Religion and Theology

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL IVP, 1988.

In his book, The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce uses a simple structure to review a somewhat difficult topic. A well-respected historian and theologian, Bruce has written a number of books on subjects that are wide ranging within theology. In this book, he takes aim specifically at the idea of the Bible as a provable work, and makes points to that effect. The book may have come as a response to a recent rash of movies and literary works questioning this premise, which underlies the importance of Bruces research. The author argues in favor of the inclusion of certain works into the classical canon, while arguing against the inclusion of other works. He does this using a strict set of criteria, which must be met by any and all documents seeking to take hold in the New Testament. More specifically, the author deals with the conflict surrounding Gnostic writings and whether these have any legitimate claim to be included in the canon. Bruce rightly argues that such writings are excluded on the grounds of not meeting his stated criteria, which acts as the gold standard for deciding on the place of any hopeful documents in the future. While certain portions of the book are easily agreed with, some of Bruces declarations on the validity of possible, unfound texts do not provide convincing arguments in favor of the exclusion of those texts.

In terms of laying out the clear and honest criteria for why some things are included in the New Testament, Bruce has done an admirable job. Part of the challenge of putting together this kind of work is the sheer volume of texts and historical documents that must be dealt with by the author. Though this is both a blessing and a curse, authors have to pour through thousands of years of texts, papers, letters, and then consider the implications of those things in terms of the canon. Bruce does this with skill and precision, and is able to come up with a list of criterion pieces that must be met for a text to be included. In order for texts to be considered as a part of the canon, they must come with apostolic authority, contain proper theology, come from the proper date, and have the stamp of approval from the church at large. In his study of the documents of the New Testament, Bruce has come to the conclusion that these conditions are met by any and all of them. This is an important effort, since it provides some basis for looking at all of the texts that have been recorded over history.

As many theologians and researchers have come to find out, religious texts do not stop with the Bible. There are many other things out there that might be considered on par with some of the books that are commonly studied in the New Testament. Just the nature of the writings themselves, as Bruce points out, lend to more things that have probably not been properly analyzed. Many of the books of the New Testament are simply letters from various religious leaders, so it is difficult to classify and arrange these on the basis of importance to the Christian religion. His stated criteria is easy enough to understand, and it includes the basic elements that should be most important for the consideration of texts. One can see that the authors true skill is in his historical grasp, as he takes a wide scope and pairs it down into something much more manageable. The only issue with this is that Bruce seems to go a step too far in his analysis. This is something that many pundits have offered as an opposing viewpoint. When the author makes his attempt to extend the argument to the inclusion of currently unfound texts, things become much more murky.

Some disagreement must exist with any book this complex and far reaching, and that disagreement is about one of the most important questions that the book addresses. After all of the background information is provided and the arguments are laid out, Bruce takes to answering a very important theological question. He asks whether a currently undiscovered text might be able to make its way into the canon if it were to be found. This is a difficult question to answer, and it is quite obviously one that must be treated very carefully. What the author does is answer the question on the basis of this particular hypothetical text having no chance of meeting an important part of the criteria. It would not, as Bruce points out, have the stamp of approval from the church at large. This would preclude its inclusion in the canon, and would keep any text out of the public consciousness, even if it were to meet all of the other conditions. What this viewpoint fails to take into account is that if a text were found to contain the important items of apostolic authority, proper theology, and an appropriate date, it might receive the instant backing of the church because of its importance. By precluding an item on the basis of the church not taking hold, the author is opening the door to the possibility that an all-important text might miss out on the canon. This would call into question the validity and the importance of the canon itself, which could serve to undermine the Christian religions efforts on a grand scale. Though this scenario may seem far fetched, it is something that is within the realm of possibility, so it is especially problematic that a respected scholar like Bruce would shut the door to such a possibility in the future.

With any work of this magnitude, there are bound to be differing viewpoints on a wide range of issues. Though many find agreement with the basic tenets of Bruces book, some question and criticize the steps that he takes. Many question whether or not he is open-minded enough to consider the future of the canon. Those who study history can too often get lost in the history, failing to understand that history is, at times, a living being. Those differing viewpoints are valid, and many would rather leave open the possibility that future texts might be canonized if they were to meet the stated criteria. Still, the fact that Bruces criteria serve as the standard for this enhances the profile of this particular work, and does illustrate its depth to an extent.

In all, Bruce does an excellent job of taking on such a massive and difficult topic. The full scope of historical texts can often times be difficult to digest. By breaking down the standard for the canon into something a bit more manageable, Bruce has done a great service. Additionally, he uses this work to emphasize the importance of historical texts, and to shed some light on how fortunate the Christian religion is to have these at its disposal. On those points, the book succeeds. Though it may reach too far in disqualifying the possibilities heading forward, Bruces book serves it purpose and provides something meaningful for the reader. It is complex enough that different readers can leave the work with different nuggets, and that is a part of its effectiveness.