The Formation of Christian Biblical Canon: Revised and Expanded Edition

Rating:
Summary: Cannot be commended to the church
Review: Keep in mind that while the author claims to be a Christian, he is not a Christian who believes the bible. He does not for example believe that 2 Peter is written by Peter, nor that the pastoral epistles are written by Paul. This is the kind of unbelief that undergirds all the arguments set forth.

And make no mistake, the whole book is an argument in favour of the author's theory. His theory is not so much that there is an open canon, but rather there isn't really a canon at all, books can go in and out of the "canon" as per the community's practices. It's all very wishy-washy thinking.

That's not to say that there is no truth in his viewpoint, nor is it to say that there is not quite a bit of interesting information in the book, but every piece of information is moulded and shaped to fit the author's theory, it is by no means an unbiased approach to the topic. And frankly, the author's unbelief show's through in the conclusions he draws from every piece of evidence. The book is more worthy of an athiest than a Christian. As one reads the book, it seems like the most bold and interesting of his claims are the least well supported. There is a lot of general information that makes it seem like he knows what he is talking about in a scholarly way, but then he slips in these fairly unsupported claims that pretend to rest on the rest of the scaffolding. And when the historical record is silent or incomplete, it really shows through the author's unbelief in what he reads into that silence.

All in all, this is not a book that I can commend to the church.

Rating:
Summary: Even-handed, scholarly, thought-provoking
Review: McDonald's book provides an excellent overview of the topic at hand. Reads a lot like a textbook, which I suppose is how it's often used. He does a very good job of bringing in all appropriate evidence, but staying very methodical in his assessments and in getting his points across. You'll probably wish for more depth in some areas, less in others, but this book should at the very least point you in the right direction toward more in-depth research.

Perspective is always important when you're talking about books on this subject. The field seems to be dominated by highbrow apoligists (like Metzger and Bruce), whose glossing over of problematic (to the orthodoxy) canonical issues makes for limpwristed scholarship, or by the more deconstructionist liberal school of the Jesus Seminar and such. Motives and scholarship often become difficult to differentiate. McDonald, however, is a Baptist minister, and a scholar, and, in my opinion gleaned from this book, he wears both hats with aplomb and distinction. Hard core fundamentalists (like a previous reviewer) may find his conclusions troubling. I'll let McDonald respond in his own words, from the last paragraph of his "Final Thoughts":

"My aim in this study has not been to destroy the church's Bible, as if that could be done, but to bring some light to the often dimly lit corridors that led to the formation of our Bible and, in that process, to remind the reader of the true canon of faith for the church: our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is still the church's book without which the Christian faith would be a blur. I believe that a careful study of the biblical message in its historical environment and in the community of faith where it was first acknowledged as scripture and canon will prove invaluable to the church. Lessons learned from this approach will not only free the church from inappropriate loyalties but also will help the church to focus more clearly on the true object and final authority of its faith: Jesus Christ."

Rating:
Summary: Doubters guide to the bible
Review: Perhaps the book might be more aptly named "Doubter's Guide to the Bible". He not only puts forward many of the more radical modernist theories, he basicly puts his stamp of approval on most of them. For example, that Paul didn't write the Pastoral epistles, and many of his other epistles like Colossians, Ephesians and others are also doubtful. That John didn't write all the books in his name. That neither did Peter write 2 Peter, or James write James, perhaps Jude either.

Furthermore, that the bible does by no means present a coherent consistant theology. Rather every book has a somewhat different theology that can't be reconciled. Rather we have to prioritise the more important ones. Furthermore, we need to read the gnostic writings to really get as close as possible to what Jesus actually taught.

I suppose if you want to know what the modernists are thinking, this gives some insight, but is this the Christian point of view?