Scott Kellum: What is the New Testament Canon (Part 2)?

[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Aug. 8, 2012. It is the second of four by L. Scott Kellum, Associate Professor of New Testament & Greek at Southeastern, on the New Testament canon. In this post he writes on the collections of New Testament books and their apostolic origins. Check in next Monday for part 3.]

Yesterday, I wrote about the idea of the canon. Today, I want to begin to explore the reception of the individual portions of the NT. I believe the publication of the NT as a collection is clear evidence of the belief that these books were the New Covenant documents for the Church. The early manuscripts of the NT circulated in four volumes of codices (a codex is like modern books, not rolls). These are the Four-Gospels, Acts-General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation. From the manuscripts and description in the Church Fathers, these are set by the mid-point of the second century (AD 150). Things common in the manuscripts like the nomina sacra (abbreviations of the divine names), titles, and arrangements show a common ancestor(s) for these collections. This means that the collections as collections must be much earlier than AD 150. For most of the collections we can confidently date them into the early second century or late first century (of course, the books themselves are much earlier). The first of these collections to be published (and I believe the forerunner for the rest) is the Pauline letter collection.

As a young Christian, I was taught that Paul’s letters originally circulated individually. Over time Churches shared their letters with one another and a collection eventually grew—Porter calls this the “snowball theory.” It is not likely that this was the case. A collection of Paul’s letters is mentioned in 2 Peter, suggesting that at least some of Paul’s letters were circulating in the late 60s (if we take 2 Peter as authentic as I do). Clement of Rome (c. AD 95) and Polycarp (c. AD 110) know of Paul’s letters and although they do not mention a collection per se, they cite so much of the corpus that it is unlikely they possessed a stack of individual letters. It is more likely that Paul’s letters were published as a collection in a codex.

Published letter collections were not uncommon in antiquity. The author put these letter collections together themselves, then either published posthumously by the author or his students. When an author would send a letter, he would often make a copy to keep for their records. The collection of these “retained copies” becomes the basis for publication. The implication is, then, that the author is responsible for the collection.

There is, quite possibly, evidence for this in the Scriptures. Paul, late in his life, asks Timothy at 2 Tim. 4:13 to bring him “especially the parchments.” This word “parchment” is a word for that describes a papyrus codex. This is possibly Paul’s retained letters. At any rate, retained letters would have originally been in a papyrus notebook format. If so, this explains at least two questions regarding the collection. First, it explains how we have small books like Philemon. How on earth does a 1-page personal letter survive at Philemon’s home? It survived because Paul kept a copy. Second, it explains why certain letters are missing in the Corinthian correspondence. The “former letter” (1 Cor. 5:9) and the “severe letter” (2 Cor. 7:8) are missing because Paul did not retain copies for whatever reason. Then, some individual, whether Paul or a surrogate, takes the codex notebook of letters and publishes it. It is rapidly received as Scripture in the early Church.

The books are generally arranged in the same order as in our English Bibles except for one thing: the book of Hebrews is placed between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy in most manuscripts, although some have it elsewhere. For example, the earliest manuscript (P 46) has it immediately after Romans. The letters are arranged by length and content. Letters to Churches are first (Romans-2 Thessalonians) then letters to individuals (1 Timothy – Philemon) in descending length. Hebrews is placed between these two groupings, I believe because it transitions nicely between letters to churches and letters to individuals, in spite of the fact that it is longer than all but Romans and 1 Corinthians. Although I do not believe Paul wrote Hebrews, I do believe that it has strong connections to him. I further believe that it owes its place among the Scriptures by virtue of its position in the Pauline letter collection. If this collection owes its origins to Paul, it is probable that the inclusion of Hebrews is not a late addition but owes its inclusion to Paul or his followers.

All of this leaves us with two conclusions. Regarding the canonical status of Paul’s letters, that issue has been settled by none other than Peter (assuming 2 Peter to be original). Furthermore, the content of the collection is also apostolic, i.e., the books were collected by Paul. Paul not only collected, but since we know of missing letters, there is a strong possibility that Paul was selective in the content of the collection. This sets us very far from the 4th and 5th century greybeards sorting and sifting. The collection is apostolic in its origin and recognition.


For further reading:

H. Gamble. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1995.

E. R. Richards. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

D. Trobisch. Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

S. E. Porter. “When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories.” In The Pauline Canon, ed. S. E. Porter. Boston: Brill, 2004.

Toward a Convergent View of Baptist Origins, Part 2

2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of the modern Baptist movement in 1609. This year will witness a plethora of conferences, symposia, books, articles, pamphlets, and even sermons devoted to the history and theology of the Baptists. I hope to weigh in from time to time with short articles, book reviews, and random musings about the past four centuries. This material was first published a little over two years ago at my former blog, The Fullness of Time, under the title “The Question of Baptist Origins.” Though my views have not changed, I have made several revisions and have divided the material into two separate articles. This is the second article.

As noted in my previous article, I argue for a fifth understanding of Baptist origins that, I believe, includes the various strengths of the other four views while avoiding their respective weaknesses. I call it a convergent view of Baptist origins. Though there are few scholars that currently hold this view, I sense there is a growing trend in this direction. I also suspect there are many who basically hold this view, but think they fall into one of the other four categories.

Let me begin with a caveat that affects my entire reading of this issue: we will never be able to establish a hard-and-fast historical connection between Baptists and earlier movements, including Anabaptists. I think historians such as Steven Wright have shown that the “paper trail” is sketchy and debatable and the historical milieu was complicated and fluid. I prefer the approach of historical theologians such as James Leo Garrett who prefer to focus on theological affinity (which I think presumes at least indirect influence) rather than firmly established organic continuity.

Think of the Baptist tradition as a great river, like the Amazon. A number of tributaries flow into that river. The tributaries are separate from each other and the river itself, but they flow into the river. As they do so, the tributaries create something that is related to them in some respects, yet at the same time is entirely different; the river is the sum of all its tributaries.

This illustration depicts what I argue occurred with the 17th century English Baptists. The Baptists were a historically new movement (river) that was influenced to varying degrees by a number of other movements (tributaries). This influence was primarily in the realm of ideas, particularly theological ideas. And even within the category of theological ideas, most of the influence was ecclesiological in nature.

The earliest Baptists were first and foremost English Separatists who came to baptistic convictions. As good Protestants, they came to these convictions through their reading of Scripture. We should rightly emphasize the English Separatist roots of the Baptist movement and not downplay the role that the Bible played in shaping Baptist convictions.

But the earliest Baptists were aware that they were not the first baptistic Christians since the New Testament era. In fact, just like us they were aware that there had at least occasionally been free church movements in church history. Some of these groups likely immersed, though there is evidence that there were soteriological deficiencies and other shortcomings among the independent medieval sects. But Baptists knew that they were not taking a historically novel step in arguing for religious liberty, believer’s churches, and credobaptism.

Even more importantly, Baptists recognized that the Continental Anabaptists had recently rejected infant baptism, mixed membership, and state churches. Furthermore, both General and Particular Baptists actually interacted with these Anabaptists, though the Arminians appeared to have been more inclined to such interaction than the Calvinists. It seems very unlikely that the Anabaptists had no influence on the earliest Baptists.

Add to the mix the milieu in which the earliest Baptists found themselves: a century in which England was filled with various forms of political radicalism, ecclesiastical reform movements, theological innovation, and a multiplicity of sects. These movements interacted with each other and at times even cross-pollinated each other, resulting in what historian Christopher Hill calls “a world turned upside down.” This was certainly true of the Baptists, where even the line between Calvinists and Arminians were not neatly drawn until after the English Civil War, though that is another discussion for another day.

For these reasons, I am in favor of breaking out of the too-simplistic either/or approaches to Baptist origins (Anabaptists versus English Separatists, apostolic origins versus post-Reformation origins). The portrait is too complicated for tidy answers.

The English Baptists represent the culmination of the reformation era, agreeing with the basic evangelical soteriology of the magisterial reformers and some Anabaptists and the radical ecclesiology of the orthodox Anabaptists and some English Separatists. They also recognized and appreciated that some medieval sects were correct in at least some aspects of their ecclesiology. But Baptists did not agree with these positions because they were affirmed by Waldenses, Lutherans, Reformed, or Anabaptists, but because Baptists believed an evangelical gospel and a free believers’ church represented the heart of New Testament Christianity.

The question of Baptist origins is best answered with a both/and rather than an either/or. The 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement seems like a great time to rethink our origins and appreciate the polygenetic theological roots of the Christian people called Baptists.

Toward a Convergent View of Baptist Origins, Part 1

2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of the modern Baptist movement in 1609. This year will witness a plethora of conferences, symposia, books, articles, pamphlets, and even sermons devoted to the history and theology of the Baptists. I hope to weigh in from time to time with short articles, book reviews, and random musings about the past four centuries. This material was first published a little over two years ago at my former blog, The Fullness of Time, under the title “The Question of Baptist Origins.” Though my views have not changed, I have made several revisions and have divided the material into two separate articles.

There are at least four different views about Baptist origins. One view, which we might call the spontaneous origins view, claims that at least two groups of English dissenters in 17th century England and Amsterdam were reading their Bibles and came to the conviction that the Bible teaches the baptism of professing believers either by pouring or immersion (eventually just by immersion). We now call those dissenters Baptists.

This view is appealing in that it takes the idea of biblical authority seriously–wherever Baptists came from, you can bet they were reading their Bibles as they made their decisions. But I think this view is too simplistic as it virtually divorces theology and practice from its historical context.

The second view argues for Baptists’ apostolic origins. This view has often been called “Landmarkism” since the mid-19th century, though belief in the apostolic origin of Baptists predates the formal Landmark movement. Proponents of this view argue that there have always been Baptist (or baptistic) churches. Furthermore, most Landmarkers contend that these baptistic congregations are the true churches over against medieval Catholicism and later Protestants because baptistic churches alone presumably retained believer’s baptism by immersion and rejected the Constantinian union of church and state.

There are two variations of the apostolic origins view. Some claim there is a historical succession of baptistic churches from the New Testament era to the present day. This version is popularly called the “Trail of Blood” (based on a 1931 booklet of that title) and is basically the Baptist version of apostolic succession, though churchly authority is passed through ecclesiological continuity rather than episcopal continuity. Others argue for a perpetuity of Baptist principles or distinctives. Proponents of this variation admit that this perpetuity cannot necessarily be historically verified via a succession of churches, but nevertheless they argue for this view based on their understanding of Matthew 16:18-19.

The strength of the apostolic origins view is that it rightly recognizes that immersion was not “lost” sometime between 100 and 400, only to be “rediscovered” sometime between 1525 and 1641. From time to time there have been movements that embraced believer’s baptism and rejected Constantinianism. The weaknesses of this view include its historical unverifiability, its tendency to “de-church” other traditions, and its penchant for taking almost any sectarian movement during the middle ages and attempting to make them card-carrying Baptists based upon their rejection of the majority tradition.

A third option, which is currently enjoying something of a revival in many circles, is often called the Anabaptist kinship view. This view argues for historical continuity between certain Continental Anabaptists and the English Baptists. Naturally advocates of the apostolic origins view argue for Anabaptist kinship, but so do many scholars who reject the presuppositions of Landmarkism. Non-Landmark proponents of this view argue that English Baptists are more in continuity with the orthodox wing of the so-called radical reformation than the mainstream Protestant reformations, all of which continued to affirm pedobaptism and articulated some version of church-state union.

The strength of the Anabaptist kinship view is that it recognizes that there was definitely substantive interaction between the earliest Baptists (both General and Particular) and some Continental Anabaptists. There were also some Anabaptists in England, a fact which surely did not escape the first Baptists. One weakness of this view is that some proponents ignore, or at least downplay, the earliest Baptists’ historical roots in the English Separatist movement. Whatever their relationship with Anabaptists, the first Baptists were definitely Separatists who started pouring/immersing believers instead of sprinkling infants. A second weakness is that advocates sometimes over-emphasize the relationship between the Anabaptists and the Baptists, resulting in the latter being depicted as more or less the English-speaking version of the Anabaptist movement.

The fourth option, which is presently the dominant understanding among historians, argues for English Separatist origins. This view claims that Baptists are not radical reformers like Anabaptists, but are actually one type of dissenter among many in 17th century England; specifically, the non-sprinkling kind. Baptists are seen as third generation Protestants that happen to share some ecclesiological convictions with some Anabaptists.

The strength of the English Separatist origins view is that it recognizes that the organic roots of Baptists are found in Separatism rather than Anabaptism or earlier baptistic groups. A second strength of this view is that it correctly notes that some of the earliest Baptists, especially the Particular Baptists, went to great lengths to distance themselves from Anabaptism. But this view also has its weaknesses. First, this position often ignores, or at least downplays, any influence from Anabaptists or similar pre-1525 movements. Second, at times proponents of this view seem to be ideologically driven. Some moderates interested in the ecumenical movement seem to want to downplay any connection Baptists have with Anabaptist sectarianism, while many of Calvinist convictions apparently want to reject any influence from a decidedly non-Calvinistic movement like the Anabaptists.

In my next post, I will make the case for an understanding of Baptist origins that I have dubbed the convergent view. I will argue that a convergent view is the best way to account for the beginnings of the Baptist download