The Community-Canon Approach Versus the Intrinsic-Canon Approach

Some adopt the view that the community determines the scope of the canon.

This is called the “community-canon” approach.

Therefore, this view adopts the idea that the canon is a collection of writings which are authoritative because this authority has been determined by the community.

So in other words, this view believes that the community shaped the canon.

The approach that the community merely recognized the authority of certain writings and that God gave these particular writings their authority is called the “intrinsic-canon” approach.

It views God as determining the scope of the canon and the community recognizes it.

In other words, the canon is a collection of books that are authoritative for the simple reason that God commissioned these books.

Therefore, the “intrinsic-canon” approach to canonicity contends that recognizing the canon does not determine its canonicity but rather simply determines only whether that particular community will allow the canon to function as its highest authority.

John Peckham writes “It is important to clarify what the intrinsic-canon approach is not. This approach does not overlook or ignore the variegated history of receiving and recognizing the canon. The historical information regarding the numerous canon-lists and council-discussions is intriguing and important. It is by no means presumed that the community received the canon without controversy or criticism, yet this approach nevertheless maintains that the history of canon-recognition does not change the intrinsic nature of the canon if it was divinely revealed, inspired, and preserved. In other words, if the concept of canon is defined as writings appointed by God, then the history of a canon’s recognition does not itself bear on its canonicity, as such.”[1]

There are several questions that one must answer with regards to the “community-canon” approach, if one is to adopt this view of canonicity.

First of all, if this view is the correct one, then how does one reconcile the fact that the message of many of the canonical prophets was rejected by many people in the nation of Israel and many times only a small remnant responded favorably to the message of these prophets such as Jeremiah.

If we look at many of these prophets in the Old Testament we find that the supposedly authoritative community rejected their prophetic message!

Elijah’s prophetic message was rejected by the nation of Israel and he was persecuted by the king and queen of Israel for this message (1 Kings 18:7-10; 19:2).

Ahab and Jezebel were determined to kill him because of his messages which condemned their behavior.

The Israelite community failed to respond to Elijah’s message (1 Kings 18:21) prior to the victory God gave him over the prophets of Baal.

Jeremiah was also persecuted for his message which told Israel to capitulate to Nebuchadnezzar.

The so-called authoritative community rejected this message and he was imprisoned (Jeremiah 18:18; 37-39).

Furthermore the gospel message of Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles was rejected by the majority in Israel.

Jesus was crucified by the so-called authoritative community.

Therefore, when we approach the “community-canon” approach in relation to the Old Testament prophets and Jesus and His apostles, we can see it is defective.

If the Jewish community determined the canonicity of certain prophets, then why then did the Jews reject the message of Old Testament prophets and Jesus and His apostles?

If the “community-canon” approach is correct then how did the writings of the Old Testament prophets which were rejected by Israel, find their way into the Jewish canon?

If the Jewish community determined which writings were canonical, then how did the gospel of Jesus Christ and the writings of His apostles find their way into the New Testament when their message was rejected by the supposed authoritative community of their day, the nation of Israel?

The “intrinsic-canon” approach does not have these problems that are related to the “community-canon” approach.

Again, we turn to Peckham, he writes “the intrinsic-canon approach recognizes that the variegated and complex history of canon-reception is important, yet it does not believe that history bears on the canonicity of the writings themselves. This is based, not on ignorance or indifference regarding history, but on the differentiation between what something is and what it is recognized to be. To say otherwise would raise an enormous difficulty for Christian theology. For instance if what something is is relegated to what the community recognizes it to be, then Jesus Christ is divine only to the extent that he is recognized as such. For Christians, this would have the objectionable result that the nature of Jesus Christ is itself relative to community-recognition, calling to mind the failure of such recognition by the vast majority of Christ’s contemporaries. From a Christian perspective, this magnifies the inadequacy of a community approach to determine the canon. Importantly, however, the intrinsic-canon approach does not intend to rule out the community from the canon-recognition process, which is essential to the functional (not intrinsic) authority of the canon. Rather, from the standpoint of the intrinsic-canon approach, the community should recognize its own inadequacy to determine the canon and, accordingly, seek to discover the scope of the canon as divinely intended. This encourages humility in approaching divine revelation, promoting a healthy spirit of submission in seeking divine revelation to reform the community as opposed to the intentional or unintentional re-forming of divine revelation. At the same time, the intrinsic-canon approach celebrates the community’s role in preserving and recognizing the canon. It recognizes that the community approach is inadequate for determining the canon, but that does not mean that all communities inadequately recognize the canon. On the contrary, the community has been integral to preserving and passing down (traditio) the canon to all future generations. From an intrinsic-canon perspective, God uses the willing community throughout the ages to preserve and disseminate his canonical revelation. Thus, the intrinsic-canon approach recognizes the community’s competence to preserve information (i.e., the canon itself as well as relevant history) that affords the opportunity to recognize the canon. It is not necessary to disparage the community’s contribution in the history of the canon in order to concurrently recognize the community’s inherent limitations with regard to the ability to determine that same canon.”[2]

[1] Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination; Themelios, volume 36, Issue 2, pages 203-215.

[2] Ibid.