With regard to questions of text and canon, Christ provides
the final ratification of the Old and establishes the basis for the New. In
terms of the Old Testament canon it is established. I do largely accept the
Protestant argument concerning His references to the valid blocs of canon that
we call the Old Testament. That said, given the provisional and typological
nature of the Old Testament, and that revelation itself was (prior to Christ)
incomplete, there were always possibilities in terms of both extra-canonical
revelation and typological reference and interpretation. The matrix of Old
Covenant revelatory epistemology was vast, rich and deep but always incomplete
and in shadow. I say this because at once I would argue that the nature of Old
Testament canonicity contained a degree of fluidity as exemplified in the New Testament's
use of the LXX and deuterocanonical sources.
Is it appropriate for Church Age authors to utilise these seemingly
dubious and unstable sources as authoritative? Well, that's a trickier question
to be sure and I'm certain that many have made mistakes in this regard. But as
I've indicated elsewhere, and I would want to be very careful in how I say
this, but given the New Testament, its nature and authority, the loose ends
associated with some Old Testament issues are not really that pressing. Our
canon (as MG Kline argued and thus infuriated many) is the New Testament. The
Old is effectively obsolete as the book of Hebrews (to say the least) so
clearly states.
This does not mean that the New does not rely upon the Old
and yet in terms of active authority the Old has been 'disannulled'. This is
why the New can quote the Decalogue and yet at the same time the Decalogue was
the preamble to the Old Covenant and thus standing alone and in situ, it is not pertinent to us. The form and context are not New
Covenant but its content certainly is and thus it can be used by New Testament
authors. For those confused by this, the Eternal Law reflected in the Decalogue
certainly survives but it would be a mistake to equate the Decalogue with the
Eternal Law or 'the' Moral Law. This has generated recent attention but it's
actually an older issue that has fomented controversy long before anyone ever
heard of Andy Stanley. Blind squirrels get an acorn every once in awhile and
given that I pay little attention to such as Stanley I'm not even certain if
the basis for his statements is rooted in anything Biblical. Nevertheless as uneasy
as I am with regard to Stanley and those who inhabit his circles I have also
been quite disturbed to read some of the rebuttals and apologias for the
Decalogue as representing the Eternal Moral Law. The Confessions are wrong on
this point and yet on this point and others our contemporary theologians seem (for
the most part) to lack the nuance and perspective of their sixteenth and seventeenth century forebears.
Ultimately the Apostles were establishing a new canon and
thus to make their point they were free to quote from the Septuagint or
deuterocanonical sources as needed. This was done under inspiration of the Holy
Spirit and while we can learn something from their method, in the end we are
not Apostles and cannot hope to replicate their process nor dare we attempt to
do so.
Returning to questions of Old Covenant canon, here's where
things seemingly become difficult. If there's an embedded fluidity in the Old
Covenant canon and in how its forms may be interpreted, doesn't this translate
into the New Covenant? Isn't it a pattern for how we should read and understand
the Scripture of the new dispensation?
This is a large question and one that must be wrestled with
as indeed many a theological modernist has picked up on this dynamic and would
happily apply it to the Apostolic canon as well. Additionally it seems to
provide great fodder for those who would argue that the authority of Scripture
must therefore be located in an external source, namely the reasoning and ratificatory
authority of the Church... whatever is meant by the latter. Usually the
assumption is in terms of a formal institution, while I would instead borrow
terms others have used, namely that of functional vs. formal canon.
There was a largely agreed upon functional canon that existed
from (I would argue) the first and early second centuries.
Paul is already quoting Luke as Scripture (I reject any reference to the
fictitious 'Q' paradigm) in the first century and indeed given their
relationship it's hardly surprising.
By the second century the bulk of the books of the
New Testament canon were functionally agreed upon. There were of course a few
outliers and open questions but this should neither surprise us nor upset us.
Given the geographic scope, the rival claims and already developing
institutionalisation and episcopacy it's not too surprising there were some
disputes and questions. The fact that the Church-Catholic formally recognised
the canon in the fourth century is secondary and in terms of historical
theology is interesting for other reasons, as indeed the 'Church' was on the
cusp of a great shift in doctrine, outlook, ethics and indeed mission. But that
canon which was formally recognised in the fourth century had already
functioned (with a couple of open questions) for centuries.
With regard to the question of fluidity, I would again refer
to the unfinished and open nature of Old Testament era revelation. But of
course once a work was reckoned as Scripture, then canonically speaking it was
closed and its content and placement solidified. Obviously I reject all such
Higher Critical views with reference to the Pentateuch or some kind of Ezra-ite
or Second Temple recension.
If we still had Apostles, if we were still looking for
another epoch then indeed we would expect further revelation and thus while we
would treat our New Covenant text as authoritative it would still be possible
that additional revelation was forthcoming. I realise there were others besides
the Apostles that had the power of prophecy but I would argue that 'prophecy'
properly speaking ended with the Apostolic age as indeed This Age is (in terms
of eschatology) already at an end.
While there are many views and arguments that can be put
forward to defend the validity of both the New Testament text as well as its
canonicity in the end it comes down to faith... as is the case with all
space-time/historical or creational manifestations of the Divine Word.
Scripture is self-attesting and I would argue (contra our modern textual
reconstructionists) that a belief in Providential Preservation is also basic to
this doctrine. The primary criterion for assessment is ultimately the oracular
nature of apostolic witness. They as prophets are the foundation of the New
Covenant Temple (Eph 2.20). I would add that the main threads of argument in 2
Corinthians deal indirectly with the question of Scripture. Paul deals in depth
with the nature of the apostolic office and thus their authority versus that of
the False Apostles which plagued his ministry. Doctrinally speaking the
arguments for New Testament Scripture and the various criteria of canonicity
are directly related to the arguments given by Paul. The concept must be wedded
to the Apostles and the nature of their office.
So again as others have helpfully put it, it was not the task
of the Church to establish canon but to recognise it and submit to it. This was
done formally at almost the very moment the foundations of Scriptural authority
were being undermined and new epistemological foundation stones were being
laid... the critical watershed that was the fourth century, the epoch
that marked all subsequent Church History.
Tradition must not be ignored. Indeed the witness and
testimony of tradition (what was sometimes referred to as the regula fidei) plays a role... but that
role is subordinated. I will freely admit that in the Early Church a dynamic was
at work and rather than subordinate tradition or even leave it on par with
Scripture, in the end the sub-apostolic traditions (both passed down and
developed) became authoritative in themselves and eventually subordinated the
Scriptures. While this was not done openly for perhaps many centuries as a
functional reality (de facto) it began to become normative in the third and certainly in the fourth century. Once again the fourth century is critical. It was at that moment the Church could have 'reformed' and
purged the many corruptions which had already entered it. Instead the
mainstream embraced a course of doom and embarked down a road destined for
apostasy, a path that in worldly terms was rich and abundant but spiritually
speaking was a wasteland. It's one of the rare cases in history where a fairly
clear line of demarcation can be identified though the 'line' comprises
multiple decades.
Why and how did this happen? That's a long tale and one not
easily explored but it's one I plan to address in the context of JW Nevin's
famous but deeply flawed series on Early
Christianity.
As I have argued elsewhere the early apologists while noble (and
indeed some were martyrs for the faith) need to be reassessed. Well-meaning to
be sure they nevertheless introduced a degree of poison within the Church...
but this is of course a controversial statement. Nevertheless it needs to be
entertained and explored.
While many are quick to assail the Alexandrian School as
possessing syncretic tendencies, the so-called Antiochan School was hardly
exempt from the toxins and perils of Hellenistic philosophy. As most readers
are already aware the conflict was in many respects but another chapter in the
saga that is depicted in the School of Athens, the perennial conflict between
Aristotelian and Platonic impulse. Did these early theological schools
represent apostasy? Were things already that 'far gone' in the second and third centuries? I wouldn't call them apostate by any means but
they did sow corrupt seeds which would in subsequent generations reap a
contaminated and ruinous harvest.
As far as Biblicism cutting itself off from the main currents
of historical Christian thought or categories I will say this. It is a real
danger but I would argue it's a question that also demands a revised
historiography. Biblicism necessarily must embrace some form of the Constantinian
Shift, the idea that the fourth century represented Apostasy on a
massive scale. Whether or not this was (on the basis of New Testament doctrine)
to be expected or not is a point that some will debate. I believe this was the
case and thus the course of Church History while wondrous to be sure is on the
other hand one of expected decline and apostasy.
Does this not leave one in an ecclesiastical wilderness? Yes
and no. It cuts one off from the main currents of Christendom but the wilds are
not destitute or depopulated and there are historical markers and monuments
aplenty. They fail to inspire the mainstream and when compared to the
mainstream they are (humanly speaking) paltry. But for me to lie within the
bosom of so-called Christendom is a far more troubling and traumatic place to
be. Only by ignoring the Scriptures can I find peace in the great halls and
chambers that men such as Charlemagne, Thomas and Calvin built by wit, sword
and system. Biblicists who ignore history are fools but to embrace the
intellectual and social currents of Church History is to abandon Scripture.
Ironically the same was largely true in the Old Testament
which (we're told) was a pattern (and a warning) for those who live in the New.