The principles in this paragraph may help address a potential objection to the self-authenticating model. If the testimonium leads to the church’s corporate reception of the canonical books, then how do we understand the fact that Roman Catholics and Protestants have differed over the extent of the Old Testament canon (with the Catholic Church eventually accepting the Apocrypha)? Does this not prove that the church’s consensus is an unreliable indicator of canonicity? Although the story of the Apocrypha is too complex to fully address here, there is no indication that it contradicts our model. Several considerations: (1) It should be kept in mind that the books of the Old Testament canon were, in fact, widely recognized by the Old Testament “church.” There are good reasons to think that the Hebrew canon was established within Judaism prior to the first century. This is confirmed by the writings of the New Testament themselves, which are some of our best first-century sources and regularly cite the Old Testament as Scripture, but give no similar treatment to the books of the Apocrypha. God had entrusted the Old Testament books to the Jews, and they received them by a wide consensus (Rom. 3:2). Thus, the full reception of the Old Testament by the people of God in Israel is a sufficient justification for our belief in them as canonical. (2) It was the church’s duty to receive what had been handed down to the people of God before her. In the first few centuries of the church we have good evidence that the dominant position (though not the only position) was an acceptance of the Jewish Old Testament canon and not the Apocrypha. This would include church fathers like Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, and Jerome. Thus, it appears that both the Jewish “church” and the first centuries of the Christian church widely adopted the Old Testament books and not the Apocrypha (of course there were minority opinions, but this does not contradict the model). (3) If so, then we must explain how the church in the Middle Ages, and ultimately at the Council of Trent, could divert from this clear foundation and affirm additional books that were not canonical. We noted above that there can be, in principle, “a situation where the Spirit’s testimony was so obscured by the church’s sin and rebellion that the church reached consensus on books that are not canonical.” No doubt we have good reasons to think that the extensive moral and doctrinal corruption of the church in the Middle Ages—which stood in opposition to the consensus of the Jewish believers, as well as the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament—would constitute just such a situation. The apocryphal books would have been attractive to the church during this time since they were used to justify doctrines, like purgatory and prayers for the dead, that were at the heart of the ecclesiastical abuse of power. Indeed, so substantial was this corruption, especially in regard to the gospel message, that legitimate questions can be raised about whether the Roman Catholic Church continued to be the true church of Jesus Christ—and therefore a place where the Spirit was actively working (and if, lacking the Spirit, it is not the true church, then its affirmation of the apocryphal books is not relevant). But even if one accepts Roman Catholicism as a true church, the fact remains that we have good grounds for believing that, in this instance, the Spirit’s witness was widely obscured by the church’s sin and rebellion. Of course, at this point one might raise the following objection: If the church was mistaken about the Old Testament books, how can we be sure that it was not mistaken about the New Testament books? But it is here that we must remember our model: we have warrant for thinking that the church’s consensus is a reliable indicator of canonicity, unless we have good reasons to think the contrary. In regard to the very specific situation of the Roman Catholic Church’s acceptance of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, we do have good reasons to think the contrary. But in regard to the New Testament canon, we have no reasons to think that the church was mistaken in this regard. We do not have to prove that the church is not mistaken in order to be rational in our belief that the church is not mistaken. Again, consider the eyesight analogy above. Even if my eyesight were unreliable at some point (perhaps I had a bad reaction to medication and hallucinated), that wouldn’t mean that I must reject the reliability of my eyesight at all other times (like after I stopped taking my medication).
