New Testament Origins

Yesterday we began a review of Kenneth Bailey's Interpreting the Bible DVD by looking at the idea of inspiration and the origins of the Old Testament. Today we visit the origins of the New Testament.

Each gospel is believed to have been written in the last half of the first century. By the beginning of the second century, the gospels were considered to have unique authority among the Christian community. They were added to the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. Other books were seen to have varying degrees of authority as well.

The issue of which books were to be considered authoritative was brought to a head by the controversial teachings of Marcian (c. 140 C.E.). Marcian believed that the god of the Hebrews differed from the god of the Christians. Bailey points out that Marcian thought only Luke was authoritative among the gospels. He included various edited writings of Paul. He eliminated the entire Old Testament. Church leaders rejected Macian's teaching, but the controversy pressured the Church to consider what books carried authority. By the end of the second century, the books attributed to Paul were considered authoritative.

Other books were still being debated as late as the fourth century, especially 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews. The first statement we find listing our present twenty-seven books of the New Testament was made by Athanasius in 367 C.E., in which he observes that there was general consensus that these were the authoritative books. Thus, it wasn't until more than three centuries after Christ that the New Testament scriptures came to be recognized as such.

But what does it mean to say that these books have authority? Bailey writes that early in the process, the Church asked, "What books have the apostles passed down to us?" Notice this is different from asking, "Which books did the apostles write?" The question was one of apostolic endorsement and determining which ones have broad acceptance across the Church community. Furthermore, the driving agenda was not "What can we include?" but "What can we throw out?" Bailey suggests these were the driving questions for at least the first 250 years after Christ.

Late in the process, the Church asked, "What did the apostles write?" Luke was okay because he supposedly got his information from Paul, but questions of authorship began to creep into the picture. Along with this, questions of inspiration began to emerge as well. But as you can see, if the earlier question is the driving issue, then authorship becomes irrelevant.

Bailey points out that the Church does not give the books of Scripture their authority. Rather the Church surrenders to the authority of Scripture. Imagine a thief holds you up with a gun. You don't give the gun its authority. You surrender to its authority and hand over your wallet.

The books of the New Testament have authority because they spoke to the hearts of early Christians across a broad range of communities (just as they do today.) There was no rush to create an authoritative list. Over time, the authenticity of the books made themselves known to the Christian community. Rather than imposing a list of official books in the fourth century, the fourth century can be seen as the culmination of a slow brew process.

Next, we will look at the origins of the gospel of Luke, one of the few books of the Bible that explicitly states how it came to be.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[David]

I was intrigued by the idea that "the Church does not give the books of scripture their authority. Rather the church surrenders to the authority of scripture."

I wonder how that idea engages the Church, today. Do we, also, get to choose to surrender to the authority of scripture? Or was that only done 1,800 years ago?

I think the former presents the most compelling case. If we are only deferring to the decisions make 1,800 years ago, aren't we really engaged in ancestor worship?

On the other hand, if we are responsible in our day for discerning the authenticity of scripture, how do we engage that task? And what do we do if we sense an inauthentic presentation?

[Michael W. Kruse]

Daivd, I think the key issues is apostolic endorsement. Finding widespread authority in a passage is not sufficient.

I think it is possible to conceive of books that had apostolic endorsement but were without widespread use among the community. It is possible to conceive of books that have widespread authority within the Church but not apostolic endorsement.

I don’t know that it is so much ancestor worship as it is finding higher authority in Jesus' teachings and in the authority of those who learned from Jesus' mouth to their own ears.

I think the never ending challenge is discerning in what way this scriptural authority works in the life in the Church in any given context. Starting Monday, I’ll be reviewing seven ways that Bailey believes are errors in using scripture. I think that when sense "inauthentic presentation" that maybe we should push back on our wether or not we have understood scripture correctly within its context.