination of these things reveals layers of concepts and interaction that are multifaceted, profound, and mysterious.
As such it should also be stated the Bible belongs to the Church not the academy. And the Church is not a denomination, institution, or organized bureaucracy, but the Body of Christ made up of living dynamic individuals and congregations maintaining the apostolic faith.
We live under the New Covenant established on the foundation of Christ and the apostles and it is their written sayings and teachings which form the canon. Christ has fulfilled the Old Covenant and it is no longer in effect - in terms of stand-alone authority. The New Testament rests upon the foundation of the Old and thus those writings are still critical and of great value. However, as we under the New Covenant, we cannot read the Old as a stand-alone canon or authoritative apart from New Testament interpretation. This violates the canons of the academy but the academy is wrong in its attempt to treat the Scriptures as if they are just some other collection of writings.
This also flies in the face of claims and basic theological assumptions made by many camps. Both Dominionism and Dispensationalism build on Old Testament foundations that are taken independently of the New Testament. The former in particular focuses on the 'goodness' of creation in Eden and aspects of Divine Law that are deemed beneficial (if decovenantalized) to contemporary systems building and ethics, while Dispensationalism insists upon Old Testament readings that are modified and clarified in the New Testament in such a way as to expose their entire system as erroneous. Such Judaizing (also a problem in New Testament times) is to be categorically rejected. Both camps are guilty of this (and thus close cousins) and yet take the error in different directions.
Further, the New Testament text being divine was providentially preserved even during times of apostasy. The canons of textual criticism and the embrace of a new and significantly modified New Testament text on the basis of texts discovered in the 19th century (as well as dubious arguments arguments concerning their origin) must be rejected. This notion as well as the reaction to the Critical Text can certainly been abused and there are numerous examples of this - but the authority of the infallible Scripture still stands, and as such we must reject the revisionist definitions of inerrancy which emerged in the late 19th century and which dominates today as (supposedly) the 'conservative' position - a position that fully incorporates many of the canons and assumptions of Textual Criticism. This position (typified by the heavy advocacy of the ESV) is not historically or theologically conservative at all but undermines the authority of Scripture - a point this author believes will play out over the course of the next generation.
Now here's where I strongly differ from most 'conservative' views of the Old Testament. In terms of the Old Testament text and canon, on one level a degree of fluidity is permissible. In fact I would argue the Jews themselves only completely resolved the issue in response to the emergence of the Church in the late 1st century AD - reflected in Josephus and others. Philo of Alexandria (a couple of generations before Josephus) believed the Septuagint was divinely inspired. While he does not quote the so-called Apocrypha, his view would certainly include (at the very least) the extended portions of Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah which historically were not listed as separate works but part of the said books.
Up to that point the Jews had oracular prophets, a living Scripture as it were. The Malachi to Matthew gap argument is found wanting and is highly dubious and rests on several layers of revisionism in terms of history and even canonical ordering.
A case can be made that while the oracular presence and exercise was diminishing during the period of exilic return, the Spirit was still active during the so-called Intertestamental Period. While I reject the Critical argument that many of the books of the so-called Apocrypha were written during this time (always assuming they are pseudepigrapha), some undoubtedly were written post-Malachi and exhibit tremendous examples of anticipatory Christian expression. And so while the Jews squirm at the reading of Isaiah 53, there's plenty to be found in Sirach, Wisdom, 2 (or 4) Esdras (which not all accept, though I argue Jesus quoted from it) that point to the coming Messiah and testify in rather startling and sometimes stark terms to the coming Christ. Additionally, even the histories such as 2 Maccabees reveal God actively at work and renders the post-Malachi 'silence' narrative of most Protestants to be dubious.
It would seem the Jews in reaction to the rise of Christianity sought to resolve the issues of canon and thus eliminated these 'apocryphal' books in the late first century AD and also rejected the Greek text of the Old Testament that had emerged in the Hellenistic period, the same text that Philo praised and was frequently used by the apostles in the New Testament and the Early Church (along with its larger canon). A case can also be made that the Septuagint (LXX) translators used a different Hebrew text that is no longer extant and thus we find the differences in both text and canon with the later Masoretic tradition that figures like Jerome tried to embrace - an argument that was rekindled at the time of the Reformation.
The Early Church clearly embraced the Septuagint with its longer canon and despite the doubts sowed by Jerome and a few others, the Church historically embraced these books. The Council of Trent merely clarified what had already been determined at Carthage (397) and what had been in practice for fifteen-hundred years. From Clement to Tertullian, to Polycarp and Irenaeus, to Cyprian, Wycliffe, and the Waldenses (as well as Peter Chelčický), their Old Testaments included these works and they referred to them and quoted them. The contemporary Protestant argument concerning the Apocrypha and the Council of Trent is simply misleading and often resorts to gross revisionism.
But (and this is critical) at the end of the day, the New Testament is the authoritative canon and so whatever I read in Genesis, Jeremiah, or Judith must be read in light of the New Covenant writings. As such I can utilize the Masoretic Text or the LXX as well as the latter's larger canon - and I would argue this is exactly how the apostles dealt with it while writing the New Testament.
As I have lamented in other writings, this question of the Old Testament text has recently been clouded by politics with some Anti-Semitic and Right-wing elements making a case for rejecting the Masoretic Text on the basis of its 'Jewish' identity - as if the Septuagint was somehow less Jewish. It's a ridiculous and evil argument and unfortunately just muddies the already confused waters.
I think the Jews rejected these books which come so close to Christian expression, and rejected a textual tradition of what they perceived to be as a Hellenistic bridge to culture and the facilitation of gentile Christianity. They turned inward, and 'circling the wagons' (as it were) reverted to a (in some cases) older restricted canon. It never should have been an argument embraced by Christians. Jerome who seems to be a veritable fountain of error, was again wrong on this question. He never disappoints.
The rejection of Judaism and the doubts expressed regarding the Masoretic Text are not due to an inherent evil found in the Jewish race let alone some notion of impurity. This is absurd and wicked.
That said, in rejecting Christ the Jews lost all standing and are no longer the people of God. We don't hate them, persecute them, wish them ill, or boast against them, and sadly (we must acknowledge) these questions have become impossibly confused and tainted by Constantinian sacralist paradigms where Jews became the 'other' in the context of so-called Christendom, and as such subject to institutionalized and popular hate etc. But we also reject their arguments and after their rejection of Christ - we might say the Old Testament is no longer theirs. They rejected its central teaching and thus have nothing to say about it anymore.
To conclude, many camps and factions wave the Sola Scriptura banner and claim the Bible as their sole authority and yet very few follow through on this or have thought deeply about just what the Scriptures are or what Scriptural authority means. Even fewer think in covenantal terms, have wrestled with issues of prolegomena, and the spectrum of hermeneutical approaches reveals a great divergence in understanding. This does not discount the notion of Scriptural authority (as some suggest), but instead it is a call for these questions to be wrestled with. The majority of those who claim Sola Scriptura are in fact advocates of Prima Scriptura - a well meant and often God-honouring position to be sure, but something quite different and a position (we would argue) that is not faithful to the claims of the New Covenant apostles.
The question and place of philosophy has overshadowed these discussions since the early days of the Church and while the New Testament provides an answer to this puzzle - the answer is one that is reckoned as foolishness by most people, even most who bear the name of Christ. The marginalization and disdain that it engenders is a status few are willing to bear.
As such we need to face the reality that the vast majority of Sola Scriptura claims are false to greater and lesser degrees. This is (with no small degree of irony) especially the case when it comes to modern Evangelicalism in both its popular and academic forms. They may emphatically make the claim, and it is frustrating to watch the culture interact with them on the basis of this claim, but in fact Scripture only plays a (relatively) small part in their thinking and doctrinal formation.
The Magisterial Reformation may have waved this banner too, but the movement as a whole never followed through and (one could say) got lost in the weeds. A new Reformation movement is needed now more than ever - not a Magisterial-focused movement looking to princes to legislate and militarily defend its interests, but one that revisits certain 'givens' or assumptions which in fact need to be reconsidered and re-worked. Given that such a reform movement would be fundamentally in opposition to both the Magisterial and Confessional traditions as well as Global Evangelicalism, it's not likely to be widespread but at best a narrow and numerically minimal movement - the kind of remnant norm (if not ideal) found repeatedly in the Scriptures.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/04/inbox-elaboration-of-biblicism-i.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/07/heisers-unseen-realm-and-divine-council.html