Bibliology - Lesson 1

In this first part, we’re going to ask the question: How was the New Testament written? This topic will span two lessons. We begin by recognizing that there was likely not much record-keeping during Jesus’ three-and-a-half years of teaching. There may have been some note-taking, but the primary method of rabbinic teaching was repetition.

Rabbis commonly repeated their teachings—sometimes verbatim, sometimes with small adaptations for different contexts. This repetition helped disciples internalize and remember what their rabbi taught. So while written notes might have existed, the primary method was oral transmission—by word of mouth.

The disciples likely didn’t feel the need to preserve Jesus’ teachings for millennia. They believed Jesus would return soon. In Acts 1:6, at the Ascension, they ask, “Is it now that you’re going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Clearly, they expected his return soon. So Jesus’ teachings and deeds were passed on orally and spread quickly across regions.

Early Christian teachings included collections we call “Jesus stories” or “traditions.” These terms don’t imply falsehood—they simply refer to the oral gospel content that eventually became Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But beyond the gospel stories, the church also received new material—like the writings of Paul and other apostles—who taught with full authority.

In addition to these, early churches used hymns, not in the musical sense we think of today, but as rhythmic, poetic expressions of doctrine—likely used for teaching and memorization. Paul quotes several of these in places like Philippians 2 and 2 Timothy 2.

So the early church relied on eyewitnesses, Jesus stories, apostolic teaching, and didactic hymns. Authors like James and Jude—relatives of Jesus—also contributed written teaching. This blend of sources formed a growing body of doctrinal authority.

By around the 60s A.D., a theological orthodoxy had taken shape. This core body of belief was widely accepted. Jude 1:3 refers to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” suggesting that the content of Christian belief was largely set early. By then, approximately 22 of the 27 New Testament books were universally accepted as authoritative.

This early orthodoxy formed the basis for evaluating later writings: Do they agree with the known, accepted teachings? If so, they might be considered; if not, they were rejected. This made it easier to identify and defend authentic writings.

This leads to the next question: Were the writers accurate? Some challenge this. The Jesus Seminar, for instance, involved 80+ liberal scholars who voted on the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings. Their views influenced pop works like The Da Vinci Code, which questioned whether there ever was a core set of authoritative beliefs in early Christianity.

These perspectives are built on assumptions—particularly an anti-supernatural bias. Many involved in such projects reject divine action altogether. For example, they assume Jesus never claimed divinity, so sayings that imply that—such as referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” from Daniel 7—must be inauthentic.

Another assumption is that Jesus never intended to establish a church. So when He speaks of “the keys of the kingdom” or “the gates of hell not prevailing,” they argue He couldn’t have said it. Why? Because they assume He didn’t intend to found a church.

They also often assume Jesus had no mission to the Gentiles. Hence, the Gospel of Luke—with its emphasis on Gentile ministry—must be fabricated, they say. Luke, as a Gentile, allegedly inserted these stories to make Jesus appear inclusive. These arguments are rooted in unprovable assumptions.

The Gospel of Thomas is an interesting case. The Jesus Seminar concluded it contains more authentic sayings of Jesus than the Gospel of John. But if you read the Gospel of Thomas, you’ll quickly notice how disconnected it feels from Jesus’ known character and teachings. These conclusions reflect ideological preferences, not historical evidence.

So how do we respond to claims that the Gospel writers got it wrong?

There are several rebuttals. First, the role of eyewitnesses. Most of Jesus’ ministry was public—performed before disciples, followers, and crowds. From events like the feeding of the 5,000 to the Sermon on the Mount, people saw and heard for themselves. If someone misrepresented what Jesus said, others would correct them. This created social or corporate memory—a shared commitment to accuracy.

Paul appeals to this in 1 Corinthians 15:6, saying that Jesus appeared to over 500 people, “most of whom are still alive.” Eyewitnesses were alive to verify or challenge claims, reinforcing reliability.

Second, the role of the Holy Spirit. While this argument may not persuade non-Christians, for believers it’s vital. In John 14:26, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit will “teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said.” The Spirit enabled the disciples to recall and record Jesus’ words and deeds with precision. That gives us confidence in the New Testament’s accuracy.

Third, persecution reinforces authenticity. Early believers were persecuted for their faith. People do not willingly suffer or die for what they know to be false. Persecution drove early Christians to ensure what they believed was accurate. You don’t die for a myth—you die for truth.

Other rebuttals exist, and you can find more in my book Why I Trust the Bible. But the eyewitnesses, the Spirit’s work, and the role of persecution all support the conclusion that the biblical writers got it right.

Around the 40s A.D., the church began moving from oral tradition to written texts—primarily through Paul. His letters, written from the late 40s to the mid-60s, began the New Testament writing phase. Books like James may also date to the mid-century.

As Jesus’ return didn’t happen immediately, the need to preserve teachings grew. Mark likely wrote his Gospel in the late 50s, before Peter’s death in the 60s (since Mark reflects Peter’s eyewitness account). Matthew, Luke, and John came later, though precise dating is difficult.

Importantly, the authority of the writings stems from the authority of the writers. For example, Paul’s letter to the Romans carried his apostolic authority. While some rejected Paul’s authority, the early church largely accepted his writings because of who he was.

Mark’s Gospel, as Peter’s memoirs, carried Peter’s authority. Likewise, Matthew and John were apostles. Luke wasn’t an eyewitness, but he was a close companion of Paul and diligently recorded the events as he learned them. These authors were in a position to accurately report on Jesus’ life and teachings.

Some claim we don’t know who wrote the Gospels. That’s false. Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is historically well attested. The writers were known, and their books were trusted.

Let me leave you with a question to ponder: If you had to preserve important teachings without writing them down, how would you ensure they were remembered accurately? That’s what the early church had to do. Consider discussing this with friends—perhaps even role-play a conversation where someone questions the Gospels’ reliability. How would you respond?

Reflect on this, and I’ll see you in the next lesson.