C. Chronological Order of Writing
1. Retrospect and Prospect.—Thus far we have studied the rise of the New Testament canon as a whole to its rightful place of universal recognition by the early church as the inspired and authoritative word of God to man. We now turn to an examination of the chronological order of the writing of its several parts. For this we shall seek the same kind of trustworthy historical evidence, on which to anchor our faith, as was found for the field covered in the preceding section. This is at once reasonable, reverent, and right—as intelligent faith is ever built upon a sound factual basis.
If one wishes to ascertain the validity of title to a certain parcel of land, he takes the deed to the register's office and traces it back through all preceding purchasers until he comes to the title of the original proprietor. If there is no break or cloud in the chain of documentary evidence, the title is recognized to be perfect. Substantially the same process has been followed in ascertaining the genuineness of the ancient classics, whose historicity is conceded to be beyond question. In like manner one determines the authenticity and genuineness of the New Testament books, just as he would any secular writing—by this very process of external evidence, or the unbroken testimony of successive witnesses. This, coupled with the internal evidence of the writings themselves, constitutes unimpeachable evidence of their rightful and authoritative place in the canon. By following precisely this procedure, each book in the New Testament canon has been traced back to its apostolic source by scores of competent scholars, who have devoted their lives to such specialized research, working with scrupulous care and loving fidelity, as we shall note in this and the concluding sections.
As there is conceded to be no question of clear title from the fourth century onward concerning any of the twenty-seven books, these scholars have worked step by step from Eusebius back through Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenmus, the Muratorian canon, Tatian's Diatesseron, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Dionysins, and approximately one hundred other witnesses, friendly and hostile, orthodox and heretical, back to the apostles who wrote them, and who only had the authority to deliver them to The church as inspired books. As a result, they vindicate the title of every one. For men today to challenge such a demonstrated succession of historic evidence is sheer folly—or plain obstinacy. Yet this is precisely the tactics of the higher critic, especially Baur's Tubingen school of critics, which would set all dates forward, and discredit apostolic authorship. If, however, these writings are not genuine, as skeptics claim, when could the falsifications have taken place? Thank God for the satisfying evidence that frees the reverent scholar from doubt or anxiety. Christianity is indeed a historical as well as a revealed religion, basing its claims and teachings, not on assumptions, but on facts centered in the life and teachings of Jesus, as revealed by these authentic and authoritative writings of the apostles, preserved inviolate for us.
2. Principle of Successive Testimony.—This principle of successive testimony is fundamental in our present study, beginning as it does with the Period of Original Writing (c.50-100 A. D.), when the inspired autographs were received without hesitation from apostolic hands, and held in proper custody. Then we come down through the Period of Separate Circulation and Gradual Collection (c.100-170 A. D.), with its many material hindrances—the means of intercourse being slow and precarious, multiplication of manuscripts tedious and costly, and persecution causing many of them to be , hidden away, but during which time, with a rising consciousness of their apostolic authority, most of the twenty-seven books were already in public use, having emerged from the seclusion of their primal possession to meet the needs of a growing church. Next we traverse the Period of Gradual Separation (c.170-220), with its comparison of lists and its cautious segregation of the genuine from the apocryphal books seeking recognition. Eusebius divides the entire group of writings extant in his time, into four groups: (a) the universally acknowledged; (b) the disputed; (c) the spurious; and (d) the heretical books, showing the great caution with which the early church scrutinized the credentials of alleged apostolic writings. Finally we come to the Period of General Acceptance of the Accredited Books (c.220-397),—the consummation of the New Testament canon in its present form, the content being recognized by the pronouncements of the provincial councils of Laodicea (363), which omitted only Revelation, of Hippo (393), and of Carthage (397).
None of these, however, were general or ecumenical councils. The canon, therefore, was not determined by some general body of ecclesiastics in council, at some specific date. It simply received official recognition thereby of what already existed in fact. Thus there was no interference of church authority in the forming of the canon. This very noninterference is an evidence of the sovereignty of our New Testament books. The twenty-seven came into their own, not by arbitrary decree, but were authenticated by the sheer weight of their own inherent authority, determined not by official pronouncement of an ecclesiastical body, but by the general acceptance by the whole and every part of the Christian church. We can consequently speak with certainty of the authorship of the books of the New Testament, as well as of the channel through which they have been transmitted to us, and receive them as God's inspired message to us. Let us now turn to the historic or chronological aspect of the writing of the individual books.
From Oral to Written Form
1. Twenty Years of Oral Teaching.—For approximately two decades after the cross there was apparently not a single New Testament book in existence. All the intervening teaching had been oral, as Jesus chose witnesses, not scribes. The apostles were primarily teachers, and only secondarily writers. They were founding a church, not producing a literature. In fact, it was only as opposition developed, the disciples were noticeably advancing in years, and the early witnesses to Jesus began to pass away, that the apostles started to put into permanent form the gospel they had testified. The urge, born of the Spirit, came upon them to write down for posterity, who would never hear their oral message, the true record of the Life of lives. (Cf. Luke 1:1-4.) The populace gained their information from public reading or oral teaching. Significantly enough, the Jewish mode of teaching was to repeat over and over in almost precisely the same words. Hence the word-of-mouth method of dissemination prevailed for some twenty years. The apostolic teaching was still too fresh in the memory to be sought in fixed records, and the need of the written form was faith yet made evident by corruption of the oral narrative. Moreover the sense of the sovereign authority of the Old Testament was too profound to admit the immediate addition of supplemental books.
It was a mighty transition hour. The old order—the divine plan and marvelous typical system supreme for fifteen centuries prior to the cross—was passing, being superseded by the full and final revelation of redemptive truth, as shadow was displaced by substance, and type by glorious reality. But one thing was lacking to complete the sanctions of Christianity, and to give permanence to the teachings of the apostles. The Jews appealed with boldness to the inspired writings of the old dispensation, and it was essential for the Christian to have a similar body of writings, confirmed by similar evidences of prophecy, miracle, and authoritative teaching.
Paul was evidently the first to commit his message to writing, penning a letter from Corinth to his Thessalonian converts. Then, one by one, the New Testament books came into existence, ending with the writings of John, the last survivor from among the disciples. Furthermore, contrary to popular conception—unquestionably due to the confusing order of the New Testament books as found in the Bibles we have loved and read from childhood—the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) were not written for still another decade, during which time a half dozen of Paul's letters were sent forth; namely, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and later 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.
The historical books—the four Gospels and Acts, dealing with the life of Christ and the formation of the Christian church—were very naturally and logically placed first in our Bibles, even though by arbitrary placement at variance with the actual chronological order of writing, 55 as they really form the foundation of all the epistles, and were current orallp when Paul began to write. But for the purpose of accurate study, we need to know and to follow the precise order of writing, so far as it can be determined. Knowledge of the actual historical order and chronological relationship readjusts one's panoramic view of the several parts of the New Testament, but it brings it into harmony with all known facts; and, infinitely more important, makes certain phrases and allusions, as well as its entire message, seem so much more tangible, vivid, and meaningful, as the historic background is supplied. it is so much more satisfying to stand securely on known facts rather than to rest on the inaccurate impressions we inherit from childhood, or a more or less superficial survey in later years.
2. Circumstances Determine Writing. — It should also be remembered that the exigencies of the times exerted a deter-mining-influence uperi wEat should be written, and when. These inspired writings were organically united with the lives of the apostles. They were given both by and through men. There was perfect confluence of the divine and human, so that the writings were not only the words of God, but also of the intermediary human agent. We should therefore seek to understand the human author, the particular circumstances of the writing, and his individual relation to the special needs of his readers that gave occasion to the writing—in other words, the historic background.
We must reckon with these origins, if we would understand the New Testament aright. Only in this way can we ever have a true and accurate understanding of many a difficult phrase, allusion, or emphasis. Had this obviously sound procedure always been consistently followed, many an unhappy individual misunderstanding, and many a theological controversy in the church, would have been avoided. Approaching the component books from this angle, a veritable floodlight of consistent meaning illuminates them.
The individual books, as noted, came to birth because of certain conditions and needs. Each was first essential for a specific time and purpose. Particular errors were springing up. Gnosticism was rife, Judaizers were active, and perils beset the church on every side; hence the apostles wrote letters of warning and instruction. These were addressed to particular churches, groups, or individuals. The difficulties of transmission, too, were many. Modes of travel were slow and precarious, and there was no regular mail service, as such. So there was more or less isolation or separation of the documents at first.
Paul's epistles, for example, written because of definite, immediate circumstances, were scattered over Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. They existed first by ones or twos, or at most by small groups, in church chests in Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, et cetera. That is doubtless why there is no allusion to them in Acts, though Acts was written after those Pauline epistles addressed to specific churches. It is evident that they were not initially written and sent forth with the purpose of being collected and preserved, but were projected to meet local needs. However, though the form was local and transitory, they constituted God's chosen vehicle for transmitting, through the instruments of His choice, principles that are timeless and universal.
3. Three General Periods.—The apostles were widely separated, geographically. They never gathered and had a general consultation as to what they would individually write. Yet there is a unity, a simplicity, and a sublimity in the product that is absolutely inexplicable, unless their combined writings be accepted as the book of God, coming from the same source of inspiration, combining history, doctrine, and prophecy into a perfect whole, the one supporting and supplementing the other. The essentials were in perfect harmony. There was agreement, together with individuality. None ever wrote to correct another. Thus there was unity in diversity. We are not, therefore, simply to accept the New Testament as a whole, but should diligently seek to understand the relations borne by part to part, in their chronological sequence; that is, the relationships to the historical circumstances and causes of writing, All this should be studied in relation to the development of the church, its order, and its doctrine.
One cannot but be impressed by the obvious dominance of Paul throughout nearly the entire list, until he passes out of view about 68 A. D. Then, after Peter's decease, about the same time, John fills the last three decades of the first century with his full and gracious messages, which constitute the valedictory of Holy Writ.
The setting of the individual books can perhaps be visualized best by the aid of the accompanying chronological chart, presenting the first century by decades, tabulating the leading contemporary events and persons, and the chronological order of the writings. Thus will be seen, in panorama, the various natural groupings of the writings by periods, and their obviously logical projection to meet local or general conditions. Please observe:
First, in the Beginning Period, comes the series of six important epistles from Paul, separated into two groups—missionary and polemic. Thus the first epoch was distinctively Pauline.
Second, comes the Central Period, introduced by the three Synoptics, followed by another group of Paul's letters, written during his imprisonment in Rome; and these in turn by the history embodied in. Acts,—written some thirty years after the cross,—and certain other writings.
Third, in the Closing Period, we come to the series of impressive leave-takings by Paul, Peter, and John. Surely these natural divisions disclosed a unity and a symmetry that are not only impressive, but reveal the divine hand superintending all.
4. Progressive Disclosure of Gospel Message.
—Note next the progressive development through these periods. The earlier epistles belong to the infancy of the church. They deal with the simpler, foundational things of the faith, suited to the transition hour from Judaism to Christianity, applying to both Jew and Gentile. Then, the gospel having once become established, new questions press in for solution. The faith, once for all delivered, needs buttressing. Gnosticism lifts its menacing head. Discussion as to the person of Christ, and His relation to the church, ensues, It is characteristic for manhood, or maturity, to wrestle with the philosophy of its faith,—and the issues discussed were created largely by the intrusions of heresy. Hence the pastoral and instructional aspect of this central group.
As to the synoptic Gospels, the argument of silence as to Paul's previous writings, means nothing as to allocation in the chronological scheme; for neither did he mention them. They were current in oral form. The apostles were writing to different and particular groups. As noted, communication and transmission was slow and precarious, and there was no previous arrangement as to who should write, and when, and to whom. The order is all so natural and so real, and so evidently superintended by the Holy Spirit, that we can only marvel as we rest
in contentment and praise God for the word provided. The history in Acts, it might be added, was now written in the consciousness that the foundations had been securely laid.
Now that the church was soon to be left to self-government, Paul, Peter, and John write their parting messages to the church. So we come at last to John's Gospel of love, and to the Apocalypse, opening to the church's view the course and the conflict, together with the surety of final triumph for the church of God. Thus the canon closes. The full provisions of the New Testament faith have been delivered, hope has its foundations rooted in irrefutable fact, and love's divine revelation is complete.
5. Chronological Order of Writing.—As is universally conceded, the order of the books as placed in our New Testament is frequently misleading, from the chronological viewpoint. Various orders have prevailed at different times and places. But, as has been shown, acquaintance with the actual historical order of writing is essential for close or complete study, as it enables one to trace the progressive development of divine counsel, and clarifies many a perplexing problem that otherwise obstructs. Moreover, we should bear in mind that the italicized statements appended to several New Testament books, offering information concerning the place of writing, did not originate with the inspired authors, but were appended later. These data differ on the various Greek manuscripts and versions, and are in cases inaccurate, as reverent scholars testify.
Some may not agree with the allocation of certain books on the accompanying chart. But the works of some fifty of the most learned of the conservative scholars have been painstakingly studied and compared, and the preponderating evidence tabulated on disputed points as to dating—such as that of James, Galatians, the Synoptics, and the relation of Jude and 2 Peter. Absolute certainty cannot be claimed by any one on a few of these points, but the key books are securely anchored as to time of writing, and the essential outline is dependable.
With this general bird's-eye view as an introduction, we will trace in condensed form in the concluding section, the evidence on the individual books in the probable order of writing, six of which are addressed to individuals, ten to local churches, and five to groups of churches or believers. The notations will reveal the date, place, and occasion of writing, and throw light on historic conditions or incidents involved, and consequently illuminate the significant background of the individual writings. Thus each treatise finds its proper place in the chronological listing, and the Book of books lives anew for us.
L. E. F.
(To be continued)
