Thoughts on Antiquity

This post is part 8 of my series on ancient canonical lists.

Athanasius was the highly influential bishop of Alexandria and a key figure in the christological debates of century IV. His interest to us here lies in his thirty-ninth festal letter, dated to year 367, in which he gives a list of canonical books whose New Testament portion completely matches in number and contents (but not in sequence) the 27 books printed in most modern Bibles. (I noted, however, in part 4 of this series that Eusebius of Caesarea deserves at least an asterisk in this regard.)

An English translation of the complete letter is available from Dr. Claude Mariottini (most of the other instances of this letter on the web consist only of excerpts). I here give the portions of this festal epistle that are most relevant to the New Testament canon:

Τα δε της καινης παλιν ουκ οκνητεον ειπειν. εστι γαρ ταυτα· ευαγγελια τεσσαρα, κατα Ματθαιον, κατα Μαρκον, κατα Λουκαν, και κατα Ιωαννην. ειτα μετα ταυτα πραξεις αποστολων και επιστολαι καθολικαι καλουμεναι των αποστολων επτα ουτως· Ιακωβου μεν μια, Πετρου δε δυο, ειτα Ιωαννου τρεις και μετα ταυτας Ιουδα μια. προς τουτοις Παυλου αποστολου εισιν επιστολαι δεκατεσσαρες, τη ταξει γραφομεναι ουτως· Πρωτη προς Ρωμαιους, ειτα προς Κορινθιους δυο, και μετα ταυτας προς Γαλατας και εξης προς Εφεσιους, ειτα προς Φιλιππησιους και προς Κολοσσαεις και προς Θεσσαλονικεις δυο και η προς Εβραιους, και εξης προς μεν Τιμοθεον δυο, προς δε Τιτον μια και τελευταια η προς Φιλημονα μια. και παλιν Ιωαννου αποκαλυψις. ….

And there should be no hesitation to say again the [books] of the New [Testament]; for they are these: Four gospels, namely according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, and according to John. Then after these the Acts of the Apostles and the seven epistles, called catholic, of the apostles, thus: One of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition to these there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in order thus: First to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians, and after these to the Galatians and after that to the Ephesians, then to the Philippians and to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and that to the Hebrews, and after that two to Timothy, and one to Titus, and finally the one to Philemon. And again the apocalypse of John. ….

Αλλ ενεκα γε πλειονος ακριβειας προστιθημι και τουτο, γραφων αναγκαιως, ως εστι και ετερα βιβλια τουτων εξωθεν, ου κανονιζομενα μεν, τετυπωμενα δε παρα των πατερων αναγινωσκεσθαι τοις αρτι προσερχομενοις και βουλομενοις κατηχεισθαι τον της ευσεβειας λογον· Σοφια Σολομωντος και σοφια Σιραχ και Εσθηρ και Ιουδιθ και Τωβιας και διδαχη καλουμενη των αποστολων και ο ποιμην. και ομως, αγαπητοι, κακεινων κανονιζομενων και τουτων αναγινωσκομενων, ουδαμου των αποκρυφων μνημη, αλλα αιρετικων εστιν επινοια, γραφοντων μεν οτε θελουσιν αυτα, χαριζομενων δε και προστιθεντων αυτοις χρονους, ινα ως παλαια προφεροντες προφασιν εχωσιν απαταν εκ τουτων τους ακεραιους.

But I add this also, writing of necessity for the sake of complete accuracy, that there are other also other books outside these, not canonized, but molded by the fathers to be read to those now coming in and wishing to be catechized in the word of religion: The wisdom of Solomon and the wisdom of Sirach and Esther and Judith and Tobias and what is called the teaching of the apostles and the Shepherd. However, beloved, even with the former being canonized and the latter being read, there is not in any way any mention of the apocryphal [books], but they are rather the intent of heretics, who write them whenever they wish, granting and assigning them [spurious] times [of composition], so that they might present them as old and have a pretense to deceive the innocent from them.

It seems to me that Athanasius might have confused the canonical order of the Pauline epistles with the order in which Paul wrote them, for he says that they are written in order thus (τη ταξει γραφομεναι ουτως). But the order of these epistles in our modern Bibles appears to be based primarily upon the length of each letter, secondarily upon the distinction between letters to churches and letters to individuals, and in a tertiary sense possibly also upon the perceived need to keep letters to the same church or individual side by side. The letter lengths, by word counts according to the twenty-seventh edition of Nestle-Aland, are as follows (thanks are due to Julian Jensen for these statistics):

Romans, 7111.
1 Corinthians, 6830.
2 Corinthians, 4477.
Ephesians, 2422.
Galatians, 2230.
Philippians, 1629.
Colossians, 1582.
1 Thessalonians, 1481.
2 Thessalonians, 823.

Hebrews, 4953.

1 Timothy, 1591.
2 Timothy, 1238.
Titus, 659.
Philemon, 335.

The only anomalies, on the above principles, are the epistle to the Ephesians (which both Athanasius and most modern Bibles list after that to the Galatians, a situation for which I have no ready explanation) and that to the Hebrews. The explanation for the position of Hebrews is probably historical, since this epistle was not at all universally accepted as Pauline; its current position in the canon situates it ambiguously, and therefore perfectly, between the Pauline and the catholic epistles; Athanasius, on the other hand, has it listed between the ecclesiastical and the personal letters, which perhaps indicates an ambiguity of a different kind, since it is not addressed directly to any given church.

I would like to point out a possible connection between this festal letter and the cache of texts discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. I think it was James M. Robinson who first suggested that these texts, which often bear a distinctly gnostic flavor, may have come from the nearby monastery of Pachomius, and had been buried as a protection against those who would destroy them because of what Athanasius had written in his festal letter about the use of unauthorized church texts.

I regard this as a plausible conjecture, but do not see how it might rise to anything more than a plausible conjecture at this time. I find nothing in the festal letter itself about destroying heretical texts, though of course there is nothing to say that diligent churchmen might not take their own action against certain texts based on the disapproval expressed in the letter. On the other hand, we do know that monks did not always limit themselves to officially sanctioned texts. The extant Greek portion of the gospel of Peter was discovered in the tomb of a Christian monk, and Cyril of Jerusalem records an exchange between himself and a monk who appears to accept (a version of) the gospel according to the Hebrews, which Cyril obviously regards as heretical.

In my next installment I will consider the canon of Epiphanius.