Authenticity of the New Testament


You could, and so have many before you. Catholics aren’t a faith of the book. Jesus wrote nothing. He didn’t command any book to be written. We’re blessed to have writings, written to, by, and for, the Catholic Church. One of the earliest canons (lists of books considered scripture) is the Muratorian canon~170 a.d. Note: it mentions the authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon of scripture.

Note the books listed already.
…"And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.

  1. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles… …"

There was no literal book with all the writings in one book, till the final proclamation of the canon in 381. That said, the Early Church Fathers having been taught directly by an apostle, give us in their writings, nothing that ultimately contradicts the scriptures that we would ultimately have in one place defined in a canon.


LOL! I don’t know how I wrote that without noticing!

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! :rofl:


That doesn’t even exclude the primacy of scripture. It’s beyond dispute that the earliest Christians at least relied on the ancient scriptures which were already in existence, namely the Torah, Psalms, and perhaps many other books included in the Old Testament. As much as Protestants are accused to spreading anti-Catholic propaganda, as far as I’m concerned, this undermining of the primacy of scripture is nothing but anti-Protestant propaganda.

Do you mind then, answering this question Iasked abovr?


With all that being said, Christ instituted a church not a book. Even without the Bible, The Church (The Body of Christ) is still here and will always be here just as He promised.

I just started a thread about the validity of the Koran. Maybe you can give us some of your expertise about the glaring mistakes and misreprenstation in this book.

Thank You!


First see the post right above you.


With regards to the authenticity of the Qur’an, its authenticity is fulfilled according to the condition of an unbroken, mass narrated, transmission; between the Prophet Muhammad (S) until the hufaz (memorisers), qaris, etc. of today. The following book demonstrates this from a few countries:


Anyone who states that their tradition was orally carried and that the codification of that oral tradition was completely free of error is someone making a religious statement, not a scientific one. Humans are error machines.

Check it out - it appears that the contents of the Quran were likely already in flux even in the earliest of Islam’s days;


Of course you would oversimplify it like this. Let me help you understand what mass narrated means:

If 60 witnesses for example, heard one man saying “my favourite colour is black” and everyone without exception heard him make this statement, it is absurd to assert that not only did all of them mishear what the man actually said, but even more absurd to assert that they each heard the exact same thing from the moment they misheard the statement. Now imagine if these 60 people passed on what they heard to the next generation, and so on. Creating a successive mass transmission with known people, and so this transmission can be traced and verified.

The book I linked to covers certain hufaz, qaris, etc. from Egypt, Syria, India and Pakistan, and traces their transmission all the way back to Prophet Muhammad (S). For you (assuming you are a Catholic) to undermine oral tradition, would destroy the source knowledge of your religion (scripture and tradition). Because whilst Muslims have developed a comprehensive science to examine and verify their traditions, the Catholics have not attempted to do this with theirs.

Prophet Muhammad (S) himself approved of the different dialectical traditions of the Qur’an, did Prophet Jesus (A) approve of the variant textual traditions of the New Testament?


Your three questions appear to be begging your own assertion that only an original written source with a specific apparatus for verification may be considered authoritative. This is illogical. Truth is not limited in such a way.

There are so many early manuscripts, commentaries and letters spread so far around the globe that the odds of “the originals” being altered is infinitesimally small and virtually impossible. The suspension of disbelief required to buy into such a view makes for entertaining Dan Brown-esque novels, but even secular religious historians would admit it requires downright ignorance to believe, and academic dishonesty to teach.

In any case, it’s important to keep in mind that Christianity is not tied to any specific book, language or oral tradition, but to the Living God. Specifically, to Jesus Christ and the apostolic witness about Him. The Bible, or canon, is the ‘rule’ of the Faith, not the Faith itself. The following article is really intended to define the Lutheran use of Scripture compared to other Christian traditions, but I think it has an especially fitting application here, in addressing Islam’s misunderstanding of the nature of Scripture:


I wasn’t limiting to that. In fact, I was moving on from the original three questions:


No, He is them. (John 1:1)

Christ is not lost in a faithful translation.


I’m reasonably familiar with what it means in the Islamic sense. A consensus is formed by the powerful elite and those that persist in dissent are violently murdered by the Rashidun Caliphate.

With some aid from a dagger, mass narration generates a consensus rather quickly; especially when those that disagree identify themselves.

Unfortunately, they didn’t do as good a job as they hoped in mopping up all those alternate Qurans floating about as we still find them from time to time.

Not at all. In the original, the message is perfect; flawless. In our attempts to carry it on, human beings muck it up for all kinds of reasons. What we have today is a facsimile. Now, it’s probably a very good one. But a facsimile nonetheless.

Number one, this isn’t particularly true.
Number two, it’s not a primary concern because we’re not a “people of the book”. We’re a living Church established by God incarnate. As a historical fact, “the book” came later. The canon much later still.

As he was illiterate and it wasn’t compliled until after his death (and after the death of many of Muhammad’s close friends in the Battle of Yamama), you could not be more wrong here. You simply couldn’t be more wrong.


It’s not anti-Protestant to state that Christianity is not a faith tied to a book. Take it from a “Protestant.” See my link above.


LOL, not even the Shi`ahs, who consider the first three Rashidun Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to be usurpers, would agree with your silly assessment. The Uthmanic Qur’an was a standard recension for liturgical purposes, there wasn’t one dialect of Arabic, especially in the expanded empire. You silly goose!


It might be prudent to research the great body of work available today. Rather then one author in a blog, making broad sweeping statements that infer all scholars, who agrees with your hypothesis.,

We don’t, in the educated and scientific method, use blogs to support our arguments.


As with what I wrote to Salam, research the body of research and knowledge on this we have today.


The NT was written in, by, for, the Catholic Church. You didn’t respond to my point about the Muratorian canon.

I understand.

I can return the same questions, about Mohammad and the Koran.

I’ll give you an answer when I return


Muhammad was dead. I mean really dead, like being buried in a grave. There is no historical evidence that he rose up, so he was dead like any human beings who were dead.

The Quran as a book was compiled long after Muhammad was dead, perhaps he was only bones by then, if the Arabian climate is merciful to his dead body.

Muhammad did not see the Quran, much less read the final version of the compilation of Caliph Othman. As someone said he was illiterate, he would not know what is written in the Quran, unless somebody read it correctly to him. What a mess this argument is especially when a question is asked if Jesus approved of the Bible. People asking that kind of question should look into their own backyard first to realize whether it is an intelligent question or not.


Jesus did not write any book, despite some Muslims claim that he did. Don’t know where they get that information but most probably it is to fit into their agenda to justify their religion.

Christianity is an apostolic religion. APOSTOLIC RELIGION.

What we have now is through the witnessess of the apostles. They had been given authority to bind and to loose in the Church, which is led by the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus said he will be with us until the end of time because the Holy Spirit would be telling everything about him.

The teachings of the apostles are protected and guarded by the Church, which has an uninterruptd line to the apostles themselves.

So what is this fixation with a piece of those manuscripts? They would be just decayed, torn or simply spoilt due to wear and tear.

When you have a church, copies were made.

Today we have million of Missals, those booklets that we use during the mass. Would somebody one thousand years later ask for the first original copy of the Missal to prove its authenticity?



I’m back. Here’s an answer to your question. It’s a short read. :wink: Some of this I have already said. Looking at this both historically, and theologically

referring back to a comment from one of our saints

For one who has faith no explanation is necessary, to one without faith, no explanation is sufficient.
( Aquinas paraphrased)

That statement really cuts to the chase.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit