Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor: Who Chose the Books of the New Testament?

Introduction

The New Testament canon — the set of 27 books accepted by most Christian churches — was not handed down in one sealed package. Rather, it developed over time through debate, usage, and judgment about what ought to count as authoritative Christian Scripture. Among scholars who study these issues, Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor are two voices often heard, though they emphasize somewhat different questions and methods. Exploring their perspectives helps us understand what we do know, what remains debated, and why “who decided?” is a more complex question than many assume.

---

Bart Ehrman: Process, Criteria, and Timing

Bart Ehrman is a prolific scholar of the New Testament, Christian origins, and textual criticism. He has written many books and blog posts on how the 27‑book New Testament came to be. Some key points in Ehrman’s view:

1. Gradual Development, Not a Single Council Decision

   • Ehrman emphasizes that the canon did not get decided at Nicea (325 CE) or by Emperor Constantine, contrary to popular myth. baptistpress.com+2Ehrman Blog+2

   • Instead, different Christian communities used different texts; some texts were accepted by many, others only by some. Over time, a consensus emerged. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

2. Athanasius’s Festal Letter (367 CE) as the First Explicit Matching List

   • Ehrman often points to the festal letter of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE, as the first surviving document that lists the exact 27 books of our present New Testament canon — neither more nor fewer. مدونة التاعب+3Ehrman Blog+3baptistpress.com+3

   • However, this did not “close the case” immediately; debates continued for some time. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

3. Criteria Used by Early Christian Leaders

   Ehrman outlines a set of informal criteria by which early Christians judged books:

   • Apostolicity: Was the book connected to an apostle or someone in their circle?

   • Orthodoxy (or consistency with accepted Christian teaching): Did the text conform to what was believed about Christ, resurrection, etc.?

   • Usage / widespread acceptance: Was the text already used in worship and teaching across churches?

   • Antiquity: Older writings had more credibility.

   • Possibly also liturgical use (was the book read in congregations, public reading?) Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

4. Faux Myths and Misconceptions

   Ehrman dispels a number of popular but inaccurate ideas, including:

   • The idea that Constantine or a single council “picked” the books with governmental coercion. baptistpress.com+2Ehrman Blog+2

   • That the canon was immediately fixed once Athanasius or any early church father wrote down a list. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

5. Authenticity / Authorship Questions

   Related but somewhat distinct is Ehrman’s analysis of which books actually were written by the people whose names appear as authors (or attributed authors). In books like Forged, Ehrman argues several New Testament texts are pseudonymous, meaning they are attributed to apostles or apostolic figures but were likely written by others later. Wikipedia+1

6. Continuing Debate in Early Centuries

   Even after Athanasius, there was not universal agreement everywhere immediately. Different regions sometimes had slightly different collections (e.g. some debated books like Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude). Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2

---

James D. Tabor: Emphasis and Contributions

James Tabor is a scholar of Christian origins, early Judaism, archaeology, and New Testament studies, with particular interest in how early Christian movements related to Jewish traditions, how theological ideas evolved, and how texts were used. While Tabor does not, as far as I know, offer a radically different timeline for when the 27 books were canonized, he emphasizes some interpretive perspectives and textual issues which affect how one thinks about “who chose” and “how legit is the choice.” Key features of Tabor’s work:

1. Focus on Early Christian Diversity and the Jerusalem Church

   • In Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, Tabor emphasizes tensions between what he sees as the original Jesus movement (centered in Jerusalem, under figures like James, Jesus’ brother) and the later Gentile‑focused Christianity shaped significantly by Paul. PublishersWeekly.com+2Wikipedia+2

   • From this angle, the fact that the New Testament canon is heavily Pauline (i.e. many of the letters are his, and Acts frames a Pauline narrative) is significant; it reflects how Paul's view became more dominant in the early church, across geographic regions.

2. Textual Revision, Embedded Texts, and Apocalyptic Backgrounds

   • Tabor has written about how some New Testament books, especially Revelation, may have had earlier Jewish apocalyptic materials that were Christianized later. For example, his guest‑post “Is the Book of Revelation a Revised Version of a Non‑Christian Apocalypse?” suggests some portions may derive from earlier Jewish apocalyptic texts. Ehrman Blog

   • He also sometimes explores how some canonical texts may preserve earlier texts or traditions that later editors shaped. This underlines that “choosing” the canon was often a process of editing, redaction, and theological shaping.

3. Arriving at Canon in Practice, Not Just Theory

   • Tabor, like Ehrman, acknowledges that usage mattered: what texts were read, circulated, quoted, and taught in communities. The more widely used a writing was, the more likely it would be accepted. (Though he tends to explore more the internal dynamics of early Christian groups, say the Jerusalem Christians vs Pauline groups, which might have had different preferences.)

4. Speculative Reconstructions and Archaeological Context

   • Tabor often uses archaeological findings and his knowledge of Second Temple Judaism to situate early Christianity in its Jewish environment. These contexts help him reconstruct how views about what writings mattered may have shifted — e.g., how Jewish norms of scripture, prophecy, revelation may have influenced early Christians' judgments about texts.

5. Accepting Ehrman’s Basic Timeline, but Emphasizing what “Choice” Means in Practice

   • Tabor does not seriously challenge the idea that Athanasius’ festal letter is a key moment. Though one could say he is less focused on the “official list/closing of the canon” and more on how theological power, community identity, and religious politics shaped which texts gained authority.

---

Where Ehrman and Tabor Overlap, Where They Diverge

It’s helpful to see where their views coincide and where they differ in emphasis.

Topic	Ehrman’s View	Tabor’s View / Emphasis	Notes & Divergence
Timing of a full list of 27	Athanasius (367 CE) is first surviving instance of the full 27 books. Ehrman Blog+1	Likely accepts that as historically significant; not strongly contested. He is more interested in earlier formative stages and how usage & theological conflict made certain books more acceptable.
Role of Councils / Emperors	Councils (like Nicea) did not decide the canon; emperors like Constantine did not directly “choose” the books. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2	Tabor similarly does not give Constantine a central role in the final forming of canon. What interests him more is how communities adopted texts, how leadership (James, Jerusalem church, Paul etc.) influenced usage.
Criteria for inclusion	Apostolicity, orthodoxy (correct belief), usage, antiquity, etc. Also textual authenticity and theological consistency. Ehrman Blog+2Ehrman Blog+2	Agrees on many of these, but gives more weight to community conflict (which texts survived theological controversies), Jewish versus Gentile tensions, apocalyptic background, redaction.
Authorship/authenticity	Many books are pseudonymous; some texts were written by unknown authors but attributed to apostolic names. The issue of forgery (not in crude sense, but pseudepigraphic). Wikipedia+1	Tabor is less specialized on his recent claims of pseudonymity (compared to Ehrman), but does explore textual redaction, embedded traditions, possible earlier non‑Christian sources made Christian. So he is willing to entertain that some textual shaping happened before texts achieved canonical status.
Community and authority	The proto‑orthodox Christian movement (leaders, church fathers) had large influence — what became “orthodox” had power in textual circulation, in teaching, worship. Ehrman often notes that majority usage and the authority of respected leaders mattered.	Tabor more heavily emphasizes early Christian diversity: the existence of multiple Christianities, of competing claims, how the Jerusalem church, Jewish Christians, Paul’s mission each played roles. He is interested in reconstructing perhaps what the original Jesus movement thought, and how Paul’s theological innovations influenced what texts were accepted.

---

Implications: What “Who Chose” Really Means

From the work of Ehrman and Tabor, a few implications emerge about what “who chose” implies in practice:

• It was not a formal “one meeting, vote, emperor presiding” scenario. “Choosing” was spread over generations.

• Many people and communities played roles: local churches, influential leaders, theology teachers, church fathers, liturgy, catechesis, usage in worship.

• Theological concerns (doctrinal consistency, how a text presented Jesus, resurrection, etc.) were central. If a text diverged significantly, it was more likely to be excluded.

• Power and influence mattered: geographical centers (Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem), scholarship and reputation of certain teachers (Irenaeus, Athanasius, etc.) were significant in shaping what texts were considered authoritative.

• The process also involved rejecting some texts: apocryphal gospels, writings outside apostolic connection, or those claiming “secret” teachings or diverging from doctrine.

---

Areas of Disagreement and Open Questions

While Ehrman and Tabor share much scholarly background and agree on many facts, there are still open debates and areas of difference:

• The weight of Paul in the canon: Tabor tends to emphasize Paul’s transformational role and how his letters and missionary activity shaped Christianity, possibly more than Ehrman does in some treatments. This affects views about which books were more influential early on, and hence more likely to be canonized.

• The reality and impact of pseudonymity and forgery: Ehrman’s claims in Forged about certain New Testament books being written under false names are controversial; not all scholars accept or agree on the extent or significance. Tabor does not always support the same level of skepticism about attribution.

• What counts as theological “orthodoxy” early on: Different communities had different beliefs. The process of determining what was orthodox — what was acceptable — shifted over time. Their reconstructions differ in emphasis: Tabor focuses more on Jewish Christian perspectives and early non‑Pauline traditions; Ehrman tends to focus on how the proto‑orthodox tradition came to dominance.

• Text vs. practice: canonical vs non‑canonical texts: Some texts not included in the canon continued to be used in communities or quoted; assessing their usage is tricky. Tabor sometimes focuses on how non‑canonical texts illuminate the earlier Christian diversity; Ehrman also surveys lost scriptures and non‑canonical works.

• Geographical and chronological variation: Which communities accepted which books when differs by region (e.g. Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor). There’s debate about how synchronized canon acceptance really was.

---

Historical Summary: Key Milestones that Both Acknowledge

Despite differences, Ehrman and Tabor more or less agree on many of the core historical “milestones” in the development of the New Testament canon:

• First Christian writings: Paul’s letters (mid‑first century), some Gospels shortly thereafter.

• Early to mid‑second century: wider circulation of Gospels, Acts, letters; debates begin about which books are good, authentic, reliable. Some church fathers write lists of accepted texts (e.g. Irenaeus lists the four Gospels). Ehrman Blog+1

• Third to fourth centuries: further consolidation. More systematic listing and usage. Church councils (implicitly) reinforce what is commonly used, though not always by formal vote.

• 367 CE: Athanasius’ festal letter listing the 27 books exactly.

• Following decades and centuries: continued standardization (church councils, church fathers, liturgy, translation into Latin etc.).

---

Why It Matters

Understanding how the New Testament books were chosen is not just academic—it has practical and theological significance:

• It affects questions of authority: Why do we accept these 27, and not others? What makes them canonical?

• It shapes how one views the reliability and authenticity of texts: questions about authorship, provenance, editing, doctrinal shaping.

• It helps in understanding Christian diversity: early Christianity was not monolithic; there were many sects, opinions, controversies. The canon reflects which voices prevailed.

• It informs how we interpret canon in modern periods: How have historical processes shaped tradition, doctrine, theology, liturgy?

---

Conclusion

In short: Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor largely agree on much of what can be known about how the New Testament canon was formed: it was a gradual, multi‑century process; community usage, theological acceptability, apostolic connection, and leadership influence all mattered; and the full complement of 27 books was first clearly affirmed by Athanasius in 367 CE, with ongoing standardization after that.

Where their perspectives differ is mainly in emphasis and interpretation: how much weight is given to early Jewish Christian traditions vs Pauline theology, how much skepticism there is about traditional ascriptions of authorship, and how much power geopolitical, ecclesiastical institutions had in shaping which texts prevailed.

Thus, “who chose the books” is not a simple answer: there was no single person or council at one moment, but many hands, many debates, many communities. The story of how each text earned its place is complex, fascinating, and still partly conjectural—but Ehrman’s scholarship helps map the broad outlines, while Tabor’s work supplies more nuanced detail about early Christian diversity, the conflicts of theology, and the archaeological and cultural contexts.