Since we have examined Christian Bible being mainly based on the Greek version of the Septuagint text, it is also important to look at the New Testament Canon. If you are serious about going deep into the roots of the core messages of the Bible, one thing needs to be deeply examined – can we really trust the New Testament Canon? Is the New Testament required to really understand the messages of God and Jesus? If we didn’t have New Testament, would Christianity still stand strong or fell apart?
Those questions are much deeper in context of course, however very important to examine. Because if the New Testament cannot be trusted, if the books that form the foundation of Christian belief are unreliable, then the religion built upon them may also be called into question. This is not only about validity of Christian religion, but it’s a complex issue, involving history, theology, translations and transmission of texts across centuries.
When deconstructing any religion or ideology, it is always important to look into its foundations, texts and teachings that this religion is based on. As I have been deconstructing some doctrines of Christianity and labeling Paul as the main founder of Christianity upon who’s teachings Christianity is based on, it is important to look now into the books and decisions made behind choosing those books.
I have heard many times that all Bible, including New Testament, is God inspired, which would contradict with the letters of Paul as Paul was opposing God’s Law. God would never inspire anyone to oppose His own Law. Therefore, I exclude the fact that New Testament Canon is God inspired. Who then decided on those books? What were the circumstances behind those decisions? Why those books?
To begin, it is important to understand what is meant by the “Canon.” The New Testament Canon refers to the collection of twenty seven books recognized by the early Church as authoritative Scripture. These include the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul and other Apostles, and Revelation. Contrary to some popular assumptions, these books were not selected centuries later by a single council or authority. Instead, the canon emerged over time through many debates and councils. Interestingly, 65% of those books were written by the Apostle Paul or inspired by Paul. Only one Gospel is considered as an eye witness account of Jesus’ life on earth, which is the Gospel of John and three other Gospels called synoptic Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are a collection of Jesus’ teachings and events written by authors who were not actually Jesus’ disciples or his witnesses.
The first and major criticism of Christianity is the fact that the Gospels were written many years after Jesus’ resurrection and the first written teachings on Jesus came not from Jesus’ disciples, but from the Apostle Paul, who wasn’t part of Jesus’ original 12 disciples. Early Christians preserved Jesus’s sayings, parables, and miracle stories through spoken word and biblical scholars widely agree that the Gospels emerged from a rich period of oral tradition, where stories and teachings about Jesus circulated for years before being written down.
We have to take into consideration two facts: papyrus was expensive and difficult to get for many and the disciples were simple and uneducated men. Clearly not deep thinkers and skilled writers, therefore it wasn’t obvious for them to spread the Gospel on paper, but rather orally. Therefore, the first Christian writings were not actually Gospels, but letters of the Apostle Paul, who, as I mentioned before, was a false Apostle.
Pauline epistles were written between late 40s and early 60s AD. Paul was a highly educated Pharisee, coming from a wealthy family of Pharisees and a Roman citizen. He not only had access to resources like papyrus, which in those times was hard to get, but also he had ability to write in a philosophical style, which came from his education that was rooted in the Greek system. Paul’s writings were associated with thinkers like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and Seneca – this shaped Paul’s theological arguments and his understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Paul’s education and philosophical understanding naturally transpired into his own teachings and understanding. His letters are full of philosophical approach and his interpretation of the events through the bias of his Greek education system.
The question of why the Apostle, who never met Jesus, never spent any time with Jesus or heard his teachings, became the main interpreter of the scripture and Jesus’ teachings comes to mind. This is connected to the question: can we really trust Paul’s conversion story? It is definitely questionable why Christianity, having the name “Christ” in its name, is actually based on Paul’s teachings. This is also the reason why there are so many sceptics, different interpretations of Paul’s teachings and general division within Christianity on the main aspects of the religion.
Pauline epistles emerged relatively quickly after Jesus’ resurrection, as if Paul wanted to solidify his Apostleship and steer the direction of Christian movement. Before people had a chance to read the Gospels, they already had their views shaped by the teachings of Paul. Moreover, three Gospels were strongly influenced by the teachings of Paul, making the New Testament Canon in majority influenced by Paul and with one theological view. This was not accidental. Early Christianity was a time of many different beliefs and points of view around the life of Jesus. It was not universally accepted that Jesus was God or that crucifixion should have been the center of the teachings about Jesus.
Early Christians had many different sects, one of those were a Jewish sect called the Nazarenes. They followed the Law, Jewish customs and put focus on setting themselves apart from the worldly practices by strict observance to the Law. They rejected teachings of Paul and viewed Jesus as the Messiah rather than putting emphasis on Jesus being God.
Another Christian sect were the Gnostics who mainly believed in more mystical teachings of Jesus and the importance of gnosis (knowledge) to be able to be saved. They also put an emphasis on inner transformation and spiritual life. They viewed material world as evil and viewed Jesus as revealer of the knowledge. They viewed physical existence as prison that we have to escape and fully committed themselves to the spiritual life.
Orthodox Christians were a group who emphasized the apostolic authority of the Apostle Paul, they affirmed Jesus being fully God and fully man and put an emphasis on the crucifixion.
Marcionites were a unique group that took teachings of Paul into another extreme and rejected the Old Testament entirely. They believed the God of the Old Testament was different to the God presented in the New Testament. They generally only accepted letters of Paul. And of course, some other smaller Christian groups emerged too, however what is important is the fact that what we believe in today was not necessarily what early Christians believed in after Jesus’ resurrection. The believes and ideas of Christianity were forming and evolving over the centuries, however after various councils, what was established and which books were selected were those, that would support the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Paul’s teachings were the most beneficial to the churches and communities forming, not because it was based on the truth but because it was the most cohesive and easy to adapt.
Books had to align with what people already believed about Jesus and the faith and therefore writings that contradicted core beliefs—like some Gnostic texts—were rejected. However, what is important to mention is the fact that the process of canon formation was influenced by human decisions, cultural contexts, and theological disagreements, rather than divinely inspired decisions.
Many Christians believe that New Testament Canon was divinely inspired. That belief came with the assumptions that all writings, including letters of the Apostle Paul were guided by the Holy Spirit to serve as authoritative scripture. Books were often branded as inspired if they adhered to “orthodoxy”, which was viewed as truthful teaching, “those of apostolic origin”, and those of “catholicity”, which was the universal usage in early churches.
The belief that all scripture, including New Testament was divinely inspired would later transform into the doctrine of biblical inerrancy – which is a belief that the Bible is without error in everything it affirms. This was influenced by the Early Church Fathers and in particular figures like Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century), who argued that the biblical texts, properly understood, could not be in error, however early thinkers still allowed for differences in interpretation.
During the Middle Ages, the authority of Scripture remained central, but it was interpreted within the tradition of the Church. Church was the only authoritative place, and priests were the only source of understanding and interpreting the scripture. However, during reformation times, Martin Luther and John Calvin strongly emphasized the authority of Scripture as only Biblical Canon (sola scriptura) being true and rejecting any other non-Canonical writings.
Today a lot of churches and denominations affirms that Scripture is without error in what God intends to teach for salvation. Therefore, it is very rare that anyone within Christianity would challenge the scripture or would question the inconsistencies, as this would mean to them questioning God.
Is the New Testament required to really understand the messages of God and Jesus?
The original followers of Jesus were Jewish and Jesus was teaching out of Torah. He didn’t come to teach anything different that wasn’t already there. He presented it differently through parables and through different perspectives, however the message was consistent and continuation of the Hebrew Bible. For early Christians who didn’t have New Testament and who didn’t have letters of Paul or any writings yet, this was the only source of knowledge. There was a general belief that Torah was a gift from God, therefore, to understand God, people would go to Torah. Torah would explain how God should be worshiped, how to love God, what were the moral laws, custom laws, how to care after communities, after bodies, dietary laws, how not to mix with the world and pagan practices, how to be kept as set apart, and essentially how to be a true representative of God here on earth. This was very obvious to the Jewish followers of Christ, however the problem started for the Gentiles.
Since Paul was opposing for the Gentiles to follow the Law and the main premise to join Jesus’ movement was to just believe in Jesus but Law was not required, different opinions on this started to form. Gentiles’ hostility towards Jews started to grow since Jews rejected their Messiah and Jews also started to be hostile towards Gentiles as they didn’t follow the Law due to Paul’s interpretation. Many Jewish Christians believed Gentiles should follow the Law. Later some Christians began blaming Jews for rejecting or killing Jesus, which contributed to early forms of anti-Jewish rhetoric. Therefore, Gentiles welcomed changes introduced by the churches as they didn’t want to “Judaize” and wanted to separate themselves from Jewish practices like following the Sabbath and other Jewish traditions, which was of course ordained by the church and the Councils.
How can we reconcile differences between the Gospels in New Testament?
When examining four Gospels, it is evident that there are some contradictions and irreconcilable differences, especially around the events of crucifixion and resurrection. Many sceptics also argue that none of the Gospels were written by a witness who witnessed those events. Those differences only made people confused and created more sceptics than believers.
Three Gospels that are known as Synoptic Gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke, focus on the action – orientated events of Jesus’s ministry and one Gospel of John, very much differs from the other three. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that was written by a disciple who witnessed all major events of Jesus, which was his ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, therefore this is considered to be a witness testimony.
What is interesting is the fact that Synoptic Gospels were not written by Jesus’ disciples or witnesses of Jesus ministry yet contained details that would only be possible to know by an actual follower or a witness. Moreover, Gospels were created much later after Jesus’ resurrection, more as a response to the already existing teachings of the Apostle Paul. Many people are also not aware that some verses were added much later, the Gospel of John was edited over 400 times and the process of editing and translating into different languages caused some quite significant changes in understanding of the text.
Paul’s letters to Romans provided explanation of core Christian beliefs such as the sinfulness of all humanity, justification by faith alone, the relationship between Law and grace, and God’s plan for both Jews and Gentiles. The problem is that Paul divided Jews and Gentiles with his teachings and explained that somehow God had a different plan for Jews and different for the Gentiles, because Gentiles didn’t have to follow the Law or convert to Judaism, however Jews still had to follow the Law. This double mindedness caused a lot of contradictions and confusion, and it seemed that every region was interpreting Paul’s teachings differently.
Therefore, Councils and canonization of the New Testament acted as an attempt to solidify and unite different beliefs and put a stamp on it.
If we didn’t have New Testament, would Christianity still stand strong or fell apart?
Christianity is a distinct religion when compared to Judaism and based on the life of Jesus Christ, whom Jews rejected. I should also say teachings of Jesus Christ, however I strongly believe Christianity is based on Paul’s teachings and his interpretation of the events. Christianity would look very different without the New Testament and would probably remain a small sect of Judaism, rather than growing into a separate religion it is today.
As Christianity was growing and being established into imperial religion, it deviated from the original teachings of Jesus and separated from the Hebrew Bible. There were different ways of understanding how the Hebrew Bible related to the Christian faith and if Christians had to keep it, but it was kept mainly for history and to show that Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore it was used as a prelude to Jesus’ arrival. However, different views on the Old Testament remained.
Jesus was a Jew, he was teaching out of the Hebrew Bible and therefore some Christians who were serious in following Jesus’ steps would keep the Torah. Some Christian denominations insisted that this is a Hebrew Bible and have no connection to the Christian religion. This division in opinion is evident even today.
Therefore, to answer the question – can we trust the New Testament Canon? – if we are looking for divinely inspired knowledge of God, then the New Testament Canon has many contradictions with the Old Testament, had many text edits and added verses, therefore it cannot be viewed as divinely inspired, as it would have to be cohesive with the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible is the source of divine knowledge, the character of God and God’s Law with words like: “thus saith the Lord”, which suggest constant communication of God with His chosen nation.
However, if we are looking for historical facts about the life of Jesus, about the times of spreading the Gospels, about Jesus being fulfilment of God’s promise and therefore we can trust in the words of God from the Old Testament – then yes, the New Testament acts as the proof or the fulfilment of that. Whether it is as divinely inspired or “God-breathed” as the Old Testament, I would question that, especially since it contains 65% of the work of Paul, who rejects the Law of God and contradicts with the words of God.
Ultimately, whether you trust the New Testament Canon depends in part on what kind of trust is being sought. If the expectation is absolute, unquestionable certainty, the historical realities of textual translations and canon formation may appear unsettling. Many people don’t realize about many edited and changed over 400 times, that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke has been mainly influenced by the Apostle Paul to justify Paul’s teachings and that the Gospel of Matthew has been very much copied and just expanded version of the Gospel of Mark.
Moreover, the differences between the main events of crucifixion and resurrection between those four gospels are quite unsettling. The New Testament canon is neither a flawless artifact dropped from heaven nor a purely human imagination but based on historical figure of Jesus. However, whether it contains the ultimate truth, I would argue. It is the product of debates between Early Church Fathers, the formation of communities and churches, and theological views, however mainly one theological view – orthodox Christianity. This doesn’t mean that this was the only view or that this is the ultimate truth.
That is why the other books that did not get their way to the Canon should not be treated as false just because they present different sect of Christianity. Instead, it can open the door to a more informed and mature view of Jesus’ role in spirituality and beyond.
By Dagmara Z.