BIBLICAL LITERATURE: NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament is a collection of twenty-seven books written by over a dozen authors with diverse theological convictions. The books were written between circa 50 ce and 150 ce. Along with the Hebrew Bible, they are the normative scriptures of the Christian churches. They gained that status only after a long and complex process; the shape of the collection took definitive form for most churches only in the fourth century.

Neither Jesus nor the early Christians knew anything of a New Testament. Their Bible was the Jewish Bible alone. Originally, Christian traditions were oral, and a preference for the oral over the written lived on into the second century. But during the last thirty or so years of the first century ce, traditions about Jesus came to be transmitted in written sources that were read at Christian gatherings. Concurrently, some communities began to use several Pauline epistles in their gatherings. Gradually, then, theological and moral authority came to be embodied in written Christian texts. However, since different writings were read in different places, and because the diversity in the early church was considerable, there was often disagreement over which texts to privilege.

The Four Gospels and Acts

Jesus did not to our knowledge write anything. He was an oral preacher, with a repertoire of parables, aphorisms, exhortations, and example stories. If, as the Gospels have it, he sent out followers to preach what he preached (see Lk. 10:2–12), they must have learned much the same repertoire, so oral transmission of the Jesus tradition must have begun before Jesus' death.

After Jesus' crucifixion, his disciples continued to recite his words, and they also began to tell stories about him. Unfortunately, the roads along which the tradition moved to the written Gospels, who moved it, and how much it changed along the way, cannot be recovered. The tradition was sometimes used in moral exhortations, other times in polemical and apologetical settings, other times in gatherings for worship. While the tradition was not fixed word-for-word, it likewise did not have the character of an amorphous folk tradition. Beyond such generalities, however, it is not known how the tradition was handled.

Sometime in the second century, for reasons unknown, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John began to circulate as a collection. This fact troubled some because these four present distinctly different pictures of Jesus and sometimes contradict each other. So some preferred to read only one gospel. In the middle of the second century, in Rome, Marcion used a version of Luke's gospel. Shortly thereafter, Tatian composed his Diatessaron, which turned four books into one. Many eastern churches accepted this harmony as canonical for three centuries thereafter. By the beginning of the third century, however, many churches were reading the fourfold collection.

Historically, most Christians, being more interested in Jesus than the evangelists, have sought to downplay the differences between the four Gospels. Modern scholarship has instead highlighted them, emphasizing that the Gospels are not just the product of their subject but also of their authors and their creative theological traditions, so that the Gospels tell us about the church as well as Jesus. By including, excluding, arranging, rewriting, offering commentary, and creating materials, each writer reflects a particular theological tradition that should not be flattened for harmony with the other writers.

The synoptic problem and Q

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as "the synoptics." They are sufficiently similar that one can place them side by side and view most of their contents synoptically, at the same time. They share many sayings and stories and often the order of those stories and sayings. About 55 percent of Mark is in Luke, and about 90 percent of Mark is in Matthew; often there is word-for-word agreement (compare, for example, Mt. 3:7–10 with Lk. 3:7–9). While it is impossible to prove that such agreements do not derive from careful memorization of the same oral tradition, most scholars take the extensive agreements to indicate a literary relationship.

The consensus that emerged in Germany, England, and the United States at the end of the nineteenth century, and that held for most of the twentieth century, is that Mark was the first written gospel, and that Matthew and Luke, independently of each other, both knew and used Mark. Matthew and Luke also had access to a lost text known as Q. This last was mostly a collection of sayings of Jesus not unlike the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas.

It is not hard to find dissenters. Some important scholars have characterized Q not as a written source but as a series of tractates or even oral sources. Others have explained the data by arguing that Mark used both Matthew and Luke, or that Mark came first, after which Matthew expanded Mark, after which Luke used both. Still, the most common view remains that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark and Q. Among the reasons, which are suggestive rather than demonstrative, are these:

(1) Texts in Mark but not in Matthew include: Mark 3:21 (Jesus' family seeks to restrain him because some think him mad); 8:22–26 (Jesus heals a blind man who then sees, but only imperfectly, and Jesus has to heal him a second time); 9:49 (Jesus says "everyone will be salted with fire"); 11:16 (Jesus forbids vessels to be carried in the temple); and 14:51–52 (a young man runs away naked when Jesus is arrested). On the theory of Markan priority, Matthew omitted these items. On the theory of Matthean priority, Mark added them. The latter is less likely, for the items catalogued are all potentially embarrassing, of uncertain meaning, or not theologically significant. It is easier to imagine someone dropping them than adding them.

(2) If Mark used Matthew, he decided not to reproduce the story of the virgin birth, the tale of the magi, the sermon on the mount, and other portions that seem memorable, entertaining, and edifying. It is unclear what would have motivated Mark to not include them.

(3) Jesus spoke Aramaic, and Mark exhibits more traces of this fact, containing as it does several Semitic words or phrases missing from both Matthew and Luke: Boanerges (3:17); talitha cum (5:41); korban (7:11); rabbouni (10:51); and abba (14:36).

(4) Matthew 's Christology, being higher than Mark 's, seems later. Jesus is called "Lord" only once in Mark but a full nineteen times in Matthew. In Mark 1:32–33 and 3:10, Jesus heals "many," but the Matthean parallels have him healing "all." Several times in Mark, Jesus asks questions, all of which are missing from Matthew (see Mk. 5:9, 30; 8:12; 9:12, 16, 33; 10:18; and 14:14). Again, whereas Mark 6:5 says Jesus "could do no deed of power" in Nazareth, Matthew 's "he did not do many deeds of power there" (13:58) not only implies that he worked some miracles but further avoids the implication, near to hand from Mark, that maybe Jesus tried but failed.

Regarding Q, Matthew and Luke alone share about 230 verses in common. It is unlikely that Matthew took them from Luke, for Matthew does not show clear knowledge of Luke's editorial work, and there are no obvious reasons for Matthew to omit memorable parts of Luke, such as the tales of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19–31) and the prodigal son (15:11–32). Similarly, it is unlikely that Luke copied Matthew, because Luke does not show clear knowledge of Matthew's editorial work, and there are no obvious reasons for Luke having omitted memorable parts of Matthew, such as Herod's slaughter of the infants (2:1–21) or the fuller version of the Lord's Prayer (6:9–13).

If Matthew and Luke are independent of each other, the non-Markan traditions they share came to them through oral tradition or in writing. Favoring a written text is the fact that most of the common material occurs in four large blocks that are in the same order in the two gospels: the sermon on the mount or plain (Mt. 5-7; Lk. 6:17–49); missionary directives (Mt. 10; Lk. 9, 10); polemic against leaders (Mt. 23; Lk 11); and eschatological matters (Mt. 24:28, 37–40; Lk. 17:20–37).

Although Q remains hypothetical, this has not prevented attempts to recover its text, date it, reconstruct its stages of composition, and so on. Particularly intense has been the debate over whether Q reflects a faith that did not have as its center the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because there is no evidence that the document contained a passion narrative or described Jesus' resurrection, this is possible. But Q 's silence can also be explained by its genre as a collection of sayings of Jesus, which need not be a full-length mirror of its community's convictions.

Matthew

Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor, wrote in the early second century: "Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language, and each one translated [or interpreted] it as he was able." These words and the traditional title According to Matthew —added at an early but uncertain date—show that some attributed this gospel to the disciple named in Matthew 9:9 and 10:3. Most now doubt the tradition. Papias and others after him consistently associated Matthew's authorship with a Semitic text, but Matthew is in Greek and seems unlikely to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a Semitic document, such as Papias speaks of, would have incorporated, as Matthew seems to have done, the Greek Mark almost in its entirety.

The author of Matthew, whatever the name, was probably a Jew. Some of the biblical quotations seem to be translated from the Hebrew specifically for the gospel (2:18, 23; 8:17; 12:18–21). There is, further, concentrated focus on the synagogue (e.g., 6:1–18; 23:1–39), as well as affirmation of the abiding force of the Mosaic law (5:17–20). And Matthew alone records Jesus' prohibitions against mission outside Israel (10:5; 15:24) and shows concern that eschatological flight not occur on a Sabbath (24:20).

Majority opinion holds that Matthew appeared in the last quarter of the first century ce A later date is excluded because Christians writers from the first part of the second century, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Papias, show knowledge of Matthew, which accordingly must have been composed before 100 ce. An earlier date is excluded because Matthew 22:7 seems to betray knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce. An origin in Antioch in Syria is a common guess, but it is no more than a guess.

The primary structure of the gospel is narrative followed by discourse followed by narrative followed by discourse, and so on:

1–4: Narrative—the main character introduced.

5–7: Discourse—Jesus' demands upon Israel.

8–9: Narrative—Jesus' deeds within and for Israel.

10: Discourse—extension of ministry through words and deeds of others.

11–12: Narrative—negative response.

13: Discourse—explanation of negative response.

14–17: Narrative—founding of new community.

18: Discourse—instructions to the new community.

19–23: Narrative—commencement of the passion.

24–25: Discourse—the future: judgment and salvation.

26–28: Narrative—conclusion: the passion and resurrection.

Matthew not only often quotes the Jewish Bible, it also draws upon it to create typologies that order and add details to the story. In chapters 1 to 5, for instance, the text again and again directs the informed reader to the foundational story in Exodus, and so teaches that Jesus is a new lawgiver whose advent inaugurates a new exodus. Herod's order to do away with the male infants of Bethlehem (2:16–18) is like Pharaoh's order to do away with every male Hebrew child (Ex. 1). The quotation of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 evokes thought of the exodus, for in its original context "Out of Egypt I have called my son" concerns Israel. Jesus, like Israel, is exiled to Egypt and then returns to the land. Matthew 2:19–21 borrows the language of Exodus 4:19–20 so that just as Moses, after being told to go back to Egypt because all those seeking his life have died, takes his wife and children and returns to the land of his birth, so too with Jesus: Joseph, after being told to go back to Israel because all those seeking the life of his son have died, takes his wife and child and returns to the land of his son's birth. When Jesus passes through the waters of baptism and then goes into the desert to suffer temptation, Matthew again recalls the exodus (cf. especially Dt. 8:2–3). Jesus, whose forty-day fast reminds one of Moses' forty-day fast (Ex. 24:18), is, like Israel, tempted by hunger (Ex. 16:2–8), tempted to put God to the test (Ex. 17:1–4; cf. Dt. 6:16), and tempted to idolatry (Ex. 32). On each occasion Matthew quotes from Deuteronomy —from 8:3 in Matthew 4:4, from 6:16 in Matthew 4:7, and from 6:13 in Matthew 4:10. After all this, Jesus goes up on a mountain, where he delivers the sermon on the mount, perhaps Christianity's most important source of ethical direction. In this he discusses the Sinai commandments of Moses (5:17–48) and delivers his own imperatives. Jesus is a new Moses.

Mark

This gospel is traditionally ascribed to John Mark. Acts mentions him several times, claiming that believers met in his mother's house in Jerusalem and that he was the cause of a falling out between the apostles Paul and Barnabas (Mk. 12:12, 25; 13:5; 15:37, 39). This man also appears in Paul's letters, where he is a coworker (Col. 4:10; 2 Tm. 4:11; Phlm. 24), as well as in 1 Peter 5:13, which associates him with Peter.

It is not known when early Mark gained its title, but the gospel was attributed to Mark in the early second century ce Papias defended Mark this way:

The Presbyter said this: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, accurately wrote what he remembered, although not in order, the things said and done by the Lord.…Mark erred not in recording what he remembered. For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he had heard nor to state any of them falsely.

Proponents of Markan authorship have asked why anyone would, without good reason, attribute a gospel to someone as relatively obscure as John Mark. Why not Peter himself? Many, nonetheless, doubt the tradition. The gospel itself nowhere purports to come from John Mark or otherwise associates itself with Peter. It furthermore makes no claim to pass on eyewitness information, nor does it contain any evidence of such; if the work had been written by a Mark even less important than John Mark, tradition might have turned one into another.

Early tradition says that Mark was composed shortly before or after Peter's death. As Peter was probably martyred in the 60s, the tradition is not here far from the modern consensus, which places Mark shortly before or after 70 ce. One reason for the consensus is that if Matthew and Luke knew Mark, and if they appeared before the end of the first century, Mark must be earlier. Another reason is that Mark 13 seems to reflect the circumstances of the late 60s and maybe the destruction of the temple in 70 ce.

According to Clement of Alexandria in the last quarter of the second century, the gospel was composed in Rome. This fits the conventional ascription to John Mark, because tradition has Peter moving to Rome and because 1 Peter 5:13 associates John Mark and Peter with Rome (represented by Babylon). Many scholars still find a Roman origin plausible and think that the gospel's emphasis upon suffering may reflect the trying conditions of Christian life in Rome in and after Nero's days. But the gospel itself contains no statement about where it was written, and other scholars believe that Galilee or somewhere else is no less likely.

Regarding Mark 's audience, probably most were Gentiles. This follows from Mark 7:3–4: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles." Apart from the problem that this statement may not be wholly accurate, it would make little sense for an author to inform Jews about Jewish customs. The gospel is, nevertheless, firmly rooted in Jewish culture and tradition. It begins by citing the Bible (Mk. 1:2–3) and continues to quote from and allude to the Scriptures throughout. Jesus' God is explicitly the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mk. 12:26). And all of the main characters are, with the exception of Pilate, Jews.

Unlike Matthew, Mark is not organized in any obvious way. Material is sometimes arranged by topic, sometimes by geography, sometimes by chronology. The parables in chapter 4 and the collection of eschatological materials in chapter 13 display a topical interest, whereas a geographical interest emerges in chapter 1, which brings together events that take place in Capernaum, as well as in the latter chapters, which bring together all of the stories about Jesus in Jerusalem. (Contrast John's gospel, in which Jesus goes up to Jerusalem several times.) The main outline of the book, however, is chronological: Jesus is baptized; then he engages in his public ministry; then he goes up to Jerusalem; then he has a last supper with his disciples; then he is arrested; then he is put on trial; then he is crucified; and then he is buried.

Like Matthew and Luke, Mark consists mostly of small units that could stand alone. More often than not paragraphs have an introduction and a conclusion and do not require a context to be understood. Evidently most of the paragraphs once functioned as isolated units. Mark was then largely responsible for the geographical and chronological placement that the stories and sayings now possess.

Mark 's ending is problematic. Mark 16:9–20 cannot, for both literary and textual reasons, be original. Scholars debate whether the book's original ending was lost or whether it ended at 16:8, without recounting a resurrection appearance. Most recent experts have favored the view that Mark exists in its entirety. But one may ask whether the current consensus, which favors 16:8 as the original, ambiguous, mysterious ending, is popular partly because it appeals to modern sensibilities, which are often suspicious of neat closure and happy endings.

Luke-Acts

Luke and Acts —the New Testament's two longest books—are now separated. Originally, however, as the two prefaces imply (Lk. 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2), they were volumes one and two of the same work, which scholars call Luke-Acts. Whether the two volumes first appeared together, or whether Acts was a sequel that appeared sometime after the gospel, is unknown. In any case, both works are from the same author, and Acts continues the story of Luke. A brief outline might look something like this:

Volume 1, Luke: How Christianity began with Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem.

1–12. The coming of Jesus (infancy, youth).

3–4:13. The call of Jesus (baptism, temptation).

4:14–9:50. The Galilean ministry (teaching, miracles).

9:51–19:48. The road to Jerusalem (teaching, miracles).

20–24. The end in Jerusalem (passion, resurrection).

Volume 2, Acts : How the apostles carried the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome.

1–12. From Jerusalem to Antioch.

13–28. From Antioch to Rome.

Jesus is the central character in volume 1; Peter in chapters 1–12 of volume 2; and Paul in chapters 13–28 of volume 2. Both volumes cover approximately the same amount of time, about thirty years.

Apart from the traditional title for the gospel (According to Luke or The Gospel according to Luke ), the earliest testimony to authorship comes from Irenaeus and Tertullian in the latter part of the second century. Both associate the gospel with the common name "Luke." Tradition identified him with a native of Antioch in Syria. Colossians 4:14 calls him a physician and implies his Gentile status. 2 Timothy 4:11 identifies him as a coworker of Paul. Some scholars think that the tradition is right, for a number of reasons. (1) Several portions of Acts use the first person plural ("we"): 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; and 27:1–28:16. As these "we" sections, which are rich with detail, are unlikely to be a fictional literary device, either the author incorporated a source ostensibly composed by one of Paul's companions or the author was such a companion. In favor of the latter is the fact that these sections do not differ in style from the rest of Acts. (2) Those sections, taken at face value, imply that their author was one of the four individuals who traveled with Paul to Rome—Titus, Jesus Justus, Crescens, or Luke. (3) Why would tradition latch onto Luke if he were not the author? Why not rather pick the better known and more important Titus? (4) Although the author of Acts probably did not know Paul's epistles, Acts does know many things that those epistles confirm, such as that Paul did not stay long in Thessalonica (Acts 17; cf. 1 Thes. ), or that Paul visited Athens but had no substantial ministry there (again Acts 17; cf. 1 Thes. 3:1; the epistles make no other mention of Athens), or that Paul had exceptional success in Ephesus (Acts 19; cf. 1 Cor. 16:8, 9).

There remain, however, many who reject the traditional ascription. The "we" passages do not make Luke any more likely a candidate for authorship than Titus or the other companions. Perhaps the tradition inferred Lukan authorship from the latter part of Acts and picked the wrong individual. It is, moreover, possible that the author took the "we" sections from a source and rewrote them, which would explain why their style matches the rest of the book. Those who hold this view typically underline the differences between Acts and the historical Paul as known from his letters. Many have thought it impossible, for instance, to reconcile the Paul of Galatians with the Paul of Acts 16:3, who has Timothy circumcised. Yet why Luke's being a companion of Paul entails that he agreed with Paul on everything or that he wrote nothing but sober history does not appear. The tradition, then, could be correct, even if the case for it falls short of demonstration.

The date of Luke-Acts raises important questions about interpretation. The usual line is that Luke-Acts had to have been written after Paul's death in the 60s because Luke 21:20 shows knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce But some find a difficulty here. Acts ends by relating that Paul lived for two years in Rome in prison (28:30–31). Could the author have concluded without narrating Paul's fate? Deaths are important events in Luke-Acts, which relates the crucifixion of Jesus (Lk. 23), Judas's suicide (Acts 1), and Stephen's martyrdom (Acts 7). So if the author knew about Paul's martyrdom, should we not expect its narration? Since it is absent, maybe it had not yet happened. Maybe Acts was written at the end of the two-year period in Acts 28, and so in the mid-60s.

This argument has persuaded only a minority, in part because there are other explanations for the ending on the assumption that Paul was dead when Luke-Acts appeared, such as: (1) A third volume was planned and, for whatever reason, never completed. (2) The author did finish, and the conclusion is one or more of the pastoral epistles. Some ancient narratives come with epistles from the hero. (3) The author wanted to present a favorable picture of Christianity to the Romans and so did not want to relate that the emperor had Paul executed. (4) The author's purpose is reached in chapter 28. Acts 1:8 speaks of the gospel going to the ends of the earth, and that is what the author cares about, not Paul's biography (which is why the book says nothing of his early life). Once the gospel goes to Rome, the story is over. Luke also says nothing about the fates of Peter or James, the brother of Jesus, nor does he tell the gruesome story of the beheading of John the Baptist. (5) The true verdict about Paul is reached in the sea storm episode in chapter 27. Here God vindicates the apostle. The subsequent earthly verdict is irrelevant. (6) Ending with Paul's death would have created an aesthetic imbalance. Luke ends not with death but resurrection. If the second book ended with a death without resurrection, it would have seemed anticlimactic.

Luke and Acts both address themselves to "Theophilus" (Lk. 1:1; Acts 1:1) whose identity is not known. He was perhaps Luke's literary patron or publisher. Some have suggested that he was a non-Christian Roman official, and that Luke-Acts was intended to correct official misapprehensions about Christianity. The word theophilus itself, however, means "lover of God" or "loved by God," and some have supposed him entirely fictional: Luke-Acts addresses itself to those who love God.

Luke-Acts seems to be for Gentile Christians. The author prefers Greek terms to Hebrew terms (e.g., the Greek master instead of rabbi, and truly instead of amen ). Jesus' controversy with the Pharisees over things clean and unclean (Mark 7) is, moreover, omitted, as are derogatory uses of the word Gentile (contrast Mt. 5:47; 6:7).

Regarding the purpose of Luke-Acts, the preface fails to allude to any specific occasion or crisis that might have called it forth. "I too have decided" is the only stated motive, and for the rest Luke 1:1–4 is formulated in frustratingly general terms. Attempting to be more specific, some have proposed that the writer wished to show Christianity to be politically harmless. After Nero, Christians became a political problem, and it is striking that in Luke-Acts Roman officials repeatedly pronounce Christian figures to be politically innocent (Lk. 23:4, 14, 22; Acts 16:39; 17:6–9; 18:12–17; 19:37–41; 23:29; 25:25; 26:31–32). Another suggestion is that the author wanted to show Christianity to be rooted in Judaism, which the empire tolerated as a legal religion. Luke 1–2 opens the story by painting a picture of pious Jews, and the rest of Luke is about Jesus the Jew and his mission to Israel. Acts begins in Jerusalem, its hero calls himself a Pharisee (23:6), and Christianity is labeled a "sect" or "party" of Judaism (24:5, 14; 28:11).

The chief literary feature of Luke-Acts may be parallelism. Both Luke and Acts open with a preface to Theophilus (Lk. 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2). Both narrate the descent of the Spirit upon those who have been praying (Lk. 3:21–22; Acts 1:14, 24; 2:1–13). Both have opening sermons that feature prophetic fulfillment and the rejection of Jesus (Lk. 4:13–30; Acts 2:14–40). Both follow this with stories of healing the lame (Lk. 5:17–26; Acts 3:1–10), conflict with Jewish leaders (Lk. 5:29–6:11; Acts 4:1–8:3), a centurion asking for help (Lk. 7:7–10; Acts 10), Pharisaic criticism of Jesus (Lk. 7:36–50; Acts 11:1–18), and so on. Not only does Acts replay Luke, but Acts 13–28 often parallels Acts 1–12, and Luke is quite fond of piling up parallels between sympathetic characters—John the Baptist and Jesus, Stephen and Jesus, Paul and Jesus, Peter and Paul. There are several explanations for this literary phenomenon, which has parallels in both Greek and Jewish sources, but one motive is a desire to set Jesus up as a moral model, whom others emulate.

John

"According to John" became affixed to the gospel sometime during the second century, at the end of which Irenaeus wrote: "All the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it [John's gospel] to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan" (who ruled 98–117); "afterwards [after the writing of the other gospels] John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."

This John is the brother of James, son of Zebedee. Mark 1:16–20 recounts his call to discipleship, and elsewhere in Mark he belongs to an inner circle around Jesus (3:17; 5:37; 9:2; 14:33). Acts presents him as a companion of Peter and as an evangelist and leader of the church (4:1, 13, 23; 8:14–17). Galatians 2:9 refers to him, along with James the brother of Jesus and Peter, as one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church.

The Fourth Gospel nowhere mentions John by name (although 21:2 refers to "the sons of Zebedee"). John's gospel does, however, speaks of "the disciple that Jesus loved": 13:23–25; 19:25–27; 20:2; 21:7, 20. It also refers to a "witness" to Jesus (19:35; 21:24), as well as someone it calls "the other disciple" (18:15–16; 20:2–10). Chapter 20 identifies this "other disciple" with the beloved disciple, and 19:35 implies that the beloved is the "witness."

Putting everything together, the beloved disciple belongs to Jesus' inner group. He is present at the last supper (Jn. 13), Mary is entrusted to him (Jn. 19:25–27), and he is among the group in 21:2, which includes Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee, and two other unnamed disciples. He is clearly not Peter. Nor can he be James (Acts 12:2 has James martyred very early); and since he belongs to Jesus' inner circle, tradition identified him with John, son of Zebedee. The identification is consistent with the gospel's knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem (see, e.g., Jn. 4:5; 5:2; 9:7; 19.13).

One difficulty with the tradition is that John's gospel was not widely used in the second century, which is odd if it was known as the work of an apostle. Furthermore, the "we" of 21:24 cannot be the beloved disciple himself. So perhaps the book was published anonymously and became attached to John's name because the church felt the need to give the document apostolic authority. This might have been especially important given the differences between John and the synoptics, which have always been obvious.

It seems likely that John's gospel was the product of a long process and that more than one person was involved in its editing. This would account for 21:24, where the author speaks in the first-person plural and appears to be different from the beloved disciple, and for 19:35, which speaks of the beloved disciple in the third person. In this case, the beloved disciple, whether John or not, could have been a follower of Jesus who was thought of as the source and guarantee of the tradition behind the gospel.

Whether the author of John knew the synoptics is disputed. One possibility is that the author did know them and wanted to supplement them, correct their omissions, and so on. This would make sense of all that is present in John but not the synoptics. It does not, however, explain the many overlaps. Common to John and the synoptics are, among other things, the cleansing of the temple, the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the water, the entry into Jerusalem, the anointing of Jesus, the arrest of Jesus, the denials of Peter, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, and the discovery of empty tomb. So others have imagined that the author wanted to correct the synoptics. One can interpret Matthew and Luke as doing this to Mark. But then one could also consider the option that the author wanted to replace or oust the synoptics.

Still another option is that John 's author did not know the synoptics at all. Yet John appeared some time after Mark (see below), and there are overlaps with Luke's gospel in particular that may suggest literary contact. Both gospels tell us that Satan entered into Judas (Lk. 22:3; Jn. 13:27), that Peter cut off the right ear of a servant (Lk. 22:50; Jn. 18:10), that Jesus' tomb was new (Lk. 23:53; Jn. 19:41), that there were two angels at the tomb (Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:12), that there were resurrection appearances in Jerusalem (Lk. 24; Jn. 20), and that the risen Jesus invited the disciples to touch him (Lk. 24:36; Jn. 20:19). Even if, however, John 's author knew one or more of the synoptics, use of an independent tradition remains plausible. Apart from traditions going back to the beloved disciple and perhaps the synoptics, John's gospel probably incorporates a traditional passion narrative, a collection of numbered miracle stories designed to show Jesus' messianic status (scholars dub this the "Signs Source"), and various oral traditions.

Most now date John to between 80 and 100 ce. Tradition has John written after the other gospels, during the time of Trajan (98–117 ce). Such a late date is consistent with both 21:18–19, which probably presupposes the tradition about Peter's martyrdom, and 21:22–23, which reflects eschatological disillusionment when the last of Jesus' disciples had died (some believed that Jesus would return before all of his disciples had passed on; see Mk. 9:1). A date later than this is prohibited by an early second-century papyrus fragment containing John 8:31–33 and 8:37–38. A date in the 90s or shortly after the turn of the century seems plausible.

Scholars have offered an array of suggestions concerning John 's purpose: (1) To record the testimony of the beloved disciple, an eyewitness to Jesus. (2) To supplement, correct, or displace the synoptics. (3) To discourage Christians from maintaining contact with the Jewish synagogue. This would explain the emphasis upon how Jesus replaces Jewish institutions. Again and again John uses "the Jews" in a disparaging way. (4) Maybe John counters Christians who denied the physical reality of Jesus. Such people were certainly around not long after John was written, and if 1:14 emphases that the "word" became flesh, 19:34 speaks of the blood and water coming from Jesus' side. (5) Maybe John encourages Christians. John 20:31 can be read as an invitation to continue to believe, and most of John 13–17 functions to edify believers and build up their faith.

John 's differences from the synoptics raise questions about its status as a historical source. The gospel presents Jesus as the Logos (1:1–18) and has Jesus regularly speak in long discourses with a central theme. John 's Jesus uses certain words and expressions repeatedly that are rare in the synoptics (e.g., "to love," "I am," "life"). Only John clearly teaches Jesus' preexistence and deity (see especially 1:1–18), and only John 's Jesus makes clear public statements about himself (e.g., 6:35: "I am bread of life"; 8:12: "I am the light of the world"; 10:30: "I and the Father are one"). In the synoptics, Jesus favors parables and aphorisms; in John, these are rare. In the synoptics, Jesus celebrates Passover; in John, the Passover lamb is slaughtered as Jesus is being crucified. In the synoptics, Jesus enters the temple at the end of his ministry; in John, Jesus does this at the beginning. In the synoptics, the central theme of Jesus' proclamation is the "kingdom of God"; in John, Jesus uses the term only twice. In the synoptics, Jesus is preoccupied with future eschatology; in John, Jesus focuses on the present (see, e.g., 5:25; 6:47; 16:11). In the synoptics, Jesus goes to Jerusalem once; in John, he goes three times, and the public ministry lasts at least three years.

The synoptic picture of Jesus is closer to history than John 's portrait. Not only does John 's higher Christology reflect later developments, but John 's author was not much concerned to differentiate his own words from those of Jesus. There are places, such as the end of John 3, where modern editors cannot even agree on where a quotation from Jesus ends and the editor's words begin. Because comparison with the synoptics proves that there are traditional words of Jesus embedded in John, the long discourses may have developed from reflection upon those words; they may indeed be something like homilies upon them.

The Letters Attributed to Paul

Thirteen New Testament letters purport to come from Paul. When one adds that he is the major figure in Acts, he clearly dominates half of the New Testament. One wonders whether Paul was as important in his own time as his prominence in the canon implies, or whether his canonical importance exaggerates his initial significance and influence. Whatever the answer, the collection of letters assigned to him must be the primary source for his life and thought. Although Paul's self-perception and accounts of events cannot be taken at face value, they must be deemed more reliable than the flattering presentation in Acts, whoever authored it.

Of the thirteen canonical Pauline epistles, scholars recognize seven as undoubtedly from Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon —all of which come from the second half of his ministry, circa 50 ce and later. The authorship of 2 Thessalonians and Colossians are disputed. Most scholars think that Ephesians and the so-called pastoral epistles—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus —were written in Paul's name after his death.

Romans

Paul wrote this essay in letter form, his most systematic product, during his last visit to Corinth, probably in 56 or 57 ce He was on his way to Jerusalem with money he had collected for the church there. Little is known about Christianity in Rome at that time. Paul was not the founder of the church, which consisted of both Jews—the Jewish population of Rome was substantial—and Gentiles. Romans 1:13 and 11:13 imply that Gentile Christians outnumbered Jewish Christians.

The occasion and purpose of the letter are cloudy. Local circumstances could have called it forth. Perhaps Paul had heard reports of conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians and wished to help. Yet given that most of the letter has a general character and addresses issues that do not seem specific to the Roman church, it is more common to see Romans in a broader context. Maybe the letter is Paul's attempt to clarify his own mind about certain matters, especially in view of his upcoming visit to Jerusalem and the trouble he anticipated there, although the suggestion that Paul wanted a copy of Romans sent to Jerusalem is not demonstrable. More persuasive are attempts to read Romans as a sort of introduction to Paul himself, sent to prepare the way for his coming to the empire's capital (see 1:10–11; 15:15, 20, 24, 28–29). Paul was a controversial figure about whom rumors must have flourished, and if he planned on going to Rome and using it as a missionary base for his work in Spain, he may have felt a need to explain clearly what he was all about and so recommend himself.

The original form of Romans is problematic. The doxology, 16:25–27, is missing in some ancient manuscripts, and the preceding 16:24 ("The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.") is unlikely to be pristine. Some textual authorities put 16:25–27 immediately after chapter 14, or immediately after chapter 15; others put it in both places, and it is altogether missing from still others. A few Latin manuscripts omit 15:1–16:23, and the third-century church father Origen says that the second-century heretic, Marcion, removed the last two chapters. In addition, some textual authorities do not name Rome in 1:7 and 15.

Several accounts of the data are possible. (1) Paul composed a letter to the Roman church, containing everything except 16:24–27. He then reissued the letter, omitting the last two chapters, which contain much personal material. He also excised "Rome" from 1:7 and 15, thus creating a treatise for a larger audience. (2) Paul turned a general letter into a letter for Rome. Originally he composed a general essay, which he then revised for the Roman community in particular by naming Rome in 1:7 and 15 and adding chapter 16 or chapters 15 and 16. (3) Perhaps Paul sent chapters 1 to 15 to Rome and afterward added chapter 16, sending the enlarged, expanded letter to Ephesus, which is associated with many of the people Romans 16 names. (4) Maybe chapter 16 is an independent Pauline letter, sent to Ephesus, and someone other than Paul preserved it by tacking it onto the end of Romans. (5) Origen may have been right: someone omitted the last two chapters. Since 14:23 does not work well as an ending, someone added the doxology in 16:25–27.

After the introduction in 1:1–15, Romans 1:16–3:20 indicts humanity's sin and guilt. The chapters are unremittingly bleak, and among the most pessimistic evaluations of the human condition in ancient literature. Such pessimism is the foil for 3:21–8:39, with its thesis in 3:21–31. This large section presents the solution to humanity's plight, which is the grace of God in Jesus Christ, to be appropriated by faith. Paul's presentation of this solution involves a critique of the Jewish Torah, but the attack is less sweeping and more moderate than in Galatians. Paul is in Romans inclined to say positive things about the law. Perhaps the strident statements in Galatians had proved to be too extreme even in Paul's own eyes.

Romans 9:1–11:36, which historically has been a theological battleground for debates over free will and predestination, addresses the problem of Israel, which was occasioned by the failure of so many Jews to accept the Christian Gospels. How could Israel not embrace the messiah? What of God's promises to Israel? The logic of these three chapters is tortured because Paul's reduction of salvation to Christology resists harmonization with his biblically inspired faith in the redemption of Israel.

Romans 12:1–15:13, which at points echoes sayings attributed to Jesus, outlines Paul's ethic. His critique of the Torah disallows him from simply citing its ethical imperatives as authoritative, even though his counsels are for the most part taken over from Jewish tradition. He in effect reinvents the law by grounding proper behavior in Christian theology.

Christians have often found in Romans an account of Judaism as a religion of salvation based on works, of a legalism unconnected to God's grace. Jewish sources, whether biblical, intertestamental, or rabbinic, do not support this view, which is a caricature due not only to a misreading of Paul but also to Paul's tendentious generalizations. The apostle offers neither an objective account of Jewish life under the law nor an insider's sympathetic understanding, but rather pens polemic in the service of his cause. His arguments, in the final analysis, issue from his seeing matters through the eyes of his Gentile converts. Some in the early church desired those converts to undergo circumcision and otherwise follow Jewish customs. Paul instead sponsored a theology according to which Gentiles fully participate in redemption, and he disagreed fervently with those who urged that those born outside the covenant with Abraham needed, in addition to their faith in Jesus Christ, to undergo circumcision and embrace other distinctive Jewish practices. It was this conflict regarding Gentiles that led to Paul's sweeping generalizations about the law. He could have been fairer to Judaism had he simply affirmed that the Torah was never intended for Gentiles, or if he had not treated the law as a whole but rather argued for its partial observance (which is what in fact most Christians have done ever since). Paul, however, took another course, and the outcome is no guide to how Judaism looked and felt to its practitioners.

The Corinthian correspondence

The Corinthian correspondence supplies the most valuable information available about early Gentile Christianity. The letters, although a record of what happened to one church, presumably reflect the sorts of problems faced by Gentile converts everywhere in the Roman world.

Corinth is located near the isthmus that links the Peloponnesus to mainland Greece. In Paul's day it was the capital of the province of Achaia and a cosmopolitan seaport. Paul founded the Christian community there and spent two years ministering in the area (see Acts 18).

To read 1 and 2 Corinthians is to hear only one side of the conversation, so much remains hidden. But from the letters and Acts 18 one can reconstruct a sequence of events into which it is possible to place 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Paul first visited Corinth in 50 or 51 ce During his extended stay, he made converts, began a house church, and handed down Christian traditions. He did not, however, remain the only Christian leader known to the Corinthians. Apollos and probably Peter came to Corinth soon after his departure (1 Cor. 1:12; 9:4–5).

After leaving Corinth, Paul sent to the Corinthians a letter no longer extant (unless 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1, which badly disrupts its present context and seems secondary, preserves part of it). 1 Corinthians 5:9 refers to this letter: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men." In part as a response to this lost letter, the Corinthians wrote their own letter to Paul, to which most of 1 Corinthians (composed 52–55 ce) is a point-by-point reply. 1 Corinthians 7:1 (on marriage and divorce), 25 (on virgins), 8:1 (on food offered to idols), 12:1 (on spiritual gifts), 16:1 (on the collection for the church in Jerusalem), and 12 (on Apollos) all open with the phrase, "Now concerning," and in each case Paul is responding to Corinthian queries. He even at points seems to quote the Corinthians: "All things are lawful" (6:12; 10:23); "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1); and "All of us possess knowledge" (8:1).

The various topics that 1 Corinthians addresses are not all clearly related to each other; they cannot be traced to one central theological idea. Rather, there was a host of issues. Some Corinthians valued other teachers more than Paul (1 Cor. 1:11–16; 3:10–4:20). Some thought the apostle insufficiently sophisticated (3:1–9). One man was living with his stepmother (5:1–13). Some believers had taken others to court (6:1–8). There were questions about divorce as well as virginity, which some Corinthians reckoned a superior state (7:1–40). There was debate over whether believers could eat food consecrated to pagan idols (8:1–11:1). Some women—virgins wishing to display their equality with men?—were worshiping without head coverings (11:2–16). The common meal of the community was fractured by cliques, probably according to social status (11:17–34). Ecstatic gifts were creating disorder in worship and becoming an inordinate source of pride (12:1–14:40). 1 Corinthians 14:33b(34)–36, with its prohibition of women speaking in church, may be an interpolation; it contradicts 11:2–16, where women pray and prophesy. In addition, some Corinthians evidently had an anthropology that made bodily resurrection unnecessary and unwanted (15:1–58).

1 Corinthians was followed by a "painful visit" (see 2 Cor. 2:1; 12:14; 13:1). Clearly the letter had not worked its intended result. Perhaps already by the time of the second visit, Jewish Christian teachers, with letters of commendation from Jerusalem, had arrived and were offering criticism of Paul (see 2 Cor. 3:1; 11:4–6, 22–23).

After the failure of his second visit, Paul sent from Ephesus through Titus a "severe letter" (see 2 Cor. 3–4, 9; 7:8). Some have identified this letter with 2 Corinthians 10–13; others believe it has been lost. Whatever the truth, this severe letter was followed by 2 Corinthians 1–9 (chapters 8 and 9 should probably not be considered separate letters, occasional opinion to the contrary). Titus had returned with good news (2 Cor. 7:2), which explains Paul's thanksgiving and confidence in much of 2 Corinthians. He is irenic, however, only in chapters 1–9. Chapters 10–13 are defensive and polemical and reflect a different situation. If 2 Corinthians 10–13 was sent before chapters 1–9, it apparently met a favorable response, given the relief and gratitude expressed in 2 Corinthians 1–9. If 2 Corinthians 10–13 was sent after chapters 1–9, then 2 Corinthians 1–9 must have met an unsympathetic hearing. In either case, Paul determined to visit Corinth for a third time (see 2 Cor. 12:14; Acts 10:1–2). What happened then is not known.

Galatians

Paul preached in Galatia, where an infirmity perhaps delayed his departure (4:13). He founded several house churches there. After Paul left Galatia, other Christian teachers arrived. Although these were, like Paul, Jewish Christians, they regarded him as promoting an inferior brand of Christianity, and he viewed them as enemies of his proclamation. Their theology can be partly inferred from Galatians 4:10 ("You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years") and 6:12–13 ("They want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh"). They demanded that Gentile Christians observe Jewish practices.

Despite scholarly ingenuity, many questions remain unanswered. It is unclear whether the teachers with whom Paul disagreed were closely connected with either James or those whom Paul debated in Jerusalem according to 2:3–6. Nor is it known whether, in addition to the Jewish Christians who imposed circumcision, other agitators promoted an antinomianism (some see this in 5:13–6:10). How the Galatians responded to Paul's passionate pleas is a mystery—although his conviction that Gentiles should not be circumcised eventually became the dominant position of the church.

Commentators dispute whether Paul wrote to Celts living in the northern part of Roman Galatia or whether his converts lived in the southern section of the province, where most were not Celts. There is also debate over the date of composition. Some think Galatians was written in 49 or 50 ce. Others believe a date in the later 50s better fits the evidence. The issues are complex and involve deciding whether the meeting in Jerusalem in Galatians 2 should be equated with the council of Acts 15 or instead with the episode in Acts 11:29–30. The tendency of modern scholarship is to favor the northern destination, the later date, and the equation of Galatians 2 with Acts 15.

The introduction, Galatians 1:1–9, contains, uncharacteristically for a Pauline letter, a rebuke (1:6–9). Notably missing is any thanksgiving. Galatians 1:10–2:21 follows with an autobiographical defense (the starting point for any reconstruction of Pauline chronology). Here Paul stresses the divine origin of his ministry, his independence from Jerusalem, others' recognition of his ministry, and Peter's hypocrisy in dealing with Gentile Christians. In 3:1–5:1, Paul offers arguments from experience (3:1–5), from Scripture (3:6–9; 4:21–31), and from Christology (3:10–4:20) to buttress his understanding of a law-free gospel and to impeach those with another point of view. The last major section, 5:2–6:10, which conceives of the moral struggle as a battle between "spirit" and "flesh," contains exhortations; Paul at least did not feel that his theology entailed ethical indifference. It is noteworthy that 6:2 refers to "the law of Christ." While the expression remains susceptible to various interpretations, Paul cannot, despite the seeming implication of his polemic, do without some sort of "law."

Ephesians

This letter opens with a salutation (1:1–2) and a long thanksgiving (1:3–23). Ephesians 2:1–10 follows with an account of the saving benefits that have come to those with faith in Christ, who were formerly captive to "the prince of the power of the air." Ephesians 2:11–22 displays the collective nature of those benefits though an exposition of the church as a manifestation of the new humanity, in which the differences between Jew and Gentile no longer count. Ephesians 3:1–13, which sounds like a retrospective paean, not an authentic self-evaluation, testifies to Paul and his distinctive role in disseminating God's revelation throughout the world. Then, in 3:14–21, the author seemingly reverts to the prayer of chapter 1, asking that the recipients may be strengthened, grounded in love, and filled with knowledge of "the love of Christ." Ephesians 4:1–6:20 explores the behavioral implications of the preceding theology. Believers are to seek unity among themselves (4:1–16), lay aside pagan habits (4:17–5:20), observe proper rules for the household (5:21–6:9), and live in truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and prayer (6:10–20).

Paul did not write Ephesians. There is an uncharacteristic absence of personal data, and the concerns are not those of a concrete community. Much of the vocabulary and style are also un-Pauline. Decisive against the traditional attribution is the dependence upon Colossians. Readers may compare, to illustrate this, Ephesians 1:15–17 with Colossians 1:3–4, 9–10; Ephesians 4:31–32 with Colossians 3:8, 12; and Ephesians 6:5–9 with Colossians 3:22–4:1. Notably, the traditional text of Ephesians 1:1, with "the faithful who are at Ephesus," is secondary. Originally, the recipients were unnamed.

Given that Christian writers of the first half of the second century clearly knew Ephesians, it was presumably written not long after Paul's death. That it was composed to introduce a collection of the apostle's epistles is an intriguing if unproven suggestion. In any case, Ephesians is someone's meditation on Paul and a development of his theology and ethics. The place of composition cannot be determined.

Philippians

Paul wrote this letter to his first European converts, the Christians of Philippi in Macedonia (see Acts 16). At the time of writing, Paul was in prison (Phil. 1:12–26). Whether this was his Roman imprisonment (see Acts 28), as most used to think, is uncertain. The date in this case would be the early 60s. Some think rather of Caesarea, where Paul was a prisoner in the late 50s ce according to Acts 23–24, or of Ephesus, where, despite the silence of Acts, Paul may have been a prisoner for a time (c. 56 ce).

To judge from Philippians 2:25–29 and 4:18, the Philippians sent Epaphroditus to Paul with a gift, presumably of money. Philippians is Paul's happy response. He takes the occasion to return his thanksgiving for the Philippians, to whom he seems particularly attached (1:3–11). He describes his circumstances and entertains the possibility of his own death (1:12–26), offers ethical admonitions (1:27–2:18), shares news (2:19–3:1), warns against proponents of circumcision (3:2–11), commends himself as an example for emulation (3:12–4:1), gives counsel regarding Euodia and Syntyche (4:2–3), calls for rejoicing in all things—poignant given his circumstances (4:4–13)—and thanks the Philippians for their gift (4:14–20).

The tone of chapter 3 differs from the tone of chapters 1 and 2. Common, then, is the proposal that Philippians is a conflation of two letters, one consisting perhaps of 3:1b–4:20 or 23, the other of 1:1–3:1a (+ 4:21–23). Even more popular has been the suggestion that Philippians combines three originally separate letters: a polemical letter in 3:1b–4:3 + 4:8–9; a letter of thanks for the Philippians' gift in 4:10–20 or 23; and a longer letter in 1:1–3:1a + 4:4–7 + (perhaps) 21–23. It is hard to know how to evaluate such proposals. Authentic letters of Paul do contain some abrupt shifts. Many have not been compelled to deny the unity of the letter.

Colossians

The authorship of Colossians continues to be disputed, although perhaps most authorities now doubt that Paul wrote it. The opponents are unlike any in other authentic letters. (The problem in Colossae cannot be identified with the problem in Galatia.) Jesus' cosmic role in creation and redemption is distinctive, as is the church's participation in his cosmic authority. The eschatology is more realized than what is otherwise found in Paul. And there are some stylistic peculiarities. Some scholars, however, maintain that Colossians is distinctive because of the unique situation it addresses and because Paul allowed a secretary some compositional freedom or even assigned its composition to an associate.

Colossae was a small town about a hundred miles east of Ephesus in Asia Minor. Colossians 1:7 implies that Paul's associate, Epaphras, founded the church there. If Colossians came from Paul, he wrote it at the same time he sent Philemon (see below). If it is a pseudepigraphon, written in the last quarter of the first century, the author gave the work the appearance of authenticity by borrowing personal details from Philemon.

Colossians opposes Christians who sponsor a "philosophy" (2:8), observe Jewish food laws and a Jewish calendar (2:16), value visionary experiences (2:18), and venerate angels or participate in the angel's heavenly liturgy (2:18). There is no consensus concerning the Colossians' identity and the source of their convictions. Commentators have thought of Christians enamored of Hellenistic philosophy, or of people who mixed their Christianity with a pagan mystery cult, or of mystical Jewish visionaries, perhaps related to those who composed many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or of Jewish Christians on the path toward Gnosticism.

1 Thessalonians

According to Acts 17, Paul, Silas, and Timothy founded the church in Thessalonica, Macedonia's capital. Because of opposition, they soon left. Anxious about his converts, Paul sent Timothy back to the Thessalonians. When Timothy subsequently returned to Paul with news, Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth (probably only a few months after he left). The letter is full of gratitude for how well the Thessalonians, despite suffering, have fared. Although 1 Thessalonians is the earliest extant of Paul's letters (c. 50 ce), it was written after he had been a Christian for approximately fifteen years, so it need not reflect an immature theology.

The first three chapters are mostly personal. 1 Thessalonians 4:1–12 offers general exhortations. 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 explains that Christians who have died will share in Jesus' return. Evidently Paul had preached an imminent second advent. When more than one Thessalonian Christian died, there was dismay. Such dismay may well have been exacerbated by non-Christians who attributed the deaths to supernatural vengeance. Paul in any event had not said much about the general resurrection, probably because his converts' ancestors were not Christians. 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, with close parallels in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, presents the Parousia (Second Coming) as near and sure to come suddenly.

2 Thessalonians

This letter depicts the eschatological judgment (1:5–12) and outlines events on the day of the Lord (2:1–12). Between the eschatological teaching in chapters 1 and 2 is an appeal "not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here" (2:1–2). The nature of this conviction is unclear. Is it a spiritualized or fully realized eschatology? Is it belief in a very near end? Is it the conviction that certain events in the eschatological scenario, including the punishment of enemies, have already taken place?

Unlike 1 Thessalonians, the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is controversial. Many are suspicious of the extensive overlap between 1 and 2 Thessalonians, which they take as a sign of the latter copying the former (compare, for example, 2 Thes. 3:8 with 1 Thes. 2:9). Questions are also raised by 1 Thessalonians 3:17 ("This greeting is with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine"), which may imply a collection of Paul's letters. Further questions are raised by the length of the sentences, which are longer than is Paul's wont, and by the eschatological scenario in chapter 2, which stands in tension with 1 Thessalonians 4–5 (in 1 Thessalonians the day comes like a thief; in 2 Thessalonians it follows a well-defined series of events). This last consideration, however, does not count for much because Paul is elsewhere inconsistent and because ancient eschatological discourses often display contradictions.

If Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, he wrote it after 1 Thessalonians, perhaps after several return visits. He was concerned about discouragement brought by persecution and by the failure of some to continue working for a living. If Paul did not write 2 Thessalonians, then someone late in the first century, in a context of persecution, sought in his name to impart eschatological instruction and encouragement.

The pastorals

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, collectively known as the pastoral epistles, address themselves not to communities but to two leaders that Paul left in charge of churches, Timothy in Ephesus and Titus on Crete. Like the correspondence between Paul and Seneca, the pastorals are pseudepigrapha. Someone wrote them in Paul's name at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century.

1 Timothy consists mostly of two sorts of material. Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6 concern themselves with church administration—with the ordering of public worship (2:1–15), for instance, and with the behavior of women and widows (5:3–16)—as well as with more general moral guidance. Chapters 1 and 4 counter false teaching. It is most likely that an early form of Gnosticism is the target. The author's opponents occupy themselves with "myths" (1:4), practice some sort of asceticism (4:3), and possess what the pastor calls a false gnosis, or knowledge (6:20). 1 Timothy 6:18 suggests not only a knowledge of 1 Corinthians 9 but also seemingly quotes Luke 10:7 as "scripture," a circumstance impossible in Paul's lifetime.

2 Timothy, which has more claim that 1 Timothy or Titus to be from someone who knew Paul, purports to be composed from a Roman prison (1:16–17), with Paul's death near (4:6–8). 2 Timothy 2:14–3:9 warns against false doctrine, including the conviction that the resurrection is past (2:17–18). The exact nature of this realized eschatology is unknown, although it proponents may be Gnostics, who sometimes spoke of a present resurrection (as in the Treatise on the Resurrection from Nag Hammadi).

Titus, addressed to a Gentile companion of Paul known from 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 2 Timothy, but not Acts, consists primarily of instructions on the appointment of leaders and exhortations to defend sound doctrine. It largely replays 1 Timothy. Chapter 1 focuses on elders and bishops in the context of "rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision" (1:10). Chapter 2 offers advice for older men, older women, younger men, and slaves (2:1–10) and concludes with a general summary of Christian behavior. Chapter 3 continues to outline the Christian response to God's actions in Jesus Christ and then ends with personal details intended to add verisimilitude to the letter (3:12–15).

Philemon

Although the brief letter is cryptic about some things, it seems best to follow the conventional view that Onesimus, the slave of the Christian Philemon, had run away from his master. Onesimus then sought an advocate in Paul, who wrote and flattered Philemon in the hope of reconciling him to Onesimus upon the latter's return. But what exactly Paul was asking Philemon to do is unclear, and there is no way of finding out what did in fact happen. Did Paul want Onesimus to turn around and come back to him, or did he expect Onesimus to stay with Philemon? Or was he willing to let Philemon decide that? And did Paul expect Philemon to treat Onesimus differently thereafter, or even to manumit him? The latter possibility seems doubtful. One should not forget that Christians who supported the slave trade appealed to Philemon; they observed that Paul nowhere in this or other letters does much to undermine slavery.

Paul wrote Philemon in prison. The parallels in personal matters it shares with Colossians imply that, if the latter is authentic, the two letters were sent to Colossae at the same time (note Col. 4:9). If Paul wrote from Ephesus, the date would be circa 56. If he wrote from Rome, a date in the early 60s would be required.

Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles

Following the Gospels and Paul, the New Testament contains eight additional letters. These had a harder time making it into the canon. Hebrews comes first because of its mistaken ascription to Paul; it serves as a conclusion to the Pauline collection. The remaining seven letters are traditionally assigned to four authors—James, Peter, John (compare the order of Gal. 2:9), and Jude. Unlike the Pauline epistles, the titles identify the authors rather the recipients (e.g., "The Epistle of James" versus "To the Romans"). The general character of these letters encouraged the conviction that they address the church universal. From the fourth century on they have collectively been known as the "Catholic epistles."

Hebrews

While often in the past attributed to Paul (although not in the West until the fourth century), this rhetorically polished work, so heavily indebted to Platonism, was originally anonymous. No contemporary scholar believes that Paul wrote it, although at points the author shows a knowledge of Pauline thought. Some have guessed that it was written by a member of Paul's circle, but Origen's comment that "only God knows" stands. The book is not, despite the epistolary ending, formally a letter, and the title, "To the Hebrews," cannot be original. The date of composition was probably between 60 and 90 ce. Some have insisted that it must come from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce, for the author uses the present tense for activities in the temple (7:27–28; 8:3–5; etc.). But many rabbinic texts composed long after 70 also speak of the temple as though it were still standing. A date before 90 is required by the fact that 1 Clement, probably written in the 90s, quotes from Hebrews. The places of writing and destination are unknown (although Jerusalem and Rome have been common proposals for the latter).

Despite the traditional title, the first readers need not have been Jews. A Gentile or mixed readership is possible. The concerns vocalized, such as that its readers are "sluggish" (6:12), or that some Christians are no longer meeting together (10:25), do not allow us to say anything concrete about the recipients or their situation. All that is know of the recipients is that they had suffered affliction (10:32–34). If the author was combating particular opponents, there is no way detect who they were.

There are three highly structured discourses. Hebrews 1:5–4:16 argues for Jesus Christ's superiority over angels and Moses. Hebrews 5:1–10:39 presents Jesus as a great high priest whose invisible heavenly realities mirror the priestly duties of Jewish tradition. This section famously develops the parallels between Jesus and Melchizedek, whose fleeting presence in the story of Abraham scarcely prepares readers for what they find here. Hebrews 11:1–13:19 then contains calls to faith and moral exhortations.

James

James is an enigma. The identity of its author is unknown, as are the date and place of composition. The book moreover does not develop as an argument but instead seems to touch on loosely related topics. Its purpose remains unclear. Equally unclear is the sort of Christianity it represents.

Tradition assigns the book to James, Jesus' brother. While one cannot rule out his authorship entirely, it is more likely that the book is a pseudepigraphon. The good Greek, the possible dependence upon 1 Peter, the fact that nothing but the title and opening line of the book link it to James, and the work's long struggle for canonical acceptance all go against the conventional ascription.

The date, on the theory of pseudonymity, is hard to guess. While there are possible contacts with works from the early second century (1 Clement; Shepherd of Hermas ), there is no clear knowledge of James until the beginning of the third century, when Origen refers to it. There are three papyrus scraps of James from the third century. Although maybe most scholars now date James to the end of the first century, a later date is possible.

James displays several anomalous features. One is its reluctance to be explicitly Christian. Jesus is mentioned only twice, in 1:1 and 2:1, and the relevant clause in 2:1 has often, because of its grammatical awkwardness, been reckoned an interpolation. The obviously Christian elements are so sparse that a few have claimed the text was originally Jewish; Christian hands then added the references to Jesus in 1:1 and 2:1. But this cannot be right. James borrows too heavily from traditions that were specifically Christian for it to be non-Christian in origin. The teaching on oaths in 5:12, for instance, clearly reproduces the same tradition that lies behind Matthew 5:34–37, which presumably goes back to Jesus and which in any event was handed down through Christian channels. Chapter 2, moreover, is almost certainly polemic directed at Paul or people influenced by him: James looks like a Christian document.

Even if James must be Christian, Jesus' crucifixion is not alluded to. Nor is anything said about his resurrection or exaltation. The deeds of Jesus, so important for the synoptic evangelists and John, also fail to put in an appearance, and one searches in vain for any remark upon Jesus' character or his status as a moral model—a striking omission given the appeals to other moral models. The tradition of his words is alluded to, perhaps often, but the author never says "This comes from Jesus." James likewise has nothing to say about baptism, the Lord's Supper, the Holy Spirit, or fulfilled prophecy. Martin Luther speculated that James was written by a Jew who did not know much about Christianity.

Another striking feature of James is that it is written to "the twelve tribes in the diaspora." While commentators often equate the twelve tribes with the church, this is not convincing. Certainly nothing demands a Gentile audience; much suggests a Jewish one. James 2:21 calls Abraham "our father" without any hint that the expression has a transferred sense. The readers gather in a "synagogue" (2:2). In 2:19, their faith is embodied in the Shema' ("You believe that God is one"; see Dt. 6:4). The writer calls God "the Lord Sabaoth" without explanation (5:4). And all the moral exemplars are from Jewish tradition—Abraham, Rahab, the prophets, Job, Elijah. More than this, parts of James do not seem to address believing Christians. James 4:1–10 demands that readers submit themselves to God, resist the devil, cleanse their hands, purify their minds, mourn and weep, and humble themselves. These individuals are called "adulterers" (4:4) and "sinners" (4:8). They are full of covetousness (4:2) and are friends of the world and enemies of God (4:4). They are even guilty of murder (4:2). James 4:13–5:6 upbraids the rich who are about to suffer eschatological misery, people who have "condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you" (5:3–6).

One explanation of James is that it addresses a fictional audience (the twelve tribes) and that it represents a distinctive sort of Jewish Christianity still trying to make its way within the synagogue. James condemns persecutors and communicates that Jesus' followers are not apostates but faithful members of the synagogue who live according to the Jewish moral tradition, keep the Torah, and oppose those who want to divide faith from works. One might further attempt to relate James to one of the groups Johannine scholarship has detected behind the scenes of John's gospel—Jews who attended synagogue and believed in Jesus but did not proselytize. Such crypto-Christians, as they have been called, promoted tolerance.

The most controversial part of James has been 2:14–26. These verses, which discuss faith and works, are likely aimed against the perceived teaching of Paul. Many believe the argument is misdirected because Paul and James use the word faith differently. For Paul, faith is trust in Jesus Christ. In James, it is intellectual assent. While the latter may exist without good works, the former, so it is claimed, cannot. Whatever the theological truth, James may be less a response to the historical Paul than a reaction to a later version of Paulinism, which someone perceived as disconnecting ethics from faith.

1 Peter

This collection of exhortations and moral and religious guidance has no clear outline or developed argument. It addresses itself to "the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ" (1:1–2). As the readers are Gentiles (1:14, 18, 21; 2:10, 25; 4:3), "the Dispersion" must stand for the church in exile from the pagan world in Asia Minor. The letter's chief aim is to offer encouragement to Christians who are suffering social ostracism for their faith.

The work attributes itself to Peter and claims to come from Rome. (In 1 Pt. 5:13, as in Rev., Babylon represents Rome). If this is the truth, it must have been penned before Peter's death in the mid-60s. But Petrine authorship should be doubted. The Greek is better than one would expect from a Galilean fisherman. If one responds that Sylvanus (see 1 Pt. 5:12) was commissioned to write it and is responsible for the language, nothing apart from the title and the claim of the opening verse ties the letter to Peter. The work betrays no first-hand knowledge of Jesus. And if one were going to write in someone else's name, one could hardly do better than Peter. Other pseudonymous works, such as the Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter, circulated under his name.

1 Peter probably appeared not long after Peter's death. For one thing, the letter was known to Polycarp and Papias in the first half of the second century. For another, the view of the Roman Empire is less critical than in Revelation, which probably appeared in the last decade of the first century. A date between 70 and 90 ce is likely.

2 Peter

Presenting itself as a follow-up to 1 Peter (see 3:1), this letter contains three main sections. 2 Peter 1:3–21 mixes exhortations to holiness with a defense of the author's authority. 2 Peter 2:1–22 attacks false teachings with language that in large part reproduces Jude (but out of anxiety omits Jude 's borrowing from extra-canonical material). 2 Peter 3:1–18 defends the author's eschatological convictions.

2 Peter, despite its claims, is not Peter's work. As in the case of 1 Peter, the good Greek is not that of a Galilean fisherman. Even more importantly, although Peter died in the mid-60s, the author of 2 Peter 3:15–16 knows a collection of Paul's letters, which cannot have been in existence so early. It is telling that there is no solid evidence for 2 Peter until the beginning of the third century, in the work of Origen, who observes its disputed status; 2 Peter is not widely cited or discussed until the fourth century (when Jerome writes that most reject it because its style is inconsistent with 1 Peter 's style). A letter known to come from Peter would not have met with such a tepid reception.

2 Peter may not have come into circulation until the middle of the second century. Consistent with such a late date is the problem of the third chapter. 2 Peter 3:4 counters scoffers who ask, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation." Such disillusionment is unlikely to have arisen until the first generation of Christians had died. Also harmonizing with a second-century date is the real possibility that 2 Peter opposes Gnostics. The author's adversaries spin "clever myths" (1:16) and reject traditional eschatology (3:3–10). They interpret the Jewish Bible in unacceptable ways (1:21), and they find support for their theology in their own interpretation of Paul (7:15–18).

The three Johannine epistles

The titles to 1, 2, and 3 John assign them to the same person, traditionally identified as John the disciple of Jesus. Many early Christian writers, however, including Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, thought otherwise. They believed that 2 and 3 John, which attribute themselves to "the Presbyter," had a different author than 1 John. Some moderns have also thought this. A few have even thought of three different authors.

Whether or not 1 John, which is not formally a letter, ever circulated apart from the other two, which formally are letters, its author never uses a name or title. But the tradition is likely correct to assign all three letters to one individual. The common style and vocabulary are striking. The parallels are such that the choice is either a common author or deliberate imitation.

Scholars do not often assign these letters to the apostle John. The books themselves do not name their author, and their content does not establish apostolic authorship. As for their relationship to John's gospel, it is possible that the person who wrote 1, 2, and 3 John was also involved in the publication of the gospel. There are certainly intriguing thematic overlaps, and the opening of 1 John recalls the opening of the gospel (see 1:1–3). Both texts also speak about walking in darkness (1 Jn. 1:6–7; 2:10–11; Jn. 8:12; etc.), use the expression "little children" (1 Jn. 2:1, 12, etc.; Jn. 13:33), refer to a new commandment (1 Jn. 1:2–8; Jn. 13:34), teach that the world, ignorant of God, hates the followers of Jesus (1 Jn. 3:1, 13; Jn. 7:7; etc.), and associate water, blood, and Spirit (1 Jn. 5:6; Jn. 19:30, 34).

Yet there are also differences. For example, John uses the inferential particle oun ninety-four times; 1 John never uses it. And if, in John, Jesus is the logos, or "word," in 1 John, logos is rather the author's message. So the many similarities exist alongside significant differences. Perhaps there was some sort of group or school, the members of which shared an insider language. One common view is that the publication of the Gospel of John helped precipitate a crisis, which the epistles, from another author or not, reflect. Maybe the epistles are something like a late epilogue to the gospel, an attempt at correct commentary.

Whatever the relationship to John's gospel, the epistles reflect a crisis. Some people had left the community (1 Jn. 2:18–19), denying the real humanity of Jesus (see 1 Jn. 4:1–3; 2 Jn. 7). If John's gospel intended to correct an emerging docetism, it did not convert everyone. Perhaps some readers of John, observing the high Christology and the "I am" statements, did not reckon Jesus to be a real human being. The author of 1 John instead emphasized that Jesus came in the flesh (1:1; 4:2). It may also be that some readers of John came away with the notion that it is possible to be without sin (see Jn. 8:31ff.), or that eschatology is wholly realized in the present, and that 1 John responded by recognizing the reality of sin (1:8, 10) and forwarding a literal, future eschatology (3:2–3).

The reason 1 John talks so much about love is that its goal is reconciliation. To judge by 2 and 3 John, this reconciliation was not achieved. 2 John shows us that some people left the community, and 3 John shows us that there were rival communities. 2 John counsels avoiding contact with the group that has left (vv. 10–11). The situation of 3 John is harder to pin down. It is addressed to named individuals and encourages hospitality for certain missionaries. But the identities of Demetrius in verse 12 and Diotrephes in verses 9–10 remain unclear. Is Diotrephes a theological opponent of the Presbyter? Is he an independent figure not on the side of the Presbyter or his opponents? Is he a bishop? Whatever the answers, 3 John indicates that the problems reflected in 1 and 2 John remained unresolved.

Jude

Containing only twenty-five verses, Jude appears to be a sermon in letter form. Although it opens with a salutation (vv. 1–2), it ends not with greetings but with a doxology, perhaps designed for public reading (vv. 24–25). In between is an exposé of false teachers. These teachers are said to be "ungodly" (v. 4), to sponsor licentiousness (v. 4), to reject authority and slander angels (v. 8), to "feast without fear" (v. 12), and to grumble, boast, and flatter (v. 16). From the author's point of view, the teachers set up divisions and are worldly (v. 19). In condemning these people, the author manages, in a very short space, to refer to a host of traditions—the exodus from Egypt (v. 5), the sin of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 (v. 6), Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7; see Gn. 19), a tale about the burial of Moses (vv. 8–9, probably from the lost ending of The Testament of Moses ), Cain's murder of Abel (v. 11; see Gn. 4:9), the story of Balaam's ass (v. 11; see Nm. 22–24), Korah's rebellion (v. 11; see Nm. 16), a prophecy of Enoch (vv. 14–15; the author here quotes the extra-canonical 1 Enoch 1:9), and a prophecy of "the apostles": "In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts" (v. 18). In each case the author draws analogies between the past and his own present. Thus his opponents are like Cain, like the Sons of God who erred, like those who rebelled in the desert, and so on.

The identity of Jude 's opponents is unknown. Suggestions are numerous. Maybe they were Gnostics, or maybe Essenes, or maybe Pauline antinomians, or maybe Jewish antinomians. Jude, assuming that its recipients already know who these people are, does not introduce them. It rather traffics in polemic, which is uninterested in objective description. Yet giving caution its due, and on the assumption that the letter has particular people in view, they may well have been antinomians who engaged in sexual activities disturbing to the author.

The letter claims to be from Jude, "the brother of James." Although the New Testament knows several people by these names, tradition has usually thought of Jude, the brother of James and Jesus (Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3). In favor of this is Jude's seeming obscurity, the apparent use of the Hebrew as opposed to the Greek Bible in verse 12 (this agrees with the Hebrew of Prv. 25:14, not the Greek), and the lack of any firm evidence for a late date for the letter. Yet one cannot rule out the use of a pseudonym. The appeal to "remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" in verse 17 may be a retrospective glance from a later age. Also, it is not known when Jude the brother of Jesus died, and so it cannot be determined how early the composition would have to be if authentic. Perhaps, furthermore, Jude was an important figure in some sectors of Jewish Christianity, and in that context a pseudepigraphon in his name made sense.

The Revelation to John

The book is from a certain John (1:1). Tradition, despite the stylistic differences between Revelation and John's gospel, which prohibit common authorship, identified him with John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples (so thought Justin Martyr, for instance, in the middle of the second century). The Apocalypse, however, does not require this identification, and internal evidence to support it is lacking. John was a popular name in the first century, and the New Testament knows several Johns.

Church tradition and most modern historians date the book to the time of the Roman emperor Domitian, circa 90 to 95 ce. Some have instead argued for a date during Nero's reign, sometime shortly before 70 ce. Both periods saw Christians persecuted, and Revelation was seemingly written in a time of suffering. According to 1:9, the seer is in exile, on the island of Patmos off the coast of Asia Minor. Revelation 2:13 refers to the recent execution of a certain Antipas. Revelation 3:10 speaks of a soon-approaching time of trouble, and 6:10 has dead saints crying out to God to avenge their blood.

Until modern historical criticism, there were basically four different ways of interpreting the Apocalypse. (1) On the "futurist" reading, Revelation is primarily a divinely inspired prophecy about the end of the world and the events preceding that end. With the exception of the first few chapters—especially the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3—the entire work is about the latter days and the second coming of Christ. (2) According to the "historicist" view, Revelation is an outline of church or human history. It begins in the first century and maps out in chronological fashion the course of events until the second advent. (3) The "preterist" view holds that John was completely preoccupied with the events of his own day, as opposed to the future consummation. (4) A few, taking an "idealist" view, have tried to divorce Revelation from history. For them, the book is not about the course of history or the end of history but theological principles or ideas. In other words, it is timeless. Its symbols refer not to events in the everyday world but to the eternal order.

Each approach is deficient. The futurist makes the book irrelevant and unintelligible to its first readers. The historicist is wrong because the Apocalypse belongs to a recognized literary genre, and the other members of this genre cannot bear a historicist reading. The preterist view is untenable because Revelation is without question about the latter days. As for the idealist view, it is perfectly valid so long as the interpreter does not pretend to be recovering the intention of the author, which was something other than the communication of large theological ideas.

Revelation is an enigma to contemporary readers unfamiliar with the literary category to which it belongs. The ancients, however, would have recognized it as an apocalypse, a well-known literary genre in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. More than a few old Jewish and Christians books are filled with strange beasts, with number symbolism, with descriptions of the end of the world (thought of as near), with accounts of heavenly journeys, with pictures of God's throne, and with prophecies of a shattered planet. 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham are examples. Revelation should be interpreted in the same way that these other books are interpreted. Moreover, anyone unfamiliar with the genre will be unable to understand the Apocalypse correctly, and it makes no more sense to plot the future of the world by reading Revelation than it does by reading its literary cousins.

Early Noncanonical Literature

For convenience, early Christian works outside the canon may be divided into three groups.

New Testament apocrypha

This is a large, ill-defined collection of texts, many of which mimic New Testament models. They come from different places, different times, and different authors. Most of them date from the second to fourth centuries. The category is purely retrospective. It groups texts that, although in some times and places reckoned authentic or authoritative, failed to win their way into the canon. But their status before the closing of the canon was often unclear. That some of them exist in several languages is testament to their popularity. Among them are papyrus fragments of unknown gospels, gospels used by various groups of Jewish Christians (e.g., the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazoraeans ), and infancy gospels (e.g., the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Story of Thomas ). Christians never ceased to create new stories about Jesus and the sayings of Jesus. Although most of the material in the apocryphal gospels is post-first century and so less helpful than the canonical Gospels for reconstructing the historical Jesus, contemporary scholars are more inclined than their predecessors to see early traditions independent of the canon in some of the extra-canonical sources.

There are also apocryphal letters (e.g., the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans and the Epistle of Titus, both parasitic upon Paul's correspondence) and apocryphal acts (e.g., the Acts of John, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul). Some of the latter appear to have been particularly popular. Equally well known were some apocryphal apocalypses, especially the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of Paul —both canonical still in the sixth century in some places—which contributed so much to popular ideas about the afterlife.

The Nag Hammadi library

In 1945, thirteen Coptic papyrus codices from the fourth century ce were discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Presumably from an old Christian monastery, they contain fifty-two tractates, only fourteen of which were already known (including a fragment of Plato's Republic ). The majority are Gnostic texts attributed to important individuals known from the New Testament. Included are apocryphal gospels (e.g., the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of the Egyptians ), acts (e.g., the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles and the Acts of Peter ), apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of Paul and the First Apocalypse of James ), and several writings that purport to pass on secret revelations of the risen Jesus (e.g., the Apocryphon of James and the Apocryphon of John ).

The most interesting and controversial document is the Gospel of Thomas. It contains 114 sayings of Jesus, some of them already known from the synoptics. As Origen rejected its authority, and as there exist Greek fragments from not long after 200 ce, a date no later than the second century is demanded. Some who fail to find in Thomas any knowledge of the synoptics, but rather take it to be independent of the canon, date Thomas as early as the first century.

The apostolic fathers

This designation is a modern one and includes over a dozen writings from the first and second or third centuries: 1 Clement, a letter written by the bishop of Rome at the end of the first century; 2 Clement, a homily from the second century by an unknown author; seven epistles from Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch martyred before 117 ce; the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, written by a bishop of Smyrna martyred in 155 ce; the Didache, an anonymous, influential church order perhaps written in the late first century; the Epistle of Barnabas, an anonymous second-century treatise featuring allegorical exegesis of the Jewish Bible; the Shepherd of Hermas, a second-century apocalypse; the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the earliest account of Christian martyrdom; and the Epistle to Diognetus, an apology from the third century or the late second century. Most of these books were received as authoritative writings by some early Christians, while others who did not put them on the same level as the Gospels and Paul nonetheless found them edifying and worth reading in churches.

The Canon of the New Testament

The Greek word canon means first "reed" and then "measuring stick" or "norm." The church has used the term to refer to its authoritative writings. Although Christians consider the New Testament to be the norm of their faith, it was not precisely defined until the fourth century.

The first step toward the later canon probably occurred during the last quarter of the first century, when someone collected letters attributed to Paul. In the apostle's own lifetime, his correspondence, which typically addresses specific problems of specific communities, probably did not circulate widely. Some writers in the first half of the second century, however, must have known collections. Clement of Rome (c. 96), Ignatius (c. 110), and Polycarp (d. 155) all quote from or allude to several of Paul's epistles. The extent of the collections they knew is unclear, but each knew at least several letters.

In the middle of the second century, the controversial Roman theologian Marcion used a collection of Paul's epistles with this order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians (which Marcion knew as "To the Laodiceans"), Colossians, Philippians, and Phile-mon. The pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus ) are missing.

The pastoral epistles were also not in the other early collections, which usually took one of two forms. One had this order: 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. The other had: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Both collections ordered the texts according to decreasing length, the difference being that the first counts both 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians as single books.

It is not know who first published a collection of Paul's letters, nor is anything known about subsequent revisers. Perhaps the process was a haphazard affair, with no guiding hand, no definitive moment. Perhaps smaller collections grew into larger collections over time. Yet it could also be that a devoted follower of Paul, sometime after his death, collected several of his epistles and published them as a col-lection.

Little is also known regarding the emergence of the fourfold Gospels. Numerous gospels circulated in the early church, and there is probably no explanation as to why most churches ended up with the four they did. One can say no more than that the collection reflects the preferred liturgical practice of many churches at the end of the second century. Initially, various churches must have used just one gospel. This seems confirmed by the early papyri P⁵² and P⁶⁶, which contain only John.

Early in the second century, things changed. Papias knew both Mark and Matthew as authoritative texts. A bit later, Justin Martyr knew Matthew and Luke and probably Mark. By the last quarter of the second century, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were together liturgical texts in many places.

The latter half of the second century was also the period during which many Christians began to think of the Gospels and Paul as together constituting an authoritative corpus, along with the Old Testament and a few other Christian writings. Acts seems to have been universally accepted. But it seems impossible to generalize about Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, except that their status was uncertain.

The earliest discussion of a collection of New Testament books beyond the four Gospels appears in the so-called Muratorian canon. Although extant only in a seventh-century Latin manuscript, it was (despite some recent debate) originally composed in Rome in the late second or early third century. The beginning, although lost, clearly mentioned Matthew and Mark. The author, in discussing what books the churches read, listed the following: Luke (cited as "the third book of the Gospel"), John, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy, Jude, Revelation, two epistles of John (one of which must be 1 John ), the Apocalypse of Peter (which the author says some do not accept), and the Shepherd of Hermas (which the author regards as inspired but not apostolic). Also mentioned are letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, which are dismissed as forgeries.

The Muratorian canon is typical of what one finds from the end of the second century on, namely, recognition of the four Gospels, recognition of Paul's epistles, recognition of several additional books, uncertainty and disagreement over others. Many did not know or questioned the authority of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Only in the fourth century do statements that match today's canon appear.

In discussing the content of the canon, theologians often discussed authorship, date, doctrine, and church tradition. The latter two were the decisive factors. Many wanted a collection that did not support the doctrines of Marcion or the Gnostics or Montanists. No less important was the actual practice of the churches. Later theologians for the most part justified after the fact what most communities, for reasons that escape easy generalization, had long been reading.

The Text of the New Testament and Textual Criticism

None of the original Greek New Testament survives. The documents presumably wore out. The earliest extant text is a tiny fragment of John's gospel known as P⁵². Dated on the basis of its handwriting to around 125 ce, it contains parts of John 18. The next witnesses are all fragmentary papyri from Egypt that date to around 200.

The oldest copies of the New Testament as a whole are from the fourth century, the two most famous being Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (although the latter lacks Hebrews, some of Paul's letters, and Revelation ). These are all on parchment (the skins of sheep and goats). Their good quality reflects the prosperity of the fourth-century church, which could afford better copies of its scriptures after the legalization of Christianity. Before this period, Christians had often suffered persecution, and many of their books were burned.

No two extant manuscripts of the New Testament are exactly alike. So scholars have to reconstruct likely originals. Current editions of the Greek New Testaments do not reproduce any ancient manuscript but are rather the product of a committee's vote.

There are two types of variants. First are unintentional changes due to errors of sight or hearing. These include misreading a single letter (e.g., some manuscripts of Luke 6:43 have karpos, "fruit," instead of karphos, "speck"); homoioteleuton (a scribe passing from one occurrence of a series of letters to another—as when some witnesses move from the first occurrence of "in the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 5:19 to the second occurrence, omitting the words in between); simple reversal of two words; hearing one word instead of another; dittography (writing the same word twice); or its opposite, haplography (writing a word once when it should be written twice).

While unintentional errors fill the manuscripts, many variants arose from intentional alterations. There are stylistic changes, due to a scribe seeking to improve the Greek. There are doctrinal changes, due to someone wanting to make a theological text more acceptable. Some who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity omitted part of Matthew 1:25 so that it no longer implies the resumption of conjugal relations. Someone else added a testimony to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7: "There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." There are liturgical changes, which make a text more suitable for public reading. Thus "amen" concludes each of the four Gospels in some witnesses, and there are doxologies added to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13, which otherwise ends with "but deliver us from evil." There are changes of clarification, such as the addition to Matthew 1:22, which turns "This all happened in order to fulfill the word of the Lord through the prophet, saying…" into "This all happened in order to fulfill the word of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah, saying.…" There are also changes due to correction. Thus the erroneous reference in Mark 2:26 to Abiathar is dropped in some manuscripts.

Although an earlier reading is better than a later one, all other things being equal, typically other things are not equal. Internal evidence must accordingly be considered. A reading that fits an author's style and vocabulary is preferable to one that does not. It also seems reasonable to prefer hard readings because scribes tended to iron out difficulties. "The only begotten God" in John 1:18 could supply an illustration of this: the phrase is so strange that one can understand it being altered.

The chief criterion, however, is this: the best reading explains the other readings. When faced with variants, one wants to tell a story that explains how, beginning with one text, the other texts came into being. A simple example of this is Luke 11:2, which introduces the Lord's Prayer. The address in some witnesses is simply "Father." In others it is "Our Father who art in heaven." It is easy to see why someone familiar with Matthew 's version of the Lord's Prayer, which has dominated liturgical usage, assimilated Luke to Matthew by expanding the shorter address into the longer. Again, while some witnesses to Matthew 5:22 forbid anger unconditionally, others forbid anger that is "without a cause." As the church father Cassian already observed, someone added the qualification. It relaxes an otherwise impossible imperative and brings Jesus into line with scriptures in which God and Jesus get angry.

Most of the variants in the textual tradition are insignificant and do not change the sense. Further, even without the original Greek texts, it is presumably possible to reconstruct something close to what circulated in the first century. There are, however, some cases in which the stakes are theologically significant. One is the ending of the Gospel of Mark, already discussed. Another is John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery. This has been a liturgical text for centuries, and it is in all contemporary translations of John (although it is typically set apart in some way). But it is more than suspect. Many manuscripts, including most of the older ones, omit it. Others mark the passage with asterisks. It is also missing from many Latin texts and some of the other versions and does not appear to have been known to a number of the Church Fathers. The earliest Greek commentator to write upon it lived in the eleventh century, and he declares that it is not found in the most accurate copies. Some manuscripts put John 7:53–8:11 after Luke 21, others after John 21. Augustine of Hippo argued that someone removed the text because Jesus' treatment of adultery seemed overly generous. Yet when one considers that the passage contains words and phrases not typical of John, the conclusion that it is not original is inevitable. Where it came from is not known. Apart from whether it contains a historical memory, the text is nonetheless a favorite of many Christians, and knowledge of its secondary nature does not seem likely to erase its canonical status.

Ancient Versions and Modern Translations

Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, all of the New Testament documents were composed in Greek. Beginning in the second century, the spread of Christianity required translating the Greek into other languages. The resultant versions are important not only for doing textual criticism but also because they help show us what text types were dominant in what regions. Eastern translations include:

Syriac

In the latter part of the second century, Tatian, a native of Mesopotamia who studied in Rome, produced the Diatessaron, a harmony of the canonical Gospels. Containing fifty-five chapters, it was designed for liturgical use. Although popular for centuries (and translated into Arabic, Latin, Persian, and other languages), it did not entirely displace the four Gospels, which also circulated in Syriac (the so-called Old Syriac). In the fifth century a Syriac version of the New Testament, lacking only 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, was published. This, known as the Peshitta, was revised in the sixth and seventh centuries, when the missing five books were added.

Coptic

Bohairic and Sahidic were the two chief dialects of Coptic, the last stage of the Egyptian language. The New Testament was translated into Sahidic no later than the early third century, and into Bohairic (still the language of Egyptian Christians today) a bit later.

Armenian

Although Christianity arrived in Armenia in the third century, it appears that a translation into Armenian (perhaps from the Syriac) was not made until the fifth century. Included in the Armenian canon are a third letter of Paul to the Corinthians and a letter supposedly written by the Corinthians to Paul.

There were also translations into Georgian (fifth century), Ethiopic (maybe as early as the fourth century), Arabic (eighth century?), and Persian (fourth or fifth century). Among the more important Western translations are the following:

Old Latin

This refers not to a single translation but to a variety of Latin translations made prior to Jerome's Vulgate in the late fourth century. Although ecclesiastical tradition is silent on the subject, it seems likely that some Latin translations were made in second-century North Africa, others in third-century Rome. No complete copy of the New Testament in Old Latin exists.

The Vulgate

In 382, Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to standardize the Latin text. Jerome's version eventually replaced the Old Latin versions, thus earning its name, which means "popular" or "common." It became the liturgical text of the Roman Catholic Church and stamped all subsequent Christian language in the West.

Gothic

Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths along the lower Danube, translated the Bible into Gothic in the last half of the fourth century. Ulfilas created the Gothic alphabet for this purpose. As the Ostrogothic kingdom fell in the sixth century, and as the Gothic language died not long thereafter, few manuscripts of the Gothic Bible exist.

The New Testament, or portions of it, have at this point in history been translated into over two thousand languages, and for many modern languages there are several contemporary translations. In the English-speaking world, there is no lack of sound translations. Unfortunately, new versions continue to appear not because of new discoveries, but mostly for marketing reasons.

See Also

Apostles; Biblical Exegesis, article on Christian Views; Canon; Gospel; Marcionism; Nag Hammadi.

Bibliography

An introduction that presents the conclusions of contemporary scholarship is Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1997). Dated but more detailed is Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Howard Clark Kee, rev. ed. (Nashville, 1975). Comparison of Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 vols., 2d rev. ed. (New York and Berlin, 1995, 2000), with Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, 2003), shows the distances that often separates scholars. As a way of determining how much really is and is not new in contemporary work, it is instructive to read some of the older introductions, the best of which is James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Edinburgh, 1918). For interesting introductions to the Gospels in particular see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia and London, 1990), and E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London and Philadelphia, 1989).

Collections of extra-canonical books include J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford, 1993); Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols., English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson (Louisville, Ky., 1991); Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1912); and James Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (New York, 1977).

On the canon see Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia, 1985), and Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford, 1987).

An excellent introduction to textual criticism is Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, 2d ed. (Leiden and Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989). Also useful is Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York, 1992). On the nature of ancient Christian books and the subject of literacy, Harry Y. Gamble's Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven and London, 1995) is important.

The most helpful introduction to the various ancient versions is the authoritative Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford, 1977). For later translations and for the whole history of the Bible in the West, the three-volume Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge, U.K.) is indispensable: P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds., From the Beginnings to Jerome ( 1970); G. W. H. Lampe, ed., The West from the Fathers to the Reformation (1969); S. L. Greenslade, ed., The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (1963).

For various contemporary approaches to the New Testament see A. K. M. Adam, What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Minneapolis, 1995); John H. Elliott, What Is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis, 1993); John H. Hayes, ed., The Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 2 vols. (Nashville, 1999); George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1984); Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, eds., To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, 2d ed. (Louisville, Ky., 1999); Stephen D. Moore, Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross (Minneapolis, 1994); Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia, 1969); David Rutledge, Reading Marginally: Feminism, Deconstruction and the Bible (Leiden, 1996); Elizabeth Schlüsser Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation, rev. ed. (Boston, 1995) and But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation (Boston, 1992); and Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, eds., Reading from this Place, 2 vols. (Minneapolis, 1995).

The two standard histories of critical New Testament scholarship are Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, translated by S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville, 1972), and Stephen Neill and Thomas Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1988).

Dale C. Allison, Jr. (2005)