The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (7 page)

Exactly when the four-Gospel arrangement first occurred is unknown. But the outer limits can be deduced. The mid-second century seems to be the last possible date given the patristic and manuscript evidence. On the other end, the limit is set by the composition of the last Gospel, most likely the Gospel of John (conventionally dated in the 80s or 90s). Thus, some time between the production of John's Gospel and the mid-second century, the status of these Gospels was so entrenched that they were bound and circulated together. This, by all accounts, should be taken as evidence for the church's recognition that the number of the Gospels was fixed and closed by the early or at least the middle of the second century.

The Pauline Letter Collection
It is also known that Paul's letters circulated together as a collection unit. The question that arises is: How did this collection originate? Kümmel is representative of mainstream scholarship in assuming that Paul's letters were a collection and (to some extent) a production of the late first century, as the letters were gradually formed into a letter collection.
⁷⁹
Porter astutely noted, “One cannot help but think that the gradual collection theory…is one of expedience, designed to weave a narrative around the disparate evidence of the first four centuries, but without a firm foundation established as to how such a process actually occurred.”
⁸⁰

Moreover, the time between the death of Paul (mid- to late 60s) and the historical references to this collection is far too short to be explained by a gradual collection. By the production of 2 Peter (mid-60s?), it is likely that there was at least a beginning collection of Paul's letters. In circa 96, Clement of Rome noted that Paul wrote “truly under the inspiration of the Spirit” (
1 Clem.
47.3). Polycarp (c. 69–c. 155) quoted from a body of Scriptures that must have included the Pauline letter collection. Finally, Marcion, in the first half of the second century, in formulating his truncated canon, edited an established Pauline letter collection. Whatever the circumstances, the basic form of the collection can be shown to have rapidly circulated in the churches as Scripture. Moreover, the manuscript evidence seems to show that if there were “local collections,” the full corpus was rapidly preferred.

So how did such a collection come into existence? There are a host of “personal involvement theories” (Porter's term) to explain the origins of this corpus. Whether Onesimus, Marcion, Luke, Timothy, or a “Pauline school” are credited with compiling a Pauline letter collection, personal involvement is the common denominator. Most of these hypotheses, however, are based on speculative and often questionable judgments.
⁸¹
Nevertheless, it seems beyond question that a personality was involved by the very nature of what resulted: a collection.
⁸²

Many today suggest this person could have been none other than Paul himself. From what is known of ancient letter collections, the author would most likely have made a copy of the letter immediately, kept a copy for himself, and sent a copy to the recipient. Both Cicero's and Ignatius's letter collections began in this way.
⁸³
Not only was this a known practice, it is unlikely that Paul would have sent a letter and not kept a copy for himself.
⁸⁴

Trobisch argued for three stages of development in the collection of ancient letters, with the author having been involved only in the first stage. The second and third phases were progressively removed from the author.
⁸⁵
As Porter has shown, however, this is not
a necessary conclusion.
⁸⁶
While there might be evidence for some editing and arrangement of the edition (mainly in the titles and order of the letters), it seems likely that the collection originated with Paul's retained copies. The letter collection, or at least the beginnings of it, may be mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13, where Paul wrote to Timothy, “When you come, bring the cloak I left in Troas with Carpus, as well as the scrolls, especially the parchments.” The word translated “parchments”
(membrana)
is actually a Latin word transliterated into Greek and most likely indicates a parchment codex.
⁸⁷
Since the Pauline corpus could not fit on one scroll, it is likely that the letter collection was in a codex format.
⁸⁸

This decision to publish it involved arranging the letters and providing titles for them. Trobisch has well noted that the Pauline corpus regularly and invariably titles the letters “To the Romans,” “To the Corinthians A,” “To the Corinthians B,” and so on.
⁸⁹
This was most likely an editorial decision made when the letters were collected—maybe even by Paul himself. What is more, the arrangement is rather consistent in the manuscripts, in the basic order in which Paul's letters are found in the NT today. Again this was likely an editorial decision. That the letters circulated widely in this arrangement would seem to suggest that the editing was done with publication in mind.

So who was this editor? It could have been Paul himself, a possibility neither demanded nor falsified by the limited available evidence. Another possibility is that the editor was one of Paul's close associates, who would likely have had access to copies retained by Paul. Most likely, the editor's contribution to the contents of the letters was minimal, and the collection was published shortly after Paul's death and received rapid acceptance throughout the churches. Thus there is every reason to believe that Paul's letters attained canonical status no later than the last quarter of the first century.

While it is not possible here to identify all the individuals and to pinpoint every stage of the production, the evidence thus far suggests an early recognition of the bulk of the NT canon. A scenario such as the following seems feasible. The Synoptic Gospels were written and received rapid acceptance in the churches as the authoritative source of the words of Christ. Roughly contemporaneous with them, Paul's letters began circulating as a collection, probably soon after Paul's death. These letters were immediately received and afforded
de facto
canonical status.
⁹⁰
Shortly after the writing of John's Gospel, the Gospels were gathered and published as a fourfold Gospel canon.
⁹¹
Regarding the manner in which the Acts and the General Epistles were gathered and published and by whom, less can be said with confidence. However, it is likely that the collection of these books was in some
way related to the fourfold Gospel codex, for it was at that point that Luke and Acts were most likely separated.
⁹²
It is possible (though far from certain) that the same person or persons were responsible for the collection of these various corpora. Finally, the book of Revelation, written in the mid- to late 90s by the aged apostle John, circulated independently from the rest, likely due to its late production. This reconstruction, purposefully painted in broad strokes, takes its point of departure from the undeniable fact of the early reception of the NT documents.

SIDEBAR 1.3: THE “CANONICAL EDITION” OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

D. Trobisch has advanced a fascinating theory concerning the canon of the NT. In essence Trobisch understands the NT to be a published book by no later than the middle of the second century. Trobisch originally assigned this “canonical edition” of the NT to unnamed “editors” in the early second century.
¹
Later, he attributed it to Polycarp sometime between 156 and 168.
²
This, of course, is to place the “canonical edition” of the NT rather late.
³
While the internal evidence Trobisch marshals is often less than compelling due to the precarious nature of some of his presuppositions,
⁴
the most persuasive element of Trobischs proposal is the empirical manuscript evidence.

Trobisch noted five phenomena in the manuscripts that point to an early archetype. Perhaps the most compelling are the first two. If correct, this would address two of the most nagging questions about the transmission of the Bible that have yet to receive a fully satisfactory answer. First, most biblical manuscripts display the
nomina sacra
, abbreviations of the divine names. These abbreviations usually consist of the first and last letter of the word for God
(theos)
, Jesus
(Iēsous)
, or the Spirit
(pneuma)
with a line above them to indicate that it is an abbreviation. These
nomina sacr
a
are found even in the earliest manuscripts.
⁵
No one has satisfactorily accounted for their pervasive presence. How did these abbreviations for the divine names become so widespread in the earliest manuscripts if there was no religious mechanism to control copying and no original archetype? Trobischs answer is that the
nomina sacra
were the result of an editorial decision made in the original edition. This “canonical edition,” then, was so popular that it quickly became the standard in the Christian world.

The second unanswered question addressed by Trobischs proposal pertains to the surprising use of the codex format by the early Christians. It has already been noted that several theories have been proposed for the use of the codex in early Christian literature. None of these theories has gained universal acceptance. Trobischs answer is that the codex was the choice of the editors of the canonical edition presumably on account of a variety of benefits accorded by the codex, most obviously that of providing the space needed to accommodate more easily such a large collection of writings.

The third piece of evidence for a canonical edition is the circulation units themselves. There is an amazing conformity of the manuscripts up until the seventh century in matters of content and order. The NT circulated in four smaller volumes: the four-fold
Gospel Codex; Acts and General Epistles; the Letters of Paul (including Hebrews); and Revelation. This order can be seen in the earliest manuscripts (i.e., before the fourth- and fifth-century church councils).

Fourth, the titles of the books in the collections are amazingly uniform. This virtual uniformity also suggests some sort of coordinated action early on in the canonical process. The uniformity of titles and arrangement of Paul's letters was already noted above. The titles of the Gospels, likewise, are always some form of “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” and so on. “The Acts of the Apostles” appropriately captures the essence of this book. The titles of the General Epistles are different from those of Paul's letters, yet they also display a marked degree of uniformity, following the format “From John A,” “From John B,” “From John C,” “From Peter A,” and so on. The fact that these letters were written by several different authors makes it likely that their collection and titling were the result of an editorial decision.

Finally, the title of the whole collection is “The New Covenant.” This is the term for the collection used by Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200); Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215); Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225); and Origen (c. 185-c. 254). Perhaps the most convincing statement is by Apolinarius's unknown associate (2d cent.): “I was somewhat reluctant, not from any lack of ability to refute the lie and testify to the truth, but from timidity and scruples lest I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant of the gospel, to which no one who has chosen to live according to the gospel itself can add and from which he cannot take away.”
⁶
From this quote it is apparent that this presbyter in the second century had a closed canon that he called “the writings of the new covenant of the gospel.”

As mentioned, Trobisch's internal reconstructions as to the purpose and production of the NT are much less convincing. For him, the NT is by and large the result of the church's conflict with Marcion. Thus the editors included the LXX; added the General Epistles; and included Acts in order to rehabilitate Peter and Paul. That Marcion takes center stage is the Achilles heel of the theory. As argued above, Marcion's influence on the NT canon most likely was less pronounced than is often supposed and almost certainly did not affect the specific contours of any collection of NT writings.

The identification of Polycarp as the editor of the canonical edition is also problematic. The citation of much of the NT—including the Pastoral Epistles—as Scripture in his letter to the Philippians 30 years prior to Marcion makes it unlikely that the canonical edition was his creation. The question also arises whether Polycarp could have had the ecclesiastical authority to publish a work that superseded all previous copies of the NT writings. This is rather unlikely. For example, Polycarp could not get the church in Rome to celebrate Easter at the Passover.

Ultimately, Trobisch has not definitively answered the question of the formation of the NT canon. Yet he has made an important contribution to the understanding of the early canonization process. The codex format, the ubiquitous appearance of the
nomina sacra
, and the near-uniform titles of the writings at least suggest a stream of convention that originated somewhere. It is not necessary to conclude that this convention was due to one canonical edition. It may very well have started with one collection and may have been quickly imported into other such collections.

There is one more point made by Trobisch that is worth considering. It is often stated that the canon was in process until the fourth century when it was largely settled. Eusebius's list in his
Ecclesiastical Histor
y
acknowledges certain doubts regarding individual books in the NT canon. This list is often cited as evidence for a continuous state of turmoil from the very start. But is this necessarily the case? Could it be that the questions were not about which books were to be included in the canon but which books were in the canon in the first place? In other words, Eusebius's discussion regarding the different books included in the canon of the NT might constitute a fourth-century discussion rather than indicate a continuous stream of doubt from the first or second century onward. In fact, some of the sixteenth-century Reformers had similar questions about the canon.
⁷