(18 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...27 Books of the New Testament. This is now a continuation of my projected longer blog post that will serve as an introduction to the New Testament (possibly around 5000 – 6000 words or so). In the first section, I discussed the layout and structure of the New Testament. In the second I gave brief descriptions of each of the twenty-seven books. This one is spread out over two posts and deals with the question of how we actually got it. How was it collected together into a “book” and how was it transmitted to us over the centuries.
How Did We Get The 27 Books of the New Testament?
The New Testament did not drop from the sky one day a few years after the death of Jesus. It was written over a number of years by a number of authors with a number of different purposes, interests, and perspectives. But how did we actually get it? That is, who decided on these particular 27 Books of the New Testament (early Christian writings) rather than others? When did they decide and on what grounds?
Moreover, how did these books come down to us? How were they preserved and circulated during all those centuries before the invention of printing? Can we be certain that the books we read today are actually identical to the ones their authors produced?
The Canon of the New Testament
The word “canon” comes from a Greek term for a straight edge, used either to measure or to draw a straight line (like a yardstick). The word eventually came to refer to any authoritative collection of books – and so today we can talk about the canon of Shakespeare. The canon of the New Testament would be the 27 books that made it into the Christian scripture, as a second part of the Christian Bible, along with the 39-book canon of the Old Testament.
Religions in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds did not as a rule have “Bibles” – that is, books that provided authoritative guidance on what to believe and how to live. The only real exception was Judaism. But since Jesus and his followers were Jews, the earliest Christians already had a canon of Scripture, even if there was no universal agreement at the time (among either Jews or Christians) on which books should be counted as the “Jewish Bible” (though virtually everyone agreed on the Pentateuch and prophets).
Christians themselves wrote books early on, within decades of Jesus’ death. And already in the first century, some of these books were ascribed the same authority as the books of the Jewish Bible – just as Jesus’ own teachings were seen to be authoritative words from God. The problem was that …
To see the rest of the post: join the blog. It won’t cost much and you’ll get access to tons of information as a member. Every penny of the proceeds goes to charity. So it’s good for everyone!
There’s no time to change their mind, the canon’s closed, and you’ve been left behind.
A fundamentalist preacher at a mega Church uses humor to reconcile discrepancies in John’s gospel.
This Sunday John 20:6-13 was explained. When Peter went into the tomb there were no angels but when Mary went in there were two angels. The pastor said the angels had left the tomb to get Jesus some clothes which they likely took from the gardener who is now naked. This got a big laugh and no one was bothered by seemly irrelevant treatment of the scriptures. Maybe this is the new approach to an old problem.
Yes that’s one of the things that always made me know I was on the right track…because the default is to try and make you feel stupid that you don’t believe the way they do…when it’s just the opposite.
I just read through your book “God’s Problem”, about suffering. So the Apocalyptic view indicates that God has turned over the world to his enemies, but one day it will be redeemed. Does any of the Apocalypticists touch on *why* God would do such a thing? Seems gravely irresponsible to me.
Usually it is either because of the fall of the angels or because of the sin of humans. Some of his beings rebelled and God let them get on with it, leading to the current mess.
Can you say any more about the methods church leaders used to evaluate the books’ worthiness for inclusion, especially regarding the first two criteria above (ancient and written by an apostle)?
Clearly historical critical methods were not yet developed. But can the process of assessment they used tell us anything about how they thought about things, what did they consider important, what views did they have about their intended audience?
Good idea. I’ll add it to my things to post on.
Dr. Ehrman, considering the bias toward ancient work, what do you think would be the response from Christians if a new, somehow verifiably authentic letter of Paul or some other early apostolic figure were discovered? Which denominations might respond differently? What about whether it concurred with or diverged from existing doctrine? Any thoughts VERY welcome. To me, this concept is probably as fascinating as any other related to the history of Christianity.
They would almost certainly consider it a letter to be studies and appreciated, but not to be Scripture — since, for them, God decided which books should be included long ago.
Isn’t the truth that Gutenburg made the final decision?
Interesting idea, but no, there were hand-written Bibles with all 27 books long before Gutenberg.
Interesting history.I was always taught, the Council of Nicea was the time when the Bible was canonized.You say it was decided by general consensus not a vote.What is the difference?Consensus as in raising your hand vs writing your preference on paper.Also,was the deity of God also part of this final canon?I have read that Arius was one of the opposers of the Trinity and thus was forced out.In theology though,it doesn’t mean he was wrong,the majority went against him,proving Athanasius was more convincing.Sorry,I guess there is 3 questions.
A vote is where you have a show of hands, or a ballot, or some official procedure. Consensus is when everyone just pretty much agrees. In a criminal case, the public at large may pretty much have an opinion of guilt or innocense (consensus) but that’s different from the vote of a jury. Or, say, a Supreme Court ruling.
I meant to say,was the deity of Jesus in question among the church leaders during this process?Wasn’t Athanasius a proponent of Trinitarian belief and opposed Arianism circulation of that time?
It wasn’t a question of whether Jesus was divine or not. It was a question of: In what *sense* is he God. Arius had one view; Athanasius (who was too young to be a major player at the time) had a different one. You may want to see my discussion in How jesus Became God.
You had mentioned that a criterion to be included as scripture necessitated that the author be “(b) really written by an apostle or by someone they authorized (Mark was thought to be Peter’s secretary; Luke was said to be Paul’s companion).” My perplexity on this issue stems from the fact that Paul never knew the man Jesus, and could not have been used as a source for Luke to write his book. Luke had to look elsewhere to get his stories, in that Paul would have had nothing to offer. So then, how does Luke’s relationship with Paul give him the bonafides to author a gospel about the life of Jesus?
Yup, exactly! My sense is that those naming the Gospels wanted two of the disciples and then the acounts authorized by the two leading apostles of the earliest church, Peter and Paul. Even though, you’re right, it doesn’t make much sense for it to be Luke/Paul. BUT Luke does emphasize he did his homework, based ultimately on eyewitness reports. So that was considered good enough.
Dr. Ehrman,
I read somewhere that 1 Clem. came close to making the cut, and that if the NT had 1 more book, that probably would have been it, is this true? Were Ignatius’ writings ever considered, or too late? Anything else that almost made it?
Ignatius no. 1 Clement was considered scripture by *some* church leaders. But so was 2 Clement, Barnabas, The Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, and so on.
Dr. Ehrman, though much of this information is familiar to me, I can’t quite remember what you have mentioned in your many posts is thought to be the earliest New Testament. Could you restate that please?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. What do you mean by “the earliest NT”?
Following Athanasius’ list of 27 books and its formal canonization, would there not have been a bible shortly thereafter, i.e. Codex Vaticanus? Maybe there’s a sophomoric element to this question going over heads — or maybe I should have said bible instead of NT.
OK, so you mean the “earliest codex that contains all 27 books”? I suppose that would be Codex Sinaiticus (which, though, also includes two other books that didn’t make it in), also around 350-370 CE or so.
Dr. Ehrman, I’m curious when the idea of inerrant scripture came into being? My faith background believes that the bible is inerrant and all words are “God breathed.” Did the early church fathers not see the discrepancies and contradictions that we see now?
Yes, many of them did recognize contradictions; but it was a debated matter even there. The strict doctrine of inerrancy came into being at the end of the 19th century.
Dr. Can you go into more detail about this subject( inerrancy) when? How? Who were the players?
The modern views of inerrancy were developed at the end of the nineteenth century; if you’re interested in seeing how it happened, look up Niagara Conferences. In the ancient world there were lots and lots of different views — depending on what time period we are speaking of (2nd century very different from the 4th from the 8th from the 13th… and huge differences within centuries). Maybe a place to start looking would be Karlfried Froelich’s Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church?
As I think the Church as such did not strictly edit the canonical gospels, but these were transmitted, starting in the year 200 especially in a multitude of manuscripts, local, from diverse backgrounds – Asia Minor, North Africa, especially Alexandria, Rome— with an amount of about 550,000 variants, belonging to some 5000 manuscripts (which were copied from the end of the second century to the sixteenth century). Even so, there is currently no kind of “super canon”, you just have to see the differences between Catholic Christianity, Protestant, Orthodox, Ethiopian, and so on. Therefore I do not believe that Christianity should be considered as a singular phenomenon, but rather in the plural. In Spanish we would say CRISTIANISMOS
Modern critical editions of the New Testament (eg., UBS) attempt to reconstruct the original text of the first century. Since the New Testament canon of the 27 books did not exist until the 4th century, does it not stand to reason that the text as it existed in the 4th century is actually the “original” New Testament?
Good question. Some have argued that. But the way the thinking goes is that the later canonization of the New Testament involved deciding *which* older books were originally inspired by God; modern editions try to figure out what the wording of those texts, later deemed scripture and “inspired” were, that is, they try to determine what the authors wrote. Another perfectly valid historical exercise is to determine what form of the text was available to the church fathers who decided on the collection of books into a canon. The problem *there*is that there was NOT a single unified text read by all the Christias of the fourth century, but widely different forms,. So there was not “a” text (of any of the books) in the fourth century, in the way that htere was “a” text that left the pen of the author. See what I mean?
Hi Dr Ehrman,
I know that you are a busy man but could you do me a favor. Could give the dates of when most scholars think the books of the New Testament were written. I know that nobody know s exacts dates but good general number would be helpful. I am trying to line up the writings of the Bible authors to see trends and developments in them.
Thank you for your help and all the information you give in your books and in the blog.
I did that on the blog a while ago, giving approximate dates. I’ll be reposting it soon, as it’s part of a larger post that serves as a kind of Introduction to the NT.
“Contrary to what is often said, there never was a major church council in early Christianity that decided the issue (it was not addressed at the Council of Nicaea, for example). The decision came about by general (though not universal) consensus rather than by a vote.”
I entirely agree with your overall view of how this happened. When they would discuss whether something fit criteria “d” as theologically acceptable or “orthodox” would that often just fold back to accepting scripture that was consistent with scripture that was in based on a-c. That is later scriptures were allowed in if they were consistent with the earlier texts associated with apostles that were widely read. If the later scripture-candidates conflicted with the earlier better attested scriptures then they would be rejected.
I wonder what your thoughts about the council of Rome and the councils in Carthage of 397 and 419 are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
While they were local councils (not major ones like Nicaea) they were nevertheless collective decisions by leaders in the Church on what is inspired. I think they tend to show that the scripture had already for the most part taken shape. These collective views would seem more important than the views of individual authors. Would you agree?
NOt sure which council of Rome you’re referring to. The councils in Carthage was the first to ratify it, but as you say, it was just a local affair, not an “ecumenical” council.
According to the wikipedia:
“The Council of Rome was a meeting of Catholic Church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I, the current bishop of Rome. It was one of the fourth century councils that ‘gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.'[1]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
A few other sources corroborate the crux of this but wiki seems fine as far as I know on this topic.
Hmm… I wonder what their ancient source of information for that is…
I have no idea what ancient authorities or documents support the Council at Rome’s existence or the more specific claim that the council confirmed the books in that list. That is why I was wondering what your thoughts were. Reading between the lines, would it be fair to say you don’t really think we have good evidence that council at Rome 382 approved the books listed? Do you think the council never happened? I guess I still wonder what your thoughts on this council, are as it is often listed as evidence of early agreement (at least tentative agreement) on the books of the bible.
Would it be fair to say you agree that the Councils of Carthage did give an accurate list of the Catholic Bible?
All the experts say the Council of Carthage in 397 was the first conciliar (though local) ratification of the list, and so I veyr much doubt the business of a Roman council. But I haven’t looked into it.
Dr Bart .. Just curious.. Do you Personally believe in the existence of The Q Source .. If Yes .. Do you you believe in the possibility of discovering it ?
I absolutely do; and I doubt we’ll ever find a copy of it, but one can always hope!
Dr Bart ..
Do you believe that Jesus knew how to Read and Write?
If yes ..
Is there a possibility which allows to think that Jesus had left a written document ( let’s call it a J Source ) ?
I’m pretty certain he could not write. Writing and reading were taught as two different skills in the ancient world (unlike today). He *may* have been able to read, but it’s hard to know (there’s only passage where he is said to read in the NT: Luke 4).
Ok Thanks Dr Bart .. well received
Though .. don’t you think that John 8 : 8 is talking about Jesus’s ability of * Writing * ?
In addition Dr Bart ; what do you of Paul mentioning about * THE GOSPEL OF JESUS * ?
Yes, but that passage was not originally in the New Testament (search on the blog for adultery and you’ll see my discussion of it)
Yea Dr Bart I’m familiar with the Criticism of the story of the Adulterer in John 7/8 ( in fact.. you Personally opened my eyes on Textual Criticism.. I thank you )
In this context .. a question arises Dr Bart :
Do we know that Jesus knew how to read based on Luke 4 because Luke 4 was * ORIGINALLY * In the NT ?
Would you please Dr Bart shed light on what Paul meant by *THE GOSPEL OF JESUS* ?
No, I think Luke 4 is a legendary account. Paul meant the good news that is about Jesus.
Ok Dr Bart .. if Luke 4 was a legendary account , then how would we know that Jesus may have known how to Read ?
The main issue is whether he would have been able to know the Hebrew Scriptures well enough to be considered an insightful teacher without being able to read them himself. I’ve long thought about it, but don’t know the answer.
Well Dr Bart ..
Do you believe that The Historical Jesus knew the Hebrew Scriptures ?
If Yes .. What evidence or probability you’re basing that conclusion on ?
Yes. All Jews at the time did. They went to synagogue every week, and a major part of the service involved reading the Scriptures out loud. We don’t know how many paid close attentiom, but Jesus certainly did. Otherwise he wouldn’t have had a reputation as a Jewish teacher (since that’s what Jewish teachers taught)
Aha .. Okey Dr Bart
In this case Dr Bart ; can we assume the Following probabilities?
1/ Jesus was Literate .
2/ Jesus knew how to read .
3/ Jesus was Iliterate but he had a Teacher / Teachers .
4/ Jesus was Illiterate but He memorized The Scriptures by a Teacher/ Teachers .
So Dr Bart which probability do you consider according to your opinion ?
I don’t see the difference between #’s 1-3. They may all be right. The big question is what you mean by literate. It could mean an enormous range of things.
Dr Bart ..
By Literate I mean ; knowing how to read and write at the same time
OK, got it. Reading literacy is different from writing literacy. In teh ancient world these two skills were not taught at the same time, the way they are for almost all of us. (Though it still often applies today: I can read German and French but cannot compose sentences in them to any great extent.) And there are enormous levels of both. Some people can trace letters but not compose a sentence; some can compose sentences but not correction; some can compose sentences correction but cannot write well; some can write well but could never write a book. And on and on and on. Same in the ancient world. My view is that Jesus could not write *at all* in any sense, but that he *may* have been able to read some Hebrew. But there simply isn’t enough evidence to be sure.
Well received ..Thank you very much Dr Bart
Dr Bart ..
What’s the difference between Koine and Attic greek ?
Koine was teh common form of Greek used around the Mediterranean after the conquests of Alexander the Great; in very basic terms it is a simpler, less literary form of the language, more the kind of Greek spoken by regular ole folk instead of high-browed literary Greek of the upper classes.
Ok Dr Bart ..
So in a simple words Dr Bart , can we say that the Koine is The Daughter of the Attic Greek ? Or is it independent of it ?
And do both of them use Diacritics in the Writing ?
Daughter. And they did not have accents/breathing marks/ etc. when originally written.
Ok Thanks Dr Bart ..
Dr Bart.. have you ever thought of Recreating a Line /Lines of a Transmission/ Transmissions of a Gospel / Gospels / Epistle / Epistles * Experimentally * in order to show how the Text/Texts Get changed and corrupt
Oh yes, it’s been an ambition int he discipline for centuries. My dissertation was related to it. The problem is that stemmata among existing mss cannot be drawn because, ironically, there are so many of them that cross-pollination and contamination makes any actual genealogical lines literally impossible to sketch.
Ah okey .. Thank you Dr Bart
Dr Bart ..
To whom Jesus was referring by the Son of Man ? And do we find this figure outside the New Testament ? Like in the Apocrypha for example?
Very long story. Historically, he was referring to the coming judge of the earth, as narrated in Daniel 7; his followers thought he was referring to himself, and so wrote his words as found inthe Gospels so that ie there *does* refer to himself.
Dr Bart ..
Are you open to discuss what other Religions got to say about the Judeo-Christian Scriptures ?
I’m not against it in principle, depending on how it is framed. But the blog focuses on the *historical* understanding of early Christianity, not on the truth of its religious claims. The opposition to Christianity by those of other religions is often not relevant hen talking about the *history* of early Christinity and the NT, any more than the fervent *support* of Christianity (i.e., it’s truth claims) is. That is, this blog is not about which religion is better. Luckily, there are lot so other internet sites where people of different religious persuasions can explain why their particular religion is superior to tohers.
Thanks Dr Bart .. well understood ..
Dr Bart ..
Is there difference between the Grec prefix:
παρά and πάρα ?
The second is not a prefix but a shortened form for παρειμι; it occurs starting in Homer, but does not appear in the NT.
Thanks Dr Bart ..
And what παρειμι means literally ?
Worth mentioning Dr Bart that when I ‘ve put the word πάρα in Google translate I got the following result :
over-
υπερ-, παρα
Is it a mistranslation?
Yes, they are referring to the preposition, not to the shortened form of παρειμι, which is a verb that means “to be present” or “to be there”; you won’t find it in the NT so it probably isn’t relevant to what you’re intereset in. If you’re reading Homer’s Odyssey, though, you have to know it!
Dr Bart .. I really appreciate your patience .. and excuse me for being persistent..
Are you saying that πάρα is a preposition which means ” Over ” ?
No, I’m not. παρά is the preoposition. πάρα is a verb. It depends where the accent occurs.
Thank you very much Dr Bart
Dr Bart .. What do you think about the concept of *PROPHECIES * ? Do they have any significance? If yes what is the criterion of a Fulfilled Prophecy?
Do you mean “predictions” in the Old Testament that Jesus “fulfilled”? My sense is that the writers of the Gospels who told us their stories about Jesus wrote them in such a way as to *show* that he fulfilled prophecy, but to do that they had to pass on legendary materials that are not historical (e.g., that he was born in Bethlehem, to a virgin, and was descended directly from King David, etc.)
Dr Bart ..
Is there any possibility that when Josephus wrote about Jesus , in fact He used Paul’s writings as source of informations ?
No, not really.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Can you shed some light on how scraps of manuscripts eventually became whole books. For example, if P52 is the oldest fragment and subsequent fragments were found over a period of years, when was the entire book pieced together? Moreover, how significant is the time span from P52 to the next fragment, etc… In other words, was it 100 years from P52 to the last fragment? I know you can’t provide answers to every book in this post, but can you point me to a piece of literature where this information is exhaustively explored and chronicled? I look forward to your reply and thank you for your time.
The fragments came from whole books, not the other way around. The books were worn out of existence, damaged, thrown away, and eaten by worms and destroyed by the elements until there was only some scraps left. P52 is traditionally dated to the early second century (that is, that’s when the book that it was originally part of was probably made), but some scholars have come to doubt that it is that early. We do start getting more fragments around 200 — some very extensive ones (chunks of entire books). Our first “entire book” manuscripts are from around the middle of the fourth century.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman,
Were these entire books from the 4th century greek manuscripts? Also, manuscripts 400 years removed from the original authors takes on a whole new level of absurdity that argues against changes along the way. Lastly do you have any books that can academically walk me through the dating and discovery of the New Testament manuscripts? Thanks again Dr. Ehrman.
Yes, they are fourth century manuscripts. The best place to start is my book Misquoting Jesus (which is about the manuscripts that have been handed down, despite the title!)
Dr Bart ..
What is the use of the concept of Gematria ? And was it used in the NT?
Ah , that deserves a post of its own! I’ll put it on my list of things to blog about.
Ok Thanks Dr Bart !
Dr Bart ..
What main language The Historical Jesus was preaching in ?
Aramaic.
Dr Bart ..
How would you answer this question:
Does The Triune God have a Son ?
How would I answer it personally? My personal belief is that there is no God so there cannot be a Triune God and that Triune God that does not exist cannot have a son!
Yeah Dr Bart I already knew your personal belief regarding God and Religion.
I meant Biblically or Scholarly
The idea of a “triune God” is not biblical, no.
Dr Bart ..
Do you think that The Historical Jesus was using Relgion in order to get to Power ?
What is your Evaluation and Analysis at the Psychological Level regarding Jesus’s Intentions .
No, not at all. And we cannot psychoanalyze someone 2000 years ago whom we have almost zero direct access to.
Thanks Dr Bart
Dr Bart ..
How could Scholars detect when The Gospels were written down first time while their Originals got lost ?
Same way we detect how every book was written in antiquity — HOmer, Plato, Cicero, Pliny, Tertullian, etc. We look to see when they are first quoted (they were written before then) and what events they mention (they were written after then) and start narrowing the date down from there.
Thanks Dr Bart
Dr Bart ..
Would you name please the Christian Sect/Sects which believed that Jesus was Human and not Divine?
And did they have A Gospel to follow ?.
The Ebionites are thought to have held this view. They had a modified version of the Gospel of Matthew, possibly lacking hte birth narratives.
Dr Bart ..
Have you ever visited the Vatican Archive? If not .. are you planning to do it ?
And do you believe that The Vatican is hiding some important *Manuscripts * from the Public?
I haven’t, but I know lots of people who have. No, they almost certainly aren’t hiding anything from the public.
Dr Bart ..
In order to detect ” omitted or added ” words and verses in the NT , Is it sufficient to use The Sinaiticus and The Vaticanus Codices as Criterion ?
Absolutely not!
Please can I thank those of you who sponsored the, “Three month free membership.” After half a century in the church, having a degree in theology, a diploma from Cambridge, and previously being ordained for almost 30 years, I thought I knew my Bible. Yet I have learnt more in one day on this site than in three years of Theological College. I am humbled, thankful and thirsty to learn more.