The Canon
Posted: 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.
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.