THE QUESTION OF CANON
By Michael J. Kruger
IVP/Apollos. 256 pages. £14.99
ISBN 978 1 783 590 049
The general academic consensus concerning the canon of the New Testament is that it was a later ecclesiastical production which took place in the second, third or even fourth century and was a move which was decidedly out of step with the original freewheeling spirit of early Christianity which depended on oral tradition and had an antipathy to written documents.
The idea is that our NT canon is a fabrication of the church imposed upon the available literature in circulation. It is therefore labelled the ‘extrinsic’ model of canon. This outlook totally subverts the conservative evangelical position with our emphasis on Scripture as the authoritative word of God. In this book, the author takes on the academic consensus. He does so by identifying five assumptions which underlie the contemporary liberal approach to the New Testament and exposing them to critical examination.
Canon and Scripture
The first assumption is that a sharp distinction must be made between canon and Scripture. To make this assumption is basically to assume the truth of the extrinsic model. But Kruger argues that those who adopt the extrinsic model are confusing the church’s recognition of these authoritative books with what makes the books authoritative. What makes them authoritative is that they are the Word of God. It may have involved a long-drawn-out process to recognise all such books and set the boundaries, but it is not the recognition by church councils which gives the books their authority. History shows that the great majority of the New Testament was recognised generally by Christians as fully authoritative by the second century.
Aversion to writing
The second tenet of the current academic consensus is that there is nothing in early Christianity that might have led to a canon. It is said that the idea of a new corpus of books could not have been further from the minds of the original Christians. But, on examination of the situation, this does not ring true at all. It is clear that the Old Testament leaves Israel in spiritual exile and looking for the Messiah. The earliest Christians were people who were looking for the completion of the Old Testament story and therefore to the completion of Scripture itself. They believed that in Jesus Christ this completion had come and therefore, for example, Matthew’s genealogy takes up where the genealogies of Chronicles left off. Deuteronomy 18.18 specifically indicates that the new age would be accompanied by Scripture. The New Testament writers are unabashed to use the Old Testament phrase ‘the word of God’ concerning their own writings, 1 Corinthians 14.36, 37; 2 Corinthians 4.2 etc.
Aversion to written documents
The third idea behind the extrinsic model of the canon is that the early Christians were averse to written documents. The reason for this, it is suggested, was because literacy levels were low among Christians who were often from the slave class. But while Christians may have been largely illiterate and that Christian teaching was often passed on by oral tradition, neither of these things necessitates Christians being against the written word. On the contrary it seems rather to have heightened their appreciation of authoritative written texts. Christians not only wrote from very early on, but developed a sophisticated book technology as evidenced by scribal handwriting and the adoption of the codex rather than the scroll.
Fourthly, the author challenges the assumption that the New Testament writers were unaware of their own authority. Contemporary academics find it difficult to believe that the New Testament writers conceived of themselves as producing authoritative texts. However, looking into the New Testament, this really does not seem to have been the case. Apostolic authority paralleled that of the Old Testament prophets and in inscribing apostolic teachings the New Testament writers were aware of the authority this conferred on their writings. Indeed, the scholar Armin Baum has argued that the historical books of the New Testament (Gospels and Acts) were intentionally written as anonymous works in order to reflect the style of the OT historical books which were themselves anonymous.
Not regarded as Scripture?
The fifth and final assumption is that the NT books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century and that it was Irenaeus who first imposed a canon. But the historical evidence suggests a very different picture. Leaders like Justin Martyr, Papias, Ignatius and Polycarp indicate that they regard certain New Testament books as Scripture. Further, even within the NT itself books like 2 Peter and 1 Timothy state that they regard a number of Christian writings as Scripture.
Helpful and scholarly
The book is a fascinating read which deals with a most important subject in a most helpful and scholarly way. It argues that the phenomenon of canon was one which arose both early and naturally within the initial stages of Christianity. In contrast to the extrinsic model it forcibly champions what might be termed an intrinsic model of canon. Kruger concludes his book by saying: ‘The canon was like a seedling sprouting from the soil of early Christianity – although not fully a tree until the fourth century, it was there, in nuce, from the beginning’.
