Five Views on the New Testament Canon

by Benjamin P. Laird, Stanley Porter (Editor)

What historical, political, and ecclesial realities drove the canonization of the New Testament?
How are the doctrines of Early Christianity related to the formation of the New Testament?
Should the New Testament differ in authority from other early Christian texts?
As these questions demonstrate, the enduring influence of the New Testament does not lessen the dispute over the events and factors leading to its adoption. Five Views on the New Testament Canon presents five distinct ways of understanding how the New Testament came to be:
A Conservative Evangelical Perspective -- Darian R. Lockett
A Progressive Evangelical Perspective -- David R. Nienhuis
A Liberal Protestant Perspective -- Jason David BeDuhn
A Roman Catholic Perspective -- Ian Boxall
An Orthodox Perspective -- George L. Parsenios
Each contributor addresses historical, theological, and hermeneutical questions related to the New Testament canon, such as what factors precipitated the establishment and recognition of the New Testament canon; the basis of any authority the New Testament has; and what the canon means for reading and interpreting the New Testament. Contributors also include a chapter each responding to the other views presented in the volume. The result is a lively exchange suitable for both undergraduate and graduate students seeking to grasp the best canon scholarship in biblical studies.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Religion

288 pages, Paperback

Published October 18, 2022

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Statements from five different theological perspectives on the history, theology, and hermeneutic related to the formation of the New Testament canon, with responses from each to the others.

Many of us in Christian churches give little thought to how the New Testament became the New Testament–how the 27 books that comprise this part of the Bible, originally written by different people, at different times, and from and to different locations, came together as a collection, and in the order we find them in. More recently, questions have arisen anew about works like the Gospel of Thomas, basically the question of “why these books and not others?” Was it, as many assume, simply a consequence of who won the “doctrine wars” of the early centuries?

This work, while not representing every stream in scholarship around the New Testament canon, does offer a well-articulated survey of the different understandings of canon among different persuasions of Christians. The five views and their authors in this book are:

A Conservative Evangelical Perspective — Darian R. Lockett
A Progressive Evangelical Perspective — David R. Nienhuis
A Liberal Protestant Perspective — Jason David BeDuhn
A Roman Catholic Perspective — Ian Boxall
An Orthodox Perspective — George L. Parsenios

The editors asked each contributor to address three fundamental concerns: 1) the hiatorical factors leading to the formation of the canon, 2) the theological basis of the canon’s authority, and 3) the hermeneutical implications of the canon. The editors also offer an introductory essay on the state of canonical acholarship and a concluding chapter that summarizes common themes and differences among the scholars. Each scholar also responded to the contributions of the other four.

I will not try to outline each of the contributor’s presentations but rather share some of my own observations of the discussion. One thing all the contributors had in common was admitting that the history of the canon’s emergence was both complicated and there is much that is missing in how all this occurred. We learned that at some point the four gospels began to circulate together as well as the Pauline corpus, but we’ve no idea how this came about (Lockett is particularly interesting in this regard). We know that by the fourth century (or perhaps earlier depending on how much credence we give to the Muratorian fragment), the list of books that comprise our present New Testament was being attested to by church leaders by Athanasius.

I was not aware that only at the Council of Trent did the Catholic Church formally codify the canon, mostly in response to the reformed churches rejection of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and that the Orthodox Church, having broken away before Trent, never specified the canon, although the twenty-seven books did serve as its rule, with other texts treated as helpful to Christian formation.

Another matter all of the writers address is how the formation of the canon shapes interpretation of the texts of the individual books. Matthew’s placement, even though most likely not the first gospel, as first in the collection, links to the Old Testament. The placement of Acts at the head of the Pauline corpus rather than with Luke encourages us to read Paul in light of Acts.

Lockett is the only one who unequivocally articulates the conviction that the authority and inspiration of the texts was intrinsic to the texts that the church recognized, that canon is the “norming norm” rather than the “fixed list” of books that the church subsequently treated as its “normative norm.” Others give more sway to the role of the church in defining canon, and BeDuhn allows that although twenty-seven books were delimited, this should not limit the sources of contemporary Christian nor be normative. George Parsenios, the Orthodox contributor, rightly, I believe, notes this arises from a strong conviction that there was no theological center to the early church, nor ought there to be at present.

I personally most appreciated the clarity of the essays by Lockett and Boxall, even though they articulated different positions. At the same time, especially in the responses to one another, both gracious engagement and clear distinctions came through, and it seemed that several understood their own positions with greater precision through engagement with others. I thought Parsenios clearer in response than in setting forth his own position. Nienhuis seemed to me to be trying to navigate between an evangelical and a more historically nuanced discussion of the church’s role in canon that seemed very much in progress. I not only found BeDuhn’s centerless Christianity unappealing but thought he gave short shrift to the awareness of the writers of scripture that they were writing something authoritative for the church.

This is quite a useful survey of the current state of play in scholarly discussion of the canon. It gives anyone interested a good pictures of the shared challenges all scholars in this field face, as well as the divergent views and the reasons for them. The spirit is irenic rather than polemical without muting disagreements, one that models substantive argument while maintaining respect for one another. The editors, contributors, and the publisher are to be commended for the publication of such an even-handed treatment of this important subject.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

[Peter Butler · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have enjoyed reading books that show a variety of views on a subject. In so doing, one can get a good understanding of what other views are on the subject – where they agree and where they disagree. Five Views on the New Testament Canon edited by Stanley F. Porter and Benjamin P. Laird is a book of this type.

Five different authors present their argument for their understanding of the New Testament Canon. This includes: 1. The conservative evangelical view – which argues the documents were written early, God-breathed, and self-confirming. 2. The progressive evangelical view – which argues that the canon is “wild and messy” and what matters is the Sprit’s use of the text. 3. The liberal protestant view – which argues from the historical critical perspective – which argues that the texts are contradictory, but what is important is what the text says to the reader today. 4. The Roman Catholic view – which argues that the Church closed the Canon at the Council of Trent, and the Church interprets the Canon. 5. The Orthodox view – which argues there is no codified Canon, and the texts are interpreted through the Church and tradition.
After this, each author is given the opportunity to respond to the other four authors. This is followed by a name and a Scripture index.

This type of book is enlightening and instructive. But I have come to have a problem with them:
The views are presented as being equally valid; there is no final stand for what is actually true. And you may argue that such a conclusion is not made because this is merely a book explaining different views and showing the pros and cons of them. If that is true, then what is this type of book for? If there is no conclusion as to which is the correct view, how can one know the truth? If you say that the reader can make up his or her mind, how can there be any certainty that the reader is able to biblically do so?

It is good to understand the views that are being held, but if the views contradict each other – they do here – and there is no one to conclude what is the true view – even with the variety of biblical positions – I am concerned that someone will embrace an unbiblical view.

I received this book for free in exchange for an honest review.

[This review appears on my blog, Amazon.com, Kregel.com, and Goodreads.com.]

[Drew D · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been doing some independent theology research and had this book pop up as a relevant read. I got through most of it and I found the five perspectives, as well as the people behind them, interesting. It's great getting a scholarly history of the bible, especially from multiple perspectives, to understand the source of what the debate is between denominations. I found the liberal evangelical and general protestant view to be the most interesting views out of the five, not because i completely agree with them, but because those segments of the book had the most information in them. The conservative views of the new testament basically boil down to "these books are the New Testament because God made them for the New Testament canon." Like, I don't disagree I understand that argument, but I don't need to read a 30 page argument that can be boiled down in a sentence. The biggest flaw with this book is the introduction and conclusion are wayyyyy too wordy. I understand the premise of the book by title alone, keep it brief and get to the point. I'd definitely recommend this if you're interested in studying the history of the Bible, as well as the Bible itself.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a good source for five distinct views on the NT canon: conservative and progressive evangelical, liberal Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Somewhat surprisingly, the Orthodox view most favored the progressive evangelical; less surprisingly, the liberal Protestant view was at odds with the other four. As with most 'views' books, each author responded to the other four views, though the structure was a bit different than some of the this genre that I've read. The editors have two chapters that helpfully summarize and synthesize the content of the book and discuss patristic citations. This is worth reading to orient the reader of this important issue.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Illuminating descriptions and arguments from five different Christian traditions. The essays and responses focus on the major issues at hand and describe the evidence marshaled for each. These are meaty, educational debates among scholars.

[Aaron J. Gregas · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5