In The First Edition of the New Testament, David Trobisch states his thesis as follows: “The New Testament, in the form that achieved canonical status, is not the result of a lengthy and complicated collecting process that lasted for several centuries.” (6) Instead, Trobish suggests that the earliest available manuscripts demonstrate the work of an editor or publisher who collected the various writings into a published work. The book is divided into three parts. In the first part, “Evidence for a Final Redaction,” Trobisch suggests that a uniform final redaction of the New Testament exists. He presents the use of nomina sacra, the use of the codex, the arrangement and number of writings included, the titles of the writings, and the title of the canonical edition as evidences of the editorial process. In the second part, “The Editorial Concept,” he focuses on the editorial concept and the definition of the redaction. Trobisch discusses the various perspectives in the editorial concept, and how authorship, titles, nomina sacra, and the codex form demonstrates the editorial concept. In the third part, “A Note to the Readers of the Canonical Edition,” Trobisch discusses the editorial link in several New Testament passages. Specifically, he finds editorial links between various passages in Acts, 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and the Gospel of John, especially in John Chapter 21. In the final part, “Outlook,” Trobisch recommends several changes to modern printed editions based on his editorial concept.

One positive aspect of Trobisch’s argument in The First Edition of the New Testament is that it primarily portrays the early Christians as having a high view of Scripture. According to his thesis, Trobisch believes that the New Testament canon was collected and published in a relatively short time, not over centuries. In other words, if someone went to the trouble of collecting manuscripts, sorting them into a particular order, giving them appropriate titles, determining which words should be included as nomina sacra, and determining a standardized name, that person must have recognized that the New Testament was a special book. Similarly, if Trobisch is correct that early Christians settled on the codex form for their holy manuscripts, they were probably doing so in order to carry the manuscripts from place to place. Therefore, those manuscripts were not accepted as important in only a limited location. This view of the writings is consistent with the writings themselves: the writings are Scripture (2 Pet 3:14-16) and the writings should be read broadly (Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13).

Furthermore, Trobisch’s detailed analysis of the early and pervasive use of the nomina sacra is both interesting and thought provoking. Trobisch argues that the use of the nomina sacra in the New Testament is different from the normal method of noting the tetragram in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (p.13-15) and from “abbreviations found on Greek ostraca and inscriptions” (p.16-17). Since the use of nomina sacra appear to be different from other sources from that time, it does indicate some special thought and preparation in the writings. The use of the nomina sacra also raises two questions: 1) “When were the nomina sacra first used?” and 2) “How did later Christian writers incorporate the nomina sacra?”

Although much of Trobisch’s argument points to a high view of Scripture by early Christians, part of his argument tends to undermine the integrity and authority of Scripture. Trobisch states, “The New Testament contains both textual and nontextual elements of a final redaction.” (p.11) The nontextual elements are not problematic; because the use of nomina sacra, the common arrangement and titles of the writings, and the standardized name all indicate that this collection was very important to the publisher. However, if a publisher was also willing to change the content (“textual elements”), then the collection might not be as important to the publisher as thought. Concerning John 21:24, Trobisch states, “at the end of chapter 21 we hear a voice different from the author of the Fourth Gospel, who is referred to as ‘this…disciple.’” (p.96) If Trobisch is correct, the “publisher” appears to be willing to change the content of his publication. In fact, he argues this point in the conclusion of his book: “The exact wording of the text is of little importance compared with other features of the Canonical edition.” (p.102) This means that he is more concerned with the seams and organization of his publication than the actual content. This also raises the question of whether the publisher has changed other texts in order to create a “smoother” transition between the writings, or just to produce a better product. The questions concerning the relationship of John Chapter 21 to the previous chapters are numerous. However, many argue for the unity of the entire book. Therefore, it is not necessary to argue that the publisher made textual changes (redaction). The remaining points of Trobisch’s argument stand without this one.

I should point out, however, that many biblical scholars readily accept redaction as an explanation for canonical edition of the New Testament. Similarly, some scholars who would not accept redaction in the New Testament do accept redaction in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy, Psalm, Proverbs, for example). In reality, this is not a simple issue. However, some scholars, especially those who are conservative evangelicals, might overlook other aspsects of Trobisch’s work because of his stance on redaction.

Overall, this is a very good book, and necessary for anyone studying the formation, collection, and recognition of the New Testament canon.