Read a book on the subject. The list is long and detailed. The gist of which shows gospels which are written in a different land, by people highly proficient in a different language and people who do not appear at all to by eyewitnesses or even familiar with local geography and customs. Authors who are not recalling from memory but heavily copying source material and openly contradicting each other and committing major omissions. Further, they are completely unfamiliar to paul, which is hard to square with the supposed early composition attempted to be put forth by people who would attribute them to their namesakes.

It is essential to recognize that there is a long list of Catholic / Orthodox and Protestant scholars who date NT writings decades before the "conventional" view (which is not that old, btw, and very colored by evangelical awakening movements).

I recommend Kenneth Gentry (Before Jerusalem Fell) and David Bentley Hart especially - get his New Testament translation, it's amazing.

Now, maybe they are wrong, although I absolutely do not think so, mostly because the preterist take on Revelation makes such a massive amount of good sense.

At a very bare minimum, the late date arguments are not stronger than the early date arguments, and I've been involved in arguing this topic pretty actively for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Finally, for point 3 I have seen two reasonable explanations. First, John could have written this over the course of decades. His writing style as a 50 year old might not match his writing style as a 70 year old, especially considering that Greek was not his native language. Second, and more convincing to me, is the explanation that he had scribes. He dictated the event over some amount of time to several different scribes, who each then wrote the document.

---

This emphasises the sort of thinking scholars don't generally do. Ad hoc non-evidenced solutions to keep on believing whatever it is you find most comforting are not done. These people are professionals and generally comport themselves accordingly with a dispassionate analysis. With the claims of authorship relatively weak, and highly self serving they aren't given any special weight. 1700 years is meaningless when no one did any investigation of the matter during that time period.

Dictation doesn't reflect the thoughts or knowledge of the author but rather the speaker. However, this assumption misunderstands both the nature of literacy and how scribes were used in antiquity. It is true that literate persons, such as Paul, would dictate (in Greek) to scribes who would write down their words, as is evidenced in romans. This does not entail, however, that an illiterate person (or someone with only partial literacy) could dictate complex prose in a foreign language. Something for which I know of no example of. At best you could argue that the apostle was a source for the true author, which again, has notable issues. Further, Most people outside of the urban areas would scarcely ever even see a written text. Some smaller towns and villages may have had a literacy level around 1 percent. Moreover, these literate people were almost always the elite of the upper class. Those who learned to read learned how to read Hebrew (not Greek).

So when you say, "that's ok, he probably just told someone what to write", "well maybe three different someones with three different levels of written mastery, even though it wouldn't manifest that way in dictation", and also, he would have been really old, say 95 year old, which is no big deal since some people live to 95." You aren't thinking like a scholar, as they would find this terribly unconvincing.

Then why doesn't paul mention a gospel?

Paul's letters being first is fully consistent with my generalizations, especially with plenty of textual evidence (please get the Hart work) of revisions and additions.

Related, "authorship" - until the early 19th Century was not as we think of it.
For example, "The Gospel of St. John" could mean, The Gospel, According to the School of St. John, or The Gospel, as by St. John and His Friends

What dates are you calling early then? Because the early date crowd i've seen tries to aim for the 50s AD which causes a big problem when not mentioned by paul.

My view is that Irenaeus (school of Polycarp, who was school of John) was correct in his chain of memory:

Mark worked as an interpreter for Paul, and continued Paul's teaching in written form after Nero killed Peter and Paul in 67. (Paul was prolific through the 50s.) Luke and Matthew wrote from Mark, and John (+school) wrote in 68-69, as the First Roman-Jewish War raged into an inferno. Writing increased in urgency and importance as it became clear Jerusalem was going to be decimated.

Why does mark have so much information that's foreign to paul and also never mentions pauls death?

Well, why - 2,000 years later - would we question Irenaeus? That seems like quite an odd objection. If you wrote a book about your faith and your God but didn't mention a close friend's death....OK.
It's your book, right? Maybe I would mention a murder by a 28 year old tyrant about to be offed by his own security detail - but hey maybe not.
I believe Irenaeus.

btw Papias the Bishop of Hieropolis also wrote about Mark and Paul in this way, and he was born in 60.

Because he's writing in 180 AD and has clear self supporting motives while not addressing the many problems noted above amongst others.

Then focus on Eusebius, Papias, Clement of Amexandria, the Muratorian writings, Origen, Tertullian...
the tradition here is strong.

I understand this all will mean more to Catholic and Orthodox, but to me the evidence is pretty strong for my speculation.

Quote:

---

Further, Most people outside of the urban areas would scarcely ever even see a written text. Some smaller towns and villages may have had a literacy level around 1 percent. Moreover, these literate people were almost always the elite of the upper class. Those who learned to read learned how to read Hebrew (not Greek).

---

recent scholarship and archaeology has heavily challenged these views of ultra-low literacy rates, for what it's worth.

Thank you. When I realized that a lot that I had been taught in Sunday School was probably not true, at first I completely rejected Christianity but felt drawn back by the Holy Spirit and have embarked on a more scholarly approach. And to be honest, I have been surprised by the true beauty of the Gospel and its practical applications to a fulfilling life rather than just a way to get to Heaven and escape Hell.

I understand why the pastors do what they do as it is easier, and people want the assurance of believing the way they are taught in Sunday School UNTIL they are faced with a traumatic event or are exposed to science, evolution, etc. At that point they tend to either fall away or doggedly resist against science with things like YEC.

The more I learn and read, the more I think the old cookbook "evangelism" tactics such as the "sinner's prayer", altar calls, etc. are nothing like what I actually read in the Bible.

And I agree with you that I believe the congregants are much more capable of handling the truth than pastors think. I would have loved scholarly studies pursuing the true authorship of the books of the Bible. And more studies of the Church fathers, who are basically ignored in a lot of Protestant churches. And discussions about what "inerrancy" means, especially after numerous translations and interpretations.

Anyway, once again thanks. And my quest for the truth continues. The good thing is that I rarely question my salvation anymore which is a great thing for my mental and spiritual health.

God bless you.

I am very interested in which book on this subject you thought was the best and would appreciate a source. Thanks.

As I asked above, I would really enjoy reading what you consider the best book on this subject. Thanks.

The second they put forth evidence that doesn't get them laughed out of the room amongst their peers I will. As yet, i haven't seen any meaningful rebuttals to any of it.

Misquoting Jesus by Erhman is probably the most approachable one out there but he can be a bit sensationalist, just know it's not knew an exciting information and he's probably the most straightforward presentation. Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Agesby Jaroslav Pelikan is written by a Christian but is a dryer read.

It's worth noting that many Christians seem to find no issue holding on to faith with accurate knowledge of the bible, archaeology, biology, and geology. While most reject the literal genesis on account of it being discredited by their formal education, the knowledge about authorship is a more esoteric realm which involves personal study same with early Israelite histories. I frankly think many churches teach this because most the members outside the pastor/priest have no idea.

The same Erhman who called NT authors liars? Please tell us more...lol

Thanks, I am actually reading that Ehrman book right now.

aggiedad20 said:

---

The same Erhman who called NT authors liars? Please tell us more...lol

---

In my experience with church hierarchy, nothing would surprise me. Some of the things I have heard ministers say in private about Scripture would be considered heretical. People are people and I could easily see someone lying about their identity to get published.

Remember the people who picked the canons were people just like you and me. Sinners. Some with pretty strong agendas for their own personal or political gain.

And edited to add that I find it comforting that they were just men like you and me.

Erhman has been discredited on numerous occasions. Scripture on the other hand...

Name one

aggiedad20 said:

---

Erhman has been discredited on numerous occasions. Scripture on the other hand...

---

Almost every author on religious or spiritual topics has been discredited. I am firm in my Christian faith and willing to read different points of view.

And that is why I requested sources from both sides of the debate.

N.T. Wright is a good resource for the conservative side of the argument

I think you have to split Ehrman's scholarly work from his layman's publications. Misquoting Jesus is full of sensationalist claims, but at the end its a whole bunch of minor stuff. He plays fast and loose with terms like saying how many thousands of textual variants there are in the scriptural manuscripts, but not explaining how 99.999% of those variants are completely and utterly meaningless (e.g., a scribe swapping two words in order or even a single letter missing is considered a variant).

Or he tries to imply that Jesus is never called God in the scriptures, or that maybe the scriptures were changed, but ignores the myriad of direct ancillary references to His deity by numerous NT authors. In other words, he gets you to focus on a single tree and ignores the forest.

If Ehrman wrote his books to say: the NT scriptures are the most reproduced, well-maintained, highest-quality documents with the closest / earliest manuscripts to the autographs of any major work in antiquity by a massive amount most people would see no reason to read him. Instead he has to take truths - because he doesn't lie - and hype them to make it seem like they are saying something they are not.

He also sometimes is choosy about what information he presents. I've seen presentations where he simply omits relevant information in order to make his point seem more relevant. So Doc, read his stuff and enjoy it but consider that the stuff that ends up on the NYT bestseller list is not necessarily the most straightforward presentation of his scholarly work.

Thanks. And it is good talking to you on here again,

Quote:

---

In other words, God picked the canon, not man.

As evidence for the Protestant point of view, much of the NT was recognized as scripture and as being God's word long before any Church council. Even within the NT itself, Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture and Paul may refer to Luke's writings as scripture. They did not need any church council or men to pick the canon for them.

Similarly, the early church fathers referred to the various books of the NT as being scripture for hundreds of years before the first Church council that considered the Canon. Again, those early church fathers didn't need anyone to pick the canon for them to recognize that those books were, in fact, scripture. There was virtual unanimity among the early church fathers as to which books were scriptural, with only some uncertainty as to a handful (Hebrews, Revelation, and, IIRC, 2 and 3 John).

The point of the early church councils was not so much to "pick the Canon", but moreso to deal with the newer writings that some were insisting should also be considered as Scripture. The overwhelming consensus was that the newer writings were clearly not Scripture, and confirmed that the existing Canon, which had already been in place for hundreds of years, was correct. To repeat, the church councils did not create a canon, but recognized the existing canon as the correct one.

---

With respect, a lot of this is framed incorrectly.

"God picked the canon" is exactly the kind of vague handwaving that is not productive for this kind of discussion. It is a statement that requires the audience to accept something on faith which we absolutely do not need. There is no scriptural promise that God will pick the canon, OT or NT. There's no reason to think about it this way. Even if it's true.

Did God "pick" the Canon? Sure, just like the Holy Spirit inspired the authors. Saying "God picked the canon" as if to imply that men did not is like saying "God spoke at Pentecost" as if to imply that St Peter did not. Did the Holy Spirit speak? Yes. Did St Peter speak? Yes. The Spirit spoke through St Peter, much as the Holy Spirit led and leads the Church (this much is scriptural, see John 16:13).

What is beneficial for mature believers is to understand how God "picked" the canon, not merely accept it on faith that He did so. He did not drop it out of the sky. We do not believe that He dictated it word for word, or that it was discovered. That's not how the scriptures talk about God working with and through men. He teaches and gives men the words to say (Luke 12:12, Luke 21:15, Isaiah 51:16 etc etc) but the men still say them.

As for "before any Church council" - this is simply false. The first Church council was held in Jerusalem, and is recorded in the book of Acts.

Quote:

---

"The point of the early church councils was not so much to "pick the Canon", but moreso to deal with the newer writings that some were insisting should also be considered as Scripture."

---

This is not accurate. I think you are laboring under an extremely common misconception about what councils were. Councils, or synods, were simply meetings of regional leaders. For as long as we have records the leaders of the Church - bishops (episcopos) and presbyters (elders, priest, whatever word you like) have met regularly to discuss administrative and theological issues, to decide disciplinary matters of members, to establish norms and rules for Church life. No early council was called to decide the canon. The "big" ones, the Ecumenical Councils, were in response to schisms and heresies, but those 7 are just a handful among hundreds.

The earliest conciliar decree about the canon that I know of was at Carthage (and certainly not Nicaea). But Carthage was a review and re-sanctioning or ratifying sixteen earlier councils. The canonical list was Canon 24 of 138, and is the only reference to what is scripture.

The canon 24 is clear though - the purpose of stating a canon is to say what is permissible to be read in church under the name of Scripture. And the reason was these were the things inherited by tradition from the Fathers to be read in Church.

So, yes, it is correct that the fathers did not need a council to pick scriptures. No one here is claiming that's how it happened. It was much more organic, and much more profound than that. So you can't on one hand affirm that the scriptures were recognized as scripture by men, but also deny that it was in fact their recognition of the scriptures which established them as such. This isn't physics, we aren't discovering preexisting physical realities like gravity or Planck's constant. Scripture is not an ontological classification, you can't measure it. It's a ratification or an acceptance. We can say, the Koran is not our scripture, but to Muslims it is scripture. What makes something scripture is the acceptance and use of the thing by the Church together, the laity and the clergy.

Things were written, they were used locally, then universally; some were rejected, some were accepted. Some early lists varied, and finally around the 5th century everyone more or less settled on the same. This is something we can trace out in time. It's foolish to say that one early canon list is wrong while a later one is right given the benefit of our hindsight. That's just not a beneficial way of looking at it. What's more, it denies Divine Providence and the amazing grace and power given to the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Well, the addition of Revelation was pretty controversial from my readings, And I would argue that not all Protestant churches necessarily agree with the canons being supernaturally picked without a ban element. I personally think they were.

Would really appreciate a good book if you think of one.

Edited to add that I agree with the way k2 described how thy were picked. And thus my problem with "fundamentalism" as it is described today. To me, fundamentalism means that one believes the Gospel, that Jesus Christ was the Incarnate Son of God, that he was crucified, and rose from the dead and will come again as Judge.

"Fundamentalism", as I see it today, requires a lot more beliefs.

I tend to agree with you but the guy is smart. It reminds me of how medical data can be interpreted by two different researchers who come to completely different conclusions.

And edited to add that Ehrman uses his bias when he describes the authors of some of the canon as "liars". To me, it does not change the message or authenticity of the writings even though it is obvious that is his goal. It does not change the message which I still believe was inspired by the Holy Spirit through men, whichever men that may be.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The gospels were not first hand accounts. That is a fringe view among academics. I'll reply to other responses above in more detail when I get some time.

---

If the gospels were written between 70-100 AD they likely would be first hand accounts wouldn't they? They didn't have time to be passed down a full generation.