The New Testament is a collection of 27Christian texts written inKoine Greek by various authors, forming the second major division of theChristian Bible. It includes fourgospels, theActs of the Apostles, epistles attributed toPaul and other authors, and theBook of Revelation. TheNew Testament canon developed gradually over the first few centuries of Christianity through a complex process of debate, rejection ofheretical texts, and recognition of writings deemedapostolic, culminating in the formalization of the 27-book canon by the late 4th century. It has been widely accepted across Christian traditions sinceLate Antiquity.[2]
Literary analysis suggests many of its texts were written in the mid-to-late first century. There is noscholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament text. The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the late second to early third centuries AD, with the possible exception ofPapyrus 52.
The New Testament was transmitted through thousands of manuscripts in various languages and church quotations and contains variants.Textual criticism uses surviving manuscripts to reconstruct the oldest version feasible and to chart the history of the written tradition.[3] It has varied reception among Christians today. It is viewed as a holy scripture alongsideSacred Tradition among Catholics[4] andOrthodox, whileevangelicals and some otherProtestants view it as the inspired word of God without tradition.[5]
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.
The wordcovenant means 'agreement' (from Latincon-venio "to agree", literally 'to come together'): the use of the wordtestament, which describes the different idea of written instructions for inheritance after death, to refer to the covenant with Israel in the Old Testament, is foreign to the original Hebrew wordbrit (בְּרִית) describing it, which only means 'alliance, covenant, pact' and never 'inheritance instructions after death'.[10][11] This use comes from the transcription of Latintestamentum 'will (left after death)',[12] a literal translation of Greekdiatheke (διαθήκη) 'will (left after death)',[13] which is the word used to translate Hebrewbrit in theSeptuagint.[14]
The choice of this worddiatheke, by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint inAlexandria in the 3rd and 2nd century BC, has been understood in Christian theology to imply a reinterpreted view of the Old Testament covenant with Israel aspossessing characteristics of a 'will left after death' (the death ofJesus) and has generated considerable attention from biblical scholars and theologians:[15] in contrast to the Jewish usage wherebrit was the usual Hebrew word used to refer to pacts, alliances and covenants in general, like a common pact between two individuals,[b] and to the one between God and Israel in particular,[c] in the Greek worlddiatheke was virtually never used to refer to an alliance or covenant (one exception is noted in a passage fromAristophanes)[6] and referred instead to a will left after the death of a person. There is scholarly debate[16][15] as to the reason why the translators of the Septuagint chose the termdiatheke to translate Hebrewbrit, instead of another Greek word generally used to refer to an alliance or covenant.
The phraseNew Testament as the collection of scriptures
The use of the phraseNew Testament (Koine Greek:Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη,Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē) to describe a collection of first- and second-century Christian Greek scriptures can be traced back toTertullian in his workAgainst Praxeas.[17][18][19] Irenaeus uses the phraseNew Testament several times, but does not use it in reference to any written text.[18] InAgainst Marcion, written c. 208 AD, Tertullian writes of:[20]
the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of thelaw and thegospel.
And Tertullian continues later in the book, writing:[21][d]
it is certain that the whole aim at which he [Marcion] has strenuously laboured, even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his ownChrist may be separate from theCreator, as belonging to this rival God, and as alien from the law and theprophets.
By the4th century, the existence—even if not the exact contents—of both an Old and New Testament had been established.Lactantius, a 3rd–4th century Christian author wrote in his early-4th-century LatinInstitutiones Divinae (Divine Institutes):[22]
But all scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, thelaw and theprophets—is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord."[23] ... For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.
Eusebius describes the collection of Christian writings as "covenanted" (ἐνδιαθήκη) books inHist. Eccl. 3.3.1–7; 3.25.3; 5.8.1; 6.25.1.
Each of the fourgospels in the New Testament narrates the life, death, and resurrection ofJesus of Nazareth (the gospel of Mark in the original text ends with the empty tomb and has no account of the post-resurrection appearances, but the emptiness of the tomb implies a resurrection). The word "gospel" derives from theOld Englishgōd-spell[24] (rarelygodspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". Its Hebrew equivalent being "besorah" (בְּשׂוֹרָה). The gospel was considered the "good news" of the comingKingdom of Messiah, and the redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central Christian message.[25]
Starting in the late second century, the four narrative accounts of the life and work of Jesus Christ have been referred to as "The Gospel of ..." or "The Gospel according to ..." followed by the name of the supposed author. The first author to explicitly name the canonical gospels isIrenaeus of Lyon,[18][26] who promoted the four canonical gospels in his bookAgainst Heresies, written around 180.[27]
These four gospels that were eventually included in the New Testament were only a few among many other early Christian gospels. The existence of such texts is even mentioned at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke.[32] Manynon-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four canonical gospels, and like them advocating the particular theological views of their various authors.[33][34] In modern scholarship, the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources for reconstructing Christ's ministry.[35][note 1]
The Acts of the Apostles is a narrative of the apostles' ministry and activity afterChrist's death and resurrection, from which point it resumes and functions as a sequel to theGospel of Luke. Examining style, phraseology, and other evidence, modern scholarship generally concludes that Acts and the Gospel of Luke share the same author, referred to asLuke–Acts. Luke–Acts does not name its author.[36] Church tradition identified him asLuke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, but the majority of scholars reject this due to the many differences between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters, though most scholars still believe the author, whether named Luke or not, metPaul.[37][38][39][40][41] The most probable date of composition is around 80–90 AD, although some scholars date it significantly later,[42][43] and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[44]
The Pauline letters are the thirteen New Testament books that presentPaul the Apostle as their author.[e] Paul's authorship of six of the letters is disputed. Four are thought by most modern scholars to bepseudepigraphic, i.e., not actually written by Paul even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Opinion is more divided on the other two disputed letters (2 Thessalonians and Colossians).[48] These letters were written to Christian communities in specific cities or geographical regions, often to address issues faced by that particular community. Prominent themes include the relationship both to broader "pagan" society, to Judaism, and to other Christians.[49]
[Disputed letters are marked with an asterisk (*).]
All of the above except for Philemon are known as thepastoral epistles. They are addressed to individuals charged with pastoral oversight of churches and discuss issues of Christian living, doctrine and leadership. They often address different concerns to those of the preceding epistles. These letters are believed by many to be pseudepigraphic. Some scholars (e.g., Bill Mounce, Ben Witherington, R.C. Sproul) will argue that the letters are genuinely Pauline, or at least written under Paul's supervision.
TheEpistle to the Hebrews addresses a Jewish audience who had come to believe that Jesus was theAnointed One (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ—transliterated in English as "Moshiach", or "Messiah"; Greek: Χριστός—transliterated in English as "Christos", for "Christ") who was predicted in the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. The author discusses the superiority of the new covenant and the ministry of Jesus, to theMosaic Law Covenant[50] and urges the readers in the practical implications of this conviction through the end of the epistle.[51]
The book has been widely accepted by the Christian church as inspired by God and thus authoritative, despite the acknowledgment of uncertainties about who its human author was. Regarding authorship, although the Epistle to the Hebrews does not internally claim to have been written by theApostle Paul, some similarities in wordings to some of the Pauline Epistles have been noted and inferred. In antiquity, some began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree.[52]
In the 4th century,Jerome andAugustine of Hippo supportedPaul's authorship. The Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship until theReformation. The letter to the Hebrews had difficulty in being accepted as part of the Christian canon because of its anonymity.[53] As early as the 3rd century,Origen wrote of the letter, "Men of old have handed it down as Paul's, but who wrote the Epistle God only knows."[54]
Contemporary scholars often reject Pauline authorship for the epistle to the Hebrews,[55] based on its distinctive style and theology, which are considered to set it apart from Paul's writings.[56]
The final book of the New Testament is theBook of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of John. In the New Testament canon, it is consideredprophetical orapocalyptic literature. Its authorship has been attributed either to John the Apostle (in which case it is often thought that John the Apostle isJohn the Evangelist, i.e. author of theGospel of John) or to another John designated "John of Patmos" after the island where the text says the revelation was received (1:9). Some ascribe the writership date asc. 81–96 AD, and others at around 68 AD.[58] The work opens with letters toseven local congregations of Asia Minor and thereafter takes the form of anapocalypse, a "revealing" of divine prophecy and mysteries, a literary genre popular in ancient Judaism and Christianity.[59]
^The growth and development of the Armenian biblical canon is complex; extra-canonical New Testament books appear in historical canon lists and recensions that are either distinct to this tradition, or where they do exist elsewhere, never achieved the same status.[citation needed] Some of the books are not listed in this table; these include the Prayer ofEuthalius, the Repose ofSt. John the Evangelist, theDoctrine of Addai, a reading from theGospel of James,the Second Apostolic Canons, the Words ofJustus,Dionysius Areopagite, thePreaching of Peter, and a Poem byGhazar.[citation needed] (Various sources[citation needed] also mention undefined Armenian canonical additions to the Gospels of Mark and John. These may refer to the general additions—Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11—discussed elsewhere in these notes.) A possible exception here to canonical exclusivity is the Second Apostolic Canons, which share a common source—theApostolic Constitutions—with certain parts of the Orthodox Tewahedo New Testament broader canon.[citation needed] TheActs of Thaddeus was included in the biblical canon ofGregory of Tatev.[60] There is some uncertainty about whether Armenian canon lists include the Doctrine of Addai or the relatedActs of Thaddeus.[citation needed] Moreover, the correspondence between KingAbgar V and Jesus Christ, which is found in various forms—including within both the Doctrine of Addai and the Acts of Thaddeus—sometimes appears separately (seelist[full citation needed]). The Prayer of Euthalius and the Repose of St. John the Evangelist appear in the appendix of the 1805 Armenian Zohrab Bible.[citation needed] Some of the aforementioned books, though they are found within canon lists, have nonetheless never been discovered to be part of any Armenian biblical manuscript.[60]
^Though widely regarded as non-canonical,[citation needed] the Gospel of James obtained early liturgical acceptance among some Eastern churches and remains a major source for many of Christendom's traditions related toMary, the mother of Jesus.[citation needed]
^abcdTheDiatessaron,Tatian'sgospel harmony, became a standard text in some Syriac-speaking churches down to the 5th century, when it gave way to the four separate gospels found in the Peshitta.[citation needed]
^abcdParts of these four books are not found in the most reliable ancient sources; in some cases, are thought to be later additions, and have therefore not appeared historically in every biblical tradition.[citation needed] They are as follows:Mark 16:9–20,John 7:53–8:11, theComma Johanneum, and portions of theWestern version of Acts. To varying degrees, arguments for the authenticity of these passages—especially for the one from the Gospel of John—have occasionally been made.[citation needed]
^abThe Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians are all portions of the greaterActs of Paul narrative, which is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in theCodex Claromontanus, but has survived only in fragments.[citation needed] Some of the content within these individual sections may have developed separately.[citation needed]
^abcdThese four works were questioned or "spoken against" byMartin Luther, and he changed the order ofhis New Testament to reflect this, but he did not leave them out, nor has anyLutheran body since.[citation needed] Traditional German Luther Bibles are still printed with the New Testament in this changed "Lutheran" order.[citation needed] The vast majority of Protestants embrace these four works as fully canonical.[citation needed]
^abcdeThe Peshitta excludes 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions include later translations of those books.[citation needed] Still today, the officiallectionary followed by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East presents lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions.[citation needed]
^The Epistle to the Laodiceans is present in some western non-Roman Catholic translations and traditions.[citation needed] Especially of note isJohn Wycliffe's inclusion of the epistle in his English translation,[citation needed] and theQuakers' use of it to the point where they produced a translation and made pleas for its canonicity, see Poole'sAnnotations, on Col. 4:16. The epistle is nonetheless widely rejected by the vast majority of Protestants.[citation needed]
^Though they are not listed in this table, theApostolic Constitutions were considered canonical by some includingAlexius Aristenus,John of Salisbury, and to a lesser extent,Grigor Tat`evatsi.[citation needed] They are even classified as part of the New Testament canon within the body of the Constitutions itself; moreover, they are the source for a great deal of the content in the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon.[citation needed]
^abcdeThese five writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers are not currently considered canonical in any biblical tradition, though they are more highly regarded by some more than others.[citation needed] Nonetheless, their early authorship and inclusion in ancient biblical codices, as well as their acceptance to varying degrees by various early authorities, requires them to be treated as foundational literature for Christianity as a whole.[according to whom?][citation needed]
^abEthiopic Clement and the Ethiopic Didascalia are distinct from and should not be confused with other ecclesiastical documents known in the west by similar names.[citation needed]
The order in which the books of the New Testament appear differs between some collections and ecclesiastical traditions. In the Latin West, prior to theVulgate (an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible), the four Gospels were arranged in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.[f] The SyriacPeshitta places the major Catholic epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) immediately after Acts and before the Pauline epistles.
The order of an early edition of the letters of Paul is based on the size of the letters: longest to shortest, though keeping 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians together. The Pastoral epistles were apparently not part of theCorpus Paulinum in which this order originated and were later inserted after 2 Thessalonians and before Philemon. Hebrews was variously incorporated into theCorpus Paulinum either after 2 Thessalonians, after Philemon (i.e. at the very end), or after Romans.
Luther's canon, found in the 16th-centuryLuther Bible, continues to place Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse (Revelation) last. This reflects the thoughts of the Reformer Martin Luther on the canonicity of these books.[64][g][65]
It is considered the books of the New Testament were all or nearly all written byJewish Christians—that is, Jewish disciples of Christ, who lived in theRoman Empire, and underRoman occupation.[66] The author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts is frequently thought of as an exception; scholars are divided as to whether he was aGentile or aHellenistic Jew.[67] A few scholars identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as probably a Gentile, and similarly for the Gospel of Matthew, though most assert Jewish-Christian authorship.[68][69][70][verification needed]
However, more recently the above understanding has been challenged by the publication of evidence showing only educated elites after theJewish War would have been capable of producing the prose found in the Gospels.[71][verification needed][page needed]
Evangelist Mathäus und der Engel, byRembrandt, 1661
Authorship of the Gospels remains divided among both evangelical and critical scholars. The names of each Gospel stems from church tradition, and yet the authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves in their respective texts. All four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles areanonymous works.[72] The Gospel of John claims to be based on eyewitness testimony from theDisciple whom Jesus loved, but never names this character. The author ofLuke-Acts claimed to access an eyewitness toPaul; this claim remains accepted by most scholars.[h] Objections to this viewpoint mainly take the form of the following two interpretations, but also include the claim that Luke-Acts contains differences in theology and historical narrative which are irreconcilable with the authentic letters ofPaul the Apostle.[74] According toBart D. Ehrman of theUniversity of North Carolina, none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses of Jesus's life.[75][76][77] Ehrman has argued for a scholarly consensus that many New Testament books were not written by the individuals whose names are attached to them.[78][79] Scholarly opinion is that names were fixed to the gospels by the mid second century AD.[80] Many scholars believe that none of the gospels were written in the region ofPalestine.[81]
Christian tradition identifiesJohn the Apostle withJohn the Evangelist, the supposed author of theGospel of John. Traditionalists tend to support the idea that the writer of the Gospel of John himself claimed to be an eyewitness in their commentaries ofJohn 21:24 and therefore the gospel was written by an eyewitness.[82][83] This idea is rejected by the majority of modern scholars; most think the verses claim the beloved disciple was the author of the gospel,[84] but the passage is widely viewed as a later addition by either the author of chapters 1-20 or by another redactor,[85] though a growing minority view it as part of the earliest text.[86][87][88] The author may also claim to be a witness in 19:35.[89][90]
Most scholars hold to thetwo-source hypothesis, which posits that theGospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written, though alternative hypotheses that posit the direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.[91][92] On this view, the authors of theGospel of Matthew and theGospel of Luke used as sources theGospel of Mark and a hypotheticalQ document to write their individual gospel accounts.[93][94][95][96][97] These three gospels are called theSynoptic Gospels, because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes in exactly the same wording. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, by using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote theActs of the Apostles. Scholars hold that these books constituted two-halves of a single work,Luke–Acts.[citation needed]
The same author appears to have written the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, and most refer to them as the Lucan texts.[98][99] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book; both were addressed toTheophilus, and the preface to the Acts of the Apostles references "my former book" about the ministry of Jesus.[100] Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[101][102][103][104]
Saint Paul Writing His Epistles byValentin de Boulogne (c. 1618–1620). Most scholars thinkPaul actually dictated his letters to a secretary.
The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed toPaul of Tarsus. Seven letters are generally classified as "undisputed", expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.[i]
The anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews is, despite unlikely Pauline authorship, often functionally grouped with these thirteen to form a corpus of fourteen "Pauline" epistles.[j]
While many scholars uphold the traditional view, some question whether the first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles", are authentic letters of Paul. As for the latter three, the "Pastoral epistles", some scholars uphold the traditional view of these as the genuine writings of the Apostle Paul;[i] most regard them aspseudepigrapha.[107]
One might refer to theEpistle to the Laodiceans and theThird Epistle to the Corinthians as examples of works identified as pseudonymous. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship.[108]
The epistles all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style; they exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning theMosaic Law, Jesus, faith, and various other issues. All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts of the Apostles.
The author of theEpistle of James identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the 3rd century,patristic authors cited theEpistle as written byJames the Just.[109] Ancient and modern scholars have always been divided on the issue of authorship. Many consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries.[110]
The author of theFirst Epistle of Peter identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, anapostle of Jesus Christ", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number ofChurch Fathers:Irenaeus (140–203),Tertullian (150–222),Clement of Alexandria (155–215) andOrigen of Alexandria (185–253). UnlikeThe Second Epistle of Peter, the authorship of which was debated in antiquity, there was little debate about Peter's authorship of this first epistle until the 18th century. Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, many biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author.[111] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[112] Zahn,[113] Spitta,[114][full citation needed] Bigg,[115] and Green.[116]
The Epistle of Jude title is written as follows: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James".[117] The debate has continued over the author's identity as the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither.[118]
The Gospel of John, the threeJohannine epistles, and theBook of Revelation, exhibit marked similarities, although more so between the gospel and the epistles (especially the gospel and 1 John) than between those and Revelation.[119] Most scholars therefore treat the five as a single corpus ofJohannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[120]
Burkett argues the gospel went through two or three "editions" before reaching its current form around AD 90–110, though more recent scholars tend to be less interested in theories about hypothetical editions or sources of the gospel.[121][122][88] It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but according to Burkett does not say specifically that he is its author except in John 21, which is widely viewed as a later addition by either the author of chapters 1-20 or by another redactor,[85] though Keith notes a growing minority views it as original.[123][88] According to Méndez, the gospel gradually identifies its narrator as the beloved disciple, notably in chapter 19.[90] Christian tradition identifies this disciple as theapostle John, but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.[124] It is significantly different from the synoptic gospels, with major variations in material, theological emphasis, chronology, and literary style, sometimes amounting to contradictions.[125]
The author of theBook of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John".[126] and states that he was onPatmos when he received his first vision.[127] As a result, the author is sometimes referred to asJohn of Patmos. The author has traditionally been identified withJohn the Apostle to whom theGospel and theepistles of John were attributed. It was believed that he was exiled to the island of Patmos during the reign of theRoman emperorDomitian, and there wrote Revelation.Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD) who was acquainted withPolycarp, who had been mentored by John, makes a possible allusion to this book, and credits John as the source.[128]Irenaeus (c. 115–202) assumes it as a conceded point. According to theZondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses put forth in the last hundred years or so.[129]Ben Witherington points out that linguistic evidence makes it unlikely that the books were written by the same person.[130]
There is noscholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts.John A. T. Robinson,Dan Wallace,William F. Albright,Maurice Casey, and James Crossley all dated many or all of the books of the New Testament before 70 AD.[131][132][133] Jonathan Bernier's recent argument for early dates has enjoyed a positive reception, with endorsements from Chris Keith and Anders Runesson, among others.[134] Many other scholars, such asBart D. Ehrman andStephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much later than this;[135][136][137]Richard Pervo datedLuke–Acts toc. 115 AD,[42] andDavid Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon.[43] Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70 AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through the end of theFirst Century is very likely statistically.[138]Markus Bockmuehl finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.[139]
The earliestmanuscripts of New Testament books date from the late second to early third centuries (although seePapyrus 52 for a possible exception).[140]
Literary analysis of the New Testament texts themselves can be used to date many of the books of the New Testament to the mid-to-late first century. The earliest works of the New Testament are the letters of theApostle Paul. It can be determined that1 Thessalonians is likely the earliest of these letters, written around 52 AD.[141]
The major languages spoken by both Jews and Greeks in theHoly Land at thetime of Jesus wereAramaic andKoine Greek, and also a colloquial dialect ofMishnaic Hebrew. It is generally agreed by most scholars that thehistorical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic,[142] perhaps also someHebrew and Koine Greek. The majority view is that all of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in the Koine Greek language.[3][143]
As Christianity spread, these books were later translated into other languages, most notably,Latin,Syriac, andEgyptian Coptic. Some of theChurch Fathers[144] imply or claim that Matthew was originally written inHebrew orAramaic, and then soon after was written in Koine Greek. Nevertheless, some scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew known today was composed in Greek and is neither directly dependent upon nor a translation of a text in aSemitic language.[145]
The style ofKoine Greek in which the New Testament is written differs from the general Koine Greek used by Greek writers of the same era, a difference that some scholars have explained by the fact that the authors of the New Testament, nearly all Jews and deeply familiar with theSeptuagint, wrote in a Jewish-Greek dialect strongly influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew[146] (seeJewish Koine Greek, related to theGreek of the Septuagint). But other scholars say that this view is arrived at by comparing the linguistic style of the New Testament to the preserved writings of the literary men of the era, who imitated the style of the great Attic texts and as a result did not reflect the everyday spoken language, so that this difference in style could be explained by the New Testament being written, unlike other preserved literary material of the era, in the Koine Greek spoken in everyday life, in order to appeal to the common people, a style which has also been found in contemporary non-Jewish texts such as private letters, receipts and petitions discovered in Egypt (where the dry air has preserved these documents which, as everyday material not deemed of literary importance, had not been copied by subsequent generations).[147]
The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. In the initial centuries ofearly Christianity, there were many books widely considered by the church to be inspired, but there was no single formally recognized New Testament canon.[148] The process was characterized by a compilation of books thatapostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.[149] Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among theearliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the1st century AD.[150]
One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made byMarcion,c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (theGospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was largely rejected by other groups of Christians, notably theproto-orthodox Christians, as was his theology,Marcionism.Adolf von Harnack,[151] John Knox,[152] andDavid Trobisch,[43] among other scholars, have argued that the church formulated its New Testament canon partially in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
TheMuratorian fragment, dated at between 170 and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to theAnchor Bible Dictionary), may be the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.
The oldest clear endorsement of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was writtenc. 180 AD. A four gospel canon (theTetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly[157][158] in hispolemicAgainst Heresies:
It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.[158]
The books considered to be authoritative by Irenaeus included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul, although, based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.[159]
By the early 200s,Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation,[160] known as theAntilegomena. Likewise, theMuratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[161] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in theEarly Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the3rd century.[162]
Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts that became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-4th-centuryEaster Letter, which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on theEcclesiastical History (HE) ofEusebius of Caesarea, wherein he uses the information passed on to him by Origen to create both his list at HE 3:25 and Origen's list at HE 6:25. Eusebius got his information about what texts were then accepted and what were thendisputed, by thethird-century churches throughout the known world, a great deal of which Origen knew of firsthand from his extensive travels, from the library and writings of Origen.[163]
In fact, Origen would have possibly included in his list of "inspired writings" other texts kept out by the likes of Eusebius—including theEpistle of Barnabas,Shepherd of Hermas, and1 Clement. Notwithstanding these facts, "Origen is not the originator of the idea of biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary-interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion."[164]
Eusebius,c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in hisEcclesiastical HistoryBook 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Book of Revelation, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also theActs of Paul, and the so-calledShepherd, and theApocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extantepistle of Barnabas, and the so-calledTeachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, theApocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also theGospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as theGospels of Peter, ofThomas, ofMatthias, or of any others besides them, and theActs of Andrew andJohn and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
The Book of Revelation is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the church fathers, it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions theDiatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle Paul, in order to improve their style."
In his Easter letter of 367,Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[165] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[166] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been theSynod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 AD). The acts of this council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by theCouncil of Carthage (397) and theCouncil of Carthage (419).[167] These councils were under the authority ofSt. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[168][169][170]
On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:[178]
Although a number of Christians have thought thatchurch councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.
According to theCatholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of theTridentine Council."[179]
In 331,Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliverfifty Bibles for theChurch of Constantinople.Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles forConstans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and thatCodex Vaticanus andCodex Sinaiticus may be examples of these Bibles. Together with thePeshitta andCodex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.[180]
Papyrus Bodmer VIII, at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, showing 1 and 2 Peter.TheCodex Regius (L or019), an 8th-century Greek manuscript of the New Testament with strong affinities toCodex Vaticanus.
Like other literature fromantiquity, the text of the New Testament was (prior to the advent of theprinting press) preserved and transmitted inmanuscripts. Manuscripts containing at least a part of the New Testament number in the thousands. The earliest of these (like manuscripts containing other literature) are often very fragmentarily preserved. Some of these fragments have even been thought to date as early as the 2nd century (i.e.,Papyrus 90,Papyrus 98,Papyrus 104, and famouslyRylands Library Papyrus P52, though the early date of the latter has recently been called into question).[181]
Textual criticism deals with the identification and removal of transcription errors in thetexts ofmanuscripts. Ancientscribes made errors or alterations (such as including non-authenticadditions).[182] The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800Greek manuscripts, 10,000Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages includingSyriac,Slavic,Ethiopic andArmenian. Even if the original Greek versions were lost, the entire New Testament could still be assembled from the translations.[183]
In addition, there are so many quotes from the New Testament in early church documents and commentaries that the entire New Testament could also be assembled from these alone.[183] Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, theGnostic writings ofValentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church.[184] The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, but it also gives scholars a better idea of how close modern Bibles are to the original versions.[184]
On noting the large number of surviving ancient manuscripts,Bruce Metzger sums up the view on the issue by saying "The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.[183]
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are calledinterpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. According toBart D. Ehrman, "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries."[185]
Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate passages that have disputed source documents. Bible commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, almost all have no importance, as they are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages. For example, order of words (i.e. "man bites dog" versus "dog bites man") often does not matter in Greek, so textual variants that flip the order of words often have no consequences.[183]
The often referred toInterpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: "A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."[195]
Thetextual variation among manuscript copies of books in the New Testament prompted attempts to discern the earliest form of text already in antiquity (e.g., by the 3rd-century Christian authorOrigen). The efforts began in earnest again during theRenaissance, which saw a revival of the study of ancient Greek texts. During this period, moderntextual criticism was born. In this context,Christian humanists such asLorenzo Valla andErasmus promoted a return to the original Greek of the New Testament. This was the beginning of modernNew Testament textual criticism, which over subsequent centuries would increasingly incorporate more and more manuscripts, in more languages (i.e., versions of the New Testament), as well as citations of the New Testament by ancient authors and the New Testament text inlectionaries in order to reconstruct the earliest recoverable form of the New Testament text and the history of changes to it.[3]
Relationship to earlier and contemporaneous literature
Books that later formed the New Testament, like other Christian literature of the period, originated in a literary context that reveals relationships not only to other Christian writings, but also toGraeco-Roman andJewish works. Of singular importance is the extensive use of and interaction with theJewish Bible and what would become the Christian Old Testament. Both implicit and explicit citations, as well as countless allusions, appear throughout the books of the New Testament, from the Gospels and Acts, to the Epistles, to the Apocalypse.[197]
The first translations (usually called "versions") of the New Testament were made beginning already at the end of 2nd century. The earliest versions of the New Testament are the translations into theSyriac,Latin, andCoptic languages.[198]
A Bohairic translation was made later, but existed already in the 4th century. Though the translation makes less use of Greek words than the Sahidic, it does employ some Greek grammar (e.g., in word-order and the use of particles such as the syntactic construction μεν—δε). For this reason, the Bohairic translation can be helpful in the reconstruction of the early Greek text of the New Testament.[201]
The continued spread of Christianity, and the foundation of national churches, led to the translation of the Bible—often beginning with books from the New Testament—into a variety of other languages at a relatively early date:Armenian,Georgian,Ethiopic,Persian,Sogdian, and eventuallyGothic,Old Church Slavonic,Arabic, andNubian.[202]
Translations of the New Testament made since the appearance of critical editions of the Greek text (notably those ofTischendorf,Westcott and Hort, andvon Soden) have largely used them as theirbase text. Unlike theTextus Receptus, they have a pronounced Alexandrian character. Standard critical editions are those ofNestle-Åland (the text, though not the full critical apparatus of which is reproduced in theUnited Bible Societies' "Greek New Testament"),Souter, Vogels, Bover and Merk.
The self-witness of the Bible to its inspiration demands a commitment to its unity. The ultimate basis for unity is contained in the claim of divine inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16[203] that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (KJV). The term "inspiration" renders the Greek wordtheopneustos. This term only occurs here in the New Testament and literally means "God-breathed" (the chosen translation of the NIV).[204]
The notion ofunity in diversity of Scripture claims that the Bible presents a noncontradictory and consistent message concerning God and redemptive history. The fact of diversity is observed in comparing the diversity of time, culture, authors' perspectives, literary genre, and the theological themes.[204]
Studies from many theologians considering the "unity in diversity" to be found in the New Testament (and the Bible as a whole) have been collected and summarized by New Testament theologianFrank Stagg. He describes them as some basic presuppositions, tenets, and concerns common among the New Testament writers, giving to the New Testament its "unity in diversity":
The reality of God is never argued but is always assumed and affirmed
Jesus Christ is absolutely central: he is Lord and Savior, the foretold Prophet, the Messianic King, the Chosen, the way, the truth, and the light, the One through whom God the Father not only acted but through whom He came
The Holy Spirit came anew with Jesus Christ.
The Christian faith and life are a calling, rooted in divine election.
The plight of everyone as sinner means that each person is completely dependent upon the mercy and grace of God
Salvation is both God's gift and his demand through Jesus Christ, to be received by faith
The death and resurrection of Jesus are at the heart of the total event of which he was the center
God creates a people of his own, designated and described by varied terminology and analogies
History must be understood eschatologically, being brought along toward its ultimate goal when the kingdom of God, already present in Christ, is brought to its complete triumph
In Christ, all of God's work of creation, revelation, and redemption is brought to fulfillment[205]
Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Classical Anglicanism
§ 82: As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. § 107: The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.
In Catholic terminology the teaching office is called theMagisterium. The Catholic view should not be confused with the two-source theory. As the Catechism states in §§ 80 and 81, Revelation has "one common source ... two distinct modes of transmission."[4]
While manyEastern Orthodox writers distinguish between Scripture and Tradition, Bishop Kallistos Ware says that for the Orthodox there is only one source of the Christian faith, Holy Tradition, within which Scripture exists.[206]
TraditionalAnglicans believe that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation", (Article VI), but also that the Catholic Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed" (Article VIII), and that the Church "hath authority in Controversies of Faith" and is "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ" (Article XX).[207]
In the famous words of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells: "As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West, more particularly in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross."[This quote needs a citation]
Following the doctrine ofsola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to reevaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended inLiberal Protestant traditions even to the reevaluation of thedoctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. The adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of scripture vary widely.[citation needed]
American evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism
Within the US, theChicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) articulates evangelical views on this issue.[citation needed][according to whom?] Paragraph four of its summary states: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."[5]
Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report: "We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or prescientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail."[208]
Messianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.[209] According to the view of some Messianic Jewish congregations, Jesus did not annul the Torah, but that its interpretation is revised and ultimately explained through the Apostolic Scriptures.[210]
Jehovah's Witnesses accept the New Testament as divinely inspired Scripture, and as infallible in every detail, with equal authority as the Hebrew Scriptures. They view it as the written revelation and good news of theMessiah, theransom sacrifice of Jesus, and theKingdom of God, explaining and expounding the Hebrew Bible, not replacing but vitally supplementing it. They also view the New Testament as the primary instruction guide for Christian living, andchurch discipline. They generally call the New Testament the "Christian Greek Scriptures", and see only the "covenants" as "old" or "new", but not any part of the actual Scriptures themselves.[211]
Oneness Pentecostalism subscribes to the common Protestant doctrine ofsola scriptura. They view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and as absolutelyinerrant in its contents (though not necessarily in every translation).[212][213] They regard the New Testament as perfect and inerrant in every way, revealing the Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh, and his Atonement, and which also explains and illuminates the Old Testament perfectly, and is part of the Bible canon, not because church councils or decrees claimed it so, but by witness of the Holy Spirit.[214][215]
TheSeventh-day Adventist Church holds the New Testament as the inspired Word of God, with God influencing the "thoughts" of the Apostles in the writing, not necessarily every word though. The first fundamental belief of the Seventh-Day Adventist church stated that "The Holy Scriptures are theinfallible revelation of [God's] will."Adventist theologians generally reject the "verbal inspiration" position on Scripture held by many conservativeevangelical Christians. They believe instead that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical authors and apostles, and that the writers then expressed these thoughts in their own words.[216] This view is popularly known as "thought inspiration", and most Adventist members hold to that view. According to Ed Christian, formerJATS editor, "few if anyATS members believe in verbal inerrancy".[217]
How theMosaic Law should be applied came up at Adventist conferences in the past, and Adventist theologians such asA. T. Jones andE. J. Waggoner looked at the problem addressed by Paul inGalatians as not the ceremonial law, but rather the wrong use of the law (legalism). They were opposed byUriah Smith andGeorge Butler at the 1888 Conference. Smith in particular thought the Galatians issue had been settled by Ellen White already, yet in 1890 she claimed that justification by faith is "thethird angel's message in verity."[218] White interpreted Colossians 2:14[219] as saying that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.[220]
Members ofthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) believe that the New Testament, as part of theChristian biblical canon, is accurate "as far as it is translated correctly".[221] They believe the Bible as originally revealed is the word of God, but that the processes of transcription and translation have introduced errors into the texts as currently available, and therefore they cannot be regarded as completely inerrant.[222][223] In addition to the Old and New Testaments, theBook of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and thePearl of Great Price are considered part of their scriptural canon.[224][225]
A Byzantine lectionary,Codex Harleianus (l150), 995 AD, text of John 1:18.
Gaudenzio Ferrari'sStories of the Life and Passion of Christ, fresco, 1513, Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Varallo Sesia, Italy. Depicting the life of Jesus
The text of the famous "Hallelujah" chorus in G. F. Händel'sMessiah is drawn from three passages in the Book of Revelation: 19:6, 11:5, and 19:16 (audio clip from the German translation of theMessiah).
^For example, the pact between Jacob with Laban in Genesis (Genesis 31:44).
^For example, the covenant at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:5) or the "new covenant" verse from Jeremiah 31:31 above (Jeremiah 31:31).
^See also Tertullian,Against Marcion, Book IV, chapters I, II, XIV. His meaning in chapter XX is less clear, and in chapters IX and XL he uses the term to mean 'new covenant'.
^Joseph Barber Lightfoot in hisCommentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point[45] the apostle takes the pen from hisamanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name[46] it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries.... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr.pelikois grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."[47]
^The Gospels are in this order in many Old Latin manuscripts, as well as in the Greek manuscriptsCodex Bezae andCodex Washingtonianus.
^A glance at recent extended treatments of the "we" passages and commentaries demonstrates that, within biblical scholarship, solutions in the historical eyewitness traditions continue to be the most influential explanations for the first-person plural style in Acts. Of the two latest full-length studies on the "we" passages, for example, one argues that the first-person accounts came from Silas, a companion of Paul but not the author, and the other proposes that first-person narration was Luke's (Paul's companion and the author of Acts) method of communicating his participation in the events narrated.[73]
^abDonald Guthrie lists the following scholars as supporting authenticity: Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thörnell, Schlatter, Spicq,Jeremias, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee[105]
^Although Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, it has been a part of the Pauline corpus "from the beginning of extant MS production".[106]
^Sanders (2010): "John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels' version of Jesus' teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked."
^Definition of ברית in Brown-Driver-Briggs's lexicon:https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1285.htmHebrew uses an unrelated word for testament:tsavaa (צַוָּאָה).
^"If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith) by passages which may admit of dispute out of the Old Testament, I will take out of the New Testament a confirmation of our view, that you may not straightway attribute to the Father every possible (relation and condition) which I ascribe to the Son." –Tertullian,Against Praxeas 15
^abcTrobisch, David."Who Published the New Testament?"(PDF).Free Inquiry.28 (Dec. 2007/Jan. 2008):30–33. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 21 April 2021....Acts provides information that makes it possible to identify Luke, the author of the Gospel, as the doctor who travels with Paul and to identify Mark as someone close to Peterand Paul. This 'canon consciousness' suggests that the book of Acts was composed at a later date than is typically thought; this theory is supported by the first attestation of the book around 180 CE.
^Ehrman 2004a, p. 323: "Scholars in the ancient world went about detecting forgeries in much the same way that modern scholars do. They looked to see whether the ideas and writing style of a piece conformed with those used by the author in other writings, and they examined the text for any blatant anachronisms, that is, statements about things that could not have existed at the time the alleged author was writing (like the letter reputedly from an early seventeenth-century American colonist that mentions "the United States")- Arguments of this kind were used by some Christian scholars of the third century to show that Hebrews was not written by Paul or the Book of Revelation by John the son of Zebedee. Modern scholars, as we will see, concur with these judgments. To be sure, neither of these books can be considered a forgery. Hebrews does not claim to be written by Paul (it is anonymous), and the John who wrote Revelation does not claim to be the son of Zebedee (it is therefore homonymous). Are there other books in the New Testament, though, that can be considered forgeries?"
^For a detailed study of the Apocalypse of John, see Aune, David E. (1998).Revelation, 3 volumes. Word Biblical Commentary series. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.
^Strelan, Rick (2013).Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. Farnham, ENG: Routledege-Ashgate. pp. 102–05.
^For discussion of Mark, see Schröter, Jens (2010). "Gospel of Mark". In Aune, David.The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 281ff.
^For discussion of Mark, see Hare, Douglas R. A. (1996).Mark. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 3–5.
^For discussion of Matthew, see Repschinski, Boris (1998). "Forschungbericht: Matthew and Judaism".The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew. Göttingen, GER: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 13–61.
^Walsh, Robin Faith (2021).The Origins of Early Christian Literature – Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press.ISBN9781108883573.
^17. Jurgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passegen der Apostelgeschitchte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus judischer Tradition (GTA 40; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); Claus-Jurgen Thornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulus reisen (WUNT 56; Tugingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). See also, Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, and Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles.", Campbell, "The "we" passages in the Acts of the Apostles: the narrator as narrative", p. 8 (2007). Society of Biblical Literature.
^"The principle essay in this regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', in L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 33-50, who suggests that Luke's presentation of Paul was, on several fronts, a contradiction of Paul's own letters (e.g. attitudes on natural theology, Jewish law, christology, eschatology). This has become the standard position in German scholarship, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; Berlin: Evangelische, 1981) 2-5; Schille, Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 48-52. This position has been challenged most recently by Porter, "The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Letters: Some Common Misconceptions', in his Paul of Acts, 187-206. See also I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister: InterVarsity Press, 1980) 42-44; E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974) 45-47.", Pearson, "Corresponding sense: Paul, dialectic, and Gadamer", Biblical Interpretation Series, p. 101 (2001). Brill.
^Ehrman 2003, p. 235: "The four Gospels that eventually made it into the New Testament, for example, are all anonymous, written in the third personabout Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ('One day, when Jesus and I went into Capernaum...'), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. ... Some scholars abandon these traditional identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century."
^Ehrman 2004b, p. 110: "In fact, contrary to what you might think, these Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses."
^Ehrman 2006, p. 143: "The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences."
^abThompson, Marianne (2015).John: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 432.ISBN978-0664221119.Taken together, these features-the plausible ending of the Gospel at 20:30-31; the unanticipated narrative elements introduced in chapter 21; the focused articulation of the distinctive roles of Simon Peter and the beloved disciple, and the anticipation of their deaths-have led some interpreters to regard John 21 as an extended epilogue to the Gospel, added after it was essentially finished, either by the author of the earlier chapters or by someone else.
^abcKeith, Chris (2020).The Gospel as Manuscript: An Early History of the Jesus Tradition as Material Artifact. Oxford University Press. pp. 142–143.ISBN978-0199384372.Placing myself in a growing minority of Johannine scholars, I presently consider John 21 a constituent part of the early text of the Gospel of John. I am not blind to the narrative and vocabulary curiosities of John 21 that cause most scholars to view it as a later addition. Yet, in light of the fact that linguistic style is an unreliable indicator of authorial origin, the fact that one can equally read John 21 as a planned epilogue to the Gospel, and, most important, the absence of any early manuscript or patristic evidence that the Gospel of John circulated without John 21, I view it as original until further evidence emerges.
^Goodacre, Mark (2012).Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 175.ISBN978-0802867483.
^abMendez, Hugo (2020). "Did the Johannine Community Exist?".Journal for the Study of the New Testament.42 (3):350–374.doi:10.1177/0142064X19890490 – via Sage.
^Runesson, Anders (2021).Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins. Eerdmans.ISBN9780802868923.
^The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference. Peeters Pub and Booksellers. 2023.ISBN9789042950344.
^Kirby, Peter."Gospel of Mark". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved15 January 2008.
^Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark".The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. New York: Doubleday. p. 545.ISBN978-0-385-19362-7.
^Easton, M. G. (1996) [ca. 1897] "Luke, Gospel According To".Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research.
^Sean A. Adams, "The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul's Letters, and the 'We' Passages of Acts." InPaul and His Social Relations, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 132–34.ISBN978-9004242111Scholarly agreement of the single-author/editor theory of the Lucan texts is not without question, e.g. Patricia Walters,The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (Cambridge University Press, 2009).ISBN978-0521509749
^Zahn, S. T. (1909).Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Translated by Trout, John Moore; Mather, William Arnot; Hodous, Louis; Worcester, Edward Strong; Worrell, William Hoyt; Dodge, Rowland Backus (English translation of 3rd German ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 250.
^Tenney, Merrill C., gen. ed. (2009). "Revelation, Book of the".Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5 (Q–Z). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
^Witherington, Ben (2003).Revelation. Cambridge University Press. p. 2.
^Robinson, John Arthur Thomas (2000) [1976].Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock. p. 352.ISBN978-1-57910-527-3.
^Casey, Maurice (2010).Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching. T&T Clark. p. 60-80.ISBN978-0567645173.
^Crossley, James (2004).The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. T&T Clark. p. 3.ISBN978-0567081957.
^Gabrielson, Timothy (2024). "Jonathan Bernier. Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Book Review)".Bulletin for Biblical Research.34 (1): 118-121.doi:10.5325/bullbiblrese.34.1.0118.
^Ehrman 1997, p. 8: "The New Testament contains twenty-seven books, written in Greek, by fifteen or sixteen different authors, who were addressing other Christian individuals or communities between the years 50 and 120 C.E. (see box 1.4). As we will see, it is difficult to know whether any of these books was written by Jesus' own disciples."
^Harris 2010, p. 20: Dates Jude and 2 Peter to 130–150 AD.
^Harris 1980, p. 295: Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
^van Os, Bas (2011).Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins. T&T Clark. p. 57, 83.ISBN978-0567269515.
^Myers, Allen C., ed. (1987). "Aramaic".The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72.ISBN978-0-8028-2402-8.It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the 1st century AD. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem (Matt. 26:73).
^Aland, K.; Aland, B. (1995).The Text of the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.ISBN978-0-8028-4098-1.
^Koester, Helmut (1982).Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2. Philadelphia. p. 172.
^Davies, W. D.; Allison, Dale C. (1988).A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 33–58.
^Three forms are postulated, fromThe Canon Debate, chapter 18, p. 300, note 21, attributed to Harry Y. Gamble: "(1) Marcion's collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last."
^Harnack, Adolf."Appendix VI".Origin of the New Testament. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
^Knox, John (1942).Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon. Chicago: Chicago University Press. pp. 158ff.ISBN978-0404161835.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
^Bateman, C. G. (3 August 2010).Origen's Role in the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Thesis). Regent College.SSRN1653073.
^McGuckin, John A. (2003). "Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition". In Perrone, L. (ed.).Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. Leuven: Leuven University Press. pp. 121–37.
^Brakke, David (October 1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-NinthFestal Letter".Harvard Theological Review.87 (4):395–419.doi:10.1017/S0017816000030200.JSTOR1509966.S2CID161779697.
^McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."
^Levine, Amy-Jill; Blickenstaff, Marianne (2001).A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, Vol. 5. A&C Black. p. 175.
^"NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved17 October 2009. See note 139 on that page.
^Ehrman 2005, p. 80-83: "on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greeks manuscript in which the verse could be found (finding it in Latin manuscripts was not enough). And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. It appears that someone copied out the Greek text of the Epistles, and when he came to the passage in question, he translated the Latin text into Greek, giving the Johannine Comma in its familiar, theologically useful form. The manuscript provided to Erasmus, in other words, was a sixteenthcentury production, made to order."
^abMeadors, Gary T. (1997)."Scripture, Unity and Diversity of". In Elwell, Walter A. (ed.).Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
^Stagg, Frank (1962).New Testament Theology. Broadman.ISBN0-8054-1613-7.
^"Our Beliefs". Beit Simcha. Retrieved7 June 2012.To study the whole and authoritative Word of God, including the Tenach (Hebrew Scriptures) and the B'rit Chadasha (New Covenant) under the leading of the Holy Spirit.
^"Essential Statement of Faith". The Harvest: A Messianic Charismatic Congregation. Archived fromthe original on 27 November 2015. Retrieved7 June 2012.We believe that the Torah (five books of Moses) is a comprehensive summary of God's foundational laws and ways, as found in both the Tanakh and Apostolic Scriptures. Additionally, the Bible teaches that without holiness no man can see God. We believe in the Doctrine of Sanctification as a definite, yet progressive work of grace, commencing at the time of regeneration and continuing until the consummation of salvation. Therefore we encourage all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to affirm, embrace, and practice these foundational laws and ways as clarified through the teachings of Messiah Yeshua.
^Equipped for Every Good Work(PDF). Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society & International Bible Students Association. 1946. pp. 12–13.
^White, E. G. (1 April 1890)."Repentance the Gift of God"(PDF).Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.67 (13):193–94. Retrieved30 December 2020.Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, "it is the third angel's message in verity." ... Brightness, glory, and power are to be connected with the third angel's message, and conviction will follow wherever it is preached in demonstration of the Spirit.
Cousland, J.R.C. (2010). Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme (eds.).The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1744.ISBN978-0-19-528955-8.
Culpepper, R. Alan (1999)."The Christology of the Johannine Writings". In Kingsbury, Jack Dean; Powell, Mark Allan Powell; Bauer, David R. (eds.).Who Do You Say that I Am?: Essays on Christology. Westminster John Knox Press.ISBN9780664257521.
Marcus, Joel (1993).The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.ISBN978-0567096371.
Martinez, David G. (2009). "The Papyri and Early Christianity". InBagnall, Roger S. (ed.).The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 590–623.
Nongbri, Brent (2005). "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel".Harvard Theological Review.98:23–52.doi:10.1017/S0017816005000842.S2CID163128006.
Smith, D. Moody (1972). "The Use of the Old Testament in the New".The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. pp. 3–65.
Stendahl, Krister (1954).The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis. Vol. XX. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells.
Bultmann, Rudolf (1951–1955).Theology of the New Testament, English translation, 2 volumes. New York: Scribner.
von Campenhausen, Hans (1972).The Formation of the Christian Bible, English translation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Clark, Gordon (1990). "Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism", The Trinity Foundation: Jefferson, Maryland
Conzelmann, Hans; Lindemann, Andreas (1999).Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of New Testament Exegesis, English translation. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson.
Dormeyer, Detlev (1998).The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity, English translation. Sheffield.
Duling, Dennis C.;Perrin, Norman (1993).The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 3rd edition. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2011).The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodspeed, Edgar J. (1937).An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
New Testament Gateway Annotated guide to academic New Testament Web resources including not only other Web sites, but articles and course materials
Jewish Studies for ChristiansArchived 9 December 2019 at theWayback Machine An Online Study Group exploring the Jewish setting of the early Jesus movement. (An Israeli blog led by Dr. Eliyahu Lizorkin-Eyzenberg).
New Testament Reading Room: Extensive on-line New Testament resources (including reference works, commentaries, translations, atlases, language tools, and works on New Testament theology), Tyndale Seminary
New Testament Greek Lexicon Bible Study Tools offers two Bible versions, King James and New American Standard, for studying within the New Testament lexicons.
The Gospels in the official canon, and some that were not included in the Bible
Dating the New Testament A compilation of the dates ascribed by various scholars to the composition of the New Testament documents, accompanied by an odd statistical average of the dates
_fol._142r_-_2_Corinthians_11%2c33-12%2c9.jpg)
.JPG)
