What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Edition of the New Testament
The First Edition of the New Testament is a groundbreaking book that argues that the New Testament is not the product of a centuries-long process of development. Its history, David Trobisch finds, is the history of a book—an all Greek Christian Bible—published as early as the second century C.E. and intended by its editors to be read as a whole. Trobisch claims that this Bible achieved wide circulation and formed the basis of all surviving manuscripts of the New Testament.
175 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1996
1 person is currently reading
68 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 12, 2017
A complicated yet thorough case for the NT being written as a complete book by the 2nd Century (and perhaps before 70AD). Trobisch also makes a compelling case for the original authors of the Gospels based upon both publishing standards and their audiences expectations, combined with markers within the text. This is a compelling book that is a short read in length, but not in details. Almost half the book is notes and references.
I should note this was published by Oxford University Press, so it was taken quite seriously.
I should note this was published by Oxford University Press, so it was taken quite seriously.
June 9, 2012
The New Testament canon didn't develop over centuries, but instead was the work of one publisher. He manages to make so many of the weird anomalies and strange characteristics of the texts fit into his theory that trying to uphold the old paradigm seems like a totally outdated and quaint exercise.
I really like the way Trobisch refuses to acknowledge any piece of evidence or theory that has no impact on his theory, and only concentrates on what the first editors wanted their audience to read, to understand and to accept.
Who wrote this letter? It doesn't matter! It only matters that the editors said Peter wrote it.
When was this gospel written? It doesn't matter! It only matters that the editors wanted the readers to think it was written between this and this date.
This style, of only considering the relation between the editors and the readers, and not the original authors of individual works in the New Testament, is very enlightening.
My complaint about the book unfortunately goes hand in hand with Trobisch's insistence on not covering any matter unless it has a direct bearing on his thesis, either positive or negative. All of the accompanying material is relegated to the notes. It breaks don like this:
Pages 3 to 106: The text of the thesis.
Pages 107 to 175: notes, bibliography and source document lists.
I read through many of the notes, and many are really interesting. I think the book would have benefited from putting a few more of these into the main body of the thesis itself. This might not have helped the argument of the text, but it would have made it more enjoyable to read. It's hard to go back and forth and read every note, because at some points every sentence for many paragraphs in a row has a note, and while some are interesting, others are just a bibliographical reference.
Then again, this might be just the first edition of The First Edition of the New Testament, and the second edition (which Trobisch hints might appear at some point due to new source texts and other publications since he wrote the original German version) could be expanded to become a better read.
One other point, which again shows me up as non-academic, is that large chunks quote the sources in Greek, and provide no translation at all. I can look at an English translation myself, but again I wish Trobisch had gone for thoroughness rather than brevity, and included the English (or even German) alongside or following the Greek in most if not all cases.
I really like the way Trobisch refuses to acknowledge any piece of evidence or theory that has no impact on his theory, and only concentrates on what the first editors wanted their audience to read, to understand and to accept.
Who wrote this letter? It doesn't matter! It only matters that the editors said Peter wrote it.
When was this gospel written? It doesn't matter! It only matters that the editors wanted the readers to think it was written between this and this date.
This style, of only considering the relation between the editors and the readers, and not the original authors of individual works in the New Testament, is very enlightening.
My complaint about the book unfortunately goes hand in hand with Trobisch's insistence on not covering any matter unless it has a direct bearing on his thesis, either positive or negative. All of the accompanying material is relegated to the notes. It breaks don like this:
Pages 3 to 106: The text of the thesis.
Pages 107 to 175: notes, bibliography and source document lists.
I read through many of the notes, and many are really interesting. I think the book would have benefited from putting a few more of these into the main body of the thesis itself. This might not have helped the argument of the text, but it would have made it more enjoyable to read. It's hard to go back and forth and read every note, because at some points every sentence for many paragraphs in a row has a note, and while some are interesting, others are just a bibliographical reference.
Then again, this might be just the first edition of The First Edition of the New Testament, and the second edition (which Trobisch hints might appear at some point due to new source texts and other publications since he wrote the original German version) could be expanded to become a better read.
One other point, which again shows me up as non-academic, is that large chunks quote the sources in Greek, and provide no translation at all. I can look at an English translation myself, but again I wish Trobisch had gone for thoroughness rather than brevity, and included the English (or even German) alongside or following the Greek in most if not all cases.
July 8, 2012
This was one of the best books on the New Testament that I have read in a long time. In my view, what Richard Friedman did for the Old Testament in his book Who Wrote the Bible?, David Trobisch has done for the New Testament. This book answers so many questions that I had about early christian origins. I would highly recommend this one.
May 6, 2021
In this short but very readable monograph (save for the Greek scattered throughout), Trobisch makes the claim that the New Testament was of early vintage and was the product of a singular editorial hand (even if a group of editors). To make his point, he looks largely into the text itself, comparing how anthologies are put together in our contemporary day to what must have happened back in the first century. Canonization (as opposed to anthologization), by contrast, is a different matter.
As an example of canonization, Trobisch examines the writings of the Christian Fathers, those who came directly after the New Testament. Here, there is significant variance with regard to what is placed into any one collection. One editor might include the letter of Polycarp, while another might drop it or use another rescention. If the New Testament had been canonized over the course of centuries, he claims, as most scholars believe, there would be little agreement as to what belongs in it. Instead, later ancient writers who question the legitimacy and inclusion of certain books in the New Testament are not, Trobisch notes, engaging in arguments over what gets canonized--or rather, included--in the New Testament but rather are engaging in criticism regarding an already established book, even as today's critics do. (This is not to say that there weren't other versions of the "New Testament"; Marcion, for example, created his own, though largely from the larger book, quite possibly already in large distribution.)
Other arguments for the singular editorial hand include the following, some more convincing or easier to understand than others. One is the common set of abbreviations (the Nomina Sacra) used throughout different versions of the manuscripts (though they are not, be any means, used consistently), mainly for the names of God. Another is the common use of the codex rather than the scroll in the early writings. Another is the manner in which the New Testament is arranged, with four distinct parts--Gospels, Acts and General Epistles (called Praxapostolos), Paul's epistles (with Hebrews coming before the pastoral epistles), and Revelation. These allow for easy splitting into separate codexes. They also mirror the pattern of the Old Testament, at least as it is presented in most English Bibles (histories first, then writings and prophecy). The presentation of the General Epistles first, right after Acts, with Paul's following, as is the case in most early manuscripts, also mirrors the presentation of the figures as they appear in Acts (with Paul coming last). Another item pointing to an editor is the uniformity of the naming conventions (Epistle of . . .; Epistle to . . .; Gospel according to . . .). Finally, from very early on, the work was known as the "New Testament" (this is the name all the second-century writers use), suggesting that this was the name the editors affixed to it. A later chapter of Trobisch's book looks at the way the New Testament is cross-referenced such that it sets up a particular unified view of the church and introduces readers to specific characters who can then be identified again later when one comes across their writings or their persona in other portions of the work (e.g., we figure the letters of Peter are from the Peter described in the Gospels, where we first read of him, and mentioned in Acts and Paul's letters, etc.).
As an example of canonization, Trobisch examines the writings of the Christian Fathers, those who came directly after the New Testament. Here, there is significant variance with regard to what is placed into any one collection. One editor might include the letter of Polycarp, while another might drop it or use another rescention. If the New Testament had been canonized over the course of centuries, he claims, as most scholars believe, there would be little agreement as to what belongs in it. Instead, later ancient writers who question the legitimacy and inclusion of certain books in the New Testament are not, Trobisch notes, engaging in arguments over what gets canonized--or rather, included--in the New Testament but rather are engaging in criticism regarding an already established book, even as today's critics do. (This is not to say that there weren't other versions of the "New Testament"; Marcion, for example, created his own, though largely from the larger book, quite possibly already in large distribution.)
Other arguments for the singular editorial hand include the following, some more convincing or easier to understand than others. One is the common set of abbreviations (the Nomina Sacra) used throughout different versions of the manuscripts (though they are not, be any means, used consistently), mainly for the names of God. Another is the common use of the codex rather than the scroll in the early writings. Another is the manner in which the New Testament is arranged, with four distinct parts--Gospels, Acts and General Epistles (called Praxapostolos), Paul's epistles (with Hebrews coming before the pastoral epistles), and Revelation. These allow for easy splitting into separate codexes. They also mirror the pattern of the Old Testament, at least as it is presented in most English Bibles (histories first, then writings and prophecy). The presentation of the General Epistles first, right after Acts, with Paul's following, as is the case in most early manuscripts, also mirrors the presentation of the figures as they appear in Acts (with Paul coming last). Another item pointing to an editor is the uniformity of the naming conventions (Epistle of . . .; Epistle to . . .; Gospel according to . . .). Finally, from very early on, the work was known as the "New Testament" (this is the name all the second-century writers use), suggesting that this was the name the editors affixed to it. A later chapter of Trobisch's book looks at the way the New Testament is cross-referenced such that it sets up a particular unified view of the church and introduces readers to specific characters who can then be identified again later when one comes across their writings or their persona in other portions of the work (e.g., we figure the letters of Peter are from the Peter described in the Gospels, where we first read of him, and mentioned in Acts and Paul's letters, etc.).
May 26, 2025
Trobisch posits a "Canonical Edition" of the New Testament, compiled in the late second century, from which most subsequent editions arose. The evidence is largely circumstantial, and the argument goes more toward explaining how the canonical shape of the NT influenced Christian tradition than how that canon arose in the first place. But, even if his conclusion is not rock solid, Trobisch offers lots of interesting information about ancient scribes and manuscripts and book production.
Read
August 10, 2008It's been a while since I looked at this, but as I recall... This was a fairly interesting book. Trobisch suggests that the collection of books that we now know as the New Testament did not gradually achieve acceptance, but in fact were essentially fixed as early as the second century, when they were collected together by some editor and published throughout the Roman Empire. Now, to argue that the canon was mostly fixed by the second century, but Trobisch goes beyond that to say that it was completely fixed - not that there could be no argument, but that with one popular edition published, momentum was in the direction of these books. The benefit of this theory is that it may help to explain some peculiar features of the New Testament manuscripts. Trobisch's theory is somewhat radical, but he seems to argue it fairly persuasively - or so it seemed to this lay person. His theory still seems a little far-fetched, but definitely plausible.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews