New Testament — Topic 1

Useful information about the Bible as a whole
The nature of the New “Testament”
The coming into being of books written by Christians
The collecting of early christian writings

The various literary genres just discussed had different histories of preliminary collection, and these histories throw light on the attitudes that shaped the final NT compilation.

Paul’s Letters****. Paul’s name appears on fourteen NT letters addressed to separate communities or individuals and written over a period of some ten years. By the end of the 2d century, thirteen were increasingly accepted in the West, with a fourteenth (Heb) soon being added in the East; only by the 4th century was this last book generally acknowledged in the West.

The Gospels****. However, that may be, in the decades just before and after ad 200, church writers in Greek and in Latin widely accepted a collection of twenty works (Four Gospels; thirteen Pauline letters; Acts; 1 Pet, and 1 John) as a NT alongside the Jewish OT.

The church eventually accepted four Gospels composed in the period ca. 60-100.

Why four?

The gospel is one, although many have told about it. The ancient Christian writer Adamantius says: “There are four Gospels, but the gospel is one.” Saint Irenaeus of Lyon says that Christ “gave us the gospel in four forms.” The evangelists, depicting the preaching of Christ, did not invent anything, therefore, despite the four editions, their content is identical.

St. John Chrysostom says:

“We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or contradictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children”.

Thus, according to the views of the holy fathers, the set (four) The Gospels do not contradict each other. Moreover, the differences between them are proof of their reliability. Here is another reasoning of John Chrysostom:

“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?” One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.

“But the contrary,” it may be said, “hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if amongst the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble thee. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them hath also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect”.

Nevertheless, what is the reason for such a number of Gospels? The answer to this question should take into account the historical and theological background of that era. The gospel is a divine work of redemption for the whole world and, therefore, should be intended for all people. Therefore, the Apostles used different ways of preaching to convey the teachings of Christ in an understandable language. They adapted to the culture and mentality of their audience.

With oral preaching, such accommodations were made easily. But it was difficult to maintain this mobility on the letter and provide for all the features of its readers. Therefore, the authors of the gospels had to focus on the broad religious and cultural definitions of the first century. We are talking about Jews, pagans (Hellenes) and proselytes. It is to these three groups of people that the first three Gospels correspond. According to the general opinion of ancient Christian writers, Matthew wrote his book for Palestinian Christians (in the past they were Jews), Mark wrote for Roman Christians (former pagans), Luke refers to Theophilus, who was supposedly a proselyte from Antioch. Consequently, Matthew, Mark and Luke took into account the national and religious classifications of the peoples of that era and sought to satisfy their needs.

It remained only to complete this educational work and bring the image of the life of Christ to objective completeness. All this is what the fourth Gospel presents to us, as can be seen from its character. Church tradition says that the Apostle John had read the first three gospels, but noticed some omissions. Therefore, he filled them with the missing facts. Through this, St. John the Theologian completed the process of literary reconstruction of the Gospel history.

Now it is clear that the “sacred four Gospels” show that the truth is fully revealed and moreover in such forms that are accessible to the perception of all people. St. Irenaeus writes:

“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. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit”.__

It turns out that the teaching of Christ is revealed in such a universal form that it becomes possible to found the Church of Christ in this visible universe to unite all people in this Church. Therefore, being divided into four works in the literary sense, the Gospel becomes universal, reveals its spiritual unity in the diversity of human civilization.

Completing the Collection****. The remaining seven works (Heb, Rev, Jas, II and III John, Jude, II Pet) were cited from the 2d to the 4th centuries and accepted as Scripture in some churches but not in all. Finally, however, by the late 4th century in the Greek East and the Latin West there was a wide (but not absolute) accord on a canon of twenty-seven works. This standardization involved some churches accepting from other churches books about which they had some doubts, and such “ecumenism” reflected an increasing contact and communion between the East and the West. Origen went to Rome and learned the biblical views of the church where Peter and Paul had been martyred and which had struggled against Marcion. On the other hand, later Western thinkers like Ambrose and Augustine became familiar with the works of Origen and through him with the biblical views of the highly literate Alexandrian Christianity. The most learned Latin church father, Jerome, spent much of his life in Palestine and Syria. Thus, in a sense, the larger canon in the 4th century, like the shorter collection in the late 2d century, testified to the experience of what Ignatius had earlier called “the catholic church” (Smyrnaeans 8:2).

Books of the New Testament (arranged according to time of writing)

The formation of the NT, which involved the coming into being and preservation of books composed by followers of Jesus, was a complicated affair. Why were the first Christians somewhat slow in writing their own books? A major retarding factor was that, unlike Moses who by tradition authored the Pentateuch, Jesus did not produce a writing that contained his revelation. He is never recorded as setting down even a word in his lifetime or telling any of his disciples to write. Accordingly, the proclamation of the kingdom of God made present in Jesus did not depend on writing. Moreover, the first Christian generations were strongly eschatological: For them the “last times” were at hand, and undoubtedly Jesus would return soon - “Maranatha” (= Marana tha ; 1 Cor 16:22); “Come Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20). Such anticipation of the end of the world did not encourage Christians to write for future generations (who would not be around to read books).

Letters****. It is no accident, then, that letters were the first Christian literature of which we know: Since they can be designed to answer immediate, pressing problems, they were consistent with an urgent eschatology. That these letters were written by apostles (Peter, Paul, James, Johnn and Jude) clarifies another factor in the appearance of Christian literature. Paul, for example, was a traveling apostle who proclaimed Jesus in one town and then moved on to another. Letters became his means of communication with converts who lived at a distance from him. The other apostles did the same. Letters/epistles remained an important means of Christian communication.

Gospels****. Literary genres other than letters also appeared, of which “Gospel” is the most noteworthy. The four gospels have always held a place of particular interest for Christian people. They are the main source of our knowledge of our Lord’s life, for without them our data would be reduced to the barest outline. The gospels are clearly writings which describe the actions and words of Jesus. But they are not biographies in the commonly accepted sense of that term. They are concerned with only a small period of the total span of the life of Jesus. They tell us very little about his development. The information given is wholly inadequate to supply a psychological account of his growth. Apart from the few snippets from his early life, the focus falls on the brief period of his public ministry and more especially on his death.

These books have been traditionally known as gospels. The word itself means ‘good news’. It is used in the introductory statement in Mark’s account of the acts and teachings of Jesus. Something of the significance of the form which is adopted can be seen from the fact that all of the evangelists devote a considerable part of their books to the last week of Jesus’ life. Mark actually allots a third of his gospel to this series of events. The others have only slightly less proportion. Evidently it was the passion of Jesus which dominated their purpose. The accounts of Jesus’ good deeds, miracles and teaching must be viewed from this perspective. Everything pointed ahead to the climax of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This formed the spearhead of early Christian preaching.

The marked difference between the gospels in this respect and all other biographical works is crucial if we are to appreciate to the full the uniqueness of these works.

The different purposes which prompted the production of the various gospels will be dealt with when each gospel is considered separately. But our present purpose is to deal with the general motives which led to the writing of gospel accounts, since, as stated above, no previous patterns existed.

At first the oral apostolic testimony would possess such weight that an authenticated and consecutive gospel in a written form may not have been conceived. There can be no denying that word of mouth carried more authority for the eastern mind than written documents, and for this reason it is generally supposed that written documents were regarded as a necessity only after the decease of the authorized eyewitnesses. In this case a period of some considerable time might well have elapsed before our earliest gospels. The problem of the dating of the gospels will be considered later.

The rapid spread of Christianity may well have precipitated a need much earlier, for the apostles could not have been ubiquitous. Quite apart from the dating of the gospels it is clear from Luke’s preface that, at some undefined period before Luke himself wrote, others had produced written accounts.

By the end of the second century it is clear from all the evidence available that our four gospels were accepted, not only as authentic, but also as Scripture on a level with the Old Testament. Irenaeus has an illuminating passage in which he maintains that the fourfold character of the gospel is analogous to the four quarters of the world, the four winds and the necessity for four pillars in an edifice. Moreover, in the same passage he speaks of the author of each gospel according to the traditional ascription. He goes on to adumbrate a doctrine of the inspiration of the gospels.

During the sub-apostolic period the testimony of Papias on the gospels is highly significant, although somewhat enigmatic. He made two statements about Matthew and Mark respectively, and these appear to be the earliest comments on the authorship of any of the gospels. He believed that Mark was Peter’s interpreter and that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and although both statements have become a battleground of criticism their evidence is of great importance because of their early date.

Acts.__ Another form of early Christian literature of a more permanent nature than letters is exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles. Intended by the author to constitute the second part of a work that commenced with the Gospel According to Luke (which began and ended in Jerusalem), this book moved the story of Christianity beyond Jerusalem and Judea to Samaria and even to the ends of the earth. The atmosphere in which the work was written is suggested by Acts 1:6–11: Knowledge of the time of the second coming has not been given to the disciples of Jesus, and the spread of Christianity is more important than looking to heaven in expectation of that coming. Acts signals this spread by beginning in Jerusalem with the Twelve and ending in Rome with Paul, whose last words proclaim that the future of Christianity lies with the Gentile world (28:25–28). Such a work envisions an enduring Christianity that needs to know of its continuity with Jesus, Peter, and Paul, and to be certain that its development has not been haphazard but guided by the Spirit received from Jesus.

Revelation****. The Book of Revelation (also called the Apocalypse) represents still another genre in the Christian writing of the post-70 period. With roots in Ezekiel and Zechariah, this book is an example of “apocalyptic” literature, a designation derived from a Greek noun meaning “disclosure” or “revelation.” Such apocalyptic literature was well known in Judaism, as exemplified by Daniel and by two books written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in ad 70, namely, IV Ezra and II Baruch. (The latter two would have been roughly contemporary with Rev.) This book talks about the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Persecution of God’s people by the great world empires challenged the extent to which history is under God’s control. Apocalyptic literature responds to this by visions that encompass what is happening in heaven and on earth at the same time—visions that can be expressed only in luxuriant symbols. The parallelism of heaven and earth gives assurance that what happens below is under the control of God above, and that earthly persecution reflects struggles between God and the major evil spirits. A special aspect of Revelation is that the apocalyptic message has been attached to letters to specific churches, so that by expressing the attributes of God in a symbolism that goes beyond rational description, the author is reminding those Christians of the late 1st century that the kingdom of God is larger than the history they were experiencing. It gives them hope, nay assurance, that despite (or even because of) the setbacks they have suffered, God would make them victorious.

Other Literary Genres****. Still other forms of early Christian literature existed, concealed under the designation “letter” or “epistle.” Precisely because letters were the dominant literary production of the first Christians, later works that were not letters in the ordinary sense were classified as such. I Pet and James are borderline cases: They have elements of a letter format, but the content is closer to a homily (I Pet) or a type of oratorical debate known as a diatribe (James). The “Epistle” to the Hebrews has the conclusion of a letter but no epistolary address, so that the destination “to the Hebrews” prefixed to the work by an early scholar derives from an analysis of its contents. The polished style is that of Hellenistic or Alexandrian oratory. Although the work envisions a particular problem (seemingly backsliding from aspects of Christian adherence because of the attractions of Judaism), it elaborates a profound christology of God’s Son, who is like us in everything except sin—one who is superior to the angels and to Moses, who gave the Law and who replaced by his death the Israelite cult and priesthood. The distance in style and development between this “epistle” and the early Pauline letters is striking. I John, which has no letter format and never mentions John, is extremely difficult to classify.

Literary Classification of the New Testament

*These are not ordinary biographies but rather the unique stories of the life of Jesus Christ.

**Acts is not merely history in the sense of a record of historical data. It is interpretive theological history—Salvation history.

***The Book of Revelation shares similarities with Jewish apocalyptic works and later Old Testament books of apocalypticism, but also with Old Testament prophecy. Internally, the book is called a book of prophecy and an apocalypsis. Epistolary forms are also evident (e.g., Rev. 2–3).

Before the term “testament” was applied to a set of writings, it referred to God’s special dealing with human beings. In the story of the Hebrews and of Israel we hear of a “covenant” (agreement or pact) by which God made a commitment to Noah, to Abraham, and to David, promising special help or blessings. In the tradition, however, the most notable covenant was that which God made with Moses and Israel (Exod 19:5; 34:10, 27), whereby Israel became God’s special people.

Almost 600 years before Jesus’ birth, at a moment when the monarchy in Judah and Jerusalem was collapsing before foreign armies, Jeremiah reported an oracle of the Lord: “The days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors the day when I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt.… I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts. I will be their God and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:31-33). “New” here has a connotation of “renewed” even though the renewal is “not like the covenant made with their ancestors”; and it may have had that force when first used by believers in Jesus, as they echoed the language and ideals of Jeremiah (2 Cor 3:6; Gal 4:24-26). All the accounts of the eucharistic words at the supper on the night before Jesus died have him relate the term “[new] covenant/testament” to his own blood. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, therefore, Christians believed that God had renewed the covenant with a fresh dimension; and they came to understand that this time the covenant reached beyond Israel to include the Gentiles in God’s people.

Only in the 2d century do we have evidence of Christians using the term “New Testament” for a body of their own writings, ultimately leading to the use of the designation “Old Testament” for the Scriptures of Israel. It would still be several centuries more before Christians in the Latin and Greek churches came to wide agreement about the twenty-seven works to be included in a normative or canonical collection.

Books of the New Testament

The NT does not stand by itself; it joins books that Christians call the OT to form the Bible. Thus the Bible is a collection; indeed, we can speak of a library with the OT representing the selected sacred books of ancient Israel and the NT representing the selected books of the early Church.

To speak of the sacred books of ancient “Israel” is a generalization. The span from Abraham to Jesus covers at least 1,700 (and perhaps more than 2,000) years, and different terms designate the principal groups involved in that narrative. Often “Hebrews” describes the ancestors before Moses and Sinai. “Israel” is appropriate for the confederation of tribes that emerged after Sinai and became a kingdom in the land of Canaan/Palestine. (After Solomon’s death [ca. 930 BC] “Judah” was the southern kingdom centered on Jerusalem, and “Israel” – the northern kingdom centered on Samaria.) “Jews” (etymologically related to Judah) is appropriate from the time when the captivity in Babylon came to a close and Persian rule was extended to Judah (6th century BC). More precisely, “Early Judaism” or “Second-Temple Judaism” designates the period from the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple after the return from captivity (520–515 BC) until the Roman destruction (AD 70)—a period toward the end of which Jesus lived.

Although the OT tradition incorporate earlier components, oral and written, the books that constitute the OT were authored in the period 1000–100 BC. The title “Old Testament” is a Christian designation, reflecting belief in a second collection of sacred books related to Jesus, known as the “New Testament.”

Bible. New Testament. Introduction.

Encourse Wiki

Explorer

New Testament — Topic 1

New Testament — Topic 1

Books of the New Testament (arranged according to time of writing)

Literary Classification of the New Testament

Books of the New Testament

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks

tags	topic
course	New Testament
unit	Topic 1

Encourse Wiki

Explorer

New Testament — Topic 1

New Testament — Topic 1

Books of the New Testament (arranged according to time of writing)

Literary Classification of the New Testament

Books of the New Testament

Related Concepts

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks