Abstract

Michael Kruger’s most recent book calls for a revised understanding of “canon” as the confluence of a closed-canon definition, a “functional definition,” and an “ontological” definition. Kruger intends his call to replace the now-common understanding of “canon” as (simply) the closing of a corpus of Scripture. This article seeks to show that Kruger’s complaints against the exclusive use of the closed-canon definition of “canon” are unfounded and that his attempt at an ontological definition is problematic.

You do not currently have access to this content.