Justin Martyr and the Gospel of John

Michael Kruger has a good post here arguing that Justin Martyr knew of the Gospel of John.

An Evaluation of After Jesus Before Christianity

Michael Kruger takes on three important arguments in the recent book, After Jesus Before Christianity here. There are a number of important takeaways but for me this underscores what is at stake in discussions of Canon and pseudepigraphy.

The Authenticity of 2 Peter

Darian Lockett has a good discussion of the issue here.

The Canonical Reception of the Book of Revelation

Michael Kruger has a good overview of the canonical reception of the book of Revelation here.

Canonical Interpretation, Intertextuality, and Preaching

Jonathan  Catanzaro has some interesting thoughts here on canonical interpretation and intertextuality and how these relate to preaching.

1 Timothy 5:8 and the New Testament as Scripture

Michael Kruger argues here that 1 Timothy 5:8 provides evidence that New Testament books were regarded as Scripture much earlier than many suggest. I think that Kruger is correct generally and about 1 Timothy 5:8 particularly.

Harry Potter and the Biblical Canon

I am not really a potterite, but I did find this article using the Harry Potter series as a way of illustrating issues related to the formation of the biblical canon interesting.

James Charlesworth's and Lee McDonald's Lectures at the Lanier Theological Library

I just noticed that the videos of James Charlesworth's talk, “The Theological Value of the ‘Rejected Texts’ and Dead Sea Scrolls for Understanding Jesus,” and Lee McDonald's "Why and When Was Scripture Written? Looking at the New Testament Writings” are now available.

Canonization as a Card Game

Apparently, there is now a card game related to the biblical canon. You can read about it here.

The Imminent Return of Christ and the Canon

Michael Kruger has a good discussion here on what implications that an imminent return of Christ might of had on the production of Scripture. Kruger seems skeptical that the early church had an expectation of the imminence of the Lord's return but argues that even if they did, the conclusions regarding the writing of Scripture are wrong. I happen to think that the early church had an expectation of imminence but Kruger is right that this would not necessarily mean that such an expectation would have precluded the desire or need for Scripture.

Origen’s List of New Testament Books

Michael Kruger has a post here pointing to further evidence concerning the authenticity of Origen’s list of New Testament books.

Origen's Canonical Listing of the New Testament Books?

Michael Kruger has an interesting take on the earliest complete canonical list of the New Testament here. He argues that Origen (ca. 250) articulated a complete list of NT books in an allegorical reading of Joshua.

Hurtado on the Gospel of Mark

  
Larry Hurtado has some interesting thoughts on its survival as a canonical Gospel here. Hurtado is addressing this as a purely historical question (which is fair). But the survival of Mark is for me is also tied to the fact that it is inspired Scripture. 
 

Having a Canonical "Conversation"

  
"While a number of metaphors work well to express the Bible’s theological plurality coherently and constructively, my preference for the interpreter’s practical task is conversation. Naturally, there are different kinds of conversations. A canonical approach to the NT’s pluriform subject matter envisages a conversation that is more complementary than adversarial. In one sense, the intercanonical conversation is very much like an intramural debate over the precise meaning of things generally agreed to be true and substantial. The purpose or outcome of debate is not to resolve firmly fixed disagreements among members of the same community or panel as though a normative synthesis were possible; rather, more often it is the sort of debate that clarifies the contested content of their common ground. Likewise, the biblical canon stabilizes and bears continuing witness to the historic disagreements between the traditions of the church’s first apostles, which were often creative and instructive (cf. Acts 15:1-21; Gal 2:1-15). Not only do these controversies acquire a permanent value within Scripture, but Scripture in turn commends these same controversies to its current readers, who are invited to engage in similar acts of what Karl Popper calls ‘mutual criticism’ in order to provide more balance to parochial interests or supply instruction to clarify the theological confession of a particular faith tradition."

Robert W. Wall, "Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context," in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, 2nd ed., ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 384. 

Reading Esther in Light of the Canon

  

"More than any other text in the Old Testament, Esther asks us to read it in light of the canon Scripture. One could contend that we look for God in Esther only because its place within the Old Testament compels us to read it religiously, seeking theological themes because the nature of the canon leads us to look for what is not otherwise there. But this is a cynical view of the canon, and even in considering the book's main characters it has been impossible to avoid reference to other parts of the Old Testament. Thus, the introductions to both Mordecai and Haman direct us to 1 Samuel, and then to Exodus 17 to understand the conflict between Israel and Amalek. Esther and Haman respectively embody the wise and fool from Israel's wisdom traditions, though without thereby becoming ciphers for these figures. They remain responsible individuals, yet their stories are told so that those who know the wisdom traditions cannot help but note the connections. Once we realize that so much of the story is told in a way that alludes to other passages in the Old Testament we begin to realise that our reading of Esther is meant to be shaped by what we know from these other passages and these allusions are consistently theological in their emphases."

David G. Firth, The Message of Esther, Bible Speaks Today, ed. J. A. Motyer (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 33-4.

 

Reading Luke-Acts and Reception History

"Luke wrote his two books to be read together, but for most of their history they have been read in their canonical context, as two discrete texts that relate to a range of others. This does not mean that Luke and Acts cannot or should not be read in this way. It simply acknowledges that many readers have privileged the way in which the canon suggests that these texts should be read over the way in which the author appears to have suggested that these texts should be read. Each reading strategy is appropriate for the community in which it has been followed—a community of believers, or a community of scholars—and many individuals will use one strategy or the other at different times. Some will also adopt a middle position between them, as Jaroslav Pelikan does in his recent theological commentary on Acts. There he notes that in his cross-references to the four Gospels he will 'in the first instance cite the Gospel of Luke where possible, and the other three Gospels as appropriate (Pelikan 2006: 31, where he presents this decision as a consequence of the common authorship of Luke and Acts as seen in the two prefaces and their repeated address to Theophilus). Pelikan recognizes the authorial unity of Luke-Acts, but does not feel excluded from noting how Acts may be related to other canonical Gospels besides Luke, just as he relates it also to other New Testament books."

Andrew Gregory, "The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (2007: 470.

Interview With Dan Wallace

See this interview with Dan Wallace.

James, Acts, and Canon

In a recent essay, Robert Wall examines the theology of the Catholic Epistles (James-Jude = CE) from the perpective of Canon. Wall makes a number of interesting points, two of which I find particularly interesting.

(1) Wall argues that James' placement first in the collection provides the basic sequence of themes that provide the "constitutive predicates of a unifying theology of the CE collection" (30).

(2) Wall suggests that, "During the canonical process, Acts came to supply a narrative introduction for the entire epistolary canon, Pauline and Catholic; in fact, from a canonical perspective, the relationship between Acts and the CE is elevated in importance because they “came into life” together during the canonical process. In any case, the interpreter approaches the New Testament letters with the orienting concerns of Acts in mind and in light of its story, more wakeful when negotiating between the New Testament two different epistolary corpora as theological complements" (23).

Robert W. Wall, "A Unifying Theology of the Catholic Epistles: A Canonical Approach," in The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition: A New Perspective on James and Jude, ed. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Robert W. Wall (Waco, TX Baylor University Press, 2009), 13-40.

Understanding Song of Songs as a Canonical Text

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford asks and then answers: "How, then, do we understand the Song of Songs in its canonical text"?

"As a simple erotic love song built on the model of other erotic love songs from the ancient Near East? A love song that celebrates the sexual love of one human for another? YES.

"As an allegory for the love of God for humanity? As the love of God for Israel? As the love of Jesus for the Church? YES.

"As a glimpse of Eden redeemed? A place where the created good is celebrated? YES,
by all means, YES."

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “An Introduction to the Song of Songs,” Review and Expositor 105 (2008): 399–400.

Hamilton on the Canon of Scripture

Jim Hamilton has an article entitled Scripture: The Evangelical View, or, The Sixty Six Books of the Protestant Canon Are Inspired by the Holy Spirit and Therefore Inerrant." I have not read the article, but I have found that Jim Hamilton is usually worth reading. You can access the article here.

HT: Justin Taylor