The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate

by Michael J. Kruger

Did the New Testament canon arise naturally from within the early Christian faith? Were the books written as Scripture, or did they become Scripture by a decision of the second-century church? Why did early Christians have a canon at all? These are the types of questions that led Michael J. Kruger to pick apart modern scholarship's dominant view that the New Testament is a late creation of the church imposed on books originally written for another purpose. Calling into question this commonly held "extrinsic" view, Kruger here tackles the five most prevalent objections to the classic understanding of a quickly emerging, self-authenticating collection of authoritative scriptures. Already a noted author on the subject of the New Testament canon, Kruger addresses foundational and paradigmatic assumptions of the extrinsic model as he provides powerful rebuttals and further support for the classic, "intrinsic" view. This framework recognizes the canon as the product of internal forces evolving out of the historical essence of Christianity, not a development retroactively imposed by the church upon books written hundreds of years before. Unlike many books written on the emergence of the New Testament canon that ask "when?" or "how?" Kruger focuses this work on the "why?"--exposing weaknesses in the five major tenets of the extrinsic model as he goes. WhileThe Question of Canon scrutinizes today's popular scholastic view, it also offers an alternative concept to lay a better empirical foundation for biblical canon studies.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, History, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, Church History

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 4, 2013

About the author

Michael J. Kruger (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is president and professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, and the author of a number of articles and books on early Christianity.

Reviews

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Question of Canon addresses the question of why early Christians had a canon. Did the New Testament authors intend to pen a new corpus of Scriptures? Would early Christians, who were largely illiterate, place any value on written texts? Current scholarship is dominated by the view that canon, rather than emerging naturally from within early Christianity, was a later invention foisted upon it by outside forces (i.e. the church). Kruger aims to challenge this "extrinsic model of canon," by showing its failure to account for an array of evidence more suggestive of an "intrinsic model" (the view that canon arose naturally from within the early Christian milieu). While noting the virtues of the extrinsic model, Kruger successfully dismantles it one major tenet at a time, calling for a paradigm shift in New Testament scholarship.

I was pleased to read such a thorough debunking of an idea not only apparently held by a majority of scholars in the field, but which (or at least a version of which) is often put forward by laymen skeptics of the New Testament - that it's authority was somewhat arbitrarily assigned hundreds of years after its' writing by some Christians who happened to have the power and motive to do so. Kruger convincingly shows this to be an inaccurate picture of canon history. Multiple lines of evidence show that Christians knew and used written documents believed to possess apostolic authority - authority akin to that of the Old Testament Scriptures - quite early on.

[Cameron McCartney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whilst this book was not quite what I was expecting, I greatly enjoyed it even though it is, academically speaking, a level above what I would currently read.

In this book Michael Kruger seems to go against the flow of the dominant discourse of the extrinsic model of canon formation, and instead holds to an intrinsic view, whereby the concept of canon formation is almost written into the New Testament Scriptures themselves.

This book, whilst not primarily intending to argue for the historical reliability of the New Testament, does so in style by holding high the canon-writing self-awareness of the New Testament authors. This was the main argument of chapter 4, which I felt was the most controversial but equally the most convincing chapter of the whole book for reasoning the intrinsic model of canon formation.

I would recommend this book to anyone, who like me, loves the Biblical canon, but at the same time, sometimes struggles to really believe that it truly is, in its entirety, the unquestionable Word of God.

Cheers to Mike Kruger for a great read, might try and read some more of his books now, great stuff!

[G0thamite · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thorough challenge to a view of the canon that holds it was a late, even 4th century product of the newly enshrined Orthodox Church. Instead, Kruger argues that the early church expected and welcomed its own Scripture at a much earlier date and that before the end of the 2nd century most of the NT we have was recognized. A few books were late to recognition by the church at large but this was all a matter of an organic, historical process worked out in time. Heavily footnoted and argued respectfully - a must read for those interested in the NT canon.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

2021 reads: #51
Rating: 4.5 Stars

Although, at times, quite technical and academic, Michael Kruger has given us a great defense of the reality that Canon formation was part of the DNA of early Christianity. The New Covenant anticipated written documents, the early church embraced texts, and the apostles recognized the authority by which they wrote. Rather than a 4th century imposition, or a late 2nd century polemic against heretics, the canon organically developed within communities that cherished the written word.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive book on the issues regarding the New Testament canon. Kruger takes on the academic debate by examining the historical data for the founding of the canon not being dependent upon man. He does so by looking at the intrinsic and extrinsic models of the the canon and allowing it to lead to an understanding of the canon that accurately depicts what the biblical authors sought by writing what they did. This is a valuable book in a secular society that is constantly looking to discredit the authenticity and authority of the New Testament. A warning should he given though that he doe not write for everyone, for much of the opposing views are briefly touched on. Thus, a prior knowledge of the debate around canon may be necessary in order to grasp the fullness of his arguments.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The more I read this the more I enjoyed it. This a really good read. I'm just a simpleton, a novice, so at first it was a little tough for my pea brain to get into but each chapter shined brighter and brighter. I felt like I was in school but unlike 30 years ago I actually liked it. I love the witness of church history supporting my faith. Thanks to my brother Aaron for recommending it as we perused the ShepCon 2015 bookstore.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The debate over what should be included in the collections of Scripture and what should be omitted has continued since the fourth century despite major research advances. Additionally, the question of why a recognized canon is even necessary has become a subject of contention among Christians and non-Christians alike. For some, the canon of Scripture is not to be found in the early church as they ostensibly were unconcerned with a defined collection of post-resurrection writings and modern textual critics are forcing the canon onto a people that had intention or desire for one. Dr. Michael J. Kruger, professor of New Testament studies at the Reformed Theological Seminary, asserts that this understanding is without merit when considering both the historical and theological aspects of the canon.


In introducing his thesis, Kruger outlines the two major positions within modern canonical studies and uses these concepts through The Question of Canon to support his thesis that scholars have pigeon holed themselves into two distinct camps, while the correct positions seem to be charting a path between both positions. The first position is that of an extrinsic model of the Canon, which according to Kruger is the idea that the canon was imposed upon the Christian faith (18). While this view has been heavily criticized by scholars such as Brevard Childs, it has gained traction for its heavy reliance on the history of Christianity and how it responded to events such as persecution, heresies, and the extensive amount of time before the canon was formalized (20). The second position is the intrinsic model which suggests that the canon was not imposed from the outside onto the Christian faith but rather developed organically within the early Christian movement itself (21). Kruger is quick to note that the purpose of The Question of Canon is not to prove that the intrinsic model is the correct model, but rather through a series of tenets argue that the context of first-century Christainity provided a favorable environment for the development of a newly written revelational deposit (21). These tenets of the extrinsic model are laid out and subsequently disputed by Kruger through both a historical and a theological critique, providing alternative answers to the common beliefs of the supporters of the extrinsic model. Kruger points out that it is important to note that these tenets are generalizations of the extrinsic model and as such there will be supporters of said model that would not necessarily agree with each tenet (22).

The first tenet of the extrinsic model is that we must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon, that is that the canon can be used as a proper term only after the final and closed list of books have been decided upon rather than beforehand as a working definition of the books from which Christians read and taught (30). Kruger agrees in principle that the separation provides a term that is more fluid with the contours of church history, allowing for the eventual recognition of the books of Scripture (31). But Kruger argues that there are three issues with this understanding of the definition of canon, firstly that it is unlikely that the early church would agree with this understanding if you were to ask them whether they were able to differentiate between that which is Scripture and that which is not Scripture, then they are in essence providing a working canon of the Bible (31). Secondly, if it is necessary that the canon be closed before we can use it in our terminology, then it must be determined when exactly that was; there was no uniformity in the recognition of what was truly Scripture well beyond the fourth century (32). Lastly, in order to retain that there was a stark difference before the fourth century to the point that Scripture and canon remained exclusive, one must show that whatever happened in the fourth century either altered the status of the books or increased the authority that was yet to be recognized (33).

The second tenet is that there was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to canon, essentially stating that Jesus never commanded nor casually told his disciples to write anything down, and the early church would not have come to this conclusion on their own (48). As with the first tent, Kruger agrees in principle that Jesus never told His disciples to write anything down nor did the early Christians have anything in mind like what would become the 27 books of the New Testament. But Kruger argues that there are several historical reasons to support the idea that early Christians held theological beliefs that would have naturally led to the formation of a new canon. For instance, Kruger points out that the eschatological understandings of the early Christians elicit a strong commendation for the canon among the people because they saw Old Testament promises as fulfilled in the coming of Christ and as such a necessary conclusion to the Old Testament would then be necessary (51-52). Additionally, the early Christians recognized that whenever God intervened in a redeeming manner it was followed with revelation; this is consistent with believing that the early Christians would have expected a new revelational deposit after the redemption accomplished on the cross by Christ (53).
The third tenet is that early Christians were averse to written documents because they were illiterate and uninterested in books, arguing that a written canon would not have existed or even mentally processed due to the context of the time (80). Kruger agrees that it is true that the socio historical account shows that literacy was very low compared to the present literacy rates and that the predominant method of the spread of the Gospel is through oral accounts (85). But Kruger also notes that orality and textuality are not mutually exclusive, and this is seen in various ways though most notably in the Apostle Paul asking for his letters to be read aloud, the ubiquity of intellectual Christians with the capability of reading and writing, as well as liturgical and catechetical instruction (87-88). Additionally, Kruger cites several examples of early Christian writing in the first century and at a sophisticated level and the extensive use of parchment notebooks that were prevalent in the first century (91-93).


Kruger listed a total of five tenets in The Question of Canon that outlined the extrinsic position and this paper looked at the first three to summarize the position of the book. It is clear that the intrinsic position that Kruger holds is more meritorious when considering the outlined beliefs of the extrinsic position (23-25). By structuring this particular work into five tenets, Kruger provides the reader with an easy to follow argument that does not lend itself to confusion. Kruger’s thesis that the intrinsic method is more profitable to modern canonical studies is supported through a wide range of historical data (57-73), theological implications (128-147), and current research studies (181-203). Kruger argued that the extrinsic method was a position that did not allow for all three of these points to coexist, that is that the historical data would conflict with the theological implications, or the theological implications would not resonate with the current research studies and so on (209). One of the most important keys that Kruger used to help the reader understand the positions of intrinsic and extrinsic methods was to use writings and research from both positions in formulating his responses, for example he pulls from men such as Brevard Childs and uses his critiques to summarize the positions of the intrinsic supporters as well as men such as Eugene Ulrich to defend the extrinsic position (30). It is notable how balanced Kruger was in The Question of Canon, even to offer points of agreement when applicable to the very position he was critiquing (157-158). Additionally, the sheer amount of scholarship that is referenced throughout every chapter verifies that Kruger has given the topic a more than adequate study to provide the conclusions to which he has arrived. There is always room for improvement, however, and the following critiques are more technical than substantive as the overall thesis from Kruger was well written and well documented. To begin with, Kruger covered many aspects of the history and development of the canon that was truly beneficial, but at times it was repetitive as in using Marcion as an argumentative piece several times (38, 94, 154). Likewise, the historical averment provided by Kruger proved to be a substantial piece to his thesis, such as the literary context of the first century Christians; but, for instance, while it may be true that there were many who could read in the first century Christian community, the vast majority could not (78-81). Kruger answers this by stating that an oral tradition would provide a means by which early Christians would retain and spread the Gospel, and this much is true - however, it does not necessarily follow that they would have reached a conclusion that their Gospel stories needed to be written down and collected, either immediately or slowly over time. This is not to say that there is no evidence that would show that early Christians would have kept the Scriptures in written form even though over 85% of them could not even read it, but simply that it is not provided by Kruger in his analysis. Furthermore, the rebuttal to this provided by extrinsic supporters is that the early Christians would have continued an oral tradition until a point in time where it became more beneficial to write things down due to the majority of the community becoming literate, which would coincide with the timing of the Canon being formed. This is likewise not addressed by Kruger and it would have provided a valuable piece in his argumentation for the literacy and written formats being passed through early Christian communities. Finally, although Kruger dedicated portions of this work to address the definition, origins, writing, authors, and dating of the canon, he did not address the historical and theological works after the fourth century and prior to the 18th century with few exceptions. It would be interesting and important to see how Christendom as a whole reacted and reported to the formation of the canon of Scripture and through primary and secondary sources in search of consensus.


Kruger provided a straightforward and understandable summary of the canon of Scripture and how we ought to view it in light of the historical and theological data. He responded to several claims by those in the extrinsic positions and answered many difficult questions on the subject, such as how Christians should approach the issues of canon, how early Christians viewed the formation of the Canon, and how the authors of the New Testament viewed their own work. Kruger supported his thesis that the two major positions, extrinsic and intrinsic, have issues that can be resolved through the recognition that we do not necessarily need to know where the canon comes from, so much as we need to know whether Christianity should be defined by books at all. I would recommend this work to anyone who wants to understand both the extrinsic and intrinsic methods to canonical studies and who has had experience reading academic works.

[Jacob Hudgins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a typical book about the development of the canon from a conservative perspective. It is instead a corrective to the dominant view in canon studies that addresses five key overstatements/misunderstandings. Highlights were: destroying the idea that early Christians were hostile to texts, exposing the perception that these texts were never intended to be authoritative (have people who claim this actually read them?!), and his rebuttal to the nearly unanimous claim that early Christians were expecting the return of Jesus immediately and/or Jesus was wrong about the coming of the kingdom. Kruger cites extensively and yet keeps his arguments simple and persuasive.

Not a book I would recommend to newcomers to the canon debate, but a breath of fresh air for those who have waded through such unfounded scholarly assumptions.

[Brandon Cutshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kruger writes clearly and insightfully as he explains how the New Testament developed organically in the early church. He does a great job in acknowledging the strengths of opposing views and seeks to offer a way to compensate the perceived weaknesses. This tends to develop a more wholistic idea and stronger arguments. Very helpful to address foundational questions of how the New Testament came to be.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Christian “canon” refers to that set of scriptures, complete and bounded, that we accept as scripture. Modern Bible scholars often examine the development of the canon from an extrinsic model, noting that the canon was formed over the course of several centuries as the church fathers selected their favorites. Many argue that Irenaeus, in the late second century, was the first to feel the need for an authoritative canon. But what if the selection of accepted writings was more intrinsic … that is, guided from within, rather than from without? What if the New Testament writers themselves understood that they were writing Scripture, and their work was quickly recognized and adopted as such, perhaps with God’s guidance?

Kruger doesn’t deny the extrinsic claims, that the canon was fluid and argued over for centuries. He simply highlights the evidence that our New Testament writers were knowingly writing Scripture, and our earliest Scripture readers knew it. This Kruger does by critically examining five tenets of the extrinsic model to see if they really do hold water. The five tenets he questions, in five chapters, are:

1. We must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon.

2. There was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon.

3. Early Christians were averse to written documents.

4. The New Testament authors were unaware of their own authority.

5. The New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.

Kruger hits his stride at about chapter three, and it gets stronger from there. So if you find the book winding up a little slowly, I promise it’ll be slinging fast balls by the end. Kruger’s research is convincing and well-argued, with generous footnotes. At the very least, this book will make you a believer in the passion and conviction of the New Testament writers, even as they sought to remain anonymous, letting the gospel message speak for itself on its own authority.

[James Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a very penetrating insight into how the New Testament came to be. At no point was there a sense that this was a critical work, rather an attempt to defend a thesis that the early Christians immediately saw the letters written to various churches about local issues as being scriptural and canonical. Questions of why those letters and not the others etc. are not addressed.

[Wesley Ralph · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great, quick little read arguing for the existence of a New Testament canon growing naturally out of the first century instead of being superimposed backward in the fourth century. I’ll be sure to revisit this for the references and specific chapters as questions arise.

[Ian Hammond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was the idea of a “canon” of Scripture imposed upon Christianity by a later ecclesiastical act or was it natural outworking of the Christian faith?

Though the “intrinsic model” that Kruger proposes does recognize the important role the church played, it doesn’t reduce the existence of canon down to a mere ecclesial act. Rather, the make up of early Christianity rooted in the Old Testament and its expectation of a new covenant and thus new covenant documents was fertile soil for the recognition of a canon of New Testament Scripture. This also accords with the NT and church history subsequent to the fourth century.

A part of the problem in the disagreement over the existence of the canon is definitions of canon itself. The exclusive definition of canon drives a sharp division between canon and Scripture and argues that you cannot have a canon until the list of books is fixed, final, and closed. However, the functional definition of canon recognizes that writings prior to achieving the exclusive definition can play a canonical role, given their status of Scripture over and against all books not regarded as such. Both views, however, confuse the church’s reception of the canon with the canon itself. The ontological view, separates the reception of the canon by the Church from the canon itself. The canon is the canon by virtue of its divine purpose for which it was given. These three definitions have their strengths and work in tandem together to delineate stages of canonical development. 1) Canonical books are written —> 2) then books are recognized —> 3) the church reaches a consensus.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really solid. Will be returning.

Kruger argues that the extrinsic understanding of the origins of NT canon (the idea that it didn't arise due to what the NT documents intrinsically are, but rather that it was artificially defined centuries later for anti-heresy or political reasons). His case is compelling. He argues that (1) A holistic and well rounded definition of canon must ask ontological and functional questions, (2) Many beliefs of early Christians tend towards new canonical books arising (eg. a perception that God's people were still awaiting OT promises to be fulfilled, the idea of a new covenant implies new texts, and the authority of the apostles necessarily leading to a distinction in how their writings would be viewed), (3) Early Christians were not adverse to the written word, but rather the New Testament is the best attested document of antiquity and their use of and formatting of their codices (unique spacing on pages, distinctly Christian nomina sacra etc.) indicated a strongly literary emphasis, (4) The authors of the canon were aware of their own authority and the NT is riddled with comments stating as much (and strongly implying it), and (5) Irenaeus (130-202) was not unique in having lists of books that made the cut, but many of his contemporaries did, as did earlier Christians and even the NT documents themselves.

This is a scholarly work to be sure (many pages have more footnotes than text), but Kruger has done yet another great job at making it accessible. Highly recommended.

[Richard Lawrence]

Insightful historically grounded challenge to certain ideas held by liberal scholars.

Makes a positive case:
1. that the early church had an idea of authoritative/canonical scriptures very early (from the 1st century)
2. that there was early widespread agreement on several "core" books (e.g. the gospels and most of Paul's epistles)

Concedes that it took quite some time for the concept to crystallise into a full definitive list.

Effectively it's arguing for a sort of seed->flower concept of the canon.

[brenton · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5
Honestly nerfed by lack of personal interest, it’s very heavy on looking at writings of the church fathers which is probably where I start feeling a little eepy. Regardless, it’s laid out very logically and Kruger’s points and arguments are super clear, which is a nice change after reading a bunch of Wright.
This is maybe not the best introduction into this field, since it kind of dives straight into arguments against the extrinsic model of canon, but I still found it very reasonable in term of difficulty to follow. It definitely opened my eyes to how much we can look to the church fathers when it comes to the question of canon, and whether or not an NT canon should exist. Nice

[Matt Hession · Rating 3 out of 5]

IMO, he avoids the main issues and circles around the ones he does address. It is a shame how he promotes addressing issues head on, but then he himself doesn't do so. This could perhaps be subconscious but none the less I dont think it really brings to conclusions problems writersike NT Wright, Peter Enns, or Bert Ehrman bring up.

[Thomas Goertzen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very Helpful.

[William Schrecengost · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really good book on the development of the canon and how a canon has existed since the New Testament time.

[Adam Balshan · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 stars [Historiography]
(W 2.91, U 3.13, T 3.21)
Exact rating: 3.08

[Daniel Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful little book to have further confidence in the canon of Scripture. It is not a man made institution for power over the weak, it was God's inspired Word that came to his people with authority. Highly recommend if you would like to understand where we get our canon from.

[Scott Raybourn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly well researched and proved take on the critique of the extrinsic model of New Testament Canon. I would recommend highly to anyone interested in the formation of Christian scriptures!

[Justin Effler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Functional Canon = Not an official “closed” canon, like the “exclusive” definition of canon but a “rule” that is recognized by the church books that are regarded or distinguished as “scripture”.
Intrinsic model = The idea that the idea of canon is not something forced upon the church from the outside but developed organically within. This is more of a natural development.

Exclusive Canon = Fixed, Final and closed list of books
Extrinsic model = The idea that the canon was, to some degree, imposed or forced on the Christian faith. For example, a response to Marcion’s “canon”.

The Ontological Definition of Canon = Focuses in on what the canon is in and of itself—its essence. Namely, that It looks at the canon from a divine perspective as opposed to solely ecclesiological. They are canonical because they are divine in origin not because the church declared it to be so.
Technically once the ink dried from the pen of each letter, in the first century, there was canon.

The Multi-Dimensional Approach to Canon: All three of these definitions (Ontological, Functional and Exclusive) needed in understanding the process of Canon. Pg. 42

“Instead of discussing the date of canon, we might consider discussing the stage of canon.” Pg. 43

“It’s like a tree at different stages of life: the young seedling just inches high, the adolescent sapling, and the full grown adult.”

-—————————————-
New Covenant Epistemological Scriptural Foundations

Given the historical context Christians have justification of new scriptures being given with a new covenant. The Israelites had been given the Mosaic law and thereby written documents from God and similar are given to Christians with a new covenant.

The Authority of the Apostles Given by Jesus:

Jesus specifically hand picked the twelve to represent him. - Acts 10:41-42, Luke 6:12-16)

Not only did he choose them, he said the Spirit would bring to remembrance his teachings and that the Spirit would speak through them. (Matthew 10:20, John 14:26)

Equal authority as prophets: “that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬ ‭

Early church believed that same authority of the Apostles:

Clement of Rome: “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ.” 1 Clement 42:1-2

“The greatest and most righteous pillars of the church.” 1 Clement 5:2

Ignatius of Antioch: “The Lord did nothing apart from the Father…neither on his own, nor through the Apostles” Epistle to the Magnesians 7:1

“I am not adjoining (command) you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am condemned.” Epistle to the Romans 4:4

“If Apostles were viewed as the mouthpiece of Christ, and it was believed that they wrote down that Apostolic message in books, then those books would be received as the very words of Christ himself.” Pg 70

Justin Martyr: “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number…by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.” 1 Apology 39


Writing of Canon: Chapter 3

Early Form Critics: Argue primarily for Oral tradition and propose early Christians were adverse to written tradition

“Orality and textuality are not mutually exclusive.” Pg 87

Oral tradition was often viewed, desired and commanded to read in public. Pg 87

Papias is often cited as being adverse to written words over oral tradition. However, “it is clear that Papias’ preference for the “living voice” is not speaking for a preference for oral tradition at all, but rather his desire to hear from eyewitnesses.” Pg 106

Kruger proceeds to give an example of a doctor using only books is not a good thing but hands on (In this case eyewitnesses) is ideal over than just hearing apart from the eyewitnesses themselves.

Besides Papias valued texts: Matthew, Mark, 1 Peter and 1 John.

Chapter 4: Were the New Testament Authors Aware of Their Own Authority?

“The Authors of the New Testament books did not know that they were writing scripture.” —Mark Allan Powell, Intro to the New Testament, page 50

“Our thesis is a simple one: the New Testament authors, generally speaking, demonstrate awareness that their writings passed down authentic apostolic tradition and therefore bore supreme authority in the life of the church.” Michael Kruger, Pg. 121

Is “scripture” the specific word, the point, or is their view on apostolic tradition and authority of equal merit? Though there are scriptures that appeal to New Testament authors as “scripture” (see 2 Peter 3:16, 1 Tim 5:18)

What did Paul believe about his own writings?

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—“
Acts 9:1-9: Jesus hand picked the Apostle Paul
1 Thessalonians 2:13 ““And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

1 Thessalonians 4:8: If you rejected him/the Apostles, you reject God: “disregard man not God”
2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
2 Thessalonians 3:14: “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.”
‭‭

PERHAPS THE STRONGEST:

1 Corinthians 14:37-38: “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

THE CLAIM:
1.) Affirms His own Apostolic Authority
2.) By oral teaching and written
3.) condemnation or excommunication if not obeyed

The Gospels Authority:

MARK

Mark 1:1 mirrors the same introduction of previous prophetic books like Hosea 1:2 and additionally that it’s saving in nature. Pg. 132

Presents Apostolic Tradition following Peter’s sermon of Acts 10:34-43

Church history is unanimous that Mark is Peter’s scribe and Peter is mentioned first and last in the gospel as well as 19 times and 7 times as Simon. A lot more than the other gospels.

John 21:24 states that it’s written by an eyewitness “disciple” though not all agree on which disciple.

One of The First Disciples: John 1:35-40
At the Last Supper: John 13:23
At the Crucifixion: John 19:26, 35
With Jesus and Peter at the End: John 21:20


LUKE 1:1-4

Focuses on on his source being taken from “eyewitnesses”, In which the authors uses the word multiple times (Luke 24:48).

He lists 5 points

At the beginning and end of the gospel is emphasized the disciples will be witnessed to fulfilled prophesy. He isn’t a mere historian.

MATTHEW:

Has the fewest clues, but the opening chapter is genealogies and thus “the New Genesis wrought by Jesus Christ” Pg. 144

“Matthew’s closest parallel is the book of Chronicles. Which also begins with a Geneology of the Davidic line” Pg 145

HEBREWS:

Hebrews 2:3-4 seems to indicate the author was dependent upon apostolic authority

Hebrews 13:23 had Timothy as a right hand man which is Paul and Silas’ companion.

Acts 16:3, 17:14, Roman’s 16:21, 1 Corinthians 4:17, 2 Corinthians 1:19)

2 Peter 3:2

“that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,”
‭
Apostles on equal authority as prophets

2 Peter 3:16

“as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
‭‭
What’s interesting is Peter/author of 2 Peter appeals to himself as an apostle in 1 Peter 1:1 and in 2 Peter 3:2 her refers to the old letter. He appeals to apostles on equal ground of prophets in 2 Peter 3:2

1 John 1:1-4
1.) Eyewitness language expressing seeing and touching Christ, thereby “fits the criteria of an Apostle” Pg 151
2.) given an Apostle he can “testify” to what he’s seen (v. 2)
3.) Identifies as an Apostle
4.) refers to Jesus and the gospel as “the word of life”
5.) “we” language referring to Apostles (plural)
6.) Got is message direction from Jesus! (v. 5). His message is Jesus’ message!

Revelation 1:1-3

1.) Explicit language that says this books given by Christ to John by an Angel.
2.) divine blessing and curse unscripted putting it “would come close to the notion of inspiration and scripture”.

Chapter 5: The Date of Canon

When did the New Testament writings becoming viewed as scripture?

The modern scholarship primarily holds to the end of the 2nd century is when the writings of the NT was viewed as scripture. And liberal scholarship says Irenaeus is the innovator as a reaction against Marcion.

Kruger says it’s not totally unreasonable as it’s the most explicit among early sources since he has the most to say on canon.

Irenaeus:

In his Against Heresies, he doesn’t appeal or make points about their existence as if they’re unfamiliar with them but “appeals to those books quite naturally and unapologetically, cited by name and provides no indication his audience may un unfamiliar with them” Pg. 159

Irenaeus appeals to the scriptures as Apostolic. He even knew Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle.

The Muratorian Fragment

Theophilus of Antioch (177 AD)

Argued that the New Testament writings (Gospel) had same inspiration as the Old Testament,

To Autolycus 3.12

“Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the gospels because they all spoke Inspired by one Spirit of God.”

He also refers to several of Paul’s books as the divine word.

The Diatessaron (harmony of all 4 gospels) is proof all 4 gospels were viewed as the authoritative gospels

Justin Martyr:

Quoted and referred to the “memoirs of the apostles” known as the gospels. And in 1 Apology 67.3 he lists the Gospels before prophets

Apostolic Fathers:

Polycarp and Ignatius were willing to engage with others texts and even copy them to send back to the Philippians.

Just because they quoted from books and didn’t mentioned who the source doesn’t mean they didn’t know the source. Pg 180

Loose citations or paraphrases were common to help understand common folk

Papias:

Was a friend of Polycarp and heard the Apostle John speak according to Irenaeus.

Kruger says he was around the critical time of the New Testament (125 AD)

He also knew the daughters of Philip the Evangelist according to Eusebius

Papias states Mark was composed by Peters interpreter. He also affirmed Matthew as the gospel of Matthew’s author.

There is good evidence to suggest that Papias knew all 4 gospels. He quoted “and I saw Satan falling” which only comes from Luke 10:12

Epistle of Barnabas quotes Matthew 22:14

IGNATIUS of Antioch:

Quoted and affirmed Paul’s Apostlship. He quoted 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Ephesians, Romans, Philippians and Galatians. He also knew John, Matthew and Luke.

He also referred to himself less than the apostles as “condemned” Pgs. 190-192

POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

In Philippians 6:3, “Polycarp places the Apostles alongside the prophets as equal authorities, showing that he sees revelation as delivered in 2 distinct epochs” Pg. 194

Polycarp does quote a combination of Psalm 4:4 and Ephesians 4:26 as “scripture”.

And The Lord’s Prayer

The argument from accessibility stated we have good reason to believe Polycarp had access to gospels since he knew Papias and John.

Clement of Rome:

“…Jesus sent from God….The Apostles from Christ.” —1 Clement

He clearly saw the Apostles with the same authority of Christ

He also said Paul was “inspired”. “He sent you a letter in the Spirit” referring to 1 Corinthians. The term “In the Spirit” can be seen used contextually as inspiration is Epistle of Barnabas 14:2, 1 Clement 8:1 and Ignatius to the Magnesians 9:2

NEW TESTAMENT:

2 Peter 3:16

David Meade: “clearly articulated a doctrine of ‘other’, that is, Christian scripture.”

1 Tim 5:18

Quotes Luke 10:7 with matches verbatim in the Greek and Paul knew Luke closely

While the consensus scholarship may be towards the extrinsic model. Kruger provides a well balanced and nuanced view of Canon that’s more “organic” or “natural” to the early church, as seen from the notes above. As he states In the concluding remarks, “rather than discussing the boundaries of canon…we have been asking whether there should even be books. Why is there a New Testament at all?” Pg 204. “It has been the goal of this book to offer well intended challenge to this extrinsic model.” Pg 205

[Russell Holland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Kruger’s The Question of Canon is concerned with the fundamental question of why the New Testament books, as a closed library, exist. (Kruger 2013, 204) Kruger used the pages of this volume to challenge the traditional extrinsic view of the canon and suggest the intrinsic view should be given another chance. The extrinsic model is, as Kruger put it, the dominating view of modern scholarship, and it essentially views the Canon as “a later artificial development that is out of sync with Christianity’s original purpose…” (Kruger 2013, 17) In contrast to this extrinsic model, Kruger presented in this book the intrinsic model or the idea that the canon developed naturally out of the fabric and substance of Christianity. (Kruger 2013, 20) Kruger took the five essential premises of the extrinsic model as the outline for the book, and thus, each chapter corresponds to a specific assertion.

The five assertions or beliefs of the extrinsic model, and thus the five main points of this book, make up the essential content of each chapter. Chapter one is concerned with the definition of canon and the appropriate way to discuss that definition. In chapter two, Kruger dealt with whether or not the nature of early Christianity led to the formation of the canon. Kruger affirmed that it was in keeping with the nature of early Christianity to develop the canon. In chapter three, he discussed some of the reasons scholars give in support of a negative view of that premise, including Christianity’s supposed bias against writing. Chapter four deals with the belief of the New Testament authors as to their authority, and it offers through a survey of the New Testament books an unassailable argument that the authors did, in fact, view some of their writings as Scripture. Finally, in chapter five, Kruger offered historical evidence for why the date of the canon should not be seen as a late 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th-century creation but rather as an early 2nd or even 1st-century development from the earliest Christians.

This book offers an effective and thorough challenge to the extrinsic model for establishing the New Testament canon. Kruger sought to play by the rules of scholarship and thus argued in a manner that did not require specific theological commitments. This is both a strength and a weakness because, on the one hand, this book cannot be dismissed as the ravings of some Christian fundamentalist, but on the other hand, it lacks some of the convictional truth that theological commitments add to the discussion. Overall, the book is an excellent contribution to the debate on the Canon and a helpful challenge to the preponderance of unbelieving scholasticism in the field.

You can read my full academic book review here: https://www.academia.edu/126009974/Re...

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

We are not dealing here with the standard questions about canon—for example, how do we know these are the right books?—but instead we are dealing with more foundational and more fundamental questions about where the canon comes from. The issue is not so much which books, but whether Christianity should even be defined by books.

I got quite a bit out of The Question of Canon, but maybe not as much as I had hoped.

Part of it is that I am clearly not the target audience, which is his peers in academia. (I was getting flashbacks to the incredibly niche scholarly publications I skimmed through in college while researching for various papers.) This is not to imply that Kruger’s writing is dry or inaccessible—it isn’t; he is clear, easy to follow, and well-organized, and quite thorough with numerous citations that show engagement with a wide scope of related scholarship—but that he presupposes his readership is intimately familiar with the sources, figures, and time periods he discusses (for example, the Q source, Marcion, and the Second Temple period). This is not a criticism of the book as his approach is entirely appropriate for an academic work, but it did impact my ability to follow along.

Part of it is also that Kruger’s thesis is simply not what I was expecting, which was an explanation of why the New Testament books are canonical. This is completely my fault as the description is quite clear that this is primarily a historical work arguing against the (apparently dominant) view that the New Testament canon was compiled several hundred years after the books were written and was not seen as authoritative until then: Kruger’s response is to offer “an alternative approach—what we might call an intrinsic model. This model suggests that the idea of canon is not something imposed from the outside but develops more organically from within the early Christian religion itself.” To be honest, the argument that Kruger is refuting has never especially bothered me. I can recognize its importance and still found the ideas interesting to explore, but it’s not something that I would have independently sought out a response to had this book not been recommended to me.

However, putting aside my subjective experience, I do have two critiques.

First, he devotes a significant amount of time to the definition of “canon,” but does not provide even a cursory definition of “Scripture,” although the latter is crucial. Of course, it is possible that there is a consensus definition widely adopted by contemporary scholars, and that this is a “me” problem, but this omission still seems strange given that the distinction (or, as Kruger argues, the lack thereof) between Scripture and canon is a major point of contention.

Second, and much more significant, is the truncation of the fourth chapter, which makes the argument that the New Testament writers themselves knew they were writing with the authority of Scripture. For me, this is the heart of the book. Unfortunately, Kruger limits himself to only a few examples. I’m not sure why he wouldn’t take the space or time to go through each book, especially given that there is a set number of books.

Still, as an academic work, The Question of Canon is undeniably very well done. I skipped a majority of the endnotes as most seemed to be only citations, but it’s noteworthy that the sheer volume of endnotes wreaked havoc on my Kindle’s ability to calculate the time remaining in each chapter and completely skewed the percentage bar—I should have gone by page numbers instead. It’s also exceptionally well organized and easy to follow at both the macro and micro levels. The high-level structure is five sections (in addition to the traditional introduction and conclusion):

1. The first chapter refutes the idea that there is “a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon” and that “the term canon can only be used after the church has acted to create a final, closed list of books.” This is primarily a semantic argument focused on the definition of “canon.”

2. The second chapter refutes the idea that “[t]here was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon.” Kruger primarily points to the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament as unfinished and to a New Testament as the logical consequence.

3. The third chapter refutes the idea that “[e]arly Christians were averse to written documents.” Kruger provides a response to this on multiple points, arguing that a primarily oral tradition and a largely illiterate people may still value written documents, and that evidence suggests early Christians did.

4. The fourth chapter refutes the idea that “New Testament authors were unaware of their own authority” and that they “did not conceive of themselves as producing authoritative texts—they were merely producing occasional documents that were only later regarded as Scripture.” Kruger looks to the texts themselves to make this argument. To me, this was the most interesting of the chapters but also the least thorough.

5. The fifth chapter refutes the idea that “[t]he New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.” Kruger looks at the writings of major early figures to show that they were familiar with and deferential to many New Testament writings, holding them on the same level as Scripture, very early on.

Overall, I’m very glad I read The Question of Canon. I see that Kruger wrote another book, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books , that seems to be closer to what I was expecting. I’ve already requested it from the library!

Some notable passages:

Indeed, these scholars are correct to observe that a New Testament was not an instantaneous development within early Christianity—it took time for this collection to be developed and shaped. And, they are correct to remind us that the entire process took several centuries to complete, and the church played an influential role in this process (as did heretics like Marcion). However, are we really to think that “nothing dictated that there should be a NT” prior to these later ecclesiastical actions? Was there nothing about earliest Christianity that might have given rise to such a collection? Was the idea of new Scriptures entirely foreign to the early followers of Jesus? It is the purpose of this volume to suggest otherwise.

Although it is out of vogue in some critical circles today, Christians have traditionally believed that the canon is a collection of books that are given by God to his corporate church. And if the canonical books are what they are by virtue of the divine purpose for which they were given, and not by virtue of their use or acceptance by the community of faith, then, in principle, they can exist as such apart from that community. After all, aren’t God’s books still God’s books—and therefore still authoritative—prior to anyone using them or recognizing them? Surely, the existence of canon and the recognition of canon are two distinguishable phenomena.

Another way to articulate Second Temple expectations of a future divine inbreaking is to say that the Jews of this period viewed the story of the Old Testament books as incomplete. When the Old Testament story of Israel was viewed as a whole, it was not viewed as something that was finished but as something that was waiting to be finished.

In sum, the eschatological nature of early Christianity provides an essential foundation on which the new canon of Scripture would be constructed. Not only was there an Old Testament pattern of new Word-revelation following God’s redemptive acts, and not only was the Old Testament story viewed as incomplete and anticipating a final installment, but the above passages indicate that the Old Testament expressly predicted that the messianic age would be marked by a new revelational message from God—and the earliest Christians applied these very passages to their own time period.

For this reason, these ancient treaty-covenants often included an “inscriptional curse” warning that the text was not to be altered in any way.

Thus, the very idea of an Old Testament canon has its roots in the covenant God made with Israel—the canon is a treaty document.

Not only did the New Testament authors compose a number of other written works that are now lost,84 but we have good reasons to think that they knew and even drew upon even earlier Christian writings.

the distinctive two-stage, already-but-not-yet nature of the kingdom of God.212 In a very real sense, the kingdom of God did come in the lifetime of the disciples (Mt 12:28; Lk 4:21; 17:20-21); but in another (apocalyptic) sense, it is still yet to come when Jesus returns to judge the world (Mt 7:21; 8:11; Mk 14:25; 15:43).

The two most common solutions to the Synoptic problem—the two-source hypothesis and the Griesbach hypothesis—both agree that there was literary dependence between the authors of the earliest gospels; either Matthew and Luke copied Mark and Q (two-source), or Mark copied from Matthew and Luke (Griesbach).

[Steve Bauer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overview

There are a number of very good books which cover the topic of the New Testament canon, letting us know which books of the NT are all agreed on (homolegoumena) and the ones that people at various times and for various reasons had questions about (antilegomena). This isn’t one of those books. Kruger has a different intent and purpose in writing this book. His intent is to tackle the question (and definition) of what canon itself is. He starts out by giving the two basic definitions of what canon is in use today:

The Exclusive Definition: We know what books are canonical when we have a list of books to work with (e.g. Athanasius’ Festal letter or the canon table in Claromontanus)

The Functional Definition: We know that books are canonical when they are treated as canonical by believing communities.

Kruger lets us know that there are strengths and weaknesses to these definitions. The strength of the exclusive definition is that, by the 300’s - 400’s we have lists that show us what is in the NT and what is out of the NT. The weakness is that these canonical lists don’t exactly match each other. Furthermore, can we only conclude that these books are canonical if and only if they collected into lists? The strength of the functional definition is that when “believing communities” used these books they actually treated them as canonical. The weakness is the phrase “believing community.” Who gets to decide what a proper believing community is and is not? The other weakness is the same as we find with the exclusive definition: Are we to conclude that God’s word is only canonical when it is received and then used by the church?

Kruger then adds another definition to flesh out these definitions. He calls it the Ontological Definition of Canon. He puts it this way: “The ontological definition focuses on what the canon is in and of itself, namely the authoritative books that God gave his corporate church.” (40) He describes the definition this way: “On this definition, there would be a canon even in the first century, as soon as the New Testament books were written.” (40)

What follows in the book then is page after page of evidence that this third definition is not just useful, but also necessary in achieving a proper understanding of what the NT canon is. With a thorough assembly of internal evidence, manuscript evidence, and patristic evidence he fleshes out a stable foundation to conclude that his own, new definition belongs together along with the other two.

Evaluation

One of the difficulties of doing any reading in canonical studies is that, for so many scholars, it is taken for granted that the canon is only the canon when we can tangibly see or touch it. But this misses the forest from the trees. How biblical manuscripts were treated shows us there is a canon before these manuscripts are copied. How the church fathers spoke about these books of the bible show us that there was a canon before they wrote about these books. Kruger does us a great service in not just reminding us of this fact. But he gives us detailed evidence showing us how true this fact is. When one finishes reading Metzger’s “The Canon of the New Testament”, this is the next book you should read.

There are limitations in the book. But they are few in number. In regard to the nomina sacra in the NT manuscripts, he cites Barton, saying “these special abbreviations performed a function for the New Testament manuscripts that was similar to the function the Tetragrammaton (special writing of the divine name) performed for the Old Testament manuscripts; namely, they indicated that a book was regarded as sacred.” (102) This is a highly debatable statement in two ways: First, there are nomina sacra that have very little to do with sacredness. For example, ἄνθρωπος is very often contracted to ανος. But it often refers to the simple generic use of the word. The second weakness to this argument is that there are times when it’s very clear that a name is not holy it nevertheless receives a nomen sacrum. In Dirk Jongkind’s “Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus”, Jongkind notes that “The origin and subsequent use of nomina sacra is connected with reverential notions, but the use of nomina sacra in Sinaiticus is not determined solely by reference. Often nomina sacra are employed with very mundane referents: πνευμα and its derivatives are used both for evil spirits and for the Holy Spirit, and πατηρ and κυριος can also be used in any context.” (83) In my own readings I have concluded that it is safe to say that there is a tendency to use the nomina sacra in reverential contexts. But that varies from scribe to scribe. And sometimes a scribe throws away his own tendencies.

The other limitation is the dating of the Muratorian Fragment. Kruger sets the date of the fragment to ca. 180. (162) There has, in recent years, been a heated debate about the dating of this fragment. The earliest date would be ca. 180. But there are many scholars who conclude that the fragment is better dated to a century closer to our own time (or more). For a synopsis of the discussion, a good start is Gallagher and Meade’s “The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity.” (174ff)

Other than these two small corrections, this is an exceedingly valuable book to read.

Conclusion

Years ago, when was I was at the Seminary, I don’t remember covering the topic of the NT canon in depth. Then I began my pastoral ministry in just enough time for Dan Brown to publish his popular books and in just enough time for Bart Ehrman to publish his scholarly works. Then, all of a sudden, people from all walks of life started asking, “who chose the books we have in the bible?” And lately, I’ve even heard my daughter speak about books that “don’t belong in the Harry Potter canon.” How is it that my middle school aged daughter can use the word canon, but yet, I struggle to define the word succinctly when I’m asked what the word means in bible study class? This book did a wonderful job of helping me to work through the many issues involved in tackling the question, “what is the NT canon?”

[Cliff Dailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is for the person who wants to know "why" Christians have the 27 books of the New Testament today (not forgetting the 39 books of the Old Testament).

Most people talk about "how" the Church has the Bible it has today, but many times exclude God's giving of the books and the books functioning in the Church before the end of the 4th century. This position is held by many knowledgable scholars (Kruger addresses) and many Christians and nonChristians alike who have found the work of these knowledgable scholars online and elsewhere (the people I will be addressing).

Coming out of the information age, in a world where people can find much information against the Bible, this piece of literature will give confidence and credibility to the Christian who defends their faith in the God who gave His Word through Jesus and His apostles. I can only marvel all the more at God's Word and His glory because of Kruger's work in producing this book.

[Clem · Rating 3 out of 5]

The problem when you read 500 books over the period of a decade is that you tend to forget what you’ve already read. Many times I’ve spotted a book in a used book store, happily snagged it at a reduced price, and then realized that I had already read the book several years prior on my Kindle. Yes, that’s happened.

I mention this because while reading this book, I kept thinking about a book I read some time ago and how similar the two were. Sadly, I didn’t think that this book was as good as that other one. Imagine my surprise when I dug up that old book to realize that it had been written by the very same author – Michael J. Kruger. That book “Christianity at the Crossroads” was quite good, and actually much better than this one, so I honestly felt a bit gypped. I’m not sure if I would have ever picked this one up had I been cognizant of this fact. Overall, I felt the author was writing much of the same book over again, and didn’t enjoy this effort as much as the first book by him that I read.

The thought process behind this book seems to be that just because the Bible wasn’t canonized until the 4th century by the church, this doesn’t mean we should dismiss scripture as some sort of “latter addition”. The author seems to insinuate that opponents of the Bible use the canonization date as a weapon to somehow disprove the Bible. So Kruger walks us through “5 Pillars” to disprove this. Whereas I don’t disagree with most of his points, I didn’t really think this was that well written of a book. And, as mentioned, the more interesting “pillars” were addressed in his other book that I enjoyed better.

He does pack this book with references. In fact, the end notes at the end of each chapter are actually longer than the chapters themselves. I found this a bit pointless. Maybe there are readers, however, who would actually plod through all of this. He also quotes people ad nauseum throughout the chapters. It almost seems like he’s duplicating his work. If you’re going to include such exhaustive end notes, do you really have to name every single person you’re referring to in every chapter? I did, however, admire the fact that the author admits that he doesn’t have all the answers and he might not be correct on many points. In other words, this didn’t feel like an “In Your Face! It’s My Way or the Highway!” book. I actually deeply respect that when one writes about what many consider a sensitive topic.

Even though the book was relatively short, it felt like a slog getting through a lot of it. One example: One of the chapters focuses on the conflict between “written” and “oral” recordings of history. Apparently it wasn’t very common to have “written” records of history during this early time, so this is why many skeptics discount scripture. I’ll admit that I was unaware of this factoid, but didn’t really think it was necessary for the author to devote an entire chapter to such a topic. It felt as though he was trying to pad the book. I was also less than enthralled when at times he used the Bible to justify the Bible itself. In other words: The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. He didn’t use that specific statement, but that was my impression while reading through many of his points.

The last pillar focuses on the early church history, and that was what I enjoyed the most (this was the main focus of his other book that I referenced). So I agree with his conclusions, but didn’t really feel that this book was very good reading. I must say that I LOVED “Christianity and the Crossroads” and would highly recommend that one. This one, not so much.

[Rory Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are two types of books about canon. Some focus on ‘content’ and so they will discuss the approval processes and timescales of the individual specific biblical books. Other books on canon focus on the ‘concept.’ Those books tend to explore views about inspiration and concepts of Scripture, Sacred writings and the use of the word 'canon.'

This book had a ‘concept’ focus, rather than ‘content.’ So the first chapter, for example, was an in depth overview of the use of the word ‘canon’ and how it relates to other concepts and words in use at the time (and also in our modern era).

One of the arguments running through Canon Studies is whether the development of the Canon is due to ‘intrinsic’ factors (ie factors within the community and the texts), or whether it is due to ‘extrinsic’ factors (ie heresies which forced the community to define which texts count as canon).

This book argues strongly that the development of the Canon is an intrinsic development. It looks at the language used within the (canonical) scriptures and the language used by the earliest Christians to argue that there is a clear sign that they were thinking of the New Testament texts in ways which would imply their (eventual) canonicity.

This is an interesting thesis and it is well argued with many examples. But there seemed to be a lacuna in the argument. There are indeed examples in the canonical texts which indicate why those particular texts may have became canonical, but there are also features in the texts which were excluded from the canon, so there is still a question to be asked about why those specific texts became canon. For example the non-canonical book of Enoch seems to claim divine inspiration and/or at least the providing of divinely authored words. Why wasn’t that book canonical if it shares significant features in common with other books which became canonical?

What this means is that a study of the ‘concept’ of canon cannot completely separate itself from the study of the ‘content’ of canon. A little more focus on the issues of content would therefore have been welcome in this book.

Another significant feature is that one of the criteria for canonicity in the early church was Apostolic authorship. For example there are 13 letters of Paul in the bible because (partially) they were thought to be letters written by Paul. But there is a growing awareness that several of those letters were probably not written by Paul (eg Pastoral Epistles). So what does that mean for canonicity? If the Early Church made a decision based on information which we now know to be wrong, does that mean that the decision itself was wrong? And if not, why not? These are important questions but were not pressed by the book.

The format of the book was clear and accessible, although I was slightly surprised to reach about 40% of the way through the book and then find that the book was ‘finished.’ More than half the book consists of footnotes and bibliographies.

Overall, a detailed and well presented thesis, albeit with a couple of areas which needed further developing. This is a book which will probably be enjoyed most by a graduate reader, and by someone with a rather specific interest in the concept of canonicity in the evidence provided by documents in the first couple of centuries of Early Christianity.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is not your ordinary standard book on the New Testament Canon. Instead the book focuses on some more foundational questions concerning the canon of the New Testament. The overall focus of the book critiques the external model of the Canon; while not totally dismissing it the book argues that it is problematic to hold to a reductionist external model of the canon. This book was very informative and I was blessed to understand better the canon of the New Testament and also church history related to the New Testament canon. The author Michael Kruger has written for Christians a valuable scholarship work for theology, theology of the canon and apologetics.
There are five chapters that tackle five tenets of the external model of the Canon. Chapter one is on the definition of Canon with the question being address is “Must we make a sharp distinction between the definitions of Canon and Scripture?” Chapter two is on the origins of Canon answering the question “Was there really nothing in early Christianity that may have led to a Canon?” Chapter three is on the writing of the Canon answering the question “Were early Christians averse to written documents?” Chapter four took on the authors of Canon answering the question “Were the New Testament authors unaware of their own authority?” Chapter five is on the date of the Canon which answers the question “Were the New Testament Books First Regarded as Scripture at the End of the Second Century?”
I really thought Kruger did a good job with being a New Testament specialist and also as someone who is a Reformed theologian. I know Dr. Kruger is also a Presuppositional Apologists and while this book isn’t an exposition of Presuppositional Apologetics per se nevertheless I think one sees his rigor of looking at presuppositions and refuting operating tenets in a way that presuppositionalists or any Christians for that matter would appreciate. All the chapters were great but my two favorites were the first two chapters. I like the first chapter since Kruger argued really well for more than one definition of canon; this clarify how objections to the canon sometimes is from different angles of focus so seeing different definitions of canon that are not mutually exclusive helps resolves challenges. The different possible definitions are ontological definition, functional definition and the exclusive definition. Readers who appreciate John Frame’s Triperspectivalism would see this and appreciate the different dimensions and yet it is not relativism. I also enjoyed chapter two for how it argued that there are things for why we expect there to be a New Testament. I thought this chapter be appropriated for also other use such as apologetics to nonbelieving Jews and also for general apologetics.
Overall I recommend this book. Even after I finished I know this will be a reference book for a long time to come.