In the years after Jesus was crucified at Calvary, the story of his life, death and resurrection was not immediately written down. The experiences of disciples like Matthew and John would have been told and retold at many dinner tables and firesides, perhaps for decades, before anyone recorded them for posterity. St Paul, whose writings are equally central to the New Testament, was not even present among the early believers until a few years after Jesus’ execution.
But if many people will have an idea of this gap between the events of the New Testament and the book that emerged, few probably appreciate how little we know about the first Christian Bible. The oldest complete New Testament that survives today is from the fourth century, but it had predecessors which have long since turned to dust.
So what did the original Christian Bible look like? How and where did it emerge? And why are we scholars still arguing about this some 1,800 years after the event?
From oral to written
Historical accuracy is central to the New Testament. The issues at stake were pondered in the book itself by Luke the Evangelist as he discusses the reasons for writing what became his eponymous Gospel. He writes: “I too decided to write an orderly account … so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
In the second century, church father Irenaeus of Lyons argued for the validity of the Gospels by claiming that what the authors first preached, after receiving “perfect knowledge” from God, they later put down in writing. Today, scholars differ on these issues – from the American writer Bart Ehrman stressing how much accounts would be changed by the oral tradition; to his Australian counterpart Michael Bird’s argument that historical ambiguities must be tempered by the fact that the books are the word of God; or the British scholar Richard Bauckham’s emphasis on eye-witnesses as guarantors behind the oral and written gospel.
The first New Testament books to be written down are reckoned to be the 13 that comprise Paul’s letters (circa 48-64 CE), probably beginning with 1 Thessalonians or Galatians. Then comes the Gospel of Mark (circa 60-75 CE). The remaining books – the other three Gospels, letters of Peter, John and others as well as Revelation – were all added before or around the end of the first century. By the mid-to-late hundreds CE, major church libraries would have had copies of these, sometimes alongside other manuscripts later deemed apocrypha.
The point at which the books come to be seen as actual scripture and canon is a matter of debate. Some point to when they came to be used in weekly worship services, circa 100 CE and in some cases earlier. Here they were treated on a par with the old Jewish Scriptures that would become the Old Testament, which for centuries had been taking pride of place in synagogues all over latter-day Israel and the wider Middle East.
Others emphasise the moment before or around 200 CE when the titles “Old” and “New Testament” were introduced by the church. This dramatic shift clearly acknowledges two major collections with scriptural status making up the Christian Bible – relating to one another as old and new covenant, prophecy and fulfilment. This reveals that the first Christian two-testament bible was by now in place.
This is not official or precise enough for another group of scholars, however. They prefer to focus on the late fourth century, when the so-called canon lists entered the scene – such as the one laid down by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE, which acknowledges 22 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books.
The oldest surviving full text of the New Testament is the beautifully written Codex Sinaiticus, which was “discovered” at the St Catherine monastery at the base of Mt Sinai in Egypt in the 1840s and 1850s. Dating from circa 325-360 CE, it is not known where it was scribed – perhaps Rome or Egypt. It is made from parchment of animal hides, with text on both sides of the page, written in continuous Greek script. It combines the entire New and Old Testaments, though only about half of the old survives (the New Testament has some fairly minor defects).
Sinaiticus may not be the oldest extant bible, however. Another compendium of Old and New Testaments is the Codex Vaticanus, which is from around 300-350 CE, though substantial amounts of both testaments are missing. These bibles differ from one another in some respects, and also from modern bibles – after the 27 New Testament books, for example, Sinaiticus includes as an appendix the two popular Christian edifying writings Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Both bibles also have a different running order – placing Paul’s letters after the Gospels (Sinaiticus), or after Acts and the Catholic Epistles (Vaticanus).
They both contain interesting features such as special devotional or creedal demarcations of sacred names, known as nomina sacra. These shorten words like “Jesus”, “Christ”, “God”, “Lord”, “Spirit”, “cross” and “crucify”, to their first and last letters, highlighted with a horizontal overbar. For example, the Greek name for Jesus, Ἰησοῦς, is written as ⲓ̅ⲥ̅; while God, θεός, is ⲑ̅ⲥ̅. Later bibles sometimes presented these in gold letters or render them bigger or more ornamental, and the practice endured until bible printing began around the time of the Reformation.
Though Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both thought to have been copied from long-lost predecessors, in one format or the other, previous and later standardised New Testaments consisted of a four-volume collection of individual codices – the fourfold Gospel; Acts and seven Catholic Epistles; Paul’s 14 letters (including Hebrews); and the Book of Revelation. They were effectively collections of collections.
But in the absence of a single book prior to the fourth century, we have to content ourselves with the many surviving older fragments sensationally found during the 20th century. We now have some 50 fragmentary New Testament manuscripts written on papyrus that date from the second and third centuries – including the valuable Papyrus 45 (fourfold Gospel and Acts), and Papyrus 46 (a collection of Pauline letters). In all, these comprise almost complete or partial versions of 20 of the 27 books in the New Testament.
The quest will likely continue for additional sources of the original books of the New Testament. Since it is somewhat unlikely anyone will ever find an older Bible comparable with Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, we will have to keep piecing together what we have, which is already quite a lot. It’s a fascinating story which will no doubt continue to provoke arguments between scholars and enthusiasts for many years into the future.
The link below is to an article that reports on the increase in people reading the Bible in a digital format in the USA.
I first came across this book at a book shop a number of years ago now – but no more than 5 years ago I would say. It caught my attention immediately, as the subject matter of the King James Version of the Bible is one that I am most passionate about, being a Christian who loves the King James Version, despite a short fling with the New King James Version and an enforced effort with the New International Version some years ago. I have always come back to the King James Version as my preferred choice. So seeing this book when I did, I thought ‘I must read that.’
I immediately started to read it after I purchased it but never finished it. I suppose I got about halfway through it and never took it back up again until recently. I expect the consequence of trying to read a multitude of books at the same time as the ultimate reason for my failure to complete the book back then, as well as perhaps the desire to read others that came across my desk. So when I saw it again recently, while doing some much needed cleaning and organising of my personal library, I thought ‘I must read that’ and took it up again.
The book left me disappointed, but not surprised. It was written by someone well and truly outside of my Particular Baptist and Reformed understanding, so I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t live up to what I had thought the book might be like – or perhaps hoped it would be like. So I was disappointed with its lack of understanding concerning the Christian faith, especially viewed from my Particular Baptist and Reformed perspective. It is certainly a very interesting read in providing some great background to the period of the translation, yet it really is very light on the actual translation of the Bible into what is now known as the King James Version or Authorised Version of the Bible. It is not light on dishing out plenty of criticism on those that did the work and plenty of that is undoubtedly warranted, yet there is I believe, a poor understanding of these men, particularly those branded as ‘Puritans’ – as there was back in their own day.
I think I would give it a 2 out of 5 as a rating.
Buy this book at Amazon:
The link below is to an article reporting on an experiment in the UK, where Bibles in hotel rooms are being swapped for Kindles.
For more visit:
A Timeline for the Rulers of Israel and Judah
The link below is to a great infographic that will be very helpful for reading through 1 and 2 Kings in the Bible.
The link below is to an article that looks at applications for Bible reading.
I have decided post a weekly update of my reading progress. I did post an update of what I was reading back in April, so this won’t be the first post of this kind. This will however be the first of regular weekly updates on my reading progress.
Some of the books below have been on the list since April, with very little progress due to a holiday break and a general break in reading activity over the last month or so. This is all set to change as I again get my head into a book or two.
My Current Reading List:
History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent – Volume 1, by George Bancroft
Life of George Washington – Volume 3, by Washington Irving
The Sermons of the Right Reverend Father in God, and Constant Martyr of Jesus Christ, Hugh Latimer, Some Time Bishop of Worcester – Volume 2
History of the English Baptists, from the Reformation to the Beginning of the Reign of King George I – Volume 1, by Thomas Crosby
Memoirs of the Life, Times, and Writings of Thomas Boston, of Ettrick
Bible and Bible Study
The Joy of Reading, by Charles Van Doren
Terrorism and the Illuminati – A Thousand Year History, by David Livingstone
Post War – A History of Europe Since 1945, by Tony Judt
I have now started to read ‘Calvin for Armchair Theologians,’ by Christopher Elwood. I have to admit that I come to this book with a very doubtful attitude. The front cover illustration of John Calvin and the many ‘comic-like’ illustrations throughout the book worry me. I just don’t get a sense that this book is a serious treatment of John Calvin. That is the impression that presents when just looking at the book – I hope to be proven wrong for having ‘judged a book by its cover.’ The illustrations in the book are by Ron Hill, who is apparently a freelance illustrator and cartoonist.
I have to admit that the ‘armchair theologian’ part of the title also gives me a poor impression of the book – it sort of gives me the picture of a guy who loves to watch sport on the TV while sitting in his armchair, while not really taking the sport seriously in his actual life – has nothing to do with it in reality, in that he doesn’t play sport. This is the idea that ‘armchair theologian’ paints for me, which is an approach to theology that is far removed from the Bible’s idea of involvement with the truth.
But, as I said, I hope to be proven wrong for having ‘judged a book by its cover.’