The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess

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.

All these accounts were written 50-100+ years after Jesus.

Totally untrue. Most of the Gospels (except perhaps John), were written down within thirty years after the crucifixion, as were Paul's letters (He died between 62 and 65 AD, so his letters were already written).

Here is the kicker, Luke's introduction to what is known as the Gospel of Luke:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

It's recorded that Luke was with Paul, with Peter and at least some other Apostles who were the eyewitnesses, so he got it all straight from them, and this in a culture that revered passing on truth, and Luke is clearly a careful, well educated man.

Notice he says that others prepared works before him, meaning that Mark and Matthew were likely written already.

The idea that everything was somehow forgotten and then made up because it was a 2nd and 3rd generation thing is simply incorrect, and one of the finest myths (dare I say lies?) of liberals ever concocted.

“All these accounts were written 50-100+ years after Jesus. Why the delay?”

Ummm, do your math please.

The NT books were written from between AD 45 and 96...with the great majority in the AD 45 to 63 range(only Revelation is alleged to be as late as AD 96). Jesus was crucified and resurrected about AD 30 or 33.

50-33 = 17 years...

So NOT “50-100+ years after Jesus.” Rather the Gospels were eye-witness recollections—which they had been preaching and teaching about for years—of slightly older Apostles written down, as you’d expect—definitely shortly after Jesus, and definitely NOT a 2nd or 3rd generation telling of the story. Paul’s letters were first, and his were practical writings to his newly planted Churches. Other letters came a bit later—but all the NT books were within the same generation who were eye-witnesses to Jesus.

Would you consider a book written now about the Clinton administration written long after, and generations removed? Clinton was first elected 21 years ago—about as far away as most of the NT books were written from Jesus’ day—not generations later.

I’ve found a lot of people get confused by the AUTHORSHIP dates verses the dates of formal official Church-council recognition of the canon (or list) of authentic apostolic (New Testament) books. Those formal lists did occur—as far as we can tell—generations later—but there is ample evidence that informal recognition was there for virtually all the important NT books, all along. The earliest list of NT books is the Muratorian canon from about AD 180...still only a little over 100 years after authorship, and formal recognition by Church councils took place in another 100+ years. That simple formalization of recognition however, doesn’t change the fact of 1st Century authorship—undisputed in recent years—for the NT books themselves.

This would be a bit like an official group of scholars today agreeing on what exactly are the Federalist Papers, and those scholars putting a formal stamp of approval on THE authentic list of those documents, and confusing that date (which in this example would be 2013) with when they were actually written, 225 years ago (big difference).

You are correct, Lake. The gospels were completed early. Luke’s gospel specifically references its own time of creation, and Luke also, specifically, says that he sought out the sources and people to verify the accounts.

So, the idea that folks waited a long period of time to write these down is incorrect. They were probably writing things down all along through the ministry of Jesus.

It is not an illiterate, savage people we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with a people who had their young men stand in the synagogue and read from the scripture.

Given the time required to copy by hand and the time of travel, the spread of the gospels and the letters by the end of the first century is also a powerful argument for their having been penned much earlier.

1st century Gospel of Mark found?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/earliest-gospel-of-mark-found/

Could be oldest fragment of New Testament known to exist
Published: 02/19/2012 at 3:13 PM
author-imageJoe Kovacs About | Email | Archive

Joe Kovacs is an award-winning journalist and, since 1999, executive news editor of WND. He is the author of two best-selling books: “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told” and its 2012 sequel, “The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny.”

Gospel_of_Mark

A New Testament professor is setting the world of Bible scholarship on fire with his claim that newly discovered fragments of early Christian writings could include a first-century version of the Gospel of Mark, from the same century in which Jesus and the apostles lived.

Daniel B. Wallace of the Dallas Theological Seminary made the stunning announcement during a Feb. 1 debate with Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today.

“If this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus!” Wallace said. “Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed.”

Yes, the Bible is true, but why are so many simple facts from it suppressed? Find out what you’ve been missing in the No. 1 bestseller, “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told,” just $4.95 today only!

Wallace says seven New Testament fragments written on papyrus had recently been discovered – six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. He expects further details to be published “in about a year.”

“These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 40 percent of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

“It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.”

Wallace’s interest is focused on the portion from Mark’s Gospel.

“Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century. This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.”

Craig A. Evans, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, says the find may indeed be of very great importance.

“If authenticity and early date are confirmed, this fragment of the Gospel of Mark could be very significant and show how well preserved the text of the New Testament really is. We all await its publication,” Evans told the Christian Post.

Others agree.

“Any find that gets us a quarter-century or so closer to the time the original gospels were written would be highly significant, even sensational,” Andreas Kostenberger, senior professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press.

“Of course, in part the significance of the discovery depends on the size of the fragment, not to mention the verification of the date. There have been previous reports of discoveries of early Mark or other gospel manuscripts that did not check out at closer scrutiny, so it is certainly appropriate to maintain scholarly caution until the full data are known and available to public scrutiny. For example, some scholars got burned when they prematurely accepted so-called ‘Secret Mark,’ which turned out to be a forgery.”

When asked about the trustworthiness of what Mark really wrote if we don’t possess an actual original copy of his manuscript, Kostenberger said, “The fact is that the earliest manuscripts of all or parts of Mark that we do have show remarkable consistency and stability. And none of the minor variations between different manuscripts affect any major doctrine of Christianity at all.

“Of course, there is no way to prove positively one way or another what might have happened during the period between the original writing of Mark and the first available copies. Knowing what we do know about the care with which ancient Jews as well as early Christians took to preserve the original wording of what they believed to be authoritative and sacred writings – in fact, the very words of God – inspires a high degree of confidence. First the apostles, and then those after them carefully guarded the reliability of the eyewitness testimony to Jesus contained in the four canonical gospels.”

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.