Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books

Michael J. Kruger (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte, NC) (Back Cover). In his book, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, he lays out a rubric that adequately addresses the problem of the canon. As he states in the introduction, “The problem of the canon…refers to the fundamental question of how we, as Christians, can know that we have the right twenty-seven books in our New Testament” (15). In our day of post-modernity, the importance of addressing this problem cannot be over emphasized and Dr. Kruger carefully establishes a foundation that we can use to test whether or not a book should or should not be part of the canon. He states a few times that the point of his book is not to “prove the authenticity of the canon to the skeptic” (114). Rather, it is his “goal…to ask whether the Christian has sufficient grounds for knowing which books God has given” (114). As will be explained, the answer to that question is yes. However, before we delve into the arguments of the book proper, let me briefly discuss its aesthetics. While I am sure most book reviews do not bother with such trite concerns, I believe, in this instance, it is quite appropriate, because it adds to the joy of reading the book and therefore, its understanding. First, the layout of the book is quite refreshing. The font size and spacing allow for easy reading and the structure of the book has a logical flow to it. In fact, the book has an almost conversational tone, which makes it easy to forget that one is reading some pretty heavy philosophical and theological ideas. Now, this does not at all mean the book is not scholarly, because there are footnotes on almost every page and a very extensive bibliography, so it has been well researched and shows that Dr. Kruger has the ability to take the complex and make it simpler to understand. Now, let’s address the contents of the book itself. On the Contents page, we see that there are two main parts of the book: Determining the Canonical Model and Exploring and Defending the Canonical Model. In the first part of the book, Dr. Kruger discusses the various models others have used to determine which books are canonical and which books are not, and then he critiques them. In addition, in this first section, he establishes the basic premise of his model, the Self-Authenticating model. In the second part of the book, Dr. Kruger, as his title proclaims, further explores the implications of his model, as well as, defending it. In his critique of the other models, he divides them into two basic categories: community determined and historically determined. As their names suggest, in each of these models, it will be either the community, (i.e. the church) or the historical “facts” (i.e. the dates of the books and their authorship) that will determine which books should or should not be part of the canon, thus revealing their fundament flaw and Dr. Kruger’s biggest critique of these models: “[t]hey all ground the authority of the canon in something outside the canon itself” (88). Although Dr. Kruger explains again and again why relying on outside sources is a problem, there is probably no clearer reference than in these statements:“The canon, as God’s Word, is not just true, but the criterion of truth. It is an ultimate authority. So, how do we offer an account of how we know that an ultimate authority is, in fact, the ultimate authority? If we try to validate an ultimate authority by appealing to some other authority, then we have just shown that it is not really the ultimate authority. Thus, for ultimate authorities to be ultimate authorities, they have to be the standard for their own authentication. You cannot account for them without using them” (91). Therefore, if we use the community model as an example, we would see that it is the community that makes the ruling or sets the standard and since, in this model, it is the church that determines what books are canonical, then it is the church that is the authority. Therefore, the church does not submit to the canon, but the canon submits to the church. In this model, the canon is not the standard the church is and therefore authority of Scripture is undermined. After Dr. Kruger critiques these other models, he is now ready to explain his model, which is called, as stated, the Self-Authenticating model. This model recognizes the importance of the community, the importance of history, and the importance of divine qualities. While some may argue that the Self-Authenticating model is circular reasoning, Dr. Kruger does not see that as a problem. He just matter-of-factly states that is “simply part of how foundational authorities are authenticated” (92), and then, he provides an illustration using sense perception. However, Dr. Kruger does explain that in his model there are three basic components that “must all be in place if we are to have knowledge of the canon” (94): 1) Providential exposure (i.e. the book was available to the church), 2) Attributes of canonicity, which are divine qualities, corporate reception (i.e. the church, at large, accepted the book or used it), and apostolic origins (i.e. it was written during the time frame of the apostolic era), thus, establishing the foundation, and 3) Internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which Dr. Kruger proclaims that it is the “noetic effects of sin, the effects of sin on the mind (Rom. 3:10-18)” (99), that prevent people from knowing what is God’s word and it is only through the help of the Holy Spirit that we can overcome it. Therefore, if a person is not a believer, he will not be able to properly understand what God’s Word is, let alone its contents. Having provided a brief synopsis of the main points of the book let me provide my only real critique. As stated previously, this book is actually a fast read. The layout of the book, with the font size, line spacing, and conversational tone, makes this book a joy to read, which is a good quality in any book, so, it may be asked, why is that a problem? It is a problem, because it seems like Dr. Kruger would rather have a nice easy flowing book, rather than one that addresses concerns, which he brings up, concerns that may detract from the overall flow of the book. Let me illustrate. On my first reading, I noticed on several occasions that Dr. Kruger made statements like “Limitations of space allow for only a brief evaluation” (34) and while those kind of statements are typical in most books, upon my second reading, I began getting a sense that Dr. Kruger was either hiding something or that he was not fully addressing issues that he raised, because, from pages thirty-four to 212, I found, while just scanning, sixteen different times that such statements were made and at page two hundred, I began looking in the footnotes and found similar statements there as well. However, I did not go back and try to recalculate. I had already seen more than I wanted. The book’s title is Canon Revisited, so I began asking myself, does he plan on writing another book to deal with these issues? How many trips back to the canon does he plan on making? If we subtract the Bibliography and the footnotes, we have a rough estimate of actual reading pages at just over two hundred pages surely Dr. Kruger could have expanded the number of pages to accommodate addressing, at least some of these issues. In addition, making such statement raises questions and weakens the overall presentation of the material. Dr. Kruger could have avoided the issue all together, if he would not have made such statements. In other words, he does not have to announce that he is not going to deal with an issue in great detail. He should just deal with it as he sees fit and be done. While it is agreed that to address everything Dr. Kruger brought up would require several volumes, it weakens his overall presentation, if he keeps reminding his audience that he is not going to adequately deal with a point of contention. Now in saying that, I do believe that Dr. Kruger succeeded in his goal of answering the question of whether or not Christians have “sufficient grounds for knowing which books God has given” (114). In addition, if anyone cares to further study this subject, Dr. Kruger provides an excellent Bibliography. This book was a joy to read. There is much that may be gleaned from it and I highly recommend it.James E. Wadkins

Book HighlightsQuite simply put, this is an amazing book. I felt that after reading this book that I have a much stronger confidence in defending the idea of the formation of the canon of scripture. The author said himself in the introduction that: "The problem of the canon (at least as we are using the phrase here) refers to the fundamental question of how we, as Christians, can know that we have the right twenty-seven books in our New Testament".Kruger says of this important book that he is addressing the de jure question and not the de facto question (see Alvin Plantinga's "Warranted Christian Belief"). He says of the de jure question: "The de jure objection argues not so much that Christian belief in the canon is false, but that Christians have no rational basis for thinking they could ever know such a thing in the first place....it would be irrational for Christians to claim that they know these twenty-seven are the right ones. By contrast, a de facto objection to the idea of the canon is that there are factual problems with the Bible, and therefore the Bible should be rejected. Kruger takes an interesting approach in his apologetic for the canon. While others defend the factual basis of scripture, Kruger tackles the more difficult epistemological issue; namely: whether or not it is rational to believe in the canon in the first place.Kruger takes a two pronged approach in his defense.In part one, "determining the canonical model", he examines different qualities of the canon. First, the canon was received by the community (corporate reception). The church was able to identify (with the help of the Holy Spirit) what was canonical and what was not. Second, the canon was historically determined. It was written by apostles or close associates of apostles (apostolic origins). The testimony of the apostles and the early church leaders solidified the place of the various canonical books. Third, the canon possessed divine qualities. Jesus had promised that the Spirit of Truth would lead the church into all truth and that he would bring to their remembrance the things that Jesus had said. Canonical books contained within themselves qualities that made them gain acceptance by the early church as being canonical. Therefore, Kruger argues, the canon is self-authenticating. It is supported by the three pillars of corporate reception, apostolic origin and divine qualities. This approach by Kruger is important because his defense does not place all the eggs in one basket.In part two of the book, he treats the subject of how the canon was determined or identified by the early church. How did they decide whether or not a particular book was scripture or not? Kruger makes the important point that the core of the canon was formed early, while the periphery was solidified by the late third and early fourth centuries. There are some critics who argue that the canon was not settled and therefore could not really be called a canon. The critics cast doubt on the validity of the idea of a canon. They want to make it seem that the books were arbitrarily chosen by the faction of the church that had the most political power. Kruger deftly refutes this idea by showing that the gospels and Paul's letters for example were accepted by the early church as authoritative very early on.EvaluationI thought Kruger did a good job in answering the de jure objection to the idea of canon. Part one lays a strong foundation for part two. The qualities of the canon must be determined before the reception and definition of what the canon is, is answered. Kruger makes a strong case that is not easily dismissed by critics. It is a strong apologetic for the canon, and will be a welcome addition to the tools of the apologist's trade.ConclusionWhile this is an apologetics book, it really should be read by all Christians; by anyone who wants to understand more about the formation of the Bible. If you have ever been troubled by questions of why the Bible is the authority for the church, then you should read this book. It is well-argued, easy to follow, and gives excellent arguments for the defense of the canon. It really helps to fill the gap in our defense of the faith and our defense of the scripture where God has spoken.

I've been increasingly interested in the text of the New Testament and the manuscript tradition over the last few years. I heard Dr. Kruger and his work referenced on a number of occasions and decided to buy a copy of Canon Revisited. Like many, I assumed that canon, textual variants, and Scripture all sort of blend together. But one of the first things the book does is to distinguish canon as its own separate category, not to be conflated with text or Scripture (even though they are closely related).Another thing that'll strike you as you begin to read is the volume of references. Dr. Kruger takes great care to accurately represent all the differing perspectives. When a particular definition of canon is put forth or a canonical model is laid out, it feels like you can actually hear the voice of the scholar espousing it. With the large amount of direct quotes given, it doesn't feel like Dr. Kruger is giving you his version of these other perspectives. He allows them to make their own case, and he then interacts with each.Sometimes without giving the question any serious thought, we've all embraced a particular canonical model (perhaps even subconsciously). This book does a brilliant job of presenting a nearly exhaustive array of perspectives for how the New Testament canon was established. After setting the scene, Dr. Kruger presents his own model and explores it in great detail.I have to say, the presentation of his canonical model is incredibly thorough and satisfying. It covers just about every angle one would need to consider when defending any given explanation for how the New Testament came about.Highly recommend!

This book covers the topic of canon thoroughly and is rich with historical information and a Biblical worldview.Could not recommend to every Christian more!

With rigor, patience and clarity Kruger helps us understand a topic that often seems hopelessly blurry and intellectually insatiable. I have gained greatly by reading this book and I hope to share this with my theology students and inquisitive friends.

I grew up in the Christian faith. I’ve never really doubted that God exists and that he has spoken to us in the Bible. As a child, I simply accepted my Bible as it was without much thought to how it got to be what it was. But when I reached the questioning teens, I began to think about how we can know that our Bible is what it should be. How do we know that all the right books are included and none of the wrong ones? Yes, Jesus affirms the Old Testament that the Jews used—and you can’t argue with Jesus!—but what about the New Testament? Who affirms it?The answers I was given didn’t entirely satisfy me. Not that I distrusted my New Testament. I’d already begun to see the Bible as a unified whole and it would have taken a lot to convince me that the books it contained were not quite right. But I still had a niggling feeling that although I believed the New Testament canon was correct, the reasons I had for believing were inadequate.It’s exactly this question that Michael Kruger’s Canon Revisited seeks to answer: Do Christians have sufficient grounds for affirming the New Testament canon?Kruger examines the various approaches that have been used to determine the New Testament canon. The commonly used methods fall into two general categories. The community determined canonical models sees canonicity as something imposed on books by people, either as a group or individually. In the Roman Catholic model, for instance, the authority of the church is necessary for us to know the New Testament canon, and according to some Catholic theologians, the church is necessary for the very formation of the canon. In the Catholic model, as with all community-determined models, the canon is valid because people—in this case, the church—received it. A response from the community is necessary for a canon to exist.Historically determined canonical models see the canon as something that is determined by the historical merits of the books—or, in some cases, even just parts of books. The canon is established by historical investigation: Is the book apostolic? Does it contain “authentic Jesus tradition”? As you might imagine, the results of the various canonical models in this category vary widely. Some affirm all 27 New Testament books and some affirm very few.Both the community determined models and the historically determined models have strengths, but they share one big problem: “they authenticate the canon on the basis of something external to it.” What’s wrong with this? Kruger argues that “to insist that the canon must measure up to some independent standard that we have erected is to inevitably produce a canon of our own making.”In the bulk of Canon Revisted, Kruger explains and defends a better model for determining the canon of the New Testament—the self-authenticating model. It’s a little bit like a presuppositional apologetic for the canon.[I]f the canon bears the very authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself? Even when God swore oaths, “he swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13).This method of authenticating the canon is simply “applying Scripture to the question of which books belong to the canon.” It is God who forms the New Testament canon by inspiring books of scripture, and we use principles from the canon of scripture to authenticate it.Does this sound a little circular? It might be, but only in the way that authenticating any foundational authority must be circular. And for the Christian, what God says—or Scripture—is a fundamental source of knowledge. We cannot, to quote C. S. Lewis, put “God in the dock”; we cannot stand in judgment over him. We presuppose that God’s testimony is reliable, so we use what he says to guide us in our authentication of the canon.So while the self-authenticating model for determining the canon uses extra-biblical data, it does so only under the authority and guidance of Scripture. And “[i]n the end, the self-authenticating model of canon actually serves to unite the various canonical models by acknowledging that no one attribute is ultimate.” Three intertwined attributes, attributes that scripture leads us to expect of canonical books, confirm the New Testament canon. A canonical book must have divine qualities, apostolic origins, and have been received corporately.I wish someone had answered my youthful canon questions using this model. The arguments would have given me enough justification for my belief in the canon to satisfy me. Even now, my confidence in the canon grew as I read through this book.Canon Revisited is written at a college level, so it’s not a quick read (At least it wasn’t for me.), but there’s no prerequisite knowledge required. Everything is explained clearly enough for a novice, either in the text or the footnotes. (Yes, footnotes! And footnotes that are often as engaging as the text.) Still, I wouldn’t recommend it for a teenager, and only for a motivated college student.But if you need answers for canon questions—your own or those of others—this book is where you should start. Christians can have assurance that the books we have in our New Testament are all the right ones, because, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27, ESV).

Read this for a term paper on canon. Hugely important book in canon studies. Cannot recommend it highly enough. Really appreciate the scholarship and heart of the author.

I am an Evangelical Christian who had great hope for this book and others by Dr. Kruger. The author is often touted as an influential scholar for an Evangelical understanding of NT canon formation. This is not surprising since he veers little form the typical Evangelical (mis)understanding of the process. Unfortunately, the Evangelical understanding tends to begin from the premise that the Bible is all a Christian requires for faith and life, and then proceeds to read this into the history--as if research into canon formation requires one to locate it as early as possible. In Kruger's case, he does this by locating canon "in the mind of God", what he calls an "ontological canon", that juxtaposes history and the church to theology. Thus, we have the canon that God wanted. This is circular and unable to be substantiated.Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the book is the way he "interacts" with position he disagrees. His tendency is to inadequately explain these positions. For example, in dealing with Sundberg's seminal distinction between "scripture" and "canon", Kruger fails to give any real detail about how Sundberg came to the distinction. He simply rejects the distinction for reasons that fail to interact with Sundberg and the actual historical context. This tendency is quite apparent in all Kruger's works on canon. It is disappointing that someone who is accepted in Evangelicalism as a scholar of the first-order is open to such criticism.If you wanted to find the state of NT canon studies in Evangelicalism, this book would be a good place to start. But if you want to find a more historically and theologically sensitive book that is not afraid of the real issues, then I suggest you start with the old standard by Harry Y. Gamble.