Hi Blood,
At the time that I read Trobisch's book, I agreed with him. I have recently come to think that his arguments are not as strong as I had thought. Rather, I think it is much more probable that the selection came during the time of and through the efforts of Eusebius-Constantine (circa 325).
Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third century never refers to the New Testament as a book or set of books. Typical of his use of the term "New Testament" is this (
Prescription Against Heretics, -- Chapter 30:
"For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. [10] Having then been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation."
It is clear that Tertullian is not referring to a set of books which we label "New Testament". Tertullian is saying that the covenant of God was one covenant before Marcian separated it into a new and old covenant.
Likewise Ireneaus, also writing circa 200 C.E. ("Against Heresies" Book IV, 32.2) uses the term New Testament as a synonym for the new covenant:
5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things-not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful-He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My body." And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Omnipotent; " -indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
Again, the term Testament is not referring to a set of books, as Malachi certainly did not speak about a book called the New Testament. The New Testament that Irenaeus believes he talked about was a new covenant between gentiles and God to replace the old covenant between the Jews and God.
Origen, at least some times does not use the term to refer to a specific set of books. Here, he quotes Paul's use of the term "New Testament" in book 6 of
Contra Celsus.
For it is the custom of Scripture to give to "intelligent beings" the names of "spirits" and "spiritual things," by way of distinction from those which are the objects of "sense;" as when Paul says, "But our sufficiency is of God; who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," where by the "letter" he means that "exposition of Scripture which is apparent to the senses," while by the "spirit" that which is the object of the "understanding."
In other places, he does seem to be referring to a set of writings. For example - Book 10 commentary on John:
Now Jesus is the word of God which goes into the soul that is called Jerusalem, riding on the ass freed by the disciples from its bonds. That is to say, on the simple language of the Old Testament, interpreted by the two disciples who loose it: in the first place him who applies what is written to the service of the soul and shows the allegorical sense of it with reference to her, and in the second place him who brings to light by the things which lie in shadow the good and true things of the future. But He also rides on the young colt, the New Testament; for in both alike we find the word of truth which purifies us and drives away all those thoughts in us which incline to selling and buying.
What books he would include in his New Testament is not known. It is likely that he meant any books that refer directly to Jesus Christ as part of the New Testament.
While many writers wrote gospels and apostolic letters, to argue various points, none had a reason or the power to create a real canon before the time of Constantine. (I hope to write a book to demonstrate this idea).
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Blood wrote:PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Blood,
I have found the evidence that the NT was compiled before the time of Constantine less than convincing and about equal to "wishful thinking". Please provide your best evidence. Please note that the Muratorian Fragment originally placed by 18th Century Catholic Scholars in the Second century, has more recently been placed by more objective scholars in the Fourth Century where all the other evidence for the New Testament compilation lies.
I believe the Internet culture of wide-spread instantaneous information has allowed the the masses to leap ahead of the Religious Biblical writers who fashion themselves as scholars and are still using pre-Baconian, 16th Century methodologies for their medieval inspired scholastic scholarship
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Have you read David Trobisch's "The First Edition of the New Testament"?
Origen and Tertullian were referring to "The New Testament" as a discrete book.