10 Misconceptions about the New Testament Canon

Michael Kruger identifies 10 common misconceptions (or misunderstandings) about the origins and development of the NT Canon:

 These are misconceptions that are not only held by the average layman, but are often shared by those in the academic community as well.  It is always difficult to know how such misunderstandings develop and are promulgated. Sometimes they are just ideas that are repeated so often that no one bothers (anymore) to see if they have merit. In other cases, these ideas have been promoted through popular presentations of the canon’s origins (e.g., The Da Vinci Code). And in other cases, scholars have made sustained arguments for some of these positions (though, in my opinion, those arguments are not, in the end, convincing). Either way, it is time for these issues to be dusted off and reconsidered.

Here is his top 10:

The term “canon” can only refer to a fixed, closed list of books
Nothing in early Christianity dictated that there would be a canon
The New Testament authors did not think they were writing Scripture
New Testament books were not regarded as scriptural until around 200 A.D.
Early Christians disagreed widely over the books which made it into the canon
In the early stages, apocryphal books were as popular as the canonical books
Christians had no basis to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy until the fourth century
Early Christianity was an oral religion and therefore would have resisted writing things down

Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 A.D.) is the first complete list of New Testament books

Dr. Kruger’s books include Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (co-authored with Andreas Kostenberger), and The Early Text of the New Testament (co-edited with Charles Hill).