Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

New Testament Authorship

I fre­quent­ly find the fol­low­ing infor­ma­tion to be impor­tant in dis­cus­sions, and I got tired of look­ing it up and writ­ing it out, so I final­ly decid­ed to turn it into an arti­cle here. This mate­r­i­al began as a short­er arti­cle, which was orig­i­nal­ly post­ed to the files sec­tion of a Face­book group. I am using the Protes­tant canon, although I may add more lat­er.

One thing of note: very few of the books of the New Tes­ta­ment were writ­ten by those to whom they are tra­di­tion­al­ly attrib­uted, or even with­in the life­times of those peo­ple. That fact is a seri­ous blow to the cred­i­bil­i­ty of those doc­u­ments.

Attrib­uted to Mark
The Gospel of Mark is usu­al­ly thought to have been the ear­li­est of the four gospels includ­ed in the West­ern canon (Ray­mond E. Brown, Intro­duc­tion to the New Tes­ta­ment), writ­ten around 70 CE (Stephen L. Har­ris, Under­stand­ing the Bible). Because it was writ­ten to gen­tiles, the author explains Jew­ish cus­toms. There is an argu­ment that it was used as a source for Matthew and Luke, accord­ing to most New Tes­ta­ment schol­ars (Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Sem­i­nar, The Five Gospels). Church tra­di­tion holds that Mark the Evan­ge­list wrote it, based on Simon Peter’s accounts. That tra­di­tion is based on some­thing that Euse­bius of Cae­sarea quot­ed from an ear­ly church bish­op, Papias of Hier­apo­lis (whose writ­ings did not sur­vive the ages). Papias cred­its his infor­ma­tion to John the Pres­byter. (Michael William Holmes, The Apos­tolic Fathers in Eng­lish). Most schol­ars now agree, though, that the author was an anony­mous per­son in Syr­ia who used mul­ti­ple sources, oral and writ­ten (Gerd Theis­sen and Annette Merz, The His­tor­i­cal Jesus: A Com­pre­hen­sive Guide). The old­est extant man­u­scripts end with chap­ter 16, verse 8.

Attrib­uted to Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew is thought by most schol­ars to have been com­posed between 80 and 90CE, although we know it was between 70 and 110CE for sure (Den­nis C. Dul­ing, “The Gospel of Matthew,” The Black­well Com­pan­ion to the New Tes­ta­ment, edit­ed by David E. Aune). The “accord­ing to Matthew” was NOT part of the ear­li­est edi­tions (Daniel J. Har­ring­ton, The Gospel of Matthew). The tra­di­tion that Matthew the Apos­tle wrote it began with Papias (David L. Turn­er, Matthew). The author, pos­si­bly a scribe from Anti­och in Syr­ia (Dul­ing), seems to have been a well-edu­cat­ed Jew writ­ing for Jews, as he nev­er both­ers to explain Jew­ish tra­di­tions and gives Jesus’ ances­try back to Abra­ham, instead of Adam. (Dul­ing). He drew on the “Q” source as well as the Gospel of Mark, and added some unique mate­r­i­al that is referred to as “M” (Del­bert Bur­kett, An Intro­duc­tion to the New Tes­ta­ment and the Ori­gins of Chris­tian­i­ty). Alan Bar­ber and some oth­ers argue for Mattheian pri­ma­cy, say­ing that there are signs that the orig­i­nal Gospel of Matthew was writ­ten in Hebrew. There are def­i­nite­ly rea­sons to believe that the Gospel of Matthew that Papias knew is NOT the book that we have today, and if any of that book remains, changes (dele­tions, addi­tions, edits, etc.) have def­i­nite­ly been made over the cen­turies.

Attrib­uted to Luke
Luke-Acts were essen­tial­ly two parts of one whole, so we’ll con­sid­er them togeth­er. They are tra­di­tion­al­ly cred­it­ed to Luke the Evan­ge­list, a com­pan­ion of Paul. How­ev­er the the­ol­o­gy dif­fers from Paul’s in ways which make it like­ly that the author was not inti­mate­ly famil­iar with Paul, but more like­ly with the pas­toral epis­tles, which are pseude­pigrapha dat­ed after Paul’s death (Schuyler Brown, The Ori­gins of Chris­tian­i­ty: a His­tor­i­cal Intro­duc­tion to the New Tes­ta­ment). Accord­ing to P. Viel­hauer in “On the ‘Paulin­ism’ of Acts,” the books’ pre­sen­ta­tion of Paul’s atti­tudes regard­ing nat­ur­al the­ol­o­gy, Jew­ish law, chris­tol­ogy, and escha­tol­ogy con­tra­dict Paul’s own let­ters (L.E. Keck and J.L. Mar­tin, eds., Stud­ies in Luke-Acts, pp. 33–50). The Gospel of Luke con­tains the clear­est pre­dic­tion by Jesus of the destruc­tion of the Tem­ple in 21:5–30, and that pas­sage is part of what gives schol­ars rea­son to date it between 75 and 100 CE (Brown, p. 24). They are writ­ten in Koine Greek and addressed to the author’s patron, “Most Excel­lent Theophilus” — pos­si­bly a high­ly ranked Roman offi­cial. They are def­i­nite­ly writ­ten to a gen­tile audi­ence, por­tray­ing Jesus in a pos­i­tive light to Romans. (“Gospel Accord­ing to St. Matthew,” The Oxford Dic­tio­nary of the Chris­t­ian Church, edit­ed by F.L. Cross). Most schol­ars agree that the gospel was based on the “Q” doc­u­ment and the Gospel of Mark, and may also have drawn from oth­er writ­ten records (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Sem­i­nar).

Attrib­uted to John
The Gospel of John is tra­di­tion­al­ly attrib­uted to the Apos­tle of the same name. “Although ancient tra­di­tions attrib­uted to the Apos­tle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Rev­e­la­tion, and the three Epis­tles of John, mod­ern schol­ars believe that he wrote none of them.” (Stephen L. Har­ris, Under­stand­ing the Bible). The text itself nev­er names the author, and the tra­di­tion that it was John dates back to the 2nd cen­tu­ry. It is unlike­ly that the book was writ­ten by any one per­son, but is con­sid­ered to have devel­oped over time, in three stages, com­plet­ed between 90 and 100CE (Har­ris). Cur­rent schol­ars believe that it was based on a “Signs” gospel, which could have been writ­ten by an eye­wit­ness, and a doc­u­ment con­tain­ing the­o­log­i­cal dis­cours­es (David E. Aune, The New Tes­ta­ment in Its Lit­er­ary Envi­ron­ment).

Now for the Johan­nine Epis­tles. Many schol­ars attribute the 1 John to the same author as the Gospel of John (Amos Wilder, “Intro­duc­tion to the First, Sec­ond, and Third Epis­tles of John” in Nolan Har­mon’s The Inter­preter’s Bible, p. 214.), while main­tain­ing that a dif­fer­ent author wrote 2 John and 3 John. How­ev­er, the all three are very sim­i­lar in style, vocab­u­lary, and spelling to each oth­er and the Gospel of John, so it’s pos­si­ble that a John the Elder may have writ­ten all four books. Euse­bius stat­ed that John the Elder was not John the Apos­tle. All four books were writ­ten around Eph­esus between 90 and 110 CE.

Often referred to as sim­ply Rev­e­la­tion, or even the Apoc­a­lypse, this book was includ­ed in the New Tes­ta­ment because of claims that it was writ­ten by John the Apos­tle. There were ques­tions regard­ing its apos­tolic prove­nance from the 2nd cen­tu­ry (Stephen Pat­te­more, The Peo­ple of God in the Apoc­a­lypse, p. 1) for­ward, though. Euse­bius even went to some trou­ble in The His­to­ry of the Church to estab­lish the fact that there was no gen­er­al con­sen­sus that John the Apos­tle had writ­ten Rev­e­la­tion. The author is referred to as John of Pat­mos, tak­en to be a whol­ly dif­fer­ent indi­vid­ual than John the Apos­tle. (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Tes­ta­ment: A His­tor­i­cal Intro­duc­tion to the Ear­ly Chris­t­ian Writ­ings, p. 468)

Due to the con­tro­ver­sy, it was added to the canon much lat­er than any oth­er book, either at the Coun­cil of Carthage in 397 or the Syn­od of Carthage in 419 (sources dif­fer). While a few schol­ars argue that the book was writ­ten dur­ing the reign of Nero or short­ly after­wards (60–69 CE), most mod­ern schol­ars con­sid­er it more like­ly that the book was writ­ten around 95 CE, near the end of Domitian’s reign, which match­es ear­ly church tra­di­tion (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Rev­e­la­tion, pp. 15–16). It must have been fin­ished after 92 CE, because it men­tions the death of Bish­op Antipas, who was killed by the Emper­or Domit­ian in that year.

P98 is the old­est sur­viv­ing frag­ment of Rev­e­la­tion, dat­ed to 100 — 200 CE.

Attrib­uted to James

As for James, there were two apos­tles who bore that name. The first is James, son of Zebedee, broth­er of John, some­times called “James the Great.” The sec­ond is referred to as James the Less, called the son of Alphaeus. There is also a James, son of Clopas and Mary of Clopas, who might be James the Less — it depends on your source. Then there is James the Just, broth­er of Jesus. James the Less is occa­sion­al­ly iden­ti­fied with James the Just, but it is more like­ly that they were dif­fer­ent peo­ple. So there are four Bib­li­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties if we assume that a Bib­li­cal char­ac­ter wrote it.

Church tra­di­tion attrib­ut­es the Epis­tle of James to James the Just, who was mar­tyred in 62 CE accord­ing to Jose­phus (or 69 CE if we use Hege­sip­pus’ account). The epis­tle itself, how­ev­er, is dat­ed to the late first cen­tu­ry or even ear­ly sec­ond, which means that James the Just could not have writ­ten it. The author does not claim that iden­ti­ty at all, in fact, and the the­ol­o­gy of the epis­tle is con­tra­dic­to­ry to what is known of James, who was a Judaiz­er. See Ear­ly Chris­t­ian Writ­ings for more details on why the tra­di­tion­al attri­bu­tion is con­sid­ered incor­rect. Who did write it? We don’t know.

Attrib­uted to Peter
Regard­ing Peter, the great major­i­ty of mod­ern schol­ars agree that nei­ther of the two epis­tles that bear his name were writ­ten by him, and that they were actu­al­ly writ­ten by two dif­fer­ent peo­ple. (Steve Moyise, The Old Tes­ta­ment in the New, p. 116) Stephen L. Har­ris states that, “Most schol­ars believe that 1 Peter is pseu­do­ny­mous (writ­ten anony­mous­ly in the name of a well-known fig­ure) and was pro­duced dur­ing postapos­tolic times.” (Under­stand­ing the Bible, p. 352) He lat­er con­tin­ues, “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.” (ibid, p. 354) Dates for 1 Peter are var­i­ous­ly giv­en between 70 and 112 CE.

Attrib­uted to Jude
There is con­fu­sion regard­ing which Jude wrote the Epis­tle of Jude. He might have been the apos­tle Jude, and/or the broth­er of Jesus. He might have been the broth­er of James the Less — the author refers to him­self as the broth­er of James, but does­n’t say which James, assum­ing the intend­ed audi­ence already knows that. At least one schol­ar thinks that the apos­tle Jude wrote it, but oth­ers say oth­er­wise. The only thing schol­ars seem to agree on, from what I can deter­mine, is that the author was not Judas Iscar­i­ot.

Attrib­uted to Paul

Here we divide things into three groups: sev­en books we can be pret­ty sure Paul wrote, four almost all the crit­i­cal schol­ars agree he did­n’t write, two on which schol­ars are sharply divid­ed, and Hebrews.

While we have a gen­er­al con­sen­sus that Paul wrote The Epis­tle of Paul to the Romans, The First Epis­tle of Paul to the Corinthi­ans, The Sec­ond Epis­tle of Paul to the Corinthi­ans, The Epis­tle of Paul to the Gala­tians, The Epis­tle of Paul to the Philip­pi­ans, The First Epis­tle of Paul to the Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans, and The Epis­tle of Paul to Phile­mon, dat­ing them presents an issue. Almost every eas­i­ly acces­si­ble ref­er­ence read goes about dat­ing them by rely­ing upon Acts, but as shown above, the author of Acts was not “Luke, Paul’s com­pan­ion.” Obvi­ous­ly there are oth­er ways to date them, and I’m sure seri­ous crit­i­cal schol­ars use those meth­ods, but I don’t have access to most of them. So please under­stand that these dates are sub­ject to change as I get bet­ter infor­ma­tion.

Any­way, these are bor­ing so I won’t spend much time on them. 1 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans was writ­ten around 50 CE, as well as Gala­tians. 2 Corinthi­ans is a com­bi­na­tion of at least three let­ters, usu­al­ly divid­ed as chap­ters 1–7, 8–9, and 10–13, writ­ten between 52 and 57 CE. Then we have 1 Corinthi­ans writ­ten around 54 CE. Phile­mon comes along in the mid-50’s CE, as does Philip­pi­ans. And 58 CE gives us Romans.

Now we get to the forg­eries. Yes, I say forg­eries, because the authors of these let­ters wrote them claim­ing to be Paul, rely­ing on Paul’s author­i­ty.

The let­ter to the Eph­esians claims to have been writ­ten to the “saints in Eph­esus.” The ear­li­est man­u­scripts leave out the words “in Eph­esus.” It is con­sid­ered a forgery by crit­i­cal schol­ars, and dat­ed between 70–80 CE (Markus Barth, Eph­esians: Intro­duc­tion, Trans­la­tion, and Com­men­tary on Chap­ters 1–3, pp. 50–51).

Colos­sae was a small Phry­gian city about 100 miles from Eph­esus in Asia Minor. The let­ter to the Colos­sians is so sim­i­lar to the Let­ter to the Eph­esians that the two are con­sid­ered like­ly to have been writ­ten by the same per­son, an ear­ly fol­low­er of Paul’s, or one was used as a source by who­ev­er wrote the oth­er, think­ing it was a legit­i­mate let­ter by Paul. Because they are so sim­i­lar and were writ­ten around the same time, I am address­ing them togeth­er. It is gen­er­al­ly dat­ed around 80 CE. (Bur­ton L Mack, Who Wrote the New Tes­ta­ment?)

The sen­tence struc­ture in Eph­esians and Colos­sians runs far longer and more com­plex that most of Paul’s writ­ing. For instance, Eph­esians 1:3–14 is all one sen­tence, high­ly atyp­i­cal for Paul. Colos­sians 1:3–8 is all one sen­tence as well. Almost ten per­cent of the sen­tences in Eph­esians are more than fifty words long, which is not the norm for Paul’s undis­put­ed works. Philip­pi­ans is the same length and has only one sen­tence of that length, and while Gala­tians is a much longer let­ter, it has only one sen­tence of that length. (Vic­tor Paul Fur­nish, “Epis­tle to the Eph­esians,” Anchor Bible Dic­tio­nary, vol­ume 2, pp. 535–42, D. N. Freed­man, edi­tor.)

Also, the author(s) of Ephesians/Colossians and Paul dis­agree regard­ing bap­tism. Paul thor­ough­ly explored his the­ol­o­gy of bap­tism in the Epis­tle to the Romans. Accord­ing to him, those believ­ers who had been bap­tized had “died with Christ” but had not yet been “raised with him.” That wouldn’t hap­pen until Christ’s return, when there would be a phys­i­cal res­ur­rec­tion. He always insists that the res­ur­rec­tion is a phys­i­cal event that is yet to come, not a spir­i­tu­al res­ur­rec­tion that has already hap­pened.

For if we have been unit­ed with him in a death like his, we will cer­tain­ly be unit­ed with him in a res­ur­rec­tion like his; … if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also be raised with him. (Romans 5:5, 8)

Yet Colos­sians says:

When you were buried with him in bap­tism you were also raised with him through faith in the pow­er of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colos­sians 2:13)

Paul wrote 1 Corinthi­ans just to oppose the view tak­en in Colos­sians.

“Eph­esians is even more emphat­ic than Colos­sians. In speak­ing about the past spir­i­tu­al res­ur­rec­tion, the author says, in con­trast to Paul, ‘God…made us alive togeth­er with Christ…and raised us up with him and seat­ed us with him in the heav­en­ly places in Christ Jesus’ (Eph­esians 2:5–6). All this has already hap­pened. Believ­ers are already rul­ing with Christ. This is what some of the con­verts of Paul in Corinth and the authors of Colos­sians and Ephesians—also mem­bers of Paul’s churches—got wrong.” (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Inter­rupt­ed: Reveal­ing the Hid­den Con­tra­dic­tions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (p. 129).)

The ear­li­est extant copies of both let­ters are in Papyrus 46, which is thought to be dat­ed between 175–225 CE. It con­tains a com­plete copy of each.

The Sec­ond Epis­tle of Paul to the Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans is large­ly con­sid­ered a forgery because of how It stands next to 1 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans. Styl­is­ti­cal­ly, it is so sim­i­lar that it seems to have been writ­ten by some­one who was delib­er­ate­ly attempt­ing to copy the style of the first let­ter, which makes sense. Eschat­a­log­i­cal­ly, though, the let­ter con­tra­dicts Paul’s own views as expressed in that first let­ter, par­tic­u­lar­ly with regards to the sec­ond com­ing (Ernest Best, The First and Sec­ond Epis­tles to the Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans, p. 37) The pur­pose of the let­ter would appear to be to com­bat the mis­con­cep­tion that “the day of the Lord is already here.” (2:2) The author of the let­ter claims that before Christ returns, some sort of anti-Christ will appear, mis­lead­ing the peo­ple with mir­a­cles and won­ders (2:1–12). There will be oth­er obvi­ous signs as well for Chris­tians who know what to watch for. How­ev­er, in 1 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans 5:2, Paul him­self said that Jesus would come “like a thief in the night” and that his return would bring “sud­den destruc­tion” (1 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans 5:3), so they must be pre­pared at all times. “It may be that the height­ened expec­ta­tions of Chris­tians toward the end of the first cen­tu­ry led some unknown author in Paul’s church­es to write 2 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans in order to calm them down a bit, to let them know that yes, the end was going to come, but it was not com­ing right away. Some things had to hap­pen first.” (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Inter­rupt­ed: Reveal­ing the Hid­den Con­tra­dic­tions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (p. 126))

The schol­ars who con­sid­er the let­ter a forgery date it towards the end of the first cen­tu­ry (Ray­mond Brown, An Intro­duc­tion to the New Tes­ta­ment, p. 595). The ear­li­est sur­viv­ing man­u­script con­tain­ing any of 2 Thes­sa­lo­ni­ans is P92, dat­ed c. 300CE.

The Pas­toral let­ters (The First Epis­tle of Paul to Tim­o­thy, The Sec­ond Epis­tle of Paul to Tim­o­thy, and The Epis­tle of Paul to Titus) are con­sid­ered to have been writ­ten by the same unknown author between 60 and 100 CE. “Among crit­i­cal schol­ars teach­ing in North Amer­i­ca, the Unit­ed King­dom, and west­ern Europe—the lead­ing areas of bib­li­cal research—the con­sen­sus of opin­ion for many years has been that Paul did not write these books. … It is gen­er­al­ly agreed that the three let­ters all come from the same per­son. When you read 1 Tim­o­thy and Titus, that will be fair­ly clear: they deal with many of the same themes, often using the same or sim­i­lar lan­guage. The book of 2 Tim­o­thy is dif­fer­ent in many ways, but if you com­pare the open­ing lines with the open­ing of 1 Tim­o­thy, it, too, looks almost iden­ti­cal. ” (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Inter­rupt­ed: Reveal­ing the Hid­den Con­tra­dic­tions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (pp. 129–130).)

The writ­ing style and vocab­u­lary of the let­ters is also marked­ly dif­fer­ent from that of Paul. “For one thing, some­times this author uses the same words as Paul , but means some­thing dif­fer­ent by them. The term ‘faith’ was of supreme impor­tance to Paul. In books such as Romans and Gala­tians faith refers to the trust a per­son has in Christ to bring about sal­va­tion through his death. In oth­er words, the term describes a rela­tion­ship with anoth­er; faith is trust ‘in’ Christ. The author of the Pas­torals also uses the term ‘faith.’ But here it is not about a rela­tion­ship with Christ; faith now means the body of teach­ing that makes up the Chris­t­ian reli­gion. That is ‘the faith’ (see Titus 1: 13). Same word, dif­fer­ent mean­ing. So too with oth­er key terms, such as ‘right­eous­ness.’” (Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writ­ing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (p. 99).)

There are oth­er the­o­log­i­cal and usage dif­fer­ences, such as the fact that when Paul refers to “works,” he is speak­ing of the require­ments of Mosa­ic law – cir­cum­ci­sion, keep­ing kosher, etc. The author of the Pas­toral let­ters nev­er even address­es issues of Mosa­ic law, and uses “works” to mean “doing good deeds for oth­er peo­ple.”

In 1 Corinthi­ans 7:1–9, Paul stat­ed that it was bet­ter for peo­ple to stay unmar­ried if pos­si­ble, but if not, “it is bet­ter to mar­ry than to burn with pas­sion.” But the author of the Pas­torals says in 1 Tim­o­thy that church lead­ers must be mar­ried, con­tra­dict­ing Paul. Paul repeat­ed­ly says that only path to sal­va­tion is the death and res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus, but in 1 Tim­o­thy 2:15 we read that “…women will be saved through child­bear­ing…”

In Paul’s time, there was no hier­ar­chi­cal struc­ture in the church­es. That is why he does not address his let­ters to the lead­ers of the church­es – there were none. How­ev­er, as time went on and the sec­ond com­ing did not hap­pen, hier­ar­chies evolved. The Pas­toral let­ters are addressed to the lead­ers in these hier­ar­chies, who would not have exist­ed in Paul’s time. These let­ters were writ­ten well after Paul’s life­time, by some­one who was address­ing issues that could not have arisen dur­ing Paul’s time, and who did not under­stand Paul’s the­ol­o­gy.

The old­est copies of 1 and 2 Tim­o­thy we have are in the Codex Sinaiti­cus, dat­ed between 325 and 360 CE. P32, dat­ed c. 200 CE, is the old­est evi­dence of Titus.

The Epis­tle to the Hebrews
While it was tra­di­tion­al­ly attrib­uted to Paul, Euse­bius wrote, “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.” (Church His­to­ry, Life of Con­stan­tine, Ora­tion in Praise of Con­stan­tine 3.3.5). Ter­tul­lian attrib­uted it to Barn­abas (De Pudic, 20) and Hip­poly­tus to Clement of Rome. Who­ev­er wrote it, it almost cer­tain­ly was­n’t Paul. It is gen­er­al­ly thought to have been writ­ten around 63–66 CE.