David Trobisch, <i>On the Origin of Christian Scripture: The Evolution of the New Testament Canon in the Second Century</i>

This book continues the author’s work on the origins of the NT Canon. The bibliography lists ten of his publications. The central question of this book is this: Was the NT canon the product of one person/group, or the result of recognition by a large swath of churches over time? The book supports the first and rejects the second. What Trobisch adds here is a more explicit reference to Marcion’s role in canon formation and the naming of the father who was the publisher of the Canonical Edition of the NT (CE).The book has six parts with implications drawn in a seventh. Part 1 lays out definitions and presuppositions. The CE is essentially the edition of the NT, which is used today, except the books are in a different order. The presuppositions have to do with distinctions between documents and literature, history and story, and historical and implied authors, editors, and publishers. Literature is the result of documents being copied and distributed. Story is the purposeful telling of history, which sometimes even “creates” history. Historical authors, editors, and publishers create personae, which become implied authors, editors, and publishers.Part 2 supports a mid-second century date for the origin of the CE by a rehearsal of material in Trobisch’s earlier publications. Three supports are offered. First, the sixty or so fragmentary manuscripts from the second and third centuries demonstrate, once exceptions are dismissed, that the CE was carefully edited. The editor used consistently the nomina sacra, the codex form, the titles to the books, and the number of writings, which proves that the CE “was edited and published by specific people, at a specific time, at a specific place, and for specific reasons” (p. 9).Second, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian testify to the use of the CE in late second century churches. These fathers wrote against Marcionite teaching. Tertullian wrote a five-volume Against Marcion “in which he quoted the Marcionite Edition of the New Testament extensively” (p. 19). These fathers erroneously believed Marcion redacted the CE. They failed to distinguish story and history. Trobisch asserts that the Marcionite Edition (ME) came first, and it consisted of the gospel of Luke and most of the letters of Paul. The first of Paul’s letters was Galatians in which Paul anathematizes any who proclaim a different “gospel.” “Paul endorses the gospel book that stood next to Paul’s letters in this edition” (p. 21). Whether Trobisch is saying Paul was writing about the Gospel of Luke or this is how the Marcionite publisher interpreted Paul is unclear.Third, Irenaeus created a provenance narrative that traces the CE from Linus (mentioned in 2 Timothy) through various bishops to Anicetus. Anicetus and Polycarp of Smyrna met and agreed on the contents of the CE against Marcionites in the mid-second century. There was also a date-of-Easter conflict, both sides of which are supported by the Gospels (Synoptics vs. John). Irenaeus believed that liturgical matters should not divide the church. Therefore, he put John’s Gospel next to the Synoptics and used Acts to mitigate differences between Paul and the Pillar Apostles. The CE was published sometime before 161.Part 3 compares the CE with other Christian scriptures of the second and third centuries, although, except for the ME, the other Christian Scriptures were not part of any collection as far as we know, and most of these other Christian Scriptures were not of the same genre as the NT writings. Nevertheless, the NT lines up with these other Christian Scriptures because both use first-century voices to address second-century concerns. Scholars today use manuscript evidence, early documented readers, and contemporary issues to date both the CE and the other Christian Scriptures to the second century.Part 4 considers examples of edited collections of autographs published in the fourth, ninth, fourteenth, eighteenth, and twentieth centuries (the last being Hitler diaries!). It is curious why Trobisch did not compare the Jewish Bible (in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek). Conclusions from these comparisons are that the ME preceded the CE because editions with interpolated documents are later, and that historical publishers insert implied publishers into the text. In the CE, the implied publisher is Theophilus. His voice is heard as the “I” in John 21:25.Part 5 asserts that the CE implies that Theophilus organized four volumes (Gospels, Praxapostolos, Pauline letters, and Revelation) into one book. The implied date is the time of the trial of Paul in Rome because that is how the story of the apostles ends. Pages 82–101 are devoted to showing that “Theophilus” used an edited form of the Johannine writings in his publication. Trobisch attributes supposed editorial comments in these writings to editors after John.Part 6 identifies the historical publisher who created the implied publisher, Theophilus. Polycarp is a strong candidate for being the publisher of the NT, but finally, Irenaeus of Lyons is suggested because he is the one who gives the provenance narrative of the canon. “In the case of proven forgeries, all too often, both the artifact and the provenance narrative were created by the same person” (p. 135). Irenaeus had every reason to add the Praxapostolos, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and the Johannine writings to the ME. Various editorial remarks in many of the books of the NT correspond to the second-century issues raised in the Marcionite and Easter controversies.The thesis that the CE was published in the second century is appealing over against those who attribute it to Constantine. That the publisher was Irenaeus is possible. He was certainly respected, capable, and interested. The problem with the Irenaeus theory is that there are other possibilities. Perhaps Irenaeus was simply reflecting the Great Church’s canon. There are people and events that we simply do not know about. There are lots of suppositions that fit Trobisch’s theory. This is one of the main problems of the book. It does not deal with contrary evidence for “interpolations” attributed to editors/publishers.There are also several anachronisms, particularly regarding historical and implied editors and publishers who published books for sale. Some NT manuscripts were copied to be sold, but not all and probably not most. Literary theory that supports the notions of historical vs. implied authors, editors, and publishers is quite modern. It is not probable that people thought in these terms in the second century, despite the assertions of Aristotle (p. 3, a misinterpretation of Poetics 9).Trobisch concentrates on manuscripts, a needed addition to previous studies of Canon history, which mainly used evidence from the writings of church fathers (which he discounts), but he does not consider the phenomena within those manuscripts (e.g., liturgical markers, text types, and differing hands). And there are no examples of editorial hands where he asserts that editors made additions. If editors interpolated words, sentences, and paragraphs into the text in the mid-second century, one might expect to find some evidence in early manuscripts. Unless, of course, these interpolations occurred before the supposed time of publication, which would move the date of publication of the CE before the extant manuscripts, that is, the early second century, before the ME was published.