The New Testament (NT) as Christians know it today — a bound collection of 27 books — did not arrive fully formed. Its making involved complex historical, theological, social, and textual processes over the first several centuries of Christianity. Two prominent scholars who have written extensively on these issues are Bart Ehrman and James D. Tabor. Though both are historians and share some methodologies, they differ in emphases and in certain reconstructions. This article explores their views side by side to help illuminate how modern scholarship thinks about the coming into being of the New Testament.
Who They Are & Their Perspectives
-
Bart D. Ehrman is a textual critic and historian of early Christianity. He emphasizes manuscripts, textual variants, authorship, forgery, canon formation, and how doctrinal conflicts shaped which texts were preserved. His work is rigorous in assessing internal and external evidence, scribal practices, and how “orthodoxy” defined itself in opposition to “heresy.” Ehrman Blog+3Wikipedia+3The Muslim Times+3
-
James D. Tabor is a scholar of Christian Origins and Second-Temple Judaism, with an interest in archaeology, Jewish context, Paul’s letters, and the dynamics among different early Christian groups (Jerusalem Church, Pauline communities, etc.). He often foregrounds how early Christianity had competing strands, how certain voices were marginalized, and how the early political, religious, and family dynamics shaped Christian identity. Academia.edu+2Simon & Schuster+2
What Ehrman Says About How the NT Was Created
Here are some of Ehrman’s main claims:
-
Authorship and Pseudepigrapha / Forgery
Ehrman argues that some NT books attributed to apostles were probably not authored by them — sometimes falsely attributed, or “pseudonymous.” Some works may have been written under the names of apostles to lend authority. In his book Forged, Ehrman suggests that 8‑11 of the 27 books were forgeries in this sense. Wikipedia+2The Muslim Times+2 -
Textual Transmission and Variants
The original autographs are lost; what we have are manuscripts and copies, many with variants – small and large. Scriveners sometimes made errors; sometimes changes reflected theological motivations. Thus, there are places where textual evidence is uncertain. Ehrman Blog+1 -
Canon Formation is Gradual and Contested
The collection of the NT was not decided in one council or by one person. It emerged over time. Early Christian communities used many writings; some were widely accepted, others disputed or rejected. Over time, through debates, usage, liturgy, and theological alignment (i.e. “orthodoxy”) certain books came to be regarded as authoritative and others not. Ehrman Blog+2The Muslim Times+2 -
Criteria used by Early Church Fathers / Proto‑Orthodox Christians
According to Ehrman, criteria included apostolic authorship (or connection to an apostle), antiquity (how early a work was), consistency with the “rule of faith” (i.e. conformity to beliefs held by what became mainstream Christianity), orthodoxy, and usefulness in worship/teaching. Works not satisfying those criteria were less likely to be accepted. Ehrman Blog+1 -
Influence of Doctrinal Conflict
Ehrman emphasizes that theological controversies — for example between what later came to be considered “orthodox” vs “heresies” or alternative Christianities — played a role. Texts possibly aligned with views that lost in these conflicts had less chance of entering the canon or circulating widely; some lost entirely. The Muslim Times+1
What Tabor Says: Emphasis, Revisions, and Alternative Narratives
James Tabor shares some general ground with Ehrman but frames certain issues differently and introduces alternative historical reconstructions. Here are key points of Tabor’s view:
-
Multiple Early Christianity Strands
Tabor emphasizes that early Christianity was not unified. He portrays a tension between the Jerusalem Church (led by James, brother of Jesus, and other Jewish Christian leaders) and the Pauline mission, which opened up to Gentiles. These different strands had different emphases: ritual observance, law, role of Jewish identity, Christology, etc. Simon & Schuster+2Biblical Archaeology Society+2 -
The Role of Paul in Shaping the Later NT
Tabor tends to see Paul as foundational in how Christianity became what most Christians later knew. In Paul and Jesus, Tabor argues that Paul’s letters represent one of the earliest forms of Christian belief, and that the later gospels and church structures evolved (or adopted Pauline theological categories), sometimes marginalizing alternative early Christian views. PublishersWeekly.com+1 -
Recovering Lost Voices
Tabor is interested in how voices from the “lost” side — e.g. the Jerusalem Church, possibly groups like the Ebionites, Jewish Christian communities that retained Jewish identity — contributed to early Christian literature, even if indirectly or in fragments. He often tries to recover what these voices taught by reading Paul’s letters, early Christian Jewish writings, and archaeological evidence. Biblical Archaeology Society+1 -
Textual Evidence & Archaeology
While Tabor uses textual data, he also heavily leans on archaeological findings, historical context, including political, familial, social dynamics, to reconstruct how early Christian texts may have been used, transmitted, and how certain traditions or interpretations arose. For example, in The Jesus Dynasty he explores ideas about Jesus’ family, messianism, royal expectations, etc. Biblical Archaeology Society+1 -
Less Emphasis On Forgery, More On Rival Traditions
Unlike Ehrman, while Tabor acknowledges contested authorship and variant traditions, he is less insistent on calling many books outright forgeries. His narrative tends to stress divergence of viewpoints, competition, theological development, rather than emphasizing pseudonymous writing as centrally fraudulent. He tends to see plurality rather than deception. (Though he might accept pseudonymity in some cases, the emphasis is different.) PublishersWeekly.com+2Simon & Schuster+2
Agreement, Disagreements, and Comparative Insights
Here are areas where Ehrman and Tabor generally agree, and where their disagreements illuminate deeper questions.
| Agreement | Disagreement / Tension |
|---|---|
| The NT was not created overnight — many documents, debates, usage over time. Canon formation was a long, messy process. | Ehrman tends to view pseudonymity and forgery as more important issues; Tabor focuses more on theological divergence rather than intentional deception. |
| There is textual variation, uncertain authorship, and some books’ origins are opaque. | Tabor emphasizes recovering lost or marginalized voices (Jerusalem Church, Jewish Christian groups), whereas Ehrman focuses more on how “orthodoxy” won and how texts were shaped by that victory. |
| Criteria like apostolic connection, antiquity, theological conformity, liturgical usefulness played roles in selecting canonical books. | Assessment of Paul: Tabor gives him a central but also contested role; Ehrman certainly acknowledges Paul’s importance, but is more cautious about attributing everything that Christianity later became to Paul alone. |
| Early Christianity was pluralistic — different Christologies, practices, beliefs. | On “forgery”: Ehrman calls some books forgeries (in that sense), whereas Tabor is less eager to label so many books that way; instead, he sees differences in perspective and theology across the key texts. |
Key Examples
To see how these differences play out, here are a few illustrative cases:
-
“Forged / pseudonymous books”: Ehrman names specific letters (e.g. some of the Pastoral Epistles like 2 Timothy, Titus, possibly Ephesians, Colossians) as likely not written by the claimed author. Tabor treats disputed authorship more by exploring implications: what it meant for communities to accept or reject texts, rather than merely classifying them as forged. Wikipedia+1
-
Paul vs Jerusalem Church: Tabor argues that James and the Jerusalem Church preserved an earlier form of Christianity more closely aligned with Jesus’ teachings and Jewish practice; that Paul introduced reinterpretations (e.g. about law, Gentile inclusion, resurrection). Ehrman also discusses Paul's letters, their early date, their centrality, but tends not to frame things as “original vs later corrupted” in the same dualistic way. Ehrman is more likely to stress that what became “orthodoxy” was itself a process of selection and conflict rather than decline from an original pristine form. PublishersWeekly.com+2The Muslim Times+2
-
Canon finalization: Both see that by the late fourth century there was general agreement on the 27 books, but neither believes there was a single defining council whose decision alone sealed the canon. Ehrman points to processes of acceptance, usage in churches, lists by church fathers, etc. Tabor similarly acknowledges these, but puts more weight on how different texts were used by different Christian groups in different places before consensus. Ehrman Blog+1
Methodological Issues
Part of their differences comes from methodology:
-
Textual Criticism vs Social History / Archaeology: Ehrman’s strength is in manuscript studies, tracing how texts were copied, altered, the evidence of textual variants, deviations, interpolations. Tabor combines that with material culture, social context, and group identity.
-
Theological neutrality vs Reconstruction: Ehrman tends to adopt a more critical posture — questioning traditional claims of authorship, the notion of divine inspiration, etc. Tabor, though also critical, often seeks to reconstruct what might have been the beliefs and practices of early believers, including marginalized ones, and sometimes puts forward more speculative but provocative reconstructions (e.g. dynastic messianism, family lines of Jesus, etc.). These speculations are sometimes controversial. Biblical Archaeology Society
-
Evidence and Weight: Ehrman is more cautious about making strong historical claims when the evidence is weak; he tends to emphasize what can be known with higher confidence (e.g. earliest manuscripts, quotations, church fathers, dating). Tabor is sometimes more willing to lean on less certain data (archaeological hints, less‑secure traditions) to reconstruct possible alternative trajectories of early Christian history. Some critics think Tabor pushes beyond what the evidence can firmly support. DTS Voice
What This Tells Us About Canon‑Formation, Authorship, and Early Christianity
From comparing these two scholarly viewpoints, we can draw several conclusions about the making of the New Testament:
-
Canon is a historical product, not a divine instant proclamation
The NT canon, as recognized now, emerged through human processes: usage in worship, theological debates, acceptance across communities, distinction between “orthodox” and “heretical” beliefs. It was not formally finalized until centuries after many of the texts were written. -
Multiple Christianities in early years
There was no monolithic Christianity in the first century and early second century. Different groups had different emphases on Christ’s divinity, Jewish law, Gentile inclusion, ritual, leadership, etc. What ultimately became orthodoxy reflects one path among many. -
Authorship is complex
Many books in the NT are anonymous or pseudepigraphical. Attribution to apostles was sometimes later, sometimes for authority, sometimes mistaken. Questions of who truly wrote what remain in many cases unresolved. -
Textual integrity … but with caveats
Although the vast manuscript tradition of the NT is far better attested than many other ancient works, there are many variants among manuscripts. Some are trivial (spelling, word order); some are more serious (whether entire verses were added later). Scholars like Ehrman and Tabor work carefully, highlighting where certainty is strong, where speculation is needed. -
The voice of the marginalized matters
Tabor’s work especially reminds us that the voices of early-Christian groups that did not dominate theology later still shaped what was written, what was preserved, and what was rejected. Even when such groups are “silent” in the final canon, traces remain.
Criticisms & Limitations
-
Some scholars criticize Tabor for speculating beyond the firm evidence, for treating certain hypotheses (e.g. dynastic aspects of Jesus’ family, certain tomb claims) as more historically plausible than the evidence supports. DTS Voice
-
Ehrman is sometimes criticized by more conservative or confessional scholars for being too skeptical, for viewing “orthodoxy” as simply the winner in theological battles, or for suggesting forgery / pseudonymity more broadly than some think is warranted.
-
In both cases, there is an inherent difficulty in the historical method: the sources are partial, sometimes late, often theological in intent rather than purely historical, and illuminated only by indirect evidence. This means that many reconstructions are probabilistic, not definitive.
Conclusion
Bart Ehrman and James Tabor offer complementary – and at times contrasting – lenses on how the New Testament was created. Ehrman emphasizes authorship, textual transmission, the role of doctrinal struggles, and how texts were accepted or rejected through criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, usage. Tabor highlights the plurality of early Christian voices, Jewish contexts, how marginalized groups and alternative traditions shaped early Christianity, and how the shaping of Christian theology (especially through Paul) influenced which texts gained prominence.
Understanding their dialogue shows that what we call “the New Testament” is the result of a rich and messy human process: writing, rewriting, copying, debating, rejecting, preserving. It was never inevitable that the NT would look the way it does today. Insights from both scholars help us appreciate both the power and the limitations of the documentary evidence, and how faith, theological concerns, power, identity, and politics all played roles alongside simple history.
No comments:
Post a Comment