New Testament

==Authors==
{{Main|Authorship of the Bible}}
It is considered the books of the New Testament were all or nearly all written by [[Jewish Christians]]—that is, Jewish disciples of Christ, who lived in the [[Roman Empire]], and under [[Judea (Roman province)|Roman occupation]].{{sfn|Powell|2009|p=16}} The author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts is frequently thought of as an exception; scholars are divided as to whether he was a [[Gentile]] or a [[Hellenistic Judaism|Hellenistic Jew]].<ref name="Strelan2013">Strelan, Rick (2013). ''Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel''. Farnham, ENG: Routledege-[[Ashgate Publishing|Ashgate]]. pp. 102–05.</ref> A few scholars identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as probably a Gentile, and similarly for the Gospel of Matthew, though most assert Jewish-Christian authorship.<ref>For discussion of Mark, see Schröter, Jens (2010). "Gospel of Mark". In Aune, David. ''The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament''. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 281ff.</ref><ref>For discussion of Mark, see Hare, Douglas R. A. (1996). ''Mark''. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 3–5.</ref><ref>For discussion of Matthew, see Repschinski, Boris (1998). "Forschungbericht: Matthew and Judaism". ''The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew''. Göttingen, GER: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 13–61.</ref>{{verify source|date=February 2016}}

However, more recently the above understanding has been challenged by the publication of evidence showing only educated elites after the [[Jewish-Roman Wars|Jewish War]] would have been capable of producing the prose found in the Gospels.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Walsh |first=Robin Faith |title=The Origins of Early Christian Literature – Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2021 |isbn=9781108883573 }}</ref>{{verify source|date=December 2023}}

===Gospels===
{{Main|Synoptic Gospels}}
[[File:The Evangelist Matthew Inspired by an Angel.jpg|thumb|''Evangelist Mathäus und der Engel'', by [[Rembrandt]], 1661]]
Authorship of the Gospels remains divided among both evangelical and critical scholars. The names of each Gospel stems from church tradition, and yet the authors of the Gospels do not identify themselves in their respective texts. All four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are [[anonymous work]]s.{{sfn|Harris|1985|p=501}} The Gospel of John claims to be based on eyewitness testimony from the [[Disciple whom Jesus loved]], but never names this character.{{sfn|Harris|1985|pp=302–10}} According to [[Bart D. Ehrman]] of the [[University of North Carolina]], none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses.{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=235|ps=: "The four Gospels that eventually made it into the New Testament, for example, are all anonymous, written in the third person ''about'' Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ('One day, when Jesus and I went into Capernaum...'), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. ... Some scholars abandon these traditional identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century."}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2004b|p=[https://archive.org/details/truthfictionin00ehrm/page/110 110]|ps=: "In fact, contrary to what you might think, these Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses."}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|p=[https://archive.org/details/lostgospelofjuda00ehrm/page/143 143]|ps=: "The Gospels of the New Testament are therefore our earliest accounts. These do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, and historians have long recognized that they were produced by second- or third-generation Christians living in different countries than Jesus (and Judas) did, speaking a different language (Greek instead of Aramaic), experiencing different situations, and addressing different audiences."}} Ehrman has argued for a scholarly consensus that many New Testament books were not written by the individuals whose names are attached to them.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|p=143}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2009|pp=102–04}} Scholarly opinion is that names were fixed to the gospels by the mid second century AD.<ref name="Nickle2001">{{cite book|author=Nickle, Keith Fullerton |title=The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5SSytjasmAgC&pg=PA43|date=2001|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=978-0-664-22349-6|page=43 }}</ref> Many scholars believe that none of the gospels were written in the region of [[Palestine (region)|Palestine]].<ref>Theissen, Gerd (2004). ''The Gospels in Context''. London, ENG: Bloomsbury-Continuum. p. 290.</ref>

[[Christian tradition]] identifies [[John the Apostle]] with [[John the Evangelist]], the supposed author of the [[Gospel of John]]. Traditionalists tend to support the idea that the writer of the Gospel of John himself claimed to be an eyewitness in their commentaries of [[John 21]]:24 and therefore the gospel was written by an eyewitness.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Barnes |first=Albert |title=Barnes' Notes on the New Testament |year=1962 |orig-year=1832 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qvXCoSQ1y0EC&pg=PA360 |publisher=Kregel Publications |page=360|isbn=978-0825493713 }}</ref><ref name="Henry">{{Cite book|last=Henry |first=Matthew |title=Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible |year=1706 |url=http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mhm/john-21.html |publisher=StudyLight.org}}</ref> This idea is rejected by the majority of modern scholars.{{sfn | Brown | 1988 | p=9}}{{sfn | Schubert | 2016 | p=16}}

Most{{Citation needed|date=April 2020}} scholars hold to the [[two-source hypothesis]], which posits that the [[Marcan priority|Gospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written]]. On this view, the authors of the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and the [[Gospel of Luke]] used as sources the [[Gospel of Mark]] and a hypothetical [[Q document]] to write their individual gospel accounts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html |title=Gospel of Mark |publisher=Early Christian Writings |access-date=15 January 2008 |last=Kirby |first=Peter}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Achtemeier |first=Paul J. |encyclopedia=The Anchor Bible Dictionary |title=The Gospel of Mark |year=1992 |publisher=Doubleday |volume=4 |location=New York |isbn=978-0-385-19362-7 |page=545}}</ref><ref>Easton, M. G. (1996) [ca. 1897] "Luke, Gospel According To". ''Easton's Bible Dictionary''. Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |author-link= John P. Meier |title=A Marginal Jew |publisher=Doubleday |year=1991 |location=New York |volume=2 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/mentormessagemir00john/page/955 955–56] |isbn=978-0-385-46993-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/mentormessagemir00john |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Helms |first=Randel |title=Who Wrote the Gospels? |publisher=Millennium Press |year=1997 |location=Altadena, California |page=[https://archive.org/details/whowrotegospels00helm/page/8 8] |isbn=978-0-9655047-2-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/whowrotegospels00helm |url-access=registration}}</ref> These three gospels are called the [[Synoptic Gospels]], because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes in exactly the same wording. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, by using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the [[Acts of the Apostles]]. Scholars hold that these books constituted two-halves of a single work, [[Luke–Acts]].{{Citation needed|reason=Scholars not named.|date=July 2019}}

===Acts===
{{Main|Authorship of Luke–Acts}}
The same author appears to have written the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, and most refer to them as the Lucan texts.<ref>Horrell, D. G. (2006). ''An Introduction to the Study of Paul''. 2nd ed. London, Bloomsbury-T&T Clark. p. 7.</ref><ref>See {{harvnb|Knox|1948|pp=2–15}} for detailed arguments.</ref> The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book; both were addressed to [[Theophilus (Biblical)|Theophilus]], and the preface to the Acts of the Apostles references "my former book" about the ministry of Jesus.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://biblehub.com/acts/1-1.htm| title = Acts 1:1}}</ref> Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.<ref>Sean A. Adams, "The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul's Letters, and the 'We' Passages of Acts." In ''Paul and His Social Relations'', edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 132–34. {{ISBN|978-9004242111}}
Scholarly agreement of the single-author/editor theory of the Lucan texts is not without question, e.g. Patricia Walters, ''The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence'' (Cambridge University Press, 2009). {{ISBN|978-0521509749}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Kenny |first=Anthony |author-link=Anthony Kenny |date=1986 |title=A Stylometric Study of the New Testament |location=Oxford |publisher=Clarendon Press |isbn=978-0-19-826178-0}}</ref>{{sfn|Schnelle|1998|p=259}}{{sfn|Bruce|1952|p=2}}
<!--
SOURCE CHECKING DONE THROUGH THIS POINT, FEBRUARY 2016. REST OF SOURCES UN-CHECKED AS TO PROVISION OF PAGE NUMBERS, COMPLETENESS OF CITATIONS, ETC. NOTE, WHILE SOME STANDARDIZATION OF CITATION FORMATS TO THE "CITE BOOK" PRESENTATION WAS PERFORMED, BOTH THE FOREGOING AND FOLLOWING ARE IN SERIOUS NEED OF ATTENTION IN THIS REGARD.
-->

===Pauline epistles===
{{Main|Authorship of the Pauline epistles}}
[[File:PaulT.jpg|thumb|''Saint Paul Writing His Epistles'' by [[Valentin de Boulogne]] (c. 1618–1620). Most scholars think [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] actually dictated his letters to a secretary.]]
The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to [[Paul of Tarsus]]. Seven letters are generally classified as "undisputed", expressing contemporary scholarly near consensus that they are the work of Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.{{Efn|name="Lock, Meinertz p.622"|[[Donald Guthrie (theologian)|Donald Guthrie]] lists the following scholars as supporting authenticity: Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thörnell, Schlatter, Spicq, [[Joachim Jeremias|Jeremias]], Simpson, Kelly, and Fee{{sfn|Guthrie|1990|p=621–622}}}}

The anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews is, despite unlikely Pauline authorship, often functionally grouped with these thirteen to form a corpus of fourteen "Pauline" epistles.{{Efn|Although Hebrews was almost certainly not written by Paul, it has been a part of the Pauline corpus "from the beginning of extant MS production".<ref name=hebot01>{{cite web |last=Wallace |first=Daniel B. |url=https://bible.org/seriespage/19-hebrews-introduction-argument-and-outline |title=Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline |publisher=Bible.org |date=28 June 2004}}</ref>}}

While many scholars uphold the traditional view, some question whether the first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles", are authentic letters of Paul. As for the latter three, the "Pastoral epistles", some scholars uphold the traditional view of these as the genuine writings of the Apostle Paul;{{Efn|name="Lock, Meinertz p.622"}} most regard them as [[Pseudepigraphy|pseudepigrapha]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2004a|p=385}}

One might refer to the [[Epistle to the Laodiceans]] and the [[Third Epistle to the Corinthians]] as examples of works identified as pseudonymous. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|2004a|p=323}}</ref>

The epistles all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style; they exhibit a uniformity of doctrine concerning the [[Mosaic Law]], Jesus, faith, and various other issues. All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts of the Apostles.

===Other epistles===
The author of the [[Epistle of James]] identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the 3rd century, [[patristic]] authors cited the ''Epistle'' as written by [[James the Just]].<ref>[http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/j/james,epistle_of_st.html "Epistle of St. James"]. ''1914 Catholic Encyclopedia''.</ref> Ancient and modern scholars have always been divided on the issue of authorship. Many consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://earlychristianwritings.com/james.html |title=Epistle of James |publisher=Early Christian Writings |access-date=19 November 2010}}</ref>

The author of the [[First Epistle of Peter]] identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an [[apostle]] of Jesus Christ", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of [[Church Fathers]]: [[Irenaeus]] (140–203), [[Tertullian]] (150–222), [[Clement of Alexandria]] (155–215) and [[Origen of Alexandria]] (185–253). Unlike [[The Second Epistle of Peter]], the authorship of which was debated in antiquity, there was little debate about Peter's authorship of this first epistle until the 18th century. Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, many biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author.<ref>{{cite book |title=What Are They Saying About the Catholic Epistles? |first=Philip B. |last=Harner |page=49 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xenz0ZMWDNsC&pg=PA49 |publisher=Paulist Press |year=2004|isbn=978-0-8091-4188-3 }}</ref> For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,<ref>Kruger, M.J. (1999). [https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/42/42-4/42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf "The Authenticity of 2 Peter"]. ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]''. '''42''' (4): 645–71.</ref> Zahn,<ref>{{cite book |last=Zahn |first=S. T. |author-link=Theodor Zahn |translator-last1=Trout |translator-first1=John Moore |translator-last2=Mather |translator-first2=William Arnot |translator-last3=Hodous |translator-first3=Louis |translator-last4=Worcester |translator-first4=Edward Strong |translator-last5=Worrell |translator-first5=William Hoyt |translator-last6=Dodge |translator-first6=Rowland Backus |year=1909 |title=Introduction to the New Testament |url=https://archive.org/details/introductionton00thaygoog |url-access=registration |volume=II |edition=English translation of 3rd German |location=New York |publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons |page=250}}</ref> Spitta,<ref>{{cite book |last=Spitta |first=Friedrich |author-link=Friedrich Spitta |date=1885 |title=Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas: Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung |trans-title=The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude: A Historical Investigation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iUROAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP5 |language=German |location=Halle an der Saale |publisher=Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses}}.</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=May 2021}} Bigg,<ref>{{cite book |last=Bigg |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Bigg |year=1902 |orig-year=1901 |title=A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude |url=https://archive.org/details/acriticalandexe02bigggoog |series=The International Critical Commentary |edition=2nd |location=Edinburgh |publisher=T&T Clark|isbn=9780567050366 }}</ref> and Green.<ref>e.g. {{cite speech |last=Green |first=E. M. B. |author-link=Michael Green (theologian) |title=2 Peter Reconsidered |event=Meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research |date=8 July 1960 |location=Cambridge |url=https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/2peter_green.pdf |format=PDF |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200813223354/https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/2peter_green.pdf |archive-date=13 August 2020}}</ref>

The Epistle of Jude title is written as follows: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James".<ref>[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201%3A1&version=NRSV Jude 1:1] ([[New Revised Standard Version|NRSV]])</ref> The debate has continued over the author's identity as the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither.<ref>Bauckham, R. J. (1986). ''Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 50''. Word (UK) Ltd. pp. 14ff.</ref>

===Johannine works===
{{Main|Authorship of the Johannine works}}
The Gospel of John, the three [[Johannine epistles]], and the [[Book of Revelation]], exhibit marked similarities, although more so between the gospel and the epistles (especially the gospel and 1 John) than between those and Revelation.{{sfn|Van der Watt|2008|p=1}} Most scholars therefore treat the five as a single corpus of [[Johannine literature]], albeit not from the same author.{{sfn|Harris|2006|p=479}}

The gospel went through two or three "editions" before reaching its current form around AD 90–110.{{sfn|Edwards|2015|p=ix}}{{sfn|Lincoln|2005|p=18}} It speaks of an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions, but does not say specifically that he is its author;{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=214}} Christian tradition identifies this disciple as the [[apostle John]], but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.{{sfn|Lindars|Edwards|Court|2000|p=41}} It is significantly different from the synoptic gospels, with major variations in material, theological emphasis, chronology, and literary style, sometimes amounting to contradictions.{{sfn|Burge|2014|pp=236–37}}

The author of the [[Book of Revelation]] identifies himself several times as "John".<ref>{{bibleverse|Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8|multi=yes}}</ref> and states that he was on [[Patmos]] when he received his first vision.<ref>{{Bibleref2|Rev.|1:9; 4:1–2||Rev.&nbsp;1:9;&nbsp;4:1–2}}</ref> As a result, the author is sometimes referred to as [[John of Patmos]]. The author has traditionally been identified with [[John the Apostle]] to whom the [[Gospel of John|Gospel]] and the [[epistles of John]] were attributed. It was believed that he was exiled to the island of Patmos during the reign of the [[Roman emperor]] [[Domitian]], and there wrote Revelation. [[Justin Martyr]] (c. 100–165 AD) who was acquainted with [[Polycarp]], who had been mentored by John, makes a possible allusion to this book, and credits John as the source.<ref>Justin Martyr. ''[[Dialogue with Trypho]]''. Chapter LXXXI.</ref> [[Irenaeus]] (c. 115–202) assumes it as a conceded point. According to the ''Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible'', modern scholars are divided between the apostolic view and several alternative hypotheses put forth in the last hundred years or so.<ref>Tenney, Merrill C., gen. ed. (2009). "Revelation, Book of the". ''Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5 (Q–Z)''. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.</ref> [[Ben Witherington]] points out that linguistic evidence makes it unlikely that the books were written by the same person.<ref>Witherington, Ben (2003). ''Revelation''. Cambridge University Press. p. 2.</ref>