TheCanonicityoftheNewTestamentScripture:

AStudyoftheIssuesInvolved,HigherCriticism,andEvangelicalResponses

JasonKruis
BTS500:IntroductiontoBiblicalStudies
July2015

Introduction/Thesis
Canon,forourpurposes,isdefinedasreligiouswritingsthataretoberegarded
asauthoritativescripture.1Thispaperfocusesonthequestionofwhetherthe27books
knownastheNewTestament(NT)oftheBibleshouldberegardedascanonical,i.e.
whetherthese27andonlythese27aretoberegardedasauthoritativeNTscripture.
Issuesinvolvedintheareaincludedatinghistoricalevidenceandtestimonyapocryphal
writingsandtheologicalconcerns.Highercriticshaveusedeachoftheseissuesto
denigratetheBible,andevangelicalshaverespondedtothesecriticismswiththorough
androbustdefensesoftheNewTestamentCanon.Intreatingtheissuesinvolved,higher
criticism,andevangelicalresponses,thispaperseekstodemonstratethecanonicityand
thustheauthorityoftheNT,finallyshowingtheimplicationofthesediscussionson
methodologyinapproachingtheScripture.
TheHistoricalContextoftheCanonDebate
Whilethequestionofcanonisatleastasmuchatheologicalasahistoricalone,2
inGaffinswords,itisimportantthatwebecarefulnottoforgetordistortthehistorical
picture,lestweallowtheologicalreflectiontobecomeabstractandspeculative.3
Thereforewewillstartwiththehistoricalaspectofthequestion,beginningwiththe
historicalcontextofthedebate,whichwewilltakeintwoparts.Firstwewillconsider
theearlyhistory:theroughlythreecenturiesfromthetimeoftheapostles,untilthattime

Powell,118
Gaffin,165
3
Ibid.,166
2

whenwhatweknowtodayastheNewTestamenthadbeengenerallyestablishedinthe
churchsunderstanding.Thesecondaspectofthehistorywewillinvestigateismore
modern(theearliestpartsofwhichincludetheReformationandtheEnlightenment
periods):thetimeandcircumstancesleadinguptotodayshighercriticism.
EarlyHistory
AsKyrtatassays,itissodifficultandcontroversialtodealwiththeoriginsand
theearlieststagesoftheNTcanon,wemayaswellstartfromtheendproductandmove
backwards. 4Theendproduct(anauthoritativeNewTestament)findsitsearliest
extantmentioninAthanasiusthirtyninthFestalLetterof367A.D.,5andwas
subsequentlyaccepted(withAugustinessupport)attheSynodofHippoin393.6From
thattime,asEhrmanrecords,Forthosewithintheorthodoxtradition,thetraditionthat
standsattherootofmostformsofChristianityfamiliartoustodayRomanCatholic,
EasternOrthodox,Protestantthematterwasforallpracticalpurposesresolved.The
churchhaditscanon.
Movingbackwardfromthere,bytheendofthesecondcentury,
most
ofwhatis
nowtheNTwasalreadygenerallyagreeduponintheMediterraneanworldaswellasin
anareaspanningBritaintoMesopotamia.7 Astowhathadledtotheconsiderationofthe
issue,Metzgercontends,scholarsarelargelyagreedontheimportanceofMarcionand
othersecondcenturyhereticsinforcingtheGreatChurchtogiveitsattentiontothe

Kyrtatas,29
Ibid.(Cf.Ehrman,230andGaffin,168.)
6
Ehrman,24546
7
Metzger,75
5

canonquestion.8Notableamongtheseheretics(andheresies)aretheeffectsof
Gnosticism(specificallyBasiledes,Carpocrates,Valentinus,andtheNagHammadi
Tractates)MarcionandMontanism.9Additionally,Metzgernotes,persecutionwasa
factor:WhentheimperialpoliceknockedatthedooranddemandedofChristiansthat
theysurrendertheirsacredbooks,it[becamenecessary]todetermineonsolidgrounds
preciselywhichwerethebooksforadherencetowhichtheywerewillingtosuffer.10
Movingbackfromthere,wefindevidenceinthesubapostolicliteraturefromas
earlyastheendofthefirstcenturythattheapostolicwritingswereuniversallyheldto
possessthesamedivinelyauthoritativecharacterasthebooksoftheOldTestament.11
Further,theapostolicwritersthemselves(mostclearlyPeter,in2Peter3:16)considered
oneanotherswritingstobeScriptureonthesamelevelauthoritativelyastheOld
Testament.ItisonthisbasisthatPackercanwritethatWheninthemidsecondcentury
theChurchbeganformallytodefinethelimitsofitsNewTestamentcanon,itseemsthat
theprocessinvolvednomorethantheexplicitrecognitionofanestablishedstateof
affairs.12
Whileaspectsofthisnarrativehaveinrecentcenturiescomeintosome
controversy,thepositiveclaimssofar(asnotedalongtheway)canstillbesaidtobe
generallyaccepted.Theinterpretationofthesefacts,however,andtheirimplicationsfor
modernlifeandtheology,havebecomemattersofheateddebate,inwhichthosewho

Gaffin,166
Metzger,75105
10
Ibid.,10607
11
Packer,65
12
Ibid.,6566
9

holdtohistoricallyorthodoxdoctrinesofScriptureandcanonicitynolongerfind
themselvesintheacademicmajority.Itisthehistoricaldevelopmentofthisstateof
affairstowhichwenowturnourattention.
ModernHistory
ThroughouttheMiddleAges,andevenlastingthroughtheperiodofthe
RenaissanceandReformation,therewaslittlequestionastotheauthenticityand
compositionoftheNewTestament.13AlthoughLutherhadanunflatteringviewofsome
ofNTbooks,especiallyJames(asubjecttowhichwewilllaterreturn),neitherhenorhis
followersattemptedtoremovethemfromthecanon.14
Bythecloseoftheseventeenthcentury,15 theDeisticmovementwasontherisein
EnglandandFrance,andinmilitantoppositiontothepossibilityofthemiraculousor
supernatural.16 However,asHagertynotes,neitherDeistsnortheVoltaireschoolwere
abletoundertakethelearnedBiblicalcriticismthatwouldbenecessarytoundermine
Scripturessupernaturalclaims.Instead,itwouldbeuptoGermanRationalists,backed
bycertainscientists,17 todeliverEuropefromwhatFrenchdeistsandGerman
pantheistsdescribedasmedievalsuperstition.18
Inhisbriefnarrativeofthishistory,HagertyrecountshowReimarus(16941768),
Paulus(17611851),Hegel(17701831),DavidStraus(18081874),andFerdinandBaur

13

Metzger,11
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Hagerty,199
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
14

(17921860)eachcontributedtothedenigrationoftheBiblethroughaccusationsof
deceptiondenialofthesupernaturalevolutionarytheoryandthesystematicescalation
andapplicationoftheseattacksonChristianity.19 Straus,inhis
LifeofChrist
(1834),
positedalatedateforthewritingofthegospels,toaccommodatehisexplanationof
Jesusmiraclesasfolkloredevelopedbyheroworshipduringthecenturyfollowingthe
deathofChrist.20
TheseGermanBiblecriticswere(accordingtoHagertybecauseoftheir
erudition)intimidatingtomanyoftheprofessorsintheProtestantseminariesofEurope
andAmerica,21 whowereunpreparedtojudgehowmuchofwhatGermanprofessors
saidwasbasedonfactandhowmuchofitwasinferencedrawnfromHegelian
Philosophy.22 Whiletheirlearnednesscertainlymayhavebeenacontributingfactorto
theGermansabilitytointimidatetheirforeignpeers,itmayalsohavebeena(feigned)
postureofcertainty,asdescribedbyVigouroux,aFrenchBiblicalscholar:
Onecauseoftheinfluenceexercisedbynegativecriticismisthetoneof
assurancewithwhichitdrawsitsconclusions.Inconfidence:Science
proves,criticismdemonstrates,andthisassertionfrequentlytakesthe
placeofproofanddemonstration.Asthoughsciencewereincarnatein
theirperson!Asthoughcriticismdidnotexistoutsidehypothesesinvented
bytheirimagination!23
ItwasthisilliberalcontextthatproducedfamedGermantheologianand
lexicographerofNTGreekWalterBauer(18771960),whosefatherwasaprofessorat

19

Ibid.,199200
Ibid.,200
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
QuotedinHagerty,201
20

thesamePrussianuniversityinwhichKanthadtaught.Hestudiedtheology,classical
philology,andorientalphilologyattheuniversitiesofMarburg,Berlin,andStrassburg.24
HisworkontheheelsofthatdiscussedaboveamonghisrationalisticGermanforerunners
playsalmostpoeticallyintoHarrissobservation:IftheliteraltruthoftheBiblebooksis
denied,asitisdeniedbytheNewModernism,thechiefcriterionfortheassemblageof
thebooksisabandoned,andtheproblemofthecanonreturnswithanewforce.25 It
wouldseemthatthe18thcenturyGermanattacksontheBiblescontentfoundtheir
crescendoinBauers
OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliestChristianity
(originallyprintedin
Germanin1934),26 thecontinuedinfluenceofwhichis(byKrugersestimation)oneof
themostsignificantcontributingfactorstotheongoingproblemofcanon.27
Thisbriefhistoryshouldserveasasufficientcontextforlaunchingintoour
discussionofhighercriticismandevangelicalresponsesintheareaofcanonicity.We
willproceedoneissueatatime,consideringfirstthehighercriticism,followedby
relevantevangelicalresponses.Asshouldbecomeevident,thecontemporaryliberal
argumentsandagendaareonaroughlyeventrajectorywith(i.e.theyhavenot
discerniblyadvancedbeyond)thoseofBauerandhisforbears.Andthankfully,
contemporaryevangelicalscholarshiphasevidentlycaughtupto(perhapseven
surpassed)the
erudition
oftheopposition.

24

Boring,17273
Harris,133
26
Boring,172
27
Kruger,19
25

DatingofCanonicalTexts
Regardingthedatingoftexts,therearetwopairsofsubissues.Thefirstinvolves
textsthatarenumberedamongthetwentysevenintheNewTestament,versus
apocryphaltextsthatarenot.Thesecondinvolvesearlydatesversuslatedates.Inthis
section,wedealonlywiththequestionofearlyorlatedatesforthetwentyseven
includedintheNTcanon.Whilethequestionofdatesforapocryphaltextswillbeleftfor
anindependentdiscussionofthosetexts,Iwillnoteherethegeneralobjectiveofeach
side:
Highercriticsgenerallyseektoassignearlierdatestoapocryphaltextsand
laterdatestocanonicaltexts,eventuallymakingthemroughlyequal.
Evangelicalsgenerallyseektodefendearlydatesforcanonicaltextsand
todemonstratelaterdatesforapocryphaltexts.
Whileperhapsselfevident,itshouldbenotedthatthereasonbehindthesegeneral
objectivesisthattheearlierthedateassignedtoatext,theeasieritistomakeacasethat
itsclaimstoportraythe
true
Jesusand/orapostolicteachingsarelegitimate(oratleast
equallyworthyofbeingconsideredassuchincomparisonwithothertexts).
HigherCriticism
TheGospels
Wehaveseenevidenceofearlierdatingcontroversy,asalreadynoted(andunder
adifferentscenario),intheworkoftheearlyGermanhighercritics,particularlyStraus,
whopositedalatedateforthegospelstodelegitimizeScripturessupernaturalclaims.28

28

Hagerty,200

Fromthere,admittedly,theworkofthehighercriticstodemonstratelatedatesforsome
oftheNTstextsdidbecomemorerefinedand(atleastinsomecases)lessapparently
agendadriven.
ThePastoralEpistles
Amongthecanonicaltextsmostcommonlyattackedondatinggroundsarethe
PastoralEpistles(PE),thetwoletters(whichclaimtohavebeen29)writtenbyPaulto
Timothy(especiallythefirst),alongwiththeone(whichalsoclaimsPaulineauthorship30
)toTitus.Theobjectionsrelativetodatingarelargelyfocusedoncontentparticularly
thechurchhierarchyprescribedandtheheresiesdescribedwhichhighercriticsmaintain
isbetterplacedinthesecondcentury,makingitimpossibleforPaultohaveauthoredthe
PE.31
SecondPeter
AccordingtoKruger,Perhapsnobookhashadamoredifficultjourneyintothe
canonthan2Peter.32Onceagain,thegroundsfor2Peterssupposeddisqualification
comprisevariousobjectionsthatleadtoitsdatebeingsetbymostscholarsintheearly
secondcentury,33 precludingtheepistlesselfproclaimed34 Petrineauthorship.Inthis
casetheobjectionsincludesuchfactsasitsexclusionfromtheMuratorianCanon,35with

29

1Tim.1:12Tim.1:1
Tit.1:1
31
Towner,31
32
Kruger,271
33
Ibid.
34
2Pet.1:1
35
Lange,4
30

moderncriticsconsideringitproven,thatapseudoPeterofalaterperiodclumsily
manufacturedthisEpistlefromthatofJude.36
EvangelicalResponse
TheGospels
AsKrugerconfidentlyasserts,TheNewTestamentbooksaretheearliest
Christianwritingswepossess.37Notingtheimportanceofanearlydatetothereliability
ofwritingsclaimingtodescribeauthenticearlyChristianity(andnotingmarginalclaims
tothecontrary),hegoesontowrite,Afterallthescholarlydusthassettled,evencritics
agreethatthesefour[theBiblicalbooksMatthew,Mark,Luke,andJohn]aretheearliest
accountsofJesusthatwepossess.38AmongthehighercriticsIhavereviewed(with,as
noted,theexceptionofStraus39),Ihavenotfoundanyclaimingadatelaterthanca.
9013040 foranyofthefourNTgospels.
ThePastoralEpistles
TotheclaimthatthetheologicalbattlesbeingwagedinthePEbelongtothe
secondcentury,Langeresponse,TheidentityofthesehereticswiththeGnosticsofthe
secondcenturyisnotatallmadeoutasyetandeventheoppositeisprovablefromother
apostolicletters,41andThegrounds[for]areferenceheretotheMarcionites[Marcion

36

Ibid.
Kruger,Michael,TenBasicFactsAbouttheNTCanonthatEveryChristianShouldMemorize,
InerrantWord
,accessedJuly29,2015,
http://inerrantword.com/180015375/blog/180004060/220000053/Ten_Basic_Facts_About_the_NT_Canon
_that_Every_Christian_Should_Memorize.
38
Ibid.
39
Hagerty,200
40
Pagels,34
41
Lange,3
37

beingasecondcenturyheretic],arearbitraryandweakintheextreme.42 Withregardto
thesupposedprolepsisofsecondcenturyecclesiologicalstructure,whilethePEexhibita
uniquefocus(withinfirstcenturyChristianwriting)ontheselectionofoverseers/elders
anddeacons,theparticularcircumstances(withinTimothysandTitusschurches)which
theletterseekstoaddresscouldeasilyaccountforthis.43
SecondPeter
Inresponsetothewidelyheldopinion(amongmodernscholars)that2Peterisa
pseudonymousworkdatingtotheearlysecondcentury,evangelicalshavemadea
substantialcase...forthetraditionalauthorshipofthebook,whichwouldsuggestadate
inthemid60s.44Supportingevidenceinthiscaseincludesthelikelihoodthatearly
sources(suchas1Clement,ca.96)knewandusedtheepistle.45 Additionalsupport
comesfromapparentallusionsorcitationsinJustinMartyr,Irenaeus,Hippolytus,and
Origen.46 Inlightofallevidence,2Peterstillhassignificantlymoresupportforits
inclusioninthecanonthanthebestofthosebooksthathavebeenrejected.47
HistoricalEvidenceandTestimony
TheMuratorianCanon
InsupportoftheclaimthattheessenceoftheNTcanonwasbeginningtotake
shapebytheendofthesecondcentury,evangelicalscholarsseemtorelyasmuchonthe

42

Ibid.
Towner,33
44
Kruger,271
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.,272
43

10

MuratorianCanonasonanyotherpieceofhistoricaltestimony.Thisdocument,named
fortheeighteenthcenturyscholarwhodiscovereditinalibraryinMilan,48isa
fragmentarytextthatincludesalistofbooksthatitsauthor(whoremainsanonymous)
consideredtobepartoftheNTScriptures.49Whilethediscoveredfragmentisgenerally
consideredtodatetotheeighthcentury,itisatranslationofaGreekoriginal.50Partofits
contributiontothecasefor(early)canonicityisthatitexcludesmidsecondcentury
writingsfromconsiderationonthebasisoftheir
late
date.51
AccordingtoEhrman,Thecommonviewofthemattersincethedaysof
Muratorihasbeenthat[theoriginal]waswrittensomewhereinthevicinityofRomein
thesecondhalfofthesecondcentury,possiblyduringthetimeofHippolytus.52Asthe
listcontainsthefourNTgospels(andnoothers)ActsandallthirteenPaulineepistles,53
whileatthesametimenotingthetentativeacceptanceofsomebookswhilejustifyingthe
exclusionofsomeothers(foritisnotfittingthatgallbemixedwithhoney),54suchan
earlydategivesastrongboosttothecaseformostofthecanonbeingrecognizedassuch
beforetheendofthesecondcentury.Surelyitisthisstrengthofsupportthathasled
highercriticstochallengesuchanearlydateitisthischallengetowhichwenowturn.

48

Ehrman,240
Ibid.
50
Ibid.,241
51
Ibid.,242
52
Ibid.,241
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
49

11

HigherCriticism
SundbergandHahnemanhaveprovidedthemostnotedcaseagainsta
secondcenturydatefortheMuratorianCanon.55 Mainlyindisputeisthesignificanceof
onlyfourwords:inLatin,veronuperrimetemporibusnostris.56Thisreference,
includedinthefragment,tothetimewhenHermaswrotehiswork
Shepherd
hasbeen
understoodtoread,veryrecently,inourtimes.57Giventhegenerallyaccepted
midsecondcenturydatefor
Shepherd
(HermaswasthebrotherofPius[ca.155],afact
mentionedinthesamesentenceinthefragment),58thiswouldseemtoplacethedatingof
theMuratorianCanoninthelatterhalfofthesecondcentury.
Seekingtobypasswhattheyacknowledgeistheplainreading(i.e.thecommon
interpretation)ofthetext,SundbergandHahnemanpositanalternative.59While
nuperrime(recently)isgenerallythoughttorefertotheauthor(i.e.tomeanthatthe
authorwasacontemporaryofHermasandPius),Sundbergoffersasaviable
alternativethatnuperrimemightbetakentorefertothetimingof
Shepherd
relativeto
theotherwritingslisted.60Ifthisisthecase,thenthestrongestpieceofevidenceforearly
datingoftheMuratorianCanonandthusanearly,mostlydevelopedandrecognized
canonislost,allowingroomforthecontentionthatfarfrombeingaRomanlistfrom

55

Verheyden,501cf.Kruger,230andEhrman,278.
Verheyden,504
57
Ehrman,241
58
Verheyden,501
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
56

12

theendofthesecondcentury,CanonMuratoriisprobablyanEasternlistdatingfromthe
fourthcentury.61
EvangelicalResponse
OntheissueofthedatingoftheMuratorianCanon,evangelicalsarenotalonein
theirskepticismofSundbergandHahnemansproposedalternativetothehistorical
understanding.Ehrmanacknowledgesthattheirargumentshavenotprovedaltogether
compelling,62 andthatThedifficultiesthat[Hahnemansposition]posesare
convincingly
shownbyseveralscholarswhohavewrittenreviewsofhiswork,especially
Ferguson,Holmes,andMetzger(emphasisadded).63
VerheydenhasofferedacharitablecritiqueofSundbergandHahneman,noting
thattheydodeservecreditforhavingaskedwhetheranalternativeinterpretationmight
bepossible,64andfindingenoughconsiderationtonecessitateacloserlookatthe
plausibilityoftheirproposal.65Intheend,however,havingdealtwiththetechnicalities
ofthelinguisticsinthecontextoftheirhistoricalimplications,Verheydenfindsthat,
Whileitmaywellbeplausibletomaintainadistinctionbetweentheapostolicand
postapostolicerasattheendofthesecondcentury,bytheendofthefourthcentury,it

61

Sundberg,363
Ehrman,241
63
Ibid.,278
64
Verheyden,502
65
Ibid.
62

13

makeslesssense.66ForVerheyden,thehistoricalunderstandingthatthisphraseology
representsahintfromtheauthorofitsmidsecondcenturyprovenancestillstands. 67
OrthodoxyandHeresy
Itiswithoutdisputethatthefirstseveralhundredyearsofthechurchsexistence
witnessedastruggleamongcompetingpartiestoclaimthemantleofthetrueapostolic
faith.68 WhatwasgenerallyacceptedfromatleastthetimeofAthanasiusslist69untilthe
riseoftheEuropeanDeistsandRationalists,70wasthattruthhadwonoutovererrorthat
whatcouldrightlybecalledorthodoxyhadsurvivedwhatcouldrightlybecalledheresy.
Inmodernscholarship,thisunderstandingcannolongerbeassumed.
HigherCriticism
Withthe1934publicationofhiswork
OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliest
Christianity
,WalterBauersoughttoturntheunderstandingoftherelationshipbetween
orthodoxyandheresyonitshead.Inhisintroductiontothiswork,hepresentshis
reasoningforattemptinganobjectiveconsiderationofearlyChristiancontroversies.71
Thefinalimplication,byhisreasoning,isthatwemightrejectthedeterminationsofthe
earlychurchthatledtoourcanonandfaith,findingthatwhatithadrejectedasheresy
hasinfactanequallylegitimate(andperhapsmorelegitimate)claimtothelabelof
Christianity.AsKstenbergerputsit,Whatusedtoberegardedasheresyis[inBauers
66

Ibid.,504
Ibid.
68
SeeMetzgersextendedtreatment,75106consideralsotheNTScripturesowntestimonytothis
struggle,particularlyinthePE,Jude,and2Peter.
69
Discussedinp.4ofthispaper,under
EarlyHistory
.
70
Discussedinpp.45ofthispaper,under
ModernHistory
.
71
Bauer,xxi
67

14

wake]theneworthodoxyoftheday,andtheonlyheresythatremainsisorthodoxy
itself.72
MuchastheDeistsandRationalistslaidthegroundworkforBauer,Bauerlaidthe
groundworkforthescholarBartEhrman,whohassuccessfullyexpandedonand
popularizedBauerstheoriesinthemodernenvironmenttowhichtheyaresowellsuited.
73

PropoundingtheideathattherightviewofearlyChristianityisapluralisticone

whereinthevariousgroupsandtruthclaimsshouldbeconsideredtohavebeenequally
valid,Ehrmancontendsthatthereasonthishasnotbeenthehistoricalunderstandingis
itselfduetorevisionisthistorians:
Andthen,asacoupdegrce,thisvictoriouspartyrewrotethehistoryof
thecontroversy,makingitappearthattherehadnotbeenmuchofa
conflictatall,claimingthatitsownviewshadalwaysbeenthoseofthe
majorityofChristiansatalltimes,backtothetimeofJesusandhis
apostles,thatitsperspective,ineffect,hadalwaysbeenorthodox(i.e.,
therightbelief)andthatitsopponentsintheconflict,withtheirother
scripturaltexts,hadalwaysrepresentedsmallsplintergroupsinvestedin
deceivingpeopleintoheresy(literallymeaningchoiceahereticis
someonewhowillfullychoosesnottobelievetherightthings).
Andwiththis,wearecompelledtoseekamoreholistic(i.e.palatabletoliberal
sensibilities)understandingofwhoJesusreallywasandwhathereallytaught,by
lookingtothewritingsthatwerewronglyrejectedbytheearlychurch.Itisthetopicof
thesewritingstowhichwewillturnnext,afterconcludingthissectionbyconsideringthe
evangelicalresponsetoBauersandEhrmansfoundationalcontentions.

72

Kstenberger,16
Cf.Kstenberger,1516

73

15

EvangelicalResponse
JerryFlora,inhisdissertation
ACriticalAnalysisofWalterBauersTheoryof
EarlyChristianOrthodoxyandHeresy
,offersaseeminglybalancedappraisalofBauers
work,concludingthatitprovestobeavaluablecorrectivetotheoversimplified
approachoftheolderposition.74Indeed,wemightrelatetothe(sometimesrightly
protective)tendencyintheevangelicalChristiantraditiontodismisshistoricalheresy
withoutseekingtocomprehendit,onceweunderstandittohavebeenlabeledassuchby
theearlychurch.Perhaps,then,FloraisrighteveninaffirmingBauersdesiretogive
thesocalledhereticstheirdayincourtwiththebenefitofdoubtonallcontroverted
questions.75
Havingexaminedtheevidencepresentedatthatcourtdate,however,Flora
findsthatBauerhasoverreached:heinterpretedsomeevidencetooonesidedly,didnot
givesufficientweighttootherevidence,andsometimestreatedlackofevidencewith
unnecessarysuspicion.76Choosingtoarguethecasefortheoppositionasstronglyas
possible...whatheproducedwastheantithesisofthetraditionaltheory.Byattemptingto
outlineathoroughlyconsistent(
konsequent
)hypothesishewenttoofar.77 Towit,Bauer
waswrongtofindthathistoricalheresiesshouldnothavebeendeemedheretical.
AstotheaccusationofrevisionisthistorylaterfurtheredbyEhrman(asnoted
earlier),FlorarespondstothiscontraBauer,usinganaptquotebyG.PeterRichardson:

74

Flora,152
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
75

16

Itisatemptingproceduretoreadbackintoafluidperiodalaterfixedidea,byadducing
onlytheevidenceforthatparticularview.78Floraspointisthatanysupposed
revisionismonthepartoflaterhistorians(hementionsEusebiusinparticular79)isless
likelyaconspiratorialeffortatobscuringthetruthofamisdeeddonetothosewith
opposingviewsandmorelikelyacombinationofdistrustofthosewhohadbeen
determinedtobehereticaloratleastheterodox,togetherwithanuncuriousperspective
moldedbyits(relativelyhomogenous)context.
Fromwhatwehaveseen,Bauersattempts(frequentlyrecycledbyEhrman)at
invalidatingthetraditionalhistoricaltestimonytoorthodoxysrightfultriumphover
heresyultimatelyfallshort.However,aswewillseeinthenextsection,thathasnot
stoppedmodernscholars(mostprominentlyEhrman)frombuildingonthisunfirm
foundationtoagreatdealofpopularacclaim.
ApocryphalWritings
ApocryphalChristianwritingscompriseavastbodyofearlynonbiblical
ChristianwritingsthatclaimtopreservememoriesofJesusandtheapostlesandthat
frequentlyimitatethemajorgenres(literarytypes)ofNTliterature.80Amongthese
writings,theextrabiblicalgospelsinparticularhavereceivedmuchattentioninthe
decadessincethe1945discoveryofthefiftytwoNagHammaditextsinEgypt.81

78

Ibid.,155
Ibid.
80
MacDonald,DennisR.,ApocryphalChristianWritings,ed.MarkAllanPowell,
TheHarperCollins
BibleDictionary
(RevisedandUpdated)(NewYork:HarperCollins,2011),38.
81
Wegner,413
79

17

ItistheclaimsandteachingsofthesewritingsthatEhrmaninsistsneedtobe
recouped82aslegitimateexpressionsoftheChristianfaith.The(alreadymentioned)
successofEhrmansworktothisendisperhapsbestcapturedinthewildpopularityof
thebook
TheDaVinciCode
andtheeponymousmoviestarringactorTomHanks.
ConsiderthisEhrmanesqueexcerpt:
MorethaneightygospelswereconsideredfortheNewTestament,andyet
onlyarelativefewwerechosenforinclusionMatthew,Mark,Luke,and
Johnamongthem.TheBible,asweknowittoday,wascollatedbythe
paganRomanemperorConstantinetheGreat.Constantine
commissionedandfinancedanewBible,whichomittedthosegospelsthat
spokeofChrists
human
traitsandembellishedthosegospelsthatmade
Himgodlike.Theearliergospelswereoutlawed,gatheredup,and
burned.ThemodernBiblewascompiledandeditedbymenwho
possessedapoliticalagendatopromotethedivinityofthemanJesus
ChristanduseHisinfluencetosolidifytheirownpowerbase.83
Withentertainmentvalue(andpopcultureadoption)likethat,itcanbehardtoimagine
anevangelicalresponsethatwouldstandup.However,followingasurveyofhigher
criticisminthearea,wewillseethatevangelicalshavesomestrongcounterstowhatin
theendisaweak,agendadrivencase.
HigherCriticism
BauerandEhrman,whileserving(respectively)aspioneerandfamousproponent
ofthealternativereadingofhistorythatlendsserious(i.e.scholarly)credibilityto
noncanonicalgospelsandotherapocryphalwritings,arebynomeansaloneashigher
criticsintheirfield.AsKstenbergerobserves,itisclearthatBauersconceptionofthe
82

SeeEhrmansIntroduction:RecoupingOurLosses,18
Brown,Dan,
TheDaVinciCode
(NewYork:Doubleday,2003),231,234

83

18

canonasalater,afterthefactconceptimposedupontheNewTestamentbooksisquite
widespreadamongmodernscholarship.84 Funkcaptureswellthevisionandagendain
thiscampwhenhewriteswithregardtorevisitingthetheideaofcanoninthemodern
context,Itwillbeagreattragedyifwedonotseizetheopportunitytorevampand
revise.[WeneedaNewTestament]largerthanthecurrentNewTestamentbecausethe
churchfathersundulynarrowedthescopeofthefoundingdocuments.85
Whileitisbeyondthescopeofthispapertoconsideralargenumberof
apocryphalwritingsindependently,wewillhavealookattheCopticGospelofThomas,
whichDungancallsthemostimportantlatelydiscovereddocument(fromtheNag
Hammadilibrary)knowntohavebeenrejectedbytheGreatChurchleaders.86 Sucha
contentionspringsfromthefactthat
Thomas
isoneofaonlyafewthatmaydatetothe
earlysecondcentury,andalsobearssomeresemblancetosourceQthatscholarswork
withinrelationshiptotheSynopticGospels.87
ElainePagels,inherbook
BeyondBelief:TheSecretGospelofThomas
,
highlightstheimportanceofthisGospeltoherbyrecountingherstruggletoreconcileher
evangelicalChristianexperience(largelycenteredonacelebrationoftheGospelofJohn)
withwhatshebelievedshouldbetrueofhowGodwouldreceiveaJewishfriendwhohad
diedtragicallyinacaraccident.88 Itwas(inhertelling)onlybyhereventualGreek

84

Kstenberger,106
Funk,555FormoreonFunkandtheJesusSeminarsattempttomodifytheexistingcanon,Kruger,in
17(note10),pointstoCuttingLoosetheHolyCanon:AControversialReExaminationoftheBible,
U.S.
News&WorldReport
15,no.18(1993):75.
86
Dungan,33951
87
Wegner,421
88
Pagels,3031
85

19

studies(atHarvard)ofgospelsandapocryphawrittenduringthefirstcenturies,
manyofthemsecretwritingsofwhichIdneverheard,89thatshefoundthe
Jesus
she
wasseeking,theoneportrayed(inherunderstanding)inthe
GospelofThomas
:
ManyChristianstodaywhoreadthe
GospelofThomas
assumeatfirst
thatitissimplywrong,anddeservedlycalledheretical.Yetwhat
ChristianshavedisparaginglycalledGnosticandhereticalsometimes
turnsouttobeformsofChristianteachingthataremerelyunfamiliarto
usunfamiliarpreciselybecauseoftheactiveandsuccessfuloppositionof
ChristianssuchasJohn.90
ByJohn,shemeanstheapostle,againstwhoseGospelshepitsthatof
Thomas
fora
wholechapter,91 inwhichsheconcludes:
NowwecanseehowJohnsmessagecontrastswiththatof
Thomas
.
Thomas
sJesusdirectseachdiscipletodiscoverthelightwithin(withina
personoflightthereislight[
Thomas
24])butJohnsJesusdeclares
insteadthatIamthelightoftheworld[John8:12]andthatwhoever
doesnotcometomewalksindarkness[John8:12].In
Thomas
,Jesus
revealstothedisciplesthatyouarefromthekingdom,andtoityoushall
return[
Thomas
49]andteachesthemtosayforthemselvesthatwe
comefromthelight[
Thomas
50]butJohnsJesusspeaksastheonewho
comesfromaboveandsohasrightfulpriorityovereveryoneelse:
You
arefrombelowIamfromaboveTheonewhocomesfromaboveis
aboveall
[John8:23].92

Withthisbriefsurvey,webegintoseehowtheBauerEhrmanconstructworks:
castdoubtonthetraditionalversionofevents,denigratingtheorthodoxandrestoring
(recouping)theheretical.Next,scourapocryphalwritingsforsomethingthat
comportswithyourpreferredconceptofGod(orJesus),andsinceallearlyChristian
89

Ibid.,3132
Ibid.,73
91
Ibid.,GospelsinConflict:JohnandThomas,3073
92
Ibid.,68
90

20

writingsareequallyvalidliftupyourpreferredunderstandinganditsreliedon
writing(s)asthetruerepresentationoftheChristianfaith,oratleast(asEhrmanwould
haveit)asoneoftheLostChristianities.93
EvangelicalResponse
ThereisasolidcasetobemadethattheNTdoes,infact,includetherightbooks,
andthatthepoliticalstoryDanBrownborrowsfromEhrmanandBauerisnotthetrue
storyofChristianhistory.94 Whileelementsofthatcasearefoundelsewhereinthis
paperincludinginthenextsection,
TheologicalConcerns
herewewillarguethateven
theallowanceofanearlydateforsomeoftheapocryphalbooks(e.g.anearlysecond
centurydatefor
Thomas
),andeventhesimilarityofabooklike
Thomas
toaccepted
Jesustradition,donotrecommendanadjustmenttotheNTcanon.
WhileWegneracknowledgesthepossibilityofaveryearlydate(6070)forsome
of
Thomas
smaterial,henotesstrongevidencethatplacesmostofitscontentmuchlater
(ca.170orlater).95Hewrites,
Insum,itispossiblethataportionofthematerialin
Thomas
reflects
traditioncirculatingamongthechurchesthatcouldbelongtothisearly
period,butthesemustbeexaminedonasayingbysayingbasis.The
debateover
Thomas
isaboutwhatandhowmuchofthismaterialgoes
backtoJesusandhowmuchofitisareflectionoflaterGnosticconcerns.
Mostof
Thomas
doesnotgobacktoJesus,butafewpiecescould.96

93

Cf.Ehrman,1
Wegner,394.
95
Ibid.,422
96
Ibid.,42223
94

21

AstoPagelssclaimsfor
Thomas
,Wegnerbelievesshehasoverplayedthe
contrastwithJohn.97 Takingacloserlookatthecontentof
Thomas
,weseethatthereare
partsthatseemtoteachanexaltedJesus,atleastsomewhatinlinewithJohnsteaching:
Thomas
77reads,Jesussays,ItisIwhoamthelightwhichisabovethemall.ItisI
whoamtheall.Frommedidtheallcomeforth,anduntomedidtheallextend.Splita
pieceofwoodandIamthere.Liftupthestone,andyouwillfindmethere.98 AsWegner
asks,DoesthisnotsuggestahigherviewforauniqueJesusthanPagelspresents?99
With
Thomas
apparentlyamongtheirbestshots,wecaninferthatthehigher
criticsremainunabletoputforthanapocryphaltexttomatchthemixofearlydate,early
attestation,andconsistentcontentofthetrueNTtexts.Whatismore,withPagelss
apparentbendingof
Thomas
tofitheragenda,itstrikesoneasironicthatshewould
distortforherownpurposesevenabookwhichfewbelieveisactuallyScripture.100
TheologicalConcerns
Asnotedatthebeginning,thequestionofcanonisatleastasmuchatheological
asahistoricalone.101 Havingspentthebulkofthispaperonhistoricaldataanddebate,we
turnnowtowhatIconsiderthemostimportantoftheissuesinvolvedintheareaof
canonicity,thatof
theologicalconcerns
.AsVanhoozerincisivelyobserves,History

97

Ibid.,423
Ibid.,42324
99
Ibid,424
100
Cf.2Peter3:16
101
Gaffin,165
98

22

alonecannotanswerthequestionofwhatthecanonfinallyistheologyalonecando
that.102
HigherCriticism
Whileitmightseemalittleoddtobeginourdiscussionoftheologicalconcernsby
consideringwhatthehighercriticshavetosay,itshouldbehelpfultogetahandleonthe
objectionsbeforedivingintowhatshouldbearichdiscussionofworthytheologicaltruth,
soastoultimatelydrawasmuchgoodnessfromthattruthastodispelanythoughtofthe
objections,leadingtounfetteredworship!
Inspiration
SundbergisgenerallycorrectinobservingthatInProtestantthoughtthe
conceptsofBiblecanonandofinspirationarevirtuallysynonymous.103Fromtherehe
proceedstoarguethatarelatedclaim(e.g.Luthers)thatScriptureisselfattesting(i.e.
toitsowninspirationandthuscanonicity)istoosubjectivetobevalid,asthejudgment
[ofcanonicity]ismadebythepersonarguingthecase.104 Finally,havingclaimed
ignoranceofanyNTteachingthatisolatesthegiftofinspirationtoparticularpeople,
places,ortimes,Sundbergconcludesthatalthoughheisnotquestioningtheinspiration
ofScripturethedoctrineofinspirationisinadequatetoserveasacriterionof

102

Vanhoozer,146
Sundberg,352cf.Wegner,407andHarris,133.
104
Sundberg,358
103

23

canonization,asitissobroadinthechurchastonotbelimitabletothecanonof
scripture.105
WhoChoosestheCanon(OrDoesItChooseItself)?
Thisquestionisnotunrelatedtothatofinspiration.LikeSundbergwithregardto
inspiration,Marxsentakesanopenviewwithregardtowhatwouldqualifyoneto
identifybooksascanonical:
Anyonewhoinsiststhatthechurch(ledbytheHolySpirit)wasableto
decideonthestructureofthecanonwillhardlyadmitthattheSpiritleft
thechurchassoonasthedecisionwascastitisnotcleartome,atleast,
howsuchanideacouldbedefended.ButiftheSpiritdidnotabandonthe
church,whyshouldntthechurchatalaterdatebeabletomakesimilar
decisions?106

Hearguesitanotherwayaswell,againsimilarlytoSundberg:
Occasionallythepositionistakenthatitwasnotreallythechurchwhich
determinedordefinedthecanon...itsimplydeclaredthosewritingstobe
canonicalthathadalreadyproventhemselvestobecanonicalthroughlong
use.Butaproblemstillremains,forthesolutionmakestheexperiencesof
menthestandardforwhatshouldbe(orbetter,shouldremain)canonical.
Experiences,however,canbedeceitfulalliesinsuchdecisions,anditis
fairtoaskwhethertheexperiencesofoneindividualarebindingon
another.107

Andfinally,Marxsentakesissuewiththeideaofcanonasanobjectoffaith,asserting
thatratherthanplacingfaithinScripture,itsadherentsare(whethertheyknowitor

105

Ibid.
Marxsen,18
107
Ibid.,17
106

24

not)reallytrustingandparticipatinginadecisionofthechurch,forgettingthatthe
canondidnotfallfromheavenallatonceasanentitytobebelievedin.108
Kyrtatasalsoweighsinonthisquestion,statingthathedisagreeswiththemany
scholarswhosay(orimply)thattheprocessofdeterminingwhatbelongedinthecanon
wasoneofrecognizingassuchbooksthatalreadypossessedauthorityinthechurch.109
Rather,hesays,Weshouldlookatthemattertheotherwayaround:havingbeen
includedinthecanon,alldocumentswereconsideredtobeinspiredandauthoritative,
whatevertheirpriorstatus,becauseoftheirinclusion.Itwasultimatelythecanonitself
thatsecuredaspecialreceptionforitsdocuments.110
Whilebrief,thisoverviewofhighercriticismintheareaoftheologicalconcerns
demonstratesthewaysinwhichitspractitionerspushbackagainsttheBiblical
theologicaltruthsonwhichbeliefinaNewTestamentCanonultimatelyrests.Thefact
thatmorespacewillbegiventotheevangelicalresponseinthissection(whichwill
proceedinduecoursefrom
response
tooriginal
case
)isjustifiedinthatitisthissidethat
hereholdsalltheassets.Opponentsiftheevangelicalsclaimsaretruelackthe
necessarytruth,111 help,112 andevenwill113 totrulygrasptheology.114 (Additionally,based
onmyresearch,theevangelicalsvolumeofworkinthisareadwarfsthatofthe
opposition.)Soweturnnowtotheevangelicalresponse.

108

Ibid.,18
Kyrtatas31
110
Ibid.,31,32
111
John14:6
112
John15:26
113
John7:17
114
SeealsoEphesians4:18andRomans1:21.
109

25

EvangelicalResponse
Inspiration
WhileWegner115andHarris116bothtakethetraditionalProtestantviewthat
inspirationistheultimatedeterminerofcanonicity(makingthetwomoreorless
synonymous),IamgoingtoagreewithGaffininconcedingtoSundberg117that
inspirationisbroaderhistoricallythancanbelimitedtothecanonofScripture,andthatif
inspirationwerethetest,Therewouldbetheinsuperabledifficulty[forSundberg,
unavoidablesubjectivity]ofhavingto
demonstrate
inspirationforeachNewTestament
document.118
Itshouldbenoted,however,thatSundbergexpandsthedoctrineofinspiration
beyondwhatisallowablebiblicallywhenheindicatesthatitisinnowayrestrictedto
particularpersonsortoparticulartimes.119 Wearenow(sincetheclosingofthecanon
neartheendofthefirstcentury)inaperiodanalogoustothe400yearsbetweenOldand
NewTestamentswhen,asWegnerexplains,ThevoiceofGodhadceasedfollowingthe
timeofMalachi(about400BC)thus,newbookswerenolongerbeingaddedtothe
sacredScriptures.120ThisagreeswithGaffin,whoseexpansionofthedoctrineallows
onlythatotherwritingswithfullapostolicauthority(e.g.Paulspreviouslettertothe
CorinthiansandhislettertotheLaodiceans)arepresumablyinspired. 121

115

Wegner,407
Harris,133
117
Sundberg,358
118
Gaffin,169
119
Sundberg,364
120
Wegner,396
121
Gaffin,169
116

26

WhoChoosestheCanon(OrDoesItChooseItself)?
PerhapsnoonehassaiditbetterthanB.B.Warfield:
Inordertoobtainacorrectunderstandingofwhatiscalledtheformation
oftheCanonoftheNewTestament,itisnecessarytobeginbyfixingvery
firmlyinourmindsonefactwhichisobviousenoughwhenattentionis
oncecalledtoit.Thatis,thattheChristianchurchdidnotrequiretoform
foritselftheideaofacanon,or,asweshouldmorecommonlycallit,
ofaBible,thatis,ofacollectionofbooksgivenofGodtobethe
authoritativeruleoffaithandpractice.Itinheritedthisideafromthe
Jewishchurch,alongwiththethingitself,theJewishScriptures,orthe
CanonoftheOldTestament.122

ThismakessenseofPetersidentificationofPaulsletterswiththerestofthe
Scriptures.123 AndwhilethatmaybethemostobviousNTreferencetothefactthat
Warfieldsunderstandingcomesfromtheapostlesthemselves,Gaffinnotesthatwefind
indicationelsewherethattheapostleswerealreadyconcernedthat,astheydie,therebea
preservationofapostolicwitnessinandbythechurch.124 Theapostleswitnessis
repeatedlycalledtradition,anditisseentobeauthoritativeandbinding,forexample,
whenPaulcommandshisreaderstoholdfirmlytothetraditions,justasIdeliveredthem
toyou,125andtoholdtothetraditionswhichyouweretaught,whetherbywordof
mouthorbyletterfromus. 126AsGaffinnotes,2Thessalonians2:15isespecially
instructiveinitswording,
bywordofmouthorbyletter
:Noticethathereshortlyafter
1Thessalonians,perhapstheearliestNewTestamentdocumentwrittenaswellasoral

122

Warfield,411
2Peter3:16.UnlessotherwisenotedallScripturequotationsinthispaperarefromtheNewAmerican
StandardBible(NASB)translation.
124
Gaffin,177
125
1Cor.11:2
126
2Thess.2:15
123

27

apostolictraditionisalreadyinviewasauthoritative.127Again,asWarfieldhasso
clearlystated,theideaofauthoritativeScripturewasnonovelconceptfortheapostles
andtheirfollowers.AndtheNTprovidestheneededevidencetomakethecasethatthey
wererecognizingexactlywhattheyhadevenastheScriptureswerebeingwritten.
ThisrealityreadilydispenseswithbothMarxsenandKyrtatas.Whileontheface
ofitpartofMarxsensargumentreliesonanobviouslogicalfallacy,oratleastagapin
logic(i.e.,iftheHolySpiritisstillactiveinthechurch,hisministry
must
stillinclude
directingGodspeopleinchoosingbookstoaddtothecanon),onemightproceedto
considerthequestionofwhetherGodspeoplewouldstillbeabletorecognizean
inspiredbookifitshowedup.Gaffindoesjustthat,concluding:
Thechurchwouldhavetobefarlessfragmentedthanithasbeenforthe
pastthousandyearsforittorecognizeandthenreachaconsensusthat
suchawritingisindeedcanonical.Furthermore,suchrecognitioncould
hardlyclaimcontinuitywithwhattookplaceinthechurchduringthefirst
fourcenturies,whenitwasalwaysamatterofdecidingaboutdocuments
thathadallalongbeenknown,atleasttosomedegree.Butnowthere
wouldbeanewdocumentabruptlyintroducedafternearlytwothousand
years.

AstothequestionoffaithraisedbyMarxsenonthebasisofhisobservationthata
ScripturalCanondidnotfalloutoftheskytobecomeanobjectofbelief,wemustadmit
thisinasense.Whileitdoestakefaith,thisfaithisnotinthedecisionsofmen(asGaffin
notes,theinclusionofHebrewscouldbetakenastherightchoicemadeforthewrong
reason128).Neitheristhisfaithintheideathatabookfelloutoftheskytobebelieved.

127

Gaffin,177
Ibid.,169

128

28

Rather,thisisfaithintheprovidenceofandfaithfulnessofGodwhoorchestratedearly
churchhistorythroughtheteachingandleadershipofhisapostlesonwhomhesaidhe
wouldbuildhischurch,129 subsequentlyandrightly(andbymeansevenofmensflawed
decisions)settingasidethedocuments(andonlythedocuments)heintendstobeusedby
hischurchuntilthecloseoftheage.WithGaffin,therefore,Igladlyembracethe
circularityofthefinalword:CanonicaliswhatbelongstotheNewTestament,andwhat
belongstotheNewTestamentiscanonical130

I
mplicationsonMethodologyinApproachingtheScripture
Havingcometothispoint,wedrawthesameconclusionasPacker:TheBible
itselfmustfixandcontrolthemethodsandpresuppositionswithwhichitisstudied.131
Whilethehighercriticsdiscussedinthispapercometothequestionofcanonicity(and
moregenerallytotheScriptureitself)withthemselvesinviewasthejudges,theright
approachtotheScripture(includingtothequestionofcanonicity)istocome
submissively.IftheBibleiswhatitclaimstobe(anddespitemuchtoil,thehighercritics
havenotconvincinglyprovenotherwise),thenwemustcometoitinsuchawayasto
receivewhatPaulsaysitisgoodfor:reproof,correction,andtraininginrighteousness.132
Wecanonlyhopeandpraythatintheirpursuitsthehighercriticsultimatelycomeinto
thesetreasuresofsalvationbythegraceofGodthroughfaithinChrist.

129

Cf.Matt.16:18Eph.2:20
Gaffin,170.Justanote:ifIcouldhavesimplyreproducedGaffinsentirearticleforthispaper,that
wouldhavebeensatisfactoryinmyestimation.
131
Packer,68.
132
2Tim.3:16
130

29

Bibliography
Bauer,Walter.
OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliestChristianity
.Philadelphia:Fortress
Press,1971.
Boring,M.Eugene.Bauer,Walter.In
DictionaryofMajorBiblicalInterpreters
(2nd
ed.),editedbyDonaldK.McKim,172177.DownersGrove,IL:IVPAcademic,
2007.
Dungan,DavidL.TheNewTestamentCanoninRecentStudy.
Interpretation
29
(1975):33951.
Ehrman,BartD.
LostChristianities:TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithsWeNever
Knew
.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2003.
Flora,JerryRees.
ACriticalAnalysisofWalterBauersTheoryofEarlyChristian
OrthodoxyandHeresy
.AnnArbor,MI:UMIDissertationServices,1993.
Funk,RobertW.TheOnceandFutureNewTestament.In
TheCanonDebate
,edited
byLeeMartinMcDonaldandJamesA.Sanders,541557.Peabody,MA:2002.
Gaffin,RichardB.TheNewTestamentasCanon.In
InerrancyandHermeneutic
,
editedbyHarvieM.Conn,165183.GrandRapids,MI:BakerBookHouse,1988.
Hagerty,Cornelius.
TheAuthenticityoftheSacredScriptures
.Houston,TX:Lumen
ChristiPress,1969.
Harris,R.Laird.
InspirationandCanonicityoftheBible
.GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan
PublishingHouse,1969.
Kstenberger,AndreasJandMichaelJ.Kruger.
TheHeresyofOrthodoxy:How
ContemporaryCulturesFascinationwithDiversityHasReshapedOur
UnderstandingofEarlyChristianity
.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2010.
Kruger,MichaelJ.
CanonRevisited:EstablishingtheOriginsandAuthorityoftheNew
TestamentBooks
.Wheaton,IL:Crossway,2012.
Kyrtatas,DimitrisJ.HistoricalAspectsoftheFormationoftheNewTestamentCanon.
In
CanonandCanonicity:EssaysontheFormationandUseofScripture
,edited
byEinarThomassen,2944.Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress,2009.
Lange,JohnPeteretal.
ACommentaryontheHolyScriptures:2Peter
.Bellingham,
WA:LogosBibleSoftware,2008.
Marxsen,Willi.
TheNewTestamentastheChurchsBook
,trans.JamesE.Mignard.
Philadelphia:FortressPress,1972.
Metzger,BruceM.
TheCanonoftheNewTestament:ItsOrigin,Development,and
Significance
.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1997.
Packer,J.I.
FundamentalismandtheWordofGod
.GrandRapids,MI:WilliamB.
EerdmansPublishingCompany,1958.
Powell,MarkAllan.
TheHarperCollinsBibleDictionary,RevisedandUpdated
.New
York:HarperCollins,2011.

30

Sundberg,AlbertC.TheBibleCanonandtheChristianDoctrineofInspiration.
Interpretation
29(1975):352371.
Towner,PhilipH.
12Timothy&Titus(TheIVPNewTestamentcommentaryseries)
.
DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress,1994.
Vanhoozer,KevinJ.
TheDramaofDoctrine:ACanonicalLinguisticApproachto
ChristianTheology
.Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2005.
Verheyden,J.TheCanonMuratori:AMatterofDispute.In
TheBiblicalCanons
,
editedbyJ.M.AuwersandH.J.DeJonge,487556.Leuven:LeuvenUniversity
Press,2003.
Warfield,BenjaminB.
TheInspirationandAuthorityoftheBible
.Louisville,KY:SBTS
Press,2014.
Wegner,PaulD.,TerryL.Wilder,andDarrellL.Bock.DoWeHavetheRightCanon?
In
InDefenseoftheBible
,editedbyStevenB.CowanandTerryL.Wilder,
393428.Nashville,TN:B&HPublishingGroup,2013.

31