tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post3992881881603512486..comments2023-04-28T06:59:37.174-04:00Comments on twoTwentyEight: The Order of Paul's Letters in the NTJoseph Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00339898114118904716noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post-91277358981163955722016-03-03T13:04:07.316-05:002016-03-03T13:04:07.316-05:00Yes, this "throw away" comment you encou...Yes, this "throw away" comment you encountered seems to be the answer. I would add that this observation follows an Old Testament precedent, whether intentional or incidental. The order of the pre-exilic writing prophets is not chronological, either, and these texts also seem to be ordered, at least in the LXX and the English Bible that adopts the LXX pattern, according to length, Isaiah being the longest and therefore the first. I have no explanation for why this should be, but it does seem to be the way it was. It is worth noting as well that while Old Testament documents were written on scrolls, any ordering was moot, since scrolls appear as individual texts on separate spindles, not compiled texts as in a codex. However, when the codex began to appear in the early Christian era (and Christians seem to have been responsible for the codex form), ordering or some sort is virtually required because of the side binding. The early LXX copies, such as Codex Sinaiticus with its LXX for the OT, orders the prophets according to length.<br />On an additional note, the earliest canon list for the gospels (ca. AD 170), the Muratorian Fragment, lists the order of the gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though the beginning of the list has been damaged, leaving us with only Luke and John). Still, Luke in this list is specifically described as the "third gospel", followed by John. It seems obvious that Matthew and Mark are the two gospels listed first in the damaged portion of the fragment. Here, however, the order is not according to length, for Luke's material is appreciably longer than Matthew or Mark, even though it comes as "third".<br />With respect to Paul's letters in their earliest days of circulation, it is likely that small groups of Paul's letters circulated prior to them all being known and collected together. These sub-groupings may have ultimately figured in the final order as well. The pastorals, which were late in circulation and late in canonical acceptance, naturally appear last in the Pauline corpus.Dan Lewisnoreply@blogger.com