ow did we get the New Testament? Are we missing
books that should have been included? Are some of its books forgeries? Over
the years CHI has been asked many such questions. With the recent publication
of the Gospel of Judas and the promotion of Gnostic gospels by
the Da Vinci Code, the questions have become even more pertinent.
It boils down to this: is the New Testament reliable? In this brief treatment,
it has been impossible for CHI to cover all the many technicalities scholars
raise, but we have tried to give a quick overview. The list of references
at the end will be helpful to those who wish to probe deeper.
Wide Disagreement
First we have to acknowledge that there is no consensus as to when the
New Testament books were written much less how the canon formed. To those
who know in their hearts that the Bible is inspired, these issues may
not matter much, but to those who are still searching for truth and certainty,
the reliability of the Scripture can be quite important.
Knowing when the New Testament books were written is an important consideration
for guaging their reliability. The closer the writing of the New Testament
was to the events recorded in it, the more reliable it becomes for two
reasons: (1) the less time it was in oral transmission; (2) the greater
the likelihood that it represents eyewitnesses testimony. That being so,
when was the New Testament written and how do we know?
Although there is almost universal agreement that Paul wrote seven of his
letters in the period 48-62 AD, scholars are all over the place on the dates
of the rest of the New Testament books. The reason for this is that any
scheme of dating involves many assumptions and theoretical considerations about which there is
wide disagreement. Much expertese boils down to educated guesses which a
single archaeological find could overturn. It is safe to say, however, that
anyone who questions if the books were written early by the persons named
as their authors, can find strong arguments either way by top textual critics.
Nonetheless, as a matter of fact, the majority of textual critics argue
for later dates. At one time it was chic to declare many of the New Testament
books forgeries written about the middle of the second century or even
later. Careful scholarship, argument by argument, demolished that position.
Today the trend seems to be to acknowledge most New Testament books as
authentic and to accept more moderate dates for them. Even so, disagreement
between experts remains great. Two New Testament books are still widely
regarded as forgeries, namely 2 Peter and 2 Timothy. This problem of their
authorship is similar to the theory that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare.
No amount of evidence ever settles that question although, being much
closer to our own era, Shakespeare has much better documentation. If 2
Peter and 2 Timothy are forged, we have the improbable case of two books
written by anonymous spiritual giants who despite their evident spiritual
depth and calls for the highest virtue were petty enough to lie about
their names and their purposes.
When Is the Latest the New Testament Books Could Have
Been Written?
The dates for most New Testament Books cannot be moved up much later
than 95 AD because at that point they bump into the writings of the early
church father Clement of Rome who quoted from many of them. Early in the
next century, other church fathers also quoted the New Testament books
as did the Gnostics in the middle of the century. Quotes from the New
Testament books and allusions to them show that they were already in widespread
use during the last decade of the first century and first half of the
second century.
Typically when today's scholars claim late dates for books, it is for
the Gospel of John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, James, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy
and Titus. John is assigned a late date between 100 and 120; 2 Peter as
late as 175. However, competent scholars make persuasive arguments for
early dates for all of the above books.
One way to solve the dispute would be to find early New Testament manuscripts
which could be dated beyond dispute. Unfortunately, finds have been few.
We probably do not have any manuscripts of the New Testament from the
first century and very few pieces from the second. This is only to be
expected. Unless preserved inside stone pots or in some other dry place,
Papyri don't survive well for 2,000 years. Furthermore, under heavy use,
manuscripts deteriorate quickly, and New Testament writings were meant
to be used. Even such old manuscripts as we do have are dated differently
by different scholars. It would seem that carbon dating could help establish
firm dates, but in some cases there is not enough material left in the
little parchment scraps to test without annihilating all the evidence.
Even if there were sufficient material, carbon dating can only place material
within a time range. The range of error is often as wide as the scholarly
guestimates and so is of little help.
Arguments will continue to be wide because dating the remains of early
manuscripts using the shape of their letters and type of material is as
much an art as a science, leaving lots of room for disagreement. This
is especially true of two claims of early finds.
Two Old Finds?
Carsten Thiede has dated the Magdalen Papyrus (so called because it is
owned by Magdalen College, Oxford University) to 70 AD or earlier. This
consists of three scraps of Matthew, written on both sides (Thiede). Initial
reaction from scholars was negative (Stanton). Whether Thiede can convince
a majority of scholars remains to be seen.
Theories are fine, but can always be argued. Fixed dates are better.
An example of writings with fixed dates are the Qumran or Dead Sea scrolls.
We know these were sealed in the caves about 68 AD in advance of the Roman
invasion which destroyed the temple. Fragments of several New Testament
books may have been discovered among the texts found at Qumran. One, known
as 7Q5, has been identified as Mark 6:52-53. Although there are two discrepancies
in the fragment, both are of a kind that also appear in Coptic (Egyptian)
manuscripts. Significantly, that is where early tradition places Mark
as bishop. In that same cave was a fragment thought to be from 1 Timothy
and another likely from James. (Thiede 32-46; Wenham 177ff).
The value of this find is that if it does represent Mark and if the cave
was sealed in 68, it proves that Mark and possibly some other New Testament
books were written no later than that date. Stanton argues that the Qumran
scholars would not have had copies of Mark, because they would have disagreed
with its content. This is a weak argument; my library contains any number
of books with which I disagree. I have read them out of curiosity, for
understanding, or to refute them. Surely the community at Qumran were
no different.
What Are the Oldest surviving Manuscripts of the New
Testament?
Most scholars agree that the Magdalen papyrus is one of the oldest in
the world although they would not date it to the first century. The earliest
verifiable portion of the New Testament is the Rylands Papyrus. This scrap consists of a few verses from the Gospel of John. By general
consensus, it dates from about 120 AD.
Other old manuscripts are the Papyrus Bodmer II, written about
200, and containing most of the Gospel of John. The Chester Beatty
Biblical Papyri were all copied in the third century and contain
most of the New Testament.
Some famous early collections of New Testament books are the Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both fourth century), Codex
Alexandrinus (fifth century), Codex Bezae (fifth or sixth
century) and Codex Claromontanus (sixth century). A codex is
a manuscript bound like a book as opposed to a scroll.
There are about 4,000 other manuscripts of the New Testament that have
survived the ravages of time, demonstrating a strong documentary basis
for the Bible. No other early writing has that kind of support. But those
listed above are the oldest and best early copies we have.
As we have seen, however, copies made long after the originals do not
answer the question, when were the New Testament books written? Therefore
we turn to the fathers of the church to see what they had to say about
the question.
The Church Fathers and the New Testament.
The earliest church writers did not have a great deal to tell us about
how we got the New Testament books. Among those who did tell us something
was Papias who lived from ca. 70 AD to ca. 140. He was acquainted with
Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John; indeed, John himself was still
alive when Papias was a young man. Papias questioned eyewitness who had
known the apostles and recorded his findings. This included an account
of who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke. However his works are known mostly
from quotes by the fourth century church historian Eusebius and others.
Because Eusebius disagreed with Papias' theology, he accused him of being
a blockhead. (Papias believed that Christ would return to rule on the
earth for 1,000 years which Eusebius denied).
Apart from a few statements by Papias and others, most of our knowledge
about the origin and formation of the New Testament comes by inference
and deduction. One way we can gain such knowledge is by observing how
these writings were used. As we have said, by about 95 AD, documents show
that early church fathers were quoting from or alluding to the writings
of the evangelists and apostles. By 160 AD, almost every book which made
it into our present New Testament had been quoted in outside manuscripts.
Among those who did this quoting were Clement of Rome in his Epistle
to the Corinthians (ca. 96), the anonymous authors of the Epistle
of Barnabas and Didache, (both thought to date from ca.
100 AD), Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (letters written ca. 115), and Polycarp
(ca. 120). Since Clement's letter is the earliest mentioned here, it is
worth noting that he quoted from Acts, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews,
Luke, Mark, Matthew, 1 Peter, Romans, and Titus; and alluded to other
scriptures. We can be sure, therefore, that those books, at least, were
written before 100 AD. 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 John, Philippians,
2 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy are all quoted no later than 120, confirming
that all of them were written before then. Valentinian (writing about
140) and the Gnostics who followed him also quoted or alluded to a number
of Scriptures.
Could All of the Books Have Been Written before
70AD?
It is likely that all of the books of the New Testament were
written before 70AD. Not one of them mentions the fall of Jerusalem or
destruction of the temple as a past fact, not even those books whose arguments
would have been strengthened by such mention (Robinson). Chief among the
latter was Hebrews.
We can say with virtual certainty that Hebrews was written before 70AD. Daily sacrifices, which ceased with the destruction
of the temple, were still in force. The author's whole case is that
the old order is passing away. Had the temple already been destroyed,
he would surely have mentioned it because the fact would have greatly
strengthened his argument.
As we have seen, there is virtually unanimous agreement that 1
and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians,
Colossians and Philemon were written by Paul at various dates between 48 and 62.
The Qumran fragment of 1 Timothy (if valid) may be evidence that it was written before 68.
Acts was probably written
just after 62 AD. Scholars are pretty well agreed that Paul's imprisonment
in Rome, with which the book ends, takes us up to that year. After building
up to Paul's imprisonment and appeal, the author mysteriously breaks
off, leaving the story unresolved.
Acts was a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Therefore Luke (in some form or another) must be dated before 62.
Consensus is nearly unanimous that Luke uses material from Mark. Therefore Mark must be dated before Luke. (A few scholars reverse the
situation and say Mark borrowed from Luke but, for technical reasons,
having to do with Matthew, this is considered unlikely.) As we have
seen, a fragment of Mark was found in a Qumran cave and this strengthens
the case for an early Mark. Tradition says Mark prepared his gospel
shortly after Peter's first visit to Rome. Wenham makes a strong case
for dating Mark's gospel between 45 and 50. (Wenham chapters 7 &
12).
Thus it is at least arguable that the majority of the New Testament was
written before 70, well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to Christ's
ministry. Of the remaining books, I will mention only two.
The oldest tradition and Papias' statement place Matthew's gospel
first. If this tradition is true, and if Mark and Luke were both written
before 62, then Matthew has to be even earlier. Few scholars accept this. The evidence strongly suggests Mark was written first.
James has a strongly Jewish
flavor and barely mentions Christ. It seems unaware of the serious conflict
which developed between Christians and Jews soon after Christ's resurrection.
Consequently it may be the earliest Christian writing we own. Dating James
is such a slippery task that scholars tend to place it either very early
or very late. If the third Qumran fragment mentioned above is indeed from
James, this affirms the scholarship of those who have put it early. The
main reason for dating it late is because some see its teaching on faith
and works as a rebuttal to Paul. This is by no means necessary.
We have seen when the books of the New Testament may have been written.
But how did they come to be included in the Bible? Are there forgeries
among our books? Were there books which should have been included but
were not? We will tackle those questions in part 2.
Part 2: Selection, Lists, Versions, References.
