9 December 2014 A.D. Prof. Kruger: New Testament
Canon
Michael Kruger
10/13/2014 2:24:52 PM
1934 was a big year for Germany. It was
the year that Adolf Hitler became the Führer and complete head of the German
nation and the Nazi party. And, as we all know, it wasn’t long after that
time, that Germany invaded Poland and began World War II.
But 1934 was a significant year for another reason. Very quietly,
behind the scenes, a book was published that would change the landscape of
early Christian studies for years to come. Walter Bauer published his now
famous monograph, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.
Compared to Hitler’s rise, this was not very newsworthy. And Bauer’s book
did not have much of an impact at first. But, in 1971 it was translated
into English and since that time things have radically changed in the academy
of the English speaking world.
As is well known now, Bauer’s main thesis was that early Christianity was
a bit of a mess. It was a theological quagmire. No one could get
along; no one could agree. There was in-fighting and competition between
various competing factions, all warring it out about what really constituted
“Christianity.” Thus, for Bauer, there was no such thing as Christianity
(singular) during this time, but only Christianities (plural). And
each of these Christianities, argues Bauer, had its own set of
books. Each had its own writings that it valued and thought were
Scripture. After the dust settled, one particular group, and their
books, won the theological war. But, why should we think these are the
right books? These are just the books of the theological winners.
Bauer’s thesis has seen a strong resurgence in recent years, particularly
in the writings of scholars like Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and Helmut
Koester. And it is the basis for a very common misconception about the NT
Canon, namely that there was very little agreement over the books that made it
into the canon until the fourth or fifth century. Before that, we are
told, early Christianity was somewhat of a literary free for all. No one
could agree on much of anything.
But was that really the case? Several considerations:
1. A core NT canon existed very early. As I noted in my prior blog post
in this series (see here), there was a core canon of NT books that was
well-established by the early to middle second century. These would have
included the four gospels, the epistles of Paul (at least 10, if not 13), and a
handful of other books. Although discussions about some of the smaller
books would continue on for a while, the core books were not really ever
seriously disputed. John Barton comments, “Astonishingly early, the great
central core of the present New Testament was already being treated as the main
authoritative source for Christians. There is little to suggest that
there were any serious controversies about the Synoptics, John, or the major
Pauline epistles.”[1]
If so, then the idea that Christians disagreed widely over
canonical books simply isn’t accurate. At most, this occurred for just a
handful of books.
2. Use of apocryphal books is not evidence of widespread disagreement. One of the most popular tactics in
modern scholarship is to demonstrate that early church fathers used apocryphal
books and then, on this basis, declare that there was no agreement about the
canonical books. For instance, Geoffrey Hahneman rightly observes that
“Christian writers of the second century refer to many other gospels beside the
canonical four.”[2] However, Hahnemen then
draws an unexpected conclusion from this fact: “This would seem unlikely if the
Fourfold Gospel canon had already been established.”[3] But, how does this follow?
Hahneman never explains how the mere use of non-canonical Jesus tradition is
evidence that the fourfold gospel was not established. Why are the two mutually
exclusive? Apparently Hahneman is operating under the assumption that the
adoption of certain books as canonical (say the four gospels) somehow means
that you can never again use material that falls outside these
books. But, it is unclear where this assumption comes from and
Hahneman never offers an argument for it.
When we examine the Church Fathers more closely it is clear that some of
them were quite willing to use apocryphal gospels, but, at the same time, they
were very clear that only our four gospels were to be received as
canonical. Clement of Alexandria is a perfect example of this
practice. He is comfortable using apocryphal gospels, but is always clear
that they are not on par with the canonical four.
3. Instances of disagreement over canonical books are not necessarily
evidence that such disagreement is widespread. A second kind of argument used by
some scholars is to appeal to particular instances of canonical dissent or
disagreement and use those instances as evidence that there is no broader unity
about the canon. Indeed, one gets the impression that it would require an
extremely high (if not unanimous) amount of agreement about a book before these
scholars would regard its canonical status as decided. For instance,
Hahneman rejects the existence of the fourfold gospel canon by appealing to the
third-century orthodox theologian Gaius of Rome who supposedly rejected the
gospel of John as a work of Cerinthus. But, does the broad
acknowledgement of a fourfold gospel require zero disagreement?
Does the existence of some objections to John’s gospel override the evidence
that it was widely received elsewhere? With this sort of standard in
place, then we would never be able to say that we have a canon, even in the
modern day. There will always besome disagreement.
Another example of a place where disagreements are overplayed is Origen’s
comments on 2&3 John where he acknowledges that “not all say that these are
genuine.”[4] Although Hahneman uses
this comment to point out that universal agreement on these epistles has not
yet been achieved, he entirely overlooks the implications of Origen’s comments
in the other direction, namely that apparently most Christians do consider
them genuine—including Origen himself. The phrase “not all say”
indicates that Origen is simply noting that there are exceptions to a more
broadly established trend. Thus, it is misleading to use this
passage as evidence that John’s letters were not regarded as canonical.
That is more than this language can bear. At most it reveals that in certain
quarters of the church some disagreements over these books continued to occur
(which is hardly surprising).
In sum, there is impressive evidence for widespread agreement over the
core canonical books from a very early time. Most of the disagreements
dealt with only a handful of books—2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation. But
even these disagreements should not be overplayed. We should not be too
quick to assume that disagreements over a book are due to the fact that its canonical
status is undecided. On the contrary, sometimes disagreements are
not so much over what should be included in the
canon, but are over which books are already in the canon. As
David Trobisch observes, “The critical remarks of the church fathers can be
better interpreted as a historical critical reaction to
an existing publication.”[5]
[1] Barton, Spirit
and the Letter, 18.
[2] Hahneman, The
Muratorian Fragment, 94.
[3] Hahneman, The
Muratorian Fragment, 94.
[4] Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 6.25.10.
[5] Trobisch, The First
Edition of the New Testament, 35 (emphasis mine).
Dr. Michael J. Kruger (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is President and
the Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at
Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. He is one of the leading
scholars today in the study of the origins of the New Testament, particularly
the development of the New Testament canon and the transmission of the New
Testament text. He is the author of numerous books including The
Gospel of the Savior (Brill, 2005), The Heresy of Orthodoxy
(Crossway, 2010, with Andreas Köstenberger), Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012),
and The
Question of Canon (IVP, 2013). He is also the co-editor of The Early
Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012), and Gospel
Fragments (Oxford, 2009). Dr. Kruger is ordained in the
Presbyterian Church in America and also serves (part-time) as Pastor of
Teaching at Uptown PCA in downtown Charlotte. You can follow his blog at www.michaeljkruger.com or on Twitter @michaeljkruger.
No comments:
Post a Comment