Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013). (Amazon.com)
In The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate Michael J. Kruger does not discuss what books should be included in the canon of Scripture, but instead asks a more fundamental question: Why is there a New Testament at all? Most scholars advocate what Kruger calls the extrinsic model of canon, i.e., the canon is not something intrinsic to Christianity but something imposed from the outside because of socio-political forces in the second through fourth centuries.
According to Kruger this model has value, but it doesn’t tell the full story. Kruger summarizes the five main tenets of the extrinsic model as (pp. 23-24):
(1) We must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon.
(2) There was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon.
(3) Early Christians were averse to written documents.
(4) The New Testament authors were unaware of their own authority.
(5) The New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.
In contrast, Kruger offers the intrinsic model (p. 21): “…the idea of canon is not something imposed from the outside but develops more organically from within the Christian religion itself.” In Chapter 1, The Definition of Canon Kruger challenges the view that we should speak of Scripture as distinct from canon instead offering an “ontological definition of canon” (pp. 40-45) where the canon exists even before it is recognized as such because the Scripture that will be included in canon is authoritative upon composition and initial reception. In Chapter 2, The Origins of Canon examines how things like covenant and apostolic authority “…represented the working out of forces that were already present within the primitive Christian community and that would have made some form of canon virtually inevitable” (p. 78). Chapter 3, The Writing of Canon critiques the view that early Christians had an aversion for written documents favoring oral tradition. Chapter 4, The Authors of Canon attempts to connect these documents to apostolic or perceived apostolic authority in order to show that these works would have been considered authoritative because they were believed to go back to the apostles (e.g., GMark as Peter’s memoirs; GJohn as the eyewitness of the Beloved Disciple; Luke-Acts from an associate of Paul’s). It should be noted that this is not the same as arguing that these books actually do go back to the apostles somehow, only that their authority is based on that perception. Chapter 5, The Date of Canon rebuts the idea that the canon began forming because of Irenaeus of Lyons. Kruger surveys documents like the Muratorian Fragment and the writings of personalities ranging from Theophilus of Antioch to Papias and Polycarp to see if there was any concept of authoritative books (essentially, what would become recognized as canon) in their writings.
While I am no expert on the evolution of canon I can say that Kruger’s book is well written, respectful of differing views, honest about the positive contributions of the extrinsic model, and yet intent on providing some pushback as regards the vocabulary and methodology being used by scholars who discuss canonology. At 210 pp. of content it is a fairly quick and easy read (many pages are half content, half footnotes) and Kruger sticks with his central theme (avoiding the temptation to argue about which books should be included in the canon) which I appreciated.
This book was provided courtesy of IVP Academic.
the archives near Emmaus 
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.
After reading Walton’s book on “scripture”, I assume the NT canon came about to preserve what was being taught in oral tradition from Jesus forward for those of us who would live when oral tradition was challenged by Guttenberg. Divine impulse thing, I doubt the authors had a clue what we have would be preserved.
Walton thinks Paul’s letters were written only because he couldn’t be at Corinth, Ephesus, etc at the same times. If he could have traveled rapidly like today, we probably wouldn’t have Paul’s writings. He’d have spoken these ideas and they would have been passed down like all ancient societies did.
Thanks for the review, Brian. Does interest me in reading the book (my list is way too long already, unfortunately). Sounds to me like Ch. 4 is especially crucial. The issue of tying to apostolic authority seems the kingpin of canon issues and much more. Trouble is, there sure seems to me to be some critical circularity… it is books that eventually became canonized which particularly make a point of apostleship and its authority (selection of them, who they were, Paul’s relation to the original “twelve”, etc.). But there isn’t a clear and consistent conception of it nor of information passing though such channels in any definite manner.
@Patrick: I don’t think Kruger would disagree with you regarding the authors knowing or not knowing that their books would be preserved. His argument is a bit more nuanced. More like (1) they saw their writings as authoritative for their audiences + (2) those who received these works understood them as authoritative for their communities = (3) this is basically the idea of a canon: authoritative books received for the community and remaining authoritative.
@Howard: Not sure I understand your comment, but if it is meant to criticize the idea that the books should be in the canon because of apostolicity, Kruger doesn’t go there. Instead, his argument is more like (1) canon is authoritative books for the community + (2) many of these books were perceived to be authoritative because of perceived apostolicity therefore = (3) the idea of a canon of authoritative works is not something foreign to early Christians, since early Christians did affirm the idea of a collection of authoritative books from the beginning, even if in smaller chunks at first (e.g., Pauline Corpuse, four-fold Gospels). He is arguing against the idea that canon is a completely new idea that comes at the earliest with Ireneaus. Instead, he is saying that canon is essentially the same idea as preserving works that the community understood to be apostolic/authoritative.