Can We Trust the New Testament?

The New Testament did not arrive as a finished book, and no one created it with a single vote. It came together in stages. First came spoken testimony about Jesus and letters to churches. Next the Gospels were written while some apostles were still alive. Those writings were then copied and passed between congregations across the Roman world. Over time the churches recognized which writings carried the apostolic faith. This study follows that sequence so you can see what happened at each stage and which parts of the story are dates, which are estimates and which are interpretation.

The guide draws on a Jude 3 Project podcast conversation between Lisa Fields and New Testament scholar Dr. Dennis Edwards, dean of North Park Theological Seminary. You can work through it alone in about an hour. A group can take one or two sessions. The center of the study is a timeline you build yourself, so have paper and a Bible nearby.

Start with the picture you already have

Before reading further, write two or three sentences on how you think the New Testament books ended up together. Be honest. Many people carry some version of the same image: church leaders meeting in a room, debating a pile of books and voting on which ones stay. Others have never thought about it and assume the Bible simply always existed as a bound volume.

Keep what you wrote. You will come back to it at the end.

Edwards names the vote picture directly. Canon, he explains, means rule or standard: the books held as the measure of the faith. He then adds that “some people think of canon as an event,” as if “People just sat around and took a vote.” His correction is careful. He does not deny that leaders ever discussed the question. “I mean, there was certainly some deliberation, but think of it as a process.” The rest of this study is an attempt to see that process in order.

Stage one: testimony and letters, before any book

The earliest layer is not a document at all. Edwards describes a period when the faith moved by word of mouth: “The stories about Jesus, we had people talking about it.” Alongside that spoken tradition, “We had these letters start to get written.” On his dating, Paul’s letters begin in the 50s, roughly twenty years after the ministry of Jesus.

These letters were not written as chapters of a future Bible. They were parts of real conversations with real congregations. Edwards points to 1 Corinthians as an example. When Paul writes it, there has already been trouble in the church, and “we find out in chapter seven that he’s writing a letter that’s a response to a letter they wrote to him.” You can see this in the text. 1 Corinthians 7:1 opens, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.” We hold one side of an exchange. The Corinthians kept it, and Edwards observes that “that church felt like we should save that and pass that on for more people to be able to read that part of the conversation.”

Paul himself expected his letters to travel beyond their first readers. Colossians 4:16 instructs, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” Notice what this verse describes: letters being read aloud in gatherings and exchanged between nearby churches. That is circulation, and it was happening within the apostles’ own lifetimes, long before anyone could have voted on a list.

Pause and observe: Read 1 Corinthians 7:1 and Colossians 4:16 slowly. What does each verse tell you about how a letter was used after it arrived? Write down one thing a first-century church member would have known about these letters that a modern reader holding a bound Bible might miss.

Stage two: writing the story down while witnesses lived

Why write the Gospels at all if the stories were already being told? Edwards gives a plain answer. By the time the accounts were being written, apostles were still living, though some were near the end of their lives, “which is the reason why you do write things down.” He places the Gospels around 70, about twenty years after Paul’s first letters and, on his reckoning, about forty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. By then the stories had circulated long enough to hold together, and the churches could recognize these accounts as the story of Jesus.

Luke describes this situation from the inside. His Gospel begins, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us” (Luke 1:1). Luke knows other people have already tried to write the story. His Gospel enters a stream of accounts already in motion.

Edwards is honest that dates in this period are estimates. “We’re dealing with hypotheses, we’re dealing with speculation,” he says, because no Gospel arrives with a date written on it. Much of the debate turns on how scholars read Jesus’s prediction of the temple’s fall. Edwards also notes that scholars who prefer late dates put the Gospels toward the end of the first century or into the second. So when you place the Gospels on your timeline, mark them as an estimate, not a fixed point.

One more detail matters for the chronology. Edwards reports an argument from scholar Craig Evans: that original manuscripts could last a long time, so that “originals were existing while you were making copies.” That is Evans’s claim as Edwards relays it, not a settled fact. But it corrects a common assumption. Many people picture the originals disappearing and copies appearing only centuries later. Evans pictures the two existing together for a time.

Stage three: copying, before there was a canon

The writings now traveled by hand. Every copy was made by a person, and people make small changes. Edwards gives an example most readers never notice. In 1 John 1:4, the KJV reads, “And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.” Some manuscripts read “our” joy where others read “your” joy. No doctrine rests on the difference, but it shows human hands at work.

Larger additions exist too. Edwards discusses two that modern Bibles usually mark: the material after Mark 16:8 and the account of the woman caught in adultery near the end of John 7 going into John 8. Mark 16:8 ends abruptly: “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” Edwards suggests a scribe may have found that ending too much of a cliffhanger and added more of the story. He thinks the adultery account was most likely a story about Jesus that circulated separately and was later placed in a Gospel. He calls these “attempts to clarify” and admits he cannot know any scribe’s actual motive.

His central distinction is this: “the question is really originality. It’s not authenticity.” Asking whether Mark wrote a passage is a different question from asking whether its content is true.

Here the chronology does real work. People often imagine scribes tampering with a finished, sacred book. Edwards argues the sequence was different. These changes happened before there was something called a canon, and “it wasn’t coming all intact.” Instead, “It was a bunch of manuscripts that were floating around and getting copied and being shared and being listened to and being taught.” So he does not find it helpful “to see it as adding to something when that something didn’t exist as such.” He also points out that the manuscripts themselves reveal where variations occur. We can identify these additions because so many copies survive to compare.

Stage four: recognition under pressure

As years passed and the apostles died, the churches faced a sharper question: which of these writings truly represent the faith? Edwards describes three tests the early Christians weighed:

• Was the writing connected to the apostles?
• Was it widely accepted and used in churches across the Roman world, east and west?
• Did it fit the rule of faith, the way the Christian faith had been taught and practiced from the start?

Notice that the second test describes something that had been happening for generations. A vote cannot make a writing widely used. The use came first, and the recognition followed it.

The third test became pressing because new writings appeared. Edwards places Gnostic texts in the second century and later. These texts, he says, were not written by the people whose names they carry, and “they presented a picture of Jesus that was not consistent with what had been revealed through the Apostles.” He does not soften what the church did with them. It did not spend effort copying them and probably worked to destroy them. Some resurfaced only in the 1940s and 1950s with the Nag Hammadi discovery.

Edwards compares the church’s reasoning to a teacher protecting what has been handed down: “This is not what we’ve been teaching, so let’s hold up what we have been teaching.” He connects this to the verse this ministry is named for, which urges believers to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). The direction of the logic matters for your timeline. The apostolic faith existed first. The judgment about later books measured them against it.

Edwards also explains a related set of books, the deuterocanonical writings. They come from Jewish authors living under Greek rule. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches keep them, while Protestants came to set them apart, and early editions of the King James Bible printed them as the Apocrypha. Edwards says that even in the third and fourth centuries, churches knew these books but did not rely on them the way they relied on the Old Testament and the writings now called the New Testament. That is a real difference among Christian traditions, separate from the question of the Gnostic gospels.

The practice: build the timeline yourself

Take a sheet of paper and draw a line across it. Mark these points in order, using only what this study has given you:

1. The ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.
2. Spoken testimony about Jesus spreading among believers.
3. Paul’s letters, beginning in the 50s on Edwards’s dating.
4. Letters read and exchanged between churches (Colossians 4:16).
5. The Gospels, around 70 on Edwards’s dating.
6. Hand copying, including small variations and later additions.
7. Gnostic writings appearing in the second century and later.
8. Churches weighing apostolic connection, wide use and the rule of faith.
9. The Nag Hammadi texts rediscovered in the 1940s and 1950s.

Now label each item with one of three letters. Write E if it is something the text itself shows you, like a verse you read. Write D if it is a date or estimate given by Edwards or a scholar he cites. Write I if it is an interpretation, such as a judgment about why a scribe made a change. Some items may earn two letters.

Then find your sentences from the opening exercise. Where on this line did your original picture put the decisive moment? What would have to be true for a single vote to explain items 2 through 6? Write one revised sentence describing how the New Testament came together.

Questions for discussion

1. Edwards distinguishes a process with some deliberation from an event decided by a vote. If the deliberation happened after generations of use, what exactly was being decided?
2. Paul’s letters were replies within ongoing relationships. How does knowing that 1 Corinthians answers a letter from the Corinthians change how you would read a hard passage in it?
3. Edwards argues that later additions were made before there was a fixed collection to add to. Does that sequence settle the concern for you, or does a question remain? State it as precisely as you can.
4. The early church probably worked to destroy writings it judged false. A skeptic calls that suppression. Edwards compares it to guarding what had been taught. What evidence would help you decide which description fits better?
5. On your timeline, which items rest on dates scholars still debate? Does your confidence depend on any one disputed date, or on the overall sequence?
6. Which of the three tests (apostolic connection, wide use, fit with the rule of faith) seems strongest to you as a way to recognize authoritative writings, and which seems most open to abuse?

For anyone leading this

Give the timeline exercise real time. It works best when people build it in pairs and then compare. Disagreements about whether an item is evidence, an estimate or an interpretation are productive. Let them run before you offer an answer. If someone asks a question the study cannot settle, such as an exact date, say so plainly. Modeling that honesty teaches as much as the content.

Some participants may be preparing for a college religion course. Lisa Fields encourages parents and mentors not to shield young people from serious material. Her advice is “don’t necessarily dumb it down,” because students who meet these questions unprepared tend to accept whatever the professor says. If your group includes students, consider having them explain the timeline back to the group in their own words.

Return to the sentence you wrote at the start. Set it beside your revised one. The distance between them shows what you can now explain to someone who believes the books were simply voted in. Practice saying the revised version aloud this week. Try it with one person who has asked you this question.