Although most discussions about the development of the canon focus on the patristic period (second century and later), there is much canonical gold yet to mine from the pages of the New Testament itself. Unfortunately, this step is often skipped.
There are a number of possible reasons for why it is skipped. But perhaps most people just assume that the whole idea of a “canon” is a late development anyway, and thus we wouldn’t expect to find anything about it in the New Testament books themselves.
Aside from the fact that such a position already presupposes an entire canonical “worldview” known as the extrinsic model (for my critique of this model see my book The Question of Canon), it keeps us from noticing some fascinating clues.
One passage that I think contains a number of intriguing clues is 2 Cor 3:14 when Paul says, “When they read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted.”
Often overlooked in this passage is that Paul understands a covenant to be something that you read. In other words, for Paul (and his audience) covenants are understood to be written documents.
When we look at Paul’s Jewish context this should come as no surprise. So close is the relationship between the covenant, and the written documentation of the covenant, that Old Testament authors would frequently equate the two—the covenant, in one sense, is a written text.
For instance:
- “Then he took the book of the covenant and read it” (Ex 24:7; cf. 1 Macc 1:57)
- “And he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant” (2 Kings 23:2; cf. 2 Chron 34:30)
- “He declared to you his covenant…that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets (Deut 4:13)
- “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant” (Ex 34:28)
- “The covenant written in this book” (Deut 29:21).
These passages indicate that covenants were largely conceived as something written or read; i.e., something in a book. It is precisely for this reason that warnings were given not to change the text of the covenant (Deut 4:2), and there were concerns about it being in the proper physical location (Ex 25:16).
If so, then what shall we make of Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 3:6 that he and the other apostles are “ministers of a new covenant”?
Given Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 3:14 that we just noted, it would be natural to think that Paul has in mind a new set of written documents that testify to the terms of the covenantal arrangement in Christ.
As Carmignac argues, “In order to use the expression ‘Old Testament’ he [Paul] must also be aware of the existence of a ‘New Testament.’”[1] Carmignac even goes further and suggests that this ‘New Testament’ may have had contained a number of books in order for it to be parallel with the Old.
The likelihood that Paul views the new covenant as having written documents increases when we make the simple observation that Paul is claiming for himself this distinctive covenantal authority within a written letter to the Corinthians. And scholars have observed how this very letter functions as a “covenant lawsuit”against the Corinthians.[2]
Thus, one could hardly fault the Corinthians if they regarded the letter itself as bearing some sort of covenantal authority.
All in all, 2 Cor 3:14 provides a number of curious clues about the origins of a new canon of Scripture.
Kirby Hopper says
It seems from Paul’s statement “who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” that he is saying just the opposite of your conclusion, that he’s a minister not of the letter of a covenant. Which of course begs the question, “What is the nature of a covenant ‘of the Spirit’?”
I suggest that all of the covenants and much of what God did, such as sending prophets and the Holy Spirit, was to bring about experiential righteousness – I say “experiential” to distinguish it from a modern Penal Substitution Atonement phony legal or conferred righteousness based on faith in a historical event. The difference between the Old and the New Covenants is that the Old is based on 613 laws while the New is based on one law, which James terms the Royal Law, which is, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In addition to this command was Jesus’ example, such as washing the disciples feet, and his supreme example of dying to self which Jesus did on the cross.
These things are very simple and were accomplished without a book. the Oral Tradition was sufficient for the time. And when people repented of their wickedness, if they were wicked – not all were – they would get baptized to signify their allegiance to follow this Jesus and live like he lived and die to selfish, wicked ways. Again, this did not require a written word. The ministers like Paul would do orally what is often written in their letters, which is to remind the people of how Jesus lived and give them practical examples and teaching about how to love their neighbors, such as in 1 Corinthians 13.
Of course the epistles became helpful toward the same end as the benefit described from the Old Covenant text, namely being: “profitable for correction, rebuke, and teaching in righteousness.” So eventually there were enough to make a canon and their were other questionable writings floating around that needed to be weeded out. And they weren’t even trying to come up with a Bible. The canon was just a list of approved writings for recitation in church services. Theologians continued to make use of philosophical works to buttress their ideas.
A more relevant “clue” about early canon recognition was Peter’s statement that Paul’s writings were hard to understand and unstable people twisted them “as they do with the OTHER SCRIPTURES,” indicating that now Peter thought of Paul’s writings as graphos (literally – writings), or what we would call “scripture”. Which begs a question: Did Peter see any other works as “other writings” other than the OT and some NT writings, such as works by Plato or other philosophers? I don’t see anything saying he didn’t and scholars point to Platonic influence in the NT scriptures we have.
Food for thought Brother. God bless your studies.
Nemo says
Dr. Kruger,
I’ve readCanon Revisited and The Question of Canon, and am now reading Gamble’s The New Testament Canon — to get both sides of the story. Of all the questions being debated, the form of the new covenant is the one I find most challenging, and, if I may say so where the argument on the evangelical side is at its weakest. I’m wondering if you could help point out what I’m missing here.
If I understand him correctly, Gamble argues that the new covenant is not a written one, and NT books are “witnesses” to the new covenant, but not the written covenant itself. For example, there are references to “reading” the old covenant (as you listed in your post), by contrast, there is not a single reference to reading the new covenant. Gamble also points to 2 Cor. 3:6 as evidence that the old and new covenants have different natures in Paul’s mind, the former of the letter, the latter of the Spirit. The Book of Hebrews, which is the NT book most concerned with the two covenants, also doesn’t suggest that the new covenant is a written covenant.
In the Laws of Moses, the terms of the covenant are clearly laid out, including witnesses, stipulations (i.e., commandments), rewards and punishments (i.e., blessings and curses). There is no clear parallel to this covenant form in the New Testament writings, AFAICT. So it’s hard for me to see how NT parallels OT in that sense. Moreover, if the written form of the new covenant is important, one would expect it to be epitomized, so that it can be remembered and followed, like the Laws of Moses, but there is no reference to an epitomized covenant anywhere in the early Christian writings. (There is the rule of faith, but that’s different from a covenant).
I hasten to add that, even if the new covenant is not a written one, it does not follow that the New Testament books are not necessary and foreordained. It just means that the need for a written covenant was not one of the reasons why the NT books were written.
Ron Thomas says
Of course, you’re correct. I have noticed through the years, with some academics, they fail to see the forest because of the trees.
Lucille Gaither says
Not sure that I understand the full flavor of what the issue is. But I thought to chime in a little. Where the apostle Paul states, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament,” I believe reference is made to the passage in Jeremiah 31 where God speaks through the prophet that:
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Here God promises a new covenant, and it is for all believers. Still, in the OT, God worked physically with the nation Israel; whereas, in the NT, God works spiritually through us Christians, the church. “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” We are living epistles.