The Canon

[Irish1975]

A recent example of good NT scholarship that appears to me to be hampered by a confused and anachronistic understanding of NT canonicity is Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon.

There are two problems. First, BeDuhn adopts a 4th century, and thus anachronistic, notion of canonicity to characterize Marcion's anthology of scriptures, i.e., the evangelion and the apostolikon. He is unwilling to consider that what Marcion produced was, in reality, nothing more or less than a book (anthology), and insists on elevating the historic and theological importance of this publication by calling it a canon:

Historians of Christianity widely acknowledge that Marcion compiled the first authoritative collection of distinctly Christian writings from texts already known and valued by segments of the Christian movement. In doing so, he defined for the first time a biblical canon. [4]

This book is not about Marcion, but about the canon of Christian scriptures he introduced as the new touchstone of Christian faith. Before Marcion there was no New Testament, with him it took its first shape, and after him it gradually developed into the form we now know.
...Before Marcion there were Christian writings that were read and treated as, in some sense, authoritative. But they had limited, local circulation [how can BeDuhn claim to know this?] and were not incorporated into a larger Bible.
...So it was that Marcion collected, for the first time in history, a set of authoritative Christian writings intended to be afforded a status above that of other Christian literature. [6]

Marcion formed for the first time "a coherent canon," displaying two crucial features: (1) it contained a fixed number of books, and (2) it was put forward in place of the Jewish scriptures, as equivalently scriptural. Through these moves, he "first makes Christians conscious both of the idea of a new canon of Christian literature and of the identification of certain kinds of documents as carrying greater authority than others, and hence being 'canonical'" (quoting Metzger, The Canon, p. 98). [26]

There is much to agree with here, but I think the "canon" language is overblown. For one thing, the actual words "canon" or "canonize" were not applied to the Christian scriptures until the time of Athanasius. And in that context, as I have already argued, it was the political and legal environment in which some scriptures and not others were allowed to be read in the imperially sponsored churches, that gave meaning to the idea of canonicity. For example, the Council of Laodicea in 363 CE declared that "only the canonical books (τὰ κανονικά), as opposed to the uncanonical books (τὰ ακανόνιστα) ought to be read in Church" (Metzger, Canon of the NT, p. 292). (See Metzger's Appendix on the history of the word 'canon'.)

In the 2nd century, a time of prosperity and much bookselling in the empire, many Christian books and collections of books were written and published. How do we know that Marcion's was all that special? Certainly, it was very successful, i.e., read and believed in. Every book that is ever published hopes to take the world by storm, but it hardly makes sense to say that, by publishing an anthology, a person is thereby fixing a canon. The fact that there were a "fixed number of books" is hard to avoid for any anthology. However we wish to characterize Marcion's intentions in producing the book, it is much better to attribute its historical impact and importance to its reception. The reception of a text is what makes it normative or canonical, not the publisher's intentions.

The second problem is that Beduhn seems to take the empirically problematic stance that our modern NT did not come into existence even as a book until the 4th century. In other words, he conflates the formation of the NT with its canonization, ignoring the evidence provided by Trobisch that a NT text, titled "the New Testament," was in circulation throughout the Mediterranean by the 3rd century, and most likely was first published in the 2nd century.

Any talk of a New Testament apart from Marcion's in the second and third centuries is anachronistic, and must be treated as a shorthand way to refer to individual books or subsets of texts recognized as authoritative amid an indeterminate larger set of Christian literature. [23]

BeDuhn holds that the title "New Testament," which he wants to ascribe to Marcion, is otherwise little in evidence until the 4th century. But this seems to be wrong. We have already noted the anonymous anti-Montanist writer who explicitly refers to a written text as "the New Testament" in the late 2nd century. Trobisch also cites references in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (First Edition, p. 44).

Tertullian, writing three generations after Marcion, assumed that he had taken an already existing set of Christian scriptures, universally recognized as authoritative, and had rejected some, edited others. But we are able to recognize immediately the anachronism in Tertullian's assumption. He was not aware that no such authoritative set of Christian scriptures is anywhere in evidence prior to Marcion, and that even in Tertullian's day agreement on such a set was far from universal. [29] (emphasis added)

It isn't necessary for there to be universal agreement on a particular collection of orthodox scriptures in Tertullian's day in order for him to accept them as "the true scriptures," and to presume that they are the older and authentic scriptures by comparison with Marcion's. Again, I see here a conflation by BeDuhn of what is a canon ("universal agreement") with what is merely a published anthology.

[Irish1975]

[Please note that I added two new posts to this thread; the first is on page 3.]

[Irish1975]

BeDuhn holds that the title "New Testament," which he wants to ascribe to Marcion, is otherwise little in evidence until the 4th century. But this seems to be wrong. We have already noted the anonymous anti-Montanist writer who explicitly refers to a written text as "the New Testament" in the late 2nd century. Trobisch also cites references in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (First Edition, p. 44).

Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, 15--

Si hunc articulum quaestionibus scripturae veteris non expediam, de novo testamento sumam confirmationem nostrae interpretationis, ne, quodcunque in filium reputo in patrem proinde defendas. ecce enim et in evangeliis et in apostolis visibilem et invisibilem deum deprehendo sub manifesta et personali distinctione condicionis utriusque.

If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith) by passages which may admit of dispute out of the Old Testament, I will take out of the New Testament a confirmation of our view, that you may not straightway attribute to the Father every possible (relation and condition) which I ascribe to the Son. Behold, then, I find both in the Gospels and in the (writings of the) apostles a visible and an invisible God (revealed to us), under a manifest and personal distinction in the condition of both.

Origen, Commentary on John, 5--

συμφωνίας δογμάτων κοινῶν τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ πρὸς τὴν ὀνομαζομένην καινὴν διαθήκην

It appears to me, therefore, to be necessary that one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church, and to refute those dealers in knowledge, falsely so-called, should take his stand against historical fictions, and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully.

Oddly, Trobisch cites Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 2.29.2-3, but online versions of Book 2 contain only 23 chapters. Can anyone explain this?

[DCHindley]

Oddly, Trobisch cites Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 2.29.2-3, but online versions of Book 2 contain only 23 chapters. Can anyone explain this?

Yes.

It is 2.6.29.1 ...ἐπιφέρει γοῦν σαφέστερον· ἐκληρονόμησας τὴν διαθήκην τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, τῇ ἐξ ἐθνῶν κλήσει λέγων, τῇ στείρᾳ ποτὲ τούτου τοῦ ἀνδρός, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, τῇ ἐρήμῳ Πανεπιστήμιο Αιγαίου, Τμήμα Πολιτισμικής πρότερον τοῦ νυμφίου. 2.6.29.2 ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, τῆς κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην καὶ τὰς ἐντολάς, ἐπειδὴ δύο αὗται ὀνόματι καὶ χρόνῳ, καθ' ἡλικίαν καὶ προκοπὴν οἰκονομικῶς δεδομέναι, δυνάμει μία οὖσαι, ἣ μὲν παλαιά, ἣ δὲ καινή, διὰ υἱοῦ παρ' ἑνὸς θεοῦ χορηγοῦνται. 2.6.29.3 ᾗ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐπιστολῇ λέγει· δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, τὴν μίαν τὴν ἐκ προφητείας εἰς εὐαγγέλιον τετελειωμένην δι' ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κυρίου διδάσκων σωτηρίαν.

Bk 2, ch 6 ... Accordingly it is added more clearly, “Thou hast inherited the covenant of Israel,” [relax, it is not in scripture] speaking to those called from among the nations, that were once barren, being formerly destitute of this husband, who is the Word, — desolate formerly, — of the bridegroom. “Now the just shall live by faith,” [Rom. i. 17, etc.] which is according to the covenant and the commandments; since these, which are two in name and time, given in accordance with the [divine] economy — being in power one — the old and the new, are dispensed through the Son by one God. As the apostle also says in the Epistle to the Romans, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,” teaching the one salvation which from prophecy to the Gospel is perfected by one and the same Lord.

John S. Kloppenborg & Judith H. Newman make the same mistake as Trobisch in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (Society of Biblical Lit, Jun 21, 2012):

162n3 Concerning the use of the term New Testament in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 2.29.2-3, see Joseph Fischer, “Die Einheit der beiden Testamente bei Laktanz, Viktorin von Pettau und deren Quellen,” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 1 (1950): 96-101, cf. 100; ... [FWIW, Kloppenborg/Newman's book is also the source for the date of 180 CE]

DCH (duh)

[Irish1975]

Nice work! Thanks DCH.

[DCHindley]

Nice work! Thanks DCH.

Once and a while I can walk & chew gum at the same time.

[Ben C. Smith]

The theory is that two historical events are sufficient to explain the formation of the Christian Bible as the sacred text that we know today, rendering the standard modern accounts of "the Canon" unnecessary and obsolete:

(1) The 2nd century publication of the first edition, what Trobisch calls the "Canonical Edition," as simply a book, i.e., a codex anthology that could be bought and sold, copied and shared, read publicly or privately, as with any ordinary book. This remarkable codex anthology consisted of two parts, titled "Old Testament" and "New Testament," and was the unique archetype of today's Holy Bible. This was a discrete event, not a "gradual process," as per the dominant theory.

(2) The 4th century political and legal establishment of Nicene Christianity as the unique state religion, first imperially sponsored by Constantine and his successors, and then imperially mandated and imposed by Theodosius I and his successors, for the entire Roman empire (and later its successor kingdoms). An essential component of this process was the legal and financial support given by the emperors to the Christian bishops to exercise their functions in large, opulent, well-funded basilicas and other buildings, in which the Christian scriptures were to be read publicly and revered. The commission by Constantine himself given to Eusebius of Caesarea in 332 to produce 50 copies of the scriptures for use in his newly endowed churches in Constantinople is a known and critical moment in this 4th century development, as is Pope Damasus' commission to Jerome in 382 to produce the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible.

While I find the idea of a single influential publication, as in your #1 above, to be plausible enough, I do not think it dispenses with some of the other processes going on in the early church. So we have this book published in century II. Now what? Did all debate on which books to accept and which to reject come to an end? Clearly not: 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews, and especially Revelation were still disputed. Was this particular book absolutely destined to be the canon of the future? I doubt it; I think it had to win out over its competitors.

Also, I doubt this book would have been the origin of the terms "Old" and "New Testament" being applied to a book. You quote Origen in a later post to the effect that doctrines in "the so called Old" Testament (τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ) agree with those in "the so named New Testament" (τὴν ὀνομαζομένην καινὴν διαθήκην), and that does not come across as a good way to refer to the actual title(s) of the book(s). Rather, what I think is going on is more reminiscent of the way we refer to certain reference works, such as "the dictionary." There are many different dictionaries, but we can still refer to any given one of them as "the dictionary," as if it were a single publication. (Same goes for "the encyclopedia" and "the thesaurus.") Just as there are words which we would expect that any competent English dictionary would contain, as well as other words which many or most probably would not ("the word 'ain't' ain't in the dictionary"), so too there were texts which everyone seemed to expect to find in any New Testament (the four gospels, the epistles of Paul, and so on), as well as other texts which many or most probably would not (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd, the Revelation, and so on). I know that entries in a book are not the same as books in a list, but it is only an analogy.

So the "so called New Testament" would have been any collection of Christian(ized) texts accepted as authoritative at any given time and place, or by any given Christian group (this is pretty much the modern definition, as well, since we still do not universally look to a single edition to settle the matter). Your distinction between "a list of authoritative books" and "an authoritative list of books" is helpful and clear, but I do not think it is possible to dispense with either of the two, historically speaking. Individuals and groups in particular churches were making conscious decisions about the authority of particular books with the express goal of producing an authoritative list of authoritative books. (Perhaps there were some who thought that the books were authoritative but the list was not; but I doubt anybody thought the list was authoritative and the books were not.)

I agree with you that the language of canon can be overblown. But we need some other kind of language to describe the very real decisions being made with regard to which books to accept and which to reject. Origen, for example, seems to accept 2 Peter, but he admits that it is disputed. I have been using the term "authority" and its variants instead of "canon." Is there a better alternative?

[Irish1975]

Thanks for this thoughtful and interesting response Ben, as usual.

While I find the idea of a single influential publication, as in your #1 above, to be plausible enough, I do not think it dispenses with some of the other processes going on in the early church. So we have this book published in century II. Now what? Did all debate on which books to accept and which to reject come to an end? Clearly not: 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews, and especially Revelation were still disputed. Was this particular book absolutely destined to be the canon of the future? I doubt it; I think it had to win out over its competitors.

I agree with you that the language of canon can be overblown. But we need some other kind of language to describe the very real decisions being made with regard to which books to accept and which to reject. Origen, for example, seems to accept 2 Peter, but he admits that it is disputed. I have been using the term "authority" and its variants instead of "canon." Is there a better alternative?

Agreed. The evidence shows that for several centuries the early churches disputed particular books. But the critical question is what they thought they were doing, or, what they were actually doing, when they engaged in these disputes. Were they seeking to define the boundaries of the Christian Bible, as per the Standard Model of the Canon (Zahn, Westcott, Loisy, von Harnack, Metzger, Bruce, etc.), or were they doing something more akin to historical criticism by, e.g., disputing the (apostolic) authenticity of the books? Luther declared there was nothing of the gospel in the epistle of James, setting it at the end of his NT; but he did not remove it from the Bible. Similarly, a church today might choose to read and study the Didache, and not to read or study Jude; but obviously that would not be an effort to redefine the Christian Bible. Hebrews appears in P46, the oldest manuscript of the canonical Pauline collection (variants aside), even older than Origen; nevertheless, Origen opined that Paul did not write it. Trobisch's conclusion is that these disputes are not in fact about the (actual or projected) contents of the Christian Bible.

Also, I doubt this book would have been the origin of the terms "Old" and "New Testament" being applied to a book.

We have to look at what Trobisch calls "the evidence for a final redaction." The earliest manuscripts do not preserve the title page of the anthology, true. But then we look at all these authors referencing a literary text called "The New Testament" in the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius's anti-Marcionite letter from the 190s, and also Melito of Sardis's reference in the late 2nd century to "the Old Testament."

We take the titles NT and OT for granted, but where did they come from? If the phrase "kaine diatheke" comes from 2 Corinthians 3:6, the idea of using it to name an actual text certainly does not, given Paul's statement there that the New Covenant is "not in a written code but in the spirit." There must have been a final redactor who added the title. Trobisch:

The function of the two words of the title is to simultaneously separate and combine. Testament connects the two parts of the Christian Bible; New [and Old] distinguishes them. ...The designations "Old" and "New" probably express an essential component of the editor's concept. (First Edition, p. 62)

This is why, apart from the total lack of evidence, I find BeDuhn's attempt to associate the title with Marcion unconvincing. Marcion didn't want an Old Testament, so why would he want a New one?

You quote Origen in a later post to the effect that doctrines in "the so called Old" Testament (τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ) agree with those in "the so named New Testament" (τὴν ὀνομαζομένην καινὴν διαθήκην), and that does not come across as a good way to refer to the actual title(s) of the book(s).

But he's explicitly saying that these scriptures are "called" and "named" Old and New Testament; on the contrary, I think that's exactly how to refer to the title of a book.

...there were texts which everyone seemed to expect to find in any New Testament (the four gospels, the epistles of Paul, and so on), as well as other texts which many or most probably would not (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 1 Clement, Barnabas, the Shepherd, the Revelation, and so on).

Of scriptures there were many. But what evidence is there that many different collections of scripture were actually called the New Testament? Or are you saying that New Testament is more of a concept, like scripture? Again, where did this idea come from? Early Christians would have known about and ritualized the "new covenant," but how does this morph into denoting a collection of scripture?

...So the "so called New Testament" would have been any collection of Christian(ized) texts accepted as authoritative at any given time and place, or by any given Christian group (this is pretty much the modern definition, as well, since we still do not universally look to a single edition to settle the matter).

To be the NT nowadays, it must contain the 27 books, in whatever order or translation. But it's too much to say "any collection of Christian(ized) texts accepted as authoritative" counts as the NT, today. The writings of Augustine or Calvin or the Councils or Popes meet that test, but obviously no one would consider them part of their NT or Bible or even "scripture." In the early church, other texts might have counted as "scripture," but what evidence is there that they were called a or the NT?

Your distinction between "a list of authoritative books" and "an authoritative list of books" is helpful and clear

It's Metzger's

but I do not think it is possible to dispense with either of the two, historically speaking. Individuals and groups in particular churches were making conscious decisions about the authority of particular books with the express goal of producing an authoritative list of authoritative books.

So this brings us back to the issue of the canon. Christians since the Reformation have wanted a basis for an authoritative canon. But as for the early Church, it still seems to me that "canonical" meant nothing more or less than "legal" under the empire. (It may for a long time have been a weakly or inconsistently enforced law, if many churches still read other scriptures in church well into the middle ages, but in the long run the practice of Rome and Constantinople won out).

Can it be a coincidence that this 2nd century bestseller actually became the Christian Bible? If there was a process of canonization, i.e. defining the boundaries of the Christian Bible, in the early or medieval Church, what are the odds that they would have entirely concurred with the very same collection that was published (by Polycarp or someone allied with him, but at any rate prior to Irenaeus)? That seems very unlikely, especially given the severe doubts about Revelation in the East, and other texts such as 2 Peter.

It still seems to me that that the First Edition simply took the world by storm as the Word of God, and that the collection itself was accepted as inviolable from the start. Not immune to criticism, that is, but rather a collection that no one thought they could alter. Even Eusebius, after his exhaustive analysis in the Ecclesiastical History of which books he considered accepted/disputed/rejected, says absolutely nothing about a process for deciding which books to include in or exclude from the 50 copies he produced for Constantine's new imperial city. It appears that he knew exactly what was demanded.

Probably in part the authority of the original anthology was due to the careful and subtle "intertextual elements" that went into the final redaction.

[Ben C. Smith]

Agreed. The evidence shows that for several centuries the early churches disputed particular books. But the critical question is what they thought they were doing, or, what they were actually doing, when they engaged in these disputes. Were they seeking to define the boundaries of the Christian Bible, as per the Standard Model of the Canon (Zahn, Westcott, Loisy, von Harnack, Metzger, Bruce, etc.), or were they doing something more akin to historical criticism by, e.g., disputing the (apostolic) authenticity of the books?

That is a worthy question, I agree.

We have to look at what Trobisch calls "the evidence for a final redaction." The earliest manuscripts do not preserve the title page of the anthology, true. But then we look at all these authors referencing a literary text called "The New Testament" in the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius's anti-Marcionite letter from the 190s, and also Melito of Sardis's reference in the late 2nd century to "the Old Testament."

We take the titles NT and OT for granted, but where did they come from? If the phrase "kaine diatheke" comes from 2 Corinthians 3:6, the idea of using it to name an actual text certainly does not, given Paul's statement there that the New Covenant is "not in a written code but in the spirit."

The phrase itself is as old as Jeremiah, for that matter.

How do we know that all of those New Testaments (Tertullian's, Origen's, and so on) contained the exact same list of books?

This is why, apart from the total lack of evidence, I find BeDuhn's attempt to associate the title with Marcion unconvincing. Marcion didn't want an Old Testament, so why would he want a New one?

I agree with this.

You quote Origen in a later post to the effect that doctrines in "the so called Old" Testament (τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ) agree with those in "the so named New Testament" (τὴν ὀνομαζομένην καινὴν διαθήκην), and that does not come across as a good way to refer to the actual title(s) of the book(s).

But he's explicitly saying that these scriptures are "called" and "named" Old and New Testament; on the contrary, I think that's exactly how to refer to the title of a book.

Okay, I actually think I agree with you here. I withdraw the objection, with the proviso that it does not have to be a title. It can go either way.

Of scriptures there were many. But what evidence is there that many different collections of scripture were actually called the New Testament?

Well, take Eusebius' discussion, for example. He tells us he is going to list the books of "the New Testament" (τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης), and then he distinguishes between the mutually "confessed" (ὁμολογουμένοις) writings, the "disputed" (ἀντιλεγομένων) writings, and the "spurious" (νόθοις) writings, the latter of which he says may also be classified as "disputed" (ἀντιλεγομένων again), thus collapsing the second and third categories. If one draws the testamental line between the "confessed" and "disputed" writings on the one side and the "spurious" writings on the other, one does come up with our modern 27 book NT (if one ignores the double placement of Revelation). However, Eusebius himself seems to speak against this division, not only by collapsing the second and third categories as just mentioned, but also by suggesting that various gospels and acts are "not testamental but rather indeed disputed" (οὐκ ἐνδιαθήκους μὲν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντιλεγομένας). This statement seems to lump all three of the original categories under the category of "testamental." It also suggests that to be disputed is not to be testamental, which is quite confusing, given the lingo that Eusebius has already used for his categories. Is Eusebius confusingly drawing upon a codex of the 27 books? If so, why is he placing Revelation, not in categories 1 and 2, but rather in categories 1 and 3? Is Revelation in the codex or not? And what is going on with this fourfold classification anyway, if he is drawing from a codex called the New Testament, and that codex has our 27 books?

Or there is the Laodicean canon, which specifically says it is listing the books of the New Testament, but which omits Revelation. Cyril describes his list, which is likewise free of the Revelation of John, as a New Testament.

The Apostolic Constitutions call their list a New Testament, and that list includes (as I have mentioned before) both the Clementine epistles and the Constitutions themselves, while simultaneously (and unsurprisingly) omitting Revelation.

The Cheltenham canon lists books "of the New Testament" (novi testamenti), but only 13 Pauline epistles make the cut (the unlucky outcast is probably the epistle to the Hebrews, but the compiler does not tell us).

These authors are listing books, and they are calling those books the New Testament, but those books are not necessarily identical to our list of 27 books.

Or are you saying that New Testament is more of a concept, like scripture?

Kind of. I suggested the analogy of "the dictionary" or "the thesaurus," whereby a bunch of different editions of the same sort of thing can easily get called by a singular name.

Again, where did this idea come from? Early Christians would have known about and ritualized the "new covenant," but how does this morph into denoting a collection of scripture?

I imagine it came from Paul:

2 Corinthians 3.14: 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant / the Old Testament [τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης] the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

You are absolutely correct that Paul thought of the New Testament as something physically unwritten. But here he explicitly describes the Old Testament as something to be read, and therefore as something written; once Christians started listing their own books to contrast with the Hebrew scriptures, to call the latter the Old Testament would be natural from this verse, but then what would one call the former, the newer Christian books? The term New Testament would suggest itself automatically by way of contrast.

(It may mean nothing, but our earliest extant instance of the term Old Testament may well be Melito of Sardis apud Eusebius, History of the Church 4.26.12-14, in which Melito is quoted as using the term Old Testament but not as using the term New Testament.)

To be the NT nowadays, it must contain the 27 books, in whatever order or translation.

You may be correct now, but (A) there were lists specifically of the New Testament books going into the Middle Ages which did not match our list of 27 and (B) the Old Testament is still variable. The Roman Catholic Old Testament, for example, still contains the deuterocanonical books.

[Ben C. Smith]

Of scriptures there were many. .... In the early church, other texts might have counted as "scripture," but what evidence is there that they were called a or the NT?

You seem to be implying that the category of texts known as "scriptures" may be larger than the sum of the two Testaments, New and Old. Yet perhaps not everybody would have agreed with you:

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.20: 20 .... But all Scripture is divided into two Testaments [verum scriptura omnis in duo testamenta divisa est]. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ — that is, the law and the prophets — is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. ....

The equation seems to be: Scripture = Old Testament + New Testament, without remainder.