Outline of the book

The Canon of Scripture is a well-structured book which deals with historical and theological issues relating to canonicity in a logical manner.  As he notes in the introduction, Bruce places more emphasis on the New Testament than the Old, mainly because his area of specialty is the New Testament, but also because the issues relating to the New Testament canon are more complex, and perhaps more debatable (primarily due to the larger amount of relevant data available).

In part two, Bruce tackles issues relating to Old Testament canonicity, including the canon used by Jesus and the apostles, and the reason for and results of the supremacy of the Greek Old Testament (in various versions) in the early church.

Bruce examines the traditional historical-critical view of the canonisation process of the Old Testament in some detail.  He challenges the assumption that there was a three-step process of canonisation of the Hebrew scriptures, one relating to each of the major sections in the Hebrew Bible, and the assumptions it is based on, such as the late date of composition of the book of Daniel.

Bruce explains that a far more reasonable view in light of the evidence is that most of the books of the Old Testament were canonised almost immediately after their composition, and that the traditional threefold (or twofold) division was not a fixed practice in antiquity.  He demonstrates this with reference to early sources such as Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Moving on to the New Testament period, Bruce spends the most significant amount of his time reviewing the evidence from the first two centuries after Christ.  This period was the most formative in terms of thinking about the canon, and was the time when most of the variation in the makeup of the canon was evidenced.  Unfortunately, it is also the most lacking in available evidence.

After examining the earliest post-apostolic period, Bruce spends ample time surveying the influence of Marcion and the response by the rest of the church, concluding that Marcion did not 'create' the New Testament canon by forcing the church to respond to his ideas (despite the opinions of some scholars to the contrary).  Rather, by presenting his corrupted New Testament as the only true Scripture, he forced the church make formal what was already widely accepted.

After Marcion, various other church fathers are surveyed with respect to their opinions and influence on the canon, as well as the documentary evidence such as the Muratorian Fragment.  Bruce extends this discussion right up to the reformers and others since the appearance of the printing press.

In part four, Bruce ties together the evidence that he has surveyed throughout the rest of the book and makes a few concluding observations.  He outlines the main criteria that the church fathers seem to have used when formulating their own opinions:

apostolicity

If one criteria must be chosen as the single most important in the eyes of the early chuch, it would seem that apostolic origin and sanction have the most weight.  Those books which were not written directly by one of the apostles (e.g. Mark, Luke) were always emphasised by the early church as being commissioned or approved by an apostle (Peter and Paul respectively for Mark and Luke).  Those books over which there were doubts about authorship were the slowest to be accepted into the canon (e.g. Hebrews, 2 Peter).

Bruce gives several examples throughout the book of documents that were rejected as canonical because they were determined to be forgeries, such as the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as those which were rejected because they were known to be written by those who were not apostles, such as the Sheperd of Hermas.  The latter of these were usually classified on the lists of the church as 'useful' or 'recommended for devotional reading', but not officially treated as Scripture.

orthodoxy

Only those books which were recognised to have content in line with the apostolic teaching were accepted into the canon.

catholicity

Those books which were widely accepted in the church were considered to be canonical.  Those books which were accepted in only a small geographic region, or by a particular sect, were viewed with caution.  Many of the books over which there were doubts about authorship were doubted in particular geographic regions (e.g. the Eastern church did not accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews).

Opinion of the book

If you come to this book looking for answers for your own life about why you should accept the biblical canon as it stands in your own particular church tradition, don't be surprised if you are disappointed.  I came to the book this way, and despite chapter 21, i went away with the same questions.  The primary purpose of the book is historical survey, not modern application.

The book is full of very good scholarship, as would be expected from an established academic such as F. F. Bruce. He provides copious notes, an excellent bibliography, and his sources and arguments are well-documented throughout.  Bruce demonstrates outstanding familiarity with the primary sources relevant to his work, despite his reliance on B. F. Westcott's work for analysis in several places (this seems to be an issue of convenience rather than dependance).

Bruce's analysis is balanced and well-thought-out, nearly always treading a reasoned middle ground between liberal and evangelical thought. A strange exception to this is his acceptance of C. H. Dodd's view that Matthew 13 is Matthew's (mis?)interpretation of Jesus' words as opposed to an accurate portrayal of Jesus' words.

This book would be well-suited to theological students looking at issues of church history and canonicity, and any informed readers wanting a historical overview of the early church's views on Scripture.