My new book, The Question of Canon, is designed to challenge a particular approach to the New Testament canon that is prevalent in the modern academy. It is the approach that suggests that in the earliest stages of Christianity the canon was in disarray; the canonical process was a wide-open affair where no one agreed on much of anything and no one was able to distinguish canonical books from apocryphal ones.
What is ironic about this critical approach is that it has an unexpected ally: Roman Catholicism. The Catholic claim is remarkably similar to the one of critical scholars (at least in its premise). Both claim that the canonical situation in early Christianity was in disarray and that there was no way to distinguish canonical books from apocryphal books. It’s just that modern scholars use this as a justification to reject the canon altogether, whereas Catholics use this as a justification for why we need an infallible church to tell us which books are in the canon. But, both groups share the same premise.
In my interactions with Catholics over the years, I have raised this issue. I have pointed out that many of the Roman Catholic apologists are essentially making the same argument as Bart Ehrman. They are trying to show that the canon was a mess so that they can argue the only solution is to lean on papal authority (of course, Ehrman doesn’t take this second step). Admittedly, this has been a bit discouraging. I would have hoped that Protestants and Catholics could at least team up to respond to the criticisms of scholars like Ehrman.
In order to address the difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic views of canon, I will be joining James White on his Dividing Line program today at 1PM EST. It is a live program, so tune in if you are able!
Devin Rose says
Dr. Kruger,
As a Catholic apologist I would not say that the NT canon was “wide open” or in “disarray.” Perhaps a Catholic said that to you but that is really a strawman claim that is easily knocked down.
That said, neither was the NT canon a “slam dunk” that had no controversy, doubts, or debate. The reality is found somewhere in between those extremes, which presents a problem for Protestantism and the canon, but not for Catholicism. Herein lies the most important thing to discuss.
We both agree there was widespread agreement on many of the books that we both accept in the NT canon. But the problem for Protestants is this: why should even that widespread agreement be binding upon their consciences? In other words, on what basis can the early Church’s consensus on certain books be trusted? The early Church had widespread consensus on baptismal regeneration, yet most Protestants reject that belief. Same with infant baptism, which many Protestant denominations reject. What is the principled reason for trusting the consensus on one issue and not another?
That is one question. The second one is, there were books that were disputed for centuries. You know them, as do I. They demonstrate the canon was not a slam dunk. Thus the canon’s discernment wasn’t something “obvious” or easily done. Calvin’s claim that telling an inspired book from a non-inspired one is as easy as telling “black from white” is thus shown to be in error.
These would be worthy issues to discuss with James White. The strawman argument will only reinforce White’s followers with misconceptions about Catholicism, something he may not be opposed to but I think you would be.
God bless,
Devin
Hermonta Godwin says
Hi Devin,
Let me first say that I am looking forward to you upcoming/revised work in Catholic Apologetics. I am a committed Protestant but believe that your work will be helpful in forcing people to understand why they believe what they believe.
Next, the widespread consensus on basically anything is only as useful as the reason behind such widespread agreement. For example, I care very little that there is a widespread scientific consensus concerning human caused global warming/climate change because it is based on smoke and mirrors.
The various beliefs of the early church are not black boxes where one can either accept what x number of folks believed because they believed it or be left blowing in the wind.
As far as your second question goes, doesn’t the development of doctrine seem to answer it. An analogy is a deep mathematical question. Now at some point in the past, the answer to the question could be disputed (while other issues are not) but as we better understand the question and the implications of the non disputed portions of math, we can come to a conclusion on the disputed question.
For something to be disputed at some point in the past does not mean that it must be disputed for all times. It also does not mean that one must turn to Rome in order gain certainty on the issue.
As far as the Calvin quote goes, I am not a Calvin expert but one could certainly place his view as being consistent with what I wrote above. Something could legitimately be easy for Calvin to see and not have been easy for someone living much earlier to see.
Mike Gantt says
Michael,
I took down this quote from you during the broadcast. Did I get it right?
“The DaVinci Code phenomenon said a lot more about Christians than it did about the book. It revealed how little the average Christian knows about the origin of the Bible.”
I’d like to use it – with attribution, of course.
Please advise.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Mike. Yes, you can use the quote as long as you give attribution.
Jennifer Wall says
Full iPhone Version for popular computer game “Who Wants to be a Catholic! “. The game is similar to the popular “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” t.v. game show, but all of the questions are related to the Faith, from easy to very challenging levels. Based on the Catechism and all approved sources. Download the app: http://bit.ly/TotallyCatholic