Which Canon is Right? With Michael Kruger

How do we know which books belong in the Bible, and which ones don't? Was the process of canonization a later development, or an authentic outgrowth from the first century? Is the Protestant canon or the Roman Catholic canon the right one? Dr. Michael Kruger addresses these questions and more.

Dr. Michael J. Kruger serves as the President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the Charlotte campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. He earned his Ph.D. under one of the world’s leading text-critical scholars, Larry W. Hurtado, at the University of Edinburgh.

Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.

My books:

[andrevaca]

“Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations, and probably into the thousands of allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the apocrypha as scripture.”

“They cite from all kinds of books from the Old Testament, and they always match the current Old Testament we have… we can just argue it’s the Original Jewish Old Testament”

I don’t really understand how he says this. Maybe he misspoke? There’s examples of maccabees in respect to the book of Hebrews about people being tortured in hopes of a better resurrection. And many more.

[jamesstandifer]

So thankful for your channel! Started my journey at an EO church and learned a lot but was always convinced of regenerate church membership. Really didn’t know how to handle a lot of the questions I would get about church history and how to defend my Protestant leanings. I really would have benefited from your channel 5 years ago but still grateful for it now. Hope it helps others that are working through these questions!

[thomasc]

I have heard Dr. Michael J. Kruger few years before but forgot most, so will be good to hear again. He was an amazingly organized and precise teacher.

[nasp]

As a convert to Catholicism, I enjoy your content, and most especially the charity in which you address controversial issues. Great job Dr. Gavin.

If you are looking for people to have on your channel, particularly on the topic of canon, Gary Michuta, author of various books on the topic would be a good one to represent the Catholic view. I appreciate the name of the channel Truth Unites being that we have an obligation to assent to truth. These are the conversations that should be mainstream. God bless!

[paulmitchell]

In Catechism of the Catholic Church pp120: "It was by the Apostolic Tradition that the church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books". There is no claim that the councils "made" writings canonical.

[NIC_Pineiro]

Hey Gavin! Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your channel! I am young in my walk with the Lord and your content shows me how much I love all things Theology!

[RichPohlman]

It's incorrect to imply that he "extra books" were adopted by the Council of Trent. They were confirmed by Trent but were part of the canon well before Trent.

[xandro]

Thank you Dr. Ortlund, really appreciated this one.

Going through Prayer by Keller and Church History by Eusebius right now. I'll be getting into Kruger's "The Question of Canon" in the next few days. This video, interestingly, came at the right moment for me.

[AwaitHasten]

The 7 books not included in the protestant bible were not introduced at the Council of Trent, but towards the end of the 4th century. And saying the deuterocanon is found nowhere in the NT isn't necessarily true. And finally saying that a book was/wasn't mentioned in the NT isn't a good argument for it's canonical status.

Cool discussion nonetheless.

[jenniferwright]

What about the rationale that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint, which did include those books now referred to as deuterocanonical (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc)? I would be very interested to hear Dr. Kruger or a future guest interact with this idea.

Dr. Ortlund, I greatly appreciate your work, thank you for what you do and the incredibly gracious and charitable way you do it.

[garnetgazelle]

I love this channel but the title is misleading, this is one side of a debate and did not give a fair representation of the other side. And I am a protestant. For example, this notion that the OT is to be quoted as scripture as criteria for canonicity should be inclusive but if it's exclusive (by lack thereof) we'd have to remove Esther and other books. All sides agree on this point but the latter information was left out which signals stronger evidence for Protestantism than it actually is. Likewise the point that the deuterocanonical books are referenced hundreds of times was glossed over quite quickly, I think it's better to really address this than dismiss it... Just my thoughts, hopefully others understand this is a one sided video (which is fine if not misrepresented).

[salzuno]

Just found this channel and I’m loving it!

[xUncleAx]

15:00 He is greatly mistaken. The New Testament does make many illusions to the Apocrypha and Enoch. And there is even an explicit prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon of the words that the Pharisees would say as they mocked Christ on the cross. (I'm Protestant btw, but I don't have to accept the smaller canon of "Protestantism")

[billmartin]

Good discussion but a few clarifications from a Catholic perspective:

1) agree that the books in the canon were widely circulated, that was one criteria of making the canon. However, you admit that only 22/27 were core books…this makes the point that there wasn’t obvious acceptance of all of the current NT books. It took much deliberation over the books that made the Bible, and others that didn’t (Shepherd, Clement, Didache). The entire NT isn’t as self revealing as you make it sound, Revelation almost didn’t make the cut. It took the Holy Spirit through the Church to make final infallible decisions on the final canon.

2) Councils were necessary to refute heresy and define dogma. Nicea in 325AD for example refuted Arianism and defined the Trinity. These councils actually helped influence the final canon, weeding out books like Shepherd that, while widely embraced, didn’t quite align theologically. You may say “the Trinity is self evident in the Bible”, but tell that to Unitarians, Mormans, and Jehovah Witness who will disagree. The Trinity is right because the Holy Spirit through infallible councils determined it to be true.

3) the RCC has accepted the deuterocanonical books since the start of the church. They were not introduced at Trent. You make it sound like an add, but in reality Protestants (led by Luther) removed these books. And Luther wanted to remove others too like James because they didn’t align with his man-made theology. Luther actually wrote many horrible and scandalous things (supported adulterous behavior, etc.), not sure why anyone would name a denomination after him.

4) Jesus didn’t write the Bible or even call for one to be written. He founded a Church, with an episcopal structure empowered to create doctrine (“bind and loose”), and by his own words said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The traditions and councils of the church are valid, under the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ.

[actsapologist]

I will add my disappointment onto what Cathpocalypse said.

First, your guest claims (13:42) that the canonicity of the Deuterocanon only became a thing at the Council of Trent. A simple Google search will reveal that the same canon was being put forward by the Council of Florence a century earlier. But there is also no interaction with the synods of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) putting forward these books as canonical. Not even a mention. Just a false claim about Trent adding them.

Then at (14:45) we get the old, bad argument about references. First, he states his argument with a bit of slight of hand. He says, "Not a single time in all those hundreds of citations and allusions, is there a single instance where a New Testament writer cites a book from the Apocrypha as Scripture." Note that he quickly and slyly shifts from "citations and allusions" to just "citations" when referencing the Deuterocanon.

Now, first, if a lack of direct citations is enough to disqualify a book from the New Testament, then I'd be curious to know if his personal copy of the Bible has Ruth, Judges, 2Kings, Chornicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemia, Ecclesiastics, Obadiah, Lamentations, Nahum, or Zephaniah. None of those books have direct citations. If he does think they are canonical despite their lack of citations, then why bring up the "no citations" argument?

That aside, there's a good reason why he suddenly shifted to "citations" for the Deuterocanon. Because if we're willing to accept allusions, then those can be provided. Hebrews 11:32-35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7:1-9. Hebrews 1:1-4 alludes to Wisdom 7:18-27. Matthew 27:38-43 alludes to Wisdom 2:12-20. And Romans 1:18-23 alludes to Wisdom 13:1-9. If one goes by "allusions and citations", there is a better argument for Wisdom and 2Maccabees than there is for Esther. (I can understand why the "no allusions or citations" argument might have flown in the 80's and early 90's. But in the age of the Internet? It's kind of unbelievable that they persist.)

At 17:00, he begins relying very heavily on an argument that there was a defined canon at the time of Jesus. He does not interact with the common understanding that the Sadducees had a more restricted view of what books were canonical, resulting in their disbelief in the immaterial soul and the resurrection. (Which is also why Jesus only quoted the Pentatuch at them). And if the Jews were all unanimous, why are there records of discussions of which books were canonical extending past the ministry of Christ? No acknowledgement of that.

Lastly, there are two arguments which are made regarding the Canon by Catholics when it comes to epistimology. First, even if one wants to ignore the role of the Magisterium in forming the Canon, he basically acknowledges that it is something which falls into the realm of Tradition. Sure, 2Peter says Paul's corpus is inspired. But who says 2Peter is inspired? That fact was actually debated well into the 4th century. So the canon falls into the realm of Tradition. But if one is to hold to Sola Scriptura in a doctrinal way, then this raises problems about how authoritative the canon can be, since it belongs to tradition.

But in regard to the Magisterium, the Catholic claim is not that without the Magisterium people are utterly clueless about which books belong. Rather, its claim is that in order to establish the canon as something well-defined and authoritative qua canon, the list needs to be discerned and promulgated by a competent authority. Until that happens, people might be confident about 80% of it, but the edges are still blurry.

So... there you go. Mr. Kruger should probably read some books by Gary Michuta. If not to change his mind, but to at least be aware of the arguments on the other side. Or if he doesn't want to spend the money, he can just Google some NT allusions to the Deuterocanon.

[roses]

This was a great discussion! Our protestant canon makes so much sense♥️

[marcuswilliams]

Revisited this. Wonderful. Ordered two of his books.

[Coins]

It's interesting that Kruger says Christ couldn't hold his listeners accountable for what "the Scriptures say" without a defined yet Christianity operates without a defined canon for hundreds of years, and as he admits, that development is fine, since there was a general understanding in place? This seems contradictory.

There were several Jewish canons in play, btw - the Saducees famously held to only the Penteteuch, while the Essenes include the deuterocanon as well. It seems fairly well established that Christ and the apostles used the septuagint, which would have included the deuterocanonical books, which the Catholic Church has defined since the 380s AD.

[neosporran]

This interview is a gold mine. Thanks.

[charlescatterall]

Having listened to your interview with Dr. Meade on the Old Testament canon, I was hopeful that I wouldn't just hear traditional Protestant/Evangelical rhetoric on the New Testament canon. Unfortunately, I did not hear the same genuine truth-seeking tone from this guest. Respectfully, if you are genuinely interested in truth-seeking and diving deeply into these issues, for your sake and your listener's sakes, it might be worth considering finding highly specialized Catholic and Orthodox scholars, and not just apologists or You-Tuber's. Again, I write this respectfully. I really appreciate your demeanor and truth-seeking approach. For that reason, it seems best to seek out actual specialists from more than one side, and definitely not just apologists who specialize in using rhetoric to persuade others into their position. Just a thought. Thanks for your work.