This
volume by the Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in
Charlotte, North Carolina, is sub-titled ‘Challenging the Status Quo in the New
Testament Debate’. The status quo roughly is that the canon of the New
Testament was a creation of the church in the fourth century, or a short time
before then, and that certain writings from the first century or thereabouts
were selected for inclusion while other valid writings were omitted.
The
author discusses some evidences that show the first-century church could have
known about the canon as we have it. This involves (1) a consideration of the
possible expectations of Second Temple Judaism for further divine revelation, (2)
of indications in the Old Testament that additional divine words would be
given, (3) the new covenant relationship with God included specific written
texts from him, and (4) the role of Christ’s chosen apostles in providing or
endorsing written scripture.
The
question of a canon of written scripture has also to face the claim that the
main means of communication in the early church was oral, which has led some
scholars to assume that it would have opposed written texts, especially since
some of them have decided that the canon is composed of inferior writings in
contrast to the classic works of the period. Moreover, most early Christians,
it is said, were unlettered, preferred the direct encounter with a spoken word,
and expected Jesus to return imminently, so why would they have wanted a canon?
Kruger
points out that the barrier between unlettered Christians and a written text is
drawn from modern situations in which educated people find it hard to imagine
that a merely oral society could appreciate written texts. This was not the
case in the first century in which it was common for many illiterate persons to
become familiar with written texts that they heard read in public gatherings –
these texts could be government decrees, philosophical opinions, as well as
other forms. And the New Testament itself contains several references to the
public reading of scripture. Indeed it can be argued that they were written in
order that they could be read orally to Christian gatherings. And to this can
be added that the early church insisted on retaining the Old Testament
scriptures, which would be a strange thing to do if they were averse to
writings.
Did
the early church expect Jesus to return within its lifetime, and did that
expectation affect their ideas about written scripture? If it did, then since
he did not come, surely it would assume that he was not telling the truth about
his return. Yet there is no evidence that such a possibility caused a crisis of
faith, which indicates that the apostolic church did not believe that he must
return during that period, merely that he could. The fact is that New Testament
books were written during the first century, and were accepted as truthful by
subsequent generations of believers even although Jesus did not return in the
first century, which indicates that neither the first century church nor
subsequent generations believed that he taught he would definitely return at
such an early date.
Another
issue dealt with by the author is whether or not the New Testament authors were
aware that they were writing scripture. He shows that they were conscious that
they were writing with divine authority and that they regarded their writings
as divine provisions for those to whom they wrote, which is the same as saying
they were on the level of scripture. So while they would not have known how
many books would be in the New Testament they did know that their writings were
authoritative in the church.
Kruger
gives a chapter to discussing whether or not the canon was only closed by the
end of the second century. He looks at the writings of Irenaeus who around that
time refers to most New Testament books as recognised scripture. Of course, if
he recognised them, the assumption is that others before him also recognised
them because he does not indicate that he was the first to do so. Kruger then
notices the way that Theophilus of Antioch argues in a work dated around the
year 177 that the Gospels were as inspired as the Old Testament. Kruger also
works back through the writings of Justin Martyr, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Clement and others to show that they were aware to a degree of some of the books
that make up the New Testament canon. More importantly, the New Testament
itself refers to Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). This survey,
according to Kruger, points to the real possibility that the church by the end
of the first century already recognised which books were scripture and which
were not.
Of
course, many Christians accept the New Testament as Holy Scripture intuitively,
an evidence of the divine illumination given to them by the Holy Spirit. Such
may not want to read a scholarly book like this, although I do not see why
not. In some places I felt I was in the
company of a master detective as he analysed and dismissed the alleged evidence
against the existence of an early canon. While this book did not add to my already-existing
recognition of and delight in the New Testament canon it did strengthen my
conviction that God not only inspired its production but supervised its
acceptance throughout the early church. I would recommend it to any who have
been troubled by the claim that the canon is merely a creation of the church a
long time after the apostles left this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment