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

Dr. Kruger lays out the arguments for and against the Biblical Canon in this wonderful book. Most people reading this review will know that the word "canon" refers to the books chosen for inclusion in the New Testament, so I won't take much more time than that in explanation.The prevailing theory is that the books of the New Testament were essentially selected by one church father, Irenaus of Lyons, as a response to the Marcionite heresy of the early Church (a heresy which claimed among other things that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil deity, in keeping with common Gnostic thoughts from the time...and which viewed as inspired only several of Paul's letters, along with an edited version of the Gospel of Luke). This theory suggests that Irenaus selected the books of our New Testament to combat this heresy, and that later Church councils ratified and edited this list into its final form. Dr. Kruger refers to this as the extrinsic method of arriving at a canon. In other words, external forces created our New Testament canon through votes and to combat a specific heretical teaching faced by early Christianity.On the other side of this debate, Dr. Kruger sets forth a robust defense of what he calls "the intrinsic method": that the New Testament canon arose naturally as a result of recognition by the early Church of the importance and divine inspiration of the writings of the Apostles.Far from a "because God spoke them into being" take on the texts, Dr. Kruger takes a well-reasoned, logical, and comprehensive approach to laying out his reasons for accepting the New Testament canon as intrinsic rather than extrinsic. He acknowledges the majority view, and challenges it point by point, with respect, solid research, and clear arguments.This book is fairly technical, and is heavily footnoted (for most of the book, half of the page consists of footnotes, and references for quotations), but it didn't present too much trouble to read. Some of the subject matter is particularly obscure for laypeople, but if I'm honest...I think it is worth familiarizing yourself with, even if it's uncharted territory for you. The early Church, its struggles and conflicts are very important in understanding where Christianity comes from, what it has faced, and how it faced it.I would recommend the book to anyone with serious questions about where we "got the Bible" or why we feel like the New Testament is a relevant collection of texts from a historical point of view. But, the reader needs to come with the same seriousness in willingness to learn (and research, and evaluate) as they do their questions.

I've always enjoyed reading anything by Kruger. This is my first book I've read of his but his articles on his blog and elsewhere have been fantastic. In this book, he carries on his style and subject even more so. It should be noted that his other book "Canon Revisted" deals with the questions of what is the canon and why the books of the Bible are the ones. In this book, the question he focuses on is the canon authoritative? The focus even more is really "Did the early church have a canon of Scripture? Did the writes think they were writing with authority? Did the early church even recognize written Scripture?" and other such questions in this vein.The amazing thing in Kruger's writing is how often and fairly he gives time to the other side of the issue. He always presents the other side first and looks at both strengths and weaknesses of the claims. He then deals with the claims and when confronted with difficult points on his side he will always point them out. I would think some might even claim he wasn't being forceful enough. However, he recognizes the flaws in his own field of history and it's pretty refreshing to have a historian give probability for difficult or "fuzzy" information rather than just present it, unethically, as fact to promote an agenda.This book was such a great read and I learned a lot from it. I can't wait to read the other side of the coin in "Canon Revisted". Although Kruger is a highly recognized academic in the field, he writes with clarity and presents the information so that anyone could understand what is being said. He builds his argumentation really well and doesn't make leaps to draw his conclusions. If I had to pick the one part I learned the most, almost unfairly, I would say the presentation on why the early church who were a majority illiterate would accept and trust written Scripture. But like I said, there's a ton that I did learn and I would highly recommend this book for those that struggle with the question of the formation of the canon of The Bible and/or those dealing with challenges from badly informed critics. Final Grade - A+

The book arrives in good condition

I totally enjoyed digesting this overview of N.T. Canon development. Kruger rightly concludes that; “The idea of canon was built into the DNA of the Christian religion and thus emerged quite naturally. In this sense the canon was like a seedling sprouting from the soil of early Christianity – although it was not full a tree until the fourth century, it was there, in nuce, from the beginning.”The author systematically presents the story of the canon as a process as opposed to restricting it’s development to one specific moment in time. The canon is a multidimensional phenomenon that was written with divine authority, which was recognized and used as Scripture by first and second century Christians which reaches a consensus around these books in the fourth century. N. T. books were divine from their beginning; “Books do not become canonical – they are canonical because they are the books God has given as a permanent guide for his church.”The N. T. itself along with the early church fathers espoused apostolic authority; “New Testament authors, generally speaking, demonstrated awareness that their writings passed down authentic apostolic tradition and therefore bore supreme authority in the life of the church.”“Thus he (Irenaeus) sees the concept of a Christian corpus of Scriptures as something that dates back to the apostolic era, something the church has possessed long before his own time (and Marcion’s). Given that Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who know the apostle John personally, his testimony about the origins of the Scriptures cannot be dismissed lightly.”

I will only be echoing what other people have said, so I shall simply mention the amount of information and ease of read made it a very enjoyable book.We seem to be in a period of the Banal. Worship songs have become insipid, preaching has become too much like a Saturday night out and people's Christian reading material contains stick-people drawings to simplify the simple. There ... I feel better after that :- )I cannot understand people who are content with tiny nibbles of the same thing wrapped up in different covers when there books like this out there which are a feast the first, second or third time of reading! I love discovery. I enjoy intelligent authors who can take me on a journey and adventure into the study of the Word.So do I recommend this books, yes, wholeheartedly! And we should encourage as many Christians to become acquainted with works such as these and be better equipped to have answers to tough questions.And no, I am not a scholar or theologian by a long stroke ... I simply enjoy discovering new facts and increasing the wealth of knowledge ... not for knowledge sake ... but to get a slightly clearer picture of the One who knows me the most.

Well written and warrants scholarly consideration that there is a logical progression to the canonization of the Bible that defies some commonly held beliefs of canon. The provides a defense to many skeptical positions and once again demonstrates that the Bible is out living it's pallbearers.

Very scholarly and very readable, especially if you have moderate knowledge of the original Greek of the New Testament. I recommend it to all who wish to study this topic.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Kruger sets out to challenge five widely accepted tenets of NT studies relating to the NT canon (1. Scripture must be distinguished from canon; 2. There was no expectation of a New Testament canon; 3. Early Christians were averse to written documents; 4. NT writers were unaware of their authority; 5. NT books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century). In response to these five tenets, Kruger shows that how we define canon depends on how we define Scripture; there was an expectation of new scripture based on redemption, covenant and apostolic authority; the Christian faith was built on Scripture (OT), put great importance on documents, and wanted the apostolic / eyewitness testimony preserved; the writers knew and asserted (if not explicitly then implicitly) that they were writing Scripture / had divine authority; their writings were held as Scripture from the beginning.The whole book was excellent, but I maybe particularly enjoyed his chapter on how the NT writers showed the awareness of their authority and that they were deliberately continuing and completing what began in the OT. Really helpful book.

Michael J. Kruger's book seeks to take on the currently fashionable "extrinsic model" of the formation of the canon, addressing five specific claims, namely:- The sharp distinction between "Scripture" and canon- That there was nothing about early Christianity which would have led to a canon- Early Christianity was averse to written documents- The New Testament authors were unaware of their own authority- The New Testament books were not regarded as Scriptural until the end of the 2nd centuryKruger skilfully counters the details of these claims, demonstrating that many are at worst just plain wrong and at best the opposite can be argued equally forcefully. The author fully admits that this does not constitute proof of an early, intentional canon (nor does he touch on the question of the precise composition of the canon) but nevertheless this is a very good demolition of the arguments presented by proponents of such "extrinsic models".