신약전서가 나타나는 순서는 일부 컬렉션과 교회 전통에 따라 다릅니다. 라틴 서부에서는 벌게이트(Vulgate, 5세기 초 라틴어 버전의 성경) 이전에 네 개의 복음서가 마태복음, 요한복음서, 누가복음, 마가복음의 순서로 정리되었다. [참고 6] 시리아 페시타는 주요 가톨릭 서신들(야고보서, 베드로전서, 요한1서)을 사도행전 직후와 바울 서신 앞에 배치한다.
바울의 편지 초판의 순서는 편지의 크기에 근거합니다 : 가장 긴 것에서 가장 짧은 것까지, 비록 고린도 전서 1 장과 2 명과 데살로니가 전서 1 장과 2 명을 함께 유지하지만. 사목 서신들은 분명히 코퍼스 파울리눔의 일부가 아니었으며, 이 순서가 기원되었고 나중에 데살로니가전서 2명 이후와 빌레몬 앞에 삽입되었다. 히브리인들은 데살로니가전서 2명 이후, 빌레몬서 이후(즉, 맨 마지막에) 또는 로마인 이후에 코퍼스 파울리눔에 다양하게 편입되었다.
16세기 루터 성경에서 발견되는 루터의 정경은 히브리서, 야고보, 유다, 묵시록(요한계시록)을 계속 마지막에 두고 있다. 이것은 개혁가 마틴 루터가 이 책들의 정경에 대해 생각한 것을 반영한다. [56][참고 7][57]
신약의 주요 요점은 그리스도의 십자가에서의 죽음은 부도덕하고 소외된 인류를 자신과 화해시키는 하나님의 수단이라는 것입니다. 신약 Exegesis의 전문가 인 이안 하워드 마샬 (Ian Howard Marshall) 박사는 신약의 주요 메시지는 하나님과의 관계를 회복하는 것이라고 주장했다. 마샬에 따르면, 하느님의 왕국의 개시나 새 언약의 수립과 같은 그러한 장엄한 주제들은 인류가 하느님과 화해하는 더 중요한 목적에 종속되어 있다. 이러한 맥락에서 "화해"는 속죄("일회성")와 동의어입니다. 그리스도의 죽음은 인간을 형이상학적인 방식이 아니라 하나님과 화해하는 관계적인 방식으로 하나님과 하나가 되게 하는 역할을 한다. [58]
결국 신약에서 영구적 인 위치를 찾은 책은 초기 기독교 세기에 제작 된 기독교 문학의 유일한 작품이 아니 었습니다. 정경의 긴 과정은 일찍부터 시작되었으며, 때로는 전통적인 텍스트의 암묵적인 수용과 함께 시작되었으며, 때로는 주어진 맥락에서 사용할 수 있거나 받아 들일 수없는 특정 텍스트를 명시 적으로 선택하거나 거부하는 것으로 시작되었습니다 (예 : 사적인 용도로 허용되는 모든 텍스트가 전례에서 사용하기에 적합한 것으로 간주되는 것은 아닙니다).
역사의 과정 동안, 살아남았지만 신약의 일부가 되지 않은 초기 기독교 문학의 작품들은 신학자들과 학자들에 의해 다양하게 분류되어 왔다. 히브리 성경에는 없지만 기독교 구약에서 발견 된 책들을 언급 할 때 초기 기독교와 개신교 인들 사이에서 사용 된 오래된 용어를 다시 정의했지만, 현대 학자들은 신약 성경에 포함되지 않은 초기 기독교 문학의 이러한 작품을 "외경"으로 언급하기 시작했습니다.
이 작품들의 수집 된 판은 "신약 외경"으로 불렸다. 일반적으로 출판 된 컬렉션에서 제외 된 작품은 다음과 같습니다 : 사도 교부, 2 세기 기독교 변증론자, 알렉산드리아 인, 테르툴리안, 올림푸스의 감리교, 노바 티아누스, 키프리아, 순교 및 사막 교부. 이 시대의 거의 모든 다른 기독교 문학, 때로는 후기 고대에 잘 구성된 작품을 포함하여 소위 신약 외경으로 이관됩니다.
비록 하나님으로부터 영감을 받은 것으로 간주되지는 않았지만, 이 "외경" 작품들은 동일한 고대의 맥락에서 제작되었으며, 종종 신약전서를 형성하게 될 책들과 같은 언어를 사용했다. 이 후대의 작품들 중 일부는 나중에 신약 성경에 나올 책이나 그 안에 표현 된 아이디어에 의존한다 (직접 또는 간접적으로). 심지어 사도 바울의 잃어버린 편지, 라오디게아 인들에게 보내는 서한의 모습으로 구성된 pseudepigraphic 편지의 예도 있습니다.
신약전서의 책들은 모두 또는 거의 전부가 유대인 그리스도인들, 즉 로마 제국과 로마의 점령 하에 살았던 그리스도의 유대인 제자들에 의해 쓰여진 것으로 믿어진다. [59]누가복음과 사도행전을 기록한 누가는 종종 예외로 여겨진다. 학자들은 누가가 이방인인지 헬레니즘 유대인인지에 대해 나뉘어져 있습니다. [60] 몇몇 학자들은 마가복음의 저자를 아마도 이방인일 것이며, 마태복음과 유사하게 확인하지만, 대부분은 유대인-기독교의 저작을 주장한다. [61][62][63][확인 필요]
그러나 최근에는 유대인 전쟁 이후 교육받은 엘리트들만이 복음서에서 발견되는 산문을 만들 수 있었음을 보여주는 증거의 출판으로 인해 위의 이해가 어려워졌습니다. [64][65]
복음서의 저자는 복음주의 학자와 비판적 학자들 사이에서 여전히 분열되어 있습니다. 각 복음서의 이름은 교회 전통에서 유래하지만, 복음서의 저자는 각각의 본문에서 자신을 식별하지 않습니다. 네 복음서와 사도행전 모두 익명의 행위입니다. [66]요한복음은 예수이 사랑했던 제자의 목격자 증언에 근거한다고 주장하지만, 결코 이 인물의 이름을 밝히지 않는다. [67]노스캐롤라이나 대학의바트 디 에어먼(Bart D. Ehrman)에 따르면, 복음서의 저자들 중 어느 누구도 목격자이거나 심지어 목격자라고 명시적으로 주장한 사람은 없었다. [68][69][70] 에르만은 많은 신약전서들이 그 이름들이 붙어 있는 개인들에 의해 쓰여지지 않았다는 학문적 합의를 주장해 왔다. [71][72] 학문적 견해는 서기 2세기 중반까지 복음서에 이름이 고정되어 있었다는 것이다.[73] 많은 학자들은 팔레스타인 지역에서 복음서가 기록되지 않았다고 믿는다. [74]
기독교 전통은 사도 요한을 요한복음의 저자로 추정되는 전도자 요한과 동일시한다. 전통주의자들은 요한복음서의 저자가 요한복음 21장 24절의 주석에서 목격자라고 주장했기 때문에 복음은 목격자에 의해 쓰여졌다는 생각을 지지하는 경향이 있다. [75][76] 이 관념은 현대 학자들의 대다수에 의해 거부된다. [77]
대부분의 [인용 필요] 학자들은 마가복음이 기록된 최초의 복음이라고 가정하는 두 가지 근원적 가설을 고수한다. 이 견해에서 마태복음과 누가복음의 저자들은 마가복음과 가상의 Q 문서를 출처로 사용하여 개별 복음 기록을 작성했다. [78][79][80][81][82] 이 세 복음서들은 공관복음서라고 불리는데, 그 이유는 공관복음서라고 불리는데, 그 이유는 동일한 이야기들이 많고, 종종 같은 순서로, 때로는 정확히 같은 표현으로 포함되어 있기 때문이다. 학자들은 요한복음이 다른 전통과 간증의 본문을 사용하여 마지막으로 쓰여졌다는 데 동의한다. 또한 대부분의 학자들은 누가복음의 저자가 사도행전을 썼다는 데 동의합니다. 학자들은이 책들이 하나의 작품 인 누가복음 사도행전의 두 반으로 구성되었다고 주장합니다. [인용 필요]
같은 저자는 누가복음과 사도행전을 쓴 것으로 보이며, 대부분은 루칸 본문이라고 부른다. [83][84] 가장 직접적인 증거는 각 책의 서문에서 나온다. 둘 다 테오필루스에게 전해졌고, 사도행전 서문은 예수의 사역에 관한 "나의 이전 책"을 언급하고 있다. [85] 더욱이, 두 작품 사이에는 언어적, 신학적 유사성이 있으며, 이는 그들이 공통된 저자를 가지고 있음을 시사한다. [86][87][88][89]
바울 서신은 전통적으로 타르수스의 바울에게 귀속된 신약전서의 열세 권의 책이다. 일곱 글자는 일반적으로 "논쟁의 여지가없는"것으로 분류되며, 로마서, 고린도 전서 1 장, 고린도 전서 2 장, 갈라디아서, 빌립보 교인, 데살로니가 전서 1 인, 빌레몬서와 같은 바울의 작품이라는 현대 학자의 합의를 표현합니다. 바울의 이름이 새겨진 여섯 개의 추가 편지는 현재 동일한 학문적 합의를 누리지 못하고 있다: 에베소서, 골로새서, 데살로니가전서 2장, 디모데전서 1장, 디모데전서 2장, 디도서전서. [참고 8]
히브리인들에게 보내는 익명의 서한은, 바울의 저작이 거의 없었음에도 불구하고, 종종 기능적으로 이 열세 서신들과 함께 조직되어 열네 개의 "폴린" 서신들의 코퍼스를 형성한다. [참고 9]
많은 학자들이 전통적인 견해를 지지하지만, 어떤 사람들은 "신명기-바울 서신서"라고 불리는 처음 세 서신이 바울의 진정한 편지인지 의문을 제기합니다. 후자의 세 가지, "사목 서신"에 관해서는, 일부 학자들은 이것들을 사도 바울의 진정한 저술로 보는 전통적인 견해를지지합니다. [주 8] 대부분은 그들을 pseudepigrapha로 간주한다. [92]
라오디게아 인들에게 보내는 서한과 고린도 교인들에게 보내는 세 번째 서한을 가명으로 확인 된 작품의 예라고 부를 수도 있습니다. 교회의 초기 세기 이래로, 히브리인들에게 보내는 익명의 서한의 저자에 관한 논쟁이 있었고, 현대 학자들은 일반적으로 바울의 저작을 거부한다. [93]
서신은 모두 공통된 주제, 강조, 어휘 및 스타일을 공유합니다. 그들은 모세의 율법, 예수, 신앙 및 기타 여러 문제에 관한 교리의 통일성을 보여줍니다. 이 모든 편지들은 사도행전에 묘사된 바울의 여정의 연대기에 쉽게 들어맞는다.
야고보서의 저자는 오프닝 구절에서 자신을 "야고보, 하나님과 주 그리스도예수 종"이라고 밝힌다. 3세기 중반부터 애국주의 저자들은 제임스 저스트가 쓴 서한을 인용했다. [94] 고대와 현대 학자들은 항상 저자 문제에 대해 분열되어 왔다. 많은 사람들은 이 서한이 1세기 후반이나 2세기 초에 쓰여진 것으로 간주한다. [95]
베드로 첫 서한의 저자는 오프닝 구절에서 자신을 "예수 그리스도의 사도 베드로"라고 밝히며, 이 서한이 성 베드로에 의해 쓰여졌다는 견해는 많은 교회 교부들에 의해 증명된다: 이레네우스(140-203), 터툴리안(150-222), 알렉산드리아의 클레멘트(155-215), 알렉산드리아의 오리겐(185-253). 고대에 논의되었던 베드로의 두 번째 서신과는 달리, 18세기까지 이 첫 번째 서한에 대한 베드로의 저작에 대한 논쟁은 거의 없었다. 베드로후서 (2 Peter)는 내부적으로 사도의 작품이라고 주장하지만, 많은 성서 학자들은 베드로가 저자가 아니라고 결론 지었다. [96] 사도 베드로의 저작을 변호하기 위해 이른 날짜와 (보통) 크루거,[97] 잔,[98] 스피타,[99][전체 인용 필요] 빅,[100] 그리고 그린을 보라.[101]
유다서 제목은 다음과 같이 기록되어 있다: "유다, 예수 그리스도의 종이자 야고보의 형제". [102] 사도, 예수의 형제, 둘 다 또는 둘 다로서의 저자의 정체성에 대한 논쟁은 계속되었다. [103]
요한복음, 요한계시록 세 서신, 요한계시록은 뚜렷한 유사성을 나타내지만, 복음서와 서신서(특히 복음서와 요한1서) 사이에는 요한계시록과 계시록 사이보다 더 유사하다. [104] 따라서 대부분의 학자들은 같은 저자가 아니더라도 다섯 가지를 요한나인 문학의 단일 코퍼스로 취급한다. [105]
복음은 서기 90~110년경에 현재의 형태에 도달하기 전에 두세 개의 "판"을 거쳤다. [106][107] 그것은 그 전통의 근원으로서 이름없는 "예수 사랑했던 제자"에 대해 말하지만, 그가 그 저자라고 구체적으로 말하지는 않는다. [108] 기독교 전통은 이 제자를 사도 요한으로 규정하지만, 이 사상에는 여전히 지지자들이 있지만, 여러 가지 이유로 현대 학자들의 대다수는 그것을 포기하거나 끈질기게 붙잡고 있다. [109] 그것은 공관복음서와는 상당히 다르며, 물질적, 신학적 강조점, 연대기, 문학적 스타일이 크게 변형되어 때로는 모순에 달한다. [110]
The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John".[111] and states that he was on Patmos when he received his first vision.[112] 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 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 emperorDomitian, 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.[113]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.[114]Ben Witherington points out that linguistic evidence makes it unlikely that the books were written by the same person.[115]
The earliest manuscripts of New Testament books date from the late second to early third centuries (although see Papyrus 52 for a possible exception).[116] These manuscripts place a clear upper limit on the dating of New Testament texts. Explicit references to NT books in extra-biblical documents can push this upper limit down a bit further. Irenaeus of Lyon names and quotes from most of the books in the New Testament in his book Against Heresies, written around 180 AD. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, written some time between 110 and Polycarp's death in 155–167 AD, quotes or alludes to most New Testament texts. Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters referencing much of the New Testament. He lived from about 35 AD to 107 AD and is rumored to have been a disciple of the Apostle John. His writings reference the Gospels of John, Matthew, and Luke, as well as Peter, James, and Paul's Epistles. His writing is usually attributed to the end of his lifetime, which places the Gospels as first century writings.
Literary analysis of the New Testament texts themselves can be used to date many of the books of the New Testament to the mid-to-late first century. The earliest works of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. It can be determined that 1 Thessalonians is likely the earliest of these letters, written around 52 AD.[117]
The major languages spoken by both Jews and Greeks in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus were Aramaic and Koine Greek, and also a colloquial dialect of Mishnaic Hebrew. It is generally agreed by most scholars that the historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic,[118] perhaps also some Hebrew and Koine Greek. The majority view is that all of the books that would eventually form the New Testament were written in the Koine Greek language.[119][120]
As Christianity spread, these books were later translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian Coptic. Some of the Church Fathers[121] imply or claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then soon after was written in Koine Greek. Nevertheless, some scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew known today was composed in Greek and is neither directly dependent upon nor a translation of a text in a Semitic language.[122]
The style of Koine Greek in which the New Testament is written differs from the general Koine Greek used by Greek writers of the same era, a difference that some scholars have explained by the fact that the authors of the New Testament, nearly all Jews and deeply familiar with the Septuagint, wrote in a Jewish-Greek dialect strongly influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew[123] (see Jewish Koine Greek, related to the Greek of the Septuagint). But other scholars note that this view is arrived at by comparing the linguistic style of the New Testament to the preserved writings of the literary men of the era, who imitated the style of the great Attic texts and as a result did not reflect the everyday spoken language, so that this difference in style could be explained by the New Testament being written, unlike other preserved literary material of the era, in the Koine Greek spoken in every day life, in order to appeal to the common people, a style which has also been found in contemporary non-Jewish texts such as private letters, receipts and petitions discovered in Egypt (where the dry air has preserved these documents which, as everyday material not deemed of literary importance, had not been copied by subsequent generations).[124]
The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. In the initial centuries of early Christianity, there were many books widely considered by the church to be inspired, but there was no single formally recognized New Testament canon.[125] The process was characterized by a compilation of books that apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.[126] Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[127]
One of the earliest attempts at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke (the Gospel of Marcion) and ten of Paul's letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely. His canon was largely rejected by other groups of Christians, notably the proto-orthodox Christians, as was his theology, Marcionism. Adolf von Harnack,[128] John Knox,[129] and David Trobisch,[9] among other scholars, have argued that the church formulated its New Testament canon partially in response to the challenge posed by Marcion.
The Muratorian fragment, dated at between 170 and as late as the end of the 4th century (according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary), may be the earliest known New Testament canon attributed to mainstream Christianity. It is similar, but not identical, to the modern New Testament canon.
The oldest clear endorsement of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, who refers to it directly[134][135] in his polemicAgainst Heresies:
The books considered to be authoritative by Irenaeus included the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul, although, based on the arguments Irenaeus made in support of only four authentic gospels, some interpreters deduce that the fourfold Gospel must have still been a novelty in Irenaeus's time.[136]
By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation,[137] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[138] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[139]
Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts that became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-4th-century Easter Letter, which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on the Ecclesiastical History (HE) of Eusebius of Caesarea, wherein he uses the information passed on to him by Origen to create both his list at HE 3:25 and Origen's list at HE 6:25. Eusebius got his information about what texts were then accepted and what were then disputed, by the third-century churches throughout the known world, a great deal of which Origen knew of firsthand from his extensive travels, from the library and writings of Origen.[140]
In fact, Origen would have possibly included in his list of "inspired writings" other texts kept out by the likes of Eusebius—including the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. Notwithstanding these facts, "Origen is not the originator of the idea of biblical canon, but he certainly gives the philosophical and literary-interpretative underpinnings for the whole notion."[141]
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical HistoryBook 3, Chapter XXV:
"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Book of Revelation, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.""3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.""6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."
The Book of Revelation is counted as both accepted (Kirsopp Lake translation: "recognized") and disputed, which has caused some confusion over what exactly Eusebius meant by doing so. From other writings of the church fathers, it was disputed with several canon lists rejecting its canonicity. EH 3.3.5 adds further detail on Paul: "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul." EH 4.29.6 mentions the Diatessaron: "But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle Paul, in order to improve their style."
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[2] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[142] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 AD). The acts of this council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419).[143] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[144][145][146]
Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[2] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[147] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[148] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[144][149][150]
Even this council did not settle the matter. Certain books, referred to as Antilegomena, continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, the Reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. To this day, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than in their traditional order as in other editions of the Bible.
On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:[154]
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."[155]
Like other literature from antiquity, the text of the New Testament was (prior to the advent of the printing press) preserved and transmitted in manuscripts. Manuscripts containing at least a part of the New Testament number in the thousands. The earliest of these (like manuscripts containing other literature) are often very fragmentarily preserved. Some of these fragments have even been thought to date as early as the 2nd century (i.e., Papyrus 90, Papyrus 98, Papyrus 104, and famously Rylands Library Papyrus P52, though the early date of the latter has recently been called into question).[157]
For each subsequent century, more and more manuscripts survive that contain a portion or all of the books that were held to be part of the New Testament at that time (for example, the New Testament of the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, once a complete Bible, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas), though occasionally these manuscripts contain other works as well (e.g., Papyrus 72 and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex). The date when a manuscript was written does not necessarily reflect the date of the form of text it contains. That is, later manuscripts can, and occasionally do, contain older forms of text or older readings.
Some of the more important manuscripts containing an early text of books of the New Testament are:
The Chester Beatty Papyri (Greek; the New Testament portions of which were copied in the 3rd century)
The Bodmer Papyri (Greek and Coptic; the New Testament portions of which were copied in the 3rd and 4th centuries)
Codex Bobiensis (Latin; copied in the 4th century, but containing at least a 3rd-century form of text)
Uncial 0171 (Greek; copied in the late-third or early 4th century)
Textual criticism deals with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made errors or alterations (such as including non-authentic additions).[158] The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Even if the original Greek versions were lost, the entire New Testament could still be assembled from the translations.[159]
In addition, there are so many quotes from the New Testament in early church documents and commentaries that the entire New Testament could also be assembled from these alone.[159] Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, the Gnostic writings of Valentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church.[160] The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, but it also gives scholars a better idea of how close modern Bibles are to the original versions.[160]
On noting the large number of surviving ancient manuscripts, Bruce Metzger sums up the view on the issue by saying "The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.[159]
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. According to Bart D. Ehrman, "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries."[161]
Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate passages that have disputed source documents. Bible commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, almost all have no importance, as they are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages. For example, order of words (i.e. "man bites dog" versus "dog bites man") often does not matter in Greek, so textual variants that flip the order of words often have no consequences.[159]
Outside of these unimportant variants, there are a couple variants of some importance. The two most commonly cited examples are the last verses of the Gospel of Mark[162][163][164] and the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John.[165][166][167] Many scholars and critics also believe that the Comma Johanneum reference supporting the Trinity doctrine in 1 John to have been a later addition.[168][169] According to Norman Geisler and William Nix, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5% pure".[170]
The often referred to Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: "A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."[171] Most of the variation took place within the first three Christian centuries.
By the 4th century, textual "families" or types of text become discernible among New Testament manuscripts. A "text-type" is the name given to a family of texts with similar readings due to common ancestors and mutual correction. Many early manuscripts contain individual readings from several different earlier forms of text. Modern textual critics have identified the following text-types among textual witnesses to the New Testament: The Alexandrian text-type is usually considered to generally preserve many early readings. It is represented, e.g., by Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and the Bodmer Papyri.
A text-type referred to as the "Caesarean text-type" and thought to have included witnesses such as Codex Koridethi and minuscule 565, can today be described neither as "Caesarean" nor as a text-type as was previously thought. The Gospel of Mark in Papyrus 45, Codex Washingtonianus and in Family 13 reflects a distinct type of text.
Increasing standardization of distinct (and once local) text-types eventually gave rise to the Byzantine text-type. Since most manuscripts of the New Testament do not derive from the first several centuries, that is, they were copied after the rise of the Byzantine text-type, this form of text is found the majority of extant manuscripts and is therefore often called the "Majority Text." As with all of the other (earlier) text-types, the Byzantine can also occasionally preserve early readings.
Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings."[172] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey.
It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on the Old Testament, the letters of the New Testament, or the Canonical Gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for the historical Jesus. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history, and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, narrative criticism, Oral Tradition studies, history, and religious studies.
The textual variation among manuscript copies of books in the New Testament prompted attempts to discern the earliest form of text already in antiquity (e.g., by the 3rd-century Christian author Origen). The efforts began in earnest again during the Renaissance, which saw a revival of the study of ancient Greek texts. During this period, modern textual criticism was born. In this context, Christian humanists such as Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus promoted a return to the original Greek of the New Testament. This was the beginning of modern New Testament textual criticism, which over subsequent centuries would increasingly incorporate more and more manuscripts, in more languages (i.e., versions of the New Testament), as well as citations of the New Testament by ancient authors and the New Testament text in lectionaries in order to reconstruct the earliest recoverable form of the New Testament text and the history of changes to it.[119]
Relationship to earlier and contemporaneous literature[edit]
Books that later formed the New Testament, like other Christian literature of the period, originated in a literary context that reveals relationships not only to other Christian writings, but also to Graeco-Roman and Jewish works. Of singular importance is the extensive use of and interaction with the Jewish Bible and what would become the Christian Old Testament. Both implicit and explicit citations, as well as countless allusions, appear throughout the books of the New Testament, from the Gospels and Acts, to the Epistles, to the Apocalypse.[173]
The first translations (usually called "versions") of the New Testament were made beginning already at the end of 2nd century. The earliest versions of the New Testament are the translations into the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic languages.[174] These three versions were made directly from the Greek, and are frequently cited in the apparatuses of modern critical editions.
Syriac was spoken in Syria, and Mesopotamia, and with dialect in Roman and Byzantine Palestine where it was known as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Several Syriac translations were made and have come to us. Most of the Old Syriac, as well as the Philoxonian version have been lost.
Tatian, the Assyrian, created the Diatessaron, a gospel harmony written in Syriac around 170 AD and the earliest form of the gospel not only in Syriac but probably also in Armenian.
In the 19th century, manuscript evidence was discovered for an "Old Syriac" version of the four distinct (i.e., not harmonized) gospels. These "separated" (Syriac: da-Mepharreshe) gospels, though old, have been shown to be later than the Diatessaron. The Old Syriac gospels are fragmentarily preserved in two manuscripts: the 5th-century Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac from the 4th or 5th century.
No Old Syriac manuscripts of other portions of the New Testament survive, though Old Syriac readings, e.g. from the Pauline Epistles, can be discerned in citations made by Eastern fathers and in later Syriac versions. The Old Syriac version is a representative of the Western text-type. The Peshitta version was prepared in the beginning of the 5th century. It contains only 22 books (neither the Minor Catholic Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, nor the Book of Revelation were part of this translation).
The Gospels were likely translated into Latin as early as the last quarter of the 2nd century in North Africa (Afra). Not much later, there were also European Latin translations (Itala). There are about 80 Old Latin manuscripts. The Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") versions often contain readings with a Western type of text. (For the avoidance of confusion, these texts were written in Late Latin, not the early version of the Latin language known as Old Latin, pre 75 BC.)
The bewildering diversity of the Old Latin versions prompted Jerome to prepare another translation into Latin—the Vulgate. In many respects it was merely a revision of the Old Latin. There are currently around 8,000 manuscripts of the Vulgate.
There are several dialects of the Coptic language: Bohairic (northern dialect), Fayyumic, Sahidic (southern dialect), Akhmimic, and others. The first translation was made by at least the 3rd century into the Sahidic dialect (copsa). This translation represents a mixed text, mostly Alexandrian, though also with Western readings.[176]
A Bohairic translation was made later, but existed already in the 4th century. Though the translation makes less use of Greek words than the Sahidic, it does employ some Greek grammar (e.g., in word-order and the use of particles such as the syntactic construction μεν—δε). For this reason, the Bohairic translation can be helpful in the reconstruction of the early Greek text of the New Testament.[177]
The continued spread of Christianity, and the foundation of national churches, led to the translation of the Bible—often beginning with books from the New Testament—into a variety of other languages at a relatively early date: Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Persian, Sogdian, and eventually Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, Arabic, and Nubian.[178]
Historically, throughout the Christian world and in the context of Christian missionary activity, the New Testament (or portions thereof) has been that part of the Christian Bible first translated into the vernacular. The production of such translations grew out of the insertion of vernacularglosses in biblical texts, as well as out of the production of biblical paraphrases and poetic renditions of stories from the life of Christ (e.g., the Heliand).
Most of these translations relied (though not always exclusively) upon one of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus, the Novum Instrumentum omne; a form of this Greek text emerged as the standard and is known as the Textus Receptus. This text, based on the majority of manuscripts is also used in the majority of translations that were made in the years 100 to 400 AD.
Translations of the New Testament made since the appearance of critical editions of the Greek text (notably those of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and von Soden) have largely used them as their base text. Unlike the Textus Receptus, these have a pronounced Alexandrian character. Standard critical editions are those of Nestle-Åland (the text, though not the full critical apparatus of which is reproduced in the United Bible Societies' "Greek New Testament"), Souter, Vogels, Bover and Merk.
Though all Christian churches accept the New Testament as scripture, they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authoritativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of inspiration, which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or authoritativeness of the Bible. One possible source of confusion is that these terms are difficult to define, because many people use them interchangeably or with very different meanings. This article will use the terms in the following manner:
Infallibility relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine.
Inerrancy relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
Authoritativeness relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice in morality.
According to Gary T. Meadors:
All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether literal history, allegory or poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world.
The notion of unity in diversity of Scripture claims that the Bible presents a noncontradictory and consistent message concerning God and redemptive history. The fact of diversity is observed in comparing the diversity of time, culture, authors' perspectives, literary genre, and the theological themes.[180]
Studies from many theologians considering the "unity in diversity" to be found in the New Testament (and the Bible as a whole) have been collected and summarized by New Testament theologian Frank Stagg. He describes them as some basic presuppositions, tenets, and concerns common among the New Testament writers, giving to the New Testament its "unity in diversity":
The reality of God is never argued but is always assumed and affirmed
Jesus Christ is absolutely central: he is Lord and Savior, the foretold Prophet, the Messianic King, the Chosen, the way, the truth, and the light, the One through whom God the Father not only acted but through whom He came
The Holy Spirit came anew with Jesus Christ.
The Christian faith and life are a calling, rooted in divine election.
The plight of everyone as sinner means that each person is completely dependent upon the mercy and grace of God
Salvation is both God's gift and his demand through Jesus Christ, to be received by faith
The death and resurrection of Jesus are at the heart of the total event of which he was the center
God creates a people of his own, designated and described by varied terminology and analogies
History must be understood eschatologically, being brought along toward its ultimate goal when the kingdom of God, already present in Christ, is brought to its complete triumph
In Christ, all of God's work of creation, revelation, and redemption is brought to fulfillment[181]
Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Classical Anglicanism[edit]
In Catholic terminology the teaching office is called the Magisterium. The Catholic view should not be confused with the two-source theory. As the Catechism states in §§ 80 and 81, Revelation has "one common source ... two distinct modes of transmission."[182]
While many Eastern Orthodox writers distinguish between Scripture and Tradition, Bishop Kallistos Ware says that for the Orthodox there is only one source of the Christian faith, Holy Tradition, within which Scripture exists.[183]
Traditional Anglicans believe that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation", (Article VI), but also that the Catholic Creeds "ought thoroughly to be received and believed" (Article VIII), and that the Church "hath authority in Controversies of Faith" and is "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ" (Article XX).[184] Classical Anglicanism, therefore, like Orthodoxy, holds that Holy Tradition is the only safe guardian against perversion and innovation in the interpretation of Scripture.
In the famous words of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells: "As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West, more particularly in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross."[quote citation needed]
Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to reevaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in Liberal Protestant traditions even to the reevaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. The adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of scripture vary widely.[citation needed]
American evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism[edit]
Within the US, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) articulates evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph four of its summary states: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."[185]
Mainline American Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have more ancient doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but may interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching—from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly.
For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is sometimes recognized as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. In North America, the most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted.
Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report: "We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or prescientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail."[186]
Those who hold a more liberal view of the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy. These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for social justice.
The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Golden Rule admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative.
There are some movements that believe the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus but who reject the churches that were formed following its publication. These people believe all individuals can communicate directly with God and therefore do not need guidance or doctrines from a church. These people are known as Christian anarchists.
Messianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.[187] According to the view of some Messianic Jewish congregations, Jesus did not annul the Torah, but that its interpretation is revised and ultimately explained through the Apostolic Scriptures.[188]
Jehovah's Witnesses accept the New Testament as divinely inspired Scripture, and as infallible in every detail, with equal authority as the Hebrew Scriptures. They view it as the written revelation and good news of the Messiah, the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, and the Kingdom of God, explaining and expounding the Hebrew Bible, not replacing but vitally supplementing it. They also view the New Testament as the primary instruction guide for Christian living, and church discipline. They generally call the New Testament the "Christian Greek Scriptures", and see only the "covenants" as "old" or "new", but not any part of the actual Scriptures themselves.[189]
Oneness Pentecostalism subscribes to the common Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. They view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and as absolutely inerrant in its contents (though not necessarily in every translation).[190][191] They regard the New Testament as perfect and inerrant in every way, revealing the Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh, and his Atonement, and which also explains and illuminates the Old Testament perfectly, and is part of the Bible canon, not because church councils or decrees claimed it so, but by witness of the Holy Spirit.[192][193]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds the New Testament as the inspired Word of God, with God influencing the "thoughts" of the Apostles in the writing, not necessarily every word though. The first fundamental belief of the Seventh-Day Adventist church stated that "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of [God's] will." Adventist theologians generally reject the "verbal inspiration" position on Scripture held by many conservative evangelical Christians. They believe instead that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical authors and apostles, and that the writers then expressed these thoughts in their own words.[194] This view is popularly known as "thought inspiration", and most Adventist members hold to that view. According to Ed Christian, former JATS editor, "few if any ATS members believe in verbal inerrancy".[195]
Regarding the teachings of the New Testament compared to the Old, and the application in the New Covenant, Adventists have traditionally taught that the Decalogue is part of the moral law of God, which was not abrogated by the ministry and death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath is as applicable to Christian believers as the other nine. Adventists have often taught a distinction between "moral law" and "ceremonial law". According to Adventist beliefs, the moral law continues into the "New Testament era", but the ceremonial law was done away with by Jesus.
How the Mosaic Law should be applied came up at Adventist conferences in the past, and Adventist theologians such as A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner looked at the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians as not the ceremonial law, but rather the wrong use of the law (legalism). They were opposed by Uriah Smith and George Butler at the 1888 Conference. Smith in particular thought the Galatians issue had been settled by Ellen White already, yet in 1890 she claimed that justification by faith is "the third angel's message in verity."[196] White interpreted Colossians 2:14[197] as saying that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.[198]
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) believe that the New Testament, as part of the Christian biblical canon, is accurate "as far as it is translated correctly".[199] They believe the Bible as originally revealed is the word of God, but that the processes of transcription and translation have introduced errors into the texts as currently available, and therefore they cannot be regarded as completely inerrant.[200][201] In addition to the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price are considered part of their scriptural canon.[202][203]
A Byzantine lectionary, Codex Harleianus (l150), 995 AD, text of John 1:18.
Despite the wide variety among Christian liturgies, texts from the New Testament play a role in almost all forms of Christian worship. In addition to some language derived from the New Testament in the liturgy itself (e.g., the Trisagion may be based on Apocalypse 4:8, and the beginning of the "Hymn of Praise" draws upon Luke 2:14), the reading of extended passages from the New Testament is a practice common to almost all Christian worship, liturgical or not.
Central to the Christian liturgy is the celebration of the Eucharist or "Holy Communion". The Words of Institution that begin this rite are drawn directly from 1 Corinthians 11:23–26. In addition, the communal recitation of the Lord's Prayer (in the form found in the Gospel of Matthew 6:9–13) is also a standard feature of Christian worship.
Gaudenzio Ferrari's Stories of the Life and Passion of Christ, fresco, 1513, Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Varallo Sesia, Italy. Depicting the life of Jesus
The text of the famous "Hallelujah" chorus in G. F. Händel's Messiah is drawn from three passages in the Book of Revelation: 19:6, 11:5, and 19:16 (audio clip from the German translation of the Messiah).
^ For example, the pact between Jacob with Laban in Genesis (Genesis 31:44).
^ For example, the covenant at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:5) or the "new covenant" verse from Jeremiah 31:31 above (Jeremiah 31:31).
^ See also Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapters I, II, XIV. His meaning in chapter XX is less clear, and in chapters IX and XL he uses the term to mean 'new covenant'.
^Joseph Barber Lightfoot in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians writes: "At this point[37] the apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis, and the concluding paragraph is written with his own hand. From the time when letters began to be forged in his name[38] it seems to have been his practice to close with a few words in his own handwriting, as a precaution against such forgeries.... In the present case he writes a whole paragraph, summing up the main lessons of the epistle in terse, eager, disjointed sentences. He writes it, too, in large, bold characters (Gr. pelikois grammasin), that his handwriting may reflect the energy and determination of his soul."[39]
^ The Gospels are in this order in many Old Latin manuscripts, as well as in the Greek manuscripts Codex Bezae and Codex Washingtonianus.
^ Jump up to:abDonald Guthrie lists the following scholars as supporting authenticity: Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thörnell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremias, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee[90]
^ 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".[91]
^ Robinson, John Arthur Thomas (2000) [1976]. Redating the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock. p. 352. ISBN978-1-57910-527-3.
^Ehrman 1997, p. 8: "The New Testament contains twenty-seven books, written in Greek, by fifteen or sixteen different authors, who were addressing other Christian individuals or communities between the years 50 and 120 C.E. (see box 1.4). As we will see, it is difficult to know whether any of these books was written by Jesus' own disciples."
^Harris 2010, p. 20: Dates Jude and 2 Peter to 130-150 AD.
^Harris 1980, p. 295: Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
^ Jump up to:abcTrobisch, David. "Who Published the New Testament?" (PDF). Free Inquiry. 28 (Dec. 2007/Jan. 2008): 30–33. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 April 2021. ...Acts provides information that makes it possible to identify Luke, the author of the Gospel, as the doctor who travels with Paul and to identify Mark as someone close to Peter and Paul. This 'canon consciousness' suggests that the book of Acts was composed at a later date than is typically thought; this theory is supported by the first attestation of the book around 180 CE.
^ Definition of ברית in Brown-Driver-Briggs's lexicon: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1285.htm Hebrew uses an unrelated word for testament: tsavaa (צַוָּאָה).
^ "If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith) by passages which may admit of dispute out of the Old Testament, I will take out of the New Testament a confirmation of our view, that you may not straightway attribute to the Father every possible (relation and condition) which I ascribe to the Son." – Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15
^Bassler, Jouette M. (2010). "Paul and his Letters". In Aune, David E. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 388. ISBN978-1-4443-1894-4.
^ Roetzel, Calvin J. (2009). The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (5th ed.). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox. p. ix–x ISBN978-0-664-23392-1
^Ehrman 2004a, p. 323: "Scholars in the ancient world went about detecting forgeries in much the same way that modern scholars do. They looked to see whether the ideas and writing style of a piece conformed with those used by the author in other writings, and they examined the text for any blatant anachronisms, that is, statements about things that could not have existed at the time the alleged author was writing (like the letter reputedly from an early seventeenth-century American colonist that mentions "the United States")- Arguments of this kind were used by some Christian scholars of the third century to show that Hebrews was not written by Paul or the Book of Revelation by John the son of Zebedee. Modern scholars, as we will see, concur with these judgments. To be sure, neither of these books can be considered a forgery. Hebrews does not claim to be written by Paul (it is anonymous), and the John who wrote Revelation does not claim to be the son of Zebedee (it is therefore homonymous). Are there other books in the New Testament, though, that can be considered forgeries?"
^ For a detailed study of the Apocalypse of John, see Aune, David E. (1998). Revelation, 3 volumes. Word Biblical Commentary series. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.
^ Marshall, Ian Howard (2007). Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity, Chapter 4. London: Paternoster. ISBN978-1842275498.
^ Strelan, Rick (2013). Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. Farnham, ENG: Routledege-Ashgate. pp. 102–05.
^ 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.
^ For discussion of Mark, see Hare, Douglas R. A. (1996). Mark. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 3–5.
^ 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.
^ Walsh, Robin Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature - Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9781108883573.
^ Davis, Henry (2020). Creating Christianity A Weapon Of Ancient Rome (Newly revised and updated. ed.). Hellenic and Roman Library -The Institute of Classical Studies Library, London: Independent Publishing Network. ISBN9781789265569.
^Ehrman 2003, p. 235: "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."
^Ehrman 2004b, p. 110: "In fact, contrary to what you might think, these Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses."
^Ehrman 2006, p. 143: "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."
^ 숀 에이 애덤스, "바울과 누가의 관계: 누가복음, 바울의 편지, 그리고 사도행전의 '우리' 구절들." Stanley E. Porter와 Christopher D. Land (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 132–34쪽. ISBN978-9004242111 루칸 텍스트의 단일 저자 / 편집자 이론의 학술적 합의는 의심의 여지가 없습니다 (예 : 패트리샤 월터스, 루크와 행위의 가정 된 저자 통일 : 증거의 재평가 (Cambridge University Press, 2009). ISBN978-0521509749
^Zahn, S. T. (1909). Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. Translated by Trout, John Moore; Mather, William Arnot; Hodous, Louis; Worcester, Edward Strong; Worrell, William Hoyt; Dodge, Rowland Backus (English translation of 3rd German ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. p. 250.
^ e.g. Green, E. M. B. (8 July 1960). 2 Peter Reconsidered (PDF) (Speech). Meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research. Cambridge. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 August 2020.
^ Tenney, Merrill C., gen. ed. (2009). "Revelation, Book of the". Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5 (Q–Z). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
^ Witherington, Ben (2003). Revelation. Cambridge University Press. p. 2.
^ Myers, Allen C., ed. (1987). "Aramaic". The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72. ISBN978-0-8028-2402-8. It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the 1st century AD. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem (Matt. 26:73).
^ Aland, K.; Aland, B. (1995). The Text of the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN978-0-8028-4098-1.
^ Koester, Helmut (1982). Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2. Philadelphia. p. 172.
^ Davies, W. D.; Allison, Dale C. (1988). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 33–58.
^ Three forms are postulated, from The Canon Debate, chapter 18, p. 300, note 21, attributed to Harry Y. Gamble: "(1) Marcion's collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last."
^ Harnack, Adolf. "Appendix VI". Origin of the New Testament. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
^ Knox, John (1942). Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon. Chicago: Chicago University Press. pp. 158ff. ISBN978-0404161835.
^ Bateman, C. G. (3 August 2010). "Origen's Role in the Formation of the New Testament Canon". SSRN1653073.
^ McGuckin, John A. (2003). "Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition". In Perrone, L. (ed.). Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, Vol. 1. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. Leuven: Leuven University Press. pp. 121–37.
^ Brakke, David (October 1994). "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter". Harvard Theological Review. 87 (4): 395–419. doi:10.1017/S0017816000030200. JSTOR1509966. S2CID161779697.
^McDonald & Sanders 2002, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelation was added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."
^ Levine, Amy-Jill; Blickenstaff, Marianne (2001). A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, Vol. 5. A&C Black. p. 175.
^"NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved 17 October 2009. See note 139 on that page.
^Ehrman 2005, p. 80-83: "on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greeks manuscript in which the verse could be found (finding it in Latin manuscripts was not enough). And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. It appears that someone copied out the Greek text of the Epistles, and when he came to the passage in question, he translated the Latin text into Greek, giving the Johannine Comma in its familiar, theologically useful form. The manuscript provided to Erasmus, in other words, was a sixteenthcentury production, made to order."
^"Our Beliefs". Beit Simcha. Retrieved 7 June 2012. To study the whole and authoritative Word of God, including the Tenach (Hebrew Scriptures) and the B'rit Chadasha (New Covenant) under the leading of the Holy Spirit.
^"Essential Statement of Faith". The Harvest: A Messianic Charismatic Congregation. Archived from the original on 27 November 2015. Retrieved 7 June 2012. We believe that the Torah (five books of Moses) is a comprehensive summary of God's foundational laws and ways, as found in both the Tanakh and Apostolic Scriptures. Additionally, the Bible teaches that without holiness no man can see God. We believe in the Doctrine of Sanctification as a definite, yet progressive work of grace, commencing at the time of regeneration and continuing until the consummation of salvation. Therefore we encourage all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to affirm, embrace, and practice these foundational laws and ways as clarified through the teachings of Messiah Yeshua.
^Equipped for Every Good Work (PDF). Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society & International Bible Students Association. 1946. pp. 12–13.
^ 예를 들어, Raddatz, Tom (2000 년 10 월 26 일) 참조. "하나됨-삼위일체 논쟁에 대한 응답". 1Lord1Faith.org. 2005년 3월 20일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서.
^ 덜레, 제이슨. "영감의 본질". 성서 연구 연구소. 2013년 4월 15일에 확인함.
^ 목회자 협회, 제칠일 안식일 예수재림교인 총회 (2005). 제칠일 안식일 예수재림교인들은 믿는다 (제2판). 태평양 언론 출판 협회. 14~16쪽.
^ McLarty, John (2001년 11월 15일). "재림 신학 협회". 재림교인 오늘. 2007년 12월 25일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서.
^ 화이트, E. G. (1890년 4월 1일). "회개 하나님의 은사"(PDF). 강림절 복습과 안식일 헤럴드. 67 (13): 193–94. 2020년 12월 30일에 확인함. 몇몇 사람들이 믿음으로 의롭다 하심을 얻는 기별이 셋째 천사의 기별인지 물었고, 나는 "진실로 셋째 천사의 기별이다"라고 대답했다. 밝음과 영광과 권능은 셋째 천사의 기별과 연결되어야 하며, 확신은 영을 나타내 보이기 위해 전파되는 곳이면 어디든지 따를 것이다.