Loading...How did we get the twenty-seven books of the New Testament? And why? I’m in the middle of a thread that is meant to provide a *sketch* of how it happened; I’ll be writing a book on the question, and these are my preliminary thoughts about the topics that I’ll be covering, one at a time.
In previous posts I’ve pointed out that the early Christians started out with a canon of Scripture: as Jews they had the Hebrew Bible as an authority for understanding their beliefs, ethics, and religious practices; but as Christianity began to develop its own distinctive views on things, church leaders came to think needed authoritative direction – especially since so many different Christian groups had so many different views on so many issues (not just what to believe but also how to live, how to behave, how to worship together, and so on).
What could be decisive authorities?
Here’s where I pick up in my thinking:
The Need for Apostolic Authorities
It was widely known that Jesus himself had never written anything; he delivered his teachings orally. After his resurrection he appeared to his disciples and then to a few others, most notably Paul. He commissioned these special recipients of his postmortem grace to deliver his message and to convert others to believe in him for eternal life. They were therefore called “apostles”: meaning: “those who were sent / commissioned by Christ.” According to the universal Christian understanding, these were the ones who knew the truth and who could, therefore, adjudicate differences among different Christians and their communities.
The problem was that
Why are all the books of the New Testament thought to be written by Jesus’ own apostles? Join the blog and see! Click here for membership options
The 1 Timothy citation of Luke is in 1 Tim 5:18, not 5:10.
Scribal corruption of the text.
How would you compare the intellectual capabilities of Paul versus Peter?
I don’t know how we could compare their IQ’s per se, but Paul was by far the more intellectually trained and astute. (Lots of illiterate people have higher IQs than school teachers in town).
Very valid. For example, take the case of “The Gospel of Fred”, written by a 1st century follower who refused to stoop to pseudepigrapha. He used Jesus’ words in the context of futuristic values that would be more acceptable to Christians of today, such as when he wrote “A man should not divorce his wife unless there is a prenuptial agreement” and “…for the laborer deserves his wages and an annual bonus commensurate with his company’s profits”. Nobody knows Fred or his thoughtful contribution. He refused to lower himself to claiming to write as Peter, even though he had a greater claim than the other pretenders; his middle name really was Peter.
Bart,
I have read that the Pastoral epistles are thought to be later forgeries by scholars due to the large number of different words between them. Is this an accurate understanding of the primary reason? Also, do you know, when the original study was being conducted, what author(s) they used as a control group to determine the “normal” number of additional words that are usually found between an author’s early works and works written a decade or two later?
It’s actually not that simple I”m afraid. These texts are much too small to allow significant studies of vocabulary preferences. The major differences are in writing style, theological views and assumptions, presupposed historical contexts, and the use of the *same* words to mean *different* things. I have a discsussoin of the matter in my book Forged; if you want a deep dive into the weeds, I provide it in my academic book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Thanks for pointing me to that source: it was a very detailed treatment of the pastorals which gives me a much clearer view of the scholarly discussions. The differences in vocabulary are the arguments that I had heard in layman sources (which I think also rounded down the stylistic differences into “vocabulary” ). I do struggle agreeing with your view that the “bishops and deacons” mentioned in Philippians cannot be used as evidence to suggest that the pastorals could have described the church in Paul’s lifetime. While no directions were given (as they are in 1 Timothy) related to their function, doesn’t their differentiation from the rest of the congregation suggest an evolution in the church structure had begun, relative to that described in Corinthians? Certainly by the time of Ignatius’ epistles, the church hierarchy seems to have developed even beyond that described by the Pastorals. It seems difficult to believe (as I’ve sometimes read) that the pastorals could essentially be contemporaneous with Ignatius. In your opinion, when were the Pastorals likely authored? (I may have missed it in “Forgery and Counterforgery)
I usually date the Pastorals to the end of the first century, so virtually between 1 Corinthians and Ignatius; that would make sense of the trajectory. I would say there is clear evolution from the charismatic system assumed in Corinth and the offices laid out in the Pastorals. And it *may* be that Philippians is somewhere along the line in there. But Philippians cannot be much later than 2 Corinthians (assuming that it’s later at all), and so I’m genuinely not sure that “evolution” is the right explanation — especially since we aren’t given any indication of what “overseers” and “ministers” *means* in Philippi. That is, we don’t know what they were doing, how they were chosen (if they were chosen), or whether they are seen as “official” at all, or … anything else. I’m loathe to assume later understandings of the terms are indicative of what htey meant in this early occurence: those later understandings themselves *significantly* developed over time, after the Pastorals, after Ignatius: no one, e.g., would say that the bishops Ignatius mentions were functioning like the bishops mentioned in writings decades later. So I’m sure there was a big difference between the church organization that Paul desribes in his authentic letters from those described in teh Pastorals; and I just don’t see how we can know whether the reference in Philippians is describing something significantly different from what we find in Paul’s other letters or not. Another option is simply that “overseer” means “person whose church you’re meeting in” and “minister” means “those who are collecting the alms” or “those who go to visit the sick” or … something else (rather than an official office)
I admit I still have some confusion on this point. Without a definition of what the overseers and deacons were doing in Philippi, it is difficult to presume their functions are the same as the functions of the bishops and deacons in the Pastorals. However, by the same token, isn’t it equally difficult to assume they are not the same, such that it can be said (as evidence against Pauline authorship) that the Pastorals describe a church that could not have existed in Paul’s day? We don’t know what these role did, but doesn’t their existence speak to the fact that in Paul’s lifetime the charismatic leadership structure had been, or was beginning, to be replaced? After all, the absence of their described function implies that it was already understood and had been established before the time he wrote Philippians. I guess I don’t see how the absence of role definitions means we can ignore that roles of some kind had emerged in the church, such that we can say the description of the Pastoral church is incompatible with Pauline authorship. Can’t we not assume they’re different any more than we can assume they’re the same?
My view is that if we can’t say either way, then we can’t use out conclusions as evidence. That’s why I think we just have to leave the verse out of the equation.
I would agree that the Philippians knew what their function was; but we don’t! We only know how the terms came to be used later. And they were not used consistently to mean just a single thing; the offices developed very quickly over time, so that, for example, the view of both offices in the Pastorals in the 90s or so is very different from the view found in Ignatius about 20 years later. It would be a mistake, therefore, to say that what the Pastorals assume about the titles is the same as Ignatius. Mutatis mutandis, the titles in Philippians can’t be assumed to be that of the later Pastorals.
Does this mean we can conclude that the pastorals describe a church structure that did not exist in Paul’s day due to its roles (as opposed to the charismatic leadership structure in Corinth in the early 50s), and that this is evidence against Pauline authorship?
Yes, that’s the normal view. But it can’t be the one decisive argument since it would then be circular reasoning.
What is your opinion of the assertion that 1 Clement makes use of Titus 3:1 in 1 Clement 2:7? Clement makes a wide use of sources and it was my impression, given the context of the divisions at Corinth, that he was attempting to reconcile many of the disparate works of the early Christians to try and show that they suggest a unified theology. You had mentioned in your discussion of 2 Thessalonians in “Forgery and Counterforgery” that forgeries of Paul’s letters may have arisen almost immediately after he died, if not during his lifetime. Could a respectable argument be made that Clement uses Titus and that this suggests a first century authorship of the pastorals?
Yes, it’s an interesting parallel. My view is that Titus probably *was* written in the first century, toward the end; if this is indeed an allusion to the Titus passage, then it would be before 1 Clement, usually dated around 95 CE or so. Part of the issue is that the wording of the two passages is not *exactly* alike, though very close and that it is a kind of cliche that you can easily imagine being said throughout the Christian tradition. Since the author of 1 Clement does not indicate he is quoting anyone/anything, it’s hard to know if he is.
It does seem like a stock phrase that could emerge naturally, making it hard to claim as a quote, though it certainly is interesting. I must admit that the usual dating of 1 Clement to the 90s AD confounds me in many respects though.
A date in the 90s renders his use of Malachi 3:1 at the end of Ch. 23 very strange: to entreat his readers to watch for Jesus to return soon to… the temple the Romans destroyed? This seems a poor comfort to a divided congregation. Further, in Ch. 41 he seems to explicitly say that offerings are only made (as if they are presently made) in Jerusalem at the alter of the temple. His omission of James’ death in Ch. 5, when he lists Peter’s and Paul’s seems equally conspicuous since he includes lesser known martyrs.
From what I have found, it seems the 95 date comes from J.B. Lightfoot who assumed Clement wrote his epistle while pope and that the recent “calamities” he mentioned were the persecutions under Domitian. However, not only is the authorship as pope an assumption, the role of Clement as either second or third pope seems far from certain.
Lightfoot was unusually brilliant, but there do not appear to have been persecutions under Domitian, and the “troubles” mentioned do not appear to have been external opposition but internal turmoil. Still, the date cntinues to make a lot of sense; I have an extended discussion of it in my Introduction to 1 Clement in vol. 1 of The Apostolic Fathers (my translatino for Loeb). Maybe I should post some of that on the blog (though I’m not sure it’s the keenest interest of most blog members!)disabledupes{b47d4a765678b23bb2d2fd94bdffbc20}disabledupes
Tertullian’s description of the alleged persecution under Domitian also seems less “calamitous” than Eusebius describes a century later. He only mentions exiles, and those were reversed.
The argument *against* a date of authorship in the mid-60s (after the deaths of Peter/Paul but before James’ death/Temple Destruction) seems to hinge on the use of the word “ancient” to describe the church at Corinth in 47:6. This, however, requires a literal reading of ancient (as opposed to flattery connoting “early” or “original” since the congregation pre-dated even Paul’s gospel, according to Acts) such that an “ancient” church obviously cannot be 10-20 years old, but apparently can be 40-50. Thus, the argument demands the distinction between ancient and non-ancient as about 30 years, but also “ancient” as including under a century. That we should read “ancient” as literal (and yet apt to describe a church in the 90s AD) but Clement’s present-tense mentions of the temple as figurative is very confusing to me. There must be more evidence than this use of “ancient” to overburden a 60s date of authorship in favor of a 90s one, but I have been unable to find it. Can you advise?
Ah, see my earlier response. I give a discussion in my Loeb volume translation.
I read your introduction to the Loeb edition. If it is true that the arguments against an early date are predicated on the connotations of a few words, I think I will have to lean towards an early date. I struggle to see that “ancient” can be understood such that it eliminates the 60s AD but not the 90s. The mention of members of the church “from youth to old age” can, I think reasonably, be addressed through reference to the unconventional use of age in other early church writings. John, for instance, writes to an audience as “little children” and the author of the Pastorals (trying to appear as authentically writing in the 60s) refers to Timothy’s youth, though it seems unlikely he could be younger at that point than his mid-30s or, according to traditional dates for his birth, mid-40s. In the same way, it is untroubling that churches were headed by leaders twice removed from the disciples as many old men were probably the original appointments, and the persecutions of Nero would have provided further cause for succession pre-emptive of the workings of time.
That is not to suggest these are not significant evidences. However, it is difficult to balance them against the multiple references that suggest an existing Temple, the conspicuous absence of James’ death, and the rudimentary structure of the church. A date soon after Paul’s death would also correspond to the catastrophes described in the church at Rome and the replacement of Presbyters at Corinth. A date in the 60s would put the divisions Paul originally addressed with the weight of his authority as fresh and likely still present among the Corinthians. His death would occasion opportunity for the removal of his favorites. A date in the late 60s seems to reconcile the disparate parts of the letter most comprehensively with few internal objections except for some connotations that seemingly can be justified by explanations I hope are not mistaking optimism for reason. My current view is increasingly towards a date around 68/69 AD (not that my view is of consequence to any but myself haha), and hopefully it is not completely intellectually deficient. I will have to look at Welborn who you referenced as championing a similar perspective in your introduction.
The existing Temple I think is one of the easier issues to deal with. In rabbinic writings centuries later the temple was still referred oto as if functioning. I don’t know why the author would have been inclined to mentioned James’s death necessarily, any more than the deaths of James the son of Zebedee or Stephen, e.g. He was just interesetd in Peter and Paul. And I don’t think that you need the 60s to have a problem in the church in Corinth. The “ancient” church really doesn’t seem to make sense if we’re talking about a church establish a decade or so earlier, and we simply don’t know of official leaders in churches at that time. So 90s seems a pretty solid guess to me.
Ah. That is useful information. Its probably more than I could ask of anyone’s memory because it seems extremely niche, but do you remember the names of these Rabbinic works; or know of a resource I could use to find them? Admittedly, I’d expect a Christian to view the temple’s destruction as a sign of “the new covenant” and would be surprised if Clement follows Rabbinic tendencies on his treatment of the Temple. Still, I believe in being thorough and trying to consider all the details so I would like to look at the works you are referencing.
As for James, I think his omission is of a different kind than Stephen and James son of Zebedee. Its hard to know how significant Stephen actually was except for his alleged relation to Saul’s transformation to Paul. Little is known of James son of Zebedee as well, and his death is just a footnote in Acts. Both were minor compared to James, a pillar of the church, and both died in a different time. James, Paul, and Peter were all martyred within a decade of each other which must have been earth-shattering to the church.
I don’t have specific references, but they are common in the Talmud. It’s not that Clement is following the rabbis. It’s that referring to the Temple as functioning is not at all evidence that it really was still functioning. Authors who based their views on “book learning” speak of past institutions as present.
If referring to the Temple as functioning is not even some evidence that it was really functioning, what would constitute evidence that the temple was still functioning?
Someone actually saying it was, as opposed to talking about the function of the temple.
What if you were able to time travel to a dinner party with the actual author the letter known today as 2 Timothy and you asked him bluntly, “Are you a forger?” What do you imagine he would say?
He would say — could you ask that in Greek? 🙂 Normally when forgers in the ancient world were caught they made excuses for themselves. We have some intriguing instances of that in ancient Christianity; well, one striking case, of someone actually claiming to be Timothy! (His name was Salvian, from Marseilles; a presbyter of a church) I talk about it in my book Forged (pp. 31-32).
“As a result, he had no trouble confronting Jesus’ chief disciple Peter, directly charging him with hypocrisy for not recognizing the implications of what Jesus had revealed (Galatians 2).”
I thought it was uncertain if this Peter was the Peter who was Jesus’ chief disciple.
Most people/scholars think it was certain. I flip a coin. Whether Cephas was one of the twelve or not, he was one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church years later.
I grew up Lutheran, but in college converted to a evangelical sect that believed that there was a true and pure Christianity that was corrupted over time. Now I see simply by reading the NT that there were a variety of beliefs right from the start. Frankly, if Christianity had allowed for a variety of views I might have stayed with it, but as it is I see the choices and reject them all!
You are one of the most thoughtful, and thought provoking, members of the blog and I’ve always enjoyed your posts and comments. Once I began to question the assumptions about scriptural inerrancy and the perfection of the early church, I began to believe that bringing light to these matters was key to changing perspectives. Churches often are full of elitists – “I’m a child of God because of Jesus…and you aren’t.” If such perspectives could be changed from within, what a gain that would be for humanity! I’m devoted to doing what little a can to move the needle in that direction. I believe, in my little country church, we are out of the red.
It seems you first reconstruct a very particular portrait of Paul, project your conclusions onto it, and then insist it is the historical Paul. Is it? Is there honestly a consensus in present-day scholarship that the six disputed letters were written by those jostling for leadership? Luke Timothy Johnson (Margaret Mitchel as well) has gone so far even to challenge that their really exists a “center” in Pauline theology from which to judge the other letters in the Pauline corpus (See his The Writings of the New Testament). Your last sentence “There is little doubt about why later Christian writers willingly misrepresented themselves as apostles,” I suspect, is largely driven by an a priori commitment to undercut anything resembling a unified (although diverse) Christ-centered Judaism. Maybe for you there is little doubt, but to claim that on the behalf of historical-critical scholarship on the whole is surely a stretch. Of all people, you should know that all historical conclusions are, at best, highly provisional even when nuanced. Why not write instead, “It seems to me highly probable about why later…”?
No, that’s decidedly what I work hard not to do. In my training I became completely convinced that htere is no center to Paul (that, as you may know, has been a very big debate for over half a century; but for people in my academic tradition the “center” of Paul idea died in the late 1970s). I certainly don’t think there was anything like a unified Christ-centered Judaism in early Christianty. When I say there was “little doubt” I’m referring to little doubt about WHY authors would claim to be Paul when they weren’t (as, e.g., that authors of 3 Corinthians, the letter to the Laodiceans, the correspondence between Paul and Seneca did). If you want to see a full argument, I develop it in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
An aside: a few minutes of attempted google research into this topic of Pauline center led me to the video “N.T. Wright and Michael Bird discuss Paul and the Faithfulness of God” in which Wright says that “so many Christians assume that the name of the game is to go to heaven when you die and for Paul there is no question, he is talking about a whole new creation … for Paul, God the creator is going to renew the whole of creation”. I was a bit stunned to hear that explanation of Paul’s message. It isn’t discussed much as far as I can tell.
It’s widely held among scholars! You haven’t heard it discussed much because scholars don’t write such things for lay readers as much as they should!
Is there any historical explanation for why the gospel of Marc was assigned to Marc rather than Peter?
That just strikes me as peculiar.
I’d say there are three things to consider, and maybe it’s one, the other, or all three. The Gospel talks a lot about Peter but never narrates his words or deeds in the first person. That maybe led people to think he wasn’t himself putting pen to papyrus. Also the NT itself indicates that Peter was illiterate (Acts 4:13); that may have had something to do with it. Also, I’ve been long intrigued by the circumstance that right when the Gospel of Mark was named Mark there actually *was* a Gospel of Peter in circulation that was being condemned as heretical. Possible the ones who named Mark Mark didn’t want people to think it was the heretical account? That name was already taken?
Dr. Ehrman,
Aside from Josephus, are there are any non-Christian writings in the first century that talk about Jesus, the disciples, or Christianity?
Nope.
What all is considered undisputed mentions of Jesus from Josephus?
None is undisputed, since there are people who want to argue they are inserted into Josephus’s writings. But most scholars are sure they go to Josephus (at least in part; the first appears to have been edited by a later Christian scribe to insert Christian views of Jesus). The references are Antiquities 18.9.1 and 20.3.3.