Bible verses christian dating non christian
He then discusses the four Gospels, tying each of them to an apostle by quoting Origen, who wrote a hundred years earlier, around A. 225: [Quoting Origen ...] "Among the 4 Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew ... The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his general epistle acknowledges [Mark] as a son ... VI:25:4-6)I can't give you certain dating and authorship on the NT.And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul ... The evidence of the history of the Bible on all sides is too scanty and the emotional fever too high. The idea of early Christians in the history of the Bible was that it was their job to preserve "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and never add to it ...While Craig Allert, the author, does not say that the NT Scriptures were chosen solely for being apostolic—instead just emphasizing the importance of apostolicity—but the evidence he provides will let you see that what I'm saying is true: Maybe a good way to put it would be to say that to the early church, the apostles were inspired and anything they wrote or said was authoritative to the church.No one else had such authority, so the New Testament was an attempt to collect anything the apostles had written or approved of.Such a topic deserves an entire web site with a page for every book. Without running through the many quotes that address this issue, which would be impossible on a page like this, let me tell you simply that everything I've read on the development of the canon from the 2nd and 3rd centuries is just the same as this. We have learned the plan of our salvation from none others than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.(Irenaeus, The writer of Hebrews says almost the same thing as what Clement says here.
It's hard to tell how much earlier writers in the history of the Bible quoted the Gospels.It is clear, however, that how churches felt about a book had everything to do with whether it was apostolic!, provides an excellent scholarly source to prove my point.I suggest listening to those to whom the Gospels were committed, the Church.The Pre-Nicene writers say that Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew (e.g., Irenaeus, In the 2nd century comes the earliest list of accepted books in the history of the Bible, the Muratorian Canon. It leaves out Hebrews and James and adds in the Wisdom of Solomon and the Shepherd of Hermas. Really, at this early a date in the history of the Bible, the agreement between the Muratorian Fragment and our current canon is astounding. The Council of Nicea never addressed the books of the Bible, and the Muratorian fragment makes it clear no gnostic writings were in the church's canon even in the mid-2nd century. The gnostics were almost entirely run out of the church in the early 2nd century.