Introduction

The Protestant Reformation initiated an important corrective movement, but it ultimately fell short in rectifying many inherited errors within the Christian tradition.  Key aspects of the faith still require genuine reformation and restoration to their apostolic foundations. Many Protestant communities continued to uphold dogmatic theological positions rooted in the creeds and councils of the early church. However, an even greater oversight remains largely unaddressed: the canon of Scripture.

A fundamental issue is the uncritical acceptance of the traditional biblical canon, where all included books are assumed to be equally reliable, authoritative, and essential for understanding divine revelation. This unquestioning stance lies at the heart of biblical fundamentalism. For many Christians, the very notion of scrutinizing the scriptural foundation of their beliefs is inconceivable, as doing so could destabilize their faith and doctrine. Yet, by adhering to a non-apostolic tradition shaped by a corrupted church, they fail to recognize the significant issues surrounding certain books erroneously regarded as trustworthy.

The evidence presented in this article, along with its many references, underscores the need to critically reassess the traditional New Testament canon. A major issue is that much of the gospel tradition—including Mark, Matthew, and especially John—consists of revised and embellished accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. Additionally, several other New Testament writings are later questionable compositions with questionable authorship. Furthermore, the books of the traditional canon did not hold equal authority in the early church, as different Christian communities recognized and prioritized different texts. This article challenges long-standing assumptions and makes a compelling case for restoring a Core New Testament—a more historically grounded foundation for Apostolic Christianity.

Warning: By reading this article and critically examining the evidence presented—both within and through the referenced sources—you may find that your perspective on the New Testament canon is forever changed. The long-held assumptions about its composition, authority, and authenticity will no longer hold once confronted with the historical and textual realities.

It will be a challenge for many to approach this subject with an open mind and the intellectual courage to evaluate the evidence objectively. Too often, deeply ingrained traditions are accepted without question, not because they are beyond scrutiny, but because questioning them feels unsettling. Yet, truth proved by tradition or popularity. It is verified through careful examination and reasoned analysis.

Are you willing to set aside preconceived notions and follow the evidence? The choice is yours.

 

The Development of the New Testament Canon

The leading textual scholar Bruce Metzger starts the introduction of The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance with the major disclaimer that canonization was a long and gradual process:

The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature. Although this was one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early Church, history is virtually silgent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the annals of the Christian Church than the absence of detailed accounts of so significant a process.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Its Origin, Development, and Significance) (p. 1). Clarendon Press. Kindle Edition.)

Metzger further noted:

“The evidence provided… from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers does scarcely more than point to the existence and, to some extent, the dissemination of certain early Christian writings in the form of gospels and epistles. Certainly, there is little enough recognition of their being regarded as ‘holy Scripture’. By the close of the second century, however, we can see the outline of what may be described as the nucleus of the New Testament. Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained … By the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century, the great majority of the twenty-seven books that still later came to be widely regarded as the canonical New Testament were almost universally acknowledged to be authoritative.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Its Origin, Development, and Significance) (p. 75). Clarendon Press. Kindle Edition.

Indeed, the nucleus of the four-fold gospel tradition begins at the end of the second century, approximately 150 years after the life and ministry of Christ. It is not until this late period near the end of the second century that we get the assertion by Irenaeus in 180-200 AD that there are four and only four gospels (Against Heresies 3.11). By this time, according to Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.2.2-3, there were no less than twelve administrations of Church leadership removed from the apostles (Peter/Paul Linus Anacletus Clement Evaristus Evaristus Sixtus Telephorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Sorer  Eleutherius). So much time had passed by the time of Irenaeus in the late second century, that he referred to the tradition of the apostles as an “ancient tradition,” as he says, against his enemies:

Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.4.2).

Irenaeus further acknowledges in Against Heresies 3.11.7, the existence of various groups of believers that favor one Gospel over another, including Ebionites who use Hebrew Matthew only, Marcionites who used an abridged version of Luke, Docetics who prioritized Mark, and Valentinus, a prominent gnostic, that made copious use of John. Here, we have the clear indication that numerous groups rejected John or other Gospels as scriptural authorities. Although favored earliest among Gnostics, John was rejected by a number of groups including Ebionites, Maronites, and Alogians. The Alogians, near the time of Irenaeus, accepted the three synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke but rejected John. Although proto-orthodox writers promoted a four-fold gospel canon as we know it now, many Christian identifying groups in the second century didn’t.

The mystical reasons that serve as the base that Irenaeus gives for his claim of four gospels, neither more nor less, are very suspect. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.11.8 claims that, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.” Here are his mystical rationalizations:

  • “There are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds”
  • “The “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars”
  • “He has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced”
  • “For [Revelation] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second was like a calf, signifying sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man”… “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. Therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform.”
  • “There were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel.”

If a four-fold gospel canon could be soundly defended based on claims of historicity and apostolic authority alone, there would be no need for such mystical speculations. This, along with other controversial and speculative claims of Irenaeus, forces us to question our reliance on him as a reliable witness. For example, Irenaeus claims that Jesus was more than fifty years old when he died with the following rationalization:

He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity… but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.2).

The foundation of the Gospel canon should not rest on a single late second-century witness such as Irenaeus, whose justification for the fourfold Gospel relies heavily on mystical reasoning rather than verifiable historical evidence. His allegorical arguments—such as linking the four Gospels to the four winds or the four living creatures in Revelation—do not constitute a credible basis for determining apostolic authenticity.

Furthermore, patristic writings cannot serve as a reliable means of validating the canon or accurately reconstructing the origins of the Gospels and the early history of the Church. Many of these writings reflect theological agendas, post hoc rationalizations, and falsified traditions rather than firsthand apostolic testimony.

It is also notable that no extant second-century manuscripts contain all four Gospels together in a single codex. The earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts are fragmentary papyri, and there is no evidence of a compiled collection of multiple Gospels until the third century. This absence suggests that the fourfold Gospel collection was not yet widely recognized or standardized in the second century.

The earliest physical evidence of a bound volume containing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together appears only in the fourth century, in complete biblical manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. This raises important questions about the development of the Gospel canon—indicating that the fourfold Gospel collection was a later development rather than an established tradition from the apostolic era.

  The Muratorian Fragment is often cited as evidence that the New Testament canon was largely established by the late second century. This document lists a selection of authoritative books and is traditionally dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. However, several critical issues call into question its reliability as a witness to an early, settled canon.

While the fragment is an important historical artifact, it is actually an 8th-century Latin manuscript copy of an earlier work, making it susceptible to copyist errors and textual corruption. Several problematic aspects undermine its credibility as definitive evidence:

  • The only surviving copy was discovered in the 18th century, meaning there is no independent manuscript confirmation of its authenticity.
  • The Latin text is poor and clumsy, suggesting it may be a mistranslation from an earlier Greek text or reflect a later, less polished transcription.
  • The beginning of the fragment is missing, meaning the first Gospel(s) listed are unknown, making it uncertain whether it originally affirmed all four canonical Gospels.
  • It includes the Apocalypse of Peter, which was later rejected from the canon, showing that the list does not fully align with the final accepted books.
  • It excludes Hebrews, James, and Peter’s epistles, which later became part of the standard New Testament canon, demonstrating that it does not reflect the settled canon of later church councils.
  • It mentions The Shepherd of Hermas, stating it was useful for private reading but not for public church use, highlighting the fluid nature of canonical authority at the time.
  • The list does not match later authoritative canons, such as those recorded by Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius, indicating that it was not universally accepted.
  • It likely reflects the canon of a specific Christian community, rather than widespread agreement across the early church.
  • There is no external confirmation from contemporary church fathers explicitly referencing this document as a definitive canon.
  • Some scholars argue that the theological concerns reflected in the text, such as references to Montanism or church authority disputes, suggest that it may be a later composition rather than a truly second-century document.

The only multibook New Testament canon that can be firmly placed in the second century is the canon of Marcion – the earliest known attempt at a Christian scriptural collection. Developed before 144 CE, Marcion’s canon consisted of a version of the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline letters, excluding the pastoral epistles (1–2 Timothy & Titus). His collection predates any proto-orthodox canon and played a crucial role in prompting proto-orthodox Christians to later define their own lists of Scriptural authorities.

Marcion’s mid-second-century canon is significant because it demonstrates that Luke and Paul were already recognized as foundational authorities in some Christian communities before a broader New Testament canon had been formalized. His exclusive use of an edited Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline epistles suggests that these writings were considered core sources for Christian doctrine before the fourfold Gospel collection became a standard.

Marcion’s exclusive use of Luke suggests its early primacy—raising important questions about why later Christians sought to elevate Matthew and John as central Gospel texts instead.  What is clear is that the fourfold Gospel collection of Irenaeus is a later development.

 

The Gospels Are Not Independent Eyewitness Accounts

Modern critical scholarship overwhelmingly rejects the credibility of the patristic tradition, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the gospels are not independent eyewitness accounts. Instead, sound scholarship recognizes that the Gospels are interdependent literary compositions, not isolated testimonies. That is, rather than being four independent accounts that are each original composition, as would be the case with eyewitness depositions, there is a strong literary dependence between all four gospels. This further undermines the reliance on tradition to deliver to us the truth concerning the life and ministry of Jesus.  These critical points point to the traditional account of independent eyewitness depositions being a myth.

Modern critical scholarship overwhelmingly rejects the credibility of the patristic tradition’s claim that the Gospels are independent eyewitness accounts and demonstrates that this is not the case. Instead of being distinct, firsthand testimonies, the Gospels exhibit strong literary interdependence, indicating that they are not isolated compositions but textually connected narratives built upon one another.

Rather than four independent and original accounts, as one would expect from genuine eyewitness depositions, the Gospels share extensive textual overlap, narrative structures, and theological developments. This literary dependence, especially evident in the Synoptic Gospels, reveals that later Gospel writers were reworking, expanding, or modifying earlier sources rather than producing independent attestations.

  • Matthew, Mark, and Luke share extensive verbatim agreement, structural parallels, and narrative sequences, demonstrating literary dependence rather than independent eyewitness testimony.
  • If the Gospels were independent eyewitness accounts, they should contain greater divergence in wording and fewer direct literary parallels. Instead, they share large sections of verbatim agreement, something that does not happen in independent oral reports but rather in texts copied from each other.
  • Even where the Gospels differ, the differences often reflect editorial reworking of a common source rather than separate, independent memories.
  • Modern critical scholarship decisively refutes the Patristic tradition by demonstrating that the gospels are literarily interwoven theological writings, shaped by editorial processes and evolving traditions within early Christianity.

The fact that the Gospels are not independent historical records but rather theologically shaped compositions, undermines the traditional claim that early church tradition reliably transmitted an unaltered account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Instead, the claim of the gospels being four independent eyewitness depositions is a mythical construct of later tradition. Recognizing this calls into question the reliability of the church tradition.

 

The Solution to the Synoptic Problem

If we cannot rely on patristic tradition to determine the scriptural basis for first century apostolic Christianity, the question arises of how we can determine what the most appropriate foundational authorities are. Rather than relying on tradition, there is an analytical and systematic approach to determining the most reliable gospel. The solution lies in solving the Synoptic problem of answering questions pertaining to the chronology and literary relationship of the gospels. Over the last 250 years, scholars have proposed various theories addressing the sequence and dependency of the gospels on each other and other sources.

After spending several years researching and reviewing the evidence, I have come to the conviction that Luke is not only the most accurate and reliable of the Gospels, but it is also the first and most primitive of the four gospels within the traditional canon.

This position has been advocated for over 100 years. In 1922 William Lockton advanced the theory of Lukan Priority in the article The Origin of the Gospels.  The theory of Lukan became more commonly known as the Jerusalem school hypothesis, advocated by several scholars from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, which has a 50+ year history as a group of “Jewish and Christian scholars collaborating in the land and language of Jesus; bringing historical, linguistic and critical expertise to bear on the synoptic gospels,” Through their current online journal, Jerusalem Perspective, they have contributed much evidence and analysis in support of Lukan priority.

It is worth noting that B.H. Streeter, who popularized the view of Markan priority in The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924) also gives credence to a Lukan priority view. Streeter’s work is largely responsible for shaping the modern consensus on Markan priority. Yet within the very same book, he argues that Luke preserves more primitive traditions than Mark in several respects. Streeter proposed the existence of Proto-Luke, an early gospel-like document that predated Mark and contained primitive source material forming an independent narrative. According to his hypothesis, Luke’s Gospel, prior to its final form, was initially a more original compilation of early traditions, and Mark may have drawn from elements of this Proto-Luke. This suggests that Mark, rather than being entirely independent, may have been influenced by earlier Lukan material, particularly in certain traditions.

Streeter’s recognition of Luke’s primitive elements challenges the rigid assumption that Mark was the earliest and most foundational Gospel. His nuanced view leaves room for a reconsideration of Lukan priority, particularly in relation to the Synoptic Problem and the formation of early Gospel traditions.

It should also be noted that those scholars who advocate the two-source hypothesis of both Matthew and Luke being dependent on Mark and a lost hypothetical saying source, Q, affirm that Luke more often than Matthew preserves the more primitive reading of the lost source. What they fail to realize is that Luke (Proto-Luke) is actually the primary source for narrative sayings common to Luke, Mark, and Matthew. What has misled scholars is that Luke, as we read it in modern translations, appears to be less primitive than it actually is. I have extensively documented over 1600 textual variants in Luke through my publication of The Gospel of Luke: AI Critical Edition. By identifying likely interpolations corresponding to textual variants not attested by all the early manuscripts of Luke, one can easily reconstruct a version of Luke that is clearly more primitive.

By employing a process of elimination, Luke stands alone as the most primitive and reliable foundational scriptural authority. The others are revisions, expansions, and embellishments of the primitive gospel narrative exhibited in Luke. Luke is superior to all the others in conveying the historical Jesus. Furthermore, Luke-Acts and the letters of Paul are the best foundational authorities that exist as a core apostolic witness to the ministry of Christ and the apostles within a few decades of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

The Lukan Priority hypothesis challenges the modern consensus of Markan Priority and eliminates the need for hypothetical sources such as Q, Ur-Markus, or Proto-Luke, which were introduced to resolve perceived literary dependencies among the Synoptic Gospels. Indeed, Luke, when restored to its primitive form, can clearly be seen as the primary foundation for the narration and sayings of Mark and Matthew.

For the full synopsis and overview of the arguments and references relevant to the restoration of the Core New Testament Canon, see NTCanon.com. This article covers the initial portion of the NTCanon.com page. Continue the article on NTCanon.com at the section Countering Arguments for Markan Priority.

The evidence for Lukan Priority and Luke Primacy is extensively documented through numerous articles on the following websites:

Again, I am not the first to advocate this view. You will see that the findings are backed up by substantive analysis. The reality is that most academics and scholars who hold the commonly held view of Markan priority hold to it because that is what they have been taught, as opposed to having questioned it and looked closely at alternative positions. I believe anyone willing to review all the evidence presented on the above websites with an open mind will come to the same conclusions.

In the pursuit of truth,

 ©️Theophilus Josiah

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your Comment

Full Name *

Link website *