What do you think?
Rate this book
A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church's Future) Paperback – June 1, 2007
Where did the Bible come from? Author Craig D. Allert encourages more evangelicals to ask that question. In A High View of Scripture? Allert introduces his audience to the diverse history of the canon’s development and what impact it has today on how we view Scripture. Allert affirms divine inspiration of the Bible and, in fact, urges the very people who proclaim the ultimate authority of the Bible to be informed about how it came to be. This book, the latest in the Evangelical Ressourcement series, will be valuable as a college or seminary text and for readers interested in issues of canon development and biblical authority.
Paperback
First published June 1, 2007
21 people are currently reading
149 people want to read
About the author
Craig D. Allert
3 books4 followersCraig D. Allert (PhD, University of Nottingham) is professor of religious studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He is the author of A High View of Scripture: Biblical Authority and the Formation of the New Testament Canon and Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 3, 2011
In A High View of Scripture?, Craig Allert, Professor at Trinity Western University in British Colombia, takes a considered look at the formation of the New Testament canon with a view to what it says about the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. Many evengelicals have what he describes as a "dropped out of the sky" view of Scripture, and Allert undertakes a careful historical investigation into the formation of the New Testament that takes seriously its development. It would be difficult to rehearse all of the discussions that Allert sets out on in a brief review, but after a very short lay of the land he covers, we'll look at a couple of important points he repeatedly stresses.
Allert begins by looking at how canon plays a role in evangelical doctrines of scripture, and what understandings of canon formation are utilized for this task. He then drills down and discusses the process of canon formation over the first centuries of the church, focusing in turn on the criteria that were in evidence as the various books were selected, the various heresies that brought challenges to the developing orthodoxy, and the various "canon lists" that evidenced the growing consensus. He then concludes with a discussion of how the process of canon formation as it is thus brought to light bears on the understanding of inspiration.
A few important insights are worth mentioning. First and most basic is the recurring theme throughout the book (and also of the series, Evangelical Resourcement, to which the book belongs) that the Bible came into being in the context of and for the use of the church. Thus, a doctrine of "sola scriptura" must be carefully formulated to maintain the Bible as the foundation of theology without divorcing the Bible from its rightful place in the community of believers past and present. A second important insight is methodological: often in canon discussions, "Scripture" is equated with "canon." Because the church fathers may have referred to various books as Scripture does not require that they were viewed as canonical. In fact, he demonstrates that there wasn't really a "canon consciousness," that is, an understanding that there was an authoritative list of normative Christian Scriptures, until the fourth century. Instead, "Scripture" designated something important about viewing a document as authoritative and normative, but not necessarily in the more restricted sense of canonical. In fact, the term and idea behind "canon" instead functioned in the early church with regard to a body of teaching or standard of behavior. A third insight has to do with the often assumed role of heresies in the formation of the canon. It is usually argued that the church developed canon lists in response to heresies that challenged the church's orthodoxy, but Allert shows that while this may have been a minor stimulus, there isn't found an increase in canon lists in response to early heresies. And he further shows that more at issue than which documents were authoritative was how to understand and interpret them. It was the church asserting the centrality of orthodoxy and apostolic teaching, not the selection of some documents over others, that formed the core of the church's response.
Allert strongly asserts that the process of canon formation as it actually occurred doesn't undermine the inspiration of Scripture. But his historical investigation does show that the early church didn't restrict "inspiration" to documents alone, and thus didn't restrict inspiration to the documents that later became the Bible. This doesn't undermine understanding the Bible as a collection of inspired documents (Allert emphasizes that this understanding is certainly true) but it does call evangelicals to have a broader and more nuanced understanding of what inspiration is and what that means for the Bible as an inspired document. I highly recommend this book as a great historical discussion of the issues surrounding canon (issues far too often ignored or caricatured in many discussions), and also a well-reasoned reflection on the implications of this discussion for how we understand the Bible. Allert has demonstrated great commitment to discovering the historical realities surrounding the New Testament's collection, and he has also showed that the truth is not something we have to fear, for instead of undermining our view of Scripture, it can reinvigorate it. For if the Bible is in fact the Word of God, understanding the truth about how it came to be can only help us to better understand it better.
Allert begins by looking at how canon plays a role in evangelical doctrines of scripture, and what understandings of canon formation are utilized for this task. He then drills down and discusses the process of canon formation over the first centuries of the church, focusing in turn on the criteria that were in evidence as the various books were selected, the various heresies that brought challenges to the developing orthodoxy, and the various "canon lists" that evidenced the growing consensus. He then concludes with a discussion of how the process of canon formation as it is thus brought to light bears on the understanding of inspiration.
A few important insights are worth mentioning. First and most basic is the recurring theme throughout the book (and also of the series, Evangelical Resourcement, to which the book belongs) that the Bible came into being in the context of and for the use of the church. Thus, a doctrine of "sola scriptura" must be carefully formulated to maintain the Bible as the foundation of theology without divorcing the Bible from its rightful place in the community of believers past and present. A second important insight is methodological: often in canon discussions, "Scripture" is equated with "canon." Because the church fathers may have referred to various books as Scripture does not require that they were viewed as canonical. In fact, he demonstrates that there wasn't really a "canon consciousness," that is, an understanding that there was an authoritative list of normative Christian Scriptures, until the fourth century. Instead, "Scripture" designated something important about viewing a document as authoritative and normative, but not necessarily in the more restricted sense of canonical. In fact, the term and idea behind "canon" instead functioned in the early church with regard to a body of teaching or standard of behavior. A third insight has to do with the often assumed role of heresies in the formation of the canon. It is usually argued that the church developed canon lists in response to heresies that challenged the church's orthodoxy, but Allert shows that while this may have been a minor stimulus, there isn't found an increase in canon lists in response to early heresies. And he further shows that more at issue than which documents were authoritative was how to understand and interpret them. It was the church asserting the centrality of orthodoxy and apostolic teaching, not the selection of some documents over others, that formed the core of the church's response.
Allert strongly asserts that the process of canon formation as it actually occurred doesn't undermine the inspiration of Scripture. But his historical investigation does show that the early church didn't restrict "inspiration" to documents alone, and thus didn't restrict inspiration to the documents that later became the Bible. This doesn't undermine understanding the Bible as a collection of inspired documents (Allert emphasizes that this understanding is certainly true) but it does call evangelicals to have a broader and more nuanced understanding of what inspiration is and what that means for the Bible as an inspired document. I highly recommend this book as a great historical discussion of the issues surrounding canon (issues far too often ignored or caricatured in many discussions), and also a well-reasoned reflection on the implications of this discussion for how we understand the Bible. Allert has demonstrated great commitment to discovering the historical realities surrounding the New Testament's collection, and he has also showed that the truth is not something we have to fear, for instead of undermining our view of Scripture, it can reinvigorate it. For if the Bible is in fact the Word of God, understanding the truth about how it came to be can only help us to better understand it better.
May 11, 2021
4.5 - Protestants are so often troubled by the Bible. They’re either trying to sniff out and expose people who are not living strictly according to what the Bible says (or what they THINK it says), or they’re reading the Bible and privately thinking, “I just don’t know if I can believe this.”
I like this book because the author doesn’t offer a solution that totally erases these problems. He just lets them sit there, and in fact, he makes them more complicated. The headline here is that the early church, up until about the 4th or 5th century didn’t have a closed cannon, referred to other books not in the canon as both “inspired” and “scripture.”
Turns out life is complicated, and so of course Christianity is too. To quote Dionysius from the book:
“...I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it.”
I like this book because the author doesn’t offer a solution that totally erases these problems. He just lets them sit there, and in fact, he makes them more complicated. The headline here is that the early church, up until about the 4th or 5th century didn’t have a closed cannon, referred to other books not in the canon as both “inspired” and “scripture.”
Turns out life is complicated, and so of course Christianity is too. To quote Dionysius from the book:
“...I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it.”
July 3, 2016
Craig D. Allert's "A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and Formation of the New Testament Canon" sets out to correct common and simplistic evangelical misunderstandings about the Bible. This involves delving into the troublesome period (for evangelicals) between the New Testament and the formation of the biblical canon.
Allert begins by explaining how different individuals approach the study of the Bible. According to the author, deductivists begin with a high view of the Bible but downplay the Bible's formation while inductivists highlight the Bible's formation while being more skeptical of its nature as a holy, authoritative text (p. 11). Allert also draws distinctions between three different individuals: the religious historian (most objective), the pastoral apologist (the dominant type but one who errs in reading too much present/modern thought into ancient texts) and the generalist who lacks expertise and thus relies on experts (p. 13).
Allert seeks to persuade evangelicals to recognize the vital role the early Church played in forming the canon. Allert points out that there is an enormous distinction that must be made between "Scripture" and "canon." Too often, evangelicals use the early Church fathers (ECF) citations and quotations of the canon to marshal a case for "sola scriptura." But on page 73, Allert draws a distinction between canon and Scripture and shows in the body of the book and an appendix at the back that the ECF considered many non-canonical writings to also be inspired, basing this assertion on a verbal formula ECF would use to preface their citation or quote. Evangelicals must stop assuming that what the ECF meant by "Scripture" is what WE mean by our current Bible because the ECF would use this formula when citing, say, Sirach or 1 Clement. Allert shows that the formation of the canon was later in coming than many evangelicals would like to admit and notes the discrepancies between some ECFs including some books while other ECFs rejecting certain works. Allert also dismisses simplistic and anachronistic uses of NT texts to prove their validity. He states, "if we use 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to prove the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, we are arguing for a larger canon than the one we hold as authoritative simply because at the time 2 Timothy was written the Old Testament canon was still fluid, and there was no New Testament canon to speak of" (p. 172). This is the best part of the book as Allert makes a strong case for evangelicals to understand the origins of canon and our indebtedness to the early Church. As Allert succinctly states on page 77, "The very acceptance of the canon of Scripture already places the believer in a state of tacit acceptance of decisions made in the patristic age because the formation of the New Testament is situated within the church of that age."
Allert writes as an evangelical teaching at an evangelical university and while he holds the typical evangelical belief that the Bible is our highest authority, he is generally silent about how we transition from an indebtedness to the ECFs for forming the canon to holding the canon as our highest authority. He does assert the Holy Spirit's ongoing activity in the early Church and the Spirit's role in helping to form the canon. Allert spends the last section of the book criticizing verbal plenary inspiration (those who hold to it tend to have the very simplistic understanding of the canon that Allert wants to correct) and the Gundry inerrancy debacle but I would have rather seen Allert replace this section with an explanation of how the Bible is now our highest authority and how it moved past tradition as such (while not dismissing the importance of tradition).
Allert begins by explaining how different individuals approach the study of the Bible. According to the author, deductivists begin with a high view of the Bible but downplay the Bible's formation while inductivists highlight the Bible's formation while being more skeptical of its nature as a holy, authoritative text (p. 11). Allert also draws distinctions between three different individuals: the religious historian (most objective), the pastoral apologist (the dominant type but one who errs in reading too much present/modern thought into ancient texts) and the generalist who lacks expertise and thus relies on experts (p. 13).
Allert seeks to persuade evangelicals to recognize the vital role the early Church played in forming the canon. Allert points out that there is an enormous distinction that must be made between "Scripture" and "canon." Too often, evangelicals use the early Church fathers (ECF) citations and quotations of the canon to marshal a case for "sola scriptura." But on page 73, Allert draws a distinction between canon and Scripture and shows in the body of the book and an appendix at the back that the ECF considered many non-canonical writings to also be inspired, basing this assertion on a verbal formula ECF would use to preface their citation or quote. Evangelicals must stop assuming that what the ECF meant by "Scripture" is what WE mean by our current Bible because the ECF would use this formula when citing, say, Sirach or 1 Clement. Allert shows that the formation of the canon was later in coming than many evangelicals would like to admit and notes the discrepancies between some ECFs including some books while other ECFs rejecting certain works. Allert also dismisses simplistic and anachronistic uses of NT texts to prove their validity. He states, "if we use 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to prove the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, we are arguing for a larger canon than the one we hold as authoritative simply because at the time 2 Timothy was written the Old Testament canon was still fluid, and there was no New Testament canon to speak of" (p. 172). This is the best part of the book as Allert makes a strong case for evangelicals to understand the origins of canon and our indebtedness to the early Church. As Allert succinctly states on page 77, "The very acceptance of the canon of Scripture already places the believer in a state of tacit acceptance of decisions made in the patristic age because the formation of the New Testament is situated within the church of that age."
Allert writes as an evangelical teaching at an evangelical university and while he holds the typical evangelical belief that the Bible is our highest authority, he is generally silent about how we transition from an indebtedness to the ECFs for forming the canon to holding the canon as our highest authority. He does assert the Holy Spirit's ongoing activity in the early Church and the Spirit's role in helping to form the canon. Allert spends the last section of the book criticizing verbal plenary inspiration (those who hold to it tend to have the very simplistic understanding of the canon that Allert wants to correct) and the Gundry inerrancy debacle but I would have rather seen Allert replace this section with an explanation of how the Bible is now our highest authority and how it moved past tradition as such (while not dismissing the importance of tradition).
April 12, 2010
Evangelicals are supposed to be totally devoted to the Bible. Sola Scriptura! we shout. But, as Craig Allert shows, Evangelicals are just as prone to following traditions as any other branch of Christendom. (Just where in the Bible does it say to close your eyes when you pray!??)
Allert writes: “What is actually happening in contemporary North American evangelical circles is that traditionalism has gradually crept into our understanding, or lack thereof, of the fundamentals. Jaroslav Pelikan’s famous statement is apt here–’Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is he dead faith of the living.’ Traditionalism is doing or believing something simply because it is a custom, even if it is devoid of understanding, meaning, and/or significance. This is what contemporary evangelicals have done in retaining their core set of essentials … The evangelical is exhorted to believe the sore set of doctrines because they have ‘always’ been seen as essential …
“Thus, not only have certain nonessentials been given essential status, but also some foundational aspects of theology have been underemphasized or even ignored and therefore undervalued, and this to the detriment of the body of Christ. The rich liturgical tradition of the church becomes confined to musically induced emotionalism. The importance of the community of faith for the life of the believer is reduced to crass marketing strategies and the newest ‘get spiritual quick’ scheme. The living voice of the Bible in theological history becomes lost in individual interpretation and defense of a rather static propositionalism” (A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, 33-34).
Evangelicals have been used by God to preserve and fight for some very important doctrines. However, we always need to re-examine our beliefs, to make sure we are not simply holding on to ideas and doctrines because that’s “what we’ve always believed.”
Allert’s book is about how the NT Canon was formed. Most evangelicals (and most Christians in general) have no idea how we got our Bible. This is peculiar, since we say we believe it is the Word of God. Wouldn’t you want to know how the Word of God got into your hands!?
Allert writes: “What is actually happening in contemporary North American evangelical circles is that traditionalism has gradually crept into our understanding, or lack thereof, of the fundamentals. Jaroslav Pelikan’s famous statement is apt here–’Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is he dead faith of the living.’ Traditionalism is doing or believing something simply because it is a custom, even if it is devoid of understanding, meaning, and/or significance. This is what contemporary evangelicals have done in retaining their core set of essentials … The evangelical is exhorted to believe the sore set of doctrines because they have ‘always’ been seen as essential …
“Thus, not only have certain nonessentials been given essential status, but also some foundational aspects of theology have been underemphasized or even ignored and therefore undervalued, and this to the detriment of the body of Christ. The rich liturgical tradition of the church becomes confined to musically induced emotionalism. The importance of the community of faith for the life of the believer is reduced to crass marketing strategies and the newest ‘get spiritual quick’ scheme. The living voice of the Bible in theological history becomes lost in individual interpretation and defense of a rather static propositionalism” (A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, 33-34).
Evangelicals have been used by God to preserve and fight for some very important doctrines. However, we always need to re-examine our beliefs, to make sure we are not simply holding on to ideas and doctrines because that’s “what we’ve always believed.”
Allert’s book is about how the NT Canon was formed. Most evangelicals (and most Christians in general) have no idea how we got our Bible. This is peculiar, since we say we believe it is the Word of God. Wouldn’t you want to know how the Word of God got into your hands!?
February 27, 2021
the first part is more about the historical development of canonization, rather, clarifying misconceptions of the canon being formed in late 2nd century, and what "inspired" meant to the church fathers (they called each other's writings and extrabiblical material "inspired" too). The book calls for a more nuanced definition of "inerrant," "authority," and "inspiration" when attributed to the Bible/NT. Neither the OT nor NT canons were formed in the time of Jesus and the early church. The authority of the Bible cannot be separated from the context of the church's decisions, affirmation, and regulation... The Bible is the church's book, and proper interpretation is the church's responsibility.
November 9, 2025
If you have only attended churches that adhere to plenary verbal inspiration, you may have trouble with this book. Allert covers quite a bit of church history in less than 200 pages and discusses how we got our canon of scripture. The crux of his book is, "The question at issue here is not, 'Is the Bible inspired,' but rather, 'Is inspiration seen by the fathers to be the unique possession of the canonical books alone?'" In other words - the Bible is inspired, but did we get all of it?
October 15, 2025
understanding the history of the Bible
Opresor Allert gives an excellent historical account to the formation of the Bible. It is detailed and easily understood. It offers a guide to the layman and reference material for the student. The most interesting part for me was the dilemma between the church and accepting both the book of Hebrews and Revelation.
Opresor Allert gives an excellent historical account to the formation of the Bible. It is detailed and easily understood. It offers a guide to the layman and reference material for the student. The most interesting part for me was the dilemma between the church and accepting both the book of Hebrews and Revelation.
August 3, 2017
I recommend this book.
May 15, 2012
The development of the New Testament canon is a key issue for Christianity. When were the documents accepted as canon? Who determined which documents would be canonized? What criteria were used to select the canon?
These questions, and more like them, are the subject of this book. The author is keen for the reader to understand not only now the NT canon came into existence, but also how certain teachings from those Scriptures became the orthodox view while other interpretations were discarded as "heretical."
Out of all the questions, one remains unanswered satisfactorily, in my view. And that is the selection criteria for the NT documents. Allert makes reference to early church fathers who saw the continuity from the Old Testament, especially the Torah, through the teaching of the Messiah, and the apostolic continuation of this teaching tradition. This implies that the Old Testament provided the selection criteria for the New Testament documents.
That means that the Old Testament, as the selection criteria, also provides the interpretive criteria for the New Testament documents. Interpretations of any New Testament passage that are not in agreement with the Old Testament (for example, interpretations of Acts 10-11 or Col. 2:16 that suggest a change in the Old Testament) need to be reevaluated in the light of the Old Testament, not cut loose from the Old Testament to effectively create a "new" set of beliefs.
The equal authority of the two testaments is tied up in the canon issue. Allert's study is important because it highlights forgotten aspects of the development of the New Testament canon and its connection with the Tanakh.
These questions, and more like them, are the subject of this book. The author is keen for the reader to understand not only now the NT canon came into existence, but also how certain teachings from those Scriptures became the orthodox view while other interpretations were discarded as "heretical."
Out of all the questions, one remains unanswered satisfactorily, in my view. And that is the selection criteria for the NT documents. Allert makes reference to early church fathers who saw the continuity from the Old Testament, especially the Torah, through the teaching of the Messiah, and the apostolic continuation of this teaching tradition. This implies that the Old Testament provided the selection criteria for the New Testament documents.
That means that the Old Testament, as the selection criteria, also provides the interpretive criteria for the New Testament documents. Interpretations of any New Testament passage that are not in agreement with the Old Testament (for example, interpretations of Acts 10-11 or Col. 2:16 that suggest a change in the Old Testament) need to be reevaluated in the light of the Old Testament, not cut loose from the Old Testament to effectively create a "new" set of beliefs.
The equal authority of the two testaments is tied up in the canon issue. Allert's study is important because it highlights forgotten aspects of the development of the New Testament canon and its connection with the Tanakh.
June 29, 2014
I found "A High View of Scripture?" to be a very thorough and well-researched read.
Deconstructing and examining the different views on Biblical inerrancy, Canonization and various other Christian Apologetics, Allert does an good job creating an even field with which to analyze both the well-known theories and several lesser known ones as well.
Overall an interesting read for anyone interested in religious studies.
Deconstructing and examining the different views on Biblical inerrancy, Canonization and various other Christian Apologetics, Allert does an good job creating an even field with which to analyze both the well-known theories and several lesser known ones as well.
Overall an interesting read for anyone interested in religious studies.
June 18, 2010
Allert clearly lays out the historical development of the New Testament canon and addresses common misconceptions that some contemporary Christians have about it. Catholic and Orthodox Christians will find this book useful for the "me, Jesus and my Bible" people in their lives.
April 5, 2008
A fascinating look at the formation and early church's conception of canon. There are troubling questions here that ought to be addressed.
Read
July 17, 2017I found Michael Kruger's The Question of Canon a more useful read.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews