di Giuseppe Guarino
The Birth of the New Testament: Written Word vs Oral Tradition
| “I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” (2 Peter 1:15) |
Critics of the reliability and traditional dating of the New Testament often argue that the early preaching of the Gospel was entrusted solely to oral tradition. While there is some truth to this, because both in the first century and today, nothing is as powerful as the preaching of the Word, it is important to recognize that the written Word has always played a crucial role as a reference—an objective and reliable means to confirm what constitutes the true and pure Word of God.
Though the terminology may not always make it obvious, discussing the “Canon” of Sacred Scripture essentially means determining which books are rightful to be included in our Bibles and considered the inspired Word of God.
I will approach this topic in a simple manner, perhaps even overly simplistic for the scientifically inclined reader. Nonetheless, from a purely Christian perspective, the issue is truly straightforward.
Regarding the Old Testament, Jesus himself affirmed the Hebrew canon through his frequent quotations and fulfillment of the prophecies contained in its books. He acknowledged the traditional Jewish division into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which mirrors the structure of the Old Testament we read today. As expressed in Luke 24:44: “Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’”
The Old Testament is regularly cited throughout the New Testament, with its authority playing a foundational role in demonstrating that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Jesus himself often referenced figures like Moses, Daniel, and David, continuously drawing upon the Scriptures.
For example, during his temptation in the desert, as well as when he read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue, Jesus affirmed that what had been written centuries earlier was being fulfilled in him.
In this way, the Hebrew canon was incorporated and accepted into the Christian canon.
The situation becomes somewhat more complex when we turn our attention to the New Testament. In the early days of Christianity, the rigorous Jewish mindset had to, in a sense, reconcile with the Greek philosophical and cultural influence that dominated the world at that time. This tension was akin to the challenge faced by orthodox Judaism in Israel as it encountered the Jewish diaspora’s more Hellenized approach to faith and life.
The task of the early Church was certainly not easy. It had already been difficult to distinguish and accept the authentic apostolic testimony over that of some “false apostles.”
We read in Revelation 2:1-2: ““To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, ‘These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;”
Given the extensive number of Gospels, epistles falsely attributed to Paul, and various apocryphal writings ascribed to different apostles, the task of collecting and determining which texts were the authentic, inspired writings of the New Testament must have been an immense challenge.
“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us…” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)
Paul was very careful and made sure to provide unique confirmations that guaranteed the authenticity of his writings.
“The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write”. (2 Thessalonians 3:17)
“The salutation with my own hand—Paul’s” (1 Corinthians 16:21)
“This salutation by my own hand—Paul” (Colossesi 4:18).
Churches surely made copies of the letter they received and sent them to the other churches. Paul encouraged this.
“I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren” (1 Thessalonians 5:27)
This is not something happening in a Church relying on oral tradition!
In the second epistle of Peter, the epistles of Paul are elevated to the consideration of “Scripture”: “…and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16).
In the words of the apostle Peter, we perceive the tension that characterized the first-century Church, tasked with distinguishing between true and false witnesses of the events surrounding the new faith, while also acknowledging the crucial role of the apostles.
The understanding that the Lord’s return would not occur in that immediate period was revealed to Peter directly by Jesus himself. This made it essential to ensure that once the eyewitnesses had passed, the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus would be transmitted in a definitive and trustworthy manner.
“For this reason, I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover, I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:12-16).
In the early Church, there was indeed great ferment. On one hand, there was a profound awareness of the authority of what had been handed down by the apostles and validated by them. On the other hand, there was a keen consciousness of the need to safeguard this heritage against any efforts to distort it: whether by misinterpreting the apostolic writings or by producing spurious narratives or parallel accounts lacking apostolic authority.
In conclusion, the Church’s interest and diligence in the early centuries, once the foundations and apostolic directives were firmly established, must have focused on one singular objective: the preservation and collection of genuine proofs of the faith.
As uncomfortable as it may be for the scientific mindset of our time, we must acknowledge: only the early, apostolic, and post-apostolic Church possessed the means to successfully accomplish this task! And the only rational solution is to trust the conclusions it reached. The responsibility of determining the Canon of Scripture was not entrusted to the Church of today.
In some circles, there is insufficient esteem for critical thinking and active dialogue among the early Christian communities. Yet, there is no reason to believe that the authentic apostolic books of the New Testament did not immediately gain universal recognition among Christian churches. While eminent scholars may present brilliant and engaging theories, I argue that today we lack sufficient evidence to arrive at truly convincing conclusions, both historically and critically. The rise and fall of various theories and assumptions objectively support my argument. In contrast, the early Church was fully equipped for this task.
The various apocryphal writings, such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, and others, were known to the Church. Their reliability as historical documents was, and remains, nonexistent. For their contemporaries, these texts held no religious, literary, or historical value. They were merely futile attempts to distort events central to the Christian faith.
The testimony we receive from antiquity regarding the Canon of the New Testament is indirect, found in the writings of early Christians from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries and beyond. In these writings, the New Testament is frequently cited as Sacred Scripture, with texts that align closely with what we have today. The Christian writers of the early centuries, though living in different times and regions, provide a remarkable and consistent witness to the text of the New Testament.
There are also direct testimonies, such as the Muratorian Canon (circa 170 AD), or, more notably, the careful and detailed account provided by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in the first half of the 4th century. In the twenty-fifth chapter of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius specifically addresses the issue of the Canon and, with great clarity, prioritizes the four Gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles; then the letters of Paul, followed by the First Epistle of John and the First Epistle of Peter, concluding with the book of Revelation.
With notable historical precision—a testament to his intellectual rigor—Eusebius records that, up to his time, the question of the canonicity of the Epistle of James and that of Jude, as well as the Second Epistle of Peter and the Second and Third Epistles of John, remained unresolved. In the interest of accuracy, he further notes that some continued to question—and indeed, some still do today—the authenticity of the Book of Revelation. He also refers to other writings, such as the now-lost Gospel to the Hebrews, which he specifies was held in high esteem among believers of Jewish origin. Other texts are simply classified by him as non-authentic. Adopting a notably harsh tone, he discusses certain writings and adds his own judgment: aside from the Church’s silence regarding them, “their style is very different from that of the apostles, and the sentiments and purpose of the things reported in them, deviating as much as possible from sound orthodoxy, show that they are the imaginary work of heretical men.” Eusebius’s attitude is comprehensible; it reflects the stance of the Church in the face of evident forgeries, which constituted a direct and petty assault on the most cherished truths of the Christian faith.
For the sake of completeness, it must be noted that attempts to add to the pure Word of God were not limited to the challenges faced by the early Church. Indeed, in a manner similar to that of ancient apocryphal writings, any literary work that a religious movement proposes as deserving of the same reverence as the Sacred Scriptures should be approached with due suspicion. The Book of Mormon, for example, is a text that, without legitimate warrant, is placed on par with the New Testament and employed as though it were the Word of God. It was purportedly delivered to the prophet Joseph Smith, who was troubled by the many divisions present among the Christian churches. Yet, in my view, the group known as the Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, has succeeded not in fostering unity but rather in introducing further division and doctrinal error.
Within the Jehovah’s Witnesses movement, personal engagement with Scripture is consistently accompanied by the intensive study of publications issued by the Watch Tower, the organization’s official organ. Adherents are not permitted to express dissenting opinions regarding the pronouncements of the governing body.
Similarly, the Catholic Church, through its catechesis and Magisterium, presents an interpretation of Scripture that is to be regarded as authoritative and accepted without question by its faithful. Individual interpretation of the Bible is not permitted. To the Scriptures, the Catholic Church has added its Tradition and Magisterium, both of which are considered to possess equal authority and are held to be the Word of God on the same level as the Holy Bible.
Regarding the content necessary for salvation and the doctrinal truths essential to the faith, it was the apostolic Church that ensured their transmission by giving us the New Testament—the sole reliable witness to authentic apostolic doctrine. Anything that contradicts it cannot originate from God.
I must acknowledge that I am unable to adopt an impartial or neutral stance on matters concerning the Bible.
While I devote myself with great diligence to the scientific demands of a rigorous historical-literary approach, I must also, as a believer, acknowledge the imperative to convey to readers the profound existential and eternal significance that these writings may hold. Having established the facts presented thus far, the next step I propose is for the reader to consider the religious implications of the Word of God—specifically, the testimony it offers concerning the person of Jesus, his teachings, his death, burial, and resurrection. I extend an invitation to the reader—if he or she has not yet done so—to take this next step and place faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, in order to receive through Him the eternal life He has promised (John 1:11–12).
In conclusion of this discussion on the Canon of the New Testament, it should be noted that, once the eyewitnesses of Jesus were no longer living, the canonical Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and finally the Book of Revelation came to be recognized as the authoritative and trustworthy source of doctrine and practice for the emerging Christian faith. Together, the Old and New Testaments constitute the written Word of God—the divine Revelation given to humanity and to the Church—so that “the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17).
This article is an excerpt from the book “The Gospel of Judas”
Click here or on the cover to know more or buy it on Amazon
