Posted on 09/09/2013 6:54:55 PM PDT by Gamecock
Full Title: Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #1: “The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”
This new blog series is designed to help the lay believer learn some basic facts about the New Testament canon—the kind of facts that might be helpful in a conversation with a skeptic or inquisitive friend. The first of these facts is one that is so basic that it is often overlooked. It is simply that the New Testament books are the earliest Christian writings we possess.
One of the most formidable challenges in any discussion about the New Testament canon is explaining what makes these 27 books unique. Why these and not others? There are many answers to that question, but in this blog post we are focusing on just one: the date of these books. These books stand out as distinctive because they are earliest Christian writings we possess and thus bring us the closest to the historical Jesus and to the earliest church. If we want to find out what authentic Christianity was really like, then we should rely on the writings that are the nearest to that time period.
This is particularly evident when it comes to the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are the only gospel accounts that derive from the first century. Sure, there are a few scholars have attempted to put the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, but this has not met with much success. After all the scholarly dust has settled, even critics agree that these four are the earliest accounts of Jesus that we possess.
Now, a few qualifications are in order. First, it should be noted that there are disagreements about the dating of some New Testament books. Some critical scholars have argued that some New Testament books are forgeries written in the second century. Meanwhile, other scholars have defended the authenticity (and first-century date) of these books. This is a debate that we cannot delve into here. However, even if these debated books are left aside in our discussions, we can still affirm that the vast majority of the New Testament writings (including the four gospels) still remain the earliest Christian writings we possess.
Second, some may point out that 1 Clement is a Christian writing that dates to the first century, and it is not included in the New Testament canon. True, but the consensus date for 1 Clement is c.96 A.D. This date is later than all our New Testament books. The only possible exception is Revelation which is dated, at the latest, around 95-96 A.D. But, some date Revelation earlier. Even so, this does not affect the macro point we are making here.
Just to be clear, we are not arguing here that books are canonical simply because they have a first century date. Other Christian writings existed in the first century that were not canonical—and perhaps we will discover some of these in the future. Our point is not that all first century books are canonical, but that all our canonical books are first century. And that is a point worth making.
In the end, every Christian should remember one basic fact, namely that the New Testament books are distinctive because, generally speaking, they are the earliest Christian writings we possess. None are earlier. If so, then it seems that the books included in the New Testament are not as arbitrary as some would have us believe. On the contrary, it seems that these are precisely the books we would include if we wanted to have access to authentic Christianity.
Michael J. Kruger, President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
Sorry, I can lend to you no credibility. The 'scriptures' Jesus unfolded for them are the same scriptures we now call the Old Testament and possibly some of the Books of Enoch. You know that, so I cannot for you any credulity. I believe you posted this to raise an argument. That boarders strongly to blasphemy, to try to raise argument over the Grace of God in Christ.
I believe you posted this to raise an argument. That boarders strongly to blasphemy, to try to raise argument over the Grace of God in Christ.
There is a glorious wealth of spiritually instructive and uplifting material at Dr. Habermas’s website.
You can enjoy your straw to the full, I have NEVER made such an assertion. In fact, it is most likely that Paul had letters from Jerusalem which were read at gatherings, and perhaps this is what prompted him to return to Jerusalem for further clarifications from James and Peter and John. When you resort to straw assertions, attributing to someone comments which they have not made, so that you can then ridicule what you construct in straw, an agenda becomes more clear.
Uh, just a small comment. Paul never received further clarifications from James and Peter and John. They received clarification from Paul. (Gal. 2:1-14). As a matter of fact, Peter was rebuked by Paul.(Gal. 2:11). Paul could not possibly have gotten clarifications from them, as he received his message directly from the risen Christ. Not from man, neither was he taught it by man. But only by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11,12).
I was referring to the visits Paul made upon returning from missionary journeys, to talk with the Apostles. Paul indicated in his letters that he had sought to reinforce what he was teaching during his journeys. Perhaps ‘clarification’ was too loose a term.
Oh, sorry! I thought you were saying Paul was being taught by Peter and the rest...:)
That boarders strongly to blasphemy, to try to raise argument over the Grace of God in Christ.
There you go, but I’m not going with you. Have nice day
There you go, but I’m not going with you. Have nice day
The sign on Jesus' cross was written in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin, just to make sure that all understood the reason for His crucifixion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.