Why Have We Stopped Reading the Together? Tracing the Early Reception of a Collection

Darian Lockett

In the historical development of the canon, the four and the Pauline letters were received and recognized as distinct collections early in the process. Jens Schröter notes the “two most important collections, which stand at the beginning of the emergence of the New Testament” are “the four Gospels and the Letters of Paul” while “Acts and the Catholic Letters, which are closely connected with Acts in terms of the history of the canon,” came shortly after.1 In this regard, Adolf Harnack’s view of the crucial role of Acts in the development of the New Testament canon is still relevant. Harnack argued,

Acts is in a certain way the key to understanding the idea of the New Tes- tament of the Church, and has given it the organic structure in which it stands before us. By taking its place at the head of the “Apostolus” the Acts first made possible the division of the Canon into two parts and justified the combination of the with the Gospels. It is also possi- ble to speak of a threefold division, in which the Acts (together with the Catholic Epistles and Revelation) formed the central portion.2

Schröter then summarizes Harnack’s position: “Acts is therefore the writing that combines the various parts of the NewTestament canon—Gospels, Letters of Paul, Catholic Letters—with one another and brings to expression the inten- tion that becomes recognizable behind that compilation.”3 In the end, Harnack understood the historical meaning of Acts (its content) as quite different from its canonical function within the New Testament. In many of the early codices it is the combination of Acts and the Catholic Epistles—the Praxapostolos— which forms a canonical link between the four-fold Gospels on one side and the

1 Jens Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon (Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early 1; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013), 273. 2 Adolf Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament: And the Most Important Consequences of the New Creation (trans. J.R. Wilkinson; London: Williams and Norgate, 1925; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004), 67. 3 Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament, 274.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004372740_022 394 lockett

Pauline Letter collection (including Hebrews) on the other. Understanding the development of the New Testament canon and its reception from this per- spective draws attention to several issues that are not usually in view when considering the reception history of James, Peter, John, and Jude. Whereas the journey of each of these texts into the New Testament are commonly viewed as unrelated stories, knowing the Catholic Epistles functioned as a collection within the eventual New Testament canon suggests one should consider them together. This picture of canonical development suggests that by the end of the canonical process the Catholic collection functioned in tandem with the Book of Acts, and thus it is as the Praxapostolos that the Catholic Epistles find their role within the NewTestament canon as a discrete collection. But this already assumes a particular understanding of “Catholic” in the label “Catholic Epistles.” Should the seven letters of James, 1–2Peter, 1–3John, and Jude be called “General Letters” or “Catholic Epistles”? There is some ambiguity as to whether these two terms are merely interchangeable or if there is a principled differ- ence in their denotation. For many in New Testament scholarship the labels are interchangeable. “General” or “Catholic” refers to a genre designation, namely, circular letters addressed to a “general” audience. This perspective asserts that among the letters contained in the New Testament there are a hand full ad- dressed to a general readership unlike the Pauline letters which are typically directed to specific addressees. However, especially in light of modern historical-critical treatment of the Catholic Epistles, if the primary designation is one of genre—the general nature of the addressees—it is difficult to define the limits of the collection. On one hand, Hebrews and Revelation could be considered “general” letters because of the broader nature of their audiences. While on the other hand, there is doubt whether 2 or 3John, with such a specific address, could qualify as “general” letters.4 If grouped by genre the collection would include Hebrews and Revelation and exclude 2 and 3John and likely Jude as well. There is historical precedent for understanding the term “catholic” as de- scriptive of a letter written to a general audience. By the end of the second century the term “catholic” was used to describe the general address of indi- vidual letters. For example, Apollonius, recorded in , notes that the Montanist Themiso “dared, in imitation of the apostle [John] to compose an

4 Similarly there is doubt whether Jude is a general letter. Richard Bauckham argues that “we should not see it as a ‘catholic letter’ addressed to all Christians, but as a work written with a specific, localized audience in mind” ( Jude, 2Peter [WBC 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 3); see also, Stephan J. Joubert, “Persuasion in the Letter of Jude,” JSNT 58 (1995): 75–87.