The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (8 page)

__________________________

¹
D. Trobisch,
The First Edition of the New Testament
(Oxford: University Press, 2000), 5–6.

²
D. Trobisch, “Who Published the New Testament?”
Free Inquir
y
28 (Dec. 2007/Jan. 2008): 33.

³
Manifestly, evidence for NT books that Trobisch considers to be forgeries at the time of publication (namely the Pastoral Epistles) predates this proposition. Attempts to describe these quotes as preliterary fragments have the ring of special pleading and are therefore unlikely.

⁴
See L. S. Kellum, “Review of D. Trobisch,
The First Edition of the New Testamen
t
" Faith & Mission
18/2 (2001): 84–87.

⁵
L. W. Hurtado,
“P
⁵²
(P. Rylands Gk. 457) and the
Nomina Sacra:
Method and Probability,”
TynBul
54 (2003): 13. Hurtado suggested that the
nomina sacr
a
most likely appeared in our earliest extant NT manuscript, the above-mentioned P
⁵²
.

⁶
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
5.16.3.

⁷
W. Walden, “Luther: The One Who Shaped the Canon,”
ResQ
49 (2007): 1-10.

The Current Order of New Testament Books
The collection of the canonical Gospels and the Pauline letters, as well as the grouping together of Acts and the General Epistles and the separate circulation of the book of Revelation, were discussed above. The remaining question that needs briefly to be addressed is the current order of NT books. How did
the existing order occur, and what, if any, is the theological and interpretive significance of the current order of the NT writings?

A case could be made for the order found in Athanasius's festal letter (also known as the Greek or Eastern order) as Trobisch and others do.
⁹³
This order may very well reflect the early collection units. But even among the collection units there was some degree of fluidity. The manuscripts of the fourfold Gospel codex are extant in different orders. Another case in point is the placement of the book of Hebrews, which seems to “travel” throughout the manuscripts, with most of them placing it between the letters to churches and the letters to individuals (i.e., between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy). However, the oldest manuscript containing Paul's letter collection (P
⁴⁶
) places Hebrews immediately after Romans. This is not unexpected in an anthology such as the NT, being copied by hand. Each scribe may have felt a certain amount of freedom to arrange his copy as he saw fit. This is even more likely in the case of personal copies.

The order of the books of the NT in our present English Bibles reflects the Western order found in the Vulgate (translated by Jerome) but has precursors back to the Old Italian translation.
⁹⁴
In essence, it only differs from the Eastern order in the matter of placing the General Epistles after Paul's letter collection and Hebrews between the two collections. Many Greek manuscripts of the late Byzantine period follow this order as well. Luther departed from this order, placing James and Hebrews toward the end of the Bible (and thus awarding them lesser status, implying a canon within the canon) together with Jude and Revelation. Tyndale followed suit—though possibly not for the same reasons—in his English version, as did Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, and others. However, when the Great Bible of 1539 was printed, the Western order was restored.
⁹⁵
It has been the basic order for the Bible in English ever since.
⁹⁶

The Gospels at the beginning of the NT transition from the OT quite nicely. This placement indicates their foundational nature. Virtually no arrangement of the NT starts elsewhere. The placement of Matthew first among the Gospels is most likely, at least in part, a function of the book's opening genealogy of Jesus, which provides a natural introduction to the presentation of Jesus in the four canonical Gospels as a whole. Luke's Gospel, while containing a genealogy in 3:23–37, places it immediately prior to the start of Jesus' public ministry instead of the beginning of the book.

Beyond this, there is no reason to suppose that the order of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew–Mark–Luke) is a necessary indication of the order of their composition, just as the order of the Pauline Letters (Romans–1 Corinthians–2 Corinthians–Galatians, etc.) is manifestly not a function of the chronological sequence of their composition, as is universally recognized. Conversely, it is likely that the placement of John's Gospel last among the four canonical Gospels indicates its later composition. More importantly, the ending of John's Gospel certainly provides a fitting conclusion, not only to John's Gospel, but to the four canonical Gospels in their entirety (see 21:24–25).
⁹⁷

Acts certainly bridges the gap between the Gospels and the Letters. As a sequel to Luke, it continues the narrative of the accomplishment of Christ (see Acts 1:1) and provides the foundation for a basic understanding of Paul and his correspondence. Anyone studying the Letters apart from a knowledge of the book of Acts would lack a proper framework for interpretation. Who is this Paul who wrote these letters? When did James become a leader in the church at Jerusalem? When did the gospel spread to the Gentiles? These and other questions are answered by reading Acts first. Its place has always been between the Gospels and the Letters.

As far as the order of the Pauline letters is concerned, it appears that, rather than the chronological order of writing, it was for the most part the length of the document that proved decisive in the church's placement of these letters in canonical order.
⁹⁸
This leads to an interesting dynamic in interpretation. Romans, read canonically, precedes Galatians and thus is, canonically speaking, foundational for it. Chronologically, however, Galatians preceded Romans and crystallized the issues at an earlier stage in the development of the early church that continued to be addressed at a later stage of Paul's ministry.

But one need not choose between the two dynamics of history and canon. Both are important with regard to our approach to the Bible. The reader who knows both dynamics understands, for example, the importance of Galatians
chronologically
and Romans
canonically
. Galatians is the first of Paul's letters to be written, which shows that Christian theology, far from evolving and changing, was basically the same from the first letter to one of the last.
⁹⁹
That Romans stands at the beginning of the Pauline Letters begins the third section of the NT (the Letters) with the most prolonged and clear expositions of the gospel of God in the entire NT. Its position here certainly makes sense. Given that Paul may well have been the first one to collect his own letters, it is even possible that this order reflects Paul's own chosen sequence.

Regarding the order of the General Epistles, it appears that Hebrews owes its place first in this collection and in immediate proximity to the Pauline letters to the traditional attribution of authorship to Paul or a member of the “Pauline circle.” Naturally, 1 and 2 Peter are grouped together, as are 1, 2, and 3 John. Beyond this, it is uncertain what historically led the compilers to place the writings in the order James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. But this arrangement is consistent in the manuscripts from the beginning.

SIDEBAR 1.4: WHAT IF ONE OF PAUL'S LOST LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS WERE FOUND TODAY?

A set of questions that is sometimes asked is, What if one of Paul's lost letters to the Corinthians were found today? Should the church add it to the NT canon, and on what basis should a decision be made? While a strong case can be made against including nonapostolic documents (such as the Gospel of Thomas) to the canon of Scripture, what if the writing in question were an authentic apostolic document? Should not such a book be included in the canon? In short, a strong case can be made that even in such a hypothetical scenario the correct response would be no.

To be sure, it would be appropriate to treasure such a document as historically important, and it would certainly be appropriate to use such a piece of writing to help interpret the existing NT documents. A host of historically important questions could be answered if we had the “previous letter” of 1 Cor 5:9 or the “painful letter” of 2 Cor 7:8. This would also help to adjudicate the various source-critical and rearrangement theories regarding 1 and 2 Corinthians.
¹
But there are still good reasons these letters, if discovered, should not be added to the NT canon.

First, as Grudem points out, the fact that these letters, or any other now-lost apostolic documents, were missing from the canon collection from the beginning suggests that, for some reason, the apostles—and ultimately God the Holy Spirit—did not see fit to preserve these documents.
²
This is especially true if it were the case that the apostle Paul himself was behind the production of his letter collection. If such a document had been preserved, it would have survived—not by apostolic design—but because someone else preserved it when the apostles did not.

Second, the sovereignty of God in the production of the NT should be recognized. If he did not see fit to provide the letter for 2,000 years of Christian history, why would anyone suppose that a new letter should be added to the canon of Scripture now? What is more, in some sense, the addition of another document would potentially undermine believers' confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture. In such a case the canon would not truly be closed but only provisionally so. Inasmuch as the determination of the canon was a historical process that is bound up with the early centuries of the church, this era is forever past.

Finally, the above discussion assumed for arguments sake that such a document could be verified, but in truth this is highly unlikely. In all probability there would always be lingering questions surrounding the authenticity of such a document.
³
It is not hard to imagine that there would be a range of opinions, dissertations, and monographs defending authenticity or nonauthenticity, and sustained discussion in academic journals. If scholars cannot arrive at a consensus regarding the book of Ephesians, which is part of the existing NT canon, it is unlikely that they would come to a consensus regarding a “new” apostolic book.
⁴

For reasons such as these it is not only highly unlikely that such a document will ever be found, but even if it were discovered, there are several weighty arguments against including it in the canon of Scripture. Such a document should be valued and could certainly be used with profit but not to the point of expanding the existing canon of Scripture. The Bible is complete as it stands, and the canon is closed and would not need to be reopened even if one of Paul's lost Corinthian letters or any other document written by one of the apostles were found today or tomorrow.

__________________________

¹
See the discussion in chap. 12.

²
W. Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 68 (the page number is the same in the 2000 edition).

³
Ibid.

⁴
Another related question is, Who would make the decision to include, say, 3 Corinthians in the NT canon? It is hard to see how a mechanism could be found by which all of Christendom (or at least a sizable majority of Christians) were to arrive at such a momentous decision.

Without being dogmatic, certain observations can be made. The very Jewish James fits neatly next to the book of Hebrews, while 1–3 John sustain a certain amount of intertextuality with the letters to the churches in the book of Revelation. Finally, Jude with its apocalyptic references certainly prepares the reader well for the Apocalypse.

Revelation is a fitting conclusion to the whole Bible and not just the N T.
¹⁰⁰
The subject of the return of Christ and the triumph of the Lamb over all evil is not only appropriate as the final message of the NT, but there is a nice
inclusio
with Genesis as well. The final state, as recorded in the Apocalypse, is in many ways a return to Eden (see Rev 22:1–5).

There is healing for the nations. There is no longer a curse upon the earth and its inhabitants. The tree of life is once more in plain view of humans, although there is no tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Revelation, “Eden has not only been restored but has been elevated and expanded for the people of God in eternity.”
¹⁰¹

Thus there is a twofold dynamic to understand the NT. It is important to read each individual book within its own context and frame of reference. In this regard, the critical issues of author, date, purpose, and so on (the standard fare for NT Introductions) are important foundational issues in interpreting the N T. But the book must also be read within its larger canonical framework. In this way, attention can be given to all the major elements of a given piece of writing: (1) the unique set of historical circumstances that occasioned a given book; (2) its own narrative development or flow of argument; (3) significant theological themes; and (4) the way in which a particular NT document sustains a
variety of historical, literary, and theological interrelationships with other books included in the biblical canon.
¹⁰²

The New Testament as a Collection of New Covenant Documents
How is it that the early Christians so readily received new documents as Scripture—in fact, a whole new corpus of material? Some of the insights of M. Kline are helpful here.
¹⁰³
With the new covenant having been instituted, these believers may have been expecting new covenant documents. The “Old Testament” was clearly considered to be based on covenant documents, and portions of it were called “the book of the covenant” (see Exod 24 :7; Deut 29:20; 31:9, 26; 2 Kgs 23:2, 21; 2 Chr 34:30). The same description can be found in Second Temple Jewish literature. When Antiochus IV sought to eliminate Judaism, he attempted to destroy the books of the OT. First Maccabees 1:56–57 chronicles this attempt: “The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the
book of the covenant
was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death” (emphasis added). Thus both the OT itself and later Jews considered the OT or portions of it to be “book(s) of the covenant.”