A Triperspectival Approach to the Canon

     The canon of scripture has been a highly contested and debated subject among the Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians in history. We should always be very careful when we discuss the subject of the biblical canon because it is very easy for people in all three parties to say something contradictory or inconsistent about how the canon is decided. However, I would like to propose a Triperspectival approach to the canon, which I have argued and defended in a few discussions and debates regarding the canon. It is a protestant approach, but it considers the tradition of the early church as well.

    When we discuss this topic, I feel it should be important to note that any quotes from Dr. Michael J. Kruger will come from this article, which is from Chapter 3 of his book "Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books." I shall base it off this model since Kruger is a student of John Frame, the theologian who formulated the Triperspectival model approach, and it's easy to see this present in his writing for the argument for a self-authenticating model of the canon of scripture. While Dr. Kruger applied this to the New Testament in his book, I will work to apply this also to the Old Testament as well when also engaging with the discussion of the apocrypha.

    Let us start with establishing the three perspectives and their assigned points as Michael Kruger lays out for us: "There are three attributes of canonicity: (1) divine qualities (canonical books bear the “marks” of divinity), (2) corporate reception (canonical books are recognized by the church as a whole), and (3) apostolic origins (canonical books are the result of the redemptive-historical activity of the apostles)." Divine qualities will act as the normative perspective, apostolic origins will act as the situational perspective, and corporate reception will act as the existential perspective. Let us expound on how each one helps and how therefore it helps further the use of verifying which books belong in the bible and fit this model.

    Divine qualities as a normative perspective is "that it bears the divine qualities or divine character of a book from God." We would affirm that Scripture is the standard that sets itself for being considered divine scripture, especially in light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. However, the question is how can this be considered a proof? Wouldn't this be considered circular reasoning? Yes, but not any bad kind. Consider Dr. Kruger's words on this: "This sort of circularity is not a problem but simply part of how foundational authorities are authenticated. For instance, let us imagine that we want to determine whether sense perception is a reliable source of belief. If I see a cup on the table, how do I know my sense perception is accurate? How would I test such a thing? I could examine the cup and table more closely to make sure they are what they seem to be (hold them, touch them, etc.). I could also ask a friend to tell me whether he sees a cup on the table. But in all these instances I am still assuming the reliability of my sense perception (or my friend’s) even as I examine the reliability of my sense perception. Or, as another example, let us imagine that we wanted to inquire into whether our rational faculties would reliably produce true beliefs. How could we examine the evidence for the reliability of our rational faculties without, at the same time, actually using our rational faculties (and thereby presupposing their reliability)?"

    Another point to this is in William Alston's quote from page 41 of his essay, "The Knowledge of God" in the book "Faith, Reason, and Skepticism," that says that there "is no escape from epistemic circularity in the assessment of our fundamental sources of belief." So with this in mind, we see that scripture in order to be divinely inspired, it must bear divine qualities in it. According to Kruger, "These “marks” (or indicia) can include a variety of things, but traditionally include the Scripture’s beauty, efficacy, and harmony..." So it must be affirmed that this question of canon being self-authenticating is something only Christians can test regarding the authority of canon. Especially in light of John 10:27 saying "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." In other words, as Kruger tells us, "... canonical books are received by those who have the Holy Spirit in them. When people’s eyes are opened, they are struck by the divine qualities of Scripture—its beauty, harmony, efficacy—and recognize and embrace Scripture for what it is, the word of God. They realize that the voice of Scripture is the voice of the Shepherd." So in order to begin with affirming scripture as divinely inspired and self-authenticating, we must at least begin with the presupposition that the text is inspired or divine.

    Prophetic or Apostolic origins leads us to understand the a book that is divinely inspired and part of the canon, must be written by an inspired prophet/apostle of God or at least by an associate of the prophet/apostle. This deals with the facts and history of the composition of each of the relevant books at this point for a situational perspective. It would make sense that if we have an author of the book writing something part of the divinely inspired canon, the books themselves would have to be written by a divinely inspired prophet/apostle or an associate of one. This can be observed easily and scholars have noted that the potential authors of the books are either written by a prophet/apostle or at least an associate like a scribe or friend.

    Some may say the associate might not be a prophet and therefore is not inspired. Dr. Kruger addresses this: "Apostolic origins were also central to early discussions about potential canonical books; for example, the Muratorian fragment rejected the so-called Pauline epistle to the Laodiceans because it was not really written by Paul. The church fathers understood a book as having apostolic origins even if it was not directly written by an apostle but nevertheless bore apostolic content and derived from the foundational period of the church. It is for this reason that Tertullian regarded Mark and Luke as “apostolic men.” So while Mark wrote his Gospel, he received the info from Peter and was an associate of other apostles. Luke wrote his gospel and was an associate of Paul as well as he gathered his info from others as well. The same can be said for the Old Testament authors.

    Corporate Reception is an existential perspective which focuses on the existential aspect of the covenant people. Dr Kruger notes regarding that "when God, by his redemptive activity, creates a covenant community, he then gives them covenant documents that testify to that redemption. For these reasons, Meredith Kline and others have argued that canonical books are ultimately, and primarily, covenantal books. The biblical witness indicates that it is God’s corporate people—not as individuals but as a covenant whole—who are “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). As Kline has argued, God gives the covenant documents with the intent that those documents become a “community rule.”" We see this then cites Romans 3:2 which refers to the Jews being given complete trust over the Old Testament, which also then puts them in charge of their canon. Then the New Covenant comes and the Christian Church provides the right to create their own New Testament canon in reception based on books they received.

    Some might object to say "what about the church councils which declare the canon of scripture to include apocrypha/deuterocanonical books?" My response would be that this doesn't apply and shouldn't because those apocrypha books fail to become part of the covenant documents since they weren't written for us. Most of those books would've at least been given to the Jews and we know from research that the Jews did not even consider or accept any of those books as part of the corporate reception. Some might then add about other Jewish sects and their canons, to which I argue that while some might have only the first five books of the Bible as part of the canon and others the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, we still have those books and not one declaring the books of the apocrypha to be canonical in any sense of the word. If some dare to say "who cares what the Jews say, they killed Jesus." This fails to account Jesus was a jew as well and also shows ignorance and antisemitism on their part since the Old Testament was written by Jewish authors as well as were the first members of the Christian Church in the first century.

    While I argue for the three perspectives in the model formulated from Frame's Triperspectivalism, Kruger uses different definitions for his, but capture the same thought: "If one looks at the canon from the perspective of corporate reception, then canon is most naturally defined as the books received and recognized by the consensus of the church (exclusive). If one looks at the canon from the perspective of divine qualities, then canon is most naturally defined as those books that are used as authoritative revelation by a community (functional). And if one looks at the canon from the perspective of apostolic origins, then the canon is most naturally defined as those books given by God as the redemptive-historical deposit (ontological). The self-authenticating model, then, accommodates all three definitions of canon and acknowledges that each of them has appropriate applications and uses."

    Not only do these three get used, they interact. The normative perspective of the divine qualities is verified by the corporate or covenant community that received them and how they recognized the scriptures to be divinely inspired while also the apostles themselves verified it through the Spirit that inspired them to write those divine words. The situational perspective of the prophetic/apostolic origins were verified by the divinely inspired contents of the revelation they receive from God and that they write down as well as the recognition of each prophet or apostle being such by their particular covenant community at that particular time. The existential perspective of the corporate reception of the covenantal community is verified by the divinely inspired content which addresses even the individuals being under the covenant for the documents which also lay out their responsibility for the community and the prophet/apostle belonging in that community helps further establish that connection for their corporate reception and judgement therefore of the books.

    While the model can certainly be shaped and sharpened more, I feel like this is a good enough model to argue for the Protestant canon because the test requires all three perspectives being verified and while a book of the apocrypha or New Testament apocryphal works might pass one or two of the perspectives, it cannot pass all three and because of that, it will not be sufficient. According to the model, it must have all three perspectives and all three must interact and self-authenticate each other. If they fail to do so, then this renders the canonical status of that particular book to be doubtful and questionable. Hopefully this article sparks up more conversations about the subject of the biblical canon in such a way that it leads to more fruitful and edifying debates.