What exactly is the New Testament?
If someone standing behind you in a long line in the grocery store should lean over and out of the blue ask: “Hey, can you tell me what the New Testament is”, what would you say? (This happens to you every day, right?) This person wants it in one sentence. Well – come up with something. What would you say? (Try to formulate something before reading any further.)
I’m not sure what I would say, but I would have a ton of options in my head, depending on what I thought she wanted really to know and on what kind of mood I was in (probably a foul one, if I’m in a long line). But among the options, here would be a relatively decent one:
“The New Testament is the collection of twenty-seven books thought to be written by the apostles of Jesus that came to be considered Christian Scripture.”
If she wants either clarification or more information, I or you could go from there.
This is so invaluable to me I want to memorialize it.
How would you respond to Christian apologists who claim that 2 Peter 3:16 refers to Paul’s epistles as “scripture”? Many Christians use this verse to support their position that early Christians (first and second century) treated letters from Paul as equal in importance and authority to Hebrew Bible manuscripts.
2 Peter 3:16: “He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
I’d agree with them. But I date 2 Peter to a later period than they, to around 120 CE (that’s the common critical view)
I want to memorize it and memorialize it 🙂
Dr. Ehrman, do you plan to share your insights on Author Pliny and “Christ in Passing”? I’m deeply inspired by the potential of this exploration.
I’m not familiar with it.
I’m a bit confused; I thought you were familiar with it. Anyway, thank you.
Dr Bart Ehrman, that is a good question! I would say it’s about Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. Whether one believes Christ was just a Rabbi, or was he the son of God suffering for our souls is the question. However, I’m still stuck on whether the Catholic Church was started in 34 be, and if it was started by Peter. So maybe it’s really is all about the Golden rule and looking out for our fellow man.
RD
Hi Bart
I have read that most modern translations on “first day of the week” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” are mistranslated from Greek which is one of the Sabbaths. These writers claim it is assumed Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week and therefore, by circular reasoning, arrive at the conclusion that Sabbaths can be translated as the first day of the week. Jesus, they say, rose from the dead on Saturday, not Sunday. One even claims Jesus rose from the dead Saturday morning before sunrise. They claim there were two Sabbaths the week Jesus died so when the Scripture places the death as the day before the Sabbath it is the annual Sabbath it is referring to. Can you help?
Yeah, it’s a tricky business. The word “sabbath” does appear to come to mean “a week” in some contexts in early Christian writings; I think it has to mean that in Luke 18:12 (I fast twice of a sabbath — that is, twice a week). It especially gets used that way when in the plural, as in the Didache 8:1 (the “hypocrites” fast on the second and the fifth of the week (literally) sabbaths, but you should fast on the third an fifth). I don’t know of any usage like this in Jewish texts.
But I do think it has to mean that in the resurrection narratives. Mark explicitly says that that appears Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus on the late afternoon on the day before Sabbath (i.e., Friday; 15:42); he then says that the sabbath was over when Mary Mary, and Salome came to bury the body (16:10); and then indicates this was on the “first of the Sabbaths” (16:2)that is, the first day of the week (Sunda6). It can’t mean on the day of the sabbath (Saturday) itself because he has just said that the sabbath had ended (16:1). So the tomb is discovered on a Sunday.
Why Christians started using the terms “sabbath” and “sabbaths” to mean “weak” is an interesting question. I don’t know!
But there’s no evidence that I’ve ever seen or heard of that there could be two Sabbaths a week. I think the person who said that might have just got something confused..
Bart, are you planning any debates in 2025? I’ve enjoyed watching them in the past on YouTube.
Nothing’s planned just now!
A large segment of the public seems to be under the impression that the contents of the New Testament were thoroughly debated, subsequently confirmed, officially fixed, and decisively ratified at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Might this widespread popular fallacy be something that a quick summary should perhaps address?
Sure. It’s not true. People get this mainly from The DaVinci Code. But the Council of Nicea didn’t discuss the contours of hte canon.
I love this idea, Bart! It is your ability to explain both in depth, and in layperson terms, what the New Testament authors were or weren’t trying to convey that quickly made me a fan of your work. As well as your concise way of refuting false beliefs about the books being spread around in much of today’s theology surrounding them.
I managed to find a used copy of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings and it is one of my favorite books to dig through as I’m trying to study one aspect or another of one of the New Testament books.
The New Testament is a collection of writings in which the followers of Jesus try to explain how an apocalyptic relatively inconsequential peasant that was brutally executed by Rome (the new Babylon) was actually the long awaited King of the Jews whose death will bring about the end of the current age.
Thank you and am looking forward to the series! But how to convey to a fundamentalist pastor who believes the gospels are written by eye witnesses, what your views are on the New Testament?? My quick attempt now with my limited understanding; ‘I think the New Testament is a collection of writings, mostly by Paul or those who sympathise with Paul, reflecting beliefs about who Jesus was and what his death meant. There were other groups of Christians whose beliefs are not so well represented. The gospels were written at least 40 years after events, and reflect different sources including Paul’s letters. Each has a bias. We do not know what is historical. We cannot rely on Acts as historical and it likely has various purposes. Letters attributed to Peter, James and John are probably not by these apostles but reflect other Christian thinking. I think we may gain a gist of the teaching of Jesus from the gospels and a reflection of one or two groups thinking from the first and second centuries from the New Testament generally. In the gospels I think the story of Jesus has been mythologized.’ I would really appreciate your comments and your version!
You’ll be seein gmy version. But hey, yours isn’t one sentence!
My view is that you will never ever change the mind of a fundamentalist pastor, ESPECIALLY if you try to argue/reason with him.
Thanks for words of wisdom – I’m sure you are right and I need to take it on board. Have you read books on why we don’t ‘change our mind’?? I read one last year and it was fascinating, going into the neurobiology and evolution of why our brain can prevent us doing so, and why it is so difficult. However, the book I read also went into epistemology and how research IS helping canvassers change opinions, eg helping swing votes turn towards allowing same sex marriage. They advocated being curious and asking questions, helping the person you were talking to ask questions themselves, and making connection. Presenting information as you say, will never do it…
Ah, but you might put a dent in his armor! Your debate with Dan Wallace (actually…a Dan Wallace speech by itself, to which I offered up in reply your debate with Wallace) got one Southern Baptist preacher I know to admit maybe not everything in the Bible is absolute truth!
Whoa….
I am excited about this thread! Maybe you could supplement it with a guest post by Paul T Sloan, who has a book coming out.
Thanks.
Totally unrelated question: I see significant parallels between the beginning and growth of the LDS church and what we can know about the beginnings of Christianity. Both began with a handful of followers, and both followed approximately the same growth curve over their first 200 years, with early Christianity having only a slightly more rapid growth as a percentage of available population. However, the curves are strikingly similar. In addition, the attractiveness of each religion over that period of growth seems likely to have been of a similar origin – that is, the sense of community and support provided from within each group, even in the face of some persecution. Have you ever studied this similarity? I look at the growth of LDS as a sort of laboratory for the study of western religions and the growth of a community of believers.
This is essentially what the late sociologist of religion Rodney Stark does in his book The Rise of Christianity — uses the growth of the LDS movement as a lens to understand the appeal of early Christianity in the Roman Empire.
The New Testament in one sentence:
One man enters, three gods leave [Ric Flair voice] woooooooooooooooo!
Hello Bart curious your thoughts on the rather close relationship between Philemon and Colossians epistle. Do you think the close relationship may make philemon more likely to be inauthentic? Or perhaps the writer of Colossians saw how short Philemon was and decided to “expand it”. Colossians does seem to copy other epistles. Just curious.
Thanks for your time.
There are good reasons for thinking Colossians was ont written by Paul (involving its writing style, its themes, and its theological views), so if one of them was reliant on the other, it seems more likely that Philemon, that lacks these problems, is the authentic one.
I would sum it up like this:
“The New Testament is a collection of books about Jesus, his life, death, resurrection and its repercussions, written allegedly by his first followers in a timespan of several decades after the alleged events took place.”
I know it’s a tad vague and general, but for someone that supposedly really doesn’t have a clue about it, I think it’s quite solid 😂
The New Testament is a book of fact and fiction about a first century CE itinerant preacher, faith healer, and apocalyptic prophet who is believed by his followers to be a divine being.
Go to God and ask Him.
Bart wrote:
But there’s no evidence that I’ve ever seen or heard of that there could be two Sabbaths a week. I think the person who said that might have just got something confused..
Bart, it is said that there were over 50 weekly Sabbaths every Jewish year and seven annual holy convocations. It is further claimed that these seven annual holy convocations were called Sabbaths by the Jews. It is also claimed that the day Jesus died (Wednesday or Thursday) was the day before the annual Sabbath of Passover (Nisan 15). There is no evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures that these seven annual holy convocations were called Sabbaths but there does appear to be evidence that Jews called Nisan 15 a Sabbath, whatever day of the week it might fall on. Jews to this day claim Nisan 15 is the annual Sabbath and they wave the Omer every year on Nisan 16.
I’d define the New Testament as “a collection of early Christian writings that church leaders in the 4th century had come to view as divinely inspired — mostly by virtue of their believed apostolic (or apostolic-adjacent) authorship — and authoritative in describing the life, teachings, and death/resurrection of Jesus, Christian ethics, and soteriology.”
As Bart has pointed out many times, the canon came into focus over a long period of time — and via much debate — and was not pulled out of a hat at the Council of Nicaea in 325.
Can we do this as a film pitch?
Movie: THE SON
*music starts* A kind, miraculous, eloquent man comes out of NOWHERE.
Everyone thinks he’s the son of a manual worker and a handmaiden, but he’s actually the son of her LORD. (CASTING: Governor Schwarzenegger/Terminator.)
The LORD has a father in heaven so loving and wise they call him GOD.
THE SON gives cryptic pastoralist speeches. But if you know where the NARROW WAY is, he’s offering to place Jews matrilineally atop the Semetic confederacy prophesied in ISAIAH.
The LORD’s kingdom is the most developed in the Roman Empire. The handmaiden’s the least. (Schwarzenegger’s California, his maid’s Guatemala in the Americas.)
THE SON offers the fruits of advanced society — medicated oils, running water, distillation, proto-democracy. As kingdom custom, to gauge popular support for THE SON, DISCIPLES gather monies for a people’s banquet to present THE SON’S LEADERSHIP.
They reject him. PLAN B – the Substitute King ritual, a coronation necessary to acquire ancient nomadic Jerusalem’s RIGHTS, but not REGION.
EPILOGUE: Refugee followers flood to Pella. THE SON shepherds them from the calm KINGDOM on its border. Revelation 2:17–the best have their names carved on WHITE ROCK removed in making Nabataean Abgarid Edessa’s, now MIDYAT’s underground city: https://arkeonews.net/the-excavation-which-started-in-a-cave-in-turkeys-mardin-turned-into-a-huge-underground-city/
I think the question is too contrived. Just because the writings of many different people are integrated into a composite volume, doesn’t equate sufficient continuity among the writings. Honestly, if someone asked me that question I would reply that they need to improve the question because it is too vague and meaningless. What do they really want to know?
”The NT is the foundation of the Christian religion”
If the young questioner wants to know more: ”Read Mark, and tell me what you think”
“what the NT is”, what would you say? ”
we learned that the NT replaced the Old Covenant. But now I think who ratified the New Covenant? An agreement with the Creator of the Universe.
“‘Covenant” is usually kind of legal agreement between 2parties with obligations on both sides; a “testament” is usually a legal expression of the will of one party in connection with others”
OT: ” The people were to keep the law God gave & in return he would protect them &promote their welfare.”
In the prophet Jeremiah there is a prophecy of a future “New” covenant between God & his people, written on their hearts instead of on tablets of stone (Jeremiah 31:31). When Christians arrived on the scene, they declared that this “new covenant” had now been made through the death & resurrection of Jesus. This is the new “agreement” or “will of God for his people”
that’s why I ask when did Christianity actually begin?
entire collection of these 27 (and only these 27) did not emerge until the end of the 4th century &become more or less definitive only later (5th century or so). The collection was never ratified by vote, but simply emerged as a wide consensus.
Dr. Ehrman,
Any idea at all about what kind of a revelation Paul may have been mentioning here? Gal. 2:2: “Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation…”
It sounds like he’s saying he believes God told him to go, possibly in a dream, possibly in a prophecy that a Christian made in his community during a worship service, or something else.
Prof. Ehrman,
I found an interesting article that makes this claim, is this true? “There are several clear indicators in St. Paul’s letters that he was intimately familiar with this [Merkabah mysticism] mystical practice. For example, St. Paul refers to speaking in the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). The most important text in this regard, however, is 2 Corinthians 12:1-6. Though St. Paul frames the account of this visionary experience as the experience of another man, there is a broad agreement among both the Fathers and contemporary scholars that St. Paul is describing his own experience, as alluded to in verse 6. In describing this visionary experience, he utilizes language directly parallel to that found in Merkabah sources. He speaks of the ‘third heaven’ (v. 2) and thence into paradise (v. 3) describing a series of ascents. He likewise speaks of having heard utterances that cannot be repeated from angelic beings (v. 4).”
There have long been scholars who have argued that Paul had close ties to some forms of Jewish mysticism and there are certainly some suggestions of it in his writings. But almost all of his writings are more closely tied to Jewish apocalyptic thought. The idea of having visionary experiences, and understanding there to be multiple heavens, etc. can be found in a range of ancient sources, not just Merkabah mysticism and not just Jewish.
Dr. Ehrman,
There is no reason to believe that the other disciples like Peter, James Jesus’ brother, and John and so forth were into mysticism, is that correct?
No evidence one way or the other, except to say that if someone argues they were they would bear the burden of proof, and would have to show that such views were important in rural Galilee at the time. Seems unlikely.