How did the New Testament canon develop?
Loading...
Loading...
2,019
Loading...
There is no Interactive Transcript.
5:56
With no scripture in place, what controlled doctrine in the 1st century?by ehrmanproject5,056 views- 4:17
How can we reconcile the Old Testament God and the New Testament God?by ehrmanproject3,780 views
- 3:54
Are the New Testament manuscripts reliable? (Part 2)by ehrmanproject3,490 views
- 2:49
Do the Gospels disagree with one another?by ehrmanproject1,529 views
- 1:37
Is the Bible historically reliable?by ehrmanproject1,728 views
- 3:01
Jesus Real Face?by malibuwill1024422,032 views
- 4:27
Why are the birth narratives so different? (Part 1)by ehrmanproject1,682 views
- 5:12
Morality and the 'Problem of Evil'by ehrmanproject3,991 views
- 4:53
Aren't there 400,000 variants or errors in the New Testament? (Part 1)by ehrmanproject2,093 views
- 3:37
Does Mark incorrectly quote 1 Samuel?by ehrmanproject1,542 views
- 5:19
What are some passages you interpret differently than Dr. Ehrman? (Part 3; Mark 16:9-20)by ehrmanproject2,458 views
- 5:33
The issue of oral tradition.by ehrmanproject1,818 views
- 4:04
Did scribes doctor the manuscripts?by ehrmanproject870 views
- 3:45
On Quirinius' Censusby ehrmanproject1,608 views
- 1:13
The Formation of the New Testamentby ECSMinistries472 views
- 0:31
EhrmanProject.com Promotional Videoby ehrmanproject7,726 views
- 3:11
Disagreements over Jesus and Christology in the early church.by ehrmanproject1,697 views
- 3:06
Have you personally experienced evil in your life?by ehrmanproject1,104 views
- 1:43
Welcome to the Ehrman Projectby ehrmanproject12,357 views
The books that were the most popular got to be in the canon!
harpo103 1 month ago
That the Muratorian Fragment names most of the current canon doesn't deny dissent as to which if any writings constituted scripture. It proves only that there was a list then that contained a number of the current canonical books. Although there was likely consensus early on the four current gospels and certain "Pauline" letters, it was not until almost the 5th century that any list included, e.g., both Revelation and Jude. There is also the question of what "canon" meant.
samiyam318 3 months ago
He had me until he said "irregardless".
KayBeeEee1983 5 months ago
the muratorian fragment dates to the 7th century. this is misleading. you know quite well, doctor, that there WERE many different views of what is canonical. just compare st. jerome and augustine considering the dueterocanonical books. there was never as dispute? are you fucking insane, sir? i am about to be a religoius studies professor as you are. apparently you didnt stick to your studies. the only reason you are on video is because people are stupid and dont know better.
taliesin939939 7 months ago
@TonDogWayner i would agree to a large extent. the orthodox church accepted the 4 gospels early on. of course the gospel of thomas would change views, being a gnostic work. however, i would agree that the apologist argument is faulty, if for no other reason than it is a biased perspective, based in the core at defending a point of view. thats a bullshit way to approach scholarship.
taliesin939939 7 months ago
Dr. Kruger says the Muratorian fragment "dates from the late second century". This is deceptively misleading. The Muratorian fragment dates from the *7th* century, whereas the contents *may* date from as early as 170. In my opinion, presenting the Muratorian in this way is being intellectually dishonest as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the facts.
jimmo42 1 year ago
This seems to be implying that the group that used the books listed in Muratorian fragment were the only group around, as if it were *the* church. This is simply not so. A very plausible explanation would be that there were many competing groups and it was the group that used that list which "won" in the end.
jimmo42 1 year ago