Reviewed Book: McDonald, Lee M. The formation of the Christian biblical canon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Pubs, 1995

Miller, John W.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 22Issue 2 Essays Ecumenical and Historical Article 911-1-1996The formation of the Christian biblical canonJohn W. MillerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationMiller, John W. (1996) "The formation of the Christian biblical canon," Consensus: Vol. 22 : Iss. 2 , Article 9.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol22/iss2/9The Formation of the Christian Biblical CanonLee M. McDonaldRevised &: Expanded EditionPeabody: Hendrickson, 1995xxxvi + 340 pp. $14.95 paperThis is a much enlarged edition of a work first published in 1988, withhelpful lists and translations of many primary sources. It is not, however,the work to consult if what is wanted is theological insight into the forma-tion of the core collections of the Christian Bible. Its preoccupying thesisis that the final closing or “fixing” of both Christian and Jewish canonsdid not occur until the third to fifth centuries CE (and then for largelycultural and political reasons) and that prior to that, while core collectionsof recognized books existed in both traditions, there was also considerablefluidity. As McDonald sees it, this will explain (among other things) whyChristians ended up having more books in their Old Testament canon thanJews have in their canon. These additional writings (later called Apoc-rypha) were part of an initially larger Jewish scriptural collection whichChristians embraced but Jews later narrowed down. To make this pointfirst and second century Jewish sources referring to “accredited” scripturallists that did not include these books (Baba Bathra 14b, Josephus, AgainstApion) must be marginalized in favour of Christian sources that he believesgive evidence of a less fixed tradition.McDonald believes this picture of a more open canon during Chris-tianity’s early years has implications for the way the canon should be ap-proached today. He would not favour abandoning our present canon alto-gether, for it provides us with the “core of the Gospel”, he writes, but hewould like to see a more open attitude toward deleting or adding certainbooks. Furthermore, he believes Christians have nothing to fear in movingin this direction, for, as he puts it, “Jesus Christ alone is the true and finalcanon for the child of God” in any case (257). Also, given the early church’sgreater flexibility in this regard (when the canon was still open), he won-ders why we would want to be bound by the decisions on closure made inthe churches of the third to fifth centuries. At the same time, McDonaldnowhere explains just what “the core of the Gospel” is which presumably136 Consensuswould be important in decisions to add or drop certain books, nor, moreprecisely, how Jesus Christ might in fact function in decisions of this kindas “true and final canon”.Indeed, much neglected in this volume are the critical theological devel-opments that gave rise to the formation of the agreed upon core collectionof Jewish writings in pre-Christian centuries and the agreed upon core col-lection of Christian writings during the second and third centuries CE.This latter is the period which William Farmer, in Jesus and the Gospels,refers to as the “classical phase” in Christian canon history, because of thepivotal role Irenaeus played at this time in defending the church’s core con-victions about Israel’s God and Israel’s scriptures against Marcion’s radicalanti-Judaism. For a proper account of these enormously consequential the-ological developments older works like that of Hans von Campenhausen(The Formation of the Christian Bible) are still indispensable.John W. MillerConrad Grebel College,University of WaterlooMatthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Ef-fectsUlrich LuzMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994X + 108 pp.This book is a revised set of lectures originally given in English atUnion Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, by the Swiss New Tes-tament professor Ulrich Luz. Luz is best known for his commentary (stillin progress) on the Gospel of Matthew; two tomes of which have alreadybeen published in German, the first of which is now also available in En-glish. More specifically, it is the incorporation into this commentary of thehistory of interpretation or Wirkungsgeschichte of the text as an integralaspect of the text’s meaning that Luz has especially emphasized. The bookunder review refiects both aspects of this larger work and, indeed, mighteasily serve as an accessible introduction to the governing concerns behindit.Despite the title, the book is not really about the Gospel of Matthew,at least not in any comprehensive or overarching fashion. Only two ofthe book’s five chapters have as their principal theme particular aspectsof the Gospel of Matthew, and in neither case is the topic discussed afundamental feature of Matthew’s narrative per se. Chapter three treatsthe so- called “mission instructions” in Matthew 10, while chapter four isessentially a discussion of the figure of Peter in Matthew 16:18. In both

The formation of the Christian biblical canon

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1625&amp;context=consensus

The formation of the Christian biblical canon

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University