The Collection of the Canon

Last updated on: June 9, 2019 at 1:10 am by Ben Witherington

The Collection of the Canon 2019-05-13T10:13:31-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s a help post by NT colleague Larry Hurtado. See what you think……. BW3

Text-Collections and an Emergent NT Canon

A recent survey of the contents of Christian manuscripts from the first three centuries focuses on identifying which texts were combined in the same manuscript: Michael Dormandy, “How the Books Became the Bible: The Evidence for Canon Formation From Work-Combination in Manuscripts,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 23 (2018): 1-39. (TC is an open-access and online journal: available here.)

After laying out carefully his method and his gathering of data (using the Leuven Database of Ancient Books), Dormandy then classifies extant manuscripts (including very fragmentary ones) as to the level of certainty that we can attain in determining whether the manuscripts contained more than one text, and, if so, what texts they contained. His approach is cautious and careful, which makes his conclusions all the more sound.

Dormandy coins the term “collection-evident” to designate collections of texts that combine texts that came to form part of the NT. For example, manuscripts that contained only our four NT Gospels or epistles of Paul are instances of “collection-evident” artefacts. The question behind his study was whether we see a pattern of collecting certain texts together in a given manuscript, or a diversity in collections of texts, combining canonical and non-canonical texts.

As he concludes, “The results are striking.” The clear majority of multi-text manuscripts from any of the early centuries are “collection-evident,” i.e., they include only texts that later became part of our NT. Manuscripts that combine what became canonical texts with non-canonical texts are “relatively rare.” Importantly, he found no instance of a combination of gospels beyond the familiar four in the NT (p. 21). To cite him further, “It is crucial to note that . . . there is nothing even resembling an alternative Bible, that is, a set of works, different to the ones now canonical, that are regularly combined” (p. 22). Noting that Codex Sinaiticus includes Shepherd of Herman and the Epistle of Barnabas, and that Codex Alexandrinus includes letters of Clement, these are exceptional. Moreover, they are included at the end of the respective manuscript, suggesting that they may have been intended as a kind of appendix. But, in any case, there are no alternative gospel-collections, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Thomas. As he observes, in those early centuries, “There may be other gospels, but there is no other gospel collection” (p. 22).

He also confirms earlier observations that a good many early manuscripts are single-text ones, e.g., containing one Gospel. This is reflected in the varying number of extant copies of the individual Gospels, many more of Matthew and John, and very few of Mark. As he notes, this casts doubt on David Trobisch’s claim that by the late-second century the complete NT canon had been determined and circulated together.

Likewise, there is little indication of letter-collections that combined what became canonical texts with others. So, e.g., we have the well-known collections of Pauline letters (P46 being the most well-known example).

Dormandy seems to me to judge rightly that the consistency in manuscript practice in this early period is not likely the result of some diktat from any influential figure. Instead, it seems to reflect a widespread view among those preparing these manuscripts that certain texts belonged together. We may not be able to discern the reasons, but it is evident. In Dormandy’s words, “early Christian bookmakers did not have to be told by ecclesiastical superiors what was in the canon” (pp. 22-23).

In sum, contra the views of some scholars, the frequent inclusion of certain texts in the same manuscript suggests that they were seen to have something in common, something that led to the NT canon. On the other hand, contra the views of other scholars (e.g., Trobisch), the numerous single-text manuscripts suggest that the circulation of the four Gospels together or complete editions of the NT in the second century is not plausible.

Some years ago, I proposed that the collection of texts, both conceptually and physically, was an important feature of second-century Christian circles, and was a step toward what became a canon of the NT.[1] So, it is particularly gratifying to see Dormandy’s careful and persuasive survey of the evidence.

[1] Larry W. Hurtado, “The New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,” in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, ed. J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 3-27, esp.19-24. See also my comments in my book, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 35-40.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 8, 2019

The National Gallery--- More from M+M

Next Post

June 10, 2019 The National Gallery--- Van Gogh, Degas, Monet

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz