Allusion to a Bi-Covenantal Canon in 2 Peter 3:2, etc.

More gleanings from Kruger’s Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012): 207-209:

Kruger notes: “A key indication of an emerging canon within early Christianity is that Christians began to conceive of something like a New Testament alongside, and parallel to, the Old” (207). The early evidence of this is “rare” but “cannot be overlooked” (207).

Kruger sees this is 2 Peter 3:2: “That we may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.”

Here the writer thinks in terms of the (written) words of the prophets and the (written) commandment of the apostles.

He also sees the possibility of a bi-covenantal allusion in 2 Corinthians 3 where Paul refers to himself and other apostles as “ministers of the new testament [diatheke, covenant]” (v. 6), while later making reference to the writings of Moses as part of the “old testament [diatheke, covenant]” (v. 14).

He adds: “The implications of this passage for bi-covenantal canon are difficult to miss” (208-209).

Finally, he also notes Hebrews 2:2-3 which juxtaposes “the word spoken by angels” (v. 2, in reference to the OT) and that “which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (v. 3).

Kruger concedes that this reference is not “obvious” but that it nonetheless “continues to lay the foundation for a future bi-covenantal canonical structure” (209).

JTR

More thoughts on the canonical structure of the OT and NT: Is there a grand unity?

A few more thoughts from Kruger’s discussion of canonical structure in the OT and NT from Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012): 152-159.

First: Kruger suggests the possibility of a Moses-Elijah-David structure from OT to NT:

Kruger notes that each of the tripartite divisions of the Hebrew Bible (OT) end with focus on a key figure:

Law ends with Moses (Deut 34:12).

Prophets end with Elijah (Mal 4:5-6).

Writings ends with David [renewed Davidic hope for a temple in Jerusalem] (2 Chron 36:23).

In the NT Gospels this Moses-Elijah-David structure of the OT canon is “recapitulated and fulfilled” (155). See especially the Mount of Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah meet with Jesus, the Son of David (Matt 17; Mark 9; Luke 9).

Second: Kruger suggests the possibility of a seven-fold structure across the OT and NT of Christian Scripture:

He notes that alongside the threefold structure of the Hebrew Bible (OT):

Law

Prophets

Writings,

there is a fourfold NT structure (again following Trobisch):

Gospels

Praxapostolos (Acts and General Epistles)

Pauline letters

Revelation

Together, they make seven units. Moreover, he notes parallels between the first (Genesis) and last (Revelation) books, which each focus on sevens. For Genesis there is the seven days of creation-Sabbath. For Revelation, there are letters to seven churches, seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, etc. Genesis describes the creation of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1) and Revelation a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1). Genesis and Revelation form “an inclusio of sevens” (155).

Kruger also acknowledges that this suggestion of a “grand unity” of OT and NT might be dismissed by the skeptic “as coincidental or irrelevant” (157).

Indeed, there are some challenges to this view like:

Early Christians did not generally possess complete copies of the OT and NT as we have them today.

The NT was not apparently joined as one complete codex till the fourth century (see Trobisch).

The order of the books, especially in the Writings of the OT, may have varied.

Many early Christians might have been more influenced by the order of the books in the LXX than in the Hebrew Bible.

The idea of early Christians seeing their Bible as composed of seven units is an interesting speculation, but no Patristic citations are offered to show that any actually held this view. One might object, I suppose, that whether seen by them or not, the pattern was still there and perhaps was only to be appreciated by later generations.

JTR

Canonical Parallels between the Old and New Testaments

I’m still working my way again through Michael Kruger’s Canon Revisited (Crossway, 2012). Lots of insights are gathered together in this book.

In his discussion of the unity of the NT, Kruger makes reference to Meredith Kline’s suggestion that the NT can be seen as structurally reflecting the OT canon (see Kline’s The Structure of Biblical Authority) (see Kruger, pp. 150-152).  According to this scheme:

The Gospels parallel the narrative material in the Pentateuch, declaring the great “salvific acts” of God. They are especially like Exodus, as they present Jesus as a new Moses.

Acts is parallel to the historical books and their descriptions of the covenant people’s movement into new lands.

The Pauline and General epistles are like the prophetic books, even bringing “covenant lawsuits” against the people for violations of the covenant.

Finally, Revelation is parallel to the apocalyptic books of the OT.

I find this intriguing but not completely convincing. There are at least two difficulties:

First, the NT does not seem to have a parallel to the wisdom literature, though I suppose on might suggest the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5—7) or James as a parallel to Proverbs. Most strikingly, it does not have a parallel to the book of Psalms, or, perhaps better yet to say, it does not feel compelled to replace the book of Psalms with its own. The Psalms are its Psalms.

Second, as Kruger acknowledges in another place (see p. 155), the NT books do not seem to have circulated at the earliest stages all together as a 27 book unity as we now typically know them (or as they have been gathered in codices since at least the fourth century). Rather, as David Trobisch in The First Edition of the NT has argued, they circulated earliest on primarily as four distinct collections: Gospels, Acts and the General Epistles (the so-called Praxapostolos), the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation.

Still, the "New Testament" is clearly meant to be taken as in continuity with the "Old Testament," to form one unified body of Christian Scriptures.

JTR

WM 89: Review: White and Kruger on Canon and Text @ G3

I just posted WM 89: Review: White and Kruger on Canon and Text @ G3 (listen here).

In this episode I offer some ex tempore comments on a few segments from a dialogue between RB apologist James White and NT scholar Dr. Michael J. Kruger on the topic of Canon. This dialogue was held on Friday, January 19, 2018 as part of the recent G3 Conference held in Atlanta, GA.

I begin by citing a quotation from Carl E. Amerding which I used in my recent paper on the ending of Mark: "Moreover, the development of an authoritative text is a natural corollary to an authoritative list of books."

White and Kruger argue that we must not conflate canon and text, but I try to point out that canon and text must necessarily be correlated to one another.

What good is accomplished if we affirm an authoritative canon of books but do not, in correlation, also affirm an authoritative text for those books?

Episode corrections/clarifications (One of the dangers of an ex tempore episode is getting a name, date, or fact incorrect.): Dr Kruger has a PhD from the University of Edinburgh (not Aberdeen; at least they're both in Scotland!); The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius which listed the 27 canonical NT books, was written in 367, so it is from the fourth century, not the fifth.

JTR

Word Magazine # 65: Review: Kruger on Mark's Ending

Yesterday I recorded and today posted WM # 65: Review: Kruger on Mark's Ending. Ok, I know what you're thinking: Another WM on Mark's Ending? Yes, that's right. The last few episodes were given to sermon reviews (by Hardy and Purswell). This one is a seminary lecture on the Ending of Mark by Dr. Michael J. Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary of Charlotte, NC. You can listen to the original lecture under review here. Kruger is a respected NT scholar who specializes in canon studies. He also has an interesting blog called Canon Fodder. His presentation on the Ending of Mark is more even-handed than many. He does, at least, make mention of William Farmer's defense of Mark 16:9-20 as original. In the end, however, he rejects the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 and attributes its authorship to a "rogue" scribe. He also makes some interesting comments on what he sees as a "positive" side of the supposed patchwork ending of Mark, allegedly cobbled together from the resurrection narratives in Matthew, Luke, and John. According to his analysis, if this were the case it would support the early Christian consensus on the four-fold Gospel (!). He also has some interesting comments on inerrancy, suggesting that rejection of Mark 16:9-20 does not challenge the doctrine of inerrancy since it assumes that Mark did not write it. But isn't this the very heart of the question? Is Mark 16:9-20 part of the inspired Word of God?  

JTR