The Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

The Canon

Post by Irish1975 »

If David Trobisch is right that the 27-book New Testament came into existence in the 2nd century as a published book, what remains of the idea of "the canon"? Is it rendered a merely theological concept, not essentially related to the actual creation of the Christian Bible in historical time? (Analogy: Darwinian evolution supplanted the account in Genesis as an account of how the world came to be, rendering the story merely theological, a metaphor.)

The Standard Model of the Canon (SMC), constructed in the 19th century and reinforced in the 20th, says that the NT canon came into being gradually, over the centuries. That is,

1) individual Christian texts emerged and circulated individually (1st & 2nd century);
2) these texts were combined in various collections or anthologies (2nd & 3rd century);
3) The Church established normative lists (4th century).

Trobisch ambitiously sweeps this picture aside.
The history of the Christian Bible was treated as the history of a doctrine and not as the history of a publication. Researchers focused on the canon, not on the Canonical Edition.

The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford, 2000), p. 37.
He observes that there are major problems for the SMC. The canon was never debated at an ecumenical council of the early Church. There is modern scholarly speculation, but no consensus, about which criterion or criteria determined inclusion of a text. There is no evidence that the canon was ever "closed," except for modern Catholics at the 16th century Council of Trent.

He argues that the paleographic evidence points to a 2nd century archetype, an editio princeps, marked by a consistent form and structure. 4 Gospels weirdly named "kata ___". Always in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The also weirdly named Acts of the Apostles bunched together with the general epistles. The general epistles laid out in the order James, Peter, John, in the same order that Paul names them in Galatians 2:9. 14 epistles of Paul. The Revelation of John. Trobisch also bases his argument on the distinctive use of the codex, the distinctive short hand system for the "sacred names," and what he calls the "redactional frame" of the text itself. The latter consists of various elements, such as the editorial note at John 21:25, which concludes the 4-gospel book, and the numerous intertextual associations, e.g. between the Gospel titles and the identification of Mark and Luke elsewhere in the NT.

The concept of canon, applied to scripture, seems to have two aspects: (1) the specification of which texts are in the canon; and (2) the law or rule that says that only these texts can be in the canon. In other words, the content of the law, and the force of it.

If Trobisch is correct, the canon in the sense of (1) was fixed when the Christian Bible entered the world as the world-altering book (anthology) that it is, in the 2nd century. But it did not become The Canon in the sense of (2) until the 4th century, and there is no great mystery why. Because the 4th emperors imposed Christianity as the state religion of the whole Mediterranean, both with respect to the orthodoxy of doctrine, and with respect to the scriptures approved to be read in the imperially sanctioned churches.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.

It happens through the favoring providence of God our Savior, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also be increased. Do you therefore receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct you to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures...to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner...by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art...[and that they] be completed with as little delay as possible.

When Athanasius writes his 39th Festal Epistle in 367, he refers to τὰ κανονιζόμενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία. That is, the books that have (already) been canonized. He is referring to a past event. He is not actually doing the canonizing himself, only warning his flock not to read any heretical books.

It is true that the reception of the NT texts as sacred scripture, beginning from the time of its publication, was a prerequisite of its being adopted as imperial law. But otherwise there seems to be no historical substance to the theory that the early church decided upon the canon of scripture.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Canon

Post by MrMacSon »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm If David Trobisch is right that the 27-book New Testament came into existence in the 2nd century as a published book, what remains of the idea of "the canon"? Is it rendered a merely a theological concept, not essentially related to the actual creation of the Christian Bible in historical time? ...

The Standard Model of the Canon (SMC), constructed in the 19th century and reinforced in the 20th, says that the NT canon came into being gradually, over the centuries. That is,
  1. individual Christian texts emerged and circulated individually (1st & 2nd century);
  2. these texts were combined in various collections or anthologies (2nd & 3rd century);
  3. The Church established normative lists (4th century).
Trobisch ambitiously sweeps this picture aside.
I'm not sure Trobisch completely sweeps that aside. There was very likely to have been at least one collection in the 2nd century: Marcion's.

But the quote you provided makes a good point, -
The history of the Christian Bible was treated as the history of a doctrine and not as the history of a publication. Researchers focused on the canon, not on the Canonical Edition.

The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford, 2000), p. 37.

Certainly, -
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm The canon was never debated at an ecumenical council of the early Church. There is modern scholarly speculation, but no consensus, about which criterion or criteria determined inclusion of a text. There is no evidence that the canon was ever "closed," except for modern Catholics at the 16th century Council of Trent.

Regarding, -
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm But [the key Christian texts] did not become The Canon in the sense of (2) until the 4th century, and there is no great mystery why. Because the 4th [century] emperors imposed Christianity as the state religion of the whole Mediterranean, both with respect to the orthodoxy of doctrine, and with respect to the scriptures approved to be read in the imperially sanctioned churches.
- it was not until the late 4th century that an emperor made Christianity the state religion, and whether it applied to the whole Mediterranean is debatable b/c, by that stage, the Roman empire was only the eastern Roman empire aka the early Byzantine empire. The west was a mess.



VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, [supposedly] to Eusebius.

... I have thought it expedient to instruct you to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures...to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner...by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art...[and that they] be completed with as little delay as possible.

The nature of those bibles is not known. One cannot assume they were the same as the Codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pmWhen Athanasius writes his 39th Festal Epistle in 367, he refers to τὰ κανονιζόμενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία. That is, the books that have (already) been canonized. He is referring to a past event. He is not actually doing the canonizing himself, only warning his flock not to read any heretical books.
The reference to the canonising being a past event could be a misrepresentation to make the structure of 4th century Christianity appear as if it had been more concrete than it really had been.

As you say, -
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm... there seems to be no historical substance to the theory that the early church decided upon the canon of scripture.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Canon

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:31 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm If David Trobisch is right that the 27-book New Testament came into existence in the 2nd century as a published book, what remains of the idea of "the canon"? Is it rendered a merely a theological concept, not essentially related to the actual creation of the Christian Bible in historical time? ...

The Standard Model of the Canon (SMC), constructed in the 19th century and reinforced in the 20th, says that the NT canon came into being gradually, over the centuries. That is,
  1. individual Christian texts emerged and circulated individually (1st & 2nd century);
  2. these texts were combined in various collections or anthologies (2nd & 3rd century);
  3. The Church established normative lists (4th century).
Trobisch ambitiously sweeps this picture aside.
I'm not sure Trobisch completely sweeps that aside. There was very likely to have been at least one collection in the 2nd century: Marcion's.
Indeed, Trobisch spends an entire book (Paul's Letter Collection) arguing for #2 on that list with respect to the Pauline epistles: a series of collections of Paul's letters assembled in century II.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Canon

Post by Secret Alias »

Remember also that the ORDER is important too. There seems to have been three different 'first' epistles (1) our standard Romans first collection (2) a Corinthians first collection [attested in the Muratorian canon, and parts of Tertullian's Against Marcion] and (3) a Galatians first canon which seems to have been used by the original author of Against Marcion and Ephrem the Syrian and the eastern Church.

Why does this matter? Well first of all Trobisch's ideas depend on a set order of gospels and Pauline letters. Also the manner in which Against Marcion (and subsequently Epiphanius) attacks Marcion it makes us suppose that Marcion had a Galatian-first canon. I am not so sure. I think the author of Against Marcion had a Galatians-first canon and that's all. Also at the beginning of Against Marcion the author says effectively 'Galatians is first because it is the principally (or 'first') in order of opposition to Marcion. Again if Marcion had a Galatians first canon that might mean something. But I think the author is arguing from his own collection. Not sure he ever had Marcion's canon in front of him.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Canon

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Remember also that the ORDER is important too. There seems to have been three different 'first' epistles (1) our standard Romans first collection (2) a Corinthians first collection [attested in the Muratorian canon, and parts of Tertullian's Against Marcion] and (3) a Galatians first canon which seems to have been used by the original author of Against Marcion and Ephrem the Syrian and the eastern Church.

Why does this matter? Well first of all Trobisch's ideas depend on a set order of gospels and Pauline letters. Also the manner in which Against Marcion (and subsequently Epiphanius) attacks Marcion it makes us suppose that Marcion had a Galatian-first canon. I am not so sure. I think the author of Against Marcion had a Galatians-first canon and that's all. Also at the beginning of Against Marcion the author says effectively 'Galatians is first because it is the principally (or 'first') in order of opposition to Marcion. Again if Marcion had a Galatians first canon that might mean something. But I think the author is arguing from his own collection. Not sure he ever had Marcion's canon in front of him.
It is worth noting the order of epistles expressed by Tertullian...:
  1. Galatians.
  2. 1 Corinthians.
  3. 2 Corinthians.
  4. Romans.
  5. 1 Thessalonians.
  6. 2 Thessalonians.
  7. Laodiceans/Ephesians.
  8. Colossians.
  9. Philippians.
  10. Philemon.
...with regard to the so-called Marcionite prologues:

Prologue to the epistle to the Romans: Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. hi praeventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem scribens eis a Corintho. / The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

Prologue to the first epistle to the Corinthians: Corinthii sunt Achaei. et hi similiter ab apostolis audierunt verbum veritatis et subversi multifarie a falsis apostolis, quidam a philosophiae verbosa eloquentia, alii a secta legis Iudiciae/Iudaicae inducti. hos revocat ad veram et evangelicam sapientiam scribens eis ab Epheso per Timotheum. / The Corinthians are Achaeans. And they similarly heard from the apostles the word of truth and then were subverted in many ways by false apostles, some led away by the verbose eloquence of philosophy, others by a sect of the Jewish law. He calls them back to the true and evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus through Timothy.

Prologue to the second epistle to the Corinthians: Post actam paenitentiam consolatorias scribit eis a Troade et conlaudans eos hortatur ad meliora. / After penitence was made, he writes a consolatory letter to them from Troas, and in praising them he exhorts them on to better things.

Prologue to the epistle to the Galatians: Galatae sunt Graeci. hi verbum veritatis primum ab apostolo acceperunt, sed post discessum eius temptati sunt a falsis apostolis, ut in legem et circumcisionem verterentur. hos apostolus revocat ad fidem veritatis scribens eis ab Epheso. / The Galatians are Greeks. They at first accepted the word of truth from the apostle, but after his departure they were tempted by false apostles to be converted to the law and circumcision. The apostle calls them back to the faith of truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

Prologue to the epistle to the Ephesians: Ephesii sunt Asiani. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab urbe Roma de carcere per Tychicum diaconum. / The Ephesians are Asians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted. The apostle praises them, writing to them from the city of Rome, from prison, through Tychicus the deacon.

Prologue to the epistle to the Philippians: Philippenses sunt Machedones. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide, nec receperunt falsos apostolos. hos apostolus conlaudat scribens eis a Roma de carcere per Epaphroditum. / The Philippians are Macedonians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted, nor did they receive false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Rome, from prison, through Epaphroditus.

Prologue to the epistle to the Colossians: Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani. et ipsi praeventi erat a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit. audierant enim verbum ab Archippo qui et ministerium in eos accepit. ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso. / The Colossians, they too are Asians, just as the Laodiceans. They themselves also had been reached by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself approach them, but them too he corrects through an epistle. For they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted the ministry to them. The apostle therefore, already arrested, writes to them from Ephesus.

Prologue to the first epistle to the Thessalonians: Thessalonicenses sunt Machedones in Christo Iesu qui accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide etiam in persecutione civium suorum; praeterea nec receperunt ea quae a falsis apostolis dicebantur. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab Athenis. / The Thessalonians are Macedonians in Christ Jesus who, after the word was accepted, still persisted in the faith in the persecution by their fellow citizens; furthermore, they did not receive those things which were said by the false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Athens.

Prologue to the second epistle to the Thessalonians: Ad Thessalonicenses scribit et notum facit eis de temporibus novissimis et de adversarii detectione. scribit ab Athenis. / To the Thessalonians he writes and makes note to them concerning the last times and of the detection of the adversary. He writes from Athens.

Prologue to the first epistle to Timothy: Timotheum instruit et docet de ordinatione episcopatus et diaconii et omnis ecclesiasticae disciplinae. / He instructs Timothy and teaches him concerning the ordination to the episcopate and to the diaconate and concerning all aspects of ecclesiastical discipline.

Prologue to the second epistle to Timothy: Item Timotheo scribit de exhortatione martyrii et omnis regulae veritatis et quid futurum sit temporibus novissimis et de sua passione. / Likewise he writes to Timothy concerning the exhortation of martyrdom and all aspects of the rule of truth, and what will be in the last times, and concerning his own passion.

Prologue to the epistle to Titus: Titum commonefacit et instruit de constitutione presbyterii et de spiritali conversatione et hereticis vitandis qui in scripturis Iudaicis credunt. / He warns and intructs Titus concerning the constitution of the presbytery and concerning spiritual conversation and heretics to be avoided who believe in the Jewish scriptures.

Prologue to the epistle to Philemon: Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius. scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere. / He composes a familiar letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus his servant. He writes to him, however, from Rome, from prison.

I have obviously presented these in their present canonical order, but there are clues within the prologues themselves as to their original order, as originally argued by Donatien de Bruyne, by Peter Corssen, and by Adolf Harnack (and adjusted here and there by me):
  • The Philemonian prologue sets itself apart as describing the composition of a familiar letter (familiares litteras facit). In a list in which Philemon stands alone as the only letter to an individual, this makes perfect sense; it makes less sense in a list which includes 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, whose prologues stand alone in composition and emphases. They probably formed no part of the original list. (Donatien de Bruyne also argued, based on style and structure, that the prologues for 1 Corinthians and for 1 Thessalonians originally covered both epistles to these communities, but arguments from order are not affected one way or another by this consideration, since the wording suggests that the second Corinthian and Thessalonian prologues must follow, respectively, the first Corinthian and Thessalonian prologues.)
  • The first Corinthian prologue (et hi similiter ab apostolis audierunt verbum veritatis) looks like it must come after the Galatian prologue (hi verbum veritatis primum ab apostolo acceperunt).
  • The Colossian prologue (Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani) implies a previous Laodicean prologue. The Ephesian prologue is the only other one describing an Asiatic church, yet it is virtually a copy of the Philippian prologue. Therefore, the Ephesian prologue is not original, but there must have been a Laodicean prologue which it replaced.
  • Nobody in the West would have to be told that Romani sunt in partibus Italiae.
All of these considerations are consonant with an Eastern order of epistles as given by Tertullian, but not all are consonant with the present canonical order. Also, obviously, fretting about Christians being led "into the law and the prophets" would not be out of character for a Marcionite.

Pretty sure you know all of this already, Stephan, but I have been wanting to get the arguments surrounding these prologues on the table for a while now.

ETA: The ten prologues in the alleged Marcionite order (lacking the Pastorals):

Prologue to the epistle to the Galatians: Galatae sunt Graeci. hi verbum veritatis primum ab apostolo acceperunt, sed post discessum eius temptati sunt a falsis apostolis, ut in legem et circumcisionem verterentur. hos apostolus revocat ad fidem veritatis scribens eis ab Epheso. / The Galatians are Greeks. They at first accepted the word of truth from the apostle, but after his departure they were tempted by false apostles to be converted to the law and circumcision. The apostle calls them back to the faith of truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

Prologue to the first epistle to the Corinthians: Corinthii sunt Achaei. et hi similiter ab apostolis audierunt verbum veritatis et subversi multifarie a falsis apostolis, quidam a philosophiae verbosa eloquentia, alii a secta legis Iudiciae/Iudaicae inducti. hos revocat ad veram et evangelicam sapientiam scribens eis ab Epheso per Timotheum. / The Corinthians are Achaeans. And they similarly heard from the apostles the word of truth and then were subverted in many ways by false apostles, some led away by the verbose eloquence of philosophy, others by a sect of the Jewish law. He calls them back to the true and evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus through Timothy.

Prologue to the second epistle to the Corinthians: Post actam paenitentiam consolatorias scribit eis a Troade et conlaudans eos hortatur ad meliora. / After penitence was made, he writes a consolatory letter to them from Troas, and in praising them he exhorts them on to better things.

Prologue to the epistle to the Romans: Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. hi praeventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem scribens eis a Corintho. / The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth.

Prologue to the first epistle to the Thessalonians: Thessalonicenses sunt Machedones in Christo Iesu qui accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide etiam in persecutione civium suorum; praeterea nec receperunt ea quae a falsis apostolis dicebantur. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab Athenis. / The Thessalonians are Macedonians in Christ Jesus who, after the word was accepted, still persisted in the faith in the persecution by their fellow citizens; furthermore, they did not receive those things which were said by the false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Athens.

Prologue to the second epistle to the Thessalonians: Ad Thessalonicenses scribit et notum facit eis de temporibus novissimis et de adversarii detectione. scribit ab Athenis. / To the Thessalonians he writes and makes note to them concerning the last times and of the detection of the adversary. He writes from Athens.

Prologue to the epistle to the Ephesians: Ephesii sunt Asiani. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide. hos conlaudat apostolus scribens eis ab urbe Roma de carcere per Tychicum diaconum. / The Ephesians are Asians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted. The apostle praises them, writing to them from the city of Rome, from prison, through Tychicus the deacon.

Prologue to the epistle to the Colossians: Colossenses et hi sicut Laudicenses sunt Asiani. et ipsi praeventi erat a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit. audierant enim verbum ab Archippo qui et ministerium in eos accepit. ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso. / The Colossians, they too are Asians, just as the Laodiceans. They themselves also had been reached by pseudo-apostles, nor did the apostle himself approach them, but them too he corrects through an epistle. For they had heard the word from Archippus, who also accepted the ministry to them. The apostle therefore, already arrested, writes to them from Ephesus.

Prologue to the epistle to the Philippians: Philippenses sunt Machedones. hi accepto verbo veritatis persteterunt in fide, nec receperunt falsos apostolos. hos apostolus conlaudat scribens eis a Roma de carcere per Epaphroditum. / The Philippians are Macedonians. They persisted in the faith after the word of truth was accepted, nor did they receive false apostles. The apostle praises them, writing to them from Rome, from prison, through Epaphroditus.

Prologue to the epistle to Philemon: Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius. scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere. / He composes a familiar letter to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus his servant. He writes to him, however, from Rome, from prison.

In this same order, Galatians and 1 Corinthians are written from Ephesus; 2 Corinthians is written from Troas; Romans is written from Corinth; 1 and 2 Thessalonians are written from Athens; Ephesians/Laodiceans is written from prison in Rome; Colossians is written from prison in Ephesus; and both Philippians and Philemon are written from prison again in Rome. Harnack suggests that the seemingly anomalous writing of Colossians from Ephesus might be explained by a scribe having mistakenly written scribit eis ab Epheso for scribit eis a Roma per Epaphram.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Canon

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:02 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:31 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm If David Trobisch is right that the 27-book New Testament came into existence in the 2nd century as a published book, what remains of the idea of "the canon"? Is it rendered a merely a theological concept, not essentially related to the actual creation of the Christian Bible in historical time? ...

The Standard Model of the Canon (SMC), constructed in the 19th century and reinforced in the 20th, says that the NT canon came into being gradually, over the centuries. That is,
  1. individual Christian texts emerged and circulated individually (1st & 2nd century);
  2. these texts were combined in various collections or anthologies (2nd & 3rd century);
  3. The Church established normative lists (4th century).
Trobisch ambitiously sweeps this picture aside.
I'm not sure Trobisch completely sweeps that aside. There was very likely to have been at least one collection in the 2nd century: Marcion's.
Indeed, Trobisch spends an entire book (Paul's Letter Collection) arguing for #2 on that list with respect to the Pauline epistles: a series of collections of Paul's letters assembled in century II.
I could have expressed this better. I didn't mean to attribute to Trobisch the false notion that no collections existed prior to the first edition of the NT. Obviously there was Marcion's Bible, and much other Christian literature. Perhaps Paul himself bundled together an edition of his 4 major epistles, as Trobisch argues in the book mentioned by Ben.

Rather, the picture that he sweeps aside is, specifically, the modern theory of how our NT Canon came into being as Canon. So, for example, Martin Hengel believes that the 4 gospels circulated individually, with their canonical titles already attached to them by tradition, before they were collected into one anthology. Trobisch explains why he rejects that account (pp. 41-43).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Canon

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:05 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:02 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:31 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm If David Trobisch is right that the 27-book New Testament came into existence in the 2nd century as a published book, what remains of the idea of "the canon"? Is it rendered a merely a theological concept, not essentially related to the actual creation of the Christian Bible in historical time? ...

The Standard Model of the Canon (SMC), constructed in the 19th century and reinforced in the 20th, says that the NT canon came into being gradually, over the centuries. That is,
  1. individual Christian texts emerged and circulated individually (1st & 2nd century);
  2. these texts were combined in various collections or anthologies (2nd & 3rd century);
  3. The Church established normative lists (4th century).
Trobisch ambitiously sweeps this picture aside.
I'm not sure Trobisch completely sweeps that aside. There was very likely to have been at least one collection in the 2nd century: Marcion's.
Indeed, Trobisch spends an entire book (Paul's Letter Collection) arguing for #2 on that list with respect to the Pauline epistles: a series of collections of Paul's letters assembled in century II.
I could have expressed this better. I didn't mean to attribute to Trobisch the false notion that no collections existed prior to the first edition of the NT. Obviously there was Marcion's Bible, and much other Christian literature. Perhaps Paul himself bundled together an edition of his 4 major epistles, as Trobisch argues in the book mentioned by Ben.

Rather, the picture that he sweeps aside is, specifically, the modern theory of how our NT Canon came into being as Canon. So, for example, Martin Hengel believes that the 4 gospels circulated individually, with their canonical titles already attached to them by tradition, before they were collected into one anthology. Trobisch explains why he rejects that account (pp. 41-43).
This makes sense. Thanks.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Canon

Post by Charles Wilson »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:05 amI could have expressed this better. I didn't mean to attribute to Trobisch the false notion that no collections existed prior to the first edition of the NT. Obviously there was Marcion's Bible, and much other Christian literature.
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.
I have thought it expedient to instruct you to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures...to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner...by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art...[and that they] be completed with as little delay as possible.
Irish1975 --

I bring this up, not to be argumentative, but to inquire as to the nature of what we are presented:
Obviously there was Marcion's Bible, and much other Christian literature...
Is this True? Or is it assumed as True for the purpose of making progress in the Exposition of the Early Church? "There was Marcion's Bible..." is probably assumable. "Who did what to whom", as the old limerick goes, leads to the chase. Did appending the name "Luke" to a document prove priority or secondary status? Perhaps the entire story was manufactured for effect. "...and much more Christian literature..." is more to the point. How much was there, "...out in the field"?
I have thought it expedient to instruct you to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures...
Here is the real problem. It takes an Emperor to order as many as 50 copies, from Titus ordering copies of Josephus' works, until the order to copy the Scriptures - and not just any ol' copies but NICE COPIES.

There is a disconnect here. The Production of Text Copies is critical to understanding the Rise of Christianity and precisely where we need information on "Production of Manuscript in the Roman Empire" is precisely where we get nowhere. Mark appears in every copy to end at 16: 8 and that means that at some point, there was a single Book of Mark extant. Only one. Was that book a "Good - 'Neatness Counts' - Manuscript"?

We are told that somehow a Wanderer in a far-away country found loads of people who wrote down "Oral Tradition" and shipped it all to Rome for safe-keeping and...LO! an Emperor is converted and this freshly minted New Religion suddenly has an ordered Book that explains it all and if you still don't understand, you can go to this new building which has a wide path down the middle that leads to a guy with a funny phallic hat and he's ordering you to get on your knees so he can stuff a cookie and a grape drink down your throat.

Again, not to be argumentative. Does this seem realistic?

50 copies, eh?

CW
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Canon

Post by Irish1975 »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:54 am Irish1975 --

I bring this up, not to be argumentative, but to inquire as to the nature of what we are presented:
Obviously there was Marcion's Bible, and much other Christian literature...
Is this True? Or is it assumed as True for the purpose of making progress in the Exposition of the Early Church? "There was Marcion's Bible..." is probably assumable.
Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, gThomas...Are you supposing that there might not have been any Christian texts published, bought, and sold in the 2nd century?
We are told that somehow a Wanderer in a far-away country found loads of people who wrote down "Oral Tradition" and shipped it all to Rome for safe-keeping and...LO! an Emperor is converted and this freshly minted New Religion suddenly has an ordered Book that explains it all and if you still don't understand, you can go to this new building which has a wide path down the middle that leads to a guy with a funny phallic hat and he's ordering you to get on your knees so he can stuff a cookie and a grape drink down your throat.

Again, not to be argumentative. Does this seem realistic?

50 copies, eh?

CW
I'm not sure what you're suggesting and/or asking. Could you put it more directly?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The Canon

Post by Irish1975 »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:31 pm Regarding, -
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:49 pm But [the key Christian texts] did not become The Canon in the sense of (2) until the 4th century, and there is no great mystery why. Because the 4th [century] emperors imposed Christianity as the state religion of the whole Mediterranean, both with respect to the orthodoxy of doctrine, and with respect to the scriptures approved to be read in the imperially sanctioned churches.
- it was not until the late 4th century that an emperor made Christianity the state religion,
Yes, Theodosius outlaws every form of religion besides Nicene Christianity and Judaism in the 380s, and in the 390s begins the destruction of the pagan temples. But doesn't the imperial establishment of Christianity commence under Constantine? In particular, with the establishment of Constantinople as the new seat of empire, the endowment of its many Christian basilicas, etc.
and whether it applied to the whole Mediterranean is debatable b/c, by that stage, the Roman empire was only the eastern Roman empire aka the early Byzantine empire. The west was a mess.
Well, Ambrose of Milan is a big player in the West in the later 4th century, gathering consensus around Nicene orthodoxy.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, [supposedly] to Eusebius.

... I have thought it expedient to instruct you to order fifty copies of the sacred scriptures...to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner...by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art...[and that they] be completed with as little delay as possible.

The nature of those bibles is not known. One cannot assume they were the same as the Codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
If Constantine had endorsed and established a materially different NT (e.g., one that excluded the six texts Eusebius considers "disputed" in the Ecclesiastical History: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), I don't see how that could fail to provoke a controversy, one that would have to be resolved in an ecumenical council. Since there doesn't seem to be anyone after Eusebius who questions or specifically affirms the canonicity of those 7 texts, I don't see any reason not to assume that Constantine's was the 27-text NT.
Post Reply