The Canon of the New Testament – Part 17: The Writers of the New Testament

By Christian

---

If you ask a believing Christian about the author of the New Testament, you will probably get the answer ‚God‘. However, the vast majority will agree that it was ultimately human beings who wrote the texts. We already looked at this aspect of inspiration in Part 9 of this series. But what do we know about who the writers of the New Testament were, that is, who wrote down the individual writings therein? [So in what follows, by writers I always mean the person who physically wrote, in order to separate this topic from the topic of inspiration].

As we have seen in the previous part 16, the answer to this question has a partly considerable influence on the chronological classification of the transcript. For this reason alone, it would be good to know the facts well with regard to the authors.

But there is another important reason: Because of the name of a gospel or letter in the New Testament or from its content, it is often concluded that a person wrote the text. These are invariably apostles or other persons very close to them. And from this, many conclude the authenticity and authority of these writings.

But did the Christians of the patristic period and church fathers do the same? What did they know about the New Testament writers and how did they evaluate this? Certainly, Proverbs 14:15 was a warning to them:

The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.

Proverbs 14:15 ESV

And already in 1st John they were warned:

Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.

1 John 4:1 NLV

What do we know today about the authors of the New Testament Scriptures? What do you think: For which parts of the New Testament was there, and still is, the greatest consensus as to who the author was?

Paul’s letters

You may be surprised at this, but in fact the New Testament letters which are attributed with the highest degree of certainty and agreement are the ones of the Apostle Paul.

The so-called Corpus Paulinum – or more simply the Pauline Epistles – comprises 13 epistles of the New Testament. At least 7 of them are considered authentic (see e.g. Wikipedia Pauline Epistles):

• 1. Thessalonians
• 1. Corinthians
• 2. Corinthians
• Galatians
• Romans
• Philippians
• Philemon

What about the other 6? It is mainly differences in language and content that have led scholars to assume that they were written by disciples of Paul rather than by Paul himself. Let’s take a closer look at them.

Ephesians

Why is Paul’s authorship doubted here, when the letter begins this way?

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Ephesian 1:1 BSB

When you read it like this, everything seems to be quite clear. Also that the letter was addressed to the believers in Ephesus – that’s why it is called the letter to the Ephesians. Well, what do the manuscripts say?

In the address of the Epistle to the Ephesians, a distinction is made between the heading (Inscriptio), which the text received only when the New Testament epistle collection was laid out, and the address (Adscriptio) at the entrance to the letter (Prescript):
The inscriptio Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους Pròs Ephesíous „To the Ephesians“ occurs in all manuscripts.

The adscriptio ἐν Ἐφέσῳ en Ephésō „in Ephesus“ (Eph 1:1 LUT) is offered by most manuscripts, but not by the oldest and best witnesses (among others: P46, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). Several ancient Christian authors did not read the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the prescript in their copy of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Instead of the majority text („to the saints who are in Ephesus and [to] believers in Christ Jesus“), they read, „to the saints who are also believers in Christ Jesus,“ perhaps just, „to the saints and believers in Christ Jesus.“[5]

Vielhauer concluded, „The text 1:1 without a place indication is the best attested, attainable oldest, and certainly the original; for there is no reasonable reason why a place indication … should have been deleted, whereas it is understandable that the absence of a place indication, which was perceived as a deficiency, was remedied.“[6]

Since the prescript without indication of the place is not meaningful and the text offered by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is grammatically impossible, Ulrich Luz, for example, assumed that the letter was a circular letter and had a gap at this point in which the name of the respective recipient community could be entered. In favor of a circular letter is the fact that we learn nothing from the letter about the situation of the recipients, or the author does not seem to know them more precisely.[7] Against this speaks the fact that no New Testament manuscript is known in which a place name other than Ephesus is written at this point. Peter Stuhlmacher thinks that Paul had given a circular letter to a co-worker, possibly Tychicus (Eph 6,21), to be read in the newly founded Christian churches of Asia Minor; the copy in the „church archives of Ephesus“ had been preserved, revised after the death of the apostle and shaped as a kind of programmatic writing of the Pauline school – the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is available to us. [8]

Against the weight of P46, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, Rainer Schwindt, Harold Hoehner, and Clinton E. Arnold argue in recent works that ἐν Ἐφέσῳ „in Ephesus“ belonged to the original text of the prescript; the latter combines this with the circular thesis: the letter circulated in the Pauline churches in the Ephesus area. [9] Andreas Lindemann, who attributes the Epistle to the Ephesians to a student of Paul, also argues for the originality of the location Ephesus; since Paul’s close relationship to this very community had been known, the author had given his work the fictitious address „Ephesus.“[10]

Wikipedia: Letter of Paul to the Ephesians

Who would have thought that. Even the ‚harmless‘ reference to Ephesus is not found in the oldest and best textual witnesses. And this provides a lot of uncertainty concerning the addressees of the letter.

But what about the writer?

Luz established a broad[12] and cross-denominational consensus of historical-critical exegesis that the Epistle to the Ephesians was not written by Paul, but by a disciple of the apostle. The minority opinion that the Epistle to the Ephesians is a letter of Paul’s age was held by Heinrich Schlier, but could not prevail in German-language New Testament scholarship against the arguments against Pauline authorship:[13]

• Style: The author loves long sentences and wordiness (plerophoria), although the syntactic structure often remains unclear. Argumentation is replaced by association. According to most exegetes, this is not a style of Paul’s age, but it has similarities with the Letter to the Colossians. „If the Epistle to the Colossians were written by Paul himself, the question would have to be revisited in the Epistle to the Ephesians as well.“ ^[14]
• Theology: If one considers the doctrine of justification as presented in the Letter to the Romans to be the center of Pauline theology, the Letter to the Ephesians appears to be un-Pauline. Luz, however, warns here against circular reasoning.^[15]
• Dependence of the Epistle to the Ephesians on the Epistle to the Colossians. For Hans Conzelmann and Andreas Lindemann, both texts cannot possibly have been written independently of each other. However, the Letter to the Colossians must have priority, because it refers concretely to an individual congregation, whose situation is recognizable from the letter; the Letter to the Ephesians represents the revision and further development of the Letter to the Colossians, raised to a fundamental level.[16] Hans Hübner calls the author of the Letter to the Ephesians „Tritopaulus“ because of his dependence on the „Deuteropaulus“ of the Letter to the Colossians. ^[17]

According to Luz, literary works written by students in the spirit and under the name of their teachers were quite acceptable in antiquity, in contrast to forgeries in which literary means were used to try to feign authenticity. He points out that the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians did nothing to pretend to be Paul. Thus, it is a typical student work. Bart D. Ehrman rejects such a differentiation of student work and pseudepigraphy: „The author tries several times to make credible that he was Paul. However, he was not Paul. He was a follower of Paul, held non-Pauline views, wrote later.“[19]

Wikipedia: Letter of Paul to the Ephesians

Since several scholars point out the dependence of the letter to the Ephesians on the letter to the Colossians, let’s look at that as well.

Colossians

Also with this letter one could think that Paul is to be found here clearly as an author:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To God’s holy people in Colossae, …

Colossians 1:1,2 NIV

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

Colossians 4:18 Züricher

All right, right? Well. Already verse 1 speaks at least of two authors – Paul and Timothy. And in the further text Epaphras is clearly emphasized, who knew the situation in Colosse – in contrast to Paul:

However, according to some researchers, a secretary other than Timothy would be more likely to be responsible for stylistic peculiarities of the letter: It is more likely that Paul and Timothy let the secretary Epaphras (Lähnemann, Reicke, Berger) speak where he, as a theologian with local knowledge, could better respond to problems and questions in Colossai and the neighboring churches. In any case, Paul knew neither the addressees nor their situation (Col 2:1), but his informant Epaphras did (Col 1:5-8; 4:12-13). Thus, through the letter writer Epaphras, Paul may have tried to become „like a Colossian“ to the Colossians in order to convince them (cf. his principle 1 Cor 9:20-22).

Wikipedia: Letter of Paul to the Colossians

The verse quoted here, Colossians 2:1, says this:

I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally.

Colossians 2:1 NIV

For those who want to better understand the result of the analysis of the text of the Epistle to the Colossians, I recommend the Wikipedia article mentioned above as a starting point.

An interesting summary is given in the English Wikipedia on the letter to the Colossians:

As theologian Stephen D. Morrison points out in context, „Biblical scholars are divided over the authorship of Ephesians and Colossians.“^[18] He provides as an example the reflection of theologian Karl Barth on the question. While acknowledging the validity of many questions regarding Pauline authorship, Barth was inclined to defend it. Nevertheless, he concluded that it didn’t much matter one way or the other to him. It was more important to focus on „Quid scriptum est“ (What is written) than „Quis scripseris“ (Who wrote it). „It is enough to know that someone, at any rate, wrote Ephesians (why not Paul?), 30 to 60 years after Christ’s death (hardly any later than that, since it is attested by Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin), someone who understood Paul well and developed the apostle’s ideas with conspicuous loyalty as well as originality.”^[18]

Wikipedia: Epistle to the Colossians

I think that with these two letters we have already understood the problem quite well. The reference in the text to an author does not weigh very heavily if this author is not attested by others. And this brings us to the next problem and the letter to the Hebrews.

Before that, however, I would like to revisit the idea of verbal inspiration: If God specified every word by inspiration, why does he use a different vocabulary and writing style in the second part of the letter? Was it then the style of Paul, of Timothy, or yet of Epaphras? And why does God change the style in the middle of the letter?

The Letter to the Hebrews

But back to the Letter to the Hebrews. What about the Letter to the Hebrews? That is also from Paul, isn’t it? Unlike the Epistle to the Colossians or Ephesians, Paul’s name is not found in the letter. What do we know then?

Although there is no scholarly consensus on any of the questions of literary history concerning the author, the circle of recipients, the dating, or even the literary genre of the writing titled Πρὸς Έβραίους, historical probabilities can be weighed and reasons given for the various hypotheses.

Wikipedia: Letter to the Hebrews

What then can be said about the author at all?

Because the oldest manuscripts (Papyrus 46, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus) placed the Epistle to the Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles,[1] early Eastern Church tradition attributed the writing to Paul.[2]

Origen assumed because of the unusual style for Paul (such as a vocabulary of 1000 different words at 3000 words in length compared to the rather limited one of Paul) that the content of the letter was Pauline but the author unclear.[3] During the Middle Ages and in the Catholic Church still until 1914[4] it was assumed that the Letter to the Hebrews was the Greek translation of an original Hebrew letter of Paul. Because of the different theology and the different historical situation (for example, Paul insists on his own direct experience of revelation in Gal 1:12, while the author ad Hebraios refers to himself as a hearer of Jesus‘ disciples in Heb 2:3), this is largely rejected today.

As possible authors were suggested alternatively: Apollos,[5] Priscilla,[6] Luke or Clement of Rome,[7] Barnabas,[8] Peter, Philip, Jude, Aristion, Timothy. However, since neither of the above-mentioned (if any of their works have survived at all) nor any other writing comparable to the Letter to the Hebrews has survived, and since it is completely singular in form and content, and since nothing is said about the author in the letter itself, none of these hypotheses can be verified.

Based on the excellent Greek style, extensive vocabulary, and in-depth knowledge of the Old Testament in the form of the Septuagint, the author can be assumed to be a Greek-educated Jewish Christian who belonged to the Hellenistic wing.

The letter is not pseudepigraphy, since no ostensible author is given, even though the naming of Timothy (Heb 13:23) could possibly suggest Paul’s circle as the sender.

Wikipedia: Letter to the Hebrews

In part 8 on the formation of the canon, we have already seen that the Epistle to the Hebrews was late in finding itself on the margins of the canon. Thus Metzger writes:

For example, much of the Church erred when it attributed the anonymous letter to the Hebrews to the apostle Paul.

Bruce M. Metzger „Der Kanon des Neuen Testaments“, S. 268

Other letters

Of the other letters, we will only take a closer look at the 1st Peter letter as a representative, since it is said to have been written by none other than the apostle Peter, a pillar of the assembly.

What do the church fathers say?

The authorship of Peter is confirmed in the early church tradition, namely in the 2nd century by Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, in the 3rd century by Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian. In all these authors, the First Epistle of Peter is counted among the generally accepted writings and its inclusion in the canon is never questioned.[1]

Wikipedia: 1st letter of Peter

However, that was many decades or even well over a hundred years after Peter was dead. The problem here is also: Do we believe a text just because an author is named? Or do we examine the content, as we are repeatedly asked to do in the New Testament? Let us consider arguments against and for Peter as author:

Most historical-critical research doubts that Peter was the author, for the following reasons:

• Pseudepigraphy was widespread and widely accepted in antiquity.[2] For the Pastoral Epistles, pseudepigraphic authorship is virtually undisputed.
• The style of 1 Peter is Koine Greek; and not only oral, but literary Koine, which suggests Greek as the native language of the author. However, the native language of Peter the fisherman from Galilee (who is described as illiterate in Acts 4:13 EU) was most likely Aramaic. Even if Peter was familiar with the „world language“ of the time, Greek, it is unlikely that he had such a written command of Greek.[3]
• The author of 1 Peter quotes the Old Testament mostly according to the Greek translation. Only 1 Pet 4:8 EU apparently draws directly on the Hebrew text of Prov10:12 EU.[4]
• The letter sounds too little personal; the Jesus tradition is only referred to in traditional early Christian language (1 Pet 2:22-25 EU). With Petrine authorship, the letter would be expected to convey exclusive knowledge of an eyewitness.[5]
• There are connections in content between 1 Peter and the Pauline epistles.[6]
• 1 Peter 1:1 EU presupposes that Christianity had already taken root in various areas in Asia Minor.[7]

Counter-arguments include:

• on pseudepigraphy: This is more or less probable depending on the genre of the text. In the case of a wisdom scripture written under the name of Solomon, it is to be judged differently than in the case of a letter that refers to the current situation of one or more communities.[8]
• on Koine Greek: Peter was from Bethsaida, a bilingual Greek-Jewish town (this is further emphasized by the fact that his brother Andrew had a Greek name), and he probably ministered in the Greek-speaking diaspora for decades.[9] Silvanus/Silas, whom he mentions as a co-author, is a Roman citizen and certainly Greek-speaking.[10]
• to the theology close to that of Paul: Between Peter and Paul there was mutual esteem and probably no essential theological differences. Their dispute, mentioned in Gal 2:11-21 EU, did not concern contrasts in theology, but their practical implementation – Paul reproached Peter for not acting according to his theology.[11] The early church knew nothing of a sharp theological contrast between the two;[12] only in the 19th century did theology bring up this idea.
• the letter contains traditional material (parenesis, confessions, songs). However, there is no clear evidence for this in the text of the letter. Moreover, such traditional material is also found in the letters of Paul, which are regarded as genuine.
• the persecution of Christians mentioned in the letter: One does not have to think of the time of Trajan (around 100 AD), because the letter does not speak of a state systematic persecution of Christians. Punctual persecutions of Christians by the pagan environment already existed in several areas of the empire in the first decades after 30 CE (for example, Paul on his missionary journeys or the Neronian persecution of Christians in 64 or 65 CE).[13]

Wikipedia: 1st letter of Peter

In other words, it is difficult if not almost impossible to make a safe statement here. As far as the content is concerned, there are arguments for and against. If one relies on the statements of the church fathers, then one relies with it on the persons, who promoted the development of the large church and most diverse dogmas. But, of course, there were also people who were willing, at personal sacrifice, sometimes very great, to spread and defend the received doctrine.

The 4 Gospels

In part 11 we have already considered the 4 gospels – from the one gospel – in more detail. And also already mentioned that three of them – the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke – are quite similar and the fourth – John – is different. The similarity of the text of the synoptic gospels we should still discuss here.

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew does not give his name in the text. The title was added later. This is also true for the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John. So they are writers of the patristic period and the church fathers or maybe someone who copied copies for other assemblies, who added headings like „Gospel according to Mark“.

The linguistic differences are summarized in Wikipedia like this:

While the Gospel of Mark is written in a vernacular Greek, the author of the Gospel of Matthew chose a more elevated style. He wrote more concisely, more concentrated. He liked to repeat formulas and worked with leading words, chiasms and inclusions. Unlike the Gospel according to Luke, in which formulations from the Septuagint are deliberately used as stylistic devices, Matthew is strongly influenced by biblical Greek, but without deliberately writing Septuagint style.[16]

Wikipedia Gospel according to Matthew

Thus, the similarities are not about reporting the same events. The analysis of the striking similarities is described as a Synoptic Problem [where ‚problem‘ is used here as a technical term in the sense of question]. This graphic from the Wikipedia article gives an overview:

In detail, the following facts are to be explained:

• Wording matches: Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree on parallel passages in about 50% of the words, while they agree on parallel passages in John in only 10% of the words.
• Striking similarities in the sequence, but also numerous deviations
• Triple common tradition: almost all of Mark’s material is contained in Matthew, about two-thirds of it, moreover, in Luke (so-called Lukan gap).
• Twofold common tradition: about 200 verses are included in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.
• The special material: texts or individual sayings handed down from a single Gospel (Luke: 35%, Matthew: 20%, Mark: 3%).
• The question around the minor agreements („minor correspondences“), that is, the concordant deviations of Matthew and Luke from the text of Mark, or the objections to Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark.

In order to explain these connections and relationships, various hypotheses are discussed; none of the proposed solutions is able to answer all phenomena satisfactorily.

Wikipedia Synoptic Problem

That leaves the Gospel of John. This deviates in many parts strongly from the synoptic gospels. However, these are not only additions, but deviations. Perhaps most important is the description of the Lord’s Supper in John 13, which differs significantly in terms of content and timing. It is not for nothing that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians 11 are referred to in the description of the Lord’s Supper. Whereby Luke also deviates, because a second cup is mentioned before the bread, but this could be an error in the manuscripts, as we have already noted in another part of the series. Such deviations, but also the completely different presentation of what and how Jesus teaches, have already led to discussions in antiquity (e.g. in the 3rd century Porphyrios writing Contra Christianos ).

What does this tell us about the reliability of the text?

We dealt with the time of writing in the last part of the series and with the authors in this part. This should not only serve to deepen our knowledge. This knowledge also helps us to better classify some statements about the reliability of the text.

For example, the author of a New Testament writing is first assumed to be certain, perhaps because of the later addition of the heading or the statement of the church fathers or the later arrangement in the New Testament canon. This is then used to infer the time of writing. And then with it the reliability of the contents of the text is concluded. For example, the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jesus in the Gospels.

Or it goes like this: The reliability of the Gospels is shown by the fulfillment of Jesus‘ prophecy about Jerusalem. Because, after all, the Gospels were written before 70 BC. And we know this because the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and John. But how do we know this? Because of the testimony of the headings, church fathers, or the arrangement in the canon. And in this case, of course, the Gospel according to John does not fit, because it does not contain these statements of Jesus and was probably also written long after 70 AD.

Here, therefore, one must not make the mistake of circular reasoning: On the basis of the assumed author to the time of the writing of the content and because of the credibility of the content to the author stated in it or in the title and thus to the time of writing, etc..

Conclusion

Except for 7 letters, which we can be fairly certain were written by Paul, there are many unanswered questions about all the other New Testament writings, and but not as many certainties as to the authors. The headings were added much later. And if we rely on the texts of the patristic period and the Church Fathers, we should keep in mind that they, too, already relied on information from others. And in the case of Hebrews, they were wrong. Or even they already noticed surprising differences in style and vocabulary.

Is this important to you? Do you think this information weakens your faith? If you belong to a religion that has absolute knowledge and always gives a simple answer, ignoring uncomfortable facts, then yes.

It seems to me that the faith of those who, despite knowing all these facts, continue to believe and grapple with them and examine the content goes deeper.

Am I saying this now just to talk myself and others into something and to reassure ourselves? No. I’ll try another example, and that is this manuscript:

This is a manuscript written in 888 of the epoch-making work Elements by the famous Greek mathematician Euclid, who probably lived in the 3rd century BC. What can you read about the author and writer of the original? „Almost nothing is known about Euclid’s life.“ (Wikipedia Euclid). What we know about him and his works comes from the pens of others. Does this make the work worthless to us? „The Elements were the basis of geometry instruction in many places until the 20th century, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries.“ So the content of the work spoke for itself. Nobody used it until the 20th century, because it came from the famous Euclid. Or because the time of its writing was known.

It is the same with the New Testament. The main argument for its importance is its content, the argumentation about doctrines, and so on. Whether a Peter or Paul wrote something, plays a subordinate role in the evaluation, whether they are thoughts of God. Because both were imperfect thinkers and God could just as well help other, less prominent followers of Jesus by his spirit to write down what is important for us. Also the information from patristic times and from the church fathers is helpful, but also these could err and were not omniscient. However, we can say with certainty that they were very conscientious and made personal sacrifices to do their job well.

Finally, with all the questions and uncertainties we have considered in what is now 17 parts of this series, I must emphasize one thing: The facts and evidence have never shown that we are dealing with great fraud and outright mischief.

The problems only arise when one makes false, exaggerated and absolute statements about the New Testament. And these are always easier to refute than to prove the more complex statements. For example, a statement that not even one error ever crept into the copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament is easy to refute. To prove the statement that the text could be reconstructed to a great extent requires a lot of work – but it has been done.

Is it a problem that we have four different Gospels? No, because from the deviations – they are more theological works with certain statements than historical protocols – and the comparison with other writings we can recognize what was understood by most in the same way and where the views diverged. No one, after all, was commissioned to write the sole authoritative textbook on Christian theology. Even Jesus did not do that. Thus, it was only with time that a catechism came into being.

Let us compare the process of transmission of the New Testament scriptures with that of the Quran.:

Before the death of the Prophet Muhammad, various parts of the Qur’an had already been written down, and after consultation with all those who had preserved the Qur’an both orally (Hāfiz) and in writing, the first Qur’anic codex (مصحف muṣḥaf) was produced after Muhammad’s death in 11 CE. H. (632 A.D.), in the time of the first caliph Abū Bakr, the first Qur’anic codex (مصحف muṣḥaf) was written to keep it from being lost or confused with other statements of the Prophet Muhammad.

The third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (644-656), had these first Quranic codices, some of which were written in dialects other than the Quraysh dialect – the dialect of the Prophet Muhammad – collected and burned in order to produce an officially valid Quran. In the process, at least two men had to testify to each verse that they had heard it directly from the Prophet’s mouth. Six verses in the Qur’an, however, have been testified to in this way by only one witness, namely Zaid ibn Thābit, the former servant of the Prophet. The fact that these verses are still in the Qur’an today is due to the fact that the caliph exceptionally accepted Zaid’s sole testimony.

Wikipedia Koran

Here, therefore, an adjustment and standardization was carried out long after the death of Muhammad, which cannot be checked at all today. And of course, we only know from tradition whether this is what happened.

This was not done with the writings of the New Testament. As we have seen, Marcion, for example, singled out Luke’s Gospel as the only true one. Others have combined all four. But we have at least four pieces with all their differences and not just one unified version. So we can go into the midst of the followers of Christ in the first centuries and try with them to understand what else God might have wanted to communicate to us after the Old Testament. And this is quite exciting, because the New Testament is not a catechism with sentences of faith to memorize but often argumentation. An invitation to think along and think.