Canon Revisited

Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books

Michael J. Kruger

• Publisher: Crossway
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781433505003
• eBook ISBN: 9781433530814
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Given the popular-level conversations on phenomena like the Gospel of Thomas and Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, as well as the current gap in evangelical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament, Michael Kruger's Canon Revisited meets a significant need for an up-to-date work on canon by addressing recent developments in the field. He presents an academically rigorous yet accessible study of the New Testament canon that looks deeper than the traditional surveys of councils and creeds, mining the text itself for direction in understanding what the original authors and audiences believed the canon to be.

Canon Revisited provides an evangelical introduction to the New Testament canon that can be used in seminary and college classrooms, and read by pastors and educated lay leaders alike. In contrast to the prior volumes on canon, this volume distinguishes itself by placing a substantial focus on the theology of canon as the context within which the historical evidence is evaluated and assessed. Rather than simply discussing the history of canon—rehashing the Patristic data yet again—Kruger develops a strong theological framework for affirming and authenticating the canon as authoritative. In effect, this work successfully unites both the theology and the historical development of the canon, ultimately serving as a practical defense for the authority of the New Testament books.

PART 1

DETERMINING
THE CANONICAL MODEL

1

THE CHURCH’S BOOK

Canon as Community Determined

The decision[s] to collect a group of chosen books and form a “Scripture,” are all human decisions.

JAMES BARR

In 1979, Brevard Childs was able to say that “much of the present confusion over the problem of canon turns on the failure to reach an agreement regarding the terminology.”¹ Unfortunately, the situation has not changed much since that time. Canonical studies still finds itself so mired in ongoing discussions and disagreements about canonical semantics²—what canon “is” and how that should affect our historical reconstructions—that there appears to be no end in sight.³ And while the issue of terminology is certainly an important and necessary one to address in any study of the canon, the indefatigable focus upon it has unfortunately prevented even larger (and arguably more vital) questions from being addressed. In particular, too little attention has been given to understanding overarching canonical models that often determine one’s definition of canon in the first place. A canonical model is just a way of describing a particular canonical system, if you will, which includes the broader methodological, epistemological, and, yes, even theological frameworks for how canon is understood, and, most importantly, how canon is authenticated. Everyone who studies the origins of the canon has such a system, or process, (whether clearly thought out or not) by which he or she distinguishes a canonical book from a noncanonical book. Thus, a canonical model is not to be equated simply with one’s historical conclusions about when and how these books became authoritative, but instead it describes the broader methodological approach that led to those conclusions. It is not just about the date of canonicity (or even its definition), but the grounds of canonicity—how does one go about determining which book, or which set of books, belongs in the canon? A canonical model, then, is one’s canonical “worldview.” Once the issue of canonical models is put on the table, then the scholarly obsession with topics like the definition and date of canon proves to be somewhat myopic. It is not that these topics are unimportant (they are critical), but it is simply that they are derivative. They stem from other prior and broader commitments.

Before us, then, is not simply a choice between historical positions on the New Testament canon (e.g., a late date or early date), but a choice between canonical models (one overarching system or another). It is the purpose of the chapters in this section to categorize and describe these various models—a canonical “taxonomy” if you will—and then offer a brief critique and response. Then, the final chapter in this section will briefly outline the canonical model being advocated in this volume, allowing it to be seen against the backdrop of all the other approaches already reviewed. This model will provide the methodological and theological infrastructure for the entire volume and will guide us as we delve deeper into the origins of the New Testament canon.

Before we begin our survey, we need to recognize from the outset how notoriously difficult it is to categorize scholars (and their approaches) into various camps. Not only are there countless variables to consider, but each scholar has his own distinctive nuances and often has aspects of his approach that could legitimately be placed into multiple categories. Moreover, approaches could be categorized on the basis of varying criteria: definition of canon, date of canon, function of canon, and so forth. With such complexities in mind, some caveats are in order: (1) We will be categorizing the various models not on the basis of date or definition of canon (as is commonly done), but in regard to the method of authenticating canon. In other words, on what grounds does one consider a book to be canonical? Or, put differently, on what basis does one know that a book belongs (or does not belong) in the New Testament? (2) If we categorize models on this basis, then it is possible that some scholars who are grouped into the same overall model (on the basis of how they authenticate books) may still have differences in other areas (such as definition and date of the canon). Although there is typically a correlation between these things, it is not always uniform or predictable. In order to avoid confusion, the basis of categorization must be kept in mind. (3) The description of these models cannot (and will not) be exhaustive and thus will inevitably be vulnerable to charges of generalizing. Nevertheless, we shall do our best here to summarize the large sweep of approaches to canonical studies, recognizing that while a broad road map cannot capture every detail, it still remains a very helpful (and necessary) enterprise if we hope to understand the overall landscape through which we all must eventually navigate.

The various canonical models will be divided into two large categories, community determined and historically determined. This chapter will cover the first of these. As a general description, community-determined approaches view the canon as something that is, in some sense, established or constituted by the people—either individually or corporately—who have received these books as Scripture. Canonicity is viewed not as something inherent to any set of books, but as “something officially or authoritatively imposed upon certain literature.”⁴ Thus, a “canon” does not exist until there is some sort of response from the community. Simply put, it is the result of actions and/or experiences of Christians. Specific examples of the community-determined model, as will be seen below, can vary quite widely. Some view the canon as somewhat of a historical accident (the historical-critical model); some view it as the result of the inspired declarations of the church (the Roman Catholic model); and others view it as an “event” that takes place when the Spirit works through these books and impacts individuals (the existential/neoorthodox model). But all share this in common: when asked how one knows which books are canonical, they all find the answer in the response of the Christian community.

I. Historical-Critical Model

A. Description

Since the rise of historical criticism during the period of the Enlightenment, scholars have argued that the idea of a canon, with its particular ­boundaries, is simply (or largely) the product of human activities within the church during the early centuries of Christianity. As the historical investigations of canon throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries continued to reveal the disputes and controversies over books within the early church, the “human” element in the canonical process continued to be emphasized and placed at the forefront of scholarly discussions.⁵ James Barr epitomizes this approach: “The decision[s] to collect a group of chosen books and form a ‘Scripture,’ are all human decisions.”⁶

Since the canon is viewed as merely the product of normal human processes—a trend that Webster calls the “naturalization” of canon⁷— scholars have subsequently sought to explain the existence of the canon on the basis of specific historical phenomena. Harnack famously laid the impetus for the New Testament canon at the feet of Marcion, arguing that the canon is a “creative act” of the church in response to his heretical teachings.⁸ Others have suggested that the canon is simply a sociocultural concept that reflects the relationship between a religious society and its texts.⁹ Thus, canon is just a social phenomenon that arises when a community desires to express its identity.¹⁰ As Kelsey notes, canon is the church’s “self-description.”¹¹ From this perspective, to say a text is canonical is not so much to speak of the text at all, but to speak about the function of the text within a particular religious community.¹² And still others have understood canon as a political construct, an ideological instrument, created to wield power and control.¹³ One cannot understand canon without understanding what it was designed to combat, suppress, or refute.¹⁴ This approach is most aptly seen in the work of Walter Bauer and his modern adherents.¹⁵ Bauer argues that there was no “orthodoxy” or “heresy” within earliest Christianity, but rather there were various “Christianities,” each competing for dominance. Thus, says Bauer, the New Testament canon we possess is nothing more than the books chosen by the eventual theological winners—a historical accident, so to speak.

Regardless of the particular version of the historical-critical¹⁶ approach one may hold, all versions share a core belief that the canon is a fundamentally human construct that can be adequately accounted for in purely natural terms. How then does one know which book should be in the canon? For the historical-critical approach this is the wrong question to ask. The issue is not about which books should be in the canon, but simply which books are in the canon. Since the canon is an entirely human creation, all we can do is simply describe what happened in history. The canon has no metaphysical or intrinsic qualities that need to be accounted for—“canon” is not something that describes the quality of a book, but is something that is done to books.¹⁷ Hugo Lundhaug embodies such an approach: “Canonical status is not an intrinsic quality of a text, but a status bestowed upon it by a community of interpreters.”¹⁸ Thus, often the real concern for adherents of the historical-critical model is not to declare which books are the “right” ones, but to make sure that no one else declares which books are the “right” ones. Such distinctions, argues Helmut Koester, are simply the result of “deep-seated prejudices.”¹⁹ No book should be privileged over another. All books are equal.²⁰

Consequently, as the historical-critical model continues to redefine canon and push it further into the realm of church history—more the result of human than of divine activity—the critical question ceases to be about the boundaries of the canon (which books), but now is about the very legitimacy of the canon itself (should there be one at all). H. Y. Gamble declares, “It ought not to be assumed that the existence of the NT is a necessary or self-explanatory fact. Nothing dictated that there should be a NT at all.”²¹ James Barr makes a similar claim: “Jesus in his teaching is nowhere portrayed as commanding or even sanctioning the production of a . . . written New Testament. . . . The idea of a Christian faith governed by Christian written holy Scriptures was not an essential part of the foundation plan of Christianity.”²² Thus, we see again that the historical-critical model rejects any intrinsic value to these texts and places the impetus for canon entirely within the realm of later church decisions.

Such a canonical model inevitably has an impact on the date and definition of canon. If canon is something that is created and constituted by the community, and there is nothing inherent in these books to make them canonical, then a canon cannot exist before the community formally acts.²³ Thus, it is not unusual for the historical-critical approach to have a fairly late date for canon and to insist on a strict semantic distinction between Scripture and canon.²⁴ In this regard, appeal is often made to the work of A. C. Sundberg, who insists that we cannot speak of the idea of canon...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Newsletter Sign Up
• Endorsements
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1 Determining the Canonical Model
• Part 2 Exploring And Defending the Canonical Model
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Back