Which New Testament books were canonical

How the early Church decided which books belong in the New Testament, and why the canon eventually settled at 27 books?

1. The Starting Point — No "Bible" Yet

In the 1st century, Christians had:

• The Hebrew Scriptures (their “Old Testament,” usually in Greek form — the Septuagint).

• The teachings of Jesus and the letters of apostles circulating among churches.

But there was no single New Testament collection yet. Each community might have:

• A Gospel or two (e.g., Matthew, Luke).

• Some of Paul’s letters.

• Maybe Revelation or another apostolic text.

In short: The early Church had Scripture, but not a finished New Testament.

2. The Criteria for a Book to Be "Scripture"

As the writings circulated, the Church began distinguishing which were truly inspired and apostolic.
By the 2nd century, church leaders (like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen) were using three main criteria:

Criterion	Meaning	Example
Apostolic origin	Written by an apostle or their close companion	e.g., Mark (Peter’s companion), Luke (Paul’s companion)
Orthodox teaching	Consistent with the “rule of faith” — the core apostolic teaching about Jesus	Gnostic gospels were rejected for this reason
Widespread usage	Read and accepted in churches across the Christian world (not just one region)	e.g., Paul’s letters used everywhere

If a writing met these, it was regarded as Scripture.

3. 1st–2nd Century: The Core Forms

• Paul’s letters were the earliest and most widely circulated (by ~60–70 CE).

  • By ~100 CE, collections of Paul’s letters were already being copied and read in churches.

• The four Gospels quickly became the standard accounts of Jesus.

  • Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) famously said there are “four and only four Gospels,” like the four winds.

• Other early Christian writings (like the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement) were read in some churches but not considered on the same level.

By the end of the 2nd century:
The core canon was emerging — Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation (though Revelation was debated).

4. 3rd–4th Century: Sorting & Confirming

Some books were disputed or regional:

Generally Accepted Early	Debated or Local	Rejected
Four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul letters, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation	Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude	Gnostic gospels, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul

Church fathers like Origen (early 200s) and Eusebius (early 300s) made lists distinguishing “recognized” vs. “disputed” books.

5. 4th Century: Official Recognition

After Christianity was legalized (313 CE), bishops wanted a clear, authoritative list of Scriptures for teaching and worship.

Key Moments:

• Eusebius (c. 325 CE) — Lists 22 “acknowledged” books and several “disputed but known.”

• Athanasius’ Easter Letter (367 CE) — The first known list with exactly the 27 books of today’s New Testament.

• Councils of Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 & 419 CE) — Western Church formally confirmed the 27-book canon.

• This same list was later reaffirmed by the Catholic Church (Council of Trent, 1546) and used by Protestant Reformers as well.

By the late 4th century → the New Testament canon was effectively settled.

6. Did They Claim a “Perfect” Bible?

• Early Christians believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired, but they did not claim a perfect manuscript (many copies existed, with small variations).

• The Church’s focus was on which writings were inspired, not on creating a “perfect text.”

• The idea of an inerrant or flawless manuscript came much later — medieval and modern concepts.

Summary: Formation of the New Testament Canon

Stage	Time Period	Key Developments
1st century	Apostolic writings produced	Gospels, letters, Revelation written
2nd century	Writings circulated	Four Gospels, Paul’s letters recognized
3rd century	Lists and debates	Some books disputed (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.)
4th century	Canon finalized	27 books recognized (Athanasius, Carthage)
5th century onward	Universal acceptance	Same NT used across Christendom

---

Key Idea:

The early Church didn’t start with a Bible; it grew around living apostolic teaching.
Over time, it recognized which writings truly expressed that apostolic faith — and that process produced the New Testament.

 

The early church’s Bible

1. What the “Bible” Meant in the First Century

During the time of Jesus and the apostles (1st century CE):

• There was no single bound “Bible” yet — only scrolls.

• The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) already existed, but in several textual forms (as we saw):

  • Hebrew proto-Masoretic text (used in Judea/Temple)

  • Greek Septuagint (LXX) (used by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians)

  • Aramaic Targums (used in synagogues)

So when the early church began, their Scriptures = Old Testament, and their version was mostly the Septuagint (Greek).

2. The “Bible” of the Early Church

a. Old Testament

• The Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible of the early Christians.

• The apostles and New Testament writers quoted the Greek LXX, even when it differed from the Hebrew.

• Example:

  • Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 following the LXX version (“a body you prepared for me”) rather than the Hebrew (“ears you have opened”).

• Early Christians saw the LXX as inspired and authoritative — it was their Scripture.

b. New Testament

• The New Testament writings (Gospels, Letters, Revelation) were written in Greek between ~50–100 CE.

• These circulated as individual scrolls or small collections (Paul’s letters, the Gospels, etc.).

• Only gradually did these writings get collected and recognized as Scripture alongside the Old Testament.

3. Manuscripts the Early Church Used

• The earliest manuscripts were hand-copied Greek scrolls and codices, written on papyrus or parchment.

• We have fragments of these (like P52, P46, P66, P75 — 2nd–3rd century papyri).

• The church in different regions had slightly different copies, since everything was hand-copied.

  • Small textual variations existed (spelling, order, extra words, etc.).

• No one had a complete “Bible” as we know it; communities had portions — a Gospel, Paul’s letters, Psalms, etc.

4. Did Early Christians Claim a “Perfect Bible”?

No — they did not claim a single perfect, fixed text.

Here’s what we know:

• They believed the Scriptures themselves were divinely inspired, but they did not yet have a perfect manuscript tradition.

• They accepted that there were different Greek copies — but all testified to the same inspired truth.

• Early church fathers (like Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian) sometimes compared variants or noted textual differences, showing they were aware of them.

• Origen (3rd century) even compiled the Hexapla — six parallel versions (Hebrew, Greek LXX, and others) — to try to restore the most accurate text.

So:

• Belief: Scripture is inspired.

• Reality: No single “perfect” textual form yet.

5. By the 4th–5th Centuries

• Christianity spread widely; Greek and Latin Bibles became dominant.

• Key codices (the first full “Bibles”):

  • Codex Vaticanus (4th c.)

  • Codex Sinaiticus (4th c.)

  • Codex Alexandrinus (5th c.)

• These contained both Old (Greek LXX) and New Testaments.

• But even these don’t all agree exactly — differences in wording and order still appear.

6. Latin and Other Translations

• As the church spread west, Latin translations of the Greek Bible were made.

• These became many and inconsistent.

• Around 382 CE, Jerome was commissioned to produce a more accurate version — the Latin Vulgate — translated mostly from Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament.

• Over time, the Vulgate became the “official” Bible of the Western Church, though it too underwent revisions.

Summary: What the Early Church Used & Believed

Period	Scriptures Used	Language	"Official" or "Perfect"?
1st century (Apostolic)	Hebrew & Greek OT (mostly LXX) + emerging NT writings	Greek (some Aramaic)	❌ No fixed or perfect text
2nd–3rd century	LXX + NT collections	Greek (and some early Latin, Syriac, Coptic)	❌ Many copies, textual variations
4th–5th century	LXX/Greek NT in codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.)	Greek & Latin	⚙️ Moving toward standardization
Late 4th century onward	Latin Vulgate (Jerome) in the West	Latin	✅ Eventually became “official” in the Catholic Church

---

Bottom Line

• In the first century, the Septuagint (Greek OT) and the Greek NT writings were the Scriptures of the Church.

• There was no single, perfect manuscript, but they believed the message and meaning of Scripture were inspired and authoritative.

• The idea of a perfect, official Bible came centuries later, when the Church and later Judaism both standardized their texts (Masoretic Text for Jews, Vulgate for Western Christians).

The Greek Bible

1. What do we mean by the “Greek Bible”?

• Septuagint (LXX):
  The main Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun in Alexandria (3rd–2nd c. BCE). It started with the Torah and expanded to other books.

• Other Greek versions:

  • Aquila (2nd c. CE) → very literal Greek translation from Hebrew.

  • Symmachus (2nd c. CE) → smoother, idiomatic Greek.

  • Theodotion (2nd c. CE) → revised Greek version, used for Daniel in early Christianity.

  • Later Jewish revisions aimed to pull Greek texts closer to the proto-Masoretic Hebrew.

So already, “Greek Bible” was not one book, but several traditions.

2. In Jesus’ Time

• The Septuagint was the “Bible” of most Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora.

• But different communities had slightly different Greek texts.

• The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Hebrew source texts behind the LXX sometimes differed significantly from the proto-Masoretic Hebrew.

This means the Greek Bible was not one fixed, uniform version.

3. Early Christianity and the Greek Bible

• The New Testament writers usually quoted the Septuagint, even when it didn’t exactly match the Hebrew.

• Early Christians treated the LXX as Scripture, which caused tension with Jewish communities (who increasingly emphasized the Hebrew text).

• By the 2nd–3rd centuries, there were attempts to standardize Greek texts. Origen (c. 250 CE) created the Hexapla, comparing Hebrew, LXX, and other Greek versions side by side.

The Church leaned toward the LXX as its “official” Old Testament.

4. Surviving Greek Manuscripts

• We do not have an “original Septuagint,” only later manuscripts.

• The most famous are large Christian codices (4th–5th centuries CE):

  • Codex Vaticanus (4th c.)

  • Codex Sinaiticus (4th c.)

  • Codex Alexandrinus (5th c.)

• These contain different forms of the Septuagint, plus additional books (Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.), showing there was still variation.

5. So… is there a “perfect” Greek Bible?

• No single perfect, fixed version.

• The Septuagint was fluid, with multiple editions, translations, and revisions.

• Christians preserved it (with variations), while Jews gradually abandoned it in favor of the Hebrew proto-MT and its Aramaic Targums.

• Today, scholars reconstruct the Septuagint using all the manuscript evidence, but what we have is a family of Greek texts, not one flawless Bible.

Summary

• In Jesus’ time, Greek-speaking Jews mainly used the Septuagint, but there were variations.

• Early Christians adopted the LXX, which became the Old Testament of the Church.

• Jewish communities later shifted away from Greek translations and emphasized Hebrew (Masoretic).

• No “perfect” Greek Bible ever existed — instead, there were different versions and revisions over centuries.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)

Let’s trace the story of how the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) became standardized into the Masoretic Text (MT) that Judaism uses today.

1. Before 70 CE (Second Temple Period)

• Multiple textual traditions coexisted:

  • Proto-Masoretic scrolls (close to later MT, used in the Temple).

  • Septuagint Vorlage (different Hebrew base, later translated into Greek).

  • Samaritan Pentateuch tradition (Torah only).

  • Other rewritten/paraphrased scriptures (Jubilees, Temple Scroll, etc.).

• The Torah was universally sacred, but the Prophets and Writings were not yet fixed.

No single “official” perfect Bible yet.

2. After 70 CE (Destruction of the Temple)

• Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by Rome.

• Priestly authority collapsed, leaving Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism as the main surviving stream.

• Rabbinic leaders began unifying Jewish practice, including scripture.

• At this stage:

  • Some books (Torah, Prophets) were undisputed.

  • Others (Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) were debated.

Canon and text were not yet fully settled.

3. Around 90 CE – The Yavneh Period

• After 70 CE, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and later rabbis in Yavneh/Jamnia helped shape Jewish tradition.

• There likely wasn’t a single “council” fixing the Bible, but debates about which books belonged were happening.

• By the 2nd century CE, the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (same as Protestant OT, but different order) were generally accepted.

Canon settled gradually; text still varied.

4. 2nd–6th Centuries CE – Rise of the Masoretic Tradition

• Jewish scribes called soferim carefully copied Torah scrolls.

• Competing Hebrew text traditions still existed, but the proto-Masoretic tradition became dominant.

• This was helped by Rabbinic Judaism rejecting the Septuagint, partly because Christians were using it.

• By the 4th–6th centuries CE, the proto-MT was the standard Hebrew Bible in Jewish communities.

The proto-MT won out as the authoritative text.

5. 6th–10th Centuries CE – The Masoretes

• Jewish scholars in Tiberias (Galilee) and Babylonia (esp. the Ben Asher family) developed the Masorah:

  • A precise system of vowel points, accents, and notes to preserve pronunciation and prevent scribal error.

  • They counted every word, letter, and verse for accuracy.

• The result: the Masoretic Text, essentially identical to the Hebrew Bible used in Judaism today.

• The oldest nearly complete copy: Aleppo Codex (10th c.) and Leningrad Codex (1008 CE).

By the 10th century, the MT was fixed and considered perfect.

Summary Timeline

• Before 70 CE: Many Hebrew/Greek versions (no single perfect text).

• 70–200 CE: Torah universally accepted; other books debated; proto-MT gains authority.

• 200–600 CE: Rabbinic Judaism consolidates; proto-MT becomes standard Hebrew text.

• 600–1000 CE: Masoretes add vowels/notes → Masoretic Text fixed.

• After 1000 CE: The MT is the universally recognized “perfect” Hebrew Bible in Judaism.

What texts existed and how Jews in Jesus’ time thought about them.

1. Was there an "official" Hebrew Bible in Jesus’ time?

• No single fixed “Bible” yet.
  In the Second Temple period (before 70 CE), Jews revered the Law (Torah), Prophets, and many Writings, but the collection was not completely standardized.

  • The Torah (Pentateuch) was universally accepted as authoritative.

  • The Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 Minor Prophets, etc.) were also broadly accepted.

  • The Writings (Ketuvim) — Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, Chronicles, etc. — were still more fluid. Some groups included books others did not.

2. Which Hebrew versions were used?

Archaeology (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls) shows several Hebrew text traditions coexisted:

• Proto-Masoretic Text → later became the standard Masoretic Text (MT) used in Rabbinic Judaism. This was likely the Temple’s Torah scroll type.

• Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint (LXX) → a different Hebrew form of some books, which got translated into Greek and was widely used by diaspora Jews.

• Samaritan Pentateuch → a slightly different version of the Torah used by Samaritans (and some scrolls at Qumran resemble it).

• Rewritten texts → like Jubilees or Temple Scroll, which rephrased scripture.

So, in Jesus’ day, there wasn’t “the” Hebrew Bible, but multiple versions in circulation.

3. Where and how were they used?

• Temple in Jerusalem

  • Torah scrolls in Hebrew, very carefully preserved.

  • Likely close to the proto-Masoretic tradition.

• Synagogues in Judea/Galilee

  • Hebrew scrolls read publicly.

  • Often followed by an oral Aramaic Targum so people could understand.

• Greek-speaking Jews (Diaspora, esp. Alexandria)

  • Used the Septuagint (Greek Bible).

  • This was their “Bible,” sometimes including extra books (Wisdom, Sirach, etc.).

• Ordinary People

  • Most were not literate and did not own scrolls.

  • Their access was hearing the texts read aloud — in Hebrew with Aramaic interpretation, or directly in Greek.

4. Did Jews at the time claim a “perfect” Bible?

• No unified claim of perfection.
  The idea of a single, perfect, fixed text is something that came later, after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE).

• Evidence:

  • The Dead Sea Scrolls show tolerance for multiple versions.

  • The Septuagint was accepted by many Jews, even though it differed from the Hebrew.

  • Samaritans had their own Torah and considered it the true one.

• After 70 CE, Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism began standardizing the Hebrew text → leading to the Masoretic Text tradition, which later Jews did regard as “perfect” and divinely preserved.

In summary:

• In Jesus’ time, there was no single, universally recognized “perfect” Hebrew Bible.

• The Torah was universally sacred, but other books and textual versions varied.

• The Temple likely used a proto-Masoretic Torah scroll, synagogues used Hebrew + Aramaic, diaspora Jews used the Septuagint, and groups like Qumran and Samaritans had alternative Hebrew traditions.

• The idea of a perfect, fixed Hebrew Bible emerged after the Temple’s destruction, as Judaism consolidated around the Masoretic Text.

Jewish life and belief

What Jewish life and belief looked like in the time of Jesus (Second Temple Judaism, roughly 500 BC–70 AD).

1. The Laws in Daily Life

In Jesus’ time, Jews understood Torah as containing many laws covering worship, ritual purity, festivals, justice, diet, and morality.

Ordinary Jewish people lived these out by:

Temple worship: Pilgrimages to Jerusalem for Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles; offering sacrifices for atonement, thanksgiving, and purification.

Synagogue life: Regular reading and study of the Scriptures (Torah, Prophets, Psalms), prayer, and teaching.

Daily practice: Sabbath observance, circumcision, dietary laws (kashrut), purity laws, tithes, prayer (like the Shema, Deut. 6:4–9), and charity (almsgiving).

Not every Jew was equally strict. Different groups interpreted the Law differently:

Pharisees emphasized oral tradition, meticulous observance, and synagogue life.

Sadducees (priestly elite) emphasized the Temple and written Torah only.

Essenes (like Qumran community, Dead Sea Scrolls) pursued purity and separation.

Zealots tied obedience to Torah with political liberation.

Ordinary Jews tried to be faithful in practical ways while relying on priests and teachers for guidance.

2. Judaism’s Belief in Salvation of the Soul

The concept of salvation was not primarily about the “soul going to heaven” (that is more of a later Christian focus). In Jesus’ day, it was more about:

Covenant belonging: being part of God’s chosen people Israel.

Deliverance: longing for God to redeem Israel from sin, oppression, and exile (many hoped for a Messiah to bring this about).

Afterlife beliefs: Varied. Pharisees affirmed resurrection of the dead and judgment (Daniel 12:2–3). Sadducees denied resurrection and focused on this life. Many Jews believed in some form of reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked.

3. Were They Saved by Works of the Law?

Jews did not think they “earned” God’s love by perfectly keeping the law (nobody thought sinless perfection was realistic). Instead:

The Law was a gift of the covenant, given after God’s saving act in the Exodus. It was about faithful response to God’s grace, not “climbing a ladder to heaven.”

When people sinned, they had atonement through sacrifices, repentance (teshuvah), prayer, and charity (cf. Leviticus 16; Micah 6:6–8).

4. Relationship to Scripture

The Torah (Law of Moses) was central, read aloud and memorized. Many Jews also revered the Prophets and Writings.

Scripture was not just “rules,” but the story of God’s covenant with Israel, promises, and wisdom.

Rabbis and teachers interpreted it constantly—hence the oral law and traditions that developed, which groups like the Pharisees emphasized.

Synagogues became hubs of scripture reading, debate, and instruction.

Summary:

Jews at Jesus’ time sought to live faithfully under God’s covenant by following Torah in daily life. They did not generally believe salvation was earned by perfect works, but that covenant loyalty, repentance, and God’s mercy were key. Their hope centered on God’s faithfulness, resurrection, and redemption of Israel. Scripture shaped their life, identity, and worship, though different groups emphasized different aspects.

Jesus Christ and the Jews

1. Who is Jesus Christ according to the records of the Gospel?

The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) present a multi-faceted portrait of Jesus, but with a consistent core identity.

The Messiah (Christ): This is the central claim, especially in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. "Christ" is not a last name but a title meaning "Anointed One." The Gospels present Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah promised in the Old Testament, who came to inaugurate the Kingdom of God.

The Son of God: This title signifies His unique, divine relationship with God the Father. At His baptism and transfiguration, a voice from heaven declares, "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17, 17:5). This points to His divinity.

The Son of Man: This was Jesus' most common way of referring to Himself. It has a dual meaning: a human figure (Ezekiel) and a glorious, divine figure from the book of Daniel (Daniel 7:13-14) who is given eternal authority and judgment.

The Savior and Lord: He is presented as the one who saves people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) and the supreme authority over all creation.

Fully God and Fully Man: The Gospel of John especially emphasizes His divinity, opening with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1, 14). The Gospels also show His full humanity—He grew tired, wept, felt hunger, and died.

In summary, the Gospels portray Jesus as the divine-human Messiah, who came to preach the Kingdom of God, die for the sins of humanity, and rise again to offer eternal life.

2. What did Paul say about Jesus and man's justification?

The Apostle Paul developed the doctrine of justification more fully than any other New Testament writer. His core message is that we are justified (declared righteous by God) not by our own works, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

The Problem: All people, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). The Law of Moses exposes this sin but cannot fix it.

The Solution: God provided Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement. His death on the cross paid the penalty for sin.

The Means: Justification is received by grace through faith.

Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

Galatians 2:16: "Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."

The Result: When a person has faith in Christ, God credits Christ's righteousness to them. They are declared "not guilty" and are reconciled to God.

For Paul, Jesus is the sole and sufficient grounds for our justification.

3. How did Paul and Peter preach to the Jewish people about Jesus Christ?

Both Peter and Paul tailored their message to a Jewish audience, starting from the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) they knew and trusted.

Peter's Preaching to Jews (in Acts):

Fulfillment of Prophecy: He presented Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish hopes. In his famous Pentecost sermon (Acts 2), he quotes the prophet Joel and the Psalms to prove that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Messiah was Killed and Raised: He directly accused them of killing the Messiah but emphasized that this was part of God's plan (Acts 2:23). He then presented the resurrection as God's vindication of Jesus.

Call to Repentance: His call was for his Jewish listeners to recognize their error, repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Paul's Preaching to Jews (in Acts):

Synagogue Model: Paul consistently went to Jewish synagogues first when he entered a new city.

Argument from Scripture: He reasoned with them from the Law and the Prophets, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that "this Jesus... is the Messiah" (Acts 17:2-3).

Example in Acts 13: In the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Paul gave a masterful summary of Israel's history, showing how Jesus is the descendant of David and the Savior God promised. He concluded that through Jesus, forgiveness of sins is proclaimed, and justification is available that could not be obtained through the Law of Moses.

Their approach was to demonstrate from the Jewish Scriptures that Jesus is the climax of the story of Israel.

4. Did the New Testament say anything about the "work of the law"?

Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

Galatians 2:16: "...not justified by the works of the law..."

Galatians 3:2: "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?"

5. What is the "work of the law" and the "law"? What are their differences?

The Law (Nomos): This primarily refers to the entire system of God's commandments given to Israel through Moses, as recorded in the first five books of the Bible (the Torah). It includes moral laws (e.g., the Ten Commandments), civil laws, and ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrifices, dietary rules). The Law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it reflects God's character. Its primary functions are to reveal God's will, define sin, and act as a guardian to lead people to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

The "Works of the Law" (Erga Nomou): This is a specific phrase referring to the actions and deeds performed in obedience to the Law's commands. In the New Testament context, somes say it especially refers to the Jewish identity markers like circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance, which separated Jews from Gentiles. The problem is not the Law itself, but human inability to keep it perfectly.

6. Did the Jewish people saved by grace or by believing in Jesus Christ?

According to the New Testament, the means of salvation is the same for everyone, Jew and Gentile.

Salvation is by Grace: The source of salvation is always the unmerited favor and grace of God. No one, not even the most devout Jew, can earn salvation through Law-keeping (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Salvation is through Faith: The instrument by which we receive this grace is faith (trust, reliance).

The Object of Faith is Jesus Christ: True, saving faith is specifically placed in Jesus as the Messiah and Lord.

Therefore, a Jewish person (like Peter, Paul, or any of the first disciples) is saved in the exact same way as a Gentile: by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Peter speaking to Jewish leaders).

Romans 10:12-13: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" (Paul writing).

In summary, the New Testament presents a unified message: the Law was a temporary guardian pointing toward Christ. Now that Christ has come, both Jews and Gentiles are declared righteous (justified) by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Why I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

 Why I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

My answer up front

I do not accept Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). I consider it an untenable extension of the doctrine of inspiration because the historical and textual evidence does not support the claim that every single word of the original autographs has been perfectly and identically preserved in any single extant text-family or printed edition. Below I give the main reasons (historical, textual, and theological), then show how VPP proponents try to attach the idea either to the Byzantine / Majority stream or to the Alexandrian / critical stream — and why neither move solves the basic problems.

What VPP claims 

VPP says that God has verbatim and plenary (every word) preserved the original inspired words in the apographs (the copies) so that we have an infallible, inerrant, perfectly-preserved text today (typically asserted by proponents to be the Textus Receptus / Majority/Byzantine family or by others the “preserved” Alexandrian witnesses). That summary follows the literature and the FEBC / KJV-only context where the doctrine is currently debated. (Wikipedia)

Main reasons I reject VPP

1) The manuscript data show plurality and many variants — not a single perfect line of identical texts

We possess thousands of Greek manuscripts (and far more translations and patristic citations) and hundreds of thousands of variants across them. That reality is the raw data of New Testament textual criticism: multiple early witnesses, often disagreeing in readings, sometimes significantly. Any doctrine that says a single, perfectly preserved set of words survives intact in the apographs has to explain why the surviving witness-base shows widespread and systematic variation rather than uniform identity. (Biblical Training)

2) No extant manuscript is the autograph; textual critics therefore reconstruct the best attainable original from competing witnesses

Modern textual criticism proceeds by weighing external and internal evidence (age and quality of witnesses, early versions and patristic citations, internal transcriptional/lectoral probabilities). The standard scholarly conclusion is that we can approximate the autographs but must acknowledge differences among early witnesses — there is no single surviving manuscript that is the autographa. VPP collapses the methodological distinction between inspiration of the autographs and the complicated empirical task of transmission, and thus oversteps what the evidence allows. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

3) The “majority = original” move is methodologically weak

VPP proponents often appeal to the majority/Byzantine stream (and sometimes to a printed Received Text) as the locus of preservation. But the numerical majority of later manuscripts (mostly minuscules from the medieval period) does not automatically mean those readings go back to the autograph. Many of those later MSS show smoothing, harmonization, conflation of variants, and other secondary tendencies that make them later in character. Simply pointing to large numbers of later manuscripts does not meet the critical standards that textual scholars use to assess originality. (Wikipedia)

4) The earliest, best witnesses are often Alexandrian in character — which undercuts a simple Byzantine-VPP claim

Many of the most important and earliest relatively complete witnesses (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, several early papyri) tend to align with what textual scholars call the Alexandrian (or “early”) text—readings which are often shorter and sometimes more difficult. Because the earliest external evidence points in that direction, a preservation claim that must track the earliest attested texts would have to look more to Alexandrian material than to the late majority. That undercuts the neat KJV/Byzantine claim that a late medieval/renaissance text = verbatim, providential preservation. (Wikipedia)

5) Theological and hermeneutical problems: biblical promises of “preservation” do not compel the VPP technical claim

Scripture promises God’s care over his words (e.g. “the words of the LORD are pure… Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them” — Ps 12:6–7; Matt 5:18 is appealed to). But those promises do not specifyby which manuscripts, editions, or manuscripts-families God would preserve every exact letter for every language, nor do they settle the empirical question of how textual transmission actually occurred. Historic confessions (e.g. the Westminster Confession) speak of God’s providential care — but defenders and critics interpret that differently (some read it as preservation of the truth and authority of Scripture in the church’s life rather than identity of wording in one extant manuscript family). So VPP imports a much more technical, modern claim into ancient/biblical language than the texts themselves unambiguously teach. (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)

If VPP were true — would it better “fit” the Byzantine text or the Alexandrian text?

Both lines of argument are used by different defenders; I’ll give the case each side would make and then evaluate.

The Byzantine (Majority / TR) case for VPP

• Argument used by proponents: The vast majority of surviving Greek manuscripts represent the Byzantine textual tradition; that pervasive, continuous usage in the church (and the history of the Received Text/Textus Receptus feeding the Reformation translations, notably the KJV) is offered as evidence that God preserved his words in the Majority/Byzantine stream. Editions such as Hodges–Farstad or Robinson–Pierpont aim to recover that majority form. (Wikipedia)

• Why proponents prefer it: it matches the intuition that God would preserve his Word “in the body of the church” and in the textual stream that dominated the medieval and Reformation churches.

The Alexandrian (early witness / critical) case for VPP

• Argument used by others: God would providentially preserve the text in the earliest and best witnesses rather than in later massed copies. Since manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and several papyri are older and are often judged by modern textual critics to be closer to the originals, a preservation-claim that wants to be historically plausible should point to those early witnesses. Modern critical editions (NA/UBS) intentionally seek the earliest recoverable reading. (Wikipedia)

• Why proponents prefer it: it fits the standard historical-critical method — the earlier witnesses have priority for reconstructing the original wording.

My assessment — neither solves the key problem for strict VPP

• The Byzantine case rests on majority/later witness advantages but fails to answer why later harmonized expansions or conflations would count as the verbatim autograph rather than secondary developments. Even Hodges–Farstad and Robinson–Pierpont concede significant differences between their Majority and the Received Text, and critics (including leading textual critics) argue the majority approach is methodologically suspect. (Internet Archive)

• The Alexandrian case has the advantage of earliness and therefore plausibility for proximity to the autograph, but the Alexandrian witnesses are not uniform (even Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with papyri and with one another in places), and the early evidence does not give a single, perfect, unanimity of words either. (Wikipedia)

So even if you wanted to make VPP historically plausible, the Alexandrian claim is more congruent with the textual-critical reasons scholars use to reconstruct the autographs (earliness, internal probability, difficulty of reading). But neither text-family supports the idea of an unbroken, verbatim, perfectly preserved single text surviving unchanged in the apographs across centuries.

Practical implication for theology and translation

• A robust doctrine of God’s providential preservation can be maintained without insisting on VPP’s technical claim that every jot and tittle survives identically in one extant stream. Historic orthodox confessions and careful scholars typically distinguish inspiration of the autographs from the providential preservation of Scripture’s truth and authority in the church. Textual criticism is a God-honoring scholarly tool to recover the best attainable text for translation and exegesis. For how textual scholars work and why they favor early witnesses and eclectic editions, see the standard handbooks. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

Further reading (to check sources and see the evidence yourself)

• Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament — standard introduction to the manuscript evidence and critical editions. (ia600202.us.archive.org)

• Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament and A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament — classic, readable explanation of variant readings and editorial practice. (Cornish Interactive)

• Daniel B. Wallace, overview lectures and articles on variants and the Majority Text debate (good evangelical technical treatments). (Biblical Training)

• Hodges & Farstad; Robinson & Pierpont — editions and defenses of the Majority/Byzantine text. (See the Robinson–Pierpont Byzantine edition and Hodges–Farstad Majority Text.) (Internet Archive)

• On the VPP controversy (FEBC / Life BPC legal case and background): FEBC statements and the Singapore court materials explain how VPP became a live ecclesial/legal issue. (febc.edu.sg)

Final summary

VPP as a strict, technical claim — that a single extant manuscript tradition (or printed edition) preserves every original word verbatim without any loss or variation — runs into a massive empirical problem: the manuscript evidence is plural and messy. If you interpret “preservation” in a looser, providential sense (God preserved the truth and power of Scripture, and the church has usable, reliable texts), that is both defensible and historically orthodox. But the tight, word-for-word VPP claim, especially when tied exclusively to the Byzantine/Textus Receptus/KJV apparatus, is not supported by the historical-textual facts; if anything, the earlier Alexandrian witnesses give a better (though still imperfect) basis for reconstructing the original wording. (Biblical Training)

Why Fellowship?

1. Fellowship with Heretics, Cults, and Extremists

• In the New Testament, fellowship is tied to truth in Christ (1 John 1:3, 2 John 9–11).

• Heretics (in the biblical sense) are those who deny essential truths of the gospel — such as the person of Christ (His divinity, humanity, resurrection) or salvation by grace through faith.

• Cults often distort Christ’s identity or authority of Scripture, adding extra revelations or denying the Trinity.

• Extremists often substitute ideology, violence, or legalism for the gospel.

• The NT warns against receiving such teachers as equals in the faith (Galatians 1:6–9; 2 John 10–11; Titus 3:10).

  • This doesn’t mean never speaking to them — Jesus ate with sinners and Paul dialogued with Jews and pagans.

  • But it does mean not endorsing or partnering with them in Christian fellowship, worship, or ministry.

Principle: Show kindness and patience, but don’t have spiritual fellowship with those who deny Christ or distort the gospel.

2. Fellowship with KJV-Only Proponents

• KJV-Onlyism = the belief that the King James Version is the only valid or inspired Bible translation.

• This is not heresy in itself, because it does not deny Christ’s person, gospel, or resurrection.

• However, it can become divisive when elevated above the gospel (e.g., treating other believers as false Christians for not using KJV).

• Paul warned against quarreling over disputable matters (Romans 14:1; 2 Timothy 2:23). The authority of Scripture is essential, but translation preference is not a gospel essential.

Principle: You can have fellowship with KJV-Only believers, provided they hold to the core gospel of Christ. But you should be discerning if their teaching becomes legalistic, prideful, or schismatic.

3. How to Balance Truth and Love

• Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15): Correct gently, not harshly.

• Discern essentials vs. non-essentials:

  • Essentials: Christ’s identity, the gospel, resurrection, salvation by grace. No compromise.

  • Non-essentials: Bible translations, worship style, secondary doctrines. Room for difference.

• Guard your fellowship: Don’t let false teachers undermine the faith of others (Acts 20:28–30).

• Be missional: Remember, contact with heretics or cultists may be an evangelistic opportunity, but it’s not the same as Christian fellowship.

Summary:

• Heretics, cults, extremists → Engage kindly, but do not fellowship spiritually with them, because fellowship is grounded in shared truth in Christ.

• KJV-Onlyists → Fellowship is possible if they hold the true gospel. If they make their view divisive or elevate it to salvation status, confront in love and guard unity.

Christian interpretation of the NT

1. The New Testament in Historical Context

• The New Testament (NT) was written in the first-century Jewish world.

• Jesus, his disciples, Paul, and the first followers were all Jews steeped in Jewish scripture, traditions, and debates of their time.

• The NT draws heavily from Jewish concepts: covenant, law (Torah), prophecy, Messiah, resurrection, Temple, sacrifice, Kingdom of God.
  So, historically speaking, to even understand what Jesus and the apostles are talking about, you need to know the Jewish background (Second Temple beliefs, Hebrew Bible, synagogue practices, sectarian debates, etc.).

2. Understanding “through Judaism”

• Reading the NT “through Judaism” means interpreting its language and symbols in the frameworks familiar to first-century Jews:

  • Messiah: In Jewish expectation, this meant an anointed king or leader (political, priestly, or apocalyptic).

  • Law/Torah: Covenant identity, not abstract moral law.

  • Sacrifice and Atonement: Rooted in Temple practice and Yom Kippur traditions.

  • Kingdom of God: Not just a private spiritual state but God’s rule breaking into history to restore Israel and the world.

• Many scholars argue that without this Jewish lens, we risk misunderstanding NT words by importing later Christian or modern meanings.

3. Understanding “through Jesus Christ”

• From a Christian theological standpoint, Jesus himself is the ultimate interpreter of the Scriptures (Luke 24:27: “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained… what was said concerning himself”).

• Jesus reinterprets the Torah and Prophets in light of himself:

  • Law: “I have not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17).

  • Temple: He speaks of himself as the new Temple (John 2:19–21).

  • Sacrifice: His death is presented as the ultimate atonement (Hebrews 9–10).

  • Kingdom: He embodies God’s reign in his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection.

• The apostles (especially Paul and John) interpret Jesus as the key that unlocks the Hebrew Bible — what Jews knew in part, Christians see fulfilled in Christ.

4. Which is “correct”?

The answer depends on your standpoint:

• Historically/academically:
  You must understand the NT through Judaism, because that was its original setting. Without the Jewish background, the NT becomes detached from its real meaning.
  Example: If you don’t know how Jews thought about Passover, you won’t understand the NT’s teaching that Jesus is the “Passover lamb.”

• Theologically (Christian faith):
  Christians believe the NT must ultimately be understood through Jesus Christ, because he is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Judaism provides the background, but Jesus provides the authoritative interpretation.
  Example: Both Jews and Christians read Isaiah 53. Jews may see it as Israel’s suffering; Christians see it as Christ’s atoning death. Same text, different interpretive key.

• Judaism (post-NT):
  Rabbinic Judaism does not read the NT at all as Scripture, and continues to interpret the Hebrew Bible on its own terms. From that perspective, “Jesus’ explanation” is not valid.

5. How the Two Work Together

The best way to approach it is both/and:

• Start with Judaism to grasp what words meant in their original context (so you don’t impose later meanings).

• Then see how Jesus reinterprets and fulfills those Jewish hopes, laws, and prophecies (if you are approaching it from Christian faith).

Think of it like this:

• Judaism = the stage, props, and script.

• Jesus = the actor who steps onto the stage and gives the lines their fullest meaning.

Conclusion:

• Historically: The New Testament must be understood through Judaism.

• Theologically (Christian faith): The New Testament must be understood through Jesus Christ, who Christians believe fulfills Judaism’s story.

• So the correct way depends on your goal: historical accuracy vs. faith interpretation.