The 6 ^th Step: Authorship of Gospels & Epistles

Having researched the development of the Biblical canon and the Ecumenical Councils, I next turned my attention to the composition of the New Testament itself. I assumed I 'knew' who wrote which books and why, but did I really? Again it took less then an afternoon's work in the library to discover I was basing my beliefs of authorship strictly on assumptions which had no basis in reality. I was surprised to learn (although later realized this information is clearly stated in most Bibles' introductions to each of the four Gospels), it has been known for centuries that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Instead, these are "traditional" names tacked onto anonymously-written works upwards of a hundred years after they were composed. This knowledge is not controversial among biblical scholars, although it is intentionally kept quiet from general church-goers. What is controversial is the dubious attempt to assign actual authorship to these anonymous works, and to insert them into historical, social, cultural, and theological context as ostensible testimony. Most believers might be shocked to learn that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts, or even second-hand accounts ('hearsay'), of Jesus' time. Rather, they are contrived products of a complicated theological advocacy created generations after the time described.

There is no 'but'. The gospels are either anonymous compositions or they are not, and no amount of apologetic sophistry or argument from tradition is going to turn them into eyewitness accounts or first-person accounts or even 'hearsay' accounts once removed. The plain-and-simple truth of the matter (although truth is hardly plain and rarely simple) is that (1) the four Gospels are copies of copies of copies of a mishmash of documents that (2) no one has actually found, that (3) no one knows who wrote, and that (4) were eventually 'named' upwards of a hundred years after the fact so as to give them the appearance of authority.

Too often Christian apologists use the argument that "by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead." Ask them what they mean by "historical accounts" or what they are using for historical records and they will quickly point you to the New Testament, specifically the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But is it at all reasonable and rational to consider the Gospels 'historical accounts' beyond the basic fact that they were created anonymously at some point in history? When Christians use the terms 'historical accounts' or 'historical records' what they want to mean is 'eyewitness accounts'.

But are the Gospels 'eyewitness' accounts? Were they composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as witnesses to the life of Jesus?

As any reasonable student of the Bible and church history can tell you, the four gospels are not eyewitness accounts: (1) they were written as third-person narratives, and (2) they were originally composed anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ascribed to them were actually second century "guesses" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. So what does it mean when someone makes the claim that 'by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead'? It actually means that according to an anonymously written third-person narrative a supernatural and/or magical event occurred in which a character called 'Jesus' circumvented the Laws of Physics and Biology and rose from the dead. And what, exactly, is an anonymously written third-person narrative? It is nothing more than hearsay thrice-removed! Not only is there (1) not an eyewitness account, but (2) only a third-person account, without (3) a named or recognized author taking credit for the composition of that third-person account! That is why the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed. No one knows who wrote the Gospels or if any of the events contained therein actually happened. In other words, millions of people may be using as a "testimony" of their faith four documents describing magical and supernatural events that may have been created out of whole cloth and motivated for purely political or religious reasons.

Which explanation is more feasible given what we know about the way the world works? That magical/supernatural/miraculous events occurred two thousand years ago, although such events haven't occurred since, or that these documents were deliberately and anonymously created in order to satisfy a political or religious agenda? Since they were anonymously written and in the third-person, it would be irrational to attribute to them any sense of validity because the events they describe simply do not correspond with the way we know the real world works. Miracles and magical and supernatural hocus-pocus simply do not occur, so the simplest explanation (by way of Occam's Razor) is that these anonymously-written third-person narratives were created solely as a tool for propaganda in order to entice superstitious or magically-inclined people to climb aboard a particular band-wagon.

Please consider the following discussion of First, Second, and Third-Person accounts:

What does it mean that the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed?

(1) Hearsay Once Removed: I overheard somebody say something to somebody else, then repeat what I overheard. My repeating of what I heard is not the original source. It is once-step removed from the original source, and it wasn't even said to me directly. Anything I say could be pure invention, so this is hearsay once removed.

(2) Hearsay Twice Removed: I repeat something that somebody else claims to have seen or overheard or read. I didn't actually see or overhear it, but only repeat what somebody else claims to have seen or heard. The problem with this form of hearsay is that whatever I am told and then repeat might never have happened at all. The person telling me the story may have fabricated the whole thing out of whole cloth. This is hearsay twice-removed.

(3) Hearsay Thrice Removed: Suppose I pick up a notebook written in the third-person claiming all sorts of fantastic things, strange and magical events that simply do not happen in the 'real' world. There is no author's name on the notebook, so I have no way of knowing who wrote it. Not only do I have no idea who wrote it, because it is written in the third-person (because it doesn't claim to be a first-person 'eyewitness' account) I have no way of knowing if any of the events or any of the conversation described therein actually occurred. Since the events it describes are strange and magical, it would be particularly irrational of me to take the events described in the notebook as true and at face value, because (1) I don't know who wrote the notebook, (2) I don't know where it came from, (3) because it is written in the third-person I have no way of knowing if anything the notebook describes ever happened at all, and (4) if strange and magical events don't typically occur in the 'real' world, why would I start believing them simply because they were described in an anonymously-written third-person narrative? Now, suppose fifty years later somebody slaps an author's name on the notebook simply to make it seem more appealing and legitimate. Does the fact that it's now been associated with an arbitrary name alter the fact that it is still hearsay, still a third-person narrative account, still reciting strange and magical stories that don't actually occur in the 'real' world? Absolutely not. However you try to argue around it, the notebook is still hearsay, still a third-person account, still not an 'eyewitness' account or so-called 'historical record'. If I quote from this notebook, what am I actually quoting? Am I quoting the words and deeds of 'real' people or simply made up characters? Because it is a third-person narrative I have absolutely no way of knowing one way or another, none of it may never have happened, so in the end all such supernatural claims, accounts, and conversations contained within the notebook are ultimately meaningless. Why? Because, being anonymous, they can say and claim anything without corroboration which makes them empty.

Just like the Gospels.

Moby Dick as a work of fiction is actually more believable than the Gospels because with Moby Dick not only is there no magic or supernatural hocus-pocus involved, but we can actually say with absolute certainty who wrote the book! What's astonishing is that people will recognize that Moby Dick is a work of fiction and then turn around and consider anonymous third-person narratives approbated by vote across several hundred years with nonnatural themes to be the indisputable 'Word of God'.

See Also: "All Claims of Jesus Derive From Hearsay Accounts" from NoBeliefs.com

The Gospel of Mark

Early Christian Tradition About the Gospel of Mark

Early Christian tradition about the Gospel of Mark is preserved in the writings of a fourth-century Christian historian named Eusebius. Eusebius records that a certain Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who wrote in the first half of the second century, claimed that he had received an oral tradition about "Mark" from a certain, otherwise unidentifiable presbyter, or elder. Papias is reported by Eusebius to have recalled:

After this the Presbyter used to say: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter (hermēnēutes) of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things said or done by the Lord, as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings; consequently, Mark, writing some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing—not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15

The core of this tradition affirms that "Mark" was the interpreter, or perhaps translator (Greek hermēnēutes), of Peter. Furthermore, the gospel is reported to have been based on what Mark remembered about what Peter said, to not have been in order, but nonetheless to have been accurate. This so-called papias tradition needs to be examined further and then evaluated.

Though the name "Mark" was common in the ancient world, Papias was most likely referring to the New Testament Mark, who is called "John Mark" in the Acts of the Apostles. Acts says that early Christians met in Mark's mothers house in Jerusalem, that Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on the first Missionary journey to Asia Minor but left them and returned to jerusalem, that he was not welcomed by Paul on Paul's next missionary journey, andd that he afterwards accompanied Barnabas on a mission to Cypress (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:15, 13; 15:37-40). Second, Mark is mentioned in the Pauline literature. Paul's letter to Philemon states that when Paul was in prison (Ephesus? Rome?) he sent greetings from "Mark" (Philemon 24). If the Mark of Acts was meant, a reconciliation between Paul and Mark must have taken place. Third, a second-generation Paulinist from the latter third of the first century also connected Mark with Paul (Colossians 4:10) and a third-generation Paulinist probably from the second century placed Paul and Mark together in prison, apparently Rome (2 Timothy 4:11; 1:17). In short, three kinds of references—Acts, a Pauline letter, and letters from Paulinists—connected Mark with Paul and, less securely, Rome. This is the dominant New Testament tradition.

A fourth type of New Testament reference is found in the book called 1 Peter, a pseudonymous writing probably from the late first century C. E., subsequently attributed to Peter. 1 Peter concludes with greetings from its author and "my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). In other words, Peter, not Paul, is being associated with Mark, as in Papias. In short, a Peter-Mark-Rome connection in 1 Peter parallels the Paul-Mark-Rome connection in the Pauline and Acts materials. In this connection, we note that there was a tradition circulating in the late first century and early second century that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome (John 21:18-19?; Revelation 11:3-4?; compare 1 Clement 5; Ignatius, To the Romans 4:3; compare also the Secret Gospel of Mark).

In short, sometime in the first half of the second century C. E., certain circles of early Christianity accepted that the shortest "gospel" was written by "(John) Mark," who from time to time had been a follower of Paul and an interpreter (translator?) of Peter. The place of composition was widely thought to have been Rome, the location where Peter and Paul were believed to have been martyred. By the latter half of the second century, such conclusions were taken for granted (for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1).

General Historical Criticism: Author, Date, Place

According to general historical criticism, which attempts to evaluate documents on the basis of external events and internal analysis, it is possible to argue that the Papias tradition contains a kernel of truth. First, if Mark was chosen by second-century Christians only to give the gospel authority, why did they choose a follower of Paul rather than an immediate disciple of Jesus, especially when there are ample illustrations of "disciple attribution" of books in early Christianity, for example, Matthew. Second, there are details in the Markan story that might be related to Peter. Clearly, Peter is the most prominent disciple in the gospel (for example, 1:16-18, 29-31; 8:27-9:1; 9:2-8; 14). Third, although written in Greek, Mark contains a number of "Latinisms," or words derived from Latin, the language of native Romans (for example, 4:21; 5:9, 15), and Aramaic language terms and phrases are explained (5:41; 7:34; 10:46; 15:34). Fourth, Mark also reckons time in the Romans style (6:48; 13:35). Fifth, Jewish customs are interpreted (7:3-4; 10:12), sometimes inaccurately (14:1). Sixth, the gospel is imprecise about Palestinian geography (for example, 5:1; 6:45, 53; 7:31). These considerations might suggest composition by someone at Rome, though the gospel's geographical imprecision about Palestine seems odd if the author was Jerusalem-based John Mark of Acts (even if geography is only symbolic).

Yet, there are many problems with the Papias tradition. The description of "Mark" in Papias sounds suspiciously defensive, as though there is an attempt to give the gospel authority (purposefully invoking terms like "accurately"; "erred in nothing"; "not to omit...or falsify"). Moreover, though Mark is not a disciple, he is connected with a disciple, for there is a "chain" of tradition established: Jesus → Peter (disciple) → Mark (disciple of disciple). Suspicions about the Papias tradition combined with no explicit statement in Mark about its composition have led scholars to comb the gospel for the slightest hints about matters of authorship and time and place of writing (internal evidence). They have usually turned to a verse in the apocalyptic speech attributed to Jesus, Mark 13:14: "But when you see the 'desolating sacrilege' standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..." The expression "desolating sacrilege" in the Matthean parallel (Matthew 24:15) was derived from the "abomination that makes desolate" in the apocalyptic book Daniel (11:31; 12:11; compare 9:27; 8:13-14; compare 1 Maccabees 1:54), where it is referred to setting up an alter to the Greek god Zeus in the Jerusalem Temple by the Seleucid Greeks in 168 B. C. E. This act was considered terrible, offensive, disgusting, an act of pollution, and in the first century it probably symbolized the polluting presence of the Roman general Titus' presence in the Temple in 70 C. E. (the masculine "he" is present in Mark's Greek). Titus' presence in the Temple in 70 C. E. not only defiled it (an abomination or sacrilege), but also accompanied its awful destruction (a desolation).

The most important reason for questioning the Papias tradition is the modern critical theory about the gradual way the gospels were formed. The Papias view of a chain of tradition one step removed from Jesus does not easily fit the commonly held form critical view that the gospel authors modified anonymous traditions that gradually developed, as well as written sources, to create their own individualized accounts (see Redaction Criticism). Thus, most modern study of the gospels simply does not allow us to think of them as personal reminiscences of Peter to Mark.

If an unkown writer composed the gospel shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C. E., was it nonetheless composed at Rome? A location in some eastern Roman province is also possible. The Greek of this gospel is unsophisticated and, though it contains Latinisms, it also contains Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) language influences. The work's Jewish flavor, its accuracy about such matters as housing and taxation, and its interest in peasant, village, and rural agricultural life might suggest Galilee. The problem with Galilee is always that the gospel is inaccurate about its geography, thus some scholars have settled on the region north of Galilee, rural Syria.

The Traditional Material Used by Mark

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they can be put side by side and read together; they tell much the same story in much the same way. The question of their literary relationship, called the Synoptic Problem, is answered by the majority of New Testament scholars with some version of the two-source theory, i.e., Mark and Q are sources for Matthew and Luke, and Mark is therefore the earliest gospel. Form Criticism attempts to isolate the smaller forms within the New Testament, to determine their various functions in a series of early Christian communities (Sitz im Leben, German "Setting in Life") and to trace the history of the transmission of these traditional forms. This perspective also leads to the view that the New Testament can, among other things, be described as tradition and the interpretation of tradition. Nowhere is this more evident than in the synoptic gospels. They make extensive use of traditional material that had been circulating in the churches. So we speak of the synoptic tradition, meaning by that the traditional material used by the three synoptic gospels.

Adapted from: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd Edition) by Duling & Perrin, pp. 296-305

The Gospel of Matthew

The gospel of Matthew was made the first book in the New Testament because it was found to be the most useful of all the texts for the church's use through the centuries. It is very much a "church book," written specifically to meet the needs of the church as a developing organization, and it succeeded magnificently. It provided a basis on which the church could build its life, a clear set of instructions for procedure in its affairs, and an understanding of its past, present, and future that made sense of its ongoing life in the world. It was also believed in the latter second century to have been the first gospel written (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1). By the end of the third century C. E. it was used to defend the authority and primacy of the Roman bishop as Pope, and thus it became special to the western, or Roman, branch of Christendom.

Early Christian Tradition About the Gospel of Matthew

The earliest church tradition about the gospel of Matthew comes from the same author who connected Mark with the apostle Peter at Rome , Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (ca. C.E.. 130-140). As recorded by the fourth-century historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 3.39,16, the tradition about Matthew states:

Then Matthew put together [variant: wrote] the sayings (logia) in the Hebrew (Hebraiois) dialect and each one translated (hermēnēusen: interpreted?) them as he was able.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16

This tradition and others based on it (e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1,1) are referring to the tax collector whom the gospel of Matthew alone calls "Matthew" (9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) and specifically identifies as Jesus' disciple (10:3). However, there are a number of problems with the Papias tradition. The gospel of Matthew as we know it is not a collection of sayings; it was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but Greek; and it makes very extensive use of the gospel of Mark, building on it as a foundation. All this makes it impossible that the Papias tradition about Matthew is correct. Undoubtedly the ascription of this gospel to Matthew, disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, is the church's later attempt to give special authority to what it considered the most important of its gospels. These factors suggest that, like the other gospels, it first circulated anonymously. Since the gospel presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C. E. by its comment that the angry king destroyed the murderers of the king's son and burned their city ( Matt 22:7; 24:15-18; Mark 13:14-16), and since it appears to be cited by Ignatius of Antioch by the early second century (To the Smyrnans [Matt 3:15); To Polycarp, [Matt 10:16]), it was probably written about a generation after Mark, about 90 C. E.

The Name Matthew

Though the name "Matthew" was not unusual in antiquity (Greek Matthaios from the Hebrew Mattiyah, "Gift of Yahweh," or simply "Gift of God"), this tradition and others based on it (for example, Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1) are no doubt referring to Jesus' disciple and apostle Matthew in the New Testament.

There is some confusion about the name of this person in early Christianity. The name "Matthew" is found in all four of the lists of the twelve disciples (Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but only in the Matthean list is Matthew identified as the tax collector, or better, the "toll collector" (Matthew 10:3: telō nēs). This identification refers back to the man sitting at the Capernaum "toll both" (Matthew 9:9 telōnion), whom Jesus called to be his disciple. However, the gospels of Mark and Luke name this toll collector Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and for them he is not one of the twelve disciples. Further, Mark and the apocryphal Gospel of Peter identify Levi as the "son of Alphaeus" (Mark 2:14; Gospel of Peter 60). To add to the confusion, it is James who is described as the "son of Alphaeus" in the disciple lists (Mark 3:18; Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). To reiterate, only the Gospel of Matthew identifies Matthew of the disciple lists as the toll collector at the border checkpoint in Capernaum.

General Historical Criticism: Author, Date, Place

Our translation and text critical solutions now leave us with a number of historical problems. The first is the Semitic language question. If we conclude that Papias is referring to a gospel, and if he is referring to a "Hebrew dialect," our Greek Gospel of Matthew would have to be a translation from Aramaic. However, while language experts recognize Semitic influences on the author's Greek, they do not think that Matthew is a Greek translation. Also, the Gospel of Matthew extensively uses the Greek Gospel of Mark. We conclude that our Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in "Hebrew," but Greek, apparently by a bilingual, or even multilingual, person.

The second problem is that our Gospel of Matthew is not simply a collection of "sayings," the usual and natural meaning of logia. Indeed, Papias' description sounds more like an Aramaic form of Q. Was Papias referring to some tradition about Q and confusing it with Matthew? We do not know. The conclusion is inescapable that Papias' description does not describe the Gospel of Matthew.

Papias' statement about Matthew is also difficult to accept on the basis of other historical factors. Ancient writers who built on the Papias traditions concluded that Mark wrote down what he remembered of what Peter said after Peter's death (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1-2; compare Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2), that is sometime in the early 60s. Correspondingly they thought that Matthew, which they believed was written before Mark, was composed earlier than the 60s. However, we dated the gospel of Mark shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 C. E. because the "Abomination of Desolation" referred to the Roman general Titus in the Temple—"let the reader understand" (Mark 13:14).

Finally, where was Matthew written? The Church Fathers apparently deduced that the disciple who wrote the Jewish gospel in "Hebrew" wrote for his own people in Judea (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew; Monarchian Prologue to Matthew). Most modern interpreterts have turned to Antioch in Syria.

In summary, the gospel now attributed to Matthew was anonymous and first circulated anonymously. It was written about 85-90 C. E., perhaps in Antioch in Syria. The ascription of this gospel to Matthew, disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, is probably a second-century attempt to give special authority to the most important gospel.

Adapted from: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd Edition) by Duling & Perrin, pp. 329-33

The Gospel of Luke and The Book of Acts  

It was a great disservice to the readers of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles to separate them in the canon and modern editions of the Bible, since they were originally written to be read together as a single work in two volumes. Here we treat the two-volume work as the unity it is intended to be and refer to it as Luke-Acts.

Early Christian Tradition About Luke-Acts

Christian writers in the latter second century identified the author of the third gospel, and therefore the Acts of the Apostles, as Luke, the follower of Paul. After offering comments about Matthew and Mark that sound like the Papias tradition, the Church Father Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the late second century, is noted by fourth-century Eusebius to have said:

Luke also, the follower of Paul, put down in a book (Greek: biblo) a gospel (Greek: evangelion) preached by that one.

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.2 in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.2

Of the Acts of the Apostles, Irenaeus writes:

Now, that this Luke was inseparable from Paul and was a fellow worker of his in the gospel he himself made manifest, not glorifying himself, but led forth by the truth itself. For, when both Barnabas and John, who was called Mark, had separated from Paul, and when they had navigated to Cyprus (Acts 15:39), he says: We came to Troas (Acts 16:8, though the Greek says, "they went down to Troas"). And when Paul saw in his sleep a Macedonian man who was saying: Come to Macedonia and help us, Paul, he says: Immediately we sought to proceed into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us forth to evangelize them. Navigating, therefore, from Troas, we directed our navigation to Samothrace.

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.2

Irenaeus continues with other examples, but enough is quoted to see that from certain passages in Acts in the first-person plural irenaeus deduced that the narrator, whom he says was Luke, was referring to himself as a close traveling companion of Paul. These first-person plural statements are now called "we-passages" (see below).

A second tradition is found in a late second-century Greek prologue to the gospel, which some have thought was anti-Marcionite (for the "heretic" Marcion). This prologue reads:

Luke was a Syrian of Antioch, a physician by profession, a disciple of the apostles, and later a follower of Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction, without a wife, and without children. He died at the age of eighty-four in Boeotia, full of the Holy Spirit.

The prologue continues by claiming that the gospel was composed in Achaia (southern Greece) for Gentile converts, and that Acts was composed after the gospel.

A third tradition is found in the Muratorian Canon (named for its discoverer), which contains a list of authoritative books and which almost all scholars think represents the view of the church at Rome in the late second century. It has the following statement:

The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his traveling, [and after he had made] an investigation, wrote in his own name—but neither did he see the Lord in the flesh—and thus, as he was able to investigate (Luke 1:3), so he also begins to tell the story [starting] from the nativity of John.

These traditions are all from the late second century C. E. Our earliest, best manuscripts of the Third Gospel from the late third and fourth centuries C. E. follow this tradition when they call the gospel "According to Luke."

Luke in the New Testament

Luke is mentioned three times in the New Testament. In Paul's prison letter to the slave owner Philemon, Paul extends greetings from "Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers" (Philemon 24). Colossians, probably deutero-Pauline (see discussion below), describes him as "the beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14) and imples that he was probably a Gentile (Colossians 4:11: "of the circumcision"). In the deutero-Pauline letter (see discussion below) 2 Timothy, the author states, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Timothy 4:11).

General Historical Criticism: Author, Date, Place

Internal analysis—medical language, comparison of Paul's life and thought in the letters with details of his movements and speeches in Acts, and the "we-passages"—does not support the church traditions that the author of Luke-Acts (who, by the way, does not see Paul as Paul sees himself, as an "apostle," compare Acts 1:21-22, 14:4, 14) was Luke the physician, his loyal companion. Most critics today lean in the direction of pseudonymity and set a date about 80-90 C. E. around the same time as the composition of Matthew. It was probably composed in some city where Greek was spoken. To repeat, the ascription of the gospel to Luke the physician cannot be demonstrated by internal analysis and was likely inferred from indications it was written by a well-educated Greek.

Adapted from: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd Edition) by Duling & Perrin, pp. 365-69

The Gospel of John

Traditionally, five of the texts in the New Testament are regarded as having been written by the apostle John: the fourth gospel, the three letters of John, and the book of Revelation. The last, however, has at best only a tenuous relationship to the others and is so representative of apocalyptic Christianity that we do not discuss it further here (see below). Neither in style nor in content does it have a claim to a place in the "Johannine corpus," the collection of literature attributed to the apostle John. But the other four texts exhibit a unity of style and content that shows that they certainly belong together, whatever the details of their origins may turn out to have been.

The gospel and letters of John give the impression of carefully composed literary compositions, or being a response to the internal dynamics of the genius and vision of the author. As a consequence, it is difficult to answer historical questions about these works, and some recent interpreters have shifted to studies of the gospels as literature. At the same time, there has also been a good deal of progress in attempting to identify the traditions and sources behind the gospel and the history of the communities that transmitted them, as well as the contexts of the gospel and letters themselves.

Early Christian Tradition About the Johannine Literature

One of the earliest surviving traditions about the Gospel of John comes from Irenaeus of Lyons (125-202 C.E.) in the late second century, about 180 C. E. In a passage about the four gospels, he writes :

Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord who also leaned upon his chest, he too published a gospel while residing in Ephesus.

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

The reference here is to John 13:23, where at the Last Supper a disciple "leaned upon his chest," that is, reclined in banquet style with his head close to Jesus' chest, the place of honor (NRSV: "was recling next to him). Elsewhere Irenaeus states that this John moved from Jerusalem to Ephesus, that he wrote all five Johannine writings there, that he lived to an old age and died in Ephesus, and that the gospel was written against certain Gnostics, especially Cerinthus (Against Heresies 3.3.4; 3.11.7; 5.33.4). A number of other Church Fathers from about the same time have some of these or similar traditions, including Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus, the Latin anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Clement of Alexandria. Finally, the Muratorian Canon (generally thought to have been published at Rome about 200 C. E.) states that the Fourth Gospel was written by the disciple John from the revelation he received after fasting three days (i.e., an 'interior' religious hallucination provoked by hunger).

General Historical Criticism of the Gospel: Author, Date, Place

There are some problems with the traditional view that John, the son of Zebedee, Jesus' disciple, was the author of the gospel. First, the notion that John wrote the Fourth Gospel was not unanimous in Christian antiquity. The 'Alogoi', who opposed the Logos view of Jesus in John 1:1-18 (see below and Authorship of the Johannine Works), said it was written by the Gnostic Cerinthus. While this could have been a prejudicial view of the Alogoi—John was indeed a favorite gospel of the Gnostics—the Cerinthus identification was also held by the Roman presbyter Gaius in the early third century.

Second, it is highly likely that our chief early witness, irenaeus, was incorrect. Irenaeus claimed that he got his information from the old Polycarp "when I was still a boy" and that Ploycarp had an "association with John and others who had seen the Lord" (Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus). [NOTE: Similar to "a friend of a friend" tales of urban legends]. This suggests a chain of tradition: Jesus → John (in his old age) → Ploycarp (in his old age) → Irenaeus (still a boy). However, the ancient historian Eusebius was quick to point out that Irenaeus was not always a reliable witness. Irenaeus said that Papias was also a "hearer of John," but according to Eusebius Papias said only that he had questioned followers of the presbyters who were disciples of the first disciples, including John. [NOTE: Similar to "a friend of a friend" tales of urban legends]. In other words, there was a much longer chain of tradition (five times removed!): Jesus → John → presbyters → followers of the presbyters → Papias (who is still a couple of generations earlier than Irenaeus) → Irenaeus. And one of those presbyters was also named John. To complicate matters, it will be recalled that the author of 2 John and 3 John simply identifies himself as a "presbyter" (compare 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1). If Irenaeus misconstrued what Papias (who he apparently did not know) said about a certain presbyter John, it is also possible that Irenaeus' evidence about Polycarp was also innaccurate, especially if John was supposedly martyred at an early age (according to Mark 10:39) and Irenaeus' memory comes from childhood.

Finally, the author of the Fourth Gospel is nevr explicitly identified as John in the gospel itself. Indeed, attributing authorship to John appears only to have been made by inferences based on comments within and outside the gospel. Within the gospel, the one who "leaned on Jesus' chest" at Jesus' last meal is also called "the one whom Jesus loved," or simply the Beloved Disciple (John 13:23). This disciple is mentioned later in the story as one known to the high priest and present at Jesus' trial before him (John 18:15-16), as one to whom Jesus on the cross entrusted his mother (John 19:26-27), and as linked with Peter (John 18:15; 21:7), in fact as "the other disciple" who outran Peter to the tomb, but entered the tomb only after Peter (John 20:2-8). This interesting comment clearly implies that the author of the Fourth Gospel thinks of the Beloved Disciple as some kind of competitor with Peter. Now John 21:20-24 says that the author of the gospel (or at least rephrasing), "the one who caused these things to be written" is the "one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said 'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?'!" (john 21:20). This passage implies that the Beloved Disciple is dead, or perhaps near death, ans its main point is to correct the false impression that Jesus had said that the disciple whom jesus loved would still be alive at Jesus' parousia (Second Coming), that is, to forestall the view that Jesus had made a false prophecy about the time of his return. In the process, however, it comments about one who "caused these things to be written" and stated that "his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Textual evidence demonstrates that this identification of the author in Chapter 21 was added to the first twenty chapters of the gospel at a later date, although this would not have concerned second-century readers (see below).

The latest possible date of the Fourth Gospel can be established by an interesting piece of external evidence. The earliest manuscript fragment we have of any part of the New testament is a papyrus fragment containing parts of John 18:31-33, 37-38, discovered in Egypt (P⁵²). Scholars consider it to have been written about 125 C. E. Since this fragment comes from a copy, the gospel must have been written early enough for it to have circulated in Egypt in the first decade or two of the second century.

As for the earliest possible date, we have noted in the case of the other gospels possible oblique references to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C. E. John's gospel also makes such a reference in the mouths of the chief priests and Pharisees: "If we let him go on like this (performing miracles), everyone will believe in him, and the Roman will come and destroy both our Temple and our nation" (John 11:48). Such a reference points to a composition date after the destruction of Jerusalem. The reference to the destruction of jerusalem and the conflict of the Johannine Christians with the Jewish synagogue, on the one hand, and the P⁵² fragment on the other hand, point to a date late in the first century. It seems probable that the Gospel of John is to be dated about 90 C. E. and impossible to attribute to John the disciple if he was martyred before 44 C. E. as Mark 10:39 implies.

The Integrity of the Text of the Gospel: Chapter 21

No text of the gospel ever circulated that did not include chapter 21. Yet that chapter is all but universally recognized to have been a supplement to the original text of the gospel. In the first place, 20:30-31 reads like the original ending to the gospel. Then in 21:2 the sons of Zebedee, who are missing in chapters 1-20, suddenly appear. Further, like the commissioning scene in Matthew 28, the resurrection appearance of Jesus in Chapter 21 takes place in Galilee, whereas in chapter 20 the appearances are located in Jerusalem, as in Luke-Acts. The traditions are here in conflict. John 21:24 seems designed to identify the "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the author of the gospel. This remark could refer to everything up to that point, including 21:1-23. But the differentiation should come earlier, at the beginning of chapter 21, because in addition to the factors we have already mentioned there are some important differences between the Greek of chapter 21 and that of chapters 1-20. It seems probable, therefore, that chapter 21, the chapter that relates to the origins of the gospel, was added to the original chapters 1-20 of the gospel, but before the text of the gospel had actually circulated beyond those who were certifying it (21:24: "we"). Who added chapter 21 to the gospel of John? A natural answer would be some member(s) of a Johannine "school." We shall consider this possibility later; at this point it will be helpful to go in the opposite direction and ask what kinds of sources and traditions lie behind the gospel.

The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke)

Was the gospel of John written with a knowledge of any or all of the synoptic gospels? That question has never been resolved by a consensus of scholarly opinion. There are obvious and immediate differences between John and the synoptics in style and presentation of material. The long discourses on symbolic themes such as "light" and "life," which are not pieced together out of separate sayings as are the discourses in the synoptics but evolve as complex monologues or dramatic dialogues, are a good example. Then the chronological and topographical framework of the gospel is different. John envisages a ministry of Jesus beginning with the joint activity with the Baptist and featuring several extended ministries in Jerusalem. The synoptics have Jesus begin his ministry only after John was imprisoned, and it lasts one year and includes only one visit to Jerusalem. Further, only a limited number of incidents in John have parallels in the synoptics: a call of disciples (1:35-51); the healing of the official's son (4:46-53); a feeding followed by a sea miracle (6:1-21); Peter's confession (6:66-70); the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-15); the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22); the anointing at Bethany (12:1-8); the Last Supper with a prophecy of betrayal (13:1-11); and the general story of the passion itself. By the same token, John has incidents unknown to the synoptics: the wedding at Cana (2:1-11); the narratives concerning Nicodemus (3:1-21) and the Samaritan woman (4:7-42); the healing at the pool of Bethzatha (5:1-9); 8 the healing of the man born blind (9:1-12); and the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44), which is the direct cause of the plot to put Jesus to death (11:45-53). John also has a lengthy farewell discourse and prayer of Jesus (13-17). Furthermore, there is no Kingdom of God teaching and there are no exorcisms and no developed parables, all of which are integral to the synoptic gospels. This combination of agreement and disagreement between the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels makes the question of John's knowledge of the synoptic gospels very difficult to resolve.

Adapted from: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd Edition) by Duling & Perrin, pp. 405-11

The Epistles (New Testament Letters) Overview

After having examined the 'authorship' of the four Gospels, I next turned my attention to the twenty-one Epistles ("Letters") of the New Testament. I was under the impression that the known 'authorship' of none of these might be suspected, but this too was an assumption based entirely on untested beliefs and not on any rational or dedicated research. I learned that of the twenty-one letters only the 'authorship' of seven are undisputed, and even these show textual signs of having been amended and appended by unknown scribes and redactors.

The Apostle Paul

Paul is a major figure in early Christianity. His letters, plus those the later church believed he wrote, make up over one-fourth of the New Testament, and over one-half of the lengthy Acts of the Apostles (twenty-eight chapters) is given over to the life, journeys, and speeches of Paul. In terms of sheer bulk of material, Paul literally dominates the New Testament. moreover, he hammered out an understanding of the Christian faith that is one of the great foundations for Christian theological history. At the same time, some things in his writings, as the author of 2 Peter knew, are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16), and they have always been, like Paul himself, the occasion of controversy. While he inspired many of the church's greatest thinkers and reformers, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, he has also been accused in more recent times of distorting Jesus' simple message, of laying the groundwork for Christian anti-Judaism, and of perpetuating chauvinistic attitudes about race, politics, sex and the status of women!

It is clear from Paul's letters and Acts that he encountered delicate problems in his claim to be an apostle to the Gentiles. He had never known jesus. He had been a persecutor of the church. In many ways he was dependent on various traditions of the Jerusalmen and Hellenistic Jewish churches. Yet, Paul said that his authoritative "call" originated in divine revelation and though confirmed by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, he claimed that he was independent of any human agency. It should come as no surprise, then, that there were those who constantly challenged his authority as an apostle.

Adapted from: The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd Edition) by Duling & Perrin, p. 177, 195

The Pauline Epistles

Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles

See Also : Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles (The United Methodist Church)

The Remaining Epistles (Catholic or General Epistles)

The Book of Revelation

The Content and Structure of the Book of Revelation
The revelation, or "apocalypse," was given to John by God through Jesus and an angel. The first section of the book contains seven letters addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor. These letters describe the conditions of the churches and, in most cases, urge a change in behavior. John's vision is recounted in the rest of the book.

The Book of Revelation From a Historical Perspective
Revelation was not the only apocalypse written in antiquity. In fact, there are many Jewish and Christian apocalypses. Like Revelation, these texts also claim to be proclamations of the imminent end of the world. All of these texts utilize similar literary features and can be studied as a distinct genre.

Apocalyptic Worldviews and Apocalypse Genre
The term "apocalyptic" refers to a worldview; the term "apocalypse" refers to a genre of literature that embodies apocalyptic views. Although Jewish and Christian apocalypses differ because of doctrinal differences in the religions, both reflect the beliefs of communities that are experiencing some kind of suffering. These books assert that despite present circumstances, God is in charge and will soon intervene and vindicate his people. Apocalypses, then, offer encouragement and assurance to their audiences. In general, these writings share the following features: they are first-person narratives, their highly symbolic visions are interpreted for the prophet by a heavenly being, and the visions explain the suffering of God's people and promise vindication.

Apocalypses utilize several specific literary features. First, they are typically pseudonymous. Like other pseudonymous works, these texts seek to gain authority by attributing their message to an important figure from the past. Second, these texts contain bizarre symbolic visions that are interpreted for the prophet by the angelic mediator. Third, apocalypses contain violent repetitions. These repetitions, in other words, violate the literal sense of the text: the story cannot be mapped out chronologically. Fourth, these texts all conclude with a triumphalist note and are intended to motivate their audiences to remain faithful in spite of their suffering.

The Revelation of John in Historical Context
Most scholars agree that parts of Revelation were written during the 60s, at the time of Nero's persecutions of Christians. Other parts of the book, however, may have been written later, perhaps during the reign of the emperor Domitian (ca. 95 C.E.). Regardless of the date of the text, we can know something about the community's experiences. The churches of Asia Minor were apparently experiencing persecution, and many Christians in the churches were losing their faith. Rather than offering a blueprint for the end of the world, as many modern readers assume, Revelation was written to offer solace to a specific community, historically located in first-century Asia Minor. Its vision offers to its audience an explanation of their present circumstances, gives them hope of the imminent end, and urges them to remain faithful.

Adapted from: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman, p. 425 - 437

• The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Third Edition
• The HarperCollins Study Bible : New Revised Standard Version With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books
• Gospel Parallels: NRSV Edition by Burton H. Throckmorton
• The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction by Keith F. Nickle
  
• Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman
• Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman
• The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman
• Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
• The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman
• Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development by Helmut Koester
• The Making of the New Testament by Arthur G. Patzia
• The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle
• Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson
• New Testament Background: Selected Documents: Revised and Expanded Edition by Charles K. Barrett
• From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith by L. Michael White
• When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein
• A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels by David Dungan and David Laird Dungan
• The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through The Maze by Mark Goodacre
• Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth by Burton L. Mack
• The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy by Burton L. Mack
• Can We Trust the New Testament? Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony by George Albert Wells
• Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? by Robert M. Price
• Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms
• Who Wrote the Gospels by Randel Helms
• Who Tampered With the Bible? by Patricia G. Eddy
• Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown
• The Text of the New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism by Kurt Aland
• The Oxford Bible Commentary by John Barton
• The Oxford Companion to the Bible by Bruce M. Metzger
• The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger
• Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger
• The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger

• New Testament (Wikipedia)
• The Gospels (Wikipedia)
• Pauline Epistles (Wikipedia)
• Authorship of the Pauline Epistles (Wikipedia)
• Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?
• All Claims of Jesus Derive From Hearsay Accounts
• When Were the Gospels Written?
• Are the Gospel Accounts Historical?
• Dating the Synoptic Gospels
• The Straight Dope: Who Wrote the New Testament?
• The Fallible Gospels: Reasonable Observations on the Origins of Christianity
• Christian Origins: The Gospels (UPenn)
• Early Christian Writings
• Religion Online
• Resource Pages for Biblical Studies
• Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant
• Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels
• Excerpt on Canonical & Noncanonical Gospels from: The Complete Gospels
• Dating the New Testament Books
• New Testament Research
• New Testament Gateway
• As Paul Tells It
• Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation
• Paul and the Pauline Epistles
• The Paul Page
• The Evolution of the Pauline Canon (Robert M. Price)
• Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles
• Pseudonymity As Rhetoric: A Prolegomenon To The Study Of Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Frank W. Hughes)
  
• The Evolution of Christs and Christianities
• Biblical Criticism & History Discussion Group (Infidels)
• Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels by Richard Carrier
• Articles - Alternative Theory of the History of Christianity
• Society of Biblical Literature
• Journal for the Study of Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament