The New Testament Part 1: Assembly

Introduction

Skeptics who seek to challenge the truthfulness of Christianity do so using several clever means. One strategy for repudiating a religious faith is to attack the credibility and/or the historicity of the founder of that religion and/or the sacred writings of the faith. In the case of Christianity, the founder of the faith is also the object of the faith.

This situation theoretically affords skeptics the opportunity to dispel both at the same time because one only need shed serious doubt on the credibility of the sacred writings to deal a serious blow to any sacred or spiritual significance of the founder, who in this case is Jesus of Nazareth. Skeptics have attempted to accomplish this in part by asserting the New Testament was constructed by the church at the Council of Nicaea for its own religious and political purposes.

Related Post

Early Writings

The books comprising the New Testament canon weren’t just a collection of writings taken from a larger selection of equally qualified writings selected at the Council of Nicaea to further the Church’s agenda, but they are the summation of the inspired and accepted collection of writings that were in use for centuries by the Christian world. 

The New Testament documents were written very early in the Christian faith. Their message was initially transmitted orally by the eyewitnesses and were eventually constructed from the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles. The sum total of the books that would become the New Testament were all completed by the end of the first century. Throughout their existence they were copied, distributed, read, and referenced in the writings of the early church Fathers who came after the disciples.

Early Church Usage

From this can be seen a pattern of acceptance and usage of the canonical books, while at the same time there was a repudiation of non-apostolic and non-orthodox writings. Ultimately, the New Testament canon that is known today was not formed by a declaration of a Church Council. It was recognized to be made up of books that were written by, or with the help of, the Apostles and that aligned with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (Apostolic Orthodoxy). These books were widely circulated and used by the church long before any Church Council addressed them.

Early Transmission

The earliest transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus were oral. At the very beginning were the eye-witness testimonies of the disciples who witnessed both the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus. Many criticize oral tradition as unreliable, at best, or easily distorted or embellished, at worst. However, in this criticism they neglect to understand the commitment to memorization and the accuracy of transmission of oral tradition in cultures like first century Israel. Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler explain that, in these cultures, oral tradition was fixed, and great care was taken to maintain the accuracy of transmission of these accounts.¹

Preserving the Oral Traditions

They conclude that these oral traditions were established during the life of the eyewitnesses and any deviations would have been quickly refuted en masse and brought back in line with the original teachings. They go on to point out that this can be seen directly in Paul’s writing of 1 Corinthian 15 which was a creed that he had received orally and was passing on in his letter.² The Apostle Paul even challenged those skeptical of the claims of the creed. He names those who witnessed the risen Christ first-hand so that the truthfulness of the claims could be verified (1 Cor. 15:5-7).

Related Post

Christian skeptic Bart Ehrman asserts that the motivation for creating authoritative Christian writings makes perfect sense. He explains that Jesus and the Disciples were Jews who were accustomed to observing the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative religious documents.³ He also admits that it is clear from the texts that Jesus and His disciples considered His words to be authoritatively on par with the Hebrew Scriptures.⁴

Moving From Oral to Written Accounts

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that, although the initial transmission of the Gospel material was likely oral in nature, the Christian leadership and community would have understood and been comfortable with the need for written accounts given the ascension of Jesus and the death of many of the Apostles. Additionally, much of what is now part of the New Testament canon are letters written to various churches and individuals to address a variety of theological issues. It’s very clear that the early transmission of the New Testament accounts can be trusted given the nature of oral tradition in Hebrew culture and the corroborating testimony of extra Biblical accounts from many contemporary Jewish, Roman, and Greek historians.⁵

Canonicity of the New Testament Books

Eventually, as time passed, the accounts of Jesus began to be written down in order to preserve them. Luke begins his Gospel by explaining that, like several others, he was recording an account of what was witnessed regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in order to pass it along to others (Lk 1:1-4). During this time there were also other writings, including epistles or letters, written by some of the Apostles to various churches regarding the gospel message and other behavioral and theological concerns.

Additionally, in the decades and centuries that followed, there were what is today referred to as “non-canonical” or “extra-canonical” writings. These are the writings that were not ultimately included in the New Testament canon. Some were considered heretical while others just did not rise to the level of inspired Scripture.

How were the books that formed the New Testament Chosen?

The answer to this question is nuanced. From a Spiritually inspired perspective, the books became canon as soon as they were written in the first century and were discovered to be so by the church. From a human perspective, the process was much slower and more laborious. However, the process of acceptance for most of the canon was much earlier and clearer than many skeptics are comfortable admitting.

Many assert that the primary canonization process occurred around the 4^th century. However, Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles assert that the pivotal time frame of the acceptance of most of the books of the canon occurred during the 2^nd century.⁶

How the Apostles Viewed Their Writings

There is some debate as to whether the Apostles knew that they were creating Scripture at the time that they wrote. However, there is a compelling argument for the early acknowledgement of the writings of the Apostles and early disciples as authoritative and on par with Old Testament Scripture. They first point out that Paul referenced specifically as Scripture quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 indicating that he believed the writings of Luke were as authoritative as Deuteronomy (1 Tim. 5:18).⁷

The second reference they make is Peter’s declaration that Paul’s writings are authoritative when he references them as Scripture in the same way that Jesus and the Apostles understood the Old Testament to be Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16).⁸ As time went on it became more common for certain books to be grouped together and eventually the need to address which books should be considered an official part of the canon arose.

Related Post

Conclusion

Many have challenged the authenticity of the New Testament canon. They often claim that the Christian church got together at a church council many centuries after the death of Jesus and selected certain texts from a group of many Christian writings in order to construct a holy book that was favorable to the political and religious doctrines of the church. One of the most popular modern assertions of this can be found in Dan Brown’s The Davinci Code. He cites in his fictional work one of the most popular theories that the New Testament canon was set by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE (AD).

He claims this was done because Constantine wanted the political advantage that it would bring, so he had Jesus declared a deity and set the New Testament canon at this council. However, the first problem that these skeptics run into is that there is no evidence that the New Testament canon was discussed at the council of Nicaea. In fact, the only early church councils that addressed the New Testament canon were the local Council of Laodicea, the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

Purpose of the Councils

These councils didn’t come together to select the books that would comprise the New Testament canon. These councils merely affirmed the twenty-seven books that had already been accepted as the set of canonized books by most of the church. While it is not uncommon to assume that one would find a very long, organic process of books becoming accepted as part of the official canon, the evidence shows that the books that would become a part of the New Testament canon were accepted and used both very early and widely in the churches.

They would eventually be collected and consolidated into groups and canonical lists. There was some debate, but ultimately these books were accepted, and others were rejected, based on criteria like Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, Antiquity, and Ecclesiastical usage. Based on textually critical criteria like these, the New Testament documents rose to the level of canonicity very early with most of them being clearly distinguishable from non-canonical and heretical writings. The result of this early process was merely recognized and affirmed at the later church councils.

Blessings

1. Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 171-72. ↩︎
2. Holden and Geisler, 172, ↩︎
3. Bart D. Ehrman Truth and Fiction in the Davinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) EBSCOhost, 77 ↩︎
4. Ehrman, 78. ↩︎
5. Holden and Geisler, 172. ↩︎
6. Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2009), 5. ↩︎
7. Köstenberger, et. al, 5. ↩︎
8. Köstenberger, et. al, 5. ↩︎