The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

[SavedByGrace82]

I have found a wery interesting site that I think gives us a clue why this books (that we have in the New testament) became Canon. I also think that we in this table can se why some books not were included in the New Testament!


The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities

If we look at these and compare for an example the gospel of Thomas with Mattew, Mark, Luke and John we will se a difference.

15 of 16 accepted The Gospel of Mattew
14 of 16 accepted The Gospel of Mark
15 of 16 accepted The Gospel of Luke
13 of 16 accepted The Gospel of John.
0 of 16 accepted The Gospel of Thomas

I think that we here can find the answear why Thomas not were included in the New Testament!

(sorry for my english - you can correct me if I spell in a wrong way, I try to learn. But I hope that you all will understand what im write.)

God bless you all!

 

[wayseer]

Interesting site. Thank you for the connection.

And you are doing alright with the English.

I think the important aspect, as I see it , is that you have made a statistical analysis which ok within itself but does not explain the 'why' - why some were left our and others included.

But looks like a good site with some good info.

 

[SavedByGrace82]

Interesting site. Thank you for the connection.

And you are doing alright with the English.

I think the important aspect, as I see it , is that you have made a statistical analysis which ok within itself but does not explain the 'why' - why some were left our and others included.

But looks like a good site with some good info.

Hey Wayseer and thanks for the post!

I agree with you - I dont know if we ever will know the reason or "why" - but I think that there are clues - who tells us why some books not where accepted! I feel that if Thomas was not accepted by our church fathers, then why should the church accepted the gospel of Thomas? If this table is right, we can ask there quetions.

It makes me happy that you likes the site, btw!

 

[wayseer]

Hey Wayseer and thanks for the post!

I agree with you - I dont know if we ever will know the reason or "why" - but I think that there are clues - who tells us why some books not where accepted! I feel that if Thomas was not accepted by our church fathers, then why should the church accepted the gospel of Thomas? If this table is right, we can ask there quetions.

It makes me happy that you likes the site, btw!

Is it your site? It looks pretty good although I am no expert so I really cannot make any real comment as to its accuracy.

Good question with regards to Thomas.

My cautious response would be that our Early Church Fathers were wrestling with any number of issues. Christianity was coming too big for the house groups and was developing into something bigger - which means administrative problems. Then there were theological problems imposed by Marcion, Arius and the Gnostics. Then there was the issues with canon. It was a bit of a handful.

Remember Mark was nearly left out because it was thought, at the time, that Mark was just a abridged version of Matthew. John also faced serious opposition. And some thought Paul was a tad too gnostic and liberal in his theology. And Thomas, well I think it had become lost so no one really paid much attention.

But to return to your question. I put it to you that we actually know more about the formation of the biblical texts and the working of the Early Church Fathers than perhaps they did themselves. We have teams of well trained scholars on the job as well as the latest in forensic science on which to call. In addition, we keep finding stuff - like the DDS and NHL.

So, Yes, I think we can legitimately ask a whole series of questions of which earlier generations had absolutely no knowledge.

 

[SavedByGrace82]

Is it your site? It looks pretty good although I am no expert so I really cannot make any real comment as to its accuracy.

Good question with regards to Thomas.

My cautious response would be that our Early Church Fathers were wrestling with any number of issues. Christianity was coming too big for the house groups and was developing into something bigger - which means administrative problems. Then there were theological problems imposed by Marcion, Arius and the Gnostics. Then there was the issues with canon. It was a bit of a handful.

Remember Mark was nearly left out because it was thought, at the time, that Mark was just a abridged version of Matthew. John also faced serious opposition. And some thought Paul was a tad too gnostic and liberal in his theology. And Thomas, well I think it had become lost so no one really paid much attention.

But to return to your question. I put it to you that we actually know more about the formation of the biblical texts and the working of the Early Church Fathers than perhaps they did themselves. We have teams of well trained scholars on the job as well as the latest in forensic science on which to call. In addition, we keep finding stuff - like the DDS and NHL.

So, Yes, I think we can legitimately ask a whole series of questions of which earlier generations had absolutely no knowledge.

No its not my site, I foud it a time ago on internet!

I was curious when you wrote: "Remember Mark was nearly left out because it was thought, at the time, that Mark was just a abridged version of Matthew. John also faced serious opposition."

Where can I read this information? I have always believe that the whole church has been reading the Gospels of John and Marc under the first Centuries!

 

[wayseer]

Where can I read this information? I have always believe that the whole church has been reading the Gospels of John and Marc under the first Centuries!

Very good question.

To be honest I cannot find my source. I've looked through all the likely places but to no avail. It is perhaps something I heard in lectures. I have to check into it now for my own satisfaction.

 

[SavedByGrace82]

Very good question.

To be honest I cannot find my source. I've looked through all the likely places but to no avail. It is perhaps something I heard in lectures. I have to check into it now for my own satisfaction.

Yes do that Wayseer! Until then - I will believe that the gospels of Marc and John was reading in the whole church - or the most of the church! According to Bruce M Meztgher the one criterion for included a gospel in the new testament - was that the gospel should be reading continuously in the whole church - "Source: The book "Case for Christ"

I found it wery interesting - that the gospel of Mark where included in the new testament - if they dont have this criterion - because If we compare the gospel of Mark with the gnostic gospels - the gnostic gospels really had famous names - like Mary Magdalene, the gospel of Peter, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, and so on. Why would they included the gospel Mark who not even were a diciple to Jesus? And the same with Luke!

I can understand the gospel of Mattew and John - but not Mark and Luke!

And I say it again - if I have spell in the wrong way - you can correct me. So I learn so spell in the right way!

God bless you!

 

[wayseer]

Yes do that Wayseer! Until then - I will believe that the gospels of Marc and John was reading in the whole church - or the most of the church! According to Bruce M Meztgher the one criterion for included a gospel in the new testament - was that the gospel should be reading continuously in the whole church - "Source: The book "Case for Christ"

I found it wery interesting - that the gospel of Mark where included in the new testament - if they dont have this criterion - because If we compare the gospel of Mark with the gnostic gospels - the gnostic gospels really had famous names - like Mary Magdalene, the gospel of Peter, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, and so on. Why would they included the gospel Mark who not even were a diciple to Jesus? And the same with Luke!

I can understand the gospel of Mattew and John - but not Mark and Luke!

And I say it again - if I have spell in the wrong way - you can correct me. So I learn so spell in the right way!

God bless you!

The Gospels, as we have them, were compilations of material extending over any number of sources. The gospels writers were not creating anything original - they were stitching together other sources, adding their own insights and creating a narrative addressing a particular community.

Further, the names of the authors are unknown. They were not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. That was not how things were done. Authors dedicated their work to someone, someone they respected or had a particular influence within the community. Many will debate this matter.

Having said that it may well be that Mark, who accompanied Peter to Rome, might well have written what we have as Mark. But it generally felt that the gospels were written well after the death of the identities to whom they are attributed.

The only original authored texts we know are from Paul, that is, the genuine letters.

Apart from Paul, all the texts were written after the events to which they attest.

Most people are interested in when the gospels were written. It is probably more significant to work out where they were written. Although still debated, Mark is generally accepted as written from Rome, Matthew from Antioch, Luke around Achaia, and John around Ephesus - although all this is hotly debated.

So the texts which made it into the canon of the NT were not selected because of their authors but because of their testimony. But that selection process took a long time and it was not until the 5th century, from memory, that the canon was closed.

 

[billybtennessee]

I can understand the gospel of Mattew and John - but not Mark and Luke!

From what I understand, the dates written, and the fact that they were passed directly from those who had walked with Christ, His half brothers, and Paul, were the deciding factors. Some of the others had questionable dating and questionable knowledge of things Jews and the early church taught.

For instance, most attribute Mark to John Mark, cousin of Barnabas, and he followed with Paul and Barnabas, and is mentioned specifically in Acts.

Luke was known to be a travel companion of Paul, and recorded Luke and Acts, based on eyewitness and first hand direct communication with him and also the apostles. So, that is why they are included. The canon of the NT was limited to what we have due to dates written and the fact that they were direct accounts.

The others, though the names were attributed to those early apostles, the dates, and some of the information they wrote, showed that they did not have first hand knowledge, were written most likely later, too late to have been passed directly. I am no expert, but have asked and studied those same questions, and this is what I found.

 

[Philothei]

So the texts which made it into the canon of the NT were not selected because of their authors but because of their testimony. But that selection process took a long time and it was not until the 5th century, from memory, that the canon was closed.

That is accurate as they were selected based on certain criteria

 

[sensational]

But to return to your question. I put it to you that we actually know more about the formation of the biblical texts and the working of the Early Church Fathers than perhaps they did themselves. We have teams of well trained scholars on the job as well as the latest in forensic science on which to call. In addition, we keep finding stuff - like the DDS and NHL.

So, Yes, I think we can legitimately ask a whole series of questions of which earlier generations had absolutely no knowledge.

I think you bring up a good point, all too often people assume that scholars today could not possibly be right on an issue that disagrees with a particular interpretation of a patristic writer (ie, authorship), . They assume that someone writing nearly 2000 years or so after the events could not possibly have a clearer understanding than one writing 200-300 years after the events.