The Chronological Order of the New Testament and why it matters.
Compositional Order
https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/the-new-testament-in-order/
A final way to think about the ordering of the New Testament is in the order in which these documents were written.
=====================
Personal Note and Reminder: Why it matters is because it shows that the Pauline Jesus was first Cosmic and Hallucinatory in nature to Paul. The Gospels to follow after Paul put Paul's Christ into a historical setting.
As we know, Paul never met Gospel Jesus nor quotes him. No sayings of Jesus. No miracles recounted and no tales of how he, as a Pharisee in Jerusalem, tormented Jesus with the others.
This seems odd to scholars if Paul was indeed a Pharisee of the Pharisees in Jerusalem at the time of the stories of Jesus in the Gospels. The Gospel writers never heard of any Apostle Paul or Saul of Tarsus
This is because the story of Gospel Jesus had not yet been brought down to Earth in the stories of the Gospels in Paul's lifetime. Paul's Jesus, or Christ was revelatory. Jesus talked to Paul and Paul heard Jesus in his mind.
Galatians 1:11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.Paul never heard of the stories, teachings or drama of Jesus life and death in the Gospels)
=====================
At first, you might imagine that this would parallel the chronological ordering, but that’s not quite correct.
Most scholars believe that either 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, or James was the first New Testament document written, all of which speak to events chronologically later than the Gospels.
This is largely due to the fact that the Gospels are not media reports or live tweets about Jesus: they are literary biographies, composed by followers of Jesus to tell the story of Jesus as the first generation of Christians got older.
The order in which the writings of the New Testament were composed is a topic of much scholarly debate. On the one hand, many contemporary scholars push the writing of certain documents well into the second century and speak extensively about anonymous and pseudonymous authorship of certain writings.
On the other hand, there are plenty of scholars who advocate for much earlier (and more traditional) datings, with some scholars even suggesting that the contents of the New Testament were written before the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple by Rome in 70 CE.9
Consider Marcus Borg’s listing of the New Testament books in the order they were written in The Evolution of the Word (including his likely dates10):
- 1 Thessalonians (50 CE)
- Galatians (50 CE)
- 1 Corinthians (50 CE)
- Philemon (mid-50s CE)
- Philippians (mid-50s CE)
- 2 Corinthians (mid-50s)
- Romans (58 CE)
- Mark (70 CE)
- James (70-80 CE)
- Colossians (80s CE)
- Matthew (80-90 CE)
- Hebrews (80-90 CE)
- John (90 CE)
- Ephesians (90s CE)
- Revelation (90s CE)
- Jude (90s CE)
- 1 John (100 CE)
- 2 John (100 CE)
- 3 John (100 CE)
- Luke (100 CE)
- Acts (100 CE)
- 2 Thessalonians (100 CE)
- 1 Peter (100 CE)
- 1 Timothy (100-110 CE)
- 2 Timothy (100-110 CE)
- Titus (100-110 CE)
- 2 Peter (120-150 CE)
==================
Bonus
Scholars normally break down the 13 Pauline letters as follows:
Undisputed letters of Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.
These seven letters are normally thought to be written by Paul. That is why they are called “undisputed” letters.
- Disputed letters of Paul: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.
There is no scholarly consensus on whether these six letters are actually penned by Paul. That is why they are called “disputed” letters. Others use the term Deutero-Pauline to describe them, a sort of “second” canon of letters that are questionably attributed to Paul.
In this short post, we cannot go into the reasons why each of these letters are rejected by some, questioned by others, and accepted as Paul by yet other scholars.
Such inquiries of authorship developed from the Enlightenment period when biblical writings started to be critically examined. This took place through the process of reasoning rather than letting religious dogma of previous generations decide the issue.
Great overview for those so inclined
https://www.bartehrman.com/pauline-epistles/
What if God inspired the order in which they appear in the Bible?
ReplyDeleteWhat a stupid waste of blog space!
ReplyDeleteWhy would an atheist who does not even believe the material he is discussing insist that it be arranged in chronological order, rather than in inspiring, cohesive, purpose-driven literary form??? Next thing you know, someone will insist on alphabetic order. If you don't like the way it's arranged, print it out in loose-leaf, and make your own New Testament.
Well, I guess this is further evidence that evangelizing atheists exist.
9.27 AM , evangelizing atheists? You are being too kind. Dennis's motive is identified in 1 kings 3:26 "Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it."
DeleteLike the women who wanted the baby divided, Dennis doesn't want anyone else entering the kingdom, since he's a failed Christian. This is a rampant attitude in society. Yet Dennis thinks he's mentally invisible to others, as if he has a cloak of invisibility. This is common among those who live in ivory towers.
I think, if you ever have the experience of going from believer to non-believer, you, as I, would like to know what you were never taught in the first place about the scriptures. I have always had an interest in the Bible, its actual history, politic and authorships. I still do. As well, you will find that former believers know the scriptures better than believers because of the experience and interests. They continue to study that which they did not know was available to study. They didn't settle down in dogma and lose their sense of Biblical curiosity. Often it intensifies. The standard order of the NT gives a wrong impression but nevertheless, a convincing one if just accepted without question. In the correct chronological order, a new perspective emerges.
DeleteDennis @3:22 ~ My response would be that I've also been both places. What I've found is that you grow in whichever direction you feed.
DeleteSuch a fascinating post. Thank you Dennis for putting the time and effort into it. You are right, dogma is the enemy of critical thinking, and viewing the NT through the actual chronological order in which it was written is eye-opening. Years ago Gavin Rumney wrote a paper called "Questions about the Biblical canon". He addressed the issue of chronology among other things and really did a stellar job of distilling the issue into a text easy to read and even easier to understand. It's still online after all these years: https://otagosh.tripod.com/canon.pdf
DeleteThat is a piece of Solomonic wisdom, 3:59! I have watched it take place with all the named posters here over the years. They manage to grow in understanding of whichever side they choose, based on ever deepening, perpetual study. It's all a matter of free will, and intellectual curiosity. Whatever you feed is what grows and becomes more real to you.
DeleteDennis:
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to real world timeline, I believe that if one considers only the written texts, one is considering only a part of the data. The texts existed in a milieu of actual experience and oral accounts. The First Century Ekklesia's understanding consisted of the accumulated oral knowledge plus the documents as they were generated.
There are no documents that I know of that survive from the very earliest period of the formation of the Ekklesia. This lack of documentation leads to the idea that Christianity was a word-of-mouth movement in the beginning. The writings came later.
In these modern times, we only know a piece of the elephant. For the most part we know what has been transmitted to us by document. It may be the most important piece doctrinally but may be deficient in historical detail and chronology.
A simple question is: How much knowledge did Paul understand that the typical Christian had when he wrote his epistles? This controls the tenor of what Paul wrote yet it is unknown to us. Paul's epistles were directed to people who were already established Christians. They are not missionary publications meant to introduce people to Christianity. This is a watershed difference. Absent the context for the writings, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the development of the Ekklesia.
Scout
I agree. As Bart Ehrman notes, we only have copies, of copies of copies of copies with plenty of edits along the way. The letters, real or pseudepigraphic were circulated and read because only a very small number of people could read much less write. Paul's being the first of the NT writers and his conflict with the Jerusalem Apostles was and is well known. James Tabor addresses this in his book on Jesus and Paul. "How Paul transformed Christianity" In reality, there never was, or not for long, one true church. Schism and splits began almost before the body cooled. We can know, for the most part, the evolution of Christianity beginning more in the 2nd Century CE. Thanks for commenting
ReplyDeleteAs everyone who has even a superficial familiarity with my writings is aware, I am NOT a Fundamentalist. I believe that the evidence, both internal and external, points to Scripture being a joint project between human and Divine. I have acknowledged and discussed in some detail the contradictions and errors present in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Likewise, I have acknowledged and written about the order of the various books, the contributions of multiple anonymous human authors and editors. For instance, the evidence is very clear to me that an individual named Moses did NOT write most of Torah, and that the book of Job is probably the first book written of the Hebrew canon. Likewise, I agree with Gerd Ludemann that Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians is the first text of the Greek New Testament.
ReplyDeleteAll of these things discredit the fairly modern notion of Scriptural inerrancy. They do NOT, however, constitute proof that Scripture should be regarded as a discredited wholly human composition of a superstitious past. Indeed, I would say that such a conclusion is NOT inevitable and is NOT supported by the totality of the evidence available to us.
Most Old Testament and New Testament writings began as oral traditions (including the writings of the prophets). Indeed, even the writings which we now think of as being quite intentional - deliberate were almost never the work of a single person. For instance, most scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel account to be written down - there is evidence that both the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed from this account. Likewise, it is very probable that Matthew and Luke employed partial collections of Christ's sayings and teachings in the construction of their own accounts. Moreover, it is extremely likely that some of these incomplete accounts were written down even before Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians were written. In other words, like the houses we live in, we often find that various parts of our houses were added to the original structure (sometimes many years later).
(continued below)
As for Paul's epistles, it is clear that Paul did not personally write many of these letters. He often employed other people acting in the capacity of personal secretaries - taking dictation if you will. In this respect, we must remember that literacy was rare and its quality very uneven in First Century Judaea. Hence, one would expect to find significant variations in both grammar and style among the epistles attributed to him, and we do.
ReplyDeleteNow, I am very familiar with the scholarly writings of James Tabor and Bart Ehrman, and I have a tremendous respect for them, their research, and their conclusions. I have not, however, swallowed their conclusions hook, line, and sinker, and neither should you! I think that it is very misleading to characterize Paul's accounts of Jesus as hallucinatory and not grounded in the real person and his teachings. Yes, the evidence is quite conclusive that Paul brought a unique perspective to the new faith, but that does NOT constitute proof that he was delusional and completely divorced from the experiences and teachings of the original apostles.
For instance, in that first epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul mentioned Christ's resurrection, that his own people had killed him, that salvation was through him, that he was going to return to the earth someday, underscored the importance of Christ's teaching about loving each other, and that Christ would someday share his life with them (all of this in five short chapters). Likewise, in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth, we read that Christ was the Son of God, that Jesus was the promised Messiah, that he was crucified on a cross, that he taught baptism, that Christ freed them from sin and reconciled them to God, that God's Spirit gives us the mind of Christ, that he taught about the Kingdom of God, that Peter was one of his apostles, that Christ gave his body and his blood for us and instituted the Eucharist before he died, that love was the most important teaching/understanding of the faith that Christ founded, and that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected. I don't know about you, but that seems to me like a great deal of the same information found in the gospel narratives.
(continued below)
Finally, there is certainly nothing wrong with continuing to study and analyze all aspects of the human contributions made to Scripture. However, how does one study and/or analyze Divine contributions to those documents? Moreover, if one chooses to dismiss/ignore any such evidence, or even deny the possibility that such evidence exists, how can we characterize that analysis as objective and complete? After all, if the evidence of human contributions to Scripture is accepted as discrediting those writings, aren't we effectively engaging in circular reasoning?
ReplyDeleteIs there noting of value in these books? Is there nothing of beauty and grace in them? What made these writings displace other religious traditions? Are the personal experiences of millions of Christians to be ignored or dismissed as emotional or delusional? How did a religion whose founder was an obscure Jew who was put to death by the Roman governor of the province survive and overtake and replace the religions of both the empire and its enemies? Why were so many people willing to die for this new faith? How could such an elaborate conspiracy be carried out without the cooperation of thousands of people? Knowing what we know now about human nature and psychology, how likely do you think it is that such a grand conspiracy could be successfully carried out? Too much coincidence and evidence for me to ignore. What about you?
The compelling question is why did God decide to do it this way. The rejoinder to the assertion that “God let his children tell the story” is “Why did God let his children tell the story?” The transmission of the message that God had for the Jews was not a clean point in time delivery but a durational unfolding from Genesis to Malachi involving many writers and curational processes. The same principle applies to the NT. Further, humans have determined what constitutes the canon, with the expected differences in opinion. At the time that Revelation, the leitmotif of the NT for modern apocalyptics, entered the canon about half the church, apparently motivated by the Holy Spirit, did not believe it was scripture.
ReplyDeleteThe Tanakh, with all of its scribal and curational abrasions, was never denounced by Jesus. Instead, John states delicately, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” And Jesus as the actional Word incessantly waged war against the letter-of-the-law Pharisees. He stated that the Pharisees had neglected the weightier matters of the Law. It wasn’t that the message was bad. It was that humans had mishandled and misunderstood it.
Of course, I have a theory. I think that God could have easily written a spare and direct document outlining the behavioral expectations that he had for humanity with a clause attached that said no “updates or amendments or historical meanderings.” But the Tanakh engages humanities ethical sense, moral disposition and editorial responsibility. You have to put your big boy pants on to deal with it. And the Jews have been engaged in Midrash ever since.
And I welcome the atheistic viewpoint. It is a part of the process.
Scout
Our faith should be sharpened when someone like Dennis challenges the foundation. Don't get defensive, get educated, there are letters about authorship with hints to dates from 170 AD. There are 2000+ years of church history to refute this not just during the Enlightenment. Bart Ehrman makes a lot of money making bombastic claims but at the root of his arguments even he believes in the historical Jesus. A better source for believers is Dan Wallace, also a NT textural critic and professor emeritus of New Testament Studies at DTS. He moped the floor with Ehrman at a debate in Nova Scotia a few years back.
ReplyDeleteOur background does put us at a disadvantage however. Since most of us don't view fellow "Christians" as true believers, we tend to not look to "Christian" history as legitimate. Pray for Dennis for the healing of the abuse that he experienced and unwittingly took part in, he has so much experience from the COG environment that we could all learn from him.
I have watched these debates between Ehrman and Wallace and it is hyperbole and subjective on your part to say Wallace "moped the floor with Ehrman". That would be your personal view as a cheerleader for Wallace. I found both men to be respectful. Agree that they had things in common and that they didn't. Both are excellent scholars in their fields. Both had very valid points to make about the NT Text, its transmission and trustability.
DeleteI believe for the atheist the question is not so much "why did God decide to do anything in anyway but is rather the view that there is no God to decide to do anything and it's just really man-made literature and tale weaving with religious content and meaning. So one can make up any personaly satisfying theory that fits one's preconceived views, emotional needs and hopes.
ReplyDeleteDennis lives in Portland, and could be taking part in history with all the protests, and such.
ReplyDeleteChristianity shimmers, sizzles and pops. Atheism is just plain boring and depressing. Its value as an antidote to Armstrongism is extremely limited, unless you spike it with a little bit of sin
The first time I was in Portland for more than a day or so, the Occupy Wall Street thing was the flavor of the month and there were a few gatherings and street marches. I went out and mingled a bit just to see what was happening (as much as a black man can in white-ass Portland). Not that exciting though, could have been easily described as a walking street party than a protest.
Delete