Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 63:1 (NA 2012)
Article: The Definition Of The Term ‘Canon’ Exclusive Or Multi-Dimensional?
Author: Michael J. Kruger

---

TynBull 63:1 (2012) p. 1

The Definition Of The Term ‘Canon’
Exclusive Or Multi-Dimensional?

Michael J. Kruger

Summary

There has been an ongoing debate amongst biblical scholars about how to define the term ‘canon’. In recent years, one particular definition—that canon can only be used to refer to books in a fixed, final, closed list—has emerged as the dominant one. Moreover, some scholars have argued that this is the only legitimate definition that can be used. This essay suggests that a single definition fails to capture the depth and breadth of canon and may end up bringing more distortion than clarification. Instead, the complexities of canon are best captured through using multiple definitions in a complementary and integrative manner.

1. Introduction

Childs once declared, ‘Much of the present confusion over the problem of canon turns on the failure to reach an agreement regarding the terminology.’1 Although Childs made this statement in 1979, it could just as easily been written in our current day. As scholars continue to probe into the origins and development of the biblical canon, debates and disagreements about canonical semantics have not abated.2 What

TynBull 63:1 (2012) p. 2

exactly do we mean by the term ‘canon’?3 Does it refer to books that were widely used by early Christians? Does it refer to books that function as Scripture? Or, does it refer only to books that are included in a final, closed list? While these discussions over the definition of canon will certainly continue, and no universal agreement appears to be forthcoming, something does seem to have changed since Childs’ original observation. The definition of canon as a final, closed list of books has begun to emerge as the more dominant one—at least in some circles. Whether or not we want to call this a consensus, more and more scholars are affirming this definition, and, more importantly, they

TynBull 63:1 (2012) p. 3

have argued that other scholars ought to do the same, lest the entire field become plagued by confusion and anachronism.4

Such claims are difficult to resist—after all, no one wants to plunge canonical studies into disarray. Moreover, there is certainly something attractive about having a single, unified definition of canon on which we can all agree (and build upon). Nevertheless, we must ask whether this ‘consensus’ position, and the attitude with which it is held, is justified. Does this single defini...

visitor : : uid: ()