New Testament

The New Testament[a] (NT) is the second division of the

Christian biblical canon. It discusses the teachings and
person of Jesus, as well as events relating to first-century
Christianity. The New Testament's background, the first
division of the Christian Bible, is called the Old
Testament, which is based primarily upon the Hebrew
Bible; together they are regarded as Sacred Scripture by
Christians.[1]
:
 New Testament
Part of the Bible

Information

Religion Christianity

Language Koine Greek

Books 27

Chapters 260

Verses 7,957

The New Testament is a collection of 27 Christian texts

written in Koine Greek by various authors, forming the
second major division of the Christian Bible. Widely
accepted across Christian traditions since Late Antiquity,
[2]
it includes four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
epistles attributed to Paul and other authors, and the
:
 Book of Revelation. The canon was formally recognized
by the 4th century AD through ecclesiastical councils,
solidifying its role in Christian theology and practice.

Literary analysis suggests many of its texts were written

in the mid-to-late first century. There is no scholarly
consensus on the date of composition of the latest New
Testament text. The earliest New Testament manuscripts
date from the late second to early third centuries AD, with
the possible exception of Papyrus 52.

The New Testament was transmitted through thousands

of manuscripts in various languages and church
quotations and contains variants. Textual criticism uses
surviving manuscripts to reconstruct the oldest version
feasible and to chart the history of the written tradition.[3]
It has varied reception among Christians today. It is
viewed as a holy scripture alongside Sacred Tradition
among Catholics[4] and Orthodox, while Evangelicals and
some other Protestants view it as the inspired word of
God without tradition.[5]

Etymology
:
 The word testament
The word testament in the expression "New Testament"
refers to a Christian new covenant that Christians believe
completes or fulfils the Mosaic covenant (the Jewish
covenant) that Yahweh (the God of Israel) made with the
people of Israel on Mount Sinai through Moses,
described in the books of the Old Testament of the
Christian Bible.[6] While Christianity traditionally even
claims this Christian new covenant as being prophesied
in the Jewish Bible's Book of Jeremiah,[7] Judaism
traditionally disagrees:[8][9]

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I

will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah; not
according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although
I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this
is the covenant that I will make with the house
:
 of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will
put My law in their inward parts, and in their
heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and
they shall be My people; and they shall teach no
more every man his neighbour, and every man
his brother, saying: 'Know the LORD'; for they
shall all know Me, from the least of them unto
the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will
forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I
remember no more.

The word covenant means 'agreement' (from Latin con-

venio "to agree", literally 'to come together'): the use of
the word testament, which describes the different idea of
written instructions for inheritance after death, to refer to
the covenant with Israel in the Old Testament, is foreign
to the original Hebrew word brit (‫ )בְּרִ ית‬describing it,
which only means 'alliance, covenant, pact' and never
'inheritance instructions after death'.[10][11] This use
comes from the transcription of Latin testamentum 'will
(left after death)',[12] a literal translation of Greek diatheke
(διαθήκη) 'will (left after death)',[13] which is the word
used to translate Hebrew brit in the Septuagint.[14]
:
 The choice of this word diatheke, by the Jewish
translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria in the 3rd and
2nd century BCE, has been understood in Christian
theology to imply a reinterpreted view of the Old
Testament covenant with Israel as possessing
characteristics of a 'will left after death' (the death of
Jesus) and has generated considerable attention from
biblical scholars and theologians:[15] in contrast to the
Jewish usage where brit was the usual Hebrew word
used to refer to pacts, alliances and covenants in general,
like a common pact between two individuals,[b] and to
the one between God and Israel in particular,[c] in the
Greek world diatheke was virtually never used to refer to
an alliance or covenant (one exception is noted in a
passage from Aristophanes)[6] and referred instead to a
will left after the death of a person. There is scholarly
debate[16][15] as to the reason why the translators of the
Septuagint chose the term diatheke to translate Hebrew
brit, instead of another Greek word generally used to
refer to an alliance or covenant.
:
 The phrase New Testament
as the collection of
scriptures
The use of the phrase New Testament (Koine Greek: Ἡ
Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē) to describe a
collection of first- and second-century Christian Greek
scriptures can be traced back to Tertullian in his work
Against Praxeas.[17][18][19] Irenaeus uses the phrase New
Testament several times, but does not use it in reference
to any written text.[18] In Against Marcion, written
c. 208 AD, Tertullian writes of:[20]

the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the

two testaments of the law and the gospel.

And Tertullian continues later in the book, writing:[21][d]

it is certain that the whole aim at which he

[Marcion] has strenuously laboured, even in the
:
 drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this,
that he may establish a diversity between the
Old and the New Testaments, so that his own
Christ may be separate from the Creator, as
belonging to this rival God, and as alien from
the law and the prophets.

By the 4th century, the existence—even if not the exact

contents—of both an Old and New Testament had been
established. Lactantius, a 3rd–4th century Christian
author wrote in his early-4th-century Latin Institutiones
Divinae (Divine Institutes):[22]

But all scripture is divided into two Testaments.

That which preceded the advent and passion of
Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is
called the Old; but those things which were
written after His resurrection are named the
New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old,
we of the New: but yet they are not discordant,
for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in
both there is the same testator, even Christ,
who, having suffered death for us, made us
:
 heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of
the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the
prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such
things: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will make a new testament to the house of
Israel and the house of Judah, not according to
the testament which I made to their fathers, in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt; for they
continued not in my testament, and I
disregarded them, saith the Lord."[23] ... For
that which He said above, that He would make
a new testament to the house of Judah, shows
that the old testament which was given by
Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be
given by Christ would be complete.

Eusebius describes the collection of Christian writings as

"covenanted" (ἐνδιαθήκη) books in Hist. Eccl. 3.3.1–7;
3.25.3; 5.8.1; 6.25.1.
:
 Books

The Gospels
Each of the four gospels in the New Testament narrates
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (the
gospel of Mark in the original text ends with the empty
tomb and has no account of the post-resurrection
appearances, but the emptiness of the tomb implies a
resurrection). The word "gospel" derives from the Old
English gōd-spell[24] (rarely godspel), meaning "good
news" or "glad tidings". Its Hebrew equivalent being
"besorah" (‫)בְּשׂוֹרָ ה‬. The gospel was considered the
"good news" of the coming Kingdom of Messiah, and the
redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the
central Christian message.[25]

Starting in the late second century, the four narrative

accounts of the life and work of Jesus Christ have been
referred to as "The Gospel of ..." or "The Gospel
according to ..." followed by the name of the supposed
:
 author. The first author to explicitly name the canonical
gospels is Irenaeus of Lyon,[18][26] who promoted the
four canonical gospels in his book Against Heresies,
written around 180.[27]

The Gospel of Matthew,

ascribed to the Apostle
Matthew. This gospel begins
with a genealogy of Jesus and
a story of his birth that includes
a visit from magi and a flight
into Egypt, and it ends with the
commissioning of the disciples
by the resurrected Jesus.[28]
The Gospel of Mark, ascribed to
Mark the Evangelist. This
:
 gospel begins with the
preaching of John the Baptist
and the baptism of Jesus and
ends with the Ascension of
Jesus.[29]
The Gospel of Luke, ascribed to
Luke the Evangelist, who was
not one of the Twelve Apostles,
but was mentioned as a
companion of the Apostle Paul
and as a physician.[30]
The Gospel of John, ascribed to
John the Evangelist.[31] This
:
 gospel begins with a
philosophical prologue and
ends with appearances of the
resurrected Jesus.[31]
These four gospels that were eventually included in the
New Testament were only a few among many other early
Christian gospels. The existence of such texts is even
mentioned at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke.[32]
Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later
than the four canonical gospels, and like them advocating
the particular theological views of their various authors.
[33][34]
In modern scholarship, the Synoptic Gospels are
the primary sources for reconstructing Christ's ministry.
[35][note 1]

Acts of the Apostles

The Acts of the Apostles is a narrative of the apostles'
:
 ministry and activity after Christ's death and resurrection,
from which point it resumes and functions as a sequel to
the Gospel of Luke. Examining style, phraseology, and
other evidence, modern scholarship generally concludes
that Acts and the Gospel of Luke share the same author,
referred to as Luke–Acts. Luke–Acts does not name its
author.[36] Church tradition identified him as Luke the
Evangelist, the companion of Paul, but the majority of
scholars reject this due to the many differences between
Acts and the authentic Pauline letters, though most
scholars still believe the author, whether named Luke or
not, met Paul.[37][38][39][40][41] The most probable date of
composition is around 80–90 AD, although some
scholars date it significantly later,[42][43] and there is
evidence that it was still being substantially revised well
into the 2nd century.[44]

Pauline letters to churches

The Pauline letters are the thirteen New Testament books
that present Paul the Apostle as their author.[e] Paul's
authorship of six of the letters is disputed. Four are
thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic,
:
 i.e., not actually written by Paul even if attributed to him
within the letters themselves. Opinion is more divided on
the other two disputed letters (2 Thessalonians and
Colossians).[48] These letters were written to Christian
communities in specific cities or geographical regions,
often to address issues faced by that particular
community. Prominent themes include the relationship
both to broader "pagan" society, to Judaism, and to other
Christians.[49]

Epistle to the Romans

First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the
Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians*
Epistle to the Philippians
:
 Epistle to the Colossians*
First Epistle to the
Thessalonians
Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians*
[Disputed letters are marked with an asterisk (*).]

Pauline letters to persons

The last four Pauline letters in the New Testament are
addressed to individual persons. They include the
following:

First Epistle to Timothy*

Second Epistle to Timothy*
Epistle to Titus*
:
 Epistle to Philemon
[Disputed letters are marked with an asterisk (*).]

All of the above except for Philemon are known as the

pastoral epistles. They are addressed to individuals
charged with pastoral oversight of churches and discuss
issues of Christian living, doctrine and leadership. They
often address different concerns to those of the
preceding epistles. These letters are believed by many to
be pseudepigraphic. Some scholars (e.g., Bill Mounce,
Ben Witherington, R.C. Sproul) will argue that the letters
are genuinely Pauline, or at least written under Paul's
supervision.

Hebrews
The Epistle to the Hebrews addresses a Jewish audience
who had come to believe that Jesus was the Anointed
One (Hebrew: ‫ח‬
ַ ‫—מָשִׁ י‬transliterated in English as
"Moshiach", or "Messiah"; Greek: Χριστός—transliterated
in English as "Christos", for "Christ") who was predicted
in the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. The author
discusses the superiority of the new covenant and the
:
 ministry of Jesus, to the Mosaic Law Covenant[50] and
urges the readers in the practical implications of this
conviction through the end of the epistle.[51]

The book has been widely accepted by the Christian

church as inspired by God and thus authoritative, despite
the acknowledgment of uncertainties about who its
human author was. Regarding authorship, although the
Epistle to the Hebrews does not internally claim to have
been written by the Apostle Paul, some similarities in
wordings to some of the Pauline Epistles have been
noted and inferred. In antiquity, some began to ascribe it
to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an
explicit apostolic pedigree.[52]

In the 4th century, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo

supported Paul's authorship. The Church largely agreed
to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and
affirmed this authorship until the Reformation. The letter
to the Hebrews had difficulty in being accepted as part of
the Christian canon because of its anonymity.[53] As early
as the 3rd century, Origen wrote of the letter, "Men of old
have handed it down as Paul's, but who wrote the Epistle
God only knows."[54]
:
 Contemporary scholars often reject Pauline authorship
for the epistle to the Hebrews,[55] based on its distinctive
style and theology, which are considered to set it apart
from Paul's writings.[56]

Catholic epistles

Second Epistle of Peter,

ascribed to the Apostle Peter,
though widely considered not
to have been written by him.[57]

Book of Revelation
The final book of the New Testament is the Book of
Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of John. In the
New Testament canon, it is considered prophetical or
apocalyptic literature. Its authorship has been attributed
either to John the Apostle (in which case it is often
thought that John the Apostle is John the Evangelist, i.e.
:
 author of the Gospel of John) or to another John
designated "John of Patmos" after the island where the
text says the revelation was received (1:9). Some ascribe
the writership date as c. 81–96 AD, and others at around
68 AD.[58] The work opens with letters to seven local
congregations of Asia Minor and thereafter takes the
form of an apocalypse, a "revealing" of divine prophecy
and mysteries, a literary genre popular in ancient Judaism
and Christianity.[59]

New Testament canons

Protestant Armenian
Roman Eastern Coptic
& Apostolic
Books Catholic Orthodox Orthodox
Restoration tradition
tradition tradition [N 1]
tradition
tradition

Canonical Gospels[N 2]

Matthew Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mark[N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Luke Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

John[N 4][N 5] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Apostolic History
:
 Acts[N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Acts of Paul No
and Thecla No No No (early No
[N 6][61][62]
tradition)

Catholic Epistles

James Yes[N 7] Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 John[N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jude Yes[N 7] Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pauline Epistles

Romans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 Corinthians No − inc. in
[N 6]
No No No No
some mss.

Galatians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ephesians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Philippians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Colossians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No − inc. in
No − inc. in
Laodiceans some eds. No No No
[N 9][63]
some mss.
:
 1
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Thessalonians

2
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Thessalonians

Hebrews Yes[N 7] Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Titus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Philemon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Apocalypse[N 10]

Revelation Yes[N 7] Yes Yes Yes Yes

Apostolic Fathers[N 11] and Church Orders[N 12]

No
1 Clement[N 13]
(Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus)

2 No
Clement[N 13] (Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus)

Shepherd of No
Hermas[N 13] (Codex Sinaiticus)

Epistle of No
Barnabas[N 13] (Codices Hierosolymitanus and Sinaiticus)

No
Didache[N 13]
(Codex Hierosolymitanus)

Ser`atä
Seyon No No No No No
(Sinodos)

Te'ezaz
:
 (Sinodos) No No No No No

Gessew
No No No No No
(Sinodos)

Abtelis
No No No No No
(Sinodos)

Book of the
Covenant 1
No No No No No
(Mäshafä
Kidan)

Book of the
Covenant 2
No No No No No
(Mäshafä
Kidan)

Ethiopic
Clement
No No No No No
(Qälëmentos)
[N 14]

Ethiopic
Didescalia
No No No No No
(Didesqelya)
[N 14]

Table notes

1. The growth and

:
 development of the
Armenian biblical canon is
complex; extra-canonical
New Testament books
appear in historical canon
lists and recensions that are
either distinct to this
tradition, or where they do
exist elsewhere, never
achieved the same status.
Some of the books are not
listed in this table; these
include the Prayer of
Euthalius, the Repose of St.
:
 Euthalius, the Repose of St.
John the Evangelist, the
Doctrine of Addai, a reading
from the Gospel of James,
the Second Apostolic
Canons, the Words of
Justus, Dionysius
Areopagite, the Preaching
of Peter, and a Poem by
Ghazar. (Various sources
also mention undefined
Armenian canonical
additions to the Gospels of
Mark and John. These may
refer to the general
:
 refer to the general
additions—Mark 16:9–20
and John 7:53–8:11—
discussed elsewhere in
these notes.) A possible
exception here to canonical
exclusivity is the Second
Apostolic Canons, which
share a common source—
the Apostolic Constitutions
—with certain parts of the
Orthodox Tewahedo New
Testament broader canon.
The Acts of Thaddeus was
included in the biblical
:
 included in the biblical
canon of Gregory of Tatev.
[60] There is some
uncertainty about whether
Armenian canon lists
include the Doctrine of
Addai or the related Acts of
Thaddeus. Moreover, the
correspondence between
King Abgar V and Jesus
Christ, which is found in
various forms—including
within both the Doctrine of
Addai and the Acts of
Thaddeus—sometimes
:
 Thaddeus—sometimes
appears separately (see list
(http://www.looys.net/BIBC
ANON.DOC) ). The Prayer
of Euthalius and the Repose
of St. John the Evangelist
appear in the appendix of
the 1805 Armenian Zohrab
Bible. Some of the
aforementioned books,
though they are found
within canon lists, have
nonetheless never been
discovered to be part of any
:
 Armenian biblical
manuscript.[60]
2. Though widely regarded as
non-canonical, the Gospel
of James obtained early
liturgical acceptance among
some Eastern churches and
remains a major source for
many of Christendom's
traditions related to Mary,
the mother of Jesus.
3. The Diatessaron, Tatian's
gospel harmony, became a
standard text in some
:
 standard text in some
Syriac-speaking churches
down to the 5th century,
when it gave way to the four
separate gospels found in
the Peshitta.
4. Parts of these four books
are not found in the most
reliable ancient sources; in
some cases, are thought to
be later additions, and have
therefore not appeared
historically in every biblical
tradition. They are as
:
 follows: Mark 16:9–20,
John 7:53–8:11, the Comma
Johanneum, and portions of
the Western version of Acts.
To varying degrees,
arguments for the
authenticity of these
passages—especially for
the one from the Gospel of
John—have occasionally
been made.
5. Skeireins, a commentary on
the Gospel of John in the
Gothic language, was
:
 Gothic language, was
included in the Wulfila Bible.
It exists today only in
fragments.
6. The Acts of Paul and Thecla
and the Third Epistle to the
Corinthians are all portions
of the greater Acts of Paul
narrative, which is part of a
stichometric catalogue of
New Testament canon
found in the Codex
Claromontanus, but has
survived only in fragments.
Some of the content within
:
 Some of the content within
these individual sections
may have developed
separately.
7. These four works were
questioned or "spoken
against" by Martin Luther,
and he changed the order
of his New Testament to
reflect this, but he did not
leave them out, nor has any
Lutheran body since.
Traditional German Luther
Bibles are still printed with
:
 the New Testament in this
changed "Lutheran" order.
The vast majority of
Protestants embrace these
four works as fully
canonical.
8. The Peshitta excludes 2
John, 3 John, 2 Peter,
Jude, and Revelation, but
certain Bibles of the modern
Syriac traditions include
later translations of those
books. Still today, the
official lectionary followed
:
 official lectionary followed
by the Syriac Orthodox
Church and the Assyrian
Church of the East presents
lessons from only the
twenty-two books of
Peshitta, the version to
which appeal is made for
the settlement of doctrinal
questions.
9. The Epistle to the
Laodiceans is present in
some western non-Roman
Catholic translations and
traditions. Especially of note
:
 traditions. Especially of note
is John Wycliffe's inclusion
of the epistle in his English
translation, and the
Quakers' use of it to the
point where they produced
a translation and made
pleas for its canonicity, see
Poole's Annotations, on Col.
4:16. The epistle is
nonetheless widely rejected
by the vast majority of
Protestants.
10. The Apocalypse of Peter,
:
 though not listed in this
table, is mentioned in the
Muratorian fragment and is
part of a stichometric
catalogue of New
Testament canon found in
the Codex Claromontanus.
It was also held in high
regard by Clement of
Alexandria.
11. Other known writings of the
Apostolic Fathers not listed
in this table are as follows:
the seven Epistles of
:
 the seven Epistles of
Ignatius, the Epistle of
Polycarp, the Martyrdom of
Polycarp, the Epistle to
Diognetus, the fragment of
Quadratus of Athens, the
fragments of Papias of
Hierapolis, the Reliques of
the Elders Preserved in
Irenaeus, and the Apostles'
Creed.
12. Though they are not listed
in this table, the Apostolic
Constitutions were
considered canonical by
:
 considered canonical by
some including Alexius
Aristenus, John of
Salisbury, and to a lesser
extent, Grigor Tat`evatsi.
They are even classified as
part of the New Testament
canon within the body of
the Constitutions itself;
moreover, they are the
source for a great deal of
the content in the Orthodox
Tewahedo broader canon.
13. These five writings
:
 13. These five writings
attributed to the Apostolic
Fathers are not currently
considered canonical in any
biblical tradition, though
they are more highly
regarded by some more
than others. Nonetheless,
their early authorship and
inclusion in ancient biblical
codices, as well as their
acceptance to varying
degrees by various early
authorities, requires them to
be treated as foundational
:
 be treated as foundational
literature for Christianity as
a whole.
14. Ethiopic Clement and the
Ethiopic Didascalia are
distinct from and should not
be confused with other
ecclesiastical documents
known in the west by similar
names.

Book order
The order in which the books of the New Testament
appear differs between some collections and
ecclesiastical traditions. In the Latin West, prior to the
:
 Vulgate (an early 5th-century Latin version of the Bible),
the four Gospels were arranged in the following order:
Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark.[f] The Syriac Peshitta
places the major Catholic epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1
John) immediately after Acts and before the Pauline
epistles.

The order of an early edition of the letters of Paul is

based on the size of the letters: longest to shortest,
though keeping 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 and 2
Thessalonians together. The Pastoral epistles were
apparently not part of the Corpus Paulinum in which this
order originated and were later inserted after 2
Thessalonians and before Philemon. Hebrews was
variously incorporated into the Corpus Paulinum either
after 2 Thessalonians, after Philemon (i.e. at the very
end), or after Romans.

Luther's canon, found in the 16th-century Luther Bible,

continues to place Hebrews, James, Jude, and the
Apocalypse (Revelation) last. This reflects the thoughts
of the Reformer Martin Luther on the canonicity of these
books.[64][g][65]
:
 Authors
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 Roman occupation.[66] 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 Jew.[67] 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.[68][69][70]

However, more recently the above understanding has

been challenged by the publication of evidence showing
only educated elites after the Jewish War would have
been capable of producing the prose found in the
Gospels.[71]
:
 Gospels

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 works.[72] The Gospel of John
claims to be based on eyewitness testimony from the
Disciple whom Jesus loved, but never names this
:
 character. The author of Luke-Acts claimed to access an
eyewitness to Paul; this claim remains accepted by most
scholars.[73] Objections to this viewpoint mainly take the
form of the following two interpretations, but also include
the claim that Luke-Acts contains differences in theology
and historical narrative which are irreconcilable with the
authentic letters of Paul the Apostle.[74] 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 of Jesus's life.[75]
[76][77]
Ehrman has argued for a scholarly consensus that
many New Testament books were not written by the
individuals whose names are attached to them.[78][79]
Scholarly opinion is that names were fixed to the gospels
by the mid second century AD.[80] Many scholars believe
that none of the gospels were written in the region of
Palestine.[81]

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.[82][83]
:
 This idea is rejected by the majority of modern scholars,
with most viewing the passage as a later addition, though
a growing minority view it as part of the earliest text.[84]
[85][86]

Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis, which

posits that the 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.[87][88][89][90][91] 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.
:
 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.[92][93] The most direct evidence
comes from the prefaces of each book; both were
addressed to Theophilus, and the preface to the Acts of
the Apostles references "my former book" about the
ministry of Jesus.[94] Furthermore, there are linguistic
and theological similarities between the two works,
suggesting that they have a common author.[95][96][97]
[98]

Pauline epistles
:
 Saint Paul Writing His Epistles by
Valentin de Boulogne (c. 1618–
1620). Most scholars think 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.[h]

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.[i]

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;[h] most regard them as
pseudepigrapha.[101]

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.[102]

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.[103] 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.
[104]

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.[105] For an early date and
:
 (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship
see Kruger,[106] Zahn,[107] Spitta,[108] Bigg,[109] and
Green.[110]

The Epistle of Jude title is written as follows: "Jude, a

servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James".[111] The
debate has continued over the author's identity as the
apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither.[112]

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.[113] Most scholars therefore treat the five
as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from
the same author.[114]

Burkett argues the gospel went through two or three

"editions" before reaching its current form around AD
90–110, though more recent scholars tend to be less
:
 interested in theories about hypothetical editions or
sources of the gospel.[115][116][86] 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 except in John 21, which is widely viewed as a
later addition;[117][86] 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.[118] It is significantly different from the
synoptic gospels, with major variations in material,
theological emphasis, chronology, and literary style,
sometimes amounting to contradictions.[119]

The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself

several times as "John".[120] and states that he was on
Patmos when he received his first vision.[121] 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 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.[122] 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.[123] Ben Witherington points out
that linguistic evidence makes it unlikely that the books
were written by the same person.[124]

Dating the New

Testament
There is no scholarly consensus on the date of
composition of the latest New Testament texts. John A. T.
Robinson, Dan Wallace, William F. Albright, Maurice
Casey, and James Crossley all dated many or all of the
books of the New Testament before 70 AD.[125][126][127]
Jonathan Bernier's recent argument for early dates has
enjoyed a positive reception, with endorsements from
Chris Keith and Anders Runesson, among others.[128]
:
 Many other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman and
Stephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much
later than this;[129][130][131] Richard Pervo dated Luke–
Acts to c. 115 AD,[42] and David Trobisch places Acts in
the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with
the publication of the first New Testament canon.[43]
Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70
AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various
eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through
the end of the First Century is very likely statistically.[132]
Markus Bockmuehl finds this structure of lifetime
memory in various early Christian traditions.[133]

External evidence
The earliest manuscripts of New Testament books date
from the late second to early third centuries (although
see Papyrus 52 for a possible exception).[134]
:
 Internal evidence
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.[135]

Language
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,[136] 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.[3]
[137]
:
 As Christianity spread, these books were later translated
into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and
Egyptian Coptic. Some of the Church Fathers[138] 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.[139]

Style
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[140] (see
Jewish Koine Greek, related to the Greek of the
Septuagint). But other scholars say 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
everyday 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).[141]

Development of the
New Testament canon
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.[142] 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.[143]
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.[144]

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,[145]
John Knox,[146] and David Trobisch,[43] among other
scholars, have argued that the church formulated its New
Testament canon partially in response to the challenge
posed by Marcion.

Polycarp,[147] Irenaeus[148] and Tertullian[149] held the

:
 epistles of Paul to be divinely inspired "scripture". Other
books were held in high esteem but were gradually
relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.
Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs
of the apostles" as being read on Sunday alongside the
"writings of the prophets".[150]

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[151][152] in
his polemic Against Heresies:

It is not possible that the gospels can be either

more or fewer in number than they are. For,
since there are four zones of the world in which
we live, and four principal winds, while the
:
 church is scattered throughout all the world,
and the "pillar and ground" of the church is the
gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she
should have four pillars, breathing out
immortality on every side, and vivifying men
afresh.[152]

— Irenaeus of Lyon
(emphasis added)

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.[153]

Origen (3rd century)

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same
:
 twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament
canon, though there were still disputes over the
canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, Epistle of James,
II Peter, II John and III John and the Book of Revelation,
[154]
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.[155] 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.[156]

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.[157]

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."[158]

Eusebius's Ecclesiastical
History
Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament
writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3 (http://www.c
cel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_69
6002) , 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."
:
 4th century and later
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,[159] and he used the
word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.
[160]
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).[161] These councils were
under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the
canon as already closed.[162][163][164]

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,
[159]
or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century
compilation.[165] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of
the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was
instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[166]
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."[162][167][168]

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by

St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter
written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39 (http://w
ww.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-93.htm) .
Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without
controversy. That canon gained wider and wider
recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of
Carthage in 397 and 419. The Book of Revelation was not
added till the Council of Carthage (419).[169]

Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there

existed unanimity in the West concerning the New
Testament canon (as it is today),[170] and that, by the 5th
century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had
come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had
come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[171]
Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon
were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for
:
 Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for
the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of
Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem
of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

On the question of NT Canon formation generally, New

Testament scholar Lee Martin McDonald has written that:
[172]

Although a number of Christians have thought

that church councils determined what books
were to be included in the biblical canons, a
more accurate reflection of the matter is that
the councils recognized or acknowledged those
books that had already obtained prominence
from usage among the various early Christian
communities.

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."[173]

In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver

fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius
(Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around
340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known,
though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is
speculated that this may have provided motivation for
canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus may be examples of these Bibles. Together
with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the
earliest extant Christian Bibles.[174]

Early manuscripts
:
 Papyrus Bodmer VIII, at the
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
showing 1 and 2 Peter.

The Codex Regius (L or 019), an

8th-century Greek manuscript
of the New Testament with
strong affinities to Codex
Vaticanus.

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).[175]

Textual variation
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).[176] 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.[177]

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.[177] 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.[178] 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.[178]

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.[177]

Interpolations
:
 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."[179]

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.
:
 [177]

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[180][181][182] and the story of Jesus and the woman
taken in adultery in the Gospel of John.[183][184][185]
Many scholars and critics also believe that the Johannine
Comma reference supporting the Trinity doctrine in the
First Epistle of John to have been a later addition.[186][187]
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".[188]
:
 The Rossano Gospels, sixth
century, a representative of
Byzantine text

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."[189]

Biblical criticism
:
 Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation
of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning
judgments about these writings."[190]

Establishing a critical text

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.[3]

Relationship to earlier
and contemporaneous
literature
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.[191]
:
 Early versions
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.[192]

Syriac
:
 The Rabbula Gospels, Eusebian
Canons.

The Philoxenian probably was produced in 508 for

Bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug.[193]

Coptic
There are several dialects of the Coptic language:
Bohairic (the Nile Delta), Fayyumic (in the Faiyum in
Middle Egypt), Sahidic (in Upper Egypt), Akhmimic (what
is now Sohag Governorate in Upper Egypt), and others.
The first translation was made by at least the third
:
 century into the Sahidic dialect (copsa). This translation
represents a mixed text, mostly Alexandrian, though also
with Western readings.[194]

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.[195]

Other ancient translations

:
 BL Add. MS 59874 with Ethiopic
Gospel of Matthew.

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.[196]

Modern translations
:
 Mikael Agricola hands over the
Finnish-language translation, Se
Wsi Testamenti, to King Gustav
Wasa of Sweden in 1548.

The 16th century saw the rise of Protestantism and an

explosion of translations of the New (and Old) Testament
into the vernacular. Notable are those of Martin Luther
(1522), Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (1523), the Froschau
Bible (1525–1529, revised in 1574), William Tyndale
(1526, revised in 1534, 1535 and 1536), the Brest Bible
(1563), and the Authorized Version (also called the "King
James Version") (1611).

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, they 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.

Notable translations of the New Testament based on

these most recent critical editions include the Revised
Standard Version (1946, revised in 1971), La Bible de
Jérusalem (1961, revised in 1973 and 2000), the
Einheitsübersetzung (1970, final edition 1979), the New
American Bible (1970, revised in 1986 and 2011), the
New International Version (1973, revised in 1984 and
2011), the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible (1988,
revised in 2004), the New Revised Standard Version
(1989) and the English Standard Version (2001, revised
in 2007, 2011 and 2016).
:
 Theological
interpretation in
Christian churches
According to Gary T. Meadors:

The self-witness of the Bible to its inspiration

demands a commitment to its unity. The
ultimate basis for unity is contained in the claim
of divine inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16[197] that
"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness"
(KJV). The term "inspiration" renders the Greek
word theopneustos. This term only occurs here
in the New Testament and literally means "God-
breathed" (the chosen translation of the NIV).
[198]
:
 Unity in diversity
The notion of unity in diversity of Scripture claims that
the Bible presents a noncontradictory and consistent
message concerning God and redemptive history. The
fact of diversity is observed in comparing the diversity of
time, culture, authors' perspectives, literary genre, and
the theological themes.[198]

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":

1. The reality of God is never

argued but is always
assumed and affirmed
:
 2. 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
3. The Holy Spirit came anew
with Jesus Christ.
4. The Christian faith and life
are a calling, rooted in divine
:
 election.
5. The plight of everyone as
sinner means that each
person is completely
dependent upon the mercy
and grace of God
6. Salvation is both God's gift
and his demand through
Jesus Christ, to be received
by faith
7. The death and resurrection
of Jesus are at the heart of
the total event of which he
:
 was the center
8. God creates a people of his
own, designated and
described by varied
terminology and analogies
9. 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
10. In Christ, all of God's work of
:
 creation, revelation, and
redemption is brought to
fulfillment[199]

Roman Catholicism, Eastern

Orthodoxy, and Classical
Anglicanism
For the Roman Catholic Church, there are two modes of
Revelation: Scripture and Tradition. Both of them are
interpreted by the teachings of the Church. The Roman
Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (1997):

§ 82: As a result the Church, to whom

the transmission and interpretation of
Revelation is entrusted, does not
derive her certainty about all
revealed truths from the holy
:
 Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and
Tradition must be accepted and
honoured with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence.
§ 107: The inspired books teach the
truth. Since therefore all that the
inspired authors or sacred writers
affirm should be regarded as affirmed
by the Holy Spirit, we must
acknowledge that the books of
Scripture firmly, faithfully, and
without error teach that truth which
God, for the sake of our salvation,
wished to see confided to the Sacred
Scriptures.

In Catholic terminology the teaching office is called the

Magisterium. The Catholic view should not be confused
with the two-source theory. As the Catechism states in
§§ 80 and 81, Revelation has "one common source ... two
distinct modes of transmission."[200]

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.[201]

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).[202]

In the famous words of Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and

Wells: "As for my religion, I dye in the holy catholic and
apostolic faith professed by the whole Church before the
disunion of East and West, more particularly in the
communion of the Church of England, as it stands
distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and
as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross."

Protestantism
:
 Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants
believe that their traditions of faith, practice and
interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach,
and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their
traditions derive authority from the Bible, and are
therefore always open to 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.

American evangelical and

fundamentalist Protestantism
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."[203]

American mainline and liberal

Protestantism
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."[204]

Messianic Judaism
Messianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New
Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.[205]
:
 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.[206]

Jehovah's Witnesses
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.[207]
:
 United Pentecostals
Oneness Pentecostalism subscribes to the common
Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. They view the Bible
as the inspired Word of God, and as absolutely inerrant in
its contents (though not necessarily in every translation).
[208][209]
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.[210][211]

Seventh-day Adventists
The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds the New
Testament as the inspired Word of God, with God
influencing the "thoughts" of the Apostles in the writing,
not necessarily every word though. The first fundamental
belief of the Seventh-Day Adventist church stated that
:
 "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of
[God's] will." Adventist theologians generally reject the
"verbal inspiration" position on Scripture held by many
conservative evangelical Christians. They believe instead
that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical authors and
apostles, and that the writers then expressed these
thoughts in their own words.[212] 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".[213]

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."[214] White
interpreted Colossians 2:14[215] as saying that the
ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.[216]
:
 Latter-day Saints
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".[217] 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.[218][219] 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.[220][221]
:
 A Byzantine lectionary, Codex
Harleianus (l150), 995 AD, text of
John 1:18.

In the arts

Gaudenzio Ferrari's Stories of

the Life and Passion of Christ,
fresco, 1513, Church of Santa
Maria delle Grazie, Varallo Sesia,
Italy. Depicting the life of Jesus

"Hallelujah" chorus
:
 2:54
The text of the famous
"Hallelujah" chorus in G. F.
Händel's Messiah is drawn from
three passages in the Book of
Revelation: 19:6, 11:5, and 19:16
(audio clip from the German
translation of the Messiah).

Problems playing this file? See

media help.
Most of the influence of the New Testament upon the
arts has come from the Gospels and the Book of
Revelation. Literary expansion of the Nativity of Jesus
found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke began already
in the 2nd century, and the portrayal of the Nativity has
continued in various art forms to this day. The earliest
Christian art would often depict scenes from the New
Testament such as the raising of Lazarus, the baptism of
Jesus or the motif of the Good Shepherd.

Biblical paraphrases and poetic renditions of stories from

:
 the life of Christ (e.g., the Heliand) became popular in the
Middle Ages, as did the portrayal of the arrest, trial and
execution of Jesus in Passion plays. Indeed, the Passion
became a central theme in Christian art and music. The
ministry and Passion of Jesus, as portrayed in one or
more of the New Testament Gospels, has also been a
theme in film, almost since the inception of the medium
(e.g., La Passion, France, 1903).

See also

Authorship of the Epistle to the

Hebrews
Catalogue of Vices and Virtues
Chronology of Jesus
Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
Non-canonical books
:
 referenced in the New
Testament
Historical background of the
New Testament
Life of Jesus in the New
Testament
List of Gospels
Novum Testamentum Graece

Notes

a. Ancient Greek: Ἡ Καινὴ

Διαθήκη, transl. Hē Kainḕ
:
 Diathḗkē; Latin: Novum
Testamentum; Hebrew:
‫הברית החדשה‬.
b. For example, the pact
between Jacob with Laban
in Genesis (Genesis 31:44 (
https://biblehub.com/interli
near/genesis/31-44.htm) ).
c. For example, the covenant
at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:5
(https://biblehub.com/interli
near/exodus/19-5.htm) ) or
the "new covenant" verse
:
 from Jeremiah 31:31 above
(Jeremiah 31:31 (https://bib
lehub.com/interlinear/jeremi
ah/31-31.htm) ).
d. See also Tertullian, Against
Marcion, Book IV (http://earl
ychristianwritings.com/text/t
ertullian124.html) , 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'.
:
 e. Joseph Barber Lightfoot in
his Commentary on the
Epistle to the Galatians
writes: "At this point[45] 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[46] 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."[47]
:
 f. The Gospels are in this
order in many Old Latin
manuscripts, as well as in
the Greek manuscripts
Codex Bezae and Codex
Washingtonianus.
g. See also the article on the
Antilegomena.
h. Donald Guthrie lists the
following scholars as
supporting authenticity:
Wohlenberg, Lock,
Meinertz, Thörnell,
:
 Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremias,
Simpson, Kelly, and Fee[99]
i. 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".[100]

1. Sanders (2010): "John,

however, is so different that
it cannot be reconciled with
the Synoptics except in very
general ways [...] Scholars
:
 have unanimously chosen
the Synoptic Gospels’
version of Jesus’ teaching
[...] The Synoptic Gospels,
then, are the primary
sources for knowledge of
the historical Jesus. They
are not, however, the
equivalent of an academic
biography of a recent
historical figure. Instead, the
Synoptic Gospels are
theological documents that
:
 provide information the
authors regarded as
necessary for the religious
development of the
Christian communities in
which they worked."

References

Citations

1. "BBC – Religions –
Christianity: The Bible" (http
s://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/r
eligions/christianity/texts/bi
:
 eligions/christianity/texts/bi
ble.shtml) . www.bbc.co.uk.
Retrieved 23 September
2020.
2. Gil, Jesús; Domínguez,
Joseángel (2022). Bible
Portico. Translated by
Scott, Helena. Saxum
International Foundation.
p. 15. ISBN 979-12-80113-
17-7.
3. Metzger & Ehrman 2005.
4. "The Transmission of Divine
Revelation" (http://www.scb
:
 orromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.
htm) . Catechism of the
Catholic Church. 2nd ed.
1997.
5. "The Chicago Statement of
Biblical Inerrancy" (https://
web.archive.org/web/20170
301054307/http://www.ref
ormed.org/documents/inde
x.html?mainframe=http://w
ww.reformed.org/document
s/icbi.html) . Center for
Reformed Theology and
Apologetics. Archived from
:
 Apologetics. Archived from
the original (http://www.refo
rmed.org/documents/index.
html?mainframe=http://ww
w.reformed.org/documents/
icbi.html) on 1 March 2017.
Retrieved 19 November
2010.
6. "New Testament" (https://w
ww.catholic.com/encyclope
dia/new-testament) .
Catholic Encyclopedia.
1912. Retrieved 16 February
2021 – via Catholic.com.
:
 7. Jeremiah 31–34 (https://me
chon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt113
1.htm#30)
8. Biddle 2007, p. 1074.
9. Davidson 1993, p. 347.
10. Definition of ‫ ברית‬in Brown-
Driver-Briggs's lexicon:
https://biblehub.com/hebre
w/1285.htm Hebrew uses
an unrelated word for
testament: tsavaa (‫צוּ ָאָה‬
ַ ).
11. "Inheritance – Holman Bible
Dictionary – Bible
:
 Dictionary" (https://www.stu
dylight.org/dictionaries/hb
d/i/inheritance.html) .
StudyLight.org. Retrieved
12 August 2020.
12. "testamentum: Latin Word
Study Tool" (https://www.pe
rseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor
ph?l=testamentum&la=la) .
www.perseus.tufts.edu.
Retrieved 12 August 2020.
13. "διαθήκη: Greek Word
Study Tool" (https://www.pe
rseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor
:
 rseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor
ph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%
CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%B
7%CE%BA%CE%B7&la=gr
eek#lexicon) .
www.perseus.tufts.edu.
Retrieved 12 August 2020.
14. "G1242 – diathēkē –
Strong's Greek Lexicon
(KJV)" (https://www.bluelett
erbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/s_10
01) . Blue Letter Bible.
Retrieved 12 August 2020.
15. "The meaning of
:
 "Covenant" (διαθηκη) in the
Bible" (http://www.bible-res
earcher.com/covenant.htm
l) . www.bible-
researcher.com. Retrieved
12 August 2020.
16. Jackson, Bernard S. (2013).
"Why the Name New
Testament?" (http://static1.
1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/784
513/23609902/13805774
34807/3.pdf?token=8Zveu
YFof7uMu8UwoCMRepxQit
Y%3D) (PDF). Melilah:
:
 Y%3D) (PDF). Melilah:
Manchester Journal of
Jewish Studies. 9 (1): 50–
100. doi:10.31826/mjj-
2013-090104 (https://doi.o
rg/10.31826%2Fmjj-2013-
090104) .
17. Trobisch, David (2000).
The First Edition of the New
Testament. New York:
Oxford University Press.
pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-0-
19-511240-5.
18. Trobisch, David (2012).
"The New Testament in
:
 "The New Testament in
Light of Book Publishing in
Antiquity" (http://trobisch.c
om/david/wb/media/article
s/2012%20NT%20BookPu
blishing.pdf) (PDF). In
Kloppenberg, John S.;
Newman, Judith H. (eds.).
Editing the Bible: Assessing
the Task Past and Present.
Resources for Biblical
Study. Vol. 69. Atlanta, GA:
Society of Biblical
Literature. pp. 161–170.
:
 ISBN 978-1-58983-648-8.
19. "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
:
 – Tertullian, Against Praxeas
(http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0317.htm) 15
20. Tertullian. "Chapter XIV".
Against Marcion, Book III (ht
tp://earlychristianwritings.c
om/text/tertullian123.html) .
21. Tertullian. "Chapter VI".
Against Marcion, Book IV (h
ttp://earlychristianwritings.c
om/text/tertullian124.html) .
22. Lactantius. "Chapter XX".
"The Divine Institutes, Book
IV" (http://www.ccel.org/cce
:
 l/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.iv.xx.htm
l) .
23. Jer 31:31–32 (https://bible.
oremus.org/?passage=Jere
miah%2031:31%E2%80%9
332&version=nrsv)
24. "Gospel" (http://www.merria
m-webster.com/dictionary/
Gospel) . Merriam-Webster
Dictionary. Retrieved 10 May
2016.
25. Cross & Livingstone 2005,
"Gospel".
:
 26. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (
http://www.newadvent.org/f
athers/0103311.htm) III.11
27. Due to its reference to
Eleutherus as the current
bishop of Rome, the work is
usually dated c. 180. Schaff,
Philip (2001) [c. 1885]
"Introductory Note to
Irenæus Against Heresies (h
ttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/sch
aff/anf01.ix.i.html) ", Ante-
Nicene Fathers, Volume I,
Against Heresies, William B.
:
 Against Heresies, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
28. Gil, Jesús; Domínguez,
Joseángel (2022). Bible
Portico. Translated by
Scott, Helena. Saxum
International Foundation.
p. 103. ISBN 979-12-
80113-17-7.
29. Gil, Jesús; Domínguez,
Joseángel (2022). Bible
Portico. Translated by
Scott, Helena. Saxum
:
 International Foundation.
p. 104. ISBN 979-12-
80113-17-7.
30. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1981).
The Gospel according to
Luke (I–IX) (https://archive.o
rg/details/gospelaccordingt
0028unse_x9n6) . Anchor
Bible. Vol. 28 (2nd ed.).
New York: Doubleday.
pp. 35–53. ISBN 0-385-
00515-6.
31. Gil, Jesús; Domínguez,
Joseángel (2022). Bible
:
 Joseángel (2022). Bible
Portico. Translated by
Scott, Helena. Saxum
International Foundation.
p. 106. ISBN 979-12-
80113-17-7.
32. Luke 1:1–4 (https://bible.ore
mus.org/?passage=Luke%2
01:1%E2%80%934&versio
n=nrsv)
33. Petersen 2010, p. 51.
34. Culpepper 1999, p. 66.
35. Sanders 2010.
36. Burkett 2002, p. 196.
:
 36. Burkett 2002, p. 196.
37. Ehrman 2003, p. 235
38. Keener, Craig (2015). Acts:
An Exegetical Commentary
(Volume 1). Baker
Academic. p. 402.
ISBN 978-0801039898.
39. Dunn, James (2016). The
Acts of the Apostles. Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
p. x. ISBN 978-
0802874023.
40. Fitzmyer, Joseph (1998).
The Acts of the Apostles
:
 The Acts of the Apostles
(The Anchor Yale Bible
Commentaries). Yale
University Press. p. 50.
ISBN 978-0300139822.
41. Peterson, David (2009).
The Acts of the Apostles.
Eerdmans. p. 1-4, 17.
ISBN 978-0802837318.
42. Pervo, Richard (2015).
"Acts in Ephesus (and
Environs) c. 115" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/202103
02165929/http://www.west
:
 arinstitute.org/wp-content/u
ploads/2015/10/Forum-42-
Challenging-Common-Conc
eptions-of-Early-Christianit
y.pdf) (PDF). Forum. 3 (Fall
2015): 125–151. Archived
from the original (http://ww
w.westarinstitute.org/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2015/10/For
um-42-Challenging-Comm
on-Conceptions-of-Early-C
hristianity.pdf) (PDF) on 2
March 2021.
43. Trobisch, David. "Who
:
 43. Trobisch, David. "Who
Published the New
Testament?" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/2021042123
1238/http://trobisch.com/d
avid/wb/media/articles/200
71226%20FreeInquiry%20
Who%20Published%20Chr
istian%20Bible%20BW.pdf)
(PDF). Free Inquiry. 28
(Dec. 2007/Jan. 2008):
30–33. Archived from the
original (http://trobisch.co
m/david/wb/media/articles/
20071226%20FreeInquir
:
 20071226%20FreeInquir
y%20Who%20Published%
20Christian%20Bible%20B
W.pdf) (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
:
 composed at a later date
than is typically thought;
this theory is supported by
the first attestation of the
book around 180 CE."
44. Perkins 2009, pp. 250–53.
45. Gal 6:11 (https://bible.orem
us.org/?passage=Galatian
s%206:11&version=nrsv)
46. 2 Thess. 3:17 (https://bible.
oremus.org/?passage=2%2
0Thessalonians%202:2&ve
rsion=nrsv) ; 2 Thess. 3:17 (
https://bible.oremus.org/?p
:
 https://bible.oremus.org/?p
assage=2%20Thessalonian
s%203:17&version=nrsv)
47. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber
(1866). St Paul's Epistle to
the Galatians (https://books.
google.com/books?id=N8E
CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA217)
(2nd ed.). MacMillan & Co.
p. 217.
48. Bassler, Jouette M. (2010).
"Paul and his Letters". In
Aune, David E. The
Blackwell Companion to the
:
 New Testament. Wiley-
Blackwell. p. 388.
ISBN 978-1-4443-1894-4.
49. Roetzel, Calvin J. (2009).
The Letters of Paul:
Conversations in Context
(5th ed.). Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox. p. ix–x
ISBN 978-0-664-23392-1
50. Heb. 1:1–10:18 (https://bibl
e.oremus.org/?passage=He
brews%201:1%E2%80%93
10:18&version=nrsv)
:
 10:18&version=nrsv)
51. Heb. 10:19–13:25 (https://b
ible.oremus.org/?passage=
Hebrews%2010:19%E2%8
0%9313:25&version=nrsv)
52. Attridge, Harold W. (1989).
Hebrews. Hermeneia.
Philadelphia: Fortress. pp.
1–6.
53. Lane, William L. (1991).
Hebrews 1–8. Word Biblical
Commentary series, Vol.
47A. Dallas, Texas: Word
Books. p. cliv.
:
 Books. p. cliv.
54. Eusebius. "Chapter 25" (htt
p://www.newadvent.org/fat
hers/250106.htm) . Church
History, Book VI.
55. 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
:
 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?"
56. Powell 2009, pp. 431–32 (h
ttps://archive.org/details/int
roducingnewte00powe/pag
e/431) .
57. Fornberg, Tord (1977). An
Early Church in a Pluralistic
Society: A Study of 2 Peter (
:
 Society: A Study of 2 Peter (
https://archive.org/details/e
arlychurchinplu0000forn)
(Thesis). Coniectanea
Biblica, New Testament
Series 9. Translated by
Gray, Jean. Lund: Gleerup.
p. 14.
ISBN 9789140044372.
OCLC 1244729487 (http
s://search.worldcat.org/ocl
c/1244729487) .
58. Mounce, Robert (1998).
The Book of Revelation (htt
:
 ps://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=06VR1JzzLNsC&pg=
PA15) (revised ed.). The
New International
Commentary on the New
Testament Series.
Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-8028-
2537-0.
59. For a detailed study of the
Apocalypse of John, see
Aune, David E. (1998).
Revelation, 3 volumes.
Word Biblical Commentary
:
 Word Biblical Commentary
series. Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.
60. Nersessian 2001, p. 29.
61. Burris, Catherine; Van
Rompay, Lucas (2002).
"Thecla in Syriac
Christianity: Premliminary
Observations" (https://doi.o
rg/10.31826%2Fhug-2010-
050112) . Hugoye: Journal
of Syriac Studies. 5 (2).
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac
Institute: 225–236.
:
 doi:10.31826/hug-2010-
050112 (https://doi.org/10.
31826%2Fhug-2010-0501
12) .
62. Carter, Nancy A. (2000).
"The Acts of Thecla: A
Pauline Tradition Linked to
Women" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/2014112811484
1/http://gbgm-umc.org/um
w/corinthians/theclabackgr
ound.stm) . Conflict and
Community in the
Corinthian Church.
:
 Corinthian Church.
Archived from the original (
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/
corinthians/theclabackgrou
nd.stm) on 28 November
2014.
63. Poole, Matthew (1852).
"Annotations Upon the Holy
Bible, Vol. III" (https://books.
google.com/books?id=uN0
XAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA729) .
Robert Carter and Brothers.
p. 729.
64. "Web Directory: German
Bible Versions" (http://www.
:
 Bible Versions" (http://www.
bible-researcher.com/links1
0.html) . Bible Research.
Retrieved 17 February
2016.
65. "Luther's Antilegomena" (htt
p://www.bible-researcher.c
om/antilegomena.html) .
www.bible-researcher.com.
Retrieved 15 July 2020.
66. Powell 2009, p. 16.
67. Strelan, Rick (2013). Luke
the Priest: The Authority of
the Author of the Third
:
 the Author of the Third
Gospel. Farnham, ENG:
Routledege-Ashgate. pp.
102–05.
68. 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.
69. For discussion of Mark, see
Hare, Douglas R. A. (1996).
Mark. Louisville, Kentucky:
:
 Westminster John Knox
Press. pp. 3–5.
70. 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.
71. Walsh, Robin Faith (2021).
The Origins of Early
Christian Literature –
:
 Christian Literature –
Contextualizing the New
Testament within Greco-
Roman Literary Culture.
Cambridge University
Press.
ISBN 9781108883573.
72. Harris 1985, p. 501.
73. "A glance at recent
extended treatments of the
"we" passages and
commentaries
demonstrates that, within
biblical scholarship,
:
 biblical scholarship,
solutions in the historical
eyewitness traditions
continue to be the most
influential explanations for
the first-person plural style
in Acts. Of the two latest
full-length studies on the
"we" passages, for example,
one argues that the first-
person accounts came from
Silas, a companion of Paul
but not the author, and the
other proposes that first-
person narration was Luke's
:
 person narration was Luke's
(Paul's companion and the
author of Acts) method of
communicating his
participation in the events
narrated.17 17. Jurgen
Wehnert, Die Wir-Passegen
der Apostelgeschitchte: Ein
lukanisches Stilmittel aus
judischer Tradition (GTA 40;
Göttingen: Vanderhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989); Claus-
Jurgen Thornton, Der
Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas
als Historiker der Paulus
:
 als Historiker der Paulus
reisen (WUNT 56;
Tugingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1991). See also, Barrett,
Acts of the Apostles, and
Fitzmyer, Acts of the
Apostles.", Campbell, "The
"we" passages in the Acts
of the Apostles: the narrator
as narrative", p. 8 (2007).
Society of Biblical
Literature.
74. "The principle essay in this
regard is P. Vielhauer, 'On
the "Paulinism" of Acts', in
:
 the "Paulinism" of Acts', in
L.E. Keck and J. L. Martyn
(eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts
(Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1975), 33-50, who
suggests that Luke's
presentation of Paul was, on
several fronts, a
contradiction of Paul's own
letters (e.g. attitudes on
natural theology, Jewish
law, christology,
eschatology). This has
become the standard
:
 position in German
scholarship, e.g.,
Conzelmann, Acts; J. Roloff,
Die Apostelgeschichte
(NTD; Berlin: Evangelische,
1981) 2-5; Schille,
Apostelgeschichte des
Lukas, 48-52. This position
has been challenged most
recently by Porter, "The
Paul of Acts and the Paul of
the Letters: Some Common
Misconceptions', in his Paul
of Acts, 187-206. See also
:
 of Acts, 187-206. See also
I.H. Marshall, The Acts of
the Apostles (TNTC; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans; Leister:
InterVarsity Press, 1980)
42-44; E.E. Ellis, The
Gospel of Luke (NCB;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
London: Marshall, Morgan
and Scott, 2nd edn, 1974)
45-47.", Pearson,
"Corresponding sense:
Paul, dialectic, and
Gadamer", Biblical
Interpretation Series, p. 101
:
 Interpretation Series, p. 101
(2001). Brill.
75. 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
:
 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."
76. Ehrman 2004b, p. 110 (http
s://archive.org/details/truthf
:
 s://archive.org/details/truthf
ictionin00ehrm/page/110) :
"In fact, contrary to what
you might think, these
Gospels don't even claim to
be written by eyewitnesses."
77. Ehrman 2006, p. 143 (http
s://archive.org/details/lostg
ospelofjuda00ehrm/page/1
43) : "The Gospels of the
New Testament are
therefore our earliest
accounts. These do not
claim to be written by
eyewitnesses to the life of
:
 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."
78. Ehrman 2006, p. 143.
:
 79. Ehrman 2009, pp. 102–04.
80. Nickle, Keith Fullerton
(2001). The Synoptic
Gospels: An Introduction (ht
tps://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=5SSytjasmAgC&pg=
PA43) . Westminster John
Knox Press. p. 43.
ISBN 978-0-664-22349-6.
81. Theissen, Gerd (2004). The
Gospels in Context. London,
ENG: Bloomsbury-
Continuum. p. 290.
82. Barnes, Albert (1962)
:
 82. Barnes, Albert (1962)
[1832]. Barnes' Notes on
the New Testament (https://
books.google.com/books?id
=qvXCoSQ1y0EC&pg=PA3
60) . Kregel Publications.
p. 360. ISBN 978-
0825493713.
83. Henry, Matthew (1706).
Matthew Henry Complete
Commentary on the Whole
Bible (http://www.studyligh
t.org/commentaries/mhm/jo
hn-21.html) .
:
 hn-21.html) .
StudyLight.org.
84. Brown 1988, p. 9.
85. Schubert 2016, p. 16.
86. Keith, Chris (2020). The
Gospel as Manuscript: An
Early History of the Jesus
Tradition as Material
Artifact. Oxford University
Press. pp. 142–143.
ISBN 978-0199384372.
87. Kirby, Peter. "Gospel of
Mark" (http://www.earlychri
stianwritings.com/mark.htm
:
 l) . Early Christian Writings.
Retrieved 15 January 2008.
88. Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992).
"The Gospel of Mark". The
Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Vol. 4. New York:
Doubleday. p. 545.
ISBN 978-0-385-19362-7.
89. Easton, M. G. (1996) [ca.
1897] "Luke, Gospel
According To". Easton's
Bible Dictionary. Oak
Harbor, Washington: Logos
Research.
:
 Research.
90. Meier, John P. (1991). A
Marginal Jew (https://archiv
e.org/details/mentormessag
emir00john) . Vol. 2. New
York: Doubleday. pp. 955–
56 (https://archive.org/detai
ls/mentormessagemir00joh
n/page/955) . ISBN 978-0-
385-46993-7.
91. Helms, Randel (1997). Who
Wrote the Gospels? (https://
archive.org/details/whowrot
egospels00helm) .
:
 Altadena, California:
Millennium Press. p. 8 (http
s://archive.org/details/who
wrotegospels00helm/page/
8) . ISBN 978-0-9655047-
2-0.
92. Horrell, D. G. (2006). An
Introduction to the Study of
Paul. 2nd ed. London,
Bloomsbury-T&T Clark. p. 7.
93. See Knox 1948, pp. 2–15
for detailed arguments.
94. "Acts 1:1" (https://biblehub.
com/acts/1-1.htm) .
:
 com/acts/1-1.htm) .
95. 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
:
 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
96. Kenny, Anthony (1986). A
Stylometric Study of the
New Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-826178-0.
97. Schnelle 1998, p. 259.
:
 98. Bruce 1952, p. 2.
99. Guthrie 1990, p. 621–622.
100. Wallace, Daniel B. (28 June
2004). "Hebrews:
Introduction, Argument, and
Outline" (https://bible.org/s
eriespage/19-hebrews-intro
duction-argument-and-outli
ne) . Bible.org.
101. Ehrman 2004a, p. 385.
102. Ehrman 2004a, p. 323
103. "Epistle of St. James" (htt
p://www.catholicity.com/enc
:
 yclopedia/j/james,epistle_of
_st.html) . 1914 Catholic
Encyclopedia.
104. "Epistle of James" (http://ea
rlychristianwritings.com/jam
es.html) . Early Christian
Writings. Retrieved
19 November 2010.
105. Harner, Philip B. (2004).
What Are They Saying
About the Catholic Epistles?
(https://books.google.com/
books?id=xenz0ZMWDNs
C&pg=PA49) . Paulist
:
 C&pg=PA49) . Paulist
Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-
8091-4188-3.
106. Kruger, M.J. (1999). "The
Authenticity of 2 Peter" (htt
ps://www.etsjets.org/files/J
ETS-PDFs/42/42-4/42-4-p
p645-671_JETS.pdf) .
Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society. 42 (4):
645–71.
107. Zahn, S. T. (1909).
Introduction to the New
Testament (https://archive.o
:
 rg/details/introductionton0
0thaygoog) . 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.
108. Spitta, Friedrich (1885). Der
zweite Brief des Petrus und
:
 zweite Brief des Petrus und
der Brief des Judas: Eine
geschichtliche
Untersuchung (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=iUR
OAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP5)
[The Second Epistle of
Peter and the Epistle of
Jude: A Historical
Investigation] (in German).
Halle an der Saale:
Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses..
109. Bigg, Charles (1902)
[1901]. A Critical and
:
 [1901]. A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on
the Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude (https://archive.or
g/details/acriticalandexe02
bigggoog) . The
International Critical
Commentary (2nd ed.).
Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
ISBN 9780567050366.
110. e.g. Green, E. M. B. (8 July
1960). 2 Peter
Reconsidered (https://web.
archive.org/web/20200813
:
 223354/https://biblicalstudi
es.org.uk/pdf/tp/2peter_gre
en.pdf) (PDF) (Speech).
Meeting of the Tyndale
Fellowship for Biblical
Research. Cambridge.
Archived from the original (
https://biblicalstudies.org.u
k/pdf/tp/2peter_green.pdf)
(PDF) on 13 August 2020.
111. Jude 1:1 (https://www.bible
gateway.com/passage/?sea
rch=Jude%201%3A1&versi
on=NRSV) (NRSV)
:
 on=NRSV) (NRSV)
112. Bauckham, R. J. (1986).
Word Biblical Commentary,
Vol. 50. Word (UK) Ltd. pp.
14ff.
113. Van der Watt 2008, p. 1.
114. Harris 2006, p. 479.
115. Edwards 2015, p. ix.
116. Lincoln 2005, p. 18.
117. Burkett 2002, p. 214.
118. Lindars, Edwards & Court
2000, p. 41.
119. Burge 2014, pp. 236–37.
:
 120. Rev. 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8 (https://
www.biblegateway.com/pas
sage/?search=Rev.+1:1,+4,
+9;+22:8&version=NRSV)
121. Rev. 1:9; 4:1–2 (https://bibl
e.oremus.org/?passage=Re
velation%201:9%E2%80%
932&version=nrsv)
122. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with
Trypho. Chapter LXXXI.
123. Tenney, Merrill C., gen. ed.
(2009). "Revelation, Book
of the". Zondervan Pictorial
:
 Encyclopedia of the Bible,
Vol. 5 (Q–Z). Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan.
124. Witherington, Ben (2003).
Revelation. Cambridge
University Press. p. 2.
125. Robinson, John Arthur
Thomas (2000) [1976].
Redating the New
Testament. Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf & Stock.
p. 352. ISBN 978-1-57910-
527-3.
126. Casey, Maurice (2010).
:
 126. Casey, Maurice (2010).
Jesus of Nazareth: An
Independent Historian's
Account of his Life and
Teaching. T&T Clark. p. 60-
80. ISBN 978-
0567645173.
127. Crossley, James (2004).
The Date of Mark's Gospel:
Insight from the Law in
Earliest Christianity. T&T
Clark. p. 3. ISBN 978-
0567081957.
128. Gabrielson, Timothy
:
 128. Gabrielson, Timothy
(2024). "Jonathan Bernier.
Rethinking the Dates of the
New Testament: The
Evidence for Early
Composition (Book
Review)". Bulletin for Biblical
Research. 34 (1): 118-121.
doi:10.5325/bullbiblrese.34
.1.0118 (https://doi.org/10.5
325%2Fbullbiblrese.34.1.01
18) .
129. Ehrman 1997, p. 8: "The
New Testament contains
twenty-seven books, written
:
 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."
130. Harris 2010, p. 20: Dates
Jude and 2 Peter to 130–
:
 150 AD.
131. 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.
132. van Os, Bas (2011).
Psychological Analyses and
the Historical Jesus: New
Ways to Explore Christian
Origins. T&T Clark. p. 57,
:
 Origins. T&T Clark. p. 57,
83. ISBN 978-
0567269515.
133. Bockmuehl, Markus (2006).
Seeing the Word:
Refocusing New Testament
Study. Baker Academic.
p. 178-184. ISBN 978-
0801027611.
134. Ehrman 2004a, pp. 479–
480.
135. Brown 1997, pp. 456–466.
136. Myers, Allen C., ed. (1987).
"Aramaic". The Eerdmans
:
 "Aramaic". The Eerdmans
Bible Dictionary. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans. p. 72. ISBN 978-
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)."
137. Aland, K.; Aland, B. (1995).
The Text of the New
:
 The Text of the New
Testament. Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing.
ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.
138. Koester, Helmut (1982).
Introduction to the New
Testament, Volume 2.
Philadelphia. p. 172.
139. 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.
:
 Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp.
33–58.
140. Machen 1998, p. 5.
141. Machen 1998, p. 4.
142. Eusebius. "Chapter 25".
Church History, Book III (htt
p://www.newadvent.org/fat
hers/250103.htm) .
143. Gamble, Harry Y. (1985).
The New Testament Canon:
Its Making and Meaning (htt
ps://archive.org/details/new
testamentcano0000gamb)
. Philadelphia: Fortress.
:
 . Philadelphia: Fortress.
ISBN 9780800604707.
OCLC 1194914119 (https://
search.worldcat.org/oclc/11
94914119) .
144. 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
:
 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."
145. Harnack, Adolf. "Appendix
VI" (http://www.ccel.org/cce
l/harnack/origin_nt.v.vi.htm
:
 l) . Origin of the New
Testament. Christian
Classics Ethereal Library.
146. Knox, John (1942). Marcion
and the New Testament: An
Essay in the Early History of
the Canon. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
pp. 158ff. ISBN 978-
0404161835.
147. Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians, Chapter 12 (htt
p://www.newadvent.org/fat
hers/0136.htm)
:
 hers/0136.htm)
148. Against Heresies, inter alia,
3.12.12
149. Adversus Marcionem, inter
alia, V.14
150. Justin Martyr. First Apology
(http://www.newadvent.org/
fathers/0126.htm) .
Chapter 67.
151. Ferguson 2002, p. 301ff.
152. Irenaeus. "Chapter XI" (htt
p://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaf
f/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html) .
Against Heresies, Book III.
:
 Against Heresies, Book III.
Section 8.
153. McDonald & Sanders 2002,
p. 277.
154. Noll, Mark A. (1997).
Turning Points. Baker
Academic. pp. 36–37.
155. de Jonge, H. J. (2003).
"The New Testament
Canon". In de Jonge, H. J.;
Auwers, J. M (eds.). The
Biblical Canons. Leuven
University Press. p. 315.
156. Ackroyd & Evans 1970,
:
 156. Ackroyd & Evans 1970,
p. 308.
157. Bateman, C. G. (3 August
2010). Origen's Role in the
Formation of the New
Testament Canon (Thesis).
Regent College.
SSRN 1653073 (https://pap
ers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf
m?abstract_id=1653073) .
158. 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.
159. Lindberg, Carter (2006). A
Brief History of Christianity (
https://archive.org/details/b
riefhistorychri00lind) .
Blackwell Publishing. p. 15 (
https://archive.org/details/b
:
 https://archive.org/details/b
riefhistorychri00lind/page/n
26) . ISBN 978-1-4051-
1078-5.
160. 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/S0017816000
030200 (https://doi.org/10.
1017%2FS001781600003
:
 1017%2FS001781600003
0200) . JSTOR 1509966 (h
ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/
1509966) .
S2CID 161779697 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:161779697) .
161. McDonald & Sanders 2002,
Appendix D-2, note 19:
"Revelation was added later
in 419 at the subsequent
synod of Carthage."
162. Ferguson 2002, p. 320.
163. Bruce 1988, p. 280.
:
 163. Bruce 1988, p. 280.
164. Augustine. De Civitate Dei.
22.8.
165. Bruce 1988, p. 234.
166. Bruce 1988, p. 225.
167. Metzger 1987, pp. 237–
238.
168. Bruce 1988, p. 97.
169. McDonald & Sanders 2002,
Appendix D-2, note 19
170. Bruce 1988, p. 215.
171. Ackroyd & Evans 1970,
p. 305.
:
 172. McDonald, Lee M. (1995).
The Formation of the
Christian Biblical Canon.
Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson. p. 116.
173. Reid, George (1908).
"Canon of the New
Testament" (http://www.ne
wadvent.org/cathen/03274
a.htm) . The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York:
Robert Appleton Company.
174. McDonald & Sanders 2002,
pp. 414–415.
:
 pp. 414–415.
175. For the initial dating of P52,
see Roberts 1935 and Bell
& Skeat 1935. Though see
now Nongbri 2005 and
Martinez 2009.
176. Ehrman 2005, p. 46.
177. Strobel, Lee (1998). The
Case for Christ. Chapter
Three, when quoting biblical
scholar Bruce Metzger.
178. Bruce 1981, p. 14.
179. Ehrman 2005, p. 265 (http
s://archive.org/details/misq
:
 s://archive.org/details/misq
uotingjesuss00ehrm/page/
265) .
180. Nave, Guy D. (2002). The
Role and Function of
Repentance in Luke-Acts.
p. 194.
181. Spong, John Shelby (26
September 1979). "The
Continuing Christian Need
for Judaism" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/201106040
55133/http://www.religion-
online.org/showarticle.asp?t
:
 online.org/showarticle.asp?t
itle=1256) . Christian
Century. p. 918. Archived
from the original (http://ww
w.religion-online.org/showa
rticle.asp?title=1256) on 4
June 2011.
182. 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.
:
 A&C Black. p. 175.
183. "NETBible: John 7" (https://
net.bible.org/#!bible/John+
7) . Bible.org. Retrieved
17 October 2009. See note
139 on that page.
184. Keith, Chris (2008).
"Recent and Previous
Research on the Pericope
Adulterae (John 7.53–8.11)".
Currents in Biblical
Research. 6 (3): 377–404.
doi:10.1177/1476993X0708
4793 (https://doi.org/10.117
:
 4793 (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F1476993X0708479
3) . S2CID 145385075 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:145385075) .
185. Cross & Livingstone 2005,
"Pericope adulterae".
186. 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
:
 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."
187. Metzger 1994.
188. Metzger 1994, p. 367.
189. Parvis, M. M. (1962). "Text,
[New Testament]". In
Buttrick, George A.; Kepler,
Thomas S.; Knox, John;
May, Herbert Gordon;
Terrien, Samuel; Bucke,
Emory Stevens (eds.). The
Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible: An Illustrated
Encyclopedia (https://archiv
:
 Encyclopedia (https://archiv
e.org/details/interpretersdic
t04geor) . Vol. 4 (R–Z).
Nashville: Abingdon Press.
p. 595. ISBN 978-0-687-
19273-1.
190. Achtemeier, Paul (1985).
Harper's Bible dictionary (ht
tps://archive.org/details/har
persbibledict00tion/page/1
29/mode/2up) . San
Francisco: Harper & Row.
p. 129. ISBN 0060698632.
191. See Stendahl 1954; Marcus
:
 191. See Stendahl 1954; Marcus
1993; Smith 1972; Juel
1988; and Barr 1966.
192. Võõbus 1954, pp. 1–128,
211–240.
193. Metzger 1977, pp. 3–98.
194. Võõbus 1954, pp. 216–229.
195. Võõbus 1954, pp. 229–237;
Metzger 1977, pp. 99–152.
196. On the Armenian, Georgian,
Ethiopic, Arabic, and
Gothic, see Võõbus 1954,
pp. 133–210, 243–309
197. 2 Timothy 3:16 (https://bibl
:
 197. 2 Timothy 3:16 (https://bibl
e.oremus.org/?passage=2%
20Timothy%203:16&versio
n=nrsv)
198. Meadors, Gary T. (1997).
"Scripture, Unity and
Diversity of" (http://www.bi
blestudytools.com/dictionari
es/bakers-evangelical-dictio
nary/scripture-unity-and-di
versity-of.html) . In Elwell,
Walter A. (ed.). Baker's
Evangelical Dictionary of
Biblical Theology. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books.
:
 Rapids: Baker Books.
199. Stagg, Frank (1962). New
Testament Theology.
Broadman. ISBN 0-8054-
1613-7.
200. "The Transmission of Divine
Revelation" (http://www.scb
orromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.
htm) . Catechism of the
Catholic Church. 2nd ed.
1997.
201. Ware, Kallistos (1993).
"Holy Tradition: The Source
of the Orthodox Faith" (http
:
 of the Orthodox Faith" (http
s://books.google.com/book
s?id=Q2Z8bVDVMLEC&pg
=PT243) .The Orthodox
Church. Penguin UK.
202. "Articles of Religion" (http://
anglicansonline.org/basics/t
hirty-nine_articles.html) .
Anglicans Online. Retrieved
19 November 2010.
203. "The Chicago Statement of
Biblical Inerrancy" (https://
web.archive.org/web/20170
301054307/http://www.ref
:
 ormed.org/documents/inde
x.html?mainframe=http://w
ww.reformed.org/document
s/icbi.html) . Center for
Reformed Theology and
Apologetics. Archived from
the original (http://www.refo
rmed.org/documents/index.
html?mainframe=http://ww
w.reformed.org/documents/
icbi.html) on 1 March 2017.
Retrieved 19 November
2010.
204. Chismar, Janet (20 June
:
 204. Chismar, Janet (20 June
2001). "Homosexual
Ordination Vote Widens
Gap Between Presbyterian
Factions" (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/202105241623
39/https://www.christianhe
adlines.com/articles/homos
exual-ordination-vote-wide
ns-gap-between-presbyteri
an-factions-526076.html) .
Religion Today. Archived
from the original (https://ww
w.christianheadlines.com/ar
ticles/homosexual-ordinatio
:
 ticles/homosexual-ordinatio
n-vote-widens-gap-betwee
n-presbyterian-factions-52
6076.html) on 24 May
2021 – via
www.christianheadlines.co
m.
205. "Our Beliefs" (http://www.b
eitsimcha.org/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."
206. "Essential Statement of
Faith" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20151127195443/h
ttp://www.graftedin.com/es
sential-statement-of-fait
h/) . The Harvest: A
Messianic Charismatic
Congregation. Archived
from the original (http://ww
w.graftedin.com/essential-st
atement-of-faith/) on 27
:
 atement-of-faith/) 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
:
 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."
207. Equipped for Every Good
Work (https://archive.org/d
:
 Work (https://archive.org/d
ownload/WatchtowerLibrar
y/1946_eqd_E.pdf) (PDF).
Brooklyn, New York:
Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society & International Bible
Students Association. 1946.
pp. 12–13.
208. See, for example, Raddatz,
Tom (26 October 2000). "A
Response to the Oneness-
Trinity Debate" (https://web.
archive.org/web/2005032
0000616/http://www.1lord1
:
 0000616/http://www.1lord1
faith.org/wm/Oneness/1Trin
Debate.htm) .
1Lord1Faith.org. Archived
from the original (http://ww
w.1lord1faith.org/wm/Onene
ss/1TrinDebate.htm) on 20
March 2005.
209. Dulle, Jason. "How We Get
Our Bible" (http://www.onen
esspentecostal.com/howget
bible.htm) . Institute for
Biblical Studies. Retrieved
15 April 2013.
210. Dulle, Jason. "Defending
:
 210. Dulle, Jason. "Defending
the Inerrancy and Canon of
Scripture" (http://www.onen
esspentecostal.com/inerran
cycanon.htm) . Institute for
Biblical Studies. Retrieved
15 April 2013.
211. Dulle, Jason. "The Nature of
Inspiration" (http://www.one
nesspentecostal.com/inspir
ation.htm) . Institute for
Biblical Studies. Retrieved
15 April 2013.
212. Ministerial Association,
:
 212. Ministerial Association,
General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists
(2005). Seventh-day
Adventists Believe
(2nd ed.). Pacific Press
Publishing Association.
pp. 14–16.
213. McLarty, John (15
November 2001). "The
Adventist Theological
Society" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/200712250631
48/http://www.atoday.com/
magazine/2001/11/adventis
:
 magazine/2001/11/adventis
t-theological-society-0) .
Adventist Today. Archived
from the original (http://ww
w.atoday.com/magazine/20
01/11/adventist-theological-
society-0) on 25
December 2007.
214. White, E. G. (1 April 1890).
"Repentance the Gift of
God" (https://documents.ad
ventistarchives.org/Periodic
als/RH/RH18900401-V67-
13.pdf) (PDF). Advent
:
 Review and Sabbath Herald.
67 (13): 193–94. Retrieved
30 December 2020.
"Several have written to me,
inquiring if the message of
justification by faith is the
third angel's message, and I
have answered, "it is the
third angel's message in
verity." ... Brightness, glory,
and power are to be
connected with the third
angel's message, and
conviction will follow
:
 conviction will follow
wherever it is preached in
demonstration of the Spirit."
215. Colossians 2:14 (https://ww
w.biblica.com/bible/?osis=ni
v:Colossians%202:14)
216. White, Ellen (2015).
Patriarchs and Prophets (htt
ps://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=yKqXCgAAQBAJ&pg
=PT409) . Start Publishing
LLC. p. 365.
217. "Articles of Faith" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/201305
:
 31162806/http://mormon.o
rg/articles-of-faith) . The
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints. Archived
from the original (http://mor
mon.org/articles-of-faith)
on 31 May 2013. Retrieved
17 February 2016.
218. Givens, Terry L. (2015). The
Oxford Handbook of
Mormonism (https://books.
google.com/books?id=7c0f
CgAAQBAJ) . Oxford
University Press. pp. 124–
:
 University Press. pp. 124–
25. ISBN 978-0-19-
977836-2.
219. "Bible, Inerrancy of" (http
s://www.churchofjesuschris
t.org/study/manual/gospel-t
opics/bible-inerrancy-of?lan
g=eng) . The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. 2016. Retrieved
23 May 2016.
220. Ludlow, Daniel H., ed.
(1992). Encyclopedia of
Mormonism (https://archiv
e.org/details/encyclopediao
:
 e.org/details/encyclopediao
fmo01ludl) . Vol. 1. New
York: Macmillan. pp. 106–
107. ISBN 0-02-879600-4.
221. Paulsen, David Lamont;
Musser, Donald W. (2007).
Mormonism in Dialogue
with Contemporary
Christian Theologies (http
s://archive.org/details/mor
monismindialo00paul) .
Mercer University Press.
p. 277 (https://archive.org/d
etails/mormonismindialo00
:
 etails/mormonismindialo00
paul/page/277) . ISBN 978-
0-88146-083-4.

Bibliography

Ackroyd, P. R.; Evans, C. F., eds.

(1970). The Cambridge History
of the Bible, Vol. 1. Cambridge
University Press.
Barr, James (1966). Old and
New in Interpretation: A Study
of the Two Testaments.
London: SCM.
Bell, H. Idris; Skeat, T. C. (1935).
:
 Fragments of an Unknown
Gospel and Other Early
Christian Papyri. London:
Trustees of the British Museum.
Biddle, Mark E. (2007).
"Jeremiah". In Coogan, Michael
D.; Brettler, Mark Zvi; Newsom,
Carol Ann (eds.). The New
Oxford Annotated Bible with
the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
Books: New Revised Standard
Version (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OU
:
 om/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OU
C&q=Jeremiah+Book+Of+) .
Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780199743919.
Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An
Introduction to the New
Testament (https://archive.org/
details/introductiontone00brow
_0) . Anchor Bible. New York:
Doubleday.
ISBN 9780385247672.
OCLC 1035750767 (https://se
arch.worldcat.org/oclc/103575
0767) .
Brown, Raymond E. (1988). The
:
 Brown, Raymond E. (1988). The
Gospel and Epistles of John: A
Concise Commentary (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=JI
M0Q0bjgYkC&pg=PA9) .
Liturgical Press. ISBN 978-0-
8146-1283-5.
Bruce, F. F. (1952) [1951]. The
Acts of the Apostles: The
Greek Text with Introduction
and Commentary (https://archi
ve.org/details/actsofapostles00
00bruc) (2nd ed.). London:
Tyndale Press.
:
 Tyndale Press.
OCLC 1244214359 (https://se
arch.worldcat.org/oclc/124421
4359) .
Bruce, F. F. (1981). The New
Testament Documents: Are
They Reliable?. InterVarsity
Press.
Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Canon
of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
ISBN 9780830812585.
Burge, Gary M. (2014). "Gospel
of John" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=StasAgAAQBA
:
 com/books?id=StasAgAAQBA
J&pg=PA236) . In Evans, Craig
A. (ed.). The Routledge
Encyclopedia of the Historical
Jesus (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=StasAgAAQBAJ) .
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-
72224-3.
Burkett, Delbert (2002). An
Introduction to the New
Testament and the Origins of
Christianity (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=EcsQknxV-x
QC) . Cambridge University
:
 QC) . Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
00720-7.
Cousland, J.R.C. (2010).
Coogan, Michael David;
Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom,
Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme
(eds.). The New Oxford
Annotated Bible: New Revised
Standard Version. Oxford
University Press. p. 1744.
ISBN 978-0-19-528955-8.
Cousland, J.R.C. (1 March
2018). Coogan, Michael David;
Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom,
:
 Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom,
Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme
(eds.). The New Oxford
Annotated Bible: New Revised
Standard Version (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=T05W
DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1380) .
Oxford University Press.
p. 1380. ISBN 978-0-19-
027605-8.
Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A.,
eds. (2005). The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian
Church (3rd rev. ed.). New York:
:
 Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780192802903.
Culpepper, R. Alan (1999). "The
Christology of the Johannine
Writings" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=Rn6wk-ipDVQ
C) . In Kingsbury, Jack Dean;
Powell, Mark Allan Powell;
Bauer, David R. (eds.). Who Do
You Say that I Am?: Essays on
Christology. Westminster John
Knox Press.
ISBN 9780664257521.
Davidson, Robert (1993).
:
 Davidson, Robert (1993).
"Jeremiah, Book of". In Metzger,
Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D.
(eds.). The Oxford Companion
to the Bible (https://archive.org/
details/isbn_978019504645
8) . Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780199743919.
Edwards, James R. (2015). The
Gospel According to Luke.
Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-
3735-6.
Ehrman, Bart D. (1997). The
:
 Ehrman, Bart D. (1997). The
New Testament: A Historical
Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=xpoNA
QAAMAAJ) . Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
508481-8.
Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus:
Apocalyptic Prophet of the
New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2000). The
New Testament: A Historical
Introduction to Early Christian
:
 Introduction to Early Christian
Writings. Oxford University
Press.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost
Christianities: The Battles for
Scripture and the Faiths We
Never Knew (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=URdACxKu
bDIC&pg=PA235) . Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-
19-518249-1.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2004a)
[1997]. The New Testament: A
Historical Introduction to the
:
 Historical Introduction to the
Early Christian Writings (http
s://archive.org/details/newtesta
menthist0000ehrm_g7n1)
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-
515462-2.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2004b). Truth
and Fiction in The Da Vinci
Code: A Historian Reveals
What We Really Know about
Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and
Constantine (https://archive.or
g/details/truthfictionin00ehrm)
. Oxford University Press, US.
:
 . Oxford University Press, US.
ISBN 978-0-19-534616-9.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2005).
Misquoting Jesus: The Story
Behind Who Changed the
Bible and Why (https://archive.
org/details/misquotingjesuss00
ehrm/page/265) .
HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-
06-073817-4.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). The
Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot:
A New Look at Betrayer and
Betrayed (https://archive.org/de
:
 Betrayed (https://archive.org/de
tails/lostgospelofjuda00ehrm) .
Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-971104-8.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2009). Jesus,
Interrupted: Revealing the
Hidden Contradictions in the
Bible (and Why We Don't Know
About Them) (https://archive.or
g/details/jesusinterrupted00ehr
m_0) . New York: Harper
Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-
117393-6.
Ferguson, Everett (2002).
"Factors leading to the
:
 "Factors leading to the
Selection and Closure of the
New Testament Canon" (http
s://books.google.com/books?id
=kxW-AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34
5) . In McDonald, L. M.;
Sanders, J. A. (eds.). The Canon
Debate (https://archive.org/det
ails/canondebate0000unse) .
Hendrickson. ISBN 978-1-
4412-4163-4.
Guthrie, Donald (1990). New
Testament Introduction (http
s://archive.org/details/newtesta
:
 mentintr0000guth_k1x5) (4th
(revised) ed.). Downers Grove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
ISBN 0-85111-761-9.
Harris, Stephen L. (1980).
Understanding the Bible: A
Reader's Guide and Reference
(https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=TGJKeHOmGhwC) .
Mayfield Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0-
87484-472-6.
Harris, Stephen L. (1985).
Understanding the Bible. Palo
Alto, California: Mayfield.
:
 Alto, California: Mayfield.
Harris, Stephen L. (2006).
Understanding the Bible (http
s://books.google.com/books?id
=nAsoAAAACAAJ) (7th ed.).
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-
296548-3.
Harris, Stephen L. (2010).
Understanding The Bible (http
s://books.google.com/books?id
=U-yAQQAACAAJ) . McGraw-
Hill Education. ISBN 978-0-07-
340744-9.
Juel, Donald (1988). Messianic
:
 Juel, Donald (1988). Messianic
Exegesis: Christological
Interpretation of the Old
Testament in Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Knox, Wilfred L. (1948). The
Acts of the Apostles (https://ar
chive.org/details/actsofapostles
0000knox) . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Andrew (2005). Gospel
According to St John: Black's
New Testament Commentaries
(https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=eYmxAwAAQBAJ) .
:
 ks?id=eYmxAwAAQBAJ) .
Bloomsbury Publishing.
ISBN 978-1-4411-8822-9.
Lindars, Barnabas; Edwards,
Ruth B.; Court, John M. (2000).
The Johannine Literature (http
s://books.google.com/books?id
=qVOD0PhayhsC&pg=PA41) .
Sheffield Academic Press.
ISBN 978-1841270814.
Machen, John Gresham (1998)
[1923]. The New Testament
Greek for Beginners (https://ar
chive.org/details/newtestament
:
 chive.org/details/newtestament
gree00mach/page/4/mode/2u
p) . ISBN 978-1579101800.
Marcus, Joel (1993). The Way
of the Lord: Christological
Exegesis of the Old Testament
in the Gospel of Mark. Studies
of the New Testament and its
World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
ISBN 978-0567096371.
Martinez, David G. (2009).
"The Papyri and Early
Christianity". In Bagnall, Roger
S. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook
: