the questions of canon by michael j. kruger

7/29/2019 The Questions of Canon by Michael J. Kruger

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-questions-of-canon-by-michael-j-kruger 1/36

C h a l l e n g i n g t h e S t a t u s Q u o

i n t h e N e w Te s t a m e n t D e b a t e

M C J . K r r

T

QSTN

f

CNN



http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=840311&product_redirect=1&Ntt=840311&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the%20question%20of%20canon&sprefix=the+question+of+can%2Cstripbooks&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Athe%20question%20of%20canon&ajr=2

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=4031



Cl l S Q

Nw m Db

The

QuesTionof

Canon

Michael J. Kruger

Copyrighted Material. www.ivpress.com/permissions



Contents

Pc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Abbv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Idc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. he Deinition o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

M W Mk Sp Dc Bw

D Canon d Scripture?

. he Origins o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

W Rlly N Ely Cy

My Hv Ld C?

. he Writing o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

W Ely C Av W Dcm?

. he Authors o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

W Nw m A Uw

Ow Ay?

. he Date o Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W Nw m Bk F Rdd

Scp Ed Scd Cy?

Ccl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bblpy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Sbjc Idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scp Idx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .




Introduction

No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history

o the Church than the ormation o the apostolic collection

and the assigning to it o a position o equal

rank with the Old estament.

Ao on Harna

History o Dogma, vol. 2

The story of the New Testament canon b cdm.

Dp c c Nw m c w,

m p, dcdd by cy, vb d v dc-

b cy bk pd wll wy- cy—ly v dd y l. T q

c mply wll wy. Wl cl Nw m c

C cc b lly cd d m

m, cl d lyppl lk v m dc b

c C w d w l y m v plyd w

cc. Ad c w c

While there has been a wide consensus on these books, there are still modern-day exceptions:e.g., the Syrian Orthodox church still uses a lectionary that presupposes the twenty-two-book canon o the Peshitta.

More recent studies on canon include: Gerd Teissen, Te New estament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 212); Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and




16 he Question o Canon

d d. Pvly kw pl w c b

dcvd, p d d Nw m bk c

b clld, d dvy ly C “Scp” c b ld. Ad y clly pp ll

ccl, c w dcvy dc clly m -

c . T, K Ald w w czd vbl

cly c : “T q C wll mk wy

c lcl d cclcl db . . . [bc]

q wc c ly Nw m cl, b

vy C l.”

Authority o the New estament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 212); Charles E. Hill, Who Chose

the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy (Oxord: Oxord University Press, 21); EinarTomassen, ed., Canon and Canonicity: Te Formation and Use o Scripture (Copenhagen: Mu-seum usculanum Press, 21); Michael Bird and Michael Pahl, eds., Te Sacred ext (Piscat-away, NJ: Gorgias, 21); Lee M. McDonald, Te Biblical Canon: Its Origin, ransmission, and

Authority (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2); Lee M. McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: Te Selec-

tion and Rejection o Early Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2); DavidL. Dungan, Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making o the New estament (Philadelphia: For-

tress, 26); Christopher Seitz, Te Goodly Fellowship o the Prophets: Te Achievement o Associa-tion in Canon Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2); Craig Bartholomew et al., eds.,Canon and Biblical Interpretation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 26); David R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul

Alone: Te Formation o the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco: BaylorUniversity Press, 2); Craig A. Evans and Emanuel ov, eds., Exploring the Origins o the Bible:

Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Teological Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-demic, 2).

Te most recent example is the so-called Gospel o Jesus’s Wie, which is now regarded by many as a orgery. Beore this, it was the Gospel o Judas that garnered all the attention; see HerbertKrosney, Te Lost Gospel: Te Quest or the Gospel o Judas Iscariot (Hanover, PA: National Geo-graphic Society, 26); James M. Robinson, Te Secrets o Judas: Te Story o the Misunderstood

Disciple and His Lost Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 26); and Bart D. Ehrman,Te Lost Gospel o Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (New York: Oxord Univer-sity Press, 26). In addition, there continue to be new publications on previously discoveredapocryphal gospels: e.g., Mark S. Goodacre, Tomas and the Gospels: Te Case or Tomas’s Fa-

miliarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 212); Simon Gathercole, Te Composi-

tion o the Gospel o Tomas: Original Language and Infuences (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 212); and Paul Foster, Te Gospel o Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and

Commentary (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 21).For the most updated work on pseudonymity in the New estament, see Bart D. Ehrman, For-

gery and Counterorgery: Te Use o Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York: OxordUniversity Press, 212).

Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New estament Teology: A Story and a Program (London: SCM, 1);James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New estament: An Inquiry into the Character o

Early Christianity , 3rd ed. (London: SCM, 26); Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: Te Battles

or Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxord University Press, 22).Kurt Aland, Te Problem o the New estament Canon (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 162), p.31.




Introduction 1

I md ll clly q c, -

q v b d b y Nw m.

M q v cd pblm ccl bd-. Hw d w kw w v bk? Wy bk d

bk? Ad w b pcypl bk d by C

p? B, c y, w d m dl q

b k c ( lly w ll). Wl

vldy c’ bd ll cc,

d vldy c’ vy existence. T q w ,

wy Nw m ll? I l dc b-w “ccl” bk d “pcypl” bk, d m bk w

d by pd b pl, w c cc

mc v c? T w, ccd m

cl, b d cy— w b

l Cy ( bk mlv) wld lly ld

dvlpm c.7 Id, w ld, w b d

l C cc. T c w cclcl pdc

w dd m cclcl d. S, bk mlv w

pdcd mc l p, b d c w m

w cvly mpd p bk l m. Bk

w c—y become c.8

T d Nw m c w l dvlpm

w ly Cy, b l cl dvlpm

yc w Cy’ l pp, , I ll , cl

mwk dm mc md ccl (d bblcl) d.

Harry Y. Gamble, Te New estament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress,15), p. 12. As we shall see below, there are variations o this sort o argument. Some scholarshave argued that there was nothing about early Christianity that would have naturally led to thekind o canon Christianity ended up with (namely a closed, authoritative canon). See DavidBrakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius o Alexan-dria’s Tirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” HR (14): pp. 35-41, esp. 4-.

Eugene Ulrich, “Te Notion and Denition o Canon,” in Te Canon Debate, ed. Lee M. McDon-ald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 22), p. 35. C. Hugo Lundhaug,

“Canon and Interpretation: A Cognitive Perspective,” in Canon and Canonicity: Te Formationand Use o Scripture, pp. 6-, at p. 6; and Wilred C. Smith, What Is Scripture? A Comparative

Approach (London: SPCK, 13), p. 23. For urther discussion on this concept, see John Web-ster, “‘A Great and Meritorious Act o the Church’? Te Dogmatic Location o the Canon,” in Die

Einheit der Schri und die Vielalt des Kanons, ed. John Barton and Michael Wolter (Berlin: Wal-ter de Gruyter, 23), pp. 5-126, at pp. -11.





W wll cll extrinsic mdl c— d c w,

m d, mpd p C .9 O, Hck

d, Nw m w m cc w “cmplld” d by Mcm.0 L J, cl “W ‘C’ Ev

Gd’ Wll?” q clly: “I c . . . c Chris-

tendom c kd cclcl power ?” F J, w

clly l. I ml , Cp Ev, bk Is

“Holy Scripture” Christian? pdc c d

“wldl cc” d “clz Cy.”

L McDld l dc d Nw m c my b c w d Cy: “W m pd

q w bblcl c cly C.

T b vlbl m b l llw J w

y dd v c c cc ply p dy,

dd y dc cc ld dw m p.”

I w xc mdl c’ w

cczd mb y by Bvd Cld ( d d-

mly). Cld dcbd m vw: “I md by

my m c l, cclcl cvy, xl

bblcl l l, wc w bqly mpd

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: & Clark, 15), I/1:1, makes a very similarstatement when he declares, “Te Bible constitutes itsel the Canon. It is the Canon because itimposed itsel upon the Church.” However, the dierence is that Barth is reerring to somethingthe Scripture itsel does, whereas the extrinsic model is reerring to what the church (or another

ecclesiastical group) does.Adol von Harnack, Origin o the New estament and the Most Important Consequences o a New

Creation (London: Williams & Northgate, 125), p. 31.Loren L. Johns, “Was ‘Canon’ Ever God’s Will?,” in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: Te Function

o “Canonical” and “Non-Canonical” Religious exts, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee M. Mc-Donald (London: & Clark, 21), p. 42 (emphasis his). For more on the canon as a demon-stration o power, see Alan K. Bowman and Greg Wol, eds., Literacy and Power in the Ancient

World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14); Gerald L. Bruns, “Canon and Power inthe Hebrew Scriptures,” CI 1 (14): 462-; Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians o Letters: Literacy,

Power, and the ransmitters o Early Christian Literature (Oxord: Oxord University Press,2); and Robert P. Coote and Mary P. Coote, Power, Politics, and the Making o the Bible (Min-

neapolis: Fortress, 1).Christopher Evans, Is “Holy Scripture” Christian? (London: SCM, 11), pp. and 34. See also

C. F. Evans, “Te New estament in the Making,” in Te Cambridge History o the Bible: From the

Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1), pp. 232-3, at p. 235.

McDonald, Biblical Canon, p. 426.




Introduction 1

w.” I ml l, y mdl vw c

“mply p-plc dvlpm dk by ly clc

cc wc cld b ply pd m m Nw m l.” Cld “md c” wc

ld “ lm vl jc dlly l d

Nw m’ cz d l

cd cy.”

I Nw m c w l cclcl c,

xc mdl , w w pcc ccmc

ld C d c ? A c b md, w q vy wdly. Dvd D, bk Constantine’s Bible, p

c c Gk plpy d m-

p p l w c dc.7

Accd D, c clmd w p mp

C cvd Cy d “pwlly dd”

f cc d dmd c “ccv

cm.”8 K k df , l w Hck

“ mpll c m c” w cd-

cy c Mc.9 T, mp c Mc,

“Nw m c Hly Scp . . . w lly created by

Brevard S. Childs, Te New estament as Canon: An Introduction (London: SCM, 14), p. 21.Ibid., p. 12.Ibid., p. 1.

Dungan, Constantine’s Bible, pp. 32-53.Ibid., p. 12.Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New estament, vl. , History and Literature o Early Christi-

anity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 12), p. . Te idea that Marcion was responsible or the originso the New estament canon can be ound most notably in Adol von Harnack, Marcion: Das

Evangelium von remden Gott (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 124); Hans von Campenhausen, Te

Formation o the Christian Bible (London: Adam & Charles Black, 12); and John Knox, Mar-

cion and the New estament: An Essay in the Early History o the Canon (Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 142). However, Marcion’s role in the ormation o the canon has been mini-mized in recent years: e.g., John Barton, “Marcion Revisited,” in Canon Debate, pp. 341-54; JohnBarton, Te Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (London: SPCK, 1), pp. 35-62;

Franz Stuhlhoer, Der Gebrauch Der Bibel Von Jesus Bis Euseb: Eine Statistische Untersuchung Zur Kanonsgeschichte (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1), pp. 3-5; David L. Balás, “Marcion Revis-ited: A ‘Post-Harnack’ Perspective,” in exts and estaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and the

Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio: rinity University Press, 1), pp.5-1; and Robert M. Grant, Te Formation o the New estament (New York: Harper & Row,165), p. 126.





I.”0 El Pl llw ml p K d ly -

c I. Rdl pcc raison

d’être v c, dm p ccl clp dy d c l d l p ly

C .

Nw, ld b d m mc cc

xc mdl. Idd, cl cc bv

Nw m w dvlpm w ly C-

y— k m cllc b dvlpd d pd. Ad,

y cc md pc k vl c cmpl, d cc plyd l l pc ( dd

c lk Mc). Hwv, w lly k “nothing dc-

d ld b N” p l cclcl c?

W b l Cy m v v

c cllc? W d w Scp ly

ly llw J? I pp vlm -

w. O l dy xc mdl y,

b f wll-dd ccv m d p

m cl vdc. Pdm lwy d djm d

m, d vlm p k lpl p wd

dc. T b dy, , dd f l wd

vy cmplx bjc c, b p dl mb

ky pc w dl, l ppc, m b cld.

T, m bk wll b q. R b y

dc c, wll c wly p v x-

c mdl. Ec cp wll c , f

m d p.

Koester, Introduction to the New estament, vol. 2, p. 1 (emphasis mine). Tere are other ver-sions o this hypothesis; some suggest the canon was created to counteract the ood o apocry-phal literature in the second century. See Kenneth L. Carroll, “Te Earliest New estament,”BJRL 3 (155): 45-5.

Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belie: Te Secret Gospel o Tomas (New York: Random House, 23), pp.114-42.

For a study that emphasizes the role o the church in the development o the canon, see CraigD. Allert, A High View o Scripture? Te Authority o the Bible and the Formation o the New esta-

ment Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2).Gamble, New estament Canon, p. 12 (emphasis mine).




Introduction 21

By pd mj xc mdl, vlm

wll fcvly b f lv ppc—w w m cll

intrinsic mdl. T mdl d c m- mpd m d b dvlp m clly m w

ly C l l. T l C cmm d

c ccc d l ld mb lcl bl ,

pclly w k dm, wld v md w cllc

cd bk (w w cld cll “c”) m l dvlpm.

A Ev F p , “A c Nw m w plcd

ld cp Jdm ld pmly m internal dynamics o the Christian aith.” Cld ml w

y:

C cc cp C cc d

l dp w Nw m l l. T c c-

y cl pc dvlpm bld c

cd w m l Nw m l

ccl blz cp.

I wd, w ll mkp -cy Cy

cd vbl vm w w w vl-

l dp. Ad w w lk cl vdc w w

w dp dvlpd—pclly ly d by wc my

bk w cvd d l-w Nw m

— q c w w w wld xpc c

mdl w . I c, w c w Cld wld mk vly p dv bw ly d l

c.

A p, w clc d. F, d bv, m-

p mmb c mdl d jc ll clm

xc mdl. T w mdl ld b cly plzd.

Idd, w c c w l, dw- pc w

Obviously, we are using the unctional denition or “canon” here. For urther discussions o denition, see chapter one.

Everett Ferguson, “Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure o the New estament Canon,”in Canon Debate, pp. 25-32, at p. 25.

Childs, New estament as Canon, p. 21.





lzd l cy l—d xc mdl ly

cz p. T c dd pp xc v.

Hwv, c mdl dy ly ccl pc.R, mply d c, d b

ccl pc, c b ld lly l cclcl

( p) w ldy pw. T m b

c m m ly C mvm. Scd,

mp cz b xc d c mdl his-

torical mdl d q cmmm y pcl lcl

ppcv.7

O m b cld k xc mdl -cl mdl d c mdl lcl mdl—

l qd bl m lk p. B c.

T c mdl lcl pc b ( w ll blw 8),

b lly mk cl m, mly c d-

vlpd ly d lly C l. O d b-

lv p ld c p.

Dvd Md pvd lpl wy dcb dfc b-

w c d xc mdl. U df mly,

c mdl “p” d “pll” pcvly:

A cl q m cvy q

dc m wc ccl pc Nw m p-

cd. I wd, m Nw m “pd” m

lm w l Jw “plld” b

by c cc d cy lly xl x mlv?9

John C. Peckham, “Te Canon and Biblical Authority: A Critical Comparison o wo Modelso Canonicity,” rinJ 2 (2): 22-4, contrasts two models, which he calls the “community”model and the “intrinsic” model. Although the terminology is similar to what we are usinghere, Peckham’s two models are very dierent because he is addressing the question o wherethe authority o the canon comes rom—whether rom the community or rom the canon itsel.In contrast, this volume is not using the term “intrinsic” to speak o the authority o the canonbut is using it to speak o the historical development o the canon.

When we deal with the denition o canon in chapter one, we shall argue that the ontologicaldenition is a legitimate option and should not be disallowed simply because it is theological.

However, one does not need to hold the ontological denition o canon in order to arm theintrinsic model. Te latter can exist without the ormer.

David G. Meade, “Ancient Near Eastern Apocalypticism and the Origins o the New estamentCanon o Scripture,” in Te Bible as a Human Witness: Hearing the Word o God Trough Histori-

cally Dissimilar raditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin (London: & Clark, 21),pp. 32-21, at p. 34.




Introduction 23

O c, w c , m x, l

both p d pll. B, pp vlm x-

c mdl ( “pll”) dly dmd md ccl dd d b ccd by cvy d w ppc -

c mdl ( “p”). W cm xpl m

Nw m, w c “lm w l

Jw ” v b.

W bc c w mdl md, l w

v mj xc mdl bk wll dd. A

w d , mp w cl b lm w cw xp y pcl mdl. Mdl, by d,

lzd dcp d bjc xcp. T, by

l v w vy xc

cmp wld ld ll m w xcp, w

y xvly cp bl xc cmp. R w

mply mk l bv v (

lwy) d m w c l ccl-

cl dvlpm, d y w . I d-

d , w m b cl vd mccp, mly

mly dd v wld mw pv c

mdl. b cl, l vlm pv c

mdl— pp ly mb. B w c w

v pblmc (d l vlm),

wld q b vbly xc

mdl d l pv wy cd c mdl.

H v :

• : We must make a sharp distinction between Scp and

c. Cl xc mdl c m

canon c ly b d cc cd c l, cld

l bk. ly d v mp

c l cclcl c. W ll cp

d cc , b w ld l

d b m blc dd c.

• w: Tere was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led





to a canon. Wl xc mdl d c

w w md l C, cp w wll

w mx lcl bl ld by ly C- v d k c m v d-

vlpd q lly.

• : Early Christians were averse to written documents. A c

xc mdl wl d c d b

l cclcl dvlpm bc l C w l-

l d d bk. O cy, w ll

cp wl m C w ll ( w mppl wld m), y w cczd by b

xly— kwld, d ppc w x.

• : Te New estament authors were unaware o their own au-

thority . A q clm xc cmp -

Nw m dd ccv mlv pdc

v x—y w mly pdc ccl dcm

w ly later dd Scp. Idd, c clm ccl bl c cl cclcl c. Hwv,

p, w ll cp Nw m

w clly d pvd bl dc y dd

m v, d d q plly.

• v: Te New estament books were rst regarded as Scripture at the

end o the second century . I xc mdl w , w wld

xpc wld v k wl Nw m w cpl . Ad my dvc xc mdl

d cd cy w w w

cqd—m dmlly d c I. Al-

d d, bjc q. I cp

v, w wll xm c cd cy d

wll my w w dd Scp

mc l p.

Nw w v vvw q ly b , w c

b y v c mplc ld ccl

d. W dl w dd q b c—




Introduction 25

xmpl, w d w kw bk?—b d w

dl w m dl d m dml q b

w c cm m. T mc wc bk, bw Cy ld v b dd by bk. F , w

v ppy cd ( cd) mc dc

w m k ld ccl d. Wl mc md

clp cmmd xc mdl—d v

wc ld—w m m p pbly my b

d m mdc. Ad w ld b pd

d. T ld bblcl d, j lk ld, mm d pdm . I llw dcpl

mv wd pdcv wy. S l w

llw cp d xpl pbly.




The Definition of Canon

Must We Make a Sharp Distinction

Between the Defnitions o

C and Sp?

Once a distinction is made between scripture and canon,

the idea o a New estament canon does not appear

applicable until the ourth century.

Geore M. Hahnean

Te Muratorian Fragment and

the Development o the Canon

Brevard Childs once declared, “Mc p c

v pblm c l c m -

d mly.” Al Cld md m 1,

cld j ly b w c dy. A cl c

pb d dvlpm bblcl c, db d

dm b ccl mc v bd. W xcly

Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old estament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1), p. 51.Some recent studies on the denition o canon include: John Barton, Te Spirit and the Letter:

Studies in the Biblical Canon (London: SPCK, 1), pp. 1-34; Stephen B. Chapman, Te Law and

the Prophets: A Study in Old estament Canon Formation (übingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2), pp.1-11; idem, “How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions,” in Mar-galit Finkelberg and Guy G. Strousma, eds., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond (Leiden: E. J. Brill,





d w m by m canon? D bk w wdly

d by ly C? D bk c Scp?

O d ly bk cldd l, cld l? Wl dc v d c wll cly c, d

vl m pp b cm, m d m

v cd c Cld’ l bv. T d c

l, cld l bk b m m dm

— l m ccl. I pcl, dvc “xc”

mdl c ypclly cmmd pcl d d

ll cl m dp , l ld bcm pldby c d cm.

23), pp. 2-51; John Webster, “‘A Great and Meritorious Act o the Church’? Te DogmaticLocation o the Canon,” in Die Einheit der Schri und die Vielalt des Kanons, ed. John Barton andMichael Wolter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 23), pp. 5-126; Eugene Ulrich, “Te Notion andDenition o Canon,” in Te Canon Debate, ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders (Pea-body, MA: Hendrickson, 22), pp. 21-35; idem, “Qumran and the Canon o the Old esta-ment,” in Te Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 23), pp. 5-; Jonathan Z. Smith, “Canons, Catalogues, and Classics,” in Canonization

and Decanonization, pp. 25-311; Kendall W. Folkert, “Te ‘Canons’ o ‘Scripture,’” in Rethinking Scripture: Essays rom a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany: State University o New York Press, 1), pp. 1-; James A. Sanders, orah and Canon (Philadelphia: For-tress, 12), pp. 1-; Gerald . Sheppard, “Canon,” in Encyclopedia o Religion, ed. Lindsay Jones (Detroit: Tomson Gale, 1), 3:62-6; John C. Peckham, “Te Canon and Biblical Au-thority: A Critical Comparison o wo Models o Canonicity,” rinJ 2 (2): 22-4; JohnGoldingay, Models or Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 14), pp. 5-1.

Our concern throughout this chapter is not the word canon itsel (κανών, borrowed rom theHebrew ), but the concept o canon. Put dierently, we are asking what sociohistorical ortheological phenomenon is reerred to when we use the word canon, not the etymology or his-tory o the term. Tis is unortunate, because considering only the term itsel can bring conu-

sion rather than clarity. For example, Georey M. Hahneman, in “Te Muratorian Fragmentand the Origins o the New estament Canon,” in Canon Debate, p. 46, has attempted to argueor a late date or the canon by appealing to the act that the term canon (in either Greek orLatin) was not used to reer to a list o Christian Scriptures until the ourth century or later.However, there is no reason to think the appearance o the term itsel is decisive—it is the con-cept behind the term that must be claried and considered. Although others do not go to theextreme o Hahneman, there seems to be a ascination with the etymology o the term: e.g.,Bruce M. Metzger, Te Canon o the New estament: Its Origin, Development, and Signicance (Oxord: Clarendon, 1), pp. 2-3; Harry Y. Gamble, Te New estament Canon: Its Making

and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 15), pp. 15-1; and Ulrich, “Notion and Denition o Canon,” pp. 21-35. In act, Alexander Souter, in Te ext and Canon o the New estament (Lon-

don: Duckworth, 154), declares, “Te word ‘Canon’ has had a history unsurpassed in interest,perhaps, by any other word in the Greek language” (p. 141).

On this point, see Ulrich, “Notion and Denition o Canon,” p. 34; and Craig D. Allert, A High

View o Scripture? Te Authority o the Bible and the Formation o the New estament Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2), pp. 4-51. Once again, it should be noted that not allscholars in the extrinsic camp necessarily adopt this denition, nor do all scholars outside the




he Deinition o Canon 2

Sc clm dcl — ll, w pl c-

cl d dy. Mv, cly m -

cv b v l, d d c wc w cll (d bld p). Nvl, w m k w “c-

” p, d d w wc ld, jd. D

l d dqly cp cmplx d c

ccp c? Ad w qd dp ly d

xcl ll ?

The Exclusive Definition of Canon

T d c xd, l d cld l bk—w

m b clld exclusive d—w p lly by A. C.

Sdb 168. Sdb dw p dc bw m

Scripture d canon d, b, d w c pk

d c l l cy l. Al Scp

wld v xd p m pd, Sdb w m

v m c l d pc. I wld b

cc m c pk y cd- d-

cy cl l. T, mply ml vdc bk’

cpl ly cc— d ccl

d— cd ccl. T bk m b p

l m wc c b ddd k wy.

Sdb’ xclv d c w lly ppd by

extrinsic camp reject it. Te point o this chapter is that this denition is a general tenet o theextrinsic model and thereore warrants our careul examination.

Chapman, “How the Biblical Canon Began,” pp. 34-35, uses the term “extrinsic” instead o “ex-clusive.” Te ormer term is also used in Smith, “Canons, Catalogues, and Classics,” p. 2. ButChapman does use the latter term in Stephen B. Chapman, “Te Canon Debate: What It Is andWhy It Matters” (presented at SBL, San Diego, 2).

Albert C. Sundberg, “owards a Revised History o the New estament Canon,” Studia Evan-

gelica 4 (16): 452-61; idem, “Te Making o the New estament Canon,” in Te Interpreter’s

One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 11), pp. 1216-24. O course,Sundberg is not the rst scholar to propose a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon. Its

roots can be traced to W. Staerk, “Der Schrif- und Kanonbegri der jüdischen Bibel,” ZS 6(12): 11-1; Gustav Hölscher, Kanonisch und Apocryph. Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte des al-

testamentlichen Kanons (Naumburg: Lippert, 15); and arguably back to Semler’s original cri-tique o canon, Abhandlung von reier Untersuchung des Canon (Halle, 11–15). See discus-sion in Iain Provan, “Canons to the Lef o Him: Brevard Childs, His Critics, and the Future o Old estament Teology,” SJ 5 (1): -11; and Chapman, Law and the Prophets, p. 34.





mb ky cl c D. H. Kly,7 Jm B8 d Hy

Gmbl,9 d, m c y, cd d.

J B, wl ly cz mlpl d cv m vldy,0 ll m p xclv d: “Mc

cly cld b d w d d ply bw

w ccp [ Scp d c].” Gfy Hm b

v dvc xclv d, dcl, “Oc dc

md bw cp d c, d Nw m c

d pp pplcbl l cy.” L McDld

cly pmd Sdb’ d my w v l wy y d db c pp-

ly. E Ulc q cl ppc, l

cl ccp xclv d, dc wll b “c d

cpdcv.” Lkw, c wk C All

“necessity pp dc bw m ‘Scp’ d

‘c.’” Ev b vy cl (d m cld b ddd)

David H. Kelsey, Te Uses o Scripture in Recent Teology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 15), pp. 14-5.James Barr, Te Scope and Authority o the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1), p. 12.Gamble, New estament Canon, pp. 1-1. Elsewhere, Gamble nuances his view urther andacknowledges that other denitions have some validity: e.g., Harry Y. Gamble, “Te Canon o the New estament,” in Te New estament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Eldon J. Epp andGeorge MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1), pp. 21-43; idem, “Te New estament Canon:Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis,” in Canon Debate, pp. 26-4.

Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 1-34.John Barton, “Canonical Approaches Ancient and Modern,” in Biblical Canons, p. 22; see also

idem, Oracles o God: Perceptions o Ancient Prophecy in Israel Aer the Exile (London: Darton,

Longman, and odd, 15), pp. 55-2.Georey M. Hahneman, Te Muratorian Fragment and the Development o the Canon (Oxord:

Clarendon, 12), pp. 12-3.Lee M. McDonald, Te Biblical Canon: Its Origin, ransmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2), pp. 3-6; idem, Forgotten Scriptures: Te Selection and Rejection o Early

Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2), pp. 11-33. As a whole, McDonaldis more balanced in the way he holds Sundberg’s denition, recognizing that other denitionshave some validity.

Ulrich, “Notion and Denition o Canon,” pp. 21-35.Allert, High View o Scripture?, p. 51 (emphasis mine).E.g., George Aichele, “Canon, Ideology, and the Emergence o an Imperial Church,” in Canon

and Canonicity: Te Formation and Use o Scripture, ed. Einar Tomassen (Copenhagen: Museumusculanum Press, 21), pp. 45-65; Julio rebolle-Barrera, “Origins o a ripartite Old esta-ment Canon,” in Canon Debate, pp. 12-45; David L. Dungan, Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the

Making o the New estament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 26), pp. 1-1; H. J. de Jonge, “Te New estament Canon,” in Biblical Canons, pp. 3-1; and John C. Poirier, “Scripture and Canon,” inTe Sacred ext , ed. Michael Bird and Michael Pahl (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 21), pp. 3-.





Dvd N w cc w bvd “Sd-

b’ p jyd wdpd ccpc.”7

B wdpd ccpc p jd? W b ly by my pv p

b ckwldd. F , xclv d c ly cp-

ly c’ “d” d p cy. I

k m m bd c ldy, d x-

clv d ccmmd cl c by df m

df . Mv, d lp md m-

p l plyd by cc c d cp c. By c m canon ly l w cc

dcvly pdd, xclv d kp cc d c

m b dly dvcd m — w ccp d

d. Hwv, mb cc b d

d b xpld.

F, dcl blv p Scp-c dc

dw by md dvc xclv d wld v b

dly d by cl cp cd cy. Wld

ly C v dd “Scp” d d p-dd d

ly “c” lmd d cd? I y w bl y c

bk lby w Scp, mpl y wld v

b bl y bk lby w not Scp. B,

y bl y wc bk (d ) Scp, w

mlly df y wc bk ( ) c?

T, m m d lm d xcl ldy mpld

m Scripture. A I Pv bv, “T q I m k

w d cp d l mply d lm,

c, v y ccvd lm v b cd. I

blv d mply.”8 I , cy c dm-

c bw Scp d c lly dpp.

Scd, wl xclv d m canon c

b d l Nw m cllc b clly “cld,”

David R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone: Te Formation o the Catholic Epistle Collection and the

Christian Canon (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2), p. 235.Provan, “Canons to the Lef o Him,” pp. -1.





c mby m w, xcly, c cl.

I bl my pcc, c ll Cdm, ,

m, w ll c v cy.Idd, m w still d v c v dy.9 I

cl c ml, cl c ly cc,

w d pd d c c b Ccl

x cy.0 T c m w w lk

y c w lz w v m w

bd Nw m w cld wy x-

clv d wld q. Sp Cpm cmm pblm: “R b m pblm, ccy c

c db p ppp ppc. Wy

ld cl dp cc m ‘c’ m

d cpd lly y cl ly?” Iclly,

, xclv d ly cm y

vw cq.

T ld d, d bly m dl, pblm

d. I xclv d c

cy p c pdly df dvl-

pm Nw m w dcv c m-

ly. Idd, D Scp d

c “vy df.” B w c vy df

cy? Wl bd d c w db cvd by

p, c bk Nw m— Gpl d

mjy Pl’ pl—d ldy b czd d cvd

c. Wv ppdly ppd cy l-

E.g., as noted in the introduction, the modern-day lectionary o the Syrian Orthodox Churchstill operates on the twenty-two-book canon o the Peshitta. For urther discussion see Metzger,Canon o the New estament , pp. 21-2.

Harry Y. Gamble, “Christianity: Scripture and Canon,” in Te Holy Book in Comparative Perspec-

tive, ed. Frederick M. Denny and Rodney L. aylor (Columbia: University o South CarolinaPress, 15), pp. 46-4. Gamble argues that church councils such as Laodicea (in 36) were

local, not ecumenical, and thereore had no binding authority. Lee M. McDonald, “Te Integ-rity o the Biblical Canon in Light o Its Historical Development,” BBR 6 (16): 131-32, agrees:“Tere was never a time when the church as a whole concluded that these writings and no oth-ers could help the church carry out its mission in the world.”

Chapman, “Canon Debate,” p. 14.Dungan, Constantine’s Bible, p. 133.





d bk cd y. I pcly

p lm xclv d bcm cl.

T bp c mly v mp bkb m l p p; cmmc C

only d Scp d c. O, cl p , p

cy C ly d “bdl, lv m -

” x. A b bc, d w mld. Mv,

d c w mw l “ d

m c cc.” Ad wy d c

xc mdl— mpl w (d cld b )c l cc clly cd. Sp Dmp l

pblm: “Rv mly ‘c’ ly l cllc

bk bc cy x l m. ccp c

lm d m c dd v y, ly

b cd ex nihilo, l [cc] ccl.”

A xmpl d c b clly c wk

C All. T d l vlm “mpz cly

cc m Nw m.”7 I p, ,

c dvc Sdb’ d c bc,

ckwld, “Sdb’ wk d fc p

dcv pd, ml cz, d

c.”8 Sc l d c llw All pl

cc— w m b, w c ly -

v l c. H dcl, “T Bbl w lwy ‘’

ly Cy. Y cc ll cd c bc.”9

Wl All md mp l cc,

wl ppc dvlpm c m cc. I

c bk Nw m w c v

Scp by mddl cd cy, lly lpl

Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 1-1. We will explore this issue urther in chapter ve.Dungan, Constantine’s Bible, pp. 132-33.Webster, “Dogmatic Location o the Canon,” pp. 6-.Stephen G. Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Lef: Finding a Resolution in

the Canon Debate,” JES 52 (2): 51.Allert, High View o Scripture?, p. 6.Ibid., p. .Ibid., p. 12.





clm ly C dd v “Bbl”? T l

m b m c cly. Al my pv

kd mpcp ( c w d dy cdcy), d p pml w bly b ( ly

C d ll Nw m l cy).

W cc bl (d m cld b ddd), m

mp cq b fd cll vll

lmcy xclv d. Hwv, . I

bv cc ddd, xclv d ll

mp l ply. A ll, xclv d cc bd c w ldd l cy—d,

, w dd v “c” l m. T xclv d-

j d ckwld l c d

cl c “cl” w bd mw cd

y bk.0 T, m p cq d

wy w xclv d ly b cll dvc

xclv vw w clm only lm ppcv

c. Gv lm d wk xclv d w

v bvd, w ld b k cmplly x

m m. I w lly ppc dp d cmplxy

canon, w m l l d v vc.

The Functional Definition of Canon

Al xclv d c my b dm

c m ( l jyd c pply),

ly p bl. Cld plyd cl l p-

m lv d, , c Sdb,

m canon d b cd l, cld l b c “cmp

pc by wc m cc’ cd w

k plc.” I cllc bk c l m, dl

w cllc p cld, Cld cmbl

By “general consensus” I mean that the vast majority o the church was in agreement about theboundaries o the canon, even though there may have been pockets o the church that still haddiering views.

Brevard S. Childs, Te New estament as Canon: An Introduction (London: SCM, 14), p. 25.





m canon. O, p dfly, m canon c b mplyd

bk dd “Scp” by ly C cmm.

T, Cld y d p bw Scp dc, y y “vy clly ld, dd dcl.”

F pp , w ll d unctional

d c.

O c, pd cl d bck

Cld. B p w Hck’ cc

Nw m c pdcd p vy d-

.

Hck d bk cld b cdd ccl w w xply dd “Scp”—wc lly qd

mlc mk c γραφή γέγραπται. O d, -

Nw m c wld b dd mddl

cd cy, dmclly l / cy d d-

vcd by Sdb. B l d Hck’ ppc m

Z, w w wll d bk ccl p m

mlc mk, l jyd m d wdpd by

ly C (llw v l d c). Hwv,

dc bw Z d Hck ld b vplyd. T

dm d p way dm cc’ vw

bk (mlc mk v wdpd ), w cc’

vw bk w ky c dcd ccl . T d-

Hck d Z m ccl p: c

Idem, “On Reclaiming the Bible or Christian Teology,” in Reclaiming the Bible or the Church,ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 15), p. .

Chapman, “How the Biblical Canon Began,” pp. 34-35, uses the term “intrinsic” or the unc-tional denition, as does Smith, “Canons, Catalogues, and Classics,” p. 2. Elsewhere, Chap-man uses the term “inclusive” (“Canon Debate,” p. 12).

Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 4-. For Harnack’s original thesis, see Adol von Harnack, Ori-

gin o the New estament and the Most Important Consequences o a New Creation (London: Wil-liams & Northgate, 125). Harnack is a good example o someone who is clearly in the extrinsiccamp but does not, or whatever set o reasons, ollow the exclusive denition o canon. Tus,we are reminded again that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the extrinsicmodel and this denition o canon.

Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 1-14. As observed by Barton, Zahn’s emphasis on the early Christian use o canonical books (instead o just ormulaic markers) has ound some supportin the recent statistical work o Franz Stuhlhoer, Der Gebrauch Der Bibel Von Jesus Bis Euseb:

Eine Statistische Untersuchung Zur Kanonsgeschichte (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1). Stuhl-hoer argues that the core canonical books o the New estament were used substantially moreofen (in proportion to their size) than noncanonical books (and even the Old estament).





dmd by unction bk cc d w w

dd p l, cld l. I , Hck d Z lly

ld m l ppc c.T cl d l d pp m mb

md cl, pclly w v c w Cld

d/ “ccl ccm” cmp. Jm Sd cz

cl ppcv c vld bc pdc

xclv ppcv: “C unction d c shape.”7 G. .

Sppd pvd lpl dc bw c “l, dd,

dl, m” d c “x, ddz, m.”8

Hd m “C 1” d l “C 2,” cz

lmcy b. Cpm ply cqd xclv d-

wl cl d ld v plc

bl,9 v Pv,0 Md, Rk d Dmp.

T cl d my pv d pvd wlcm

blc xclv d. F , ccly cp -

cl ly ly C dd p v cp

bk l b cy, v d w ly

ldd. T, d k dly dm p-

cvd y bk p--cy cx. I ,

cl d wld wll w c mdl c. I

dd, d m l p clly l

cl cc dcl b c— dcl

mw “cd” “bld” y bk.

T d, wv, cl d ll wk. w

c b d . F, McDld pd c-

O course, Childs himsel does not preer the term “canonical criticism” (Introduction to the Old

estament , p. 2), but that term has been used to reer to this approach since it was apparently coined by Sanders (orah and Canon, pp. ix-xx).

James Sanders, “Canon: Hebrew Bible,” in ABD 1:43 (emphasis his).Sheppard, “Canon,” p. 64.Chapman, Law and the Prophets, pp. 1-11; Chapman, “How the Biblical Canon Began,” pp.

2-51.Provan, “Canons to the Lef o Him,” pp. -11.D. Meade, Pseudepigrapha and Canon (übingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 16), p. 24.Stephanus J. P. K. Riekert, “Critical Research and the One Christian Canon Comprising wo

estaments,” Neot 14 (11): 21-41.Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Lef,” pp. 5-51.





l d l cc bk w dd

Scp by m ly C cmm b v md

l, cld c: xmpl, Shepherd o Hermas, Apocalypse o Peter , d . W ll w cll bk? McDld

cl d ld c bc cd cll

bk “ccl.” Hw c bk b ccl d c b c-

cl? I w wld ly xclv d, , c

c cld b vdd. McDld cc p ,

d ld b ckwldd m mpc c-

l d . Hwv, cl McDld , md l xclv d-

. F , d pp b y pclly pb-

lmc c b y m ly C cmm

d df cl c. T w wdpd m b

c ccl bk, b m dm v ppl bk

w vbl. Sm bk w “ccl” y c cmm-

, v y wld v bcm p cc’ p-

m cllc. T cl d ppply cp

ly. T xclv d clm vd pblm mpc

bc w l cy w ccl bd

w lly xd. B, d bv, bd c w

bl v c. Idd, dm c-

md dy. T, w mdd ll d, -

cld xclv d, f m lvl mpc—

vdbl wv d k cp vlv cl

(c dvlpm c).

T cd wk cl d m c d

l d by xclv d. B d-

l dqly dd ontology c. T , d-

d cp w c is d l, p m w

d cc (cl) w dld by cc (x-

McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures, pp. 23-25.McDonald argues that terms like “decanonization” or “temporary canonization” are nonsensi-

cal (Forgotten Scriptures, pp. 23-25). For more on this issue, see A. van der Kooij and K. van deroorn, eds., Canonization and Decanonization (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1).





clv). I w ly v cl d xclv d, w

c ly ccld w cll canon c x p b

d Scp p cc c l c. Tcc m c b c. I d, cl d

xclv d m c ( l p c)

cc’ cp c w wc makes bk c. A

bk c bcm ccl, b w . O c,

m md cl, wld b vwd pblm. Vw

c ply cmmy-dpd y cl xc

mdl w dc vlm— w J Wb cll “lz” c. I c d l,

m b l c (d m x, by) m

pc. Hck pm xmpl lz -

b xc c cc’ “cv c”7 p

Mc.8 O v d c mly ccll

ccp c lp bw l cy d

x.9 Sll v d c j cl pm

w cmmy d xp dy.0 A Kly ,

Webster, “Dogmatic Location o the Canon,” p. 11.Harnack, History o Dogma, vol. 2 (New York: Dover, 161), p. 62n1.Harnack’s core thesis regarding Marcion was supported by Hans von Campenhausen, Te For-

mation o the Christian Bible (London: Adam & Charles Black, 12) (German title: Die Entste-

hung der christlichen Bibel [ubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 16]). For other assessments o Marcion’sinuence on the canon, see R. Joseph Homann, Marcion: On the Restitution o Christianity: An

Essay on the Development o Radical Paulinist Teology in the Second Century (Chico, CA: Schol-

ars Press, 14); Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 35-62; and Robert Grant, Te Formation o theNew estament (New York: Harper & Row, 165), p. 126.

Smith, “Canons, Catalogues, and Classics,” pp. 25-311; H. J. Adriaanse, “Canonicity and theProblem o the Golden Mean,” in Canonization and Decanonization, pp. 313-3; Aleida Ass-mann and Jan Assmann, eds., Kanon und Zensur, Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1); Paul Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? (Sheeld: She-eld Academic Press, 15), pp. 1-2.

Paul Ricoeur, “Te ‘Sacred’ ext and the Community,” in Te Critical Study o Sacred exts, ed.Wendy D. O’Flaherty (Berkeley: Graduate Teological Union, 1), pp. 21-6. A number o recent studies o canon have taken on a comparative dimension, showing how other religions,groups and communities have their own sorts o “canons.” E.g., Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G.

Strousma, eds., Homer, the Bible and Beyond ; omas Hägg, “Canon Formation in Greek Literary Culture,” in Canon and Canonicity , pp. 1-2; Wilred C. Smith, What Is Scripture? A Com-

parative Approach (London: SPCK, 13); Loveday Alexander, “Canon and Exegesis in theMedical Schools o Antiquity,” in Te Canon o Scripture in Jewish and Christian radition, ed.Philip S. Alexander and Kaestli Jean-Daniel (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2), pp. 115-53;Armin Lange, “Oracle Collection and Canon: A Comparison Between Judah and Greece in





c cc’ “l-dcp.” Ad lwy ppl d

“c” j plcl cc, dlcl m, cd

wld pw d cl. T pblm w cmmy-dpd vw y d

p cl C p c. Al

v m ccl ccl dy, C v dlly

blvd c cllc bk v by Gd

cp cc. Ad ccl bk w y by v

dv pp wc y w v, d by v

ccpc by cmmy , , pcpl, y cx c p m cmmy. A ll, ’ Gd’ bk ll

Gd’ bk—d ll v— prior y

m cz m? Sly, xc c d c-

c w dbl pm. Wy, , ld

m canon b cd ly l d m? T,

d c c b lmd ly cl x-

clv d bc m cc pm;

llw ly c ply l. Nw, d’

m ll w cl xclv d d

v ly c. I mply m d them-

selves d llw ly c. Ul lm d-

Persian imes,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artiact and Canon, ed. Craig A. Evans andH. Daniel Zacharias (London: & Clark, 2), pp. -4; and many o the essays in Religion

and Normativity, Vol 1: Te Discursive Fight Over Religious exts in Antiquity, ed. Anders-Chris-tian Jacobson (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2).

Kelsey, Uses o Scripture in Recent Teology , p. 16.On this general topic, see Alan K. Bowman and Greg Wol, eds., Literacy and Power in the An-

cient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14); George Aichele, Te Control o

Biblical Meaning: Canon As Semiotic Mechanism (Harrisburg, PA: rinity Press International,21); James E. Brenneman, Canons in Confict: Negotiating exts in rue and False Prophecy (New York: Oxord University Press, 1), pp. 52-; Robert P. Coote and Mary P. Coote,Power, Politics, and the Making o the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1); Gerald L. Bruns,“Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures,” CI 1 (14): 462-; Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guard-

ians o Letters: Literacy, Power, and the ransmitters o Early Christian Literature (Oxord: Oxord

University Press, 2); Max Weber, Te Sociology o Religion (Boston: Beacon, 13), p. 6;David Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius o Alexandria’s Tirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” HR (14): 35-41; and Aichele, “Canon, Ideol-ogy, and the Emergence o an Imperial Church,” pp. 45-65. In response to the idea that canonsalways represent those in power, see Willie van Peer, “Canon Formation: Ideology or AestheticQuality?,” British Journal o Aesthetics 36 (16): -1.





dd, c d, w dd , vbly c

“lz” c.

The Ontological Definition of Canon

I d ccmmd cl C ppc c,

w d d mv byd cl d xclv .

S, w ll cll ontological d. T lcl d

c w c d l, mly the authoritative books

that God gave his corporate church. O m y d lk

c m dv ppcv, m ly ccllclppcv. Bk d become ccl—y ccl bc

y bk Gd v pm d cc. T,

m ppcv, xc ccl bk d-

mv, c cp. O d, wld

b c v cy, Nw m bk

w w. O c, c d vbly pcv

. T Gpl J wld v b “c” m

w w, b ly cc wld y v kw . I w ly

l p, w cp cc d lly czd wc

bk bld c, cld lk bck d lz

w “c” v cy. B, ll-

Adherents o the exclusive denition may respond that their denition does not necessarily encourage the “naturalization” o canon because it allows or books to be regarded as “Scrip-ture” prior to their recognition by the church. While this is certainly true, two concerns still

remain: (1) As we noted above, the strict demarcation between Scripture and canon tends todiminish the authority o the ormer; i.e., it suggests there was only a loose, unbounded collec-tion o Scripture prior to the church’s ormal decisions. Tus, whatever ontology the exclusivedenition might grant to “Scripture,” it is still understood to be dierent rom the ontology o “canon.” (2) What is still lacking in the exclusive denition is an ontology o canon where thelimits are determined by the purpose or which they were given, apart rom the actions o the church. I God really gave certain books to serve as a permanent guide or the church—asthe ontological denition maintains—then there is nothing incoherent about arguing thatthose limits are already there in principle. Te “canon” is always the books God intended as apermanent oundation or his church; no more and no less. In this sense, the canon is “closed”as soon as the last book is given by God.

In light o the ontological denition, one might wonder what language should be used to de-scribe “lost” apostolic books (e.g., Paul’s other letter to the Corinthians). Are we obligated tocall these books “canon”? Not at all. C. Stephen Evans, “Canonicity, Apostolicity, and BiblicalAuthority: Some Kierkegaardian Reections,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. CraigBartholomew, et al. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 26), p. 155, makes the argument that we have goodreasons to think that lost books were not intended by God to be in the canon. He declares, “It





m b m ly. I ccy mly m

happens bk, w c m bk ccl w bk

pdcd. B. B. Wld mply lcl d w y,“T C Nw m w cmpld w l -

v bk w v y cc by pl, d w w

J w pclyp, b a.. 8.”

N db, cmmd d cl-ccl ppc

dy c wll blk lcl d ppply

lcl. O c d c vlv y -

lcl cd, w m b ld.7

B wy w bld dy c ply cl-ccl m? Wy ld w b b-

ld m canon wy pb vy ppc

c C v ld w mll? Idd, m

, , cl-ccl ppc f w

lcl ppcv—j pp dc. M d m,

seems highly plausible, then, that i God is going to see that an authorized revelation is given,he will also see that this revelation is recognized. . . . On this view, then, the act that the churchrecognized the books o the New estament as canonical is itsel a powerul reason to believethat these books are indeed the revelation God intended humans to have.” I God did not intendthese lost books to be in the canon, then we have little reason to call them “canon.” As or whatto call these lost books, we could reer to them simply as “other apostolic books” or even as“Scripture.” In regard to the latter term, this would be the one place where a distinction between“canon” and “Scripture” would be useul. Whereas Sundberg advocates a more permanent dis-tinction between Scripture and canon, we would argue that this distinction would only apply tothe narrow issue o lost apostolic books. When that issue is in view, canon is rightly a subset o Scripture—all canonical books are Scripture, but not all scriptural books are canonical. How-

ever, outside o this particular issue, there seems to be little reason to make a sharp distinctionbetween Scripture and canon.

B. B. Wareld, “Te Formation o the Canon o the New estament,” in Te Inspiration and

Authority o the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 14), p. 415.For examples o those who argue theological perspectives have no place in biblical studies, see

Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway?, pp. 51-52; and also John J. Collins, “Is a Critical BiblicalTeology Possible?,” in Te Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. William H. Propp (WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1), pp. 1-1.

At this point, it is important that we are clear about the role o the ontological denition o canon within the overall “intrinsic” model we are advocating in this volume. As said in the in-troduction, the intrinsic model, as a whole, does not require any particular theological commit-

ments about the divine origins o these books. Tus, one need not arm the ontological deni-tion o canon in order to hold to the intrinsic model. Although I am arguing that these threedierent denitions o canon work best as a unit, a person who wants to avoid theologicalcommitments could just arm the validity o the unctional denition. Te key point o thischapter is simply that the exclusive denition o canon—a major tenet o the extrinsic model—is problematic when it stands as the only denition o canon.





cl v czd lcl d cl cc

ly pd, ld y b. I Pv mk p , “All

bblcl dy l 200 y v wkd wc dmc d plpcl p.”8 Fc W

pd c , “Tlcl cc ld v ckwldd

plc w ld bblcl clp.”9 T pclly

ld ccl d. Flyd Fl md mpl, b v-

lkd, bv , “T c lcl .”0 Kv V-

z cc, “Hy l c w q w

c lly ; ly l c d .”

Al lcl d b ly blc d-

c, w ld b only d

c. O cy, lcl d b fd

cmplm ( d ) cl d xclv d. All

d mk mp cb d-

d c d ll ld b d v

d mldml m. T xclv d ly md

c dd ll plc v; k vl c

d c ldy. T cl d md

p dm l p c w

c cllc bk cd w pm y ly

C cmm. Ad lcl d md

bk d j become v bc c cc—

y b y by v w y , bk v by Gd. W

ll ppcv c cdd dm, m bl-

Provan, “Canons to the Lef o Him,” p. 23. See also Iain Provan, “Ideologies, Literary andCritical: Reections on Recent Writings on the History o Israel,” JBL 114 (15): 55-66.

Francis Watson, ext and ruth: Redening Biblical Teology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1),p. 3. See also idem, “Bible, Teology and the University: A Response to Philip Davies,” JSO 1(16): 3-16.

Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? A Study o the Canon (Philadelphia: Westmin-ster, 15), p. 42.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Te Drama o Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Teol-ogy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 25), p. 146.

As noted above, the exclusive denition still plays a legitimate role as long as some o its weak-nesses are addressed. In particular, the exclusive denition needs to view the ourth century asthe time that the church reached a general consensus on the boundaries o the canon, not thetime in which the church ocially acted to close the canon in an airtight manner.





cd d m cmpl v c lzd. T, w ld

b cd c bw m.

I dd, mldml ppc d cpvd mc-dd clc db v “d”

c. A B d v ldy d, d d

c , m x, clv d c

b bl. O xclv d, w d v c

l b cy. O cl d, m

w v c l by mddl cd cy. O -

lcl d, Nw m bk wld b ccl w w—v -cy d c (dpd

w d pcc bk). W d vwd

y cly cp w ccl y: (1)

ccl bk w w dv y; (2) bk

czd d d Scp by ly C; (3) cc

c c d bk. T c d-

lkd c l clcl d md

y c dd process; d ld

b clly cd mm m. P dfly, y

c c. I’ lk df l: y

dl j c , dlc pl, d ll-w dl.

Ev c, c w c ll m -

mly, mly “.” Pp, , w d k wl

ccp c’ “d.” Id dc d c, w

m cd dc stage c. T l m b

mldml c, w m mpl

c , d ly c b, p m.

Oc d llwd c w ,

l bcm vd y, m , mply . I c-

Barton, Spirit and the Letter , pp. 1-34.Te act that certain denitions o canon tend to match with certain stages o canonical his-

tory should not be taken as an indication they cannot be used or other stages. For example,the ontological denition—dened as the books God gave his church—could still be used toreer to the canon in the second, third or ourth century (and even now!). Likewise, the unc-tional denition could be used in any century where books were regarded as Scripture. It isactually the exclusive denition that is most limited in this regard; it cannot be used prior tothe ourth century.





cl bk bk v by Gd cc (lcl d)

w m lly xpc cc cz c d

v m (cl d). Ad ccl bk bk d v m (cl d), w m

lly xpc cc wld vlly c c

bd d c bk (xclv d). Ad cc

cd c bd d c bk (xclv

d), bl k bk v l-

dy b d v m (cl d), d l

y bk Gd dd cc v (lcld). T m wc d c

y cdcy my pp, b d

b cmplmy.

I l w d c q wll

w bld c md pc-c plpy. Spk

(wc wld l cld dv pk) c k df m:

(1) locution (mk c d ml d , c

w, l), (2) illocution (w wd clly d; x-

mpl, pm, w, cmmd, dcl d ), d (3)

perlocution ( fc wd l; xmpl, c-

, cll, pd d ). Sc y pk c c

cld m ll b, wld b plc

ly m pp d w w cll speaking .

T yp pc-c lly cpd d-

c ld bv. T lcl d c

cl pdc bk d locutionary c.

T cl d w ccl bk clly d

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Teology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: IVPAcademic, 22), pp. 15-23; Nicholas Wolterstor, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Refec-

tions on the Claim Tat God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15); WilliamP. Alston, Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2);

John L. Austin, How to Do Tings with Words (Oxord: Oxord Paperbacks, 16); and John R.Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy o Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1).

Austin, How to Do Tings with Words, pp. 1-13; Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatol-

ogy: Te Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 22), pp. 126-2; Wolterstor,Divine Discourse, pp. 1-36.





l cc d illocutionary c. Ad x-

clv d cp d mpc bk

cc d perlocutionary c. A, mldmlppc d c b c

c d dp.

T m wc pc-c plpy cmplmy

d m speaking c pvd m pccl

w m c b d w m canon. Spc-c plpy

d c j d xcl ll ,

ld w d d c. O c, my mply pcl d c y v m, b d b vwd

pblmc. T pcl d mplyd my b dmd

mply by w d mpz. I w m-

pz cclcl dm c, xclv d

my b m ppp. I w mpz v

l plyd by ccl bk, cl d b. Ad

d vw c m ppcv dv ,

lcl d m bl. B, v w j

d mplyd, w d c ll b vwd

lm d cmplmy (j pc-c plpy). Mv,

ld b ckwldd lwy cy

c wc d ( l d xpl

d wc d b d). Smm m canon, lk

m speech, d c l m ll d

cld b vw. I d, m c b mplyd w bl

m xbly, d xbly md dp d

c w cll canon.

Conclusion

Bvd Cld w cc mc c v y

c d w dfc mly. Hwv, pblm

lvd, xc mdl , by mp l d- c md cl. O cy, ly

l d ly cp dp d bd c my d

p b m d clc. Wl xclv d-





ccly md l c bd

c w cvd l cy, c v m-

ld mp w ll m v c bk p m pd. Wl cl d ccly md

Nw m bk vd v m q ly

m, ll d dd w bk d mlv.

Wl lcl d b cy blc b

ppc—f md bk d become c-

cl mply by c cc— c d l.

v ly lcl d wld ld wly ccld bk w bclly lwd m v cmpld c w

dvlpm y l wld. Iclly, , pp

db v c b ddd by c d, b by

llw lmcy mlpl d c w

. I c mldml pm, pp

b dd mldml .

the questions of canon by michael j. kruger

Documents