[سواها قلبي]

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Discussion on the Books of the New Testament

The Canon of the Gospels


1- The early Christians did not believe that their holy books constituted a New Testament distinct from the Old Testament. When the first Christian writings appeared, they were all viewed as additions or supplements to what was in the books of the Law and the Prophets. They were read weekly in the Jewish temple and the Christian church. The New Testament is a heterogeneous book, as it is a collected diaspora. It does not represent a single point of view that prevails from beginning to end, but in reality, it represents different points of view (Frederick Grant, pp. 12, 17).


2 - In the last 150 years, scholars have realized that the first three Gospels differ from the Gospel of John in style and content. The Gospel of John differs significantly from the three similar Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). It does not mention anything about the birth story. As for the stories that tell of Jesus’ public activity, there are differences in time and place when compared to their counterparts in the similar Gospels. The exact date in which the canonization of the books of the New Testament was determined is uncertain (Gunter Lanszkowski, pp. 32-36).



3 - There is an important and difficult problem that arises from the contradiction that appears in many aspects between the fourth gospel and the three parallel gospels. The difference between them is so great that if the parallel gospels were accepted as correct and reliable, then what follows from that is the invalidity of the Gospel of John. (Encyclopedia Americana: Vol. 13 - p. 73)

4 - “We have no certain knowledge of how the canon of the four gospels was formed, nor of the place where it was decided.”

Corruption of the Gospels:

Regarding the subject of distortion and the insertion or extraction of words into the text, we read the following:

The position of the Gospels is the opposite of that of Paul’s Epistles, as important changes occurred intentionally, such as inserting or adding entire paragraphs (Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 2, pp. 519-521).

5- The texts of all these manuscripts (of the New Testament) differ greatly and we cannot believe that any of them escaped error.. No matter how conscientious the copyist was, he committed errors.. and these errors remained in all the copies that were copied from the original copy.. Most of the existing copies of all sizes were subjected to other changes at the hands of the correctors whose job was not always to re-read correctly. (George Caird: p. 32)

*** Now let's examine the general picture of the Gospels. What I say is still the view of Christian scholars:

*** The claim that Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark has become generally accepted. However, alongside the Gospel of Mark, they must have used another document now designated by the letter q, which stands for the word source, as derived from the German word that conveys this meaning (Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 2, p. 523).


1- The Gospel of Mark:

1- Papias (circa 135 AD) says: "In fact, Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, wrote down with sufficient accuracy what his memory permitted of what was said about Jesus' deeds and sayings, but without any regard for order."

(We note that this Mark is the author of the earliest Gospels, on which both Matthew and Luke relied.) This happened because Mark had neither heard Jesus nor been a personal follower of him. Rather, at a later stage, as I (Papias) said before, he followed Peter. This statement of Papias is agreed upon by what Irenaeus quoted in his statement:

“After the death of Peter and Paul, Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, handed down to us in writing what Peter had declared.” (Frederick Grant: pp. 73, 74)


2- There was no one by this name (Mark) who was known to have had a close connection or special relationship (with Jesus) or to have had a special fame in the early church. It is not certain whether the popular saying that identifies Mark, the author of the Gospel, as John Mark mentioned in (Acts 12:12, 25) is true or not. Or that he is Mark mentioned in the First Epistle of Peter (5:13) or that he is Mark mentioned in the Epistles of Paul: Colossians (10:4) 2 Timothy (4:11), Philemon 24.


It was the custom of the early Church to assume that all the events connected with the name of an individual mentioned in the New Testament were all due to one person of that name. But when we remember that the name Mark was the most common Latin name in the Roman Empire, then we realize how much doubt there is in identifying the person in this case. (Dennis Nineham: p. 39)

3- Regarding the date of writing this Gospel:

"It is often determined in the early part of the period (65-75) .. often in the year 65 AD or the year 66 AD .. Many scholars believe that what Mark wrote in (Chapter 13) .. was written after the year 70 AD. As for the place of writing: "The early Christian traditions do not help us .. Clement of Alexandria and Origen say Rome while others say Egypt .. In the absence of any clear identification that these traditions provide us with to know the place of writing, scholars have searched within the Gospel itself for what it can provide us .. On this basis, some suggested places were put forward, such as Antioch .. but Rome was the most acceptable (Dennis Nineham: p. 42). From this it is clear that no one knows exactly who Mark, the writer of the Gospel, is .. Likewise, no one knows exactly where this Gospel came from ..


Problems of the Gospel of Mark:

One of the problems with the Gospel of Mark is the variation in the versions over the years. This has led Christian scholars to say that “unavoidable changes have crept in… These have occurred intentionally or unintentionally… Among the hundreds of manuscripts – that is, hand-made versions – of the Gospel of Mark that have survived to the present day, we do not find any two versions that are completely in agreement.”

Another problem with the Gospel of Mark is the ending of this Gospel. Verses 9 to 20 (which talk about the appearance of Christ and his call to the disciples to preach to the world about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are considered an addition, meaning that they were added about 110 years later. They did not appear for the first time until about the year 180 AD.