PDA

View Full Version : Who wrote the books of the New Testament



chad
Oct 8th 2008, 07:30 AM
Hello,

I am doing a small study on who wrote the books of the New Testament. I just wanted to post some thoughts that I had regarding this and was hoping that somebody on this forum may be able to provide a few answers.


So far I have worked out that the following wrote the books in the New Testament.

Book.
Mathew - Mathew an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the tax collector

Luke - Companion of Paul in some of his missionary journeys, also the author of Acts. Not an apostle of Jesus Christ.

John - John Mark, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Mark - This is meant to be anonymously written. But the early church leaders ascribe this book to John Mark, An Apostle of Jesus Christ.

1,2,3 John - John Mark, An Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Revelation - John Mark or John the Presber?

Paul - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

1,2 Peter - Simon Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Jude - Judas the Apostle (Thaddeus) or Judas the Brother of Jesus?

Hebrews - Barnabas or Apollos?


I have a few questions, that I would like to ask.

1) How did they come up with the process of Cannonizing these books. What was the criteria for including them in the bible?

2) Why did they include Luke's account of Jesus Christ life, when Luke was not even an apostle of Jesus Christ?

3) How can a book be included in the cannon, and be inspired by God, when they are not sure who the exact author was?

4) Why did the apostle John mark write John as well as Mark, giving his account of Jesus life twice.

I have some more questions, but will post them later. :o

Ethnikos
Oct 8th 2008, 08:18 AM
Hello,

1) How did they come up with the process of Cannonizing these books. What was the criteria for including them in the bible?
You should do a google search on the Venerable Bede. He was a monk in England who was involved in a group of literary experts in the Church who put together a Bible. This was in the seven hundreds and before they completed their project, there was no Bible, as in a single book containing the whole Bible. All there was, was scattered collections of pages of manuscripts. They had to collect them, sort through them, and pick out ones that were good, and assemble them into a cohesive unit.
There were different councils of the Church that brought up the topic but it was more in the realm of the hypothetical because they really didn't do anything other that affirm what had been determined much earlier by Eusibious and Tertullian, who were pretty close to the earliest Church Fathers. The actual work of making the Bible was done by a group of well respected men who were not influenced by politics and such. Some people , who are prone to paranoid distrust of our current Bible, imagine that the opposite of my previous statement is true. The real conspiracy has to be laid at the feet of the likes of Westcott and Holt.

Orendorf
Oct 8th 2008, 02:21 PM
Pertaining to question number four, the authors of Mark and John were not the same person.

markedward
Oct 8th 2008, 04:38 PM
John - John Mark, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

1,2,3 John - John Mark, An Apostle of Jesus Christ.John Mark was not one of the apostles. John Mark is not the same individual as the apostle John. Allegedly, the apostle Peter told the gospel to John Mark, and John Mark wrote it down as "the gospel of Mark". And, traditionally, the apostle John, who is not the same person as John Mark, was the author of "the gospel of John".


Mark - This is meant to be anonymously written.Other than the ending of the gospel of John, none of the gospels even hint at who their authors are. By definition, they were all "anonymous".


Paul - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, PhilemonWhat about 1 and 2 Thessalonians?


Hebrews - Barnabas or Apollos?There's no internal or external evidence for either of these authors. Assigning them as the author(s) is pure speculation.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 8th 2008, 04:49 PM
Ok this is going to be long!

The Gospel of John was written by most likely St. John the Evangelist, who may in fact be the same John as St. John the Elder author of the letters 1,2,3 John and may be the same as St. John the Divine author of Revelation. St. John the Evangelist is most likely the Apostle John, the one who witnessed the Passion of our Lord. And who was known as the Beloved disciple who leaned his head back on the Master's chest at the Last Supper.

St. Matthew the Evangelist you are correct is most likely the author of the Gospel of Matthew. St. Matthew the Apostle was a tax collector and may also have been know as Levi.

St. Mark the Evangelist most likely wrote the Gospel of Mark. He, according to Eusebius writing in the 4th century, was the disciple of St. Peter the Apostle and wrote down some of the stories that St. Peter told of Jesus. He is not the author of any other book in the New Testament that we know of! He was not an Apostle. (To be an Apostle one has to have seen the risen Lord Jesus the Christ)

St. Luke the Evangelist is the author of the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles. He was a disciple of Paul. He was also a doctor and he interviewed people who had interacted with Jesus. Again not an Apostle, also the only Gentile to write any of the NT. And also wrote length wise more of the NT than anyone else.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. All written by St. Paul the Apostle.

The Letter to the Hebrews, written by an unknown author, church tradition says Paul, scholars say Apollos, Barnabus, Priscilla, or some other unknown author who was close to Paul.

James, written by St. James the Just, relative to Jesus. Not St. James the Apostle, the brother of St. John the Apostle.

1&2 Peter, written by St. Peter the Apostle or by a disciple of his at his command and dictation.

1,2,&3 John I covered above but, just to be on the safe side; written by St. John the Elder, who may very well be St. John the Apostle, and the same as St. John the Evangelist and/or St. John the Divine.

Jude, written by most likely St. Jude, the relative of Jesus. Not the disciple called by Jesus also known as St. Judas or St. Thaddeus.

Revelation, written by St. John the Divine, possibly the same person as St. John the Evangelist and/or St. John the Elder.

As to your questions about canonization, the inclusion of Luke/Acts, the question about unknown authorship and inspiration, and the book written by St. Mark and St. John.

1) (Canon question): The canon was not decided at a large church council but was rather formed by apostolic tradition. That is those who were ordained by the Apostles as bishops for many generations had some books that they liked to use and read after a while they all kinda came together. A NT canon was not officially set down until the Council of Trent in 1546.

Maricon (c. 160) an early church heretic was the first to try and make a NT it was comprised of a modified version of Luke and 10 letters of Paul and his bible had to OT at all.

Around 180 Irenaeus stated that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only legitimate ones.

And around 300 Eusebius started to lay out the writings that were considered acceptable, the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 John and 1 Peter and the Apocalypse of John (ie Revelation). The disputed writings were James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2&3 John. So even by this time people were using what they wanted to of some of the works that are in the NT and rejecting other ones.

As I pointed out until 1546 there was not an official canon but everyone kinda agreed that these books are ok and these books are not ok.

But the books as we have them now were first listed by St. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria in 367. But even then some did not have to accept his list if they did not want to.

2) (Luke/Acts question): Having Divine Inspiration does not have requirements it can happen to anyone, you do not have to be an Apostle. But St. Luke did his own research by asking people who were around the time of Jesus. Also he, like St. Matthew, it seems most likely copied the Gospel of Mark. And then added to it what information he got from other sources.

3) (unknown authorship question): Does it really matter who the author of a book is? Does it have to be 100% true to be inspired and to show us truths about God? If that is the case throw out the Gospels because they have parables in them, which are fictional stories. The truth is that we don't know 100% who the authors of any of the NT books are. We know that someone claiming to be St. Paul wrote a lot of letters does not mean it was always him. But the Gospels never had names of the authors in them they were added later on so that people could tell the difference between them. So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John may or may not have written the Gospels bearing their names. Does that mean that they do not impart great truth to us who read them? No of course it does not.

4) (St. John Mark question) He did not, write two different Gospel accounts. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is way off. St. Mark wrote only the Gospel of Mark. And I have pointed out above a few times what the St. John(s) wrote.

Response to Ethnikos

I do not know where you are getting your information either but Eusebius is not really that close to the earliest Church Fathers. And as for Tertullian he was in the 2nd century pretty close to the early Fathers, however he was declared a heretic within his own life time when he became a Montanist. So, even thought I really like his pre-Montanist writings, once he turns his back on the true faith and starts following a man that was declared a heretic he loses a lot of his credibility.

And I don't know what you mean by all these men who had nothing to do with politics, because before Constantine the Christians were being killed and one could not help but have something to do with politics and even after he became Emperor the Bishops and other leaders of the church had to have stuff to do with politics because they were not the state religion and had to come to agree on a lot of things.

Ethnikos
Oct 8th 2008, 05:04 PM
And I don't know what you mean by all these men who had nothing to do with politics, because before Constantine the Christians were being killed and one could not help but have something to do with politics and even after he became Emperor the Bishops and other leaders of the church had to have stuff to do with politics because they were not the state religion and had to come to agree on a lot of things.
Politics had something to do with the interpretation of the Bible but were not writing the Bible, as a general rule. Constantine commissioned some bogus writings but they were rejected for what they were, by the Bible project of the literary experts in the Bible project, among the monks. Those same bogus writings were incorporated into the modern translations by Westcott and Holt.

Irenaeus is one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote my earlier post. I did not think of it last night because I was tired. Irenaeus is about as early as you can get, as for being close to the Apostles and being a prolific historical writer.

Note for anyone interested: I spent about twelve hours reserching Bede on the internet, a while back and found someof what I was talking about in my earlier post. I did not save all the info and do not want to go back over all of it again. Hereis something I found in wikipedia if you want to reserch some of this, yourself:
The Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible in the Latin Vulgate version.

Clay Blucher
Oct 8th 2008, 05:31 PM
Hello,

I am doing a small study on who wrote the books of the New Testament. I just wanted to post some thoughts that I had regarding this and was hoping that somebody on this forum may be able to provide a few answers.


So far I have worked out that the following wrote the books in the New Testament.

Book.
Mathew - Mathew an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the tax collector

Luke - Companion of Paul in some of his missionary journeys, also the author of Acts. Not an apostle of Jesus Christ.

John - John Mark, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Mark - This is meant to be anonymously written. But the early church leaders ascribe this book to John Mark, An Apostle of Jesus Christ.

1,2,3 John - John Mark, An Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Revelation - John Mark or John the Presber?

Paul - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

1,2 Peter - Simon Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Jude - Judas the Apostle (Thaddeus) or Judas the Brother of Jesus?

Hebrews - Barnabas or Apollos?

A few corrections and clarifications:

Every Gospel is anonymous, as is also Hebrews and 1 John.

Mark (who probably wrote first as far as Gospels), was written by John Mark, more commonly called just Mark to avoid confusion (cf. 2 Tim 2:11). Mark was a companion of Peter, whom he got his information from.

Matthew (who probably wrote second), is accredited to the disciple on the basis of the change of the calling of Levi story.

Luke-Acts (who probably wrote third) was a companion of Paul (cf. the "we" passages of Acts). He was very well informed and used sources diligently.

John: the disciple, as well it ought to be noted that he calls himself the "official" one to relate Jesus' story (cf. the "beloved" disciple). This is not John Mark, even if John was a common name.

Pauline corpus/Hebrews: Some disagreement over all the epistles assigned to Paul, probably unfounded. Hebrews was attested to Paul by the early church, but what I find interesting is that it is comes at the end of Paul's letters (although the genre distinction might explain this). But being anonymous we really don't know the author. Might be Paul, but the language suggests Luke as well. For others that we don't have writings to compare to, Apollos, Barnabus, Aquilla and Priscilla (a woman!) have been suggested, but every argument is one from silence.

James: brother of Jesus
Jude: brother of Jesus

1-2 Peter: most likely the disciple, although the style suggests (at best) different scribes for each. 2 Peter might be pseudopigraphal and late, and the early church nearly rejected it on that basis, but after I've studied it, I have yet to find a textual or cultural reason for making it late.

1 John: too similar to 2 John to not be the same author.
2-3 John: calls himself the "Elder." Might not be John the disciple, but I think John's role in the Gospel leads naturally to suggest that he was a major force in the early church. I for one believe that it is the disciple at this point.

Revelation: again, probably the disciple. The theological reflection on Jesus suggests strong connections to the Gospel.



I have a few questions, that I would like to ask.

1) How did they come up with the process of Cannonizing these books. What was the criteria for including them in the bible?

2) Why did they include Luke's account of Jesus Christ life, when Luke was not even an apostle of Jesus Christ?

3) How can a book be included in the cannon, and be inspired by God, when they are not sure who the exact author was?

4) Why did the apostle John mark write John as well as Mark, giving his account of Jesus life twice.

I have some more questions, but will post them later. :o

1) Canonization was not uniform, nor something that one council sat down and did. Different canons still exist in the church. Usually though the basis was that the authors had to be first generation believers (same for apostleship actually), or connected to first generation believers. So Mark is connected to Peter, and Luke to Paul.

2) See above. Luke comments that he has dependably used his sources. His connection to Paul means that for most of Acts, he's going to have very reliable information. As well we know that he follows his sources well by seeing how he uses Mark.

3) God inspired the original author, but the use of the individual book is going to have to be interpreted for the current generation. Knowing the author and background does help our exegesis. If we look at the totally anonymous books that give no indication of authorship (Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, 1 John) we can guess (with confidence) all but Hebrews. We know Hebrews addresses apostasy of Jewish believers (by way of mirror reading), an issue not totally dependent upon occasion or author. Being a homily actually means we can gather the message from the text without having the author known. Are we in trouble by not knowing the author for sure as the Church today? No, God can still speak to us.

4) See above. John Mark is different from John the disciple. If these are the same writer (taking anonymity seriously) then the reason for two different accounts are for two different reasons. Mark has the emphasis on Jesus judging Jerusalem and brings in a lot of Kingdom of God and New Exile language. John though is big on the complete ministry, correctly understood as a New Creation and seeing Christ as God on earth (making Thomas the hero instead of the Doubter actually). Not really a reason to argue for similar authorship (in fact, goes against all other evidence actually), but different reasons usually conclude different authors.

For more in depth study, be sure to check out Ireneaus and Tertullian. Well, church fathers in general. For more of the in depth logic for finding out the actual authorship, check out just about any Intro. to the New Testament book (although I would caution against any argument that says that we can know the author of Hebrews).

chad
Oct 8th 2008, 06:58 PM
Thank you all for your replies. I am going to read through them over the next couple of days, as there seems to be many different ideas on who wrote and were the author of the books and how they came about.

I do have a question that maybe someone could answer for me.

There seems to be many different Johns mentioned. Can anyone tell me the difference between.

John, the disciple of Jesus
John Mark (I thought he was John, the disciple of Jesus)
John the Presbyter
John the Evangalist
John the Elder
John the Apostle

I always thought there was only 1 John mentioned in the Bible. John Mark, the disciple of Jesus. and there was John the Presbyter as mentioned by Papius.

Another question that I have heard that St Peter (Simon Peter) also had his own writings and he asked John to bring them to him and John used those writings to complile his own account?

And Was St Peter was matyred in rome?

:help:

markedward
Oct 8th 2008, 07:15 PM
I always thought there was only 1 John mentioned in the Bible. John Mark, the disciple of Jesus. and there was John the Presbyter as mentioned by Papius.You should really be more careful when reading the text.

It's very difficult to determine which "John" wrote which books in the NT (someone claim that the "gospel of John" may have been written by a different disciple of Christ's), but there is internal evidence, some claim, that points to all of the "John" documents having been written by the same John, being the apostle.


Another question that I have heard that St Peter (Simon Peter) also had his own writings and he asked John to bring them to him and John used those writings to complile his own account?John Mark, not John. Remember, different individuals. And this is a traditional story, so it's hard to verify as fact.


And Was St Peter was matyred in rome?People claim as much, but the New Testament wholly depicts Peter as staying in Jerusalem during his entire ministry.

acacia_gold
Oct 8th 2008, 07:44 PM
Another thing to ponder is that Jesus told Peter, concerning John, that it was no concern of his (peter's) if John should be around until His return. Jesus returned to John after all other disciples had passed on, to reveal the end times. (proof enough for me at least that John the apostle wrote revelations) However I think time is better spent pondering the truths, rather than what vehicle it was delivered in.

Clay Blucher
Oct 8th 2008, 08:15 PM
Thank you all for your replies. I am going to read through them over the next couple of days, as there seems to be many different ideas on who wrote and were the author of the books and how they came about.

I do have a question that maybe someone could answer for me.

There seems to be many different Johns mentioned. Can anyone tell me the difference between.

John, the disciple of Jesus
John Mark (I thought he was John, the disciple of Jesus)
John the Presbyter
John the Evangalist
John the Elder
John the Apostle

I always thought there was only 1 John mentioned in the Bible. John Mark, the disciple of Jesus. and there was John the Presbyter as mentioned by Papius.

Another question that I have heard that St Peter (Simon Peter) also had his own writings and he asked John to bring them to him and John used those writings to complile his own account?

And Was St Peter was matyred in rome?

:help:

There are at most:
John Mark
John the disciple/apostle
John the Presbyter/Elder (its a translation, distinct as being the author of 1-2-3 John)
John the Evangelist (distinct as being the author of the Gospel)
John the Revelator (distinct as being the author of the Apocalypse)

Not counting Mark, you have at most 4 Johns. There is little reason why the disciple/apostle did not actually write the Gospel which he was involved in. So John the disciple/apostle=the Evangelist. Looking at what is done in the Gospel, we see significant theological advances in Christology, so as in Revelation. It's easy to assume that then the disciple/apostle=Evangelist=Revelator. If we take seriously John's role in the early church as the Beloved Disciple, then it is no stretch that he would also take upon the title of Elder as well. This last point cannot be proven though, so at most-by evaluating the evidence-you have two distinct Johns. I personally think its one guy, but admittedly any argument is one from silence, unless you appeal to the Papias tradition.

As far as St. Peter goes, he was traditionally martyred in Rome (upside down on a cross no less). The tradition in which you are thinking of might be a confusion between Paul and Peter at this point. In 2 Tim Paul asks Timothy to bring him his scrolls. As well Mark was in Rome at this time, so it is conceivable that Paul gets Mark the hook up to his own stuff (although Luke surely has a connection as well). It seems to me though that evaluating Mark's Gospel, the Greek seems to support a collection of stories similar to a Petrine oral report than a written text. Not to say that Mark doesn't use the OT (far from it!). But he just knows his Scriptures (or has Peter/Paul to explain them to him) and is not dependent upon someone else to tote along a few scrolls for reference.

David Taylor
Oct 8th 2008, 08:19 PM
James, written by St. James the Just, relative to Jesus. Not St. James the Apostle, the brother of St. John the Apostle.

Jude, written by most likely St. Jude, the relative of Jesus. Not the disciple called by Jesus also known as St. Judas or St. Thaddeus.


More precisely;
James, written by St. James the Just, brother to Jesus. Not St. James the Apostle, the brother of St. John the Apostle.

Jude, written by most likely St. Jude, the brother of Jesus. Not the disciple called by Jesus also known as St. Judas or St. Thaddeus.

Brothers of our Lord not "relatives" as if their relationship is unknown.

Matthew 13:54 And when Jesus was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:1 And Jesus went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

Clay Blucher
Oct 8th 2008, 09:23 PM
More precisely;
James, written by St. James the Just, brother to Jesus. Not St. James the Apostle, the brother of St. John the Apostle.

Jude, written by most likely St. Jude, the brother of Jesus. Not the disciple called by Jesus also known as St. Judas or St. Thaddeus.

Brothers of our Lord not "relatives" as if their relationship is unknown.

Matthew 13:54 And when Jesus was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6:1 And Jesus went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

Actually Uriel is closer to the truth on this issue. Both James and Jude claim to be servants of Jesus. The Gospel parallels have the Greek ἀδελφοὶ which means more than just physical brothers. It can mean a close relative, even in a metaphorical sense. And we all know that Jesus had no true "brothers" being the Son of God. Joseph was the father of James, Jude, Joses, etc. So they are half-brothers at best with the possibility of being step-brothers. The best translation might indeed "relative" here since there is no way to know for sure what the exact relationship is between Jesus and James or Jude.

markedward
Oct 8th 2008, 10:28 PM
A little off-topic to the OP, but on-topic for what is currently being discussed:

Note what is described in the book of Acts: a James is pretty much made into the head-man of the Way, in Jerusalem. It isn't James the brother of John... it is James the brother of Jesus. He wasn't one of the apostles, but the followers (including the apostles) apparently respected James' new-found authority, with the only apparent reasoning for his leadership position being that He was Jesus' brother. Meaning, Acts was shows us that James came to a position of leadership based upon his blood-relationship to Jesus, as opposed to the spiritual-relationship between Jesus and the apostles who followed Him daily (note that in the gospels, Jesus' brothers are shown to doubt Him, in at least some manner, during His ministry, and none of them were included as His apostles).

James and Jude openly submit to the authority of Christ as their Lord and God, but the authors of the gospels (and Acts), along with Paul in some of his epistles, still acknowledge that Jesus as a man had siblings of blood-relation.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 8th 2008, 11:41 PM
People claim as much, but the New Testament wholly depicts Peter as staying in Jerusalem during his entire ministry.

No, Peter in his own letter 1 Peter 5:13 where he says "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." Babylon is Rome, he is using code. Babylon persecuted the Jews as Rome was persecuting the Christians. So Peter did not spend all this time in Jerusalem, at some point he went to Rome, not saying that he founded the church there because I don't think that he did; but he did go there and do ministry and most likely died there at the hands of the Romans.

markedward
Oct 9th 2008, 12:18 AM
No, Peter in his own letter 1 Peter 5:13 where he says "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." Babylon is Rome, he is using code.Other than this one case in which Peter uses "code", the entire NT depicts Peter as remaining in Jerusalem. (Note: Many people, myself obviously included, believe that the "Babylon" Peter wrote from was Jerusalem, not Rome.) So, with the possible exception of this debatable instance, the entire NT shows Peter staying in Jerusalem for his whole ministry.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 9th 2008, 03:01 AM
Other than this one case in which Peter uses "code", the entire NT depicts Peter as remaining in Jerusalem. (Note: Many people, myself obviously included, believe that the "Babylon" Peter wrote from was Jerusalem, not Rome.) So, with the possible exception of this debatable instance, the entire NT shows Peter staying in Jerusalem for his whole ministry.

The whole New Testament being The Acts of the Apostles, and the first chapter of Galatians? Because Galatians two says that Peter went up to Antioch.

Also since in Revelation Rome is referred to as "Babylon" in chapters 17 and 18.

Of course church tradition says that Peter went to Rome. It also seems that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem.

chad
Oct 9th 2008, 09:21 PM
I want to thank everyone for thier answers. :pp

I made the mistake of confusing John the son of Zebedee, (the disciple and apostle) with John Mark, cousin of Barnabas as mentined in Acts 12:12.

John, the son of Zebedee - The Apostle is credited with the Gospel of John.

And John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas is credited with writing the Gospel of Mark, which includes the oral teachings of Simon Peter the Apostle.


Regarding authorship, I have learnt that there are 2 different streams of thought.

1) Early church leaders, most evangalical, orthodox and catholic churches believe that the Books of John (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation)were written by John, the son of Zebedee.

2) Some Modern scholars believe that the 5 books of John were written by different people who may have been John the Apostle, John the Presbyter or John of Patmos.

More Questions:

1) Does anyone know what happened to John the Apostle - the Son of Zebedee. ?

There is not much mention of him after Acts 4:23, yet he was mentioned quite alot in the 4 gospels and in his early work with Simon Peter in the Book of Acts.

2) I am also thinking about the composition of the New Testament. Of the 12 Disciples that Jesus called only John and Mathew writings are included in the 4 Gospels.

Does anyone know if the other disciples had any writings or Gospel accounts of Jesus life?

Br. Barnabas
Oct 10th 2008, 03:27 PM
Regarding authorship, I have learnt that there are 2 different streams of thought.

1) Early church leaders, most evangalical, orthodox and catholic churches believe that the Books of John (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation)were written by John, the son of Zebedee.

2) Some Modern scholars believe that the 5 books of John were written by different people who may have been John the Apostle, John the Presbyter or John of Patmos.


Yes as was stated above no one can be sure if it was all the same St. John writing the Gospel, letters and Revelation. So I put in there that it was St. John the Evangelist, St. John the Elder, and St. John the Divine, also stating that each might be or most likely are all the same person, but we cannot be sure.



More Questions:

1) Does anyone know what happened to John the Apostle - the Son of Zebedee. ?

There is not much mention of him after Acts 4:23, yet he was mentioned quite alot in the 4 gospels and in his early work with Simon Peter in the Book of Acts.

2) I am also thinking about the composition of the New Testament. Of the 12 Disciples that Jesus called only John and Mathew writings are included in the 4 Gospels.

Does anyone know if the other disciples had any writings or Gospel accounts of Jesus life?

Answer to 1): Chruch tradition holds that St. John died a natural death most likely some where in Asia Minor, the only of the disciples that was not killed for their faith.

Answer to 2): No the others did not have Gospel accounts, later Gnostic writiers tried to assign their works to the Apostles but the other Apostles did not write anything that has survied through out the ages.

But the real thing is why would they need to? St. Paul and the other Apostles believe that Jesus would be coming back within or sometime soon after their life times. The life of Jesus did not need to be written down if this was going to happen, everything could have been passed on by oral tradition. That is the reason that the letters of St. Paul and the other Apostles do not have much to say about how to form a church and how things should be run in the day to day life of the church, because they 1) knew they set them up and that could be carried on when they left town or when they died; 2) that they would not need to be set up for long because Jesus should be back soon. Sadly what was set up has been debated, but I believe it to be more like the liturgical services that we find around today because those churches look back to the early church father's writings and their directions of how the church should work. But that is a different discussion for another time.

chad
Oct 10th 2008, 10:47 PM
Hi Uriel,

I have found all the answers that I was searching for on the topic on who wrote the books of the New Testament and have started a new study on the New Testament Apocrypha.

I have been reading about a person named Leucius Charinus known as Lucian Acts, a disciple and companion of John the Apostle. He is credited for writing some texts, which were originally circulated amongst the early church, but were later rejected and included in the New Testament Apocrypha.

These were:

The Acts of Peter
The Acts of John
The Acts of Andrew
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Paul

His writings seemed to have been circulated amongst the early church till the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, where they were rejected.

Regarding the word Apocrypha, I have learnt that there are many different applications for the Word Aprocrypha, Some meaning 'hidden or sacred teachings', and some meaning 'false or heritical' teachings - depending on the time it was used in chruch history.

I was hoping to get some other opinions from other people, on what they think of the word 'Aporcrypha' and The New Testament Apocrypha Writings.

markedward
Oct 10th 2008, 11:23 PM
The word "Apocrypha" in itself means "hidden". Period. It doesn't mean "false writings", but that is generally the connotation applied to the "apocrypha".

The actual writings themselves were, for the most part, rejected because they either (A) were written far too late to have been written by the people alleged to have written them (e.g., the Gospel of James is dated to around 150 AD, using internal and external evidence - James couldn't have written it if he did before 70 AD), or (B) they contain Gnostic or otherwise unorthodox elements that contradict the orthodox elements found in the canon Scriptures (e.g., the Gospel of Peter was rejected because it contained a Docetic view of Christ, and other unusual elements, such as claiming the cross that Jesus was crucified on verbally spoke).

The Apocrypha were excluded for good reason.

What we actually have can all be traced back to the time of the people who are said to have written them, and there is good evidence to support that. What we have in the canon is perfectly sufficient.

chad
Oct 11th 2008, 04:23 AM
Hi markedward,

I have double checked the word "Apocrypha" Yes, you are correct. It means hidden away (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away’)

And the word apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφος) according to merriam-webster means "writings or statements of dubious authenticity."

Thanks for helping me out. It means I won’t learn the wrong things in my studies. :)

Levin
Oct 16th 2008, 04:09 AM
A response to and some thoughts on the formation of the NT canon:

1) All books that are included in the NT were either written by apostles or men under their authority (Luke/Paul, John Mark/Peter). Every single book in the NT was thus written in the 1st century, with the possible exception of Revelation or the Gospel of John. A couple of books that were considered for canonicity(The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Ireanaeus) were rejected because of their time of writing (too late) and the lack of apostic authorship/authority. However, some of the church fathers quoted these books as authorititativly as they did scripture.

2) In response to:

(Canon question): The canon was not decided at a large church council but was rather formed by apostolic tradition. That is those who were ordained by the Apostles as bishops for many generations had some books that they liked to use and read after a while they all kinda came together. A NT canon was not officially set down until the Council of Trent in 1546.

The NT canon was actually offically ratified in AD 393 at the Council of Hippo. Since then there has been no real contraversy surrounding the extent of the canon; every major Christian demonination and even most Christian cults (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) accept the same canon. Before this time there was some dissagreement regarding a couple of books (Revelation, 3 John, Hebrews), but this is primarly due to the fact that they were only read in the Western or Eastern half of Christendom at first.

3)In response to:


(unknown authorship question): Does it really matter who the author of a book is? Does it have to be 100% true to be inspired and to show us truths about God? If that is the case throw out the Gospels because they have parables in them, which are fictional stories. The truth is that we don't know 100% who the authors of any of the NT books are. We know that someone claiming to be St. Paul wrote a lot of letters does not mean it was always him. But the Gospels never had names of the authors in them they were added later on so that people could tell the difference between them. So St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John may or may not have written the Gospels bearing their names. Does that mean that they do not impart great truth to us who read them? No of course it does not.

Does something have to be 100% true and be inspired to show us truths about God? Of course not. I find truth about God in the sky, in the wicked actions of men, in my own body, and in Shakespeare. The question is not whether the Bible imparts truth, but if it imparts the Truth. If the Bible is the word of God, then it is critical that it is fully true in everything it says. The fact that Jesus told fictional stories does not mean that Luke or Matthew's account is incorrect. When a soldier lies to King David about killing Saul that is not a textual error; it is a correct account of what that man really said.

John in his gospel continually references himself as being a witness to these events and that it was written by him. It is a problem if the man who claims to have written a book did not in fact do it.

Remember though, that it is not the authors who were inspired, but their writings were. Thus not knowing who wrote Hebrews may not be advantageous, but we can figure out many things about him in the text itself, which is inspired of God.



1) Does anyone know what happened to John the Apostle - the Son of Zebedee. ?

There is not much mention of him after Acts 4:23, yet he was mentioned quite alot in the 4 gospels and in his early work with Simon Peter in the Book of Acts.


Chad, to answer your question about John, it is believed that he was deeply involved in the church at Ephesus for the rest of his life.

I hope that this was helpful, and let me know what you come up with.
Levin

petepet
Oct 16th 2008, 10:56 PM
Looking back from the twentieth century we naturally see this subject as an academic one, and we have the problem that most of the writings of the late first century and early second century AD are lost or destroyed.

But the people living in the latter part of the 1st century AD and the beginning of the second century AD did not have this problem. They KNEW who wrote the books.

Thus when they filed them in their church libraries they labelled them kata matthaion and so on. They were not anonymous. Everyone knew who had written them. And that is why the four Gospels that we have were the only ones out of many written (Luke 1.1) that were preserved as authoritative.

Furthermore there was already a collection of Paul's letters when 2 Peter was written (3.15). Clement (95 AD) and Ignatius (110 AD) both knew of a number of Paul's letters. Clement also cites verses from Matthew.

The Didache and Ignatius both knew of 'the Gospel' and that probably indicated all four Gospels. Justin Martyr (150 AD) referred to them as 'the memoirs of the Apostles'.

Marcion, although a heretic, certainly knew of a collection of Paul's letter and of a number of Gospels even though he himaelf only accepted Luke because of his strange ideas.

When Marcion began to adulterate the New Testament in mid-century AD it caused a desire to have a written list of the books ALREADY accepted in the churches. We have examples in the Muratorian canon (c 180 AD) and the writings of Irenaeus (late 2nd century AD). Consider also the anti-marcionite prologue

Basically they included the four Gospels, Acts, Paul's ten letters to the churches, the three pastoral epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John (which possibly included 2 & 3), Jude and Revelation. The Muratorian canon may have included more, but is mutilated at the point where the general epistles come.

Thus most of the New Testament had unquestionably come together at a very early stage.

chad
Oct 17th 2008, 05:23 AM
Hi Levin,

Yes, this was very helpful.

Thanks. :)



Chad, to answer your question about John, it is believed that he was deeply involved in the church at Ephesus for the rest of his life.

I hope that this was helpful, and let me know what you come up with.
Levin