24

The internal evidence of the authorship is found in four passages in the Book of Revelation. It is in these four passages that the author refers to himself as "John". Rev 1:1 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, Rev 1:...


15

This is part two of a two part answer. See my previous post for general arguments. Specific books Matthew External - On Matthew Papias writes, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.". This is probably the most debated phrase in all of the patristic writings - the words translated as &...


14

This is part one of a two part post The assertion in a comment on the question that no scholar "believes that the books were authored by the names on the books" is just plain false. The only way one can even come close to this conclusion is by dismissing all scholarship from conservatives out of hand as "not objective", a severe version ...


12

The 40-author count is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, so I'll provide the names of the forty commonly-accepted authors. Note that the authorship of some books (Hebrews, for example) is debated, so the number and names vary slightly depending on which scholars you ask. Moses Joshua Samuel Ezra Jeremiah Nehemiah Mordecai Job Sons of Korah Asaph ...


12

Sadly, we just don't know. While I generally affirm the broad consensus that the pastorals are pseudonymous (I usually add the caveat that I think 2 Tim could be Pauline), it is worth noting that several good (but, generally more conservative) scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson do actually affirm Pauline authorship of the pastorals. And I suppose that's ...


12

I am aware of four lines of evidence frequently adduced: Greek syntax and vocabulary Even a casual read through Ephesians in Greek shows it to be different from the undisputed Pauline letters.1 Despite their sometimes complex argument structure, the Greek of the other letters tends to minimize the complicated subordinating syntax of Classical Greek. ...


12

If you accept its own testimony then Luke was written:- Before the Acts of the Apostles and by the same author as the writer of Acts (compare Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:1-4); The author of Acts was, at times, a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys: about 49 AD, Acts 16:10-18; about 54-57 AD, Acts 20:4-21:19; and about 59-62 AD, Acts 27:1-28:30. All ...


11

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before). No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the ...


11

J. A. T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament (1976), lays out a thorough case for a pre-70 date for the publication of Acts. His main points are also maintained by other conservative scholars, such as D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris in their Introduction to the New Testament, and in the Reformed Study Bible. The key points are: Evidence for ...


10

As others have noted, dates of the writing of New Testament books are disputed. Let me use F. F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents" as my major source here. This page -- http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ -- also gives dates, though some of these are rather earlier than the dates I've usually heard. Without getting into all the arguments ...


9

Pretty clearly, there has to be a mixture of revelation and tradition in Genesis. There are several time periods written about in Genesis, and these should be examined individually: Creation Clearly the only observer to the Creation was the Creator. (Or no-one if you are disinclined to believe in a Creator, but from a Christian perspective, no one other ...


9

Proverbs 1:4-5 tells us his audience: 4 for giving prudence to those who are simple, knowledge and discretion to the young— 5 let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance— They were written to the "simple," which the NIV defines as "The Hebrew word rendered simple in Proverbs denotes a person who is gullible, ...


8

Hi and welcome to the site. Thanks for asking questions. You are correct when you write that the New Testament was written ABOUT Jesus. It was not written by him, at least not in the sense that he put pen to paper, or dictated the words. Your quote from Wikipedia, while it may correctly describe Muslim belief, certainly does not describe Christian belief on ...


8

No, the book of John does not explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John. However, there is a worthy discussion to be had about the combination of external and internal evidence that make this a reasonable conclusion. The internal evidence alone does tell you that it was written by an eyewitness and, when combined with Mark, an apostle. I will ...


7

I can't speak for Catholicism in general, but I can say with confidence that they agree that the traditional titles were a later addition. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings." ...


7

The fact that both Books were written by the same individual known as Luke is extracted from the first few verses of both Books. Luke 1:1 through4 KJV Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were ...


7

This is a great question, and one might have thought that we have nothing at all to go on, except guesswork. But actually we do have something to go on, and that is the existence of Hebrew words in early Genesis which are loan-words from other languages. According to Robert D. Wilson, throughout most of the first five books of the Bible the predominant ...


6

For what it's worth, I once heard a sermon in which the preacher said it was not the same fellow. My bible has the following intro to Obadiah: Obadiah wrote this shortest book of the Old Testament probably soon after 586 B.C. when the armies of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. During this conquest, the people of Edom helped capture fleeing Israelites ...


6

The gospel now known as Matthew's Gospel was originally anonymous. According to Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, Papias attributed a gospel to Matthew early in the second century, but some scholars are uncertain whether the gospel of which Papias spoke was the same gospel as is now widely attributed to Matthew. As Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, ...


6

Eusebius of Caesarea was, as far as I know, the first Church historian to comment on the history of the New Testament books we call the "Gospels". Eusebius wrote in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. According to Eusebius, the contents of the Gospel of Mark are attributed to the Apostle Peter, of whom Mark (or "John Mark") was a disciple. The 2nd ...


6

There are a few reasons why people argue both of those books are written by Luke. The Introductions Both the book of Luke and the book of Acts reference a reader named "Theophilus" in their opening lines. The book of Luke sets up an initial correspondence with Theophilus: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been ...


5

Psalm 14 is for the director of music, and is ascribed to David. Psalm 53 is also for the director of music and is “according to mahalath - a Maschil of David”. A ‘Maschil’ is a contemplative Psalm. The Hebrew word ‘mahalath’ comes from a word meaning lyre. https://www.behindthename.com/name/mahalath Although both psalms contain very similar words, the ...


5

Acts has traditionally been attributed to Luke, a gentile companion of Paul of Tarsus. This same Luke is likewise believed to have written the third gospel in the NT canon, Luke. Whether these traditions are true or not is anyone's guess, though there is much evidence that Luke was actually Lucius of Cyrene, a Jewish Christian mentioned in Acts 13:1. Since ...


5

Why the Gospel of Luke belongs in the Bible Regardless of the dating, the Gospel of Luke belongs to the Bible because it contains authoritative teaching of Jesus to guide Christians as well as authoritative reports of who Jesus is (how he was incarnated into a baby, how his divinity was affirmed from heaven in baptism and transfiguration) and what he did (...


4

Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 164, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or just after 70, and therefore the destruction of the temple was imminent or had already occurred. Burton L. Mack goes as far as to say, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 152, it would not have made ...


4

I found this by William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible in 17 volumes. This section is from Revelation of John Vol 1; the 1976 United States reprint. http://www.dannychesnut.com/Bible/Barclay/Revelation,%20Part%20I.htm THE AUTHOR OF THE REVELATION (i) The Revelation was written by a man called John. He begins by saying that God sent the visions ...


4

According to Zenit and the Catholic Encyclopedia, the solemn rite originated no later than the late fourth century, with the current text of the Exultet likely dating back to the fifth century. The earliest extant manuscript is found in the Bobbio Missal, dating from the seventh century. Its author is unknown.


4

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity says: The Exultet’s origin is uncertain, but it is clear that it was inspired by Ambrose. Textual analysis shows, if not Ambrose’s hand, at least his mind. [...] The part of the Exultet that speaks of bees was inspired by Virgil. [...] In his letter to Praesidius, Jerome derides this praise of the bees as entirely ...


4

The most common argument I've seen is that Acts omits several important surrounding events, as pointed out by Nathaniel. Jonathan McLatchie writes at The Christian Apologetics Alliance that the Acts of the Apostles (which post-dates Luke’s gospel) does not mention the destruction of the temple in AD 70, nor the death of Peter or Paul, nor for that matter ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible