Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
canon fodder ^ | January 21, 2013 | Michael J. Kruger

Posted on 09/09/2013 6:54:55 PM PDT by Gamecock

Full Title: Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #1: “The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”

_______________________________________________________

This new blog series is designed to help the lay believer learn some basic facts about the New Testament canon—the kind of facts that might be helpful in a conversation with a skeptic or inquisitive friend. The first of these facts is one that is so basic that it is often overlooked. It is simply that the New Testament books are the earliest Christian writings we possess.

One of the most formidable challenges in any discussion about the New Testament canon is explaining what makes these 27 books unique. Why these and not others? There are many answers to that question, but in this blog post we are focusing on just one: the date of these books. These books stand out as distinctive because they are earliest Christian writings we possess and thus bring us the closest to the historical Jesus and to the earliest church. If we want to find out what authentic Christianity was really like, then we should rely on the writings that are the nearest to that time period.

This is particularly evident when it comes to the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are the only gospel accounts that derive from the first century. Sure, there are a few scholars have attempted to put the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, but this has not met with much success. After all the scholarly dust has settled, even critics agree that these four are the earliest accounts of Jesus that we possess.

Now, a few qualifications are in order. First, it should be noted that there are disagreements about the dating of some New Testament books. Some critical scholars have argued that some New Testament books are forgeries written in the second century. Meanwhile, other scholars have defended the authenticity (and first-century date) of these books. This is a debate that we cannot delve into here. However, even if these debated books are left aside in our discussions, we can still affirm that the vast majority of the New Testament writings (including the four gospels) still remain the earliest Christian writings we possess.

Second, some may point out that 1 Clement is a Christian writing that dates to the first century, and it is not included in the New Testament canon. True, but the consensus date for 1 Clement is c.96 A.D. This date is later than all our New Testament books. The only possible exception is Revelation which is dated, at the latest, around 95-96 A.D. But, some date Revelation earlier. Even so, this does not affect the macro point we are making here.

Just to be clear, we are not arguing here that books are canonical simply because they have a first century date. Other Christian writings existed in the first century that were not canonical—and perhaps we will discover some of these in the future. Our point is not that all first century books are canonical, but that all our canonical books are first century. And that is a point worth making.

In the end, every Christian should remember one basic fact, namely that the New Testament books are distinctive because, generally speaking, they are the earliest Christian writings we possess. None are earlier. If so, then it seems that the books included in the New Testament are not as arbitrary as some would have us believe. On the contrary, it seems that these are precisely the books we would include if we wanted to have access to authentic Christianity.

Michael J. Kruger, President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: canon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: DManA

“Is this controversial?”

Should it be? It is about the truth. It is about everything O’Bozo hates. It is about who we are. Controversial? Ha...


21 posted on 09/09/2013 8:11:59 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
One of the most formidable challenges in any discussion about the New Testament canon is explaining what makes these 27 books unique. Why these and not others?

Because human committees decided them for you, by consensus.

22 posted on 09/09/2013 8:16:24 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

I don’t see Obama in this at all. Obama is a tiny flea. He comes, he annoys , he’s he’s gone. We are talking about eternal matters.


23 posted on 09/09/2013 8:18:32 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7; Salvation

Where did you copy and paste that? The “lost sayings Gospel Q” doesn’t exist. It’s a hypothetical document by liberals who imagine that the Gospels we have are rip offs of a original, which also gave rise to the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and other poorly written Gnostic works. They’re full of it, since any reading of the “Gospel of Thomas” would so that it’s heavily based off the Gospel of Matthew. Your list also dates it ranging from 50AD, but there is no evidence that it had such an early existence. The only evidence of its existence is in the second century, as it is attributed to heretics then living as a recent work. It just pulls Matthew out of context into something stupid. Same thing for the “Signs Gospel.” Another hypothetical document with no evidence that it ever existed. So why bother dating it?

Stick with conservative scholars who actually believe in Christianity, not these sophists and liars.


24 posted on 09/09/2013 8:31:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Thnka fir the update
nihil non sequitor adjuvat neminem


25 posted on 09/09/2013 8:34:09 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

But not the current versions. And there have been MANY alterations between those and what we have today.


26 posted on 09/09/2013 8:35:35 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

These dates are all but certainly way too early.


27 posted on 09/09/2013 8:36:16 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Actually

NIHIL EX NIHILO


28 posted on 09/09/2013 8:36:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Not according to the introduction to each book in my Bible.


29 posted on 09/09/2013 8:37:26 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cizinec

“the Protestant canon being, by a long way, the most recent.”


The Protestant canon matches Jerome’s canon. It is not “the most recent.” It is the ancient one that, aside from the New Testament of course, was accepted by the Jews. It is true that the church in Rome rejected the epistle to the Hebrews in the 4th century, and the Greeks in that same period rejected Revelation, yet both of those books had a long and venerable history in the church from the very beginning. These books were only disputed, by the way, due to the weakness of those people in fighting heresy. The Romans, for example, did not know how to answer the Manicheans on their abuse of the epistle of Hebrews. Same problem with heretics abusing the book of Revelation. Instead of defending the scripture, those churches, in the minority, simply put them out of the canon.

Furthermore, almost every book in the New Testament, aside from maybe 2 Peter and one or two others, were quoted or referenced by Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, all men ranging from the 1st century into the 2nd.

It does not appear that any of these men thought that they were not quoting scripture, insomuch as they say “the scripture saith,” and then they quote it.


30 posted on 09/09/2013 8:38:31 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

But textual analysis, dating of the materials, and other methods have established the dates of those writings as noticeably later.

And the earliest versions we have date from much later — probably the third century.

Frankly, your sources have an agenda.


31 posted on 09/09/2013 8:38:59 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Just remember that my sources are correct. After all — the Catholics gave you the Bible.

Good night.


32 posted on 09/09/2013 8:40:05 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Merely saying that they’re correct doesn’t make it so.


33 posted on 09/09/2013 8:41:03 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TBP

“These dates are all but certainly way too early.”


On the contrary! Many of them are dated too late.


34 posted on 09/09/2013 8:42:00 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

That’s not what the documentary evidence shows.


35 posted on 09/09/2013 8:45:22 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TBP

“But textual analysis, dating of the materials, and other methods have established the dates of those writings as noticeably later.

And the earliest versions we have date from much later — probably the third century.

Frankly, your sources have an agenda.”


You have no idea what you’re talking about. Those dates are from even the liberal scholars. They date it as late as they can, but they can’t date it later because the New Testament was being quoted by sources we still have today well within the 1st century and into the early parts of the 2nd, by men who were already quite old. Ignatius, for example, died between 97-115AD. Clement is dated not long after the destruction of the Temple. To claim otherwise simply isn’t credible.


36 posted on 09/09/2013 8:45:26 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
You have no idea

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

37 posted on 09/09/2013 8:46:48 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TBP

“But not the current versions. And there have been MANY alterations between those and what we have today.”


Yet of the over 5,000 New Testament fragments in Greek alone, not counting all the ones in Syriac, Latin, Arabic, and many other languages, their accuracy amongst each other and what we have today is at 99.5%. The Holy Scriptures are the best preserved documents in the world.


38 posted on 09/09/2013 8:48:16 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DManA

>> “Is this controversial?” <<

.
Only when you take it down to the nit picking level in most cases.


39 posted on 09/09/2013 8:50:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Good list.

The really stellar historical point relates to the early date of 1 Corinthians.

Placing that letter in the 50s means that Paul wrote the letter 17-27 years after the crucifixion.

1 Corinthians chapter 15 makes an incredible historical claim that if true devastates skepticism:

“For I delivered to you [b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; . . .

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified [f]against God that He raised [g]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”

To allege as Paul did that 500 people saw Jesus alive after death in a period around 50 AD would be epistemological suicide— unless Jesus was resurrected. Anyone could demand to meet others who saw him alive. That would be an easy fact to check at such an early point in time.

I quoted that to a major atheist on one occasion and even with a team of researchers assisting him, he admitted he had not answer to the allegation raised by Paul.


40 posted on 09/09/2013 8:51:26 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson