A common skeptic may assume the New Testament canon to be written by a collaboration of multiple authors, with the sinister intention to create an organized religion.
A well-read skeptic may follow the popular critical scholarship, which perceives the New Testament to be a political solution for the early Christian church.
As for myself, I have been pondering the origin and integrity of the New Testament, because sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”) is a central tenet of Reformed Christianity. As theological doctrines should be grounded in the Bible, I realize the need to understand the Bible itself.
In The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, Michael Kruger offers an alternative view to the development of the New Testament canon. He argues that the New Testament canon is the product of an organic process (intrinsic model)—less of an artificial imposition to defend against Gnosticism and other heresies, or to serve the political purposes of Constantine (extrinsic model). Kruger does not aim to displace the extrinsic model, but he presents a convincing case that the extrinsic model is not sufficient by itself.
Michael Kruger is the President and Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the Charlotte campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. He is a leading scholar on the origins and development of the New Testament canon, and the transmission of the New Testament text.
Kruger’s book argues for the intrinsic model by responding to five common assertions of popular critical scholarship:
- Chapter 1 addresses the claim that there is a distinction between ‘Scripture’ and ‘canon’. In response, Kruger argues that the distinction impedes our view of the process of organic development of the New Testament canon, by being “artificially restricted to one moment in time” (p. 43). Instead, Kruger offers three definitions of a canon: exclusive, functional and ontological. The exclusive definition “reminds us that a general consensus on the boundaries of the canon was not achieved until the fourth century” (p. 46). The functional definition “reminds us that New Testament books served as an authoritative norm at quite an early time” (ibid) and “were recognized and used as Scripture by early Christians” (p. 43). The ontological definition reminds us that “the books are written with divine authority” (ibid)—that the books existed before our knowledge or formal declaration of canonicity. In his blog, Kruger uses the 2020 Presidential Election as an analogy.
- Chapter 2 addresses the claim that there was nothing in early Christianity that might have led to a canon. In response, Kruger argues that “the earliest Christians held a number of theological beliefs that would have naturally led to the development of a new canon of Scripture” (p. 48). Kruger’s argument was three-fold: (1) early Christians viewed the “Old Testament story” to be incomplete and anticipated a “final installment” (p. 57); (2) early Christians believed that Christ had inaugurated a new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31), which would require a new written document; and (3) early Christians believed that “the apostles were Christ’s authorized agents to deliver and transmit the new message of redemption … [their] teaching would have been viewed as authoritative right from the beginning and would not have needed to wait for later ecclesiastical developments” (p. 77).
- Chapter 3 addresses the claim that early Christians were averse to written documents—because they “were poor, rural and illiterate, with neither the ability to read nor to write” (p. 83). Many scholars argue that the earliest Christians relied on the use of oral tradition. In response, Kruger asserts that orality and textuality are not mutually exclusive. Kruger points to early Christian writings and the use of the Old Testament to demonstrate the culture of “textuality”.
- Chapter 4 addresses the claim that the New Testament authors were not aware of their own authority—that they only acquired authoritative status after the church began to value their writings. In response, Kruger provides examples from the text within the Pauline epistles (Galatians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 14:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14), the Gospels (Mark 1:1; John 21:24; Luke 1:1-4; Matthew 1), and other New Testament writings (Hebrews 2:1-4; 2 Peter 3:2; 1 John 1:1-4; Revelation 1:1-3)—to demonstrate the authors’ indication of their apostolic authority.
- Chapter 5 addresses the claim that the New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture in the late second century, largely due to the influence of Irenaeus. In response, Kruger argues that the origin of the New Testament “should not be conceived as a ‘big bang’ type of event … but as something that grew gradually over time … in the history of the church” (p. 158). Kruger challenges the perception of Irenaeus as the “canonical innovator” by pointing to his contemporaries: the Muratorian Fragment (the earliest known canonical list); Theophilus (whose book argued that Christian literature had the same authority as the Old Testament); and Clement (who frequently cited the canonical books). Kruger then points to predecessors to Irenaeus: Justin Martyr (who likely taught Tatian about the Gospels); the two-source and Griesbach hypotheses (the textual similarities between the Gospels); Papias (who heard the preaching of apostle John, and knew the daughters of Philip the Evangelist); the Epistle of Barnabas (which cites the Gospel of Matthew); Ignatius (who knew Paul’s letters), Polycarp (who personally knew apostle John and taught Irenaeus); and 1 Clement (which cites 1 Corinthians, Romans and Hebrews). Within the New Testament text, Kruger points to 2 Peter 3:15 (Peter’s commendation of Paul and his reference to Paul’s letters) and 1 Timothy 5:18 (second citation is identical to Luke 10:7) for additional evidence.
I thoroughly enjoyed Kruger’s book. I am persuaded by his argument for the organic nature of the canonical process. Kruger helps to draw our attention to the bigger picture—less of merely when and how, but more of why, the New Testament canon was developed.
