#3,629 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Sentiment score: 6
Reddit mentions: 11
We found 11 Reddit mentions of The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Here are the top ones.
or
Oxford University Press USA
Specs:
| Height | 5.52 Inches |
| Length | 8.56 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 0.94578310398 Pounds |
| Width | 0.72 Inches |
Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament is a good summary and exhaustive description of the Apostolic Fathers and early development of the NT canon and bias free to boot.
> A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon is very much an apologetic work written for the evangelical community.
I agree with /u/Gadarn here and, to some extent (eliminating all bias is impossible), the alert about "bias-free position".
As far as NT canon, another suggestion would be The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger.
The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. Can't go wrong with anything by F.F. Bruce imo hahah.
Metzger has a book on the subject that I haven't read yet but what to. He's one of the best scholars of the last 50 years.
Kruger is a prof at RTS so this is one that probably has a reformed bent to it. Haven't read this one yet either, but it is suppose to be good.
I'm not quite sure what you are looking for. A few possible options for you:
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce Metzger.
The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? by Walter Kaiser
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham
Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).
In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.
For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.
One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.
Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.
An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,
>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.
As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.
Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.
Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.
Have a terrific day!
When I was studying this, the best sources I found were:
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce Metzger
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497034222&sr=8-1&keywords=the+canon+of+the+new+testament
and
The Canon of Scripture, by F.F. Bruce
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497034279&sr=8-1&keywords=the+canon+of+scripture
They are both Protestants but I didn't notice any particular theological bias. Both cover both the OT and NT but since we know a lot more about the formation of the NT, it gets a lot more coverage.
I would also suggest the books The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce Metzger
Sorry for the late reply, you caught me between class and teaching last night.
> I did not know that about Luther. Did he say why he removed those books?
His reasoning for removing those 7 books were that they weren't recognized by the Jews as canon (who themselves only "formalized' their Scripture sometime between the 3rd and 6th centuries. There's no scholarly consensus on when it was exactly finalized or by whom). Part of his reasoning was that they weren't (debatably in some cases) written in Hebrew but instead in Greek, thus they weren't inspired texts like the rest of the Hebrew OT. The Council of Trent, a Catholic Ecumenical Council, defined the Catholic Bible as 73 books including the 7 removed by Luther and the Reformers as deuterocanon (or "secondary canon" though still full parts of Scripture).
> Also, was there ever some sort of original historical team that established a set of books that was later refined? Do we have a timeline where that occurred, and how the Canon shaped over time and research?
Wiki does a good job summarizing the major movements in the development. And as I said above, Trent was when the finalized Catholic bible was authoritatively declared, though it was basically a formal acknowledgement of what was already standard practice in the Church for about a thousand years.
>Is this what the "Magisterium's Team" is?
The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church and they settle matters of doctrine, including what is contained in Holy Scripture. The Magisterium is what made up the various councils throughout the ages including Trent.
>Finally, is there any specific source you recommend where I can go to find out more about the history of the Canon of the Bible?
Like I said, wiki does quite a good job giving a summary level. If you want a more academic and in depth reading I recommend Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament as was already suggested (though it tends to be on the apologetic side, it is still quite reliable) or F F Bruce's The Canon of Scripture. Niel R Lightfoot's How We Got The Bible is also quite good.
(Note, these will probably go against or "provide a nice contrast with" captainhaddock's view --the current most popular post in the thread).
> You have literally no clue what your saying. Listen to your self.
Curious words coming from someone that does not use academic references.
> I gave you a reference on the origins of the Bible, and it says there it was written by fake prophets.
You gave websites. And, as I said, only a portion of the OT was written by prophets -- the Gospels were not, nor the Epistles, or the Sapiential writings...
> FF Bruce was a Christian, so obviously his works are heavily biased in favor of the Christian belief. It would be as if I gave you and article from the Friendly Atheist.
What matters is not who wrote, but the content. But, if you want another reference about canon development, I can point you to Metzger's [The Canon of the New Testament] (https://www.amazon.com.br/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544), but this one is much deeper.
> If you read such biased works, then yeah you are very clearly indoctrinated. Go pick up a science book and maybe you might actually learn something for once in your life
I am reading and quoting academic works... very funny that you rambles so much about science but can't quote academia.
Oh, I didn't address the issue of Canonicity. And this is an area that even I have heated arguments with like-minded Christians about. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Salvationist (read: Methodist), but with a Southern Baptist/Pentecostal background. So my label reads "Arminian", but my heart is decidedly Calvinist...
I won't go all into the history of why we wound up with the books of the Bible that we have (Bruce Metzger did the best work IMO on the subject), except to say that the canon of the OT Scriptures was pretty much set in stone as early as 400 years before Jesus (around 400 AD). (There are liberal theologians who will debate this, and they are free to do so.)
As for the New Testament, because of the intense persecution of the early Christian church, it is nothing short of a miracle that we have ANY original writings of the apostles. But we have (as I understand it) about 23,000 mss copies extant, handwritten, from the original works.
Here's where it gets iffy, and forgive me for waffling just a bit...it just depends on what you believe.
I believe that God is fully capable of communicating with us in what ever form or fashion is necessary to get the message to us. Some of my more conservative friends believe that the canon of the NT was ordained, set in stone, and all revelation ceased after the writing of the Book of Revelation (~AD 90).
I'm not so sure. I believe God COULD have authored other works, and Paul PROBABLY wrote other letters that didn't make it into the New Testament (Ex. Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, see Col. 4:16). Why would that letter (if it was an original writing by Paul) not be included in the NT?
And I believe that there are people today who regularly speak with God, and hear from God. In fact, Jesus says,
> My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (John 10:27, KJV)
(The NIV softens the language somewhat and says, "My sheep LISTEN to my voice..." which I am suspect of the change from active to passive voice...but that's just me. There is a substantive difference between 'hearing' and 'listening'. It shifts the focus from God to man.)
So as I understand it, one of the hallmarks of being one of "His sheep", is the ability to "hear His voice", i.e. discern His thoughts and attitudes above the din.
Does that ONLY include the written word? Or can it mean the spoken word, or any other mode of transmission?
If we expand the definition to include God's revelation PAST the New Testament, then what gauge should we use for reliability? I mean, what makes the Mormon Bible (for example) NOT inspired (when they clearly teach that it is), and other teachings possibly inspired?
I like what Walter Martin, in his "Kingdom of the Cults" says. He points out that we should always judge newer revelation in light of older revelation. And this is what was done throughout the New Testament as well. Paul and the other writers of the NT canon consistently leaned on the OT as proof of their inspiration.
So too, we should, if we feel we are "hearing from God", then that inspiration should be scrutinized by what we KNOW to be inspired (the Old and New Testaments). If the new revelation does not line up PERFECTLY with the older revelations, then we can be certain it was not inspired by God (because God cannot lie, and does not change His mind).
So here is where my Calvinism comes out. I think that God purposefully inspired the writing of the individual letters of the New Testament, but that He also guided the process of what letters to include, and which to exclude. Yes, He had to use flawed humans to do His work, as He always does. But I feel that the end product was exactly as he pre-ordained.
Are there other "inspired" non-canonical works? I'm almost certain of it. But the letters that we DO have we are certain ARE inspired, with no "wiggle-room" for doubt. And doubt is the enemy of faith. (Matt. 14:31, Heb. 10:38, others).