- four narratives of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, called "gospels" (or "good news" accounts);
- twenty-one letters, often called "epistles" in the biblical context, written by various authors, and consisting of Christian doctrine, counsel, instruction, and conflict resolution; and
Between the Testaments
History
The New Testament is a story already in progress when the reader begins at its beginning—
Matthew 1:1. Much had taken place during the intertestamental period between the end of what Christians call the
Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. The
Kingdom of Israel had reached its height under
King David a thousand years earlier but was no longer in existence as a political entity.
- The Persian Period (ca. 537-332 BC).
- Jewish nation ruled by high priests
- Minimal interference from the Persian kings
- Synagogues became significant sites for teaching and worship
- The Torah became the focal point of their religion
- The Hasmonean Period (167-63 BC)
- Jewish rebels nicknamed "Maccabees" ("hammers") led revolt against Antiochus and won independence. Rededication of the Second Temple (defiled by Antiochus) is the origin of Hanukkah. Two important Jewish sects, Pharisees and Sadducees, emerged.
- The Roman Period (beginning in 63 BC)
Etymology
- Lo! days shall come, saith the Lord, and I shall make a new covenant (from Latin foedus) with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.[Jeremiah 31:31]
- For he reproving him saith, Lo! days come, saith the Lord, when I shall establish a new testament (from Latin testamentum) on the house of Israel, and on the house of Judah.[Hebrews 8:8]
Use of the term
New Testament to describe a collection of first and second-century Christian Greek Scriptures can be traced back to
Tertullian (in
Against Praxeas 15).
[4] In
Against Marcion book 3 (written in the early 3rd century, c. AD 208), chapter 14, he writes of
the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel[5]
And in book 4, chapter 6, he writes that
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 own
Christ may be separate from the
Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the
prophets.
[6]
By the
4th century, the existence—even if not the exact contents—of both an Old and New Testament had been established.
Lactantius, a Christian author of the 3rd and 4th century who wrote in Latin, in his early-4th-century
Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 20, wrote:
But all scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the
law and the
prophets—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."
[Jer 31:31–32] ... 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.
[7]
Books
See also: Christian biblical canons, Development of the New Testament canon,
New Testament apocrypha, and Template:Books of the New Testament
In the period extending roughly from AD 50 to 150, a number of documents began to circulate among the churches, including epistles, gospel accounts, memoirs, prophecies, homilies, and collections of teachings. While some of these documents were
apostolic in origin, others drew upon the tradition the apostles and ministers of the word had utilized in their individual missions. Still others represented a summation of the teaching entrusted to a particular church center. Several of these writings sought to extend, interpret, and apply apostolic teaching to meet the needs of Christians in a given locality.
In general, among
Christian denominations, the New Testament canon is an agreed-upon list of 27 books, although book order can vary. The book order is the same in the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant tradition.
[8] The
Slavonic,
Armenian and
Ethiopian traditions have different New Testament book orders.
The Gospels
Each of the four
gospels in the New Testament narrates the life, death and resurrection of
Jesus of
Nazareth. The term "Gospel" literally refers to "Good News". The word derives from the
Old English gōd-spell [9] (rarely
godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". The gospel was considered the "good news" of the coming
Kingdom of Messiah, and the redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central Christian message.
[10] Gospel is a
calque (word-for-word translation) of the
Greek word
εὐαγγέλιον,
euangelion (
eu- "good",
-angelion "message").
Since the 2nd 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. Whatever these admittedly early ascriptions may imply about the sources behind or the perception of these gospels, they appear to have been originally anonymous compositions.
[11]
- The Gospel of John, ascribed to John the Apostle. This gospel begins with a philosophical prologue and ends with appearances of the resurrected Jesus, it is about Jesus's miracles.
The first three gospels listed above are classified as the
Synoptic Gospels. They contain similar accounts of the events in Jesus' life and his teaching, due to their literary interdependence. The Gospel of John is structured differently and includes stories of several miracles of Jesus and sayings not found in the other three.
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.
[Luke 1:1-4] Other early Christian gospels such as the so-called "
Jewish-Christian Gospels" or the
Gospel of Thomas, also offer both a window into the context of
early Christianity and may provide some assistance in the reconstruction of the
historical Jesus.
Acts of the Apostles
The
Acts of the Apostles is a narrative of the apostles' ministry and activity after Christ's death and resurrection, from which point it resumes and functions as a sequel to the
Gospel 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 as
Luke-Acts. This is also suggested by the dedication to "
Theophilus" ("Love of God" or "Friend of God") at the beginning of both works.
[Luke 1:3] [Acts 1:1]
Epistles
The epistles of the New Testament are considered by Christians to be divinely-inspired and holy letters, written by the apostles and disciples of Christ, to either local congregations with specific needs, or to New Covenant Christians in general, scattered about; or "General Epistles".
Pauline epistles
The Pauline epistles are the thirteen New Testament books which present
Paul the Apostle as their author.
[13] Six of the letters are disputed. Four are thought by most modern scholars to be
pseudepigraphic, 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).
[14] 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.
[15]
Hebrews
The
Letter to the Hebrews addresses a Jewish audience who had come to believe that Jesus was the
anointed 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 Bible. The author discusses the "better-ness" of the new covenant and the ministry of Jesus, over the Mosaic covenant
[Heb. 1:1-10:18] and urges the readers in the practical implications of this conviction through the end of the epistle.
[Heb. 10:19-13:25]
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 Letter to the Hebrews does not internally claim to have been written by the
Apostle 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.
[16]
In the 4th century,
Jerome and
Augustine of Hippo supported
Paul's authorship. The Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship until the
Reformation. The letter to the Hebrews had difficulty in being accepted as part of the Christian canon because of its anonymity.
[17] 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."
[18]
Most scholars reject or doubt Pauline authorship for the epistle to the Hebrews, though a few theologians still believe it was probably Paul. Its distinctive style and theology are considered to mostly set it apart from Paul's writings.
[3]:pp.431–432
General epistles
The
General epistles (or "catholic epistles") consist of both letters and treatises in the form of letters written to the church at large. The term "
catholic" (
Greek: καθολική,
katholikē), used to describe these letters in the oldest manuscripts containing them, here simply means "universal". The authorship of a number of these is disputed.
Book of Revelation
Further information: Authorship of the Johannine works
The final book of the New Testament is the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of John. In the New Testament canon, it is considered prophetical or apocalyptic literature. Its authorship has been attributed either to John the Apostle (in which case it is often thought that John the Apostle is John the Evangelist, i.e. author of the Gospel 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 as circa 96 AD, and others at around 68 AD.[20] The work opens with letters to seven churches and thereafter takes the form of an apocalypse, a literary genre popular in ancient Judaism and Christianity.[21]
Book order
The order in which the books of the New Testament appear differs between some collections and ecclesiastical traditions. In the Latin West, prior to the
Vulgate (an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible), the four Gospels were arranged in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.
[22] The Syriac
Peshitta places the major General 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 the Corpus Paulinum in which this order originated and were later inserted after 2 Thessalonians and before Philemon. Hebrews was variously incorporated into the Corpus Paulinum either after 2 Thessalonians, after Philemon (i.e. at the very end), or after Romans.
Apocrypha
The books that eventually found a permanent place in the New Testament were not the only works of Christian literature produced in the earliest Christian centuries. The long process of
canonization began early, sometimes with tacit reception of traditional texts, sometimes with explicit selection or rejection of particular texts as either acceptable or unacceptable for use in a given context (e.g., not all texts that were acceptable for private use were considered appropriate for use in the
liturgy).
Over the course of history, those works of early Christian literature that survived but that did not become part of the New Testament have been variously grouped by theologians and scholars. Drawing upon, though redefining, an older term used in
early Christianity and among Protestants when referring to those books found in the Christian
Old Testament although not in the
Jewish Bible, modern scholars began to refer to these works of early Christian literature not included in the New Testament as "apocryphal", by which was meant non-canonical.
Collected editions of these works were then referred to as the "
New Testament apocrypha". Typically excluded from such published collections are the following groups of works:
The Apostolic Fathers, the 2nd-century Christian apologists,
the Alexandrians,
Tertullian,
Methodius of Olympus,
Novatian,
Cyprian, martyrdoms, and
the Desert Fathers. Almost all other Christian literature from the period, and sometimes including works composed well into
Late Antiquity, are relegated to the so-called New Testament apocrypha.
These "apocryphal" works are nevertheless important for the study of the New Testament in that they were produced in the same ancient context and often using the same language as those books that would eventually form the New Testament. Some of these later works are dependent (either directly or indirectly) upon books that would later come to be in the New Testament or upon the ideas expressed in them. There is even an example of a
pseudepigraphical letter composed under the guise of a presumably lost letter of the Apostle Paul, the
Epistle to the Laodiceans.
Authors
|
| This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (January 2014) |
The books of the New Testament were all or nearly all written by
Jewish Christians—that is, Jewish disciples of Christ, who lived in the
Roman Empire, and under
Roman occupation.
[3] :16 Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, is frequently thought of as an exception; scholars are divided as to whether Luke was a Gentile or
Hellenic Jew.
[24]:102–105 A small minority of scholars identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as a gentile, and similarly for the Gospel of Matthew.
[25]
Authorship is an area of longstanding and current research and debate, with different works posing different problems for identification. While the various works have traditional ascriptions of authorship, these ascriptions are in some cases defended by scholars, and in other cases disputed or rejected.
[26] None of the Gospel authors is thought to be an eyewitness, and none claims to be. There is a broad consensus that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them.
[27]
The Gospels were originally anonymous, and names were not ascribed to them until around 185 CE.
[28] None of them was written in Palestine.
[29] Some writers are thought
[by whom?] to be actual apostles, and others to be disciples who were either acquainted with the apostles, or with their teachings.
[citation needed]
Gospels
Most scholars hold to the
two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical
Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospel accounts.
[30][31][32][33][34] These three gospels are called the Synoptic gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes 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 wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Scholars hold that these books constituted two halves of a single work,
Luke-Acts.
Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous.
[35] The Gospel of John is somewhat of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.
[36] The identities of each author were agreed upon at an early date, certainly no later than the early 2nd century. It is likely that the issue of the authorship of each gospel had been settled at least somewhat earlier,
[37] as the earliest sources are in complete agreement on the issue.
[38] Indeed, no one questioned the early 2nd century consensus until the 18th century.
[38]
Some scholars today maintain
[39] the traditional claim that
Luke the Evangelist, an associate of
St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles.
[38] Scholars are also divided on the traditional claim that
Mark the Evangelist, an associate of
St. Peter who may have been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Mark.
[40] Scholars are more divided over the traditional claim that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew
[41][42] and that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.
[10][43][44] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.
[45][46]
Luke–Acts
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author, and are thus referred to as the Lucan texts.
[47] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to
Theophilus, and the preface to the Acts of the Apostles references "my former book" about the ministry of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.
[48][49][50]
According to Donald Guthrie, the traditional view of Lucan authorship is "widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data."
[51] whereas R. E. Brown says opinion on the issue is "evenly divided"
[52] The list of scholars maintaining authorship of
Luke-Acts by Luke is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion.
[39]
 |
Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th-century painting.
Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to
a secretary. |
Pauline epistles
The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to
Paul of Tarsus. Some consider the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews a fourteenth Pauline epistle.
[53]
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.
[54]
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", there are many scholars that uphold the traditional view of these as the genuine writings of the Apostle Paul.
[54] Most, however, regard them as
pseudepigrapha.
[55]
One might refer to the
Epistle to the Laodiceans and the
Third 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 while a few theologians today believe Paul wrote Hebrews,
[56][57] contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship.
[58]
The epistles all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style; they exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning the
Mosaic 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 Other epistles
The author of the
Epistle 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 the
Epistle as written by
James the Just.
[59] 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.
[60]
The author of the
First Epistle of Peter identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an
apostle of Jesus Christ", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of
Church Fathers:
Irenaeus (140-203),
Tertullian (150-222),
Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and
Origen of Alexandria (185-253). Unlike
The 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.
[61] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,
[62] Zahn,
[63] Spitta,
[64] Bigg,
[65] and Green.
[66]
The Epistle of Jude title is written as follows: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James" (
NRSV). The debate has continued over the author's identity as the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither.
[67]
Johannine works
The
First Epistle of John is traditionally held to have been composed by
John the Apostle (the author of the
Gospel of John) when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle's content, language and conceptual style indicate that it may have had the same author as the Gospel of John, 2 John and 3 John.
[35] Eusebius claimed that the author of 2nd and 3rd John was not
John the Apostle an "elder John" which refers either to the apostle at an advanced age or a hypothetical second individual ("
John the Elder").
[68] Scholars today are divided on the issue.
Revelation
The author of the
Book of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John".
[Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8] The author also states that he was on
Patmos when he received his first vision.
[Rev. 1:9; 4:1-2] As a result, the author of Revelation is sometimes referred to as
John of Patmos. The author, named John, has traditionally been identified with John the Apostle, to whom the Gospel of John is also attributed. The traditional view holds that
John the Apostle—considered to have written the
Gospel and the
epistles of John—was exiled to the island of Patmos during the reign of the
Roman emperor Domitian, and there wrote Revelation.
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) who was acquainted with
Polycarp, who had been mentored by John, makes a possible allusion to this book, and credits John as the source.
[69]
Irenaeus (c. 115-202) assumes it as a conceded point. According to the
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses which have been put forth in the last hundred years or so.
[70]
Dates of composition
See individual book articles for more detail
The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was
First Thessalonians, an epistle of
Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly
Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with
Second Peter usually being the latest.
[citation needed]
In the 1830s German scholars of the
Tübingen school tried to date the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some
New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as 125 (
Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd-century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a
letter to the church at Corinth in the name of
Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a
letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books.
Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or
Polycarp.
John A. T. Robinson, former Bishop of
Woolwich, Dean of
Trinity College and New Testament scholar argues for a much earlier dating. Robinson challenges almost all the judgments which teachers of the New Testament throughout the world commend to their pupils on the dating of the NT books. His reassessment has all of the New Testament completed before AD 70. Using inductive reasoning, he uses historical argument and historical knowledge as the basis of his theory. Robinson points to four major historical events of which, he argues, no New Testament authors make mention:
- the Great Fire of Rome (AD 64), one of the most destructive fires in Roman history, which Emperor Nero blamed on the Christians, and led to the first major persecution of believers
- the final years and deaths of Paul, who wrote most of the epistles, Peter, whom Catholics recognize as the first pope, and the other apostles
- Nero's suicide (AD 68), or
- the total destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (AD 70). He writes, "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period—the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple—is never once mentioned as a past fact. Jesus prophesied its total destruction in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but the fulfillment of that prophecy never appears anywhere in the New Testament.
Therefore, Robinson claims that every book which would come to form the New Testament must have been written before AD 70.
[71][72] Robinson's proposed set of consistently early dates are rejected by the majority of scholars.
[73]
Most contemporary scholars regard
Mark as a source used by Luke (see
Markan priority).
[74] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the
Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,
[75] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in
Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems likely.
[10][76] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.
Language
Development of the New Testament canon
The process of the canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy and in the initial centuries of
Early Christianity there was yet no single New Testament canon that was universally recognized.
[84] The process was characterized by a compilation of books that
apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.
[85] Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the
earliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the
1st century AD.
[86]
One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by
Marcion,
circa 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (the
Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was increasingly rejected by other groups of Christians, notably the
proto-orthodox Christians, as was his theology,
Marcionism.
Adolf Harnack in
Origin of the New Testament (1914) observed that the church gradually formulated its New Testament canon in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
[87]
The
Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the
Anchor 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 Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written
circa 180 AD. A four gospel canon (the
Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly
[89][90] in his
polemic Against the 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."
[91] 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.
[92]
Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History
Eusebius,
circa 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his
Ecclesiastical History Book 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 the
Acts of Paul, and the so-called
Shepherd, and the
Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant
epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called
Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the
Apocalypse 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 the
Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"
6... such books as the
Gospels of Peter, of
Thomas, of
Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the
Acts of Andrew and
John 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 the
Diatessaron: "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."
Origen (3rd century)
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,
[93] known as the
Antilegomena. Likewise, the
Muratorian 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.
[94] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the
Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the
3rd century.
[95]
Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts which became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-4th-century
Easter Letter, which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on the
Ecclesiastical History [HE] of
Eusebius 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 then
disputed, by the
third-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.
[96]
In fact, Origen would have possibly included in his list of "inspired writings" other texts which were kept out by the likes of Eusebius, including the
Epistle of Barnabas,
Shepherd of Hermas, and
1 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."
[97]
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,
[98] and he used the word "canonized" (
kanonizomena) in regards to them.
[99] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the
Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the
Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.
[100] These councils were under the authority of
St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
[101][102]
Pope Damasus I's
Council of Rome in 382, if the
Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,
[98] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.
[103] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin
Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.
[104] In
c. 405,
Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop,
Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these
bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."
[105][106][107]
Thus, some claim that, from the
4th century, there existed unanimity in the
West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),
[109] and that, by the
5th century, the
Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the
Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.
[110] Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the
Canon of Trent of 1546 for
Roman Catholicism, the
Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the
Church of England, the
Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for
Calvinism, and the
Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the
Greek Orthodox.
On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:
[111]
Although a number of Christians have thought that
church 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.
Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".
[106][107]
According to the
Catholic 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 the
Tridentine Council."
Early manuscripts
 |
| Papyrus Bodmer VIII, at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, showing 1 and 2 Peter. |
Like other literature from
antiquity, the text of the New Testament was (prior to the advent of the
printing press) preserved and transmitted in
manuscripts. 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 famously
Rylands Library Papyrus P52, though the early date of the latter has recently been called into question).
[114]
For each subsequent century, more and more manuscripts survive that contain a portion or all of the books that were held to be part of the New Testament at that time (for example, the New Testament of the 4th-century
Codex Sinaiticus, once a complete Bible, contains the
Epistle of Barnabas and the
Shepherd of Hermas), though occasionally these manuscripts contain other works as well (e.g.,
Papyrus 72 and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex). The date at which a manuscript was written, however, does not necessarily reflect the date of the form of text it contains. That is, later manuscripts can, and occasionally do, contain older forms of text or older readings.
Some of the more important manuscripts containing an early text of books of the New Testament are:
- The Bodmer Papyri (Greek and Coptic; the New Testament portions of which were copied in the 3rd and 4th centuries)
- Codex Bobiensis (Latin; copied in the 4th century, but containing at least a 3rd-century form of text)
- Uncial 0171 (Greek; copied in the late-third or early 4th century)
Textual variation
Main article: Textual variants in the New Testament
- Infallibility relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine.
- Inerrancy relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
- Authoritativeness relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice in morality.
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 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 word
theopneustos. This term only occurs here in the New Testament and literally means "God-breathed" (the chosen translation of the NIV).
[138]
All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether
literal history,
allegory or
poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world.
Unity in diversity
The notion of unity 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.
[138]
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 theologian
Frank Stagg. He describes them as some basic presuppositions, tenants, and concerns which are 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 are 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[139]
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 the
Magisterium. 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."
[140]
The
Eastern Orthodox churches do not accept this two-source theory; rather, they hold that there is a single source of revelation, Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the most important part.
[141]
Traditional
Anglicans 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).
[142] Classical Anglicanism, therefore, like Orthodoxy, holds that Holy Tradition is the only safe guardian against perversion and innovation in the interpretation of Scripture.
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."
Protestantism
Following the doctrine of
sola 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 reëvaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in
Liberal Protestant traditions even to the reevaluation of the doctrine 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. However, the adjustments made by modern
Protestants to their doctrine of scripture vary widely.
American evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism
Certain American conservatives,
fundamentalists and
evangelicals believe that the scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth.
[citation needed] Fundamentalists accept the enduring authority and the infallibility of the Bible.
[citation needed] In the United States this particularly applies to issues such as
abortion,
evolution, and
homosexuality. Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
Within the US, the
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is a statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. 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."
[143]
American mainline and liberal Protestantism
Mainline American
Protestant denominations, including the
United Methodist Church,
Presbyterian Church USA,
The Episcopal Church, and
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have more ancient doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but may interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching—from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly.
For example,
ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches,
abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal
sin or a crime against an unborn person, and
homosexuality is sometimes recognized as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. In North America, the most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted.
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."
[144]
Those who hold a more liberal view of the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy. These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for
social justice.
The message of personal
salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's
Golden Rule admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative.
There are some movements that believe the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus but who reject the churches that were formed following its publication. These people believe all individuals can communicate directly with God and therefore do not need guidance or doctrines from a church. These people are known as
Christian anarchists.
Messianic Judaism
Messianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.
[145] 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.
[146]
Jehovah's Witnesses
The
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts 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 the
Messiah, the
Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the
Kingdom of God. They also view the New Testament as the primary instruction guide for Christian living, and
church 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.
[147]
United Pentecostals
Oneness Pentecostalism subscribes to the common Protestant doctrine of
Sola Scriptura. They view the Bible as the
inspired Word of God, and as absolutely
inerrant in its contents (though not necessarily in every translation).
[148][149] They regard the New Testament as perfect and inerrant in every way, revealing the Lord Jesus Christ, 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.
[150][151]
Seventh-Day Adventists
The
Seventh-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 the
infallible revelation of [God's] will."
Adventist theologians generally reject the "verbal inspiration" position on Scripture held by many conservative
evangelical 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.
[152] This view is popularly known as "thought inspiration", and most Adventist members hold to that view. According to Ed Christian, former
JATS editor, "few if any
ATS members believe in verbal inerrancy".
[153]
Regarding the teachings of the New Testament compared to the Old, and the application in the New Covenant, Adventists have traditionally taught that the
Decalogue is part of the moral law of God which was not abrogated by the ministry and death of
Jesus Christ. Therefore the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath is as applicable to Christian believers as the other nine. Adventists have often taught a distinction between "moral law" and "ceremonial law". According to Adventist beliefs, the moral law continues into the "New Testament era", but the ceremonial law was done away with by Jesus.
How the
Mosaic law should be applied came up at Adventist conferences in the past, and Adventist theologians such as
A. T. Jones and
E. J. Waggoner looked at the problem addressed by Paul in
Galatians as not the ceremonial law, but rather the wrong use of the law (
legalism). They were opposed by
Uriah Smith and
George Butler at the 1888 Conference. Smith in particular thought the Galatians issue had been settled by Ellen White already, yet in 1890 she claimed justification by faith is "the
third angel’s message in verity."
[154]
Ellen White interpreted
Colossians 2:14 as saying that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.
[155]
Latter-day Saints
Members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or
Mormons) believe that the New Testament is inspired and infallible "as far as it is translated correctly", and believe that the Greek manuscripts were at least partly corrupted, thereby necessitating a re-inspiring through Joseph Smith.
[156][157][158] They also state that they "revere
the Bible [i.e., both Old and New Testaments] as the word of God." Latter-day Saints also believe the "
Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ [to be] a companion volume of scripture to the Bible,...[confirming] and [testifying] of the truthfulness of the messages in the Bible." To Latter-day Saints, "the Bible and the Book of Mormon complement each other, both providing a witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world."
[159]
In the liturgy
Despite the wide variety among
Christian liturgies, texts from the New Testament play a role in almost all forms of
Christian worship. In addition to some language derived from the New Testament in the
liturgy itself (e.g., the
Trisagion may be based on Apocalypse 4:8, and the beginning of the "Hymn of Praise" draws upon Luke 2:14), the reading of extended passages from the New Testament is a practice common to almost all
Christian worship, liturgical or not.
In the arts
 |
Gaudenzio Ferrari's Stories 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's Messiah is drawn from three passages in the Book of Revelation: 19:6, 11:5, and 19:16 (audio clip from the German translation of the Messiah).
|
| Problems playing this file? See media help. |
Biblical paraphrases and poetic renditions of stories from the life of Christ (e.g., the
Heliand) became popular in the
middle ages, as did the portrayal of the
arrest,
trial and
execution of Jesus in
Passion plays. Indeed, the
Passion became a central theme in Christian
art and
music. The
ministry and
Passion of Jesus, as portrayed in one or more of the
New Testament Gospels, has also been a theme in film, almost since the inception of the medium (e.g., "La Passion", France, 1903).
See also
Notes
- Jump up ^ See the standard New Testament introductions listed below under "Further reading": Goodspeed, Kümmel, Duling and Perrin, Koester, Conzelmann and Lindemann, Brown, and Ehrman.
- Jump up ^ See, e.g., Clabeaux, J. J.: A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 21; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Powell, Mark A. Introducing the New Testament: A historical, literary, and theological survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2009. ISBN 978-0-8010-2868-7
- Jump up ^ The Broadman Bible Commentary: General articles. Matthew. Mark Clifton J. Allen, Broadman Press - 1969 "Tertullian was apparently the first to use the term New Testament in the sense of a collection of books (Against Praxeas XV)."
- Jump up ^ "Tertullian (Robert-Donaldson)". Earlychristianwritings.com. 2 February 2006. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ [1] See also book 4, chapters 1, 2, and 14. However, his meaning in chapter 22 is less clear, and in chapters 9 and 40 he uses the term to mean "new covenant".
- Jump up ^ "ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily | Christian Classics Ethereal Library". Ccel.org. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
- Jump up ^ Selected passages from Martin Luther, "Commentary on Galatians (1538)" as translated in Herbert J. A. Bouman, "The Doctrine of Justification in the Lutheran Confessions," Concordia Theological Monthly 26 (November 1955) No. 11:801.[2][dead link]
- Jump up ^ "Gospel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. 2012-08-31. Retrieved 2012-12-25.
- ^ Jump up to: a b c "Gospel". Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- Jump up ^ On the traditional ascriptions and anonymous authorship, see the standard New Testament introductions listed below under "Further reading": Goodspeed, Kümmel, Duling and Perrin, Koester, Conzelmann and Lindemann, Brown, and Ehrman.
- Jump up ^ See Fitzmyer, Joseph A.: The Gospel according to Luke, 2 volumes. Anchor Bible Commentary; New York: Doubleday, 1981 and 1985, vol. 1, pp. 35-53.
- Jump up ^ Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point [Gal 6:11] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name (2 Thess. 3:17; 3:17) 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."
- Jump up ^ Bassler, Jouette M., "Paul and his Letters" in Aune, David E., The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 388.
- Jump up ^ Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, fifth edition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009. ISBN 978-0664233921
- Jump up ^ Attridge, Harold W.: Hebrews. Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989, pp. 1-6.
- Jump up ^ Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 47A. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1991), Introduction page cliv.
- Jump up ^ "Eusebius Church History Book VI Ch 25 v14". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ Fornberg, Tord: An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter. Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Series 9; Lund: Gleerup, 1977.
- Jump up ^ Robert Mounce. The Book of Revelation, pg. 15-16. Cambridge: Eerdman's. Books.google.com
- Jump up ^ For a detailed study of the Apocalypse of John, see Aune, David E.: Revelation, 3 volumes. Word Biblical Commentary; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997-1998.
- Jump up ^ The Gospels are in this order in many Old Latin manuscripts, as well as in the Greek manuscripts Codex Bezae and Codex Washingtonianus.
- Jump up ^ [3][dead link]; see also [4]; see also Antilegomena
- Jump up ^ Strelan, Rick, Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. (Ashgate Publishing, 2013).
- Jump up ^ For discussion of Mark, see Schröter, Jens, "Gospel of Mark" in Aune, David (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 281–2; Hare, Douglas R. A., Mark (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), pp. 3–5; and "More on Mark and Peter" on Bart Ehrman's blog (June 3, 2013). For discussion of Matthew, see Repschinski, Boris, "Forschungbericht: Matthew and Judaism" in The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp.13–61; and "Was Matthew a Jew?" on Bart Ehrman's blog (June 17, 2013).
- Jump up ^ For overviews of the scholarship on authorship of the various New Testament works, see the relevant entries in Aune, David E. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
- Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (Harper Collins, 2009) pages 102-104.
- Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford University Press, 1999) pages 43-44.
- Jump up ^ Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context (Continuum, 2004), page 290.
- Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001-2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved 15 January 2008.
- Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1991–). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.
- Jump up ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To"
- Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew 2. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 955–6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
- Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.
- ^ Jump up to: a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
- Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310
- Jump up ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), p. 114.
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), pp. 37-40.
- ^ Jump up to: a b To list just some: I. H. Marshall, Acts (1980), pp. 44-45; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), pp. 1-6; C. S. C. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles, in Black’s New Testament Commentary (1957); W. Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 61-64; Bo Reicke, Glaube und Leben Der Urgenmeinde (1957), pp. 6-7; F. V. Filson, Three Crucial Decades (1963), p. 10; M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (1956); R. M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (1963), pp. 134-135; B. Gärtner, The Aeropagus Speech and Natural Revelation (1955), W. L. Knox, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels; R. R. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles; E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, in Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1959), W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, p. 39.
- Jump up ^ Bernd Kollmann, Joseph Barnabas (Liturgical Press, 2004), page 30.
- Jump up ^ D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 739.
- Jump up ^ Schaff "On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of Barnabas"
- Jump up ^ "Fonck, Leopold. "Gospel of St. John." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 June 2009". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ "''Gospel According to John'', Encyclopædia Britannica". Britannica.com. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. p. 164. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- Jump up ^ Kirby, Peter. "Gospel of Mark" earlychristianwritings.com'.' Retrieved 30 January 2010.
- Jump up ^ Horrell, DG, An Introduction to the study of Paul, T&T Clark, 2006, 2nd Ed.,p.7; cf. W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (1948), p. 2-15 for detailed arguments that still stand.
- Jump up ^ on linguistics, see A. Kenny, A stylometric Study of the New Testament (1986).
- Jump up ^ Udo Schnelle. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259.
- Jump up ^ F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (1952), p2.
- Jump up ^ Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), says the traditional view is “widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data.” p. 119,
- Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
- Jump up ^ 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" (Wallace, Daniel B. "Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.") http://web.archive.org/web/20031011120719/http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/hebotl.htm
- ^ Jump up to: a b Guthrie lists: ohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremias, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee", p. 622
- Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004:385
- Jump up ^ Who Wrote Hebrews? A Case for Pauline Authorship, Pat II - apologus wordpress - October 2009. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
- Jump up ^ The Writer of Hebrews - Ligonier Ministries. 2012.
- Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004:411
- Jump up ^ Epistle of St. James, 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia Online
- Jump up ^ "Epistle of James". Earlychristianwritings.com. 2 February 2006. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Philip B. Harner, p. 49 [5]
- Jump up ^ Kruger, MJ, (1999) "The Authenticity of 2 Peter,"[dead link] Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4, p.645-671
- Jump up ^ e.g. S. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament II p. 250
- Jump up ^ F. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (1885)
- Jump up ^ C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in International Critical Commentary
- Jump up ^ E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (1961) and other works.
- Jump up ^ Bauckham,RJ (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.14f
- Jump up ^ Eusebius: The Church History
- Jump up ^ St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Chapter lxxxi.
- Jump up ^ Merrill C. Tenney, gen. ed. "Revelation, Book of the." Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 5 (Q-Z). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
- Jump up ^ Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. SCM Press; 1976. ISBN 978-0334023005
- Jump up ^ Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Free PDF version: [6] Accessed 10 May 2013
- Jump up ^ Cirafesi, Wally V., "The Temple Attitudes of John and Qumran" in Porter and Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Hellenistic Origins (Brill, 2013), p. 230. Duling, Dennis C., "The Gospel of Matthew" in Aune, David E. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 296 & 298. See also the dating sections for the other New Testament books in David E. Aune's 2010 Blackwell Companion just cited.
- Jump up ^ Helmut Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999. p. 336
- Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.
- Jump up ^ S. Brown agrees that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 24
- Jump up ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 29
- Jump up ^ Brown, Schuyler. The origins of Christianity: a historical introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 27
- Jump up ^ Allen C. Myers, ed. (1987). "Aramaic". The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72. ISBN 0-8028-2402-1. "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)."
- Jump up ^ Metzger B. The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman
- Jump up ^ Aland, K. and Aland, B. The text of the New Testament (9780802840981)
- Jump up ^ Koester, Helmut: Introduction to the New Testament. Philadelphia, 1982, volume 2, p. 172.
- Jump up ^ Davies, W. D. and Allison, Dale C.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 volumes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997, see volume 1, pp. 33-58.
- Jump up ^ Eusebius,Church History, (III xxv 5)
- Jump up ^ See Gamble, Harry Y.: The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.
- Jump up ^ Three forms are postulated, from The Canon Debate, chapter 18, page 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."
- Jump up ^ "Origin of the New Testament | Christian Classics Ethereal Library". Ccel.org. 22 July 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3.
- Jump up ^ Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301.
- Jump up ^ cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8.
- Jump up ^ "III.XI.8". Ccel.org. 2005-07-13. Retrieved 2012-09-07.
- Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, page 277
- Jump up ^ Both points taken from Mark A. Noll's Turning Points, (Baker Academic, 1997) pp 36–37
- Jump up ^ H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003) p. 315
- Jump up ^ P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1). Cambridge University Press. p. 308.
- Jump up ^ C.G. Bateman, Origen’s Role in the Formation of the New Testament Canon, 2010.
- Jump up ^ McGuckin, John A. "Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition.” 121-37 in vol. 1 of 'Origeniana octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition.' Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress (Pisa, 27–31 August 2001). Edited by L. Perrone. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. 2 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.
- ^ Jump up to: a b Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.
- Jump up ^ Brakke, David. "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter," in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419
- Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders' The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."
- Jump up ^ Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230
- Jump up ^ cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8
- Jump up ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press. p. 234.
- Jump up ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press. p. 225.
- Jump up ^ Ferguson, Everett. "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320
- ^ Jump up to: a b c Metzger, Bruce (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon. pp. 237–238.
- ^ Jump up to: a b Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press. p. 97.
- Jump up ^ The Book of Revelation wasn't added till the 419 Synod of Carthage according to McDonald and Sanders: The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, page 595, note 19.
- Jump up ^ Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Intervarsity Press. p. 215.
- Jump up ^ P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. (1970). The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1). Cambridge University Press. p. 305.
- Jump up ^ McDonald, Lee M.: The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995, p. 116
- Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce M.: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 246. ISBN 0-19-826954-4, writes, "Finally on 8 April 1546, by a vote of 24 to 15, with 16 abstensions, the Council issued a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) in which, for the first time in the history of the church, the question of the contents of the Bible was made an absolute article of faith and confirmed by an anathema."
- Jump up ^ The Canon Debate, pages 414-415, for the entire paragraph
- Jump up ^ For the initial dating of P52, see Roberts, C. H. (Ed.): An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935, and Bell, H. Idris and Skeat, T. C.: Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935. Though see now Nongbri, Brent: "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005) 23-52 and Martinez, David G.: "The Papyri and Early Christianity," in Bagnall, Roger S. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 590-623.
- Jump up ^ Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (2005), p. 46
- ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Strobel, Lee. ”The Case for Christ”. 1998. Chapter three, when quoting biblical scholar Bruce Metzger
- ^ Jump up to: a b Bruce, F.F. (1981). P 14. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. InterVarsity Press
- Jump up ^ Habib 2005, p. 239
- ^ Jump up to: a b Bruce, F.F. (1981). P 11. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. InterVarsity Press
- Jump up ^ Bruce, F.F. (1981). P 9-10. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?. InterVarsity Press
- Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005, p. 265. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4
- Jump up ^ Guy D. Nave, The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts,p. 194
- Jump up ^ John Shelby Spong, "The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism", Christian Century 26 September 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
- Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg. 175
- Jump up ^ "NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved 17 October 2009. See note 139 on that page.
- Jump up ^ Keith, Chris (2008). "Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)". Currents in Biblical Research 6 (3): 377–404. doi:10.1177/1476993X07084793.
- Jump up ^ 'Pericope adulterae', in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
- Jump up ^ Ehrman 2006, p. 166
- Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society
- Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society, p. 367
- Jump up ^ M. M. Parvis, vol. 4, pp. 594-595
- Jump up ^ See Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D.: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
- Jump up ^ See, e.g., Stendahl, Krister: The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Uppsala and Lund, 1954; Marcus, Joel: The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Edinburgh, 1993; Smith, D. Moody: "The Use of the Old Testament in the New," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972, pp. 3-65; Juel, Donald: Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; and Barr, James: Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments. London: SCM, 1966.
- Jump up ^ Arthur Võõbus Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm, 1954, pp. 1-128, 211-240.
- Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce M.: The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977, pp. 3-98.
- Jump up ^ Vööbus, Arthur: Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm, 1954, pp. 216-229.
- Jump up ^ On the Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Gothic, see Arthur Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament (Stockholm, 1954), pp. 133-210, 243-309.
- ^ Jump up to: a b Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Scripture, Unity and Diversity of'". Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997. Online: <http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/scripture-unity-and-diversity-of.html> Accessed 13 Jan 2013
- Jump up ^ Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Broadman, 1962. ISBN 0-8054-1613-7
- Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, "The Transmission of Divine Revelation", Second Edition (1997)
- Jump up ^ Ware, Kallistos (Timothy). "Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith", from The Orthodox Church
- Jump up ^ "The Thirty-Nine Articles". Anglicansonline.org. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ "The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy". Reformed.org. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
- Jump up ^ "Homosexual ordination vote widens gap between Presbyterian factions,"ReligionToday, 2001-JUN-20
- Jump up ^ "Messianic Beliefs". Beit Simcha. 2009. Retrieved June 7, 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"
- Jump up ^ "Essential Statement of Faith". The Harvest: A Messianic Charismatic Congregation. 2010. Retrieved June 7, 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."
- Jump up ^ "Equipped For Every Good Work" - Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. - International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, NY, 1946 - pgs 12-13.
- Jump up ^ See, for example, "A Response to the Oneness-Trinity Debate": a letter to Rev. Gene Cook, Pastor of the Unchained Christian Church (Reformed Baptist) of San Diego California, by Tom Raddatz. Retrieved on 14 April 2013.
- Jump up ^ How We Get Our Bible - Jason Dulle - www.onenesspentecostalism.com. Retrieved 15 April 2013.
- Jump up ^ Defending the Inerrancy and Canon of Scripture - Jason Dulle - www.onenesspentecostalism.com. Retrieved 15 April 2013.
- Jump up ^ The Nature of Inspiration - Jason Dulle - www.onenesspentecostalism.com. Retrieved 15 April 2013.
- Jump up ^ General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 2005, pp. 14–16
- Jump up ^ The Adventist Theological Society, an interview of Ed Christian by John McLarty.
- Jump up ^ http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=172&parentkeyid=166
- Jump up ^ Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p365; Acts of the Apostles, p194; Early Writings, p33; Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary vol 6, 1094–95; Evangelism, p598; Selected Messages, vol 1, p239
- Jump up ^ Mormon - Articles of Faith
- Jump up ^ LDS Apostle Orson Pratt further proclaimed, "The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike" (The Seer, p. 213)
- Jump up ^ Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation of the Bible - Robert J. Matthews.
- Jump up ^ ""The Holy Bible", ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints''". Lds.org. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
Further reading
- Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday.
- 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.
- Conzelmann, Hans and Lindemann, Andreas (1999). Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of New Testament Exegesis, English translation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
- Dormeyer, Detlev (1998). The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity, English translation. Sheffield.
- Duling, Dennis C. and Perrin, Norman (1993). The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 3d 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.
- Kennedy, H. A. A. (1919). The Theology of the Epistles. London: G. Duckworth & Co., cop. 1919, "reprinted 1952". xii, 167 p. N.B.: The emphasis of this study is upon the epistles ascribed to St. Paul.
- Levine, Amy-Jill and Brettler, Marc Z. (2011), The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Koester, Helmut (1995 and 2000). Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition, 2 volumes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Kümmel, Werner Georg (1996). Introduction to the New Testament, revised and enlarged English translation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
- Mack, Burton L. (1995). Who Wrote the New Testament?. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
- Neill, Stephen and Wright, Tom (1988). The Interpretation of the New Testametnt, 1861-1986, new edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Schnelle, Udo (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, English translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
- Zahn, Theodor (1910). Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, 3 volumes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
.jpg)
