It’s difficult to find the probable chronology of the New Testament online. The Christians have taken over, many insisting the order of the books as we have them today is correct. I’ll work from one originally devised by Bart D. Ehrman in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (accessed here). While there are apologists who insist improbably on earlier dates and scholars who argue for later ones, there is general consensus amongst scholars for the order of the books as they’re shown here:
The first book of our reordered New Testament, if we had it, would describe the visions of Cephas, and possibly others, who believed they’d seen the heavenly Jewish Messiah. Apparently, this envisioned Messiah told them he was coming to the Earth real soon to usher in God’s kingdom. This is all we know of the beliefs of these original Christians and we know it only from Paul. They themselves left no writing of their own. And why would they? The Messiah had appeared to them (in their heads), which could only mean he’d be coming to the Earth imminently. It was all too urgent to bother writing a treatise about it. It was going to happen any day!
Paul opposed these early Jewish cultists over their very concept of the Messiah. After his own visions converted him to a belief in Jesus, he profoundly disagreed with them over their insistence that the Messiah was coming from Heaven to rescue only his own people, the Jews. They held, as Paul did not, that Jewish rites and traditions must therefore be maintained. These ‘so-called pillars of the church’ as Paul snidely calls them in Galatians 2, were probably wiped out when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and most of its inhabitants in 70 CE.
Following this representation of pre-Pauline cultists, our reordered New Testament would next have Paul’s letters. Written between 49 and 59 CE or thereabouts, the letters derive from the visions Paul claimed he’d had of the Jewish Messiah and what he thought these meant: his so-called revelations from the Lord. He decided the Messiah had made the ultimate sacrifice in order to offer salvation to all people, not just Jews. While the letters in chronological order reveal Paul’s evolving theology they have nothing to say about a human Jesus who wandered around Galilee a couple of decades earlier. Either Paul knew nothing about this character or he didn’t care about him. Or there was no earthly Jesus for him to know about. Paul boasts several times that he devised all of he knew about ‘the Christ, Jesus’ from his visions and subsequent contemplation.
The first gospel (‘Mark’) was written circa 70 CE. Whoever created it transplanted Paul’s Heavenly Messiah into a geographical and historical context. He structured his story around Paul’s ideas, predictions about the Messiah from Jewish scripture and sayings from those same scriptures. He also incorporated cult beliefs and rules from his own time. The original ‘so- called pillars of the church’ he cast as Paul viewed them – as boneheaded disciples who failed to understand the significance of what they were experiencing. He didn’t, curiously, include any resurrection appearances.
Next comes the second letter to the cult in Thessalonica and the first of the letters supposedly by Peter. Both are considered to be forgeries for all the reasons Ehrman discusses here and here.
2 Thessalonians concentrates on the vengeance Jesus will wreak on those who have rejected him. Like in the real Paul’s letters, there’s nothing about any historical Jesus. 2 Thessalonians and 1 Peter demonstrate that possibly as early as 70 CE, cultists were happily making stuff up and passing it off as written by cult heroes (who’d also made stuff up.)
Matthew, Luke and Acts follow. Again, these books were written anonymously only acquiring their traditional attribution many years later. Matthew takes 80% of Mark, adds some material of his own derived from the Jewish scriptures, and presents his new gospel as the definitive account of the Jewish Messiah’s time on Earth. Matthew’s gospel takes the use of allegory and metaphor that he’s picked up from Mark to extremes.
Luke likewise plagiarises Mark, adds some Matthew (though he’s not keen on Matthew’s Jewish emphasis so eliminates it) and creates material of his own based on Paul and Josephus.
Buoyed by the success of his story, Luke ploughs straight on into an account of the early church and Paul’s doings. There are multiple problems with Acts, not least that Paul’s theology in the book is nothing like that of the real Paul. It is not history but a fabrication, reworking parts of older stories, such as the Odyssey, in several places.
A couple more forgeries follow: Colossians and Ephesians, both written between 80 -100 CE, long after Paul’s death in 64/65 CE. The two books make no mention of an earthly Jesus, despite at least three accounts of his supposed life that were, by the time Colossians and Ephesians were written, in circulation among the various sects of the new cult. Instead, Jesus is depicted as a heavenly super-being. Because they’re forgeries, they really don’t belong in our new New Testament; they muddle Paul’s already muddled thinking.
Well, we’re only half way through and I figure we all need a break. We’ll pick up on the second half of Putting The New Testament In The Right Order next time.
rejectingjesus, 
I would start second century and look at Marcion.
After all, he was apparently the first to find and collect the epistles.
There is lot of interesting material on Ken Humphrey’s site: Jesus never existed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll give the site a look. I don’t know enough about Marcion though I’m inclined too to think Jesus didn’t exist. It’s hard to say whether that was in the 1st or 2nd century but somebody made him up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Paul is a ficticious character, someone Marcion constructed, it puts the epistles in a whole new light.
As Carrier regards Acts as simply historical fiction, Humphreys considers the epistles,all of them, are fabrications and, allowing for his tendency to be hyperbolic on occasion, his breakdown of each is impressive touching areas that are, in my experience, never considered by the average Christian or I suspect the more mainstream bible scholar.
I must add, Neil, I really appreciate the posts you put up, especially the more historical leaning ones and I can well imagine you come in for some flak by the god-bothering community on occasion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil, I really appreciate your looking at the emergence of Christianity. I’m interested to see where it goes.
On topic, the UsefulCharts YouTube channel is doing a series on possible origins of the Jesus myth called Who Was Jesus… Really? There have only been 2 episodes so far, but I think your readers would enjoy it.
Episode 2 covers Lena Einhorn’s hypothesis presented in her book A Shift in Time. Basically, nothing recounted in the New Testament fits in 1st century but does fit in the 2nd. The book is worth a read, but Episode 2 gives a good overview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, I hit send and immediately realized it’s not 1st & 2nd century but 1st half and 2nd half of the 1st century.
LikeLike
Pingback: Evidence… – A Tale Unfolds
I love this. Im not deeply into bible study of any sort, but this is totally fascinating. And how marvelously they muddied the waters about the whole business…seen from this perspective, this is gold. All these centuries, all those people worshiping an invisible being who was REALLY invisible…it’s right up there with praying to the god of Bambi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sooo, who forged this:
‘he upholdeth all things, and by Him do all things consist.’
‘he that is without sin, let him first cast the stone.’
‘it is finished.’
Who wrote these?
LikeLike
I can’t imagine you really want to know this. You’re just trying to catch me and other commenters out. If you’d read the recent series of posts, you’d know who scholars think wrote the three verses you quote.
1. He upholdeth… is from Colossians. While this claims to have been written by Paul, it wasn’t. It’s a forgery. We do not know the name of the forger.
2. Let he who is without… is a very late addition to John’s gospel. It is not in the earliest surviving manuscripts. We do not know who wrote it.
3. It is finished… is from John’s gospel written by a late first century community of Christians. It conflicts with what the other gospels claim were Jesus’ last words. We have no idea who wrote it.
I trust this answers your query.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry Neil it answers nothing.
‘He is before all things, and by Him do all things consist.’ That of course includes the daily positions of every constellation, the sun, moon, and stable earth.
So what troubles you about these texts? Reminds me of some one complaining about a pimple and can’t see the bones protruding through their leg……
So what does tetelestai mean in the place you dismiss?
LikeLike
“Sorry Neil it answers nothing.”
As the texts you ask about are forgeries it tells exactly what Neil replied.
I would further add this:
As the texts in question are forgeries what was the insidious objective of whoever was the author?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm sed:
“Sorry Neil it answers nothing.”
You asked for the forger (author) of three phrases. Neil told you that we don’t know. They are anonymous.
So, yeah. Neil answered the question you asked. If that response “answers nothing” that’s more a problem with the question not Neil’s response.
ColorStorm sed:
‘He is before all things, and by Him do all things consist.’ That of course includes the daily positions of every constellation, the sun, moon, and stable earth.
Well, that’s the claim of some anonymous author. But there is no evidence to support the claim.
ColorStorm sed:
So what troubles you about these texts?
If you’d bothered to read the post you’d know that we don’t know who wrote them. And not knowing the authors, how can we know they’re authoritative?
ColorStorm sed:
So what does tetelestai mean in the place you dismiss?
Well, my Greek is a little rusty, but to me it means some late, anonymous hack put words into Jesus’ mouth to support his (the hack’s) pet theology.
LikeLike
Hilarious. So all these ‘forgeries’ were geniuses, writing with such power and grace that are 100% consistent with each other, so while men speak with the tongues of angels, and know everything….., yet without love, they are but noisemakers. Pretty good forge eh?
All i see from the once- professed- believer is a ton of disappointment that scripture no longer holds an edge. Not my problem.
LikeLike
Who says the forgers were ‘geniuses’? Not me. They’re just forgers who are demonstrably not consistent with each other.
The verse you quote this time is from 1 Corinthians so not a forgery. If only you knew your Bible!
Thank you for pointing out what I believe. Evidently you know me better than I know myself. I’m relieved all the same to hear I’m not your problem. The fact is, no-one asked you to come here nor to contribute your frankly lunatic comments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘ALL scripture is inspired by God.’ Just be honest and say it doesn’t matter who wrote it, it’s just that you do not like what it says.
Have you tasted the good word of God? Apparently not, for your life’s mission would not be to spoil it. It’s a savor of life to me, sounds like it’s a savor of death to you.
Not my problem, as God and His word is always good. Always, because it’s true. Let God be true and every man a liar. Ouch.
LikeLike
ALL scripture is inspired? Even the stuff that hadn’t been written at that point? Even the forgeries (which 2 Timothy is!) And by a God that didn’t and still doesn’t exist? Talk about gullibility!
Okay, if it makes you happy, I’ll admit it: I don’t like what the Bible says. It’s a pack of lies from start to finish so what’s to like? It’s the savor of life to you? Well, that’s just super.
You going to be honest now and admit you’ve allowed yourself to be duped? I’m betting not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pack of lies from start to finish.
Honor thy father and mother is a whopper.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honour of kings to search it out. ( I love this lie)
Thou shalt not steal. ( yeah, people should walk in and steal any new care they like)
Thou shalt not bear false witness (dont lie……)
I can understand why you don’t like it. It’s true. It’s a bitch to the conscience. And it’s amazing that the liars are they who say scripture is fraudulent.
LikeLike
You have evidence of the Noachian Global Flood?
Go ahead, present it and I’ll put your name forward for a Nobel.
At the moment you are in the running for a Darwin Award which is as ironic as it is hilarious.
LikeLike
The lie in this case is that these commands were handed down by God to a tribal leader on top of a ‘holy’ mountain during an Israelite Exodus from Egypt. None of this true. In fact the Israelites came up with these principles themselves, just as cultures hundreds of years before them had done.
Like most other people I don’t steal, kill, or dishonor my parents. This is because it’s the reasonable thing to do, not because a mythical God, pretty good at ordering killing and stealing himself, said so.
Please don’t send another ‘yes, but what about..?’ Your thinking is at such a simplistic level it’s not really worth the effort.
LikeLike
Have you read Romans ch 1 lately? Answers all your petty gripes. Kjv recommended for the most excellent language and music to the ear.
LikeLike
This is yet another ‘yes, but what about..?’ and what did I tell you about those? If I regard the Bible as false all the way through, what is the point of you directing me towards a particular part of it? You really haven’t got a clue.
In any case, shouldn’t you be out there feeding the hungry and visiting the sick, as your saviour supposedly told you, rather than trolling atheist websites?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trolling? I merely pointed you to the ROOT of every petty gripe against scripture. I can understand why it irks you, because it is an arrow of conviction to the sore spot.
Personally, I have never lost an argument on any atheist web site; not my skill, but because I have the backing of scripture which is never wrong.
But would you rather just want to hear from they who applaud your attempt to dismantle scripture? Would you expect that loud mouthed oaf Goliath of Gath to challenge the God of heaven without input from common sense?
LikeLike
You still don’t get it, do you, CS? To non-believers and atheists, scripture has NO credibility so it’s simply wasted effort of your part to reference same.
But then I suppose when that’s all you have ….
LikeLike
Hi Nan, I do get it. Nothing new under the sun. There will always be ‘giants of atheism’ who need their heads examined…….
LikeLike
And another pot call the kettle remark! You are very good at that, CS. 😁
LikeLike
I repeat: shouldn’t you be out there feeding the hungry and visiting the sick, as your saviour supposedly told you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neil, CS is a PotStirrer. You KNOW that. If you close your eyes and breathe softly he will eventually wander off. He will never agree with a single thing you say, nor will he acknowledge anything you comment on as being real, true, or whatever. He’s the four year old at the party who answers every suggestion with “nuh uhuh…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s exactly what he is, Judy. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last either. It”s very tedious. I don’t mind religionists commenting, I just wish they had something intelligent to say instead of ‘you’re wallowing in sin and you’ll be going to hell if you don’t accept Jesus as your saviour’. Their comments almost always boil down to this.
LikeLike
Evidence of that flood ark? Sure easy.
Did u ever look into what flooding occurs in a mere matter of minutes? Can u possibly expand your bias and consider what 40!days and nights of non stop water would do?
But more, the works of chronologists who study minutes, hours. days, weeks,,months, years, decades, etc, have proven that the biblical account is not only accurate, but that the current dates and time are reckoned to the events in the Bible. There is nothing but perfection.
Then is always the testimony of He who cannot lie: ‘as it was in the days of Noah…..’ ouch, the decadence of society today owes an apology to the days of Noah. There’s your evidence.
LikeLike
🤦🤦🤣🤣
LikeLike
I love the way he ignores the question asked of him and comments on something else. Little kids do that, to distract mummy from that big can of paint sitting in the middle of her good tablecloth…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah
2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).
Continues in this vein for another 68 long, irrelevant paragraphs. I kid you not. Neil
LikeLike
Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.
Continues endlessly…
mosckerr, you keep trying to post your articles on my blogsite that are not related to anything I’ve posted and are far too long as comments.
If you want to comment on anything I or my commenters have to say, I’ll publish it. However, your comments must be relevant and succinct. I won’t put them on if they’re not, being merely a duplication of posts from your own site.
LikeLike