Michael Kruger has quickly become one of evangelicalism’s leading voices in the areas of early Christianity and NT canon. In 2010, he co-authored The Heresy of Orthodoxy, which challenged the notion that Christianity began as a pluralistic set of beliefs and only later was stripped of its diversity by the group we now call the “orthodox.” In Canon Revisited (2012), Kruger mounted a theological and historical case for Christians to justify their belief in the authority of the NT canon. Now, in The Question of Canon, Kruger challenges the dominant paradigm in much of modern biblical scholarship, which views the concept of canon as something altogether foreign from early Christianity and as only an ecclesiastical production of the second, third, or even fourth century. While responding to the major tenets of this view—what he labels the extrinsic model—Kruger suggests the merits of an alternative model, the intrinsic model, which is “that the idea of canon is not something imposed from the outside but develops more organically from within the early Christian religion itself” (p. 21). Kruger carefully surveys the extrinsic model by locating five of its major tenets and then revealing each tenet’s major problems. After explaining his thesis and its relevancy in the introduction, each major chapter critiques the major claims of the extrinsic model and opens the door for a reconsideration of the intrinsic model.

Chapter 1 examines the claim that we must make a sharp distinction between the definitions of Canon and Scripture. Kruger suggests that the way forward in this debate over terminology is to define canon in a “multidimensional fashion.” On one hand, the exclusive definition of canon offers a reminder that a general consensus on the boundaries of the canon was not achieved until the fourth century. Yet, on the other hand, the functional definition focuses on when books began to function as an authoritative norm, which was fairly early in church history. Furthermore, the ontological definition, emphasizing the intrinsic character of these books themselves, is a reminder that these books did not become canonical simply because the church decided to proclaim them as such.

Chapter 2 addresses the claim that there was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon. This chapter argues that early Christian beliefs led to a favorable environment for the growth of the NT canon. First, early Christians believed that Jesus brought the fulfillment, foretold in the OT, of a new divine message that was expected to accompany the Messiah. Second, early Christians believed Jesus inaugurated the new covenant, which carried with it an expectation of a written text. Third, since early Christians understand the apostles as Jesus’s authorized agents, it would have been natural for them to conclude that their writings were authoritative.

Chapter 3 responds to the assertion that early Christians were averse to written documents. Using socio-historical studies and evidence from early Christianity, Kruger shows the fallacy of assuming that early Christians were averse to written texts just because many early believers were illiterate.

Chapter 4 counters the belief that the NT authors were unaware of their own authority. Kruger explores numerous NT examples where the authors display their awareness of their own authority. Though the authors could not foresee that their writings would be part of a completed 27 book NT canon, the evidence suggests that they believed themselves to be writing books that would guide the church.

Chapter 5 responds to the claim that the NT books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century. By exploring the writings of early church fathers and the NT itself, this chapter shows that Christians began to view a number of their writings as Scripture by the turn of the first century.

In the conclusion, Kruger provides a summary of his thesis and arguments and then includes three implications from his study. First, “it serves as a simple reminder that historical investigations, like scientific ones, often operate on the basis of models, or what we might call paradigms” (p. 209). Second, “there are enough problems with the extrinsic model to raise serious questions about its viability” (p. 209). Third, “more scholarly consideration should be given to what we have called the intrinsic model” (p. 209).

Throughout this volume Kruger is charitable to those holding to the view he is opposing and also sufficiently nuances his argument to avoid the mistakes that might be made by some eager defenders of the NT canon. For example, The Question of Canon does not reject all the claims of the extrinsic model and begins each chapter explaining the strengths of each of its tenets. Kruger argues that his proposed intrinsic model should be emphasized alongside, not in place of, the extrinsic model. Kruger is careful to identify his aims and avoids getting distracted with peripheral matters along the way. Furthermore, he displays his breadth of knowledge in the primary and secondary literature; yet, his arguments are clear enough for those without special training in the field to understand.

Yet most historical-critics will probably remain unconvinced in regards to Kruger’s ontological definition of canon, which defines canon “from a divine perspective” (p. 40). Kruger challenges—correctly in my view—the notion that the historical-critic is not also offering a theological perspective. However, some who are sympathetic to Kruger’s perspective will likely suggest that in discourse with critics this kind of overtly theological argument should be sidelined since it will undoubtedly leave suspicious many of those he is trying to convince.

As a small point of clarification, Kruger’s labeling the extrinsic model the “dominant” view within scholarship is true when considering the current landscape of biblical studies, but readers should not deduce from this that intrinsic model supporters are few and far between. As Kruger’s references indicate and as he would likely agree, there are many scholars, and certainly the majority of Evangelical scholars, who appeal to aspects of both models and will be in agreement with Kruger’s thesis.

First and most obviously, scholars should take notice of this volume as it provides a formidable challenge to the more liberal consensus concerning the canon. However, Christian leaders in a variety of contexts could be greatly helped by this volume as well. In a day when the Bible seems to be attacked from all angles and skeptics are writing New York Times best sellers about the Bible’s “problems,” Christian ministers can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and think these issues will be safely quarantined to halls of the academy. The Question of Canon can help pastors and ministry leaders better understand the issues and respond in ways that help engender confidence in the NT canon.

---