Kruger can be seen as a real expert on the history of
the formation of the canon of the New Testament. He combines his great academic
insight with a deep love for the Bible as the Word of God. This combination of
academic quality and piety is a model for every biblical scholar. In 2013 a
second book written by him was published on this subject. Quite a lot of New
Testament scholars see the canon of the New Testament as a ecclesiastical
product of the fourth century.
This view is not in accordance with the classical view
on the canon. In his last book Kruger tackles the five most prevalent
objections to the classic, Christian understanding of the emerging,
self-authenticating collection of authoritative counterparts to the Old
Testament. These five objections are: 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 Christianity was averse of written
documents; 4.The New Testament authors were unaware of their authority; 5. The
New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second
century.
Kruger distinguishes three models for the canon of the
New Testament: the exclusive, functional and ontological model. Each model has
its merits, but the one model does not exclude the other. The exclusive model
thinks that only from the fourth century we can speak of the canon of the New
Testament. It is true that in the fourth century there came a universal
consensus about the exact boundary of the canon, although we must stress that
this consensus was just recognized. It was not the result of a somewhat
arbitrary ecclesiastical decision.
Nevertheless, already form the second century there
are quite a lot of data that point to the use of books of the New Testament as
Scripture having the same authority as the Old Testament books. This is the
functional model of canon. This model is based on the use of books as
Scripture. Very important are here the witness of Irenaeus and the Muratorian
fragment. The last list confirms the scriptural status of at least 21 and
perhaps 22 books of the New Testament. Revelation, Hebrews, James and 1 and 2
Peter are not mentioned. Whether 3 John is included is not sure.
Kruger says that the functional model has many
positive elements and provides a welcome balance to the exclusive definition of
the New Testament canon. He states that also the functional model has its
weaknesses. Some books that were not included in the final canon of the New
Testament had at least almost the status of Scripture. Especially the Pastor
of Hermas can be mentioned in this context.
A much more important weakness of the functional model
– a weakness that it shares with the exclusive model – is that it fails to
address the ontological status of the New Testament books. The books that
finally found their way in the canon of the New Testament have an intrinsic
quality not found in others. They are written by the apostles or their direct
companions. That was the reason already in the Muratorian fragment the Pastor
of Hermas was not regarded as Scripture, because it was written quite
recently.
Although 1 Clements was written roughly in the same
period as the last books of the New Testament, it was never regarded as
Scripture, because its author clearly made a distinction between his own
authority and the authority of the apostles. Kruger points to the importance to
have a clear sight on the intrinsic quality of the New Testament books. In
regard with the question of the canon he speaks of the ontological model. This
model is quite often completely neglected, although it is finally the most
important model.
For early Christianity the decisive criterion was the
apostolic nature of a document. Pseudonymity was for them a definite reason not
to recognize a document a Scripture. Kruger challenges ably the view that the
early Christians were averse of written documents. Already from its very
beginnings Christianity had a canon, namely the canon of the Old Testament.
The statement of Papias that an eyewitness must be
preferred above a written testimony, he means that a direct testimony must be
preferred above an indirect testimony. The gospels are eyewitness accounts in
written form and have for the new generations the same value and status as the
original oral eyewitness accounts.
Kruger denies that the apostles did not realize their
own authority. The data point in a complete opposite direction. The apostles realized
that their authority stood on the same level as the authority of the Old
Testament prophets. Then we must not forget that all writers of the Old
Testament were seen as prophets. The apostles knew that their authority was in
a certain sense an extension of the authority of Jesus Christ.
It is no coincidence that beginnings of the written
down of the New Testament documents corresponds with the rise of Christianity
as a missionary movement in the fifties and sixties of the New Testament. The
need of written eyewitness accounts, of what Jesus had said and had done, was
more and more felt. Especially Paul wrote letters to congregations founded by
his missionary work. The letters quite often written because of problems in the
congregations were a form on extended personal and apostolic presence.
I would add that letters in Antiquity used to have a
semi-public status. The writes knew that his letter was preserved, shared with
others and used in other context. This means that although having a somewhat
occasional nature the apostles knew already from the beginning that what they
put down to writing had form that moment an apostolic authority.
Kruger rightly states the formation of the canon
represented the working of forces that were already present in primitive
Christianity and made some form of canon virtually inevitable. Following David
Meade Kruger says that the apocalyptic nature of Christianity provided a strong
inner reason for extension of Scripture. We see in all forms of apocalypticism
in the period of the Second Temple that written documents were produced.
The fact, that written documents in the form of the
book of the Old Testament were essential for Christianity from its very
beginning, means that among early Christians there were literate people. This
must have been especially true for spiritual leaders. In the second place we
must realize that orality and textuality cannot be seen as opposites.
In the Ancient world an illiterate person could be
intimately familiar with a written text. Texts were written to be performed
orally. This is certainly true not only of the New Testament letters but of all
New Testament documents. Kruger has done us a great service by giving us many
arguments that ontological model of the canon – a model that is connected with
apostolic authority and divine inspiration belongs to the very essence of the
Christian religion.
Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon:
Challenging the status quo in the New Testament Debate, Apollos, Nottingham
2013; ISBN 978-1-78359-1-004-9; pb. 256 pp., prijs £14,99.