Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #3: “The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books”

Posted: February 19, 2013 by doulos tou Theou in Apologetics, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Discipleship

A good read with helpful links to some other posts on the bible. Here is the ending:

In the end, the New Testament canon exists because of an early Christian belief that the apostles spoke for Christ.  That belief led Christians to value apostolic books.  And those apostolic books eventually formed the New Testament that we know today.

http://michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-canon-that-every-christian-should-memorize-3-the-new-testament-books-are-unique-because-they-are-apostolic-books/

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Peter Black says:

    The epistle to the Hebrews was certainly not written by Paul, or by any other apostle. It cannot be called an “apostolic” component of the New Testament.

  2. Peter Black says:

    The Pauline authorship of numerous eptistolae of the New Testament is challenged by contemporary New Testament scholars. If they are right, much of the N.T. cannon is not written by apostles.

  3. Peter Black says:

    The person we know as “Luke” (author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles) was certainly not an apostle. How can anyone claim that the N.T. cannon was written by apostles?

  4. doulos tou Theou says:

    Mr. Kruger is a New Testament Scholar & by this article and the others he has written would appear to say other wise.

    “it should not be forgotten that the early church was in a better position to ascertain the authorship and origins of these books than are modern scholars two thousand years later.”

  5. boydmonster says:

    Peter, those are good questions you bring up. I don’t think I saw where Mr Kruger listed Hebrews as one of Paul’s works. Of course, it’s inclusion in the canon of Scripture was debated for just that reason. It was included not because it was written by Paul, but because the doctrine was determined to be Pauline. In fact, the very debate over its inclusion in the canon proves that the early church was concerned with including only those books that were ‘apostolic’. I can’t find the exact quote right now, but one ancient scholar wrote that although the letter was probably note written by Paul himself, the theology is such that it could have been. Apostolic, then, doesn’t necessarily mean an apostle sat down with a pen, but that the source is apostolic. Likewise with Luke/Acts. Luke was not an apostle, but his writings were deemed “apostolic” because of his relationship with Paul in particular and possibly the other apostles. Of course, Luke is more obviously drawing from source material than the other evangelists, but it is assumed that the early church deemed those sources consistent with the apostolic witness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s