<<

New Testament From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Apocrypha)

New Testament Apocrypha

Apostolic Fathers

1 Clement · 2 Clement of Ignatius to the Philippians · · Diognetus The of Hermas

Jewish-Christian

Ebionites · · Nazarenes

Infancy Gospels

James · Thomas · Syriac · Pseudo-Matthew ·History of the Carpenter

Gnostic Gospels

Judas · Mary · Phillip · Truth · Secret Mark ·The Saviour Other Gospels

Thomas · Marcion · Peter · Barnabas

Apocalypse

Paul · Coptic Paul Peter · Gnostic Peter Pseudo-Methodius · Thomas · Stephen 1 James · 2 James

Epistles

Apocryphon of James Corinthians to Paul · Pseudo- Peter to Philip · Laodiceans · 3 Corinthians

Acts

Andrew · Barnabas · John · the Paul · Paul & Peter · Peter & Andrew Peter & Paul · Peter & the Twelve Philip · Pilate · Thomas · Timothy Xanthippe, Polyxena, & Rebecca

Misc

Diatessaron of

"Lost" Books Bartholomew · · · Mani

Historical Edits

Decretum Gelasianum

Nag Hammadi library

 V

 T

 E

The are a number of writings by early that give accounts of Jesus and his teachings, the nature of , or the teachings of his and of their lives. These writings often have links with the books generally regarded as "canonical" but Christian denominations disagree on which writings should be regarded as "canonical" and which are "apocryphal".

Contents [hide]

 1 Definition

 2 History

o 2.1 Development of the New Testament

o 2.2 Modern scholarship and translation

 3 Gospels

o 3.1 Canonical gospels

o 3.2

o 3.3 Jewish Christian gospels

o 3.4 Non-canonical gospels

o 3.5 Sayings gospels

o 3.6

o 3.7 Harmonized gospels

 4 o 4.1 Dialogues with Jesus

o 4.2 General texts concerning Jesus

o 4.3 Sethian texts concerning Jesus

o 4.4 Ritual diagrams

 5 Acts

 6 Epistles

 7

 8 Fate of Mary

 9 Miscellany

 10 Fragments

 11 Lost works

 12 Close candidates for

 13 Evaluation

 14 See also

 15 References

 16 External links

Definition[edit] The word "apocrypha" means "things put away" or "things hidden" and comes from the Greek through the . The general term is usually applied to the books that were considered by the as useful, but not divinely inspired. As such, to refer to Gnostic writings as "apocryphal" is misleading since they would not be classified in the same category by orthodox believers. Often used by the Greek Fathers was the term , or "spoken against", although some canonical books were also spoken against, such as the of John in the East. Often used by scholars is the term , or "falsely inscribed" or "falsely attributed", in the sense that the writings were written by an anonymous author who appended the name of an to his work, such as in the of Peter or The Æthiopic Apocalypse of : almost all books, in both Old and New Testaments, called "apocrypha" in the Protestant tradition are pseudepigrapha. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, what are called the apocrypha by Protestants include thedeuterocanonical books: in the Catholic tradition, the term "apocrypha" is synonymous with what Protestants would call the pseudepigrapha, the latter term of which is almost exclusively used by scholars.[1]

History[edit] Development of the New Testament Canon[edit] Main article: Development of the New Testament canon That some works are categorized as New Testament Apocrypha is indicative of the wide range of responses that were engendered in the interpretation of the message of Jesus of . During the first several centuries of the transmission of that message, considerable debate turned on safeguarding its authenticity. Three key methods of addressing this survive to the present day: , where groups authorize individuals as reliable teachers of the message; , where groups define the boundaries of interpretation of the message; and canons, which list the primary documents certain groups believe contain the message originally taught by Jesus (in other words, the ). There was substantial debate about which books should be included in the canons. In general, those books that the majority regarded as the earliest books about Jesus were the ones included. Books that were not accepted into the canons are now termed apocryphal. Some of them were vigorously suppressed and survive only as fragments. The earliest lists of canonical works of the New Testament were not quite the same as modern lists; for example, the Book of was regarded as disputed by some Christians (see Antilegomena), while Shepherd of Hermas was considered genuine by others, and appears (after the ) in the Sinaiticus. The works that presented themselves as "authentic" but that did not obtain general acceptance from within the churches are called New Testament Apocrypha. These are not accepted as canonical by most mainstream Christian denominations; only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes , 1 Clement, , and several books that most other denominations reject, but it should be noted that this church does not adhere to an explicit canon.[citation needed]

The Syriac , used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22 books is the one cited by (~347-407) and (393-466) from the School of ).[2] Western Syrians have added the remaining five books to their New Testament canons in modern times[2] (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church and the East Syriac Chaldean , which is in communion with the of , still only present lessons from the 22 books of the original Peshitta.[2] The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Third to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books. This Church did not accept Revelation into its Bible until 1200 CE.[3] The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement. Modern scholarship and translation[edit] English translations were made in the early 18th century by William Wake and by Jones, and collected in 1820 by William Hone's Apocryphal New Testament.[4] The series Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, contains translations by Alexander Walker.[5] New translations by M. R. James appeared in 1924, and were revised by J.K. Eliott in 1991, The Apocryphal New Testament. The "standard" scholarly edition of the New Testament Apocrypha in German is that ofSchneemelcher,[6] and in English its translation by Wilson (1991). Tischendorf and other scholars began to study New Testament apocrypha seriously in the 19th century and produce new translations. The texts of the are often considered separately but the current edition of Schneemelcher also contains eleven Nag Hammadi texts.[7] Books that are known objectively not to have existed in antiquity are usually not considered part of the New Testament Apocrypha. Among these are the Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (also called the "") and the Latin Infancy gospel. The latter two did not exist in antiquity, and they seem to be based on the earlier Infancy gospels.[citation needed] Gospels[edit] Main articles: Gospel and List of gospels Canonical gospels[edit] Four gospels came to be accepted as part of the New Testament canon.

 Gospel according to Matthew

 Gospel according to Mark

 Gospel according to Luke

 Gospel according to John Infancy gospels[edit] The rarity of information about the childhood of Jesus in the canonical gospels led to a hunger of early Christians for more detail about the early life of Jesus. This was supplied by a number of 2nd century and later texts, known as infancy gospels, none of which were accepted into the , but the very number of their surviving attests to their continued popularity. Most of these were based on the earliest infancy gospels, namely the Infancy (also called the "Protoevangelium of James") and Infancy , and on their later combination into of Pseudo-Matthew (also called the "Infancy " or "Birth of Mary and Infancy of the Saviour"). The other significant early infancy gospels are the Syriac Infancy Gospel, the History of Joseph the Carpenter and the Life of . Jewish Christian gospels[edit] Main article: Jewish–Christian gospels The Jewish–Christian Gospels were gospels of a Jewish Christian character quoted by Clement of , , , Epiphanius, and probablyDidymus the Blind.[8] Most modern scholars have concluded that there was one gospel in /Hebrew and at least two in Greek, although a minority argue that there were only two, Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek.[9] None of these gospels survives today, but attempts have been made to reconstruct them from references in the . The reconstructed texts of the gospels are usually categorized under New Testament Apocrypha. The standard edition of Schneemelcher describes the texts of three Jewish–Christian gospels as follows:[10] 1) The Gospel of the ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius. 2) The ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of , plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome. 3) The Gospel of the Nazarenes ("GN") – GN 1 to GN 23 are mainly from Jerome; GN 24 to GN 36 are from medieval sources.

Some scholars consider that the 2 last named are in fact the same source.[11] Non-canonical gospels[edit] Other documents entitled "gospels" came into existence in the second and third Christian centuries. Sometimes, those attributed to the text state elsewhere that their text is the earlier version, or that their text excises all the additions and distortions made by their opponents to the more recognised version of the text. The Church Fathers insisted that these people were the ones making distortions, but some modern scholars do not. It remains to be seen whether any are earlier and more accurate versions of the canonical texts. Details of their contents only survive in the attacks on them by their opponents, and so for the most part it is uncertain as to how extensively different they are, and whether any constitute entirely different works. These texts include:

 Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)

 Gospel of Mani (3rd century)

 Gospel of (mid-late 2nd century)

 Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)

 Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century) Sayings gospels[edit] One or two texts take the form of brief —sayings and —which are not embedded in a connected narrative:

 Gospel of Thomas Some scholars regard the Gospel of Thomas as part of the tradition from which the canonical gospels eventually emerged; in any case both of these documents are important as showing us what the theoretical Q document might have looked like. Passion gospels[edit] A number of gospels are concerned specifically with the "Passion" (arrest, execution and resurrection) of Jesus:

 Gospel of (also called the "Acts of Pilate")

 Pseudo-, On the Life and the Passion of Christ

 Questions of Bartholomew

Christ (which claims to be according to Bartholomew) Although three texts take Bartholomew's name, it may be that one of the Questions of Bartholomew or the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is in fact the unknownGospel of Bartholomew. Harmonized gospels[edit] A number of texts aim to provide a single harmonization of the canonical gospels, that eliminates discordances among them by presenting a unified text derived from them to some degree. The most widely read of these was the Diatessaron. Gnostic texts[edit] Main article: Gnostic gospels In the modern era, many Gnostic texts have been uncovered, especially from the Nag Hammadi library. Some texts take the form of an expounding of the esoteric cosmology and held by the Gnostics. Often this was in the form of dialogue in which Jesus expounds esoteric knowledge while his disciples raise questions concerning it. There is also a text, known as the Epistula Apostolorum, which is a polemic against Gnostic esoterica, but written in a similar style as the Gnostic texts. Dialogues with Jesus[edit]

of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")

 Book of Thomas the Contender

 Dialogue of the Saviour

(also called the "Gospel of ")

(also called the "Gospel of ")

 Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)

 The of Jesus Christ General texts concerning Jesus[edit]

 Coptic (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)

 Gnostic (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)

 Second Treatise of the Great Sethian texts concerning Jesus[edit] The Sethians were a gnostic group who originally worshipped the biblical Seth as a messianic figure, later treating Jesus as a re-incarnation of Seth. They produced numerous texts expounding their esoteric cosmology, usually in the form of visions:

(also called the "Secret ")

 Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)  Ritual diagrams[edit] Some of the Gnostic texts appear to consist of diagrams and instructions for use in religious rituals:

 Ophite Diagrams

 Books of Jeu

Acts[edit] Main article: (genre) Several texts concern themselves with the subsequent lives of the apostles, usually with highly supernatural events. Almost half of these are said[who?] to have been written by Leucius Charinus (known as the Leucian Acts), a companion of . The and the and the Twelve are often considered Gnostic texts. While most of the texts are believed to have been written in the 2nd century, at least two, the and the are believed to have been written as late as the 5th century.

 Acts of Barnabas

 Acts of Paul

 Acts of Paul and Thecla

 Acts of Peter

 Acts of Peter and Paul

 Acts of Peter and the Twelve

 Acts of Pilate

 Acts of Thomas

 Acts of Timothy  Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca

Epistles[edit] Main article: Epistles There are also non-canonical epistles (or "letters") between individuals or to Christians in general. Some of them were regarded very highly by the early church:

 Epistles of Clement

 Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul

 Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

 Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

 Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)

 Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)

 Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.

Apocalypses[edit] Main article: Several works frame themselves as visions, often discussing the future, afterlife, or both:

 Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)

 Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)

 Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius

(also called the Revelation of Thomas)

 Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)

 First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)  Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)

 The Shepherd of Hermas

Fate of Mary[edit] Several texts (over 50) consist of descriptions of the events surrounding the varied fate of Mary (the mother of Jesus):

 The Home Going of Mary

 The Falling Asleep of the Mother of God

 The Descent of Mary

Miscellany[edit] These texts, due to their content or form, do not fit into the other categories:

(church regulations supposedly asserted by the apostles)

 Book of Nepos

(also called The Treasure)

 Didache (possibly the first written catechism)

 Liturgy of St James

 Penitence of Origen

of Paul

 Book of the Bee

Fragments[edit] In addition to the known apocryphal works, there are also small fragments of texts, parts of unknown (or uncertain) works. Some of the more significant fragments are:  The Unknown Berlin Gospel (also called the Gospel of the Saviour)

 The Naassene Fragment

 The Fayyum Fragment

 The Secret , whose authenticity has been challenged

 The Gospels

 The

Lost works[edit] Several texts are mentioned in many ancient sources and would probably be considered part of the apocrypha, but no known text has survived:

 Gospel of (a quotation from this gospel is given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 2, 3). It is possible that this is the he alludes to in xxvi. 2. The quotation shows that this gospel was the expression of complete pantheism)

 Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms

(probably different from the Gospel of Matthew)

 Gospel of Perfection (used by the followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 2)

 Gospel of the Seventy

 Gospel of Thaddaeus (this may be a synonym for the Gospel of Judas, confusing Judas Iscariot for Jude the Apostle)

 Memoria Apostolorum

Close candidates for canonization[edit] While many of the books listed here were considered heretical (especially those belonging to the gnostic tradition—as this sect was considered heretical by Proto- orthodox of the early centuries), others were not considered particularly heretical in content, but in fact were well accepted as significant spiritual works. While some of the following works appear in complete from the fourth century, such as 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, showing their general popularity, they were not included when the canon was formally decided at the end of that century.

 1 and 2 Clement  Shepherd of Hermas

 Didache

 Epistle of Barnabas

 Apocalypse of Peter

 Third Epistle to the Corinthians

Evaluation[edit] Among historians of early Christianity the books are considered invaluable, especially those that almost made it into the final canon, such as Shepherd of Hermas.Bart Ehrman, for example, said: The victors in the struggles to establish Christian Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.[12]

This debate primarily concerned whether certain works should be read in the church service or only privately. These works were widely used but not necessarily considered Catholic or 'universal.' Such works include the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and to a lesser extent theApocalypse of Peter. Considering the generally accepted dates of authorship for all of the canonical New Testament works (ca. 100 AD), as well as the various witnesses to canonicity extant among the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, , etc., the four gospels and letters of Paul were universally held as scriptural, and 200 years were needed to finalize the canon; from the beginning of the 2nd Century to the mid-4th Century, no book in the final canon was ever declared spurious or heretical, except for the Revelation of John which the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD rejected (although it accepted all of the other 26 books in the New Testament). This was possibly due to fears of the influence of Montanism which used the book extensively to support their . See Revelation of John for more details. Athanasius wrote his in 367 AD which defined a canon of 27 books, identical to the current canon, but also listed two works that were "not in the canon but to be read:" The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Nevertheless, the early church leaders in the 3rd and 4th Centuries generally distinguished between canonical works and those that were not canonical but 'useful,' or 'good for teaching,' though never relegating any of the final 27 books to the latter category. One aim with establishing the canon was to capture only those works which were held to have been written by the Apostles, or their close associates, and as the canon (ca. 150–175 AD) states concerning the Shepherd of Hermas:[citation needed] ...But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the , whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.[citation needed] See also[edit]

 Authorship of the

 Biblical canon

 Books of

 List of early Christian writers

 List of gospels

 Nag Hammadi library

 The Q document, a hypothetical document underlying much of the text of the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke

Books of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the edition of the Bible without chapters and verses, see .

Part of a series on the

Bible

Canons and books

[hide]

 Tanakh o o Nevi'im o  Christian biblical canons   Old Testament (OT)  New Testament (NT)  Deuterocanon  Antilegomena

 Chapters and verses  Apocrypha o Jewish o OT o NT

Authorship and development

[show] Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [show]

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[show]

Bible book Bible portal

 V

 T

 E

Different religious groups include different books in their Biblical canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Church canon.

The Tanakh contains twenty-four books divided into three parts: the five books of the Torah ("teaching"); the Nevi'im("prophets"); and the Ketuvim ("writings"). The first part of Christian Bibles is called the Old Testament, which contains, at minimum, the above twenty-four books but divided into thirty-nine books and ordered differently, sometimes also called the Hebrew Bible.

The Catholic Church and Eastern Christian churches also hold that certain and passages are part of the Old Testament canon. The second part is the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books; the fourCanonical gospels, Acts of the Apostles, twenty- one Epistles or letters and the Book of Revelation.

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches may have minor differences in their lists of accepted books. The list given here for these churches is the most inclusive: if at least one Eastern church accepts the book it is included here.

Contents

[hide]

 1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

o 1.1 Hebrew Bible o 1.2 Christian Old Testament

o 1.3 Intertestamental books

. 1.3.1 Eastern Orthodox

. 1.3.2 Syrian Orthodox

. 1.3.3 Ethiopian Orthodox

o 1.4 Table

 2 New Testament

o 2.1 Chart notes

 3 Diagram of the development of the Old Testament

 4 See also

 5 Notes

 6 External links

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit]

Hebrew Bible[edit]

See also: Development of the Hebrew Bible canon and Hebrew Bible

Rabbinic recognizes the 24 books of the , commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, as authoritative. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular former theory is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BCE, the Prophets c. 200 BCE, and the Writings c. 100 CE,[1] perhaps at a hypothetical , but this position is increasingly rejected by most modern scholars.

Christian Old Testament[edit]

Main articles: Development of the Old Testament canon and Christian biblical canons

Protestants and Catholics[2] use the Masoretic Text as the textual basis for their translations of the (those accepted as canonical by both and all Christians), with various changes derived from a multiplicity of other ancient sources (such as the , the , the Dead Sea , etc.), while generally using the Septuagint and Vulgate, now supplemented by the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, as the textual basis for the deuterocanonical books. The Eastern Orthodox use the Septuagint (translated in the 3rd century BCE) as the textual basis for the entire Old Testament in both protocanonical and deuteroncanonical books—to use both in the Greek for liturgical purposes, and as the basis for translations into the .[3][4] Most of the quotations (300 of 400) of the Old Testament in the New Testament, while differing more or less from the version presented by the Masoretic text, align with that of the Septuagint.[5]

Intertestamental books[edit]

See also: and Pseudepigraph

The intertestamental books, largely written during the , are called the Biblical apocrypha ("hidden things") by Protestants, the deuterocanon("second canon") by Catholics, and the deuterocanon or anagignoskomena ("worthy of reading") by Orthodox. These are works recognized by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches as part of scripture (and thus deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal), but Protestants do not recognize them as divinely inspired. Orthodox differentiate scriptural books by omitting these (and others) from corporate worship and from use as a sole basis for doctrine.

Many other Christians recognize them as good, but not on the level of the other books of the Bible. considers the apocrypha "read for example of life" but not used "to establish any doctrine."[6] Luther made a parallel statement in calling them: "not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."[7]

The difference in canons derives from the difference in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Books found in both the Hebrew and the Greek are accepted by all denominations, and by Jews, these are the protocanonical books. Catholics and Orthodox also accept those books present in manuscripts of the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament with great currency among the Jews of the ancient world, with the coda that Catholics consider 3 and 3 apocryphal.

Most quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, differing by varying degrees from the Masoretic Text, are taken from the Septuagint. When the Jews closed the Old Testament canon, two criteria were used, that the book be written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that it be no younger than the time of Ezra. This process led to the 24/39 books of the Tanakh and Old Testament. (However, Daniel was written several hundred years after the time of Ezra, and since that time several books of the Septuagint have been found in the original Hebrew, in the , the Cairo Geniza, and at Masada, including a Hebrew text of (, Masada) and an Aramaic text of Tobit (Qumran); the additions to Esther and Daniel are also in their respective Semitic languages.)

The unanimous consensus of modern (and ancient) scholars consider several other books, including and Judith, to have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. Opinion is divided on the , while it is acknowledged that the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Wisdom of , and are originally Greek compositions.

/3 Esdras  /4 Esdras [8]

 Tobit

 Judith

 Additions to Esther

 Wisdom of Solomon

 Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

 Baruch with the

 Song of the Three Young Men and Prayer of Azariah [9]

 Story of [9]

[9]

 1 Maccabees

 2 Maccabees Eastern Orthodox[edit]

Additional books accepted by the Eastern Orthodox:

 3 Esdras

 4 Esdras (in an appendix to the Slavonic Bible)

(in an appendix to the Greek Bible)

(in the Septuagint) Syrian Orthodox[edit]

Additional books accepted by the Syrian Orthodox (due to inclusion in the Peshitta):

with the Letter of Baruch (only the letter has achieved canonical status)

152–155 (not canonical) Ethiopian Orthodox[edit]

The Ethiopian Tewahedo church accepts all of the deuterocanonical books of Catholicism and anagignoskomena of Eastern Orthodoxy except for the four Books of Maccabees.[10] It accepts the 24/39 books of the Masoretic Text along with the following books, called the "narrow canon".[11] The enumeration of books in the Ethiopic Bible varies greatly between different authorities and printings. [12]

or the Paralipomena of Jeremiah

 1 Enoch

 Jubilees

 1 Meqabyan

 2 Meqabyan

 3 Meqabyan

 The Ethiopian broader Biblical Canon

Table[edit]

The table uses the spellings and names present in modern editions of the Bible, such as the New American Bible Revised Edition, andEnglish Standard Version. The spelling and names in both the 1609–1610 Douay Old Testament (and in the 1582 Rheims New Testament) and the 1749 revision by Bishop Challoner (the edition currently in print used by many Catholics, and the source of traditional Catholic spellings in English) and in the Septuagint differ from those spellings and names used in modern editions that derive from the Hebrew Masoretic text.[13]

For the Orthodox canon, Septuagint titles are provided in parentheses when these differ from those editions. For the Catholic canon, the Douaic titles are provided in parentheses when these differ from those editions. Likewise, the references some of these books by the traditional spelling when referring to them in the New Testament, such as "Esaias" (for ).

In the spirit of more recent Catholic translations (e.g., the New American Bible, , and ecumenical translations used by Catholics, such as the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) use the same "standardized" (King James Version) spellings and names as Protestant Bibles (e.g., 1 Chronicles, as opposed to the Douaic 1 Paralipomenon, 1-2 and 1-2 Kings, instead of 1-4 Kings) in those books universally considered canonical— the protocanonicals.

The in Bava Batra 14b gives a different order for the books in Nevi'im and Ketuvim. This order is also quoted in Mishneh Torah Hilchot 7:15. The order of the books of the Torah are universal through all denominations of Judaism and Christianity. The disputed books, included in one canon but not in others, are often called the Biblical apocrypha, a term that is sometimes used specifically to describe the books in the Catholic and Orthodox canons that are absent from the Jewish Masoretic Text and most modern Protestant Bibles. Catholics, following the Canon of Trent (1546), describe these books as deuterocanonical, while Greek Orthodox Christians, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), use the traditional name ofanagignoskomena, meaning "that which is to be read." They are present in a few historic Protestant versions; the German included such books, as did the English 1611 King James Version.[6]

Empty table cells indicate that a book is absent from that canon.

Tanakh Protestan (Jewish Bible) t Catholic Eastern Orthodox (24 books)[14] Old Original Old Testament Old Testament Books in bold are Testament language (46 books) (51 books) part of (39 theKetuvim books)

Torah Pentateuch or the Five Books of

Bereishit Genesis Genesis Genesis Hebrew

Shemot Exodus Exodus Hebrew

Vayikra Leviticus Leviticus Leviticus Hebrew

Bamidbar Numbers Numbers Numbers Hebrew

Devarim Deuterono Deuteronomy Deuteronomy Hebrew my

Nevi'im (Prophets)

Yehoshua Joshua (Josue) Joshua (Iesous) Hebrew

Shofetim Judges Judges Judges Hebrew Rut (Ruth) [15] Ruth Ruth Ruth Hebrew

1 Samuel (1 1 Samuel 1 Samuel (1 Kings) [16] Hebrew Kingdoms) [17]

Shemuel

2 Samuel (2 2 Samuel 2 Samuel (2 Kings) [16] Hebrew Kingdoms) [17]

1 Kings (3 1 Kings 1 Kings (3 Kings) [16] Hebrew Kingdoms) [17]

Melakhim

2 Kings (4 2 Kings 2 Kings (4 Kings) [16] Hebrew Kingdoms) [17]

1 1 Chronicles (1 1 Chronicles (1 Hebrew Chronicles Paralipomenon) Paralipomenon) Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles) [15] 2 2 Chronicles (2 2 Chronicles (2 Hebrew Chronicles Paralipomenon) Paralipomenon)

1 Esdras Hebrew

Hebrew and Ezra Ezra (1 Esdras) Ezra (2 Esdras) [17][18] Aramaic

Ezra-Nehemiah [15]

Nehemiah (2 Nehemiah Nehemiah (2 Esdras) Hebrew Esdras) [17][18]

Aramaic Tobit (Tobias) Tobit (Tobias) (and Hebrew?)

Judith Judith Hebrew

Esther [15] Esther Esther [19] Esther [19] Hebrew 1 Maccabees (1 1 Maccabees Hebrew Machabees) [20]

2 Maccabees (2 2 Maccabees Greek Machabees) [20]

3 Maccabees Greek

4 Maccabees [21] Greek

Ketuvim (Writings) Wisdom books

Iyov () [15] Job Job Job Hebrew

Tehillim (Psalms) [22] [15] Psalms Psalms Psalms Hebrew

Prayer of Manasseh Greek

Mishlei Proverbs Proverbs Proverbs Hebrew (Proverbs) [15]

Qoheleth Ecclesiaste Ecclesiastes Hebrew (Ecclesiastes) [15] s

Shir Hashirim Song of Song of Songs Hebrew (Song of Songs) [15] Solomon ( of ) (Aisma Aismaton)

Wisdom Wisdom Greek

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Sirach Hebrew Nevi'im (Latter Major prophets Prophets)

Yeshayahu Isaiah Isaiah (Isaias) Isaiah Hebrew

Hebrew and Yirmeyahu Jeremiah Jeremiah (Jeremias) Jeremiah Aramaic

Eikhah Lamentatio Lamentations Lamentations Hebrew (Lamentations) [15] ns

Baruch [23] Hebrew[24]

Baruch with Letter of Jeremiah as the 6th Letter of Greek Chapter [23] Jeremiah as (majority standalone book [25] view)[26]

Yekhezqel Ezekiel (Ezechiel) Ezekiel Hebrew

Daniel [27] Hebrew and Daniel [15] Daniel Daniel [27] Aramaic

Twelve Minor Prophets

The Twelve Hosea (Osee) Hosea Hebrew or Trei Asar Joel Joel Joel Hebrew

Amos Amos Hebrew

Obadiah (Abdias) Obadiah Hebrew

Jonah Jonah (Jonas) Jonah Hebrew Micah (Micheas) Micah Hebrew

Nahum Nahum Nahum Hebrew

Habakkuk (Habacuc) Habakkuk Hebrew

Zephaniah (Sophonias) Zephaniah Hebrew

Haggai (Aggeus) Haggai Hebrew

Zechariah Zechariah (Zacharias) Zechariah Hebrew

Malachi (Malachias) Malachi Hebrew

Several of the books in the Eastern Orthodox canon are also found in the appendix to the Latin Vulgate, formerly the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

Books in the Appendix to the Vulgate Bible

Name in Vulgate Name in Eastern Orthodox use

3 Esdras 1 Esdras

4 Esdras

Prayer of Manasseh Prayer of Manasseh

Psalm of when he slew Goliath (Psalm 151) Psalm 151

New Testament[edit] See also: Christian biblical canons, Development of the New Testament canon, New Testament apocrypha, Antilegomena and Template:Books of the New Testament

In general, among Christian denominations, the New Testament canon is an agreed-upon list of 27 books. The chart below shows the correct arrangement of the New Testament books and should always be kept in the following order in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.[N 1] However, the Slavonic, Armenian, and Ethiopian traditions have different New Testament book orders.

Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Original language and most Oriental Orthodox ()

Canonical Gospels

Matthew Greek (majority view: see note)[N 2][28][29][30]

Mark Greek

Luke Greek

John Greek

Apostolic History

Acts Greek

General Epistles

James [N 1] Greek

1 Peter Greek

2 Peter [N 3] Greek

1 John Greek 2 John [N 3] Greek

3 John [N 3] Greek

Jude [N 1] [N 3] Greek

Pauline Epistles

Romans Greek

1 Corinthians Greek

2 Corinthians Greek

Galatians Greek

Ephesians Greek

Philippians Greek

Colossians Greek

1 Thessalonians Greek

2 Thessalonians Greek

Hebrews [N 1] Greek[31]

1 Timothy Greek 2 Timothy Greek

Titus Greek

Philemon Greek

Apocalypse

Revelation [N 1] [N 3] Greek

Chart notes[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Four New Testament works were questioned or "spoken against" by , and he changed the order of his New Testament to reflect this, but he did not leave them out, nor has any Lutheran body since. Traditional German "Luther Bibles" are still printed with the New Testament in this changed "Luther Bible" order.

2. Jump up ^ See Rabbinical translations of Matthew. Most modern scholars consider the Gospel of Matthew to have been composed in Koine Greek, see Language of the New Testament. According to tradition as expressed by , writing in the late first or early second centuries, the Gospel was originally composed in the "Hebrew dialect" (which at the time was largely the related Aramaic) and then translated into Greek (Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History", 3.39.15-16; Epiphanius of Salamis, 30:3). According toJerome, Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew were extant while he was translating the Vulgate: "Matthew ... composed a gospel of Christ at first published in in Hebrew for the sake of those of the who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus so diligently gathered (St Jerome, "On Illustrious Men", Chapter 3).

3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Peshitta, the traditional Syriac Bible, excludes 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but Bibles of the modern Syriac Orthodox Church include later translations of those books. Still today the followed by the Syrian Orthodox Church, present lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta.

Diagram of the development of the Old Testament[edit] The books of the Old Testament, showing their positions in both the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, shown with their names in Hebrew) and Christian Bibles. The Deuterocanon or Apocrypha are colored differently from the Protocanon (the Hebrew Bible books considered canonical by all).

See also[edit] List of Gospels From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from List of gospels)

The canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John can be found in most Christian Bibles

Gospels are a genre of Early claiming to recount the life of Jesus, to preserve his teachings, or to reveal aspects of God's nature. The New Testament has four canonical gospels which are accepted as the only authentic and apostolic gospels by the Christians, but many others exist, or used to exist, and are called either New Testament apocrypha or pseudepigrapha. Some of these have left considerable traces on Christian traditions, including . The word "gospel" – Old English for "Good News" – is the English term for the Greek word ευαγγέλιον (euangélion) which means "blessed proclamation", and from which we get the word evangel and its cognates.

Contents [hide]

 1 Canonical gospels

o 1.1 Hypothesized sources of the

o 1.2 Hypothesized sources of the Gospel of John

 2 Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha

o 2.1 Gnostic gospels

o 2.2 Jewish-Christian gospels

o 2.3 Infancy gospels

o 2.4 Other gospels

o 2.5 Partially preserved gospels

o 2.6 Fragmentary preserved gospels [α]

o 2.7 Reconstructed gospels [β]

o 2.8 Lost gospels

o 2.9 Fragments of possibly unknown or lost (or existing) gospels [α]

 3 Medieval gospels

 4 Modern gospels

 5 See also

 6 Notes

 7 Footnotes

 8 References

 9 External links

Canonical gospels[edit]

 Synoptic gospels

 Gospel of Mark

 Longer ending of Mark (see also the Freer Logion)  Gospel of Matthew

 Gospel of John Hypothesized sources of the synoptic gospels[edit] Main articles: Two-source hypothesis and Four-document hypothesis

 Cross Gospel – 's proposed source of the Passion narrative in Mark (and in the Gospel of Peter; see below)

– Q is material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark

 M Source – M is material unique to Matthew

 L Source – L is material unique to Luke Hypothesized sources of the Gospel of John[edit]

– narrative of the Seven Signs

 Discourses Gospel – source of the discourse material

Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha[edit] Gnostic gospels[edit] Main article: Gnostic Gospels

 Gospel of Thomas – possibly proto-Gnostic; 1st to mid 2nd century; collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, 31 of them with no parallel in the canonical gospels

 Gospel of Marcion – 2nd century; potentially an edited version of the Gospel of Luke or a document which predates Luke (see: )

 Gospel of Basilides – composed in around 120 to 140 AD; thought to be a gnostic of the canonical gospels

 Gospel of Truth (Valentinian) – mid 2nd century; departed from earlier gnostic works by admitting and defending the physicality of Christ and his resurrection.

 Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms – mid 2nd century; thought to be a gnostic cosmology, most likely in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples.

 Gospel of Mary – 2nd century

 Gospel of Judas – 2nd century

 Greek Gospel of the Egyptians – second quarter of the 2nd century  Gospel of Philip

 Pseudo-Gospel of the Twelve – A Syriac language gospel titled the Gospel of the Twelve. This work is shorter than the regular gospels and seems to be different from the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[1]

 Gospel of Perfection – 4th century; an Ophite poem that is only mentioned once by a single patristic source, Epiphanius [2] and is referred to once in the 6th century Gospel of the Infancy Jewish-Christian gospels[edit] Main article: Jewish-Christian gospels

 Gospel of the Hebrews

 Gospel of the Nazarenes

 Gospel of the Ebionites

 Gospel of the Twelve Infancy gospels[edit]

 Armenian Infancy Gospel[citation needed]

 Protoevangelium of James

 Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (Gospel of the Nativity of Mary)

 Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

 History of Joseph the Carpenter

 Infancy Gospel of Thomas

 Latin Infancy Gospel (Arundel 404)[citation needed]

 Syriac Infancy Gospel Other gospels[edit]

 Gospel of the Lots of Mary (Coptic collection of 37 oracles; ca. A.D. 500)[3] Partially preserved gospels[edit]

 Gospel of Peter Fragmentary preserved gospels[α][edit]

– mentioned only once by Epiphanius circa 400, who preserves a single brief passage in quotation.  Gospel of Mani – 3rd century – attributed to the Persian Mani, the founder of .

 Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel) – highly fragmentary 6th- century based on a late 2nd- or early 3rd-century original. A dialogue rather than a narrative; heavily Gnostic in character in that is dependent upon possessing secret knowledge.

 Coptic Gospel of the Twelve – late 2nd century Coptic language work – although often equated with the Gospel of the Ebionites, it appears to be an attempt to re-tell the Gospel of John in the pattern of the Synoptics; it quotes extensively from John's Gospel. Reconstructed gospels[β][edit]

– suspect: the single source mentioning it is considered by many to be a modern forgery, and it disappeared before it could be independently authenticated.

 Gospel of Matthias Lost gospels[edit]

 Gospel of Cerinthus – ca. 90–120 AD – according to Epiphanius [4] this is a Jewish gospel identical to the Gospel of the Ebionites and, apparently, a truncated version of Matthew's Gospel according to the Hebrews.

 Gospel of Apelles – mid-to-late 2nd century; a further edited version of Marcion's edited version of Luke.

 Gospel of [5]

 Gospel of the [6]

 Gospel of Andrew – mentioned by only two 5th-century sources (Augustine and Innocent I) who list it as apocryphal.[7]

– not to be confused with the 16th century pro-Moslem work of the same name; this work is mentioned only once, in the 5th century of Gelasius which lists it as apocryphal.

 Gospel of Bartholomew – mentioned by only two 5th-century sources which list it as apocryphal.[8]

 Gospel of Hesychius – mentioned only by Jerome and the Decree of Gelasius that list it as apocryphal.[9]

 Gospel of Lucius[9] – mentioned only by Jerome and the Decree of Gelasius that list it as apocryphal.

 Gospel of Merinthus[10] – mentioned only by Epiphanius; probably the Gospel of Cerinthus, and the confusion due to a scribal error.  An unknown number of other Gnostic gospels not cited by name.[11]

 Gospel of the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets[12]

 Memoirs of the Apostles – Lost narrative of the life of Jesus, mentioned by . The passages quoted by Justin may have originated from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels composed by Justin or his school. Fragments of possibly unknown or lost (or existing) gospels[α][edit]

Egerton 2 – late 2nd-century manuscript of possibly earlier original; contents parallel John 5:39–47, 10:31–39; Matt 1:40–45, 8:1–4, 22:15–22; :40–45, 12:13–17; and Luke 5:12–16, 17:11–14, 20:20–26, but differ textually; also contains incomplete miracle account with no equivalent in canonical Gospels

 Fayyum Fragment – a fragment of about 100 Greek letters in 3rd century script; the text seems to parallel :26–31

– Fragments #1, 654, & 655 appear to be fragments of Thomas; #210 is related to MT 7:17–19 and LK 6:43–44 but not identical to them; #840 contains a short vignette about Jesus and a Pharisee not found in any known gospel, the source text is probably mid 2nd century; #1224 consists of paraphrases of :17 and Luke 9:50

 Gospel of Jesus' Wife – 4th century at the earliest.

 Papyrus Berolinensis 11710 – 6th-century Greek fragment, possibly from an apocrpyhal gospel or based on John.

 Papyrus Cairensis 10735 – 6th–7th century Greek fragment, possibly from a lost gospel, may be a or commentary.

 Papyrus Merton 51 – Fragment from apocryphal gospel or a homily on Luke 6:7.

 Strasbourg Fragment – Fragment of a lost gospel, probably related to Acts of John.

Medieval gospels[edit]

 Gospel of the Seventy – a lost 8th–9th-century Manichean work

– a post 10th-century Christian devotional work (or works) in many variants. The first section is highly dependent upon the 5th century "Acts of Pilate"

 Gospel of Barnabas – a 16th-century harmony of the four canonical gospels, probably of Spanish () origin, or possibly Italian

Modern gospels[edit]

 The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (1908)  (Another Testament of Jesus Christ) (1830)

of Jesus, by an Eyewitness (1907)[13]

 Essene Gospel of Peace (1937; 1974)

 The Fifth Gospel (1908, Steiner)[14]

 The Fifth Gospel (1956, Naber)[15]

 The Fifth Gospel (1993, Vandenberg)

 The Gospel According to : or A Satanic Parody of the Bible (2007)[16]

 Gospel According to Seneca (1996)

 Gospel of Ares (1974)

 Gospel of (1952; aka The Adolescence of Jesus)

 Gospel of Jacob (1982; aka The Message of Jacob)

 Gospel of Jesus According to Gabriele Wittek (1977)[17]

 Gospel of (1927)

 Talmud Jmmanuel (1963; Another Gospel attributed to Judas Iscariot)

 Gospel of Satan (1997, 2013).[18]

 Gospel of the Childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ According to St. Peter(1904)[19]

 Gospel of the Perfect Life/Gospel of the Holy Twelve (1881)

 Life and Morals of Jesus (1820)

 Jehoshua the Nazir (1917)[20]

 Jesus Amidst His Own (late 18th century)

 The Mystical Life of Jesus (1929)[21]

 The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ (1894)

 Ur-Gospel of the (1848)[22]  Great Gospel of John (1851–1864)

 The Jesus (1972)

Biblical canon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on the

Bible Canons and books

[hide]  Tanakh o Torah o Nevi'im o Ketuvim  Christian biblical canons  Hebrew Bible  Old Testament (OT)  New Testament (NT)  Deuterocanon  Antilegomena

 Chapters and verses  Apocrypha o Jewish o OT o NT

Authorship and development

[show]

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [show]

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[show]

Bible book Bible portal

 V

 T  E

A biblical canon, or canon of scripture,[1] is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community. The word "canon" comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". The term was first coined in reference to scripture by Christians, but the idea is said to be Jewish.[2] Most of the canons listed below are considered "closed" (i.e., books cannot be added or removed), [3] reflecting a belief that public revelation has ended and thus the inspired texts may be gathered into a complete and authoritative canon, which scholar Bruce Metzger defines as "an authoritative collection of books."[4] In contrast, an "open canon", which permits the addition of books through the process of continuous revelation, Metzger defines as "a collection of authoritative books." (A table of Biblical scripture for both Testaments, with regard to canonical acceptance inChristendom's various major traditions, appears below.) These canons have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective . Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. Books, such as the Jewish- Christian gospels, have been excluded from the canon altogether, but many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered to be Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical by others. There are differences between the JewishTanakh and Christian biblical canons, and between the canons of different Christian denominations. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the various communities regard as inspired scripture. In some cases where there are varying strata of scriptural inspiration, it becomes prudent even to discuss texts that only have an elevated status within a particular tradition. This becomes even more complex when considering the open canons of the various Latter Day sects—which may be viewed as extensions of both Christianity and thus Judaism—and the scriptural purportedly given to several leaders over the years within that movement.

Contents [hide]

 1 Jewish canons

o 1.1

o 1.2 Beta

 2 Samaritan canon

 3 Christian biblical canons

o 3.1 Early Church

. 3.1.1 Earliest Christian communities

. 3.1.2 Marcion's canon

. 3.1.3

o 3.2 Eastern Church . 3.2.1 Alexandrian Fathers

. 3.2.2 Eastern canons

o 3.3 Western Church

. 3.3.1 Latin Fathers

. 3.3.2 Luther's canon

. 3.3.3 Protestant canon

o 3.4 Canons of various Christian traditions

. 3.4.1 Old Testament

. 3.4.1.1 Table notes

. 3.4.2 New Testament

. 3.4.2.1 Table notes

 4 Latter Day Saint canons

o 4.1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

o 4.2 Other Latter Day Saint sects

 5 See also

 6 Footnotes

 7 References

 8 Further reading

 9 External links

Jewish canons[edit] Main article: Development of the Hebrew Bible canon Rabbinic Judaism[edit]

Part of a series on

Judaism

Movements [show]

Philosophy [show]

Texts [show]

Law [show]

Holy cities / places [show]

Important figures [show]

Religious roles [show]

Culture and education [show]

Ritual objects[show]

Prayers [show]

Other religions [show]

Related topics[show]

 Judaism portal

 V

 T

 E

,recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text (יהדות רבנית :Rabbinic Judaism (Hebrew or Hebrew Bible.[5] Evidence suggests that the process of ( ךתנננ"ך :commonly called theTanakh (Hebrew canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and theWritings c. 100 AD[6] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.

A scroll of the ; one of the of the Tanakh.

The includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting (4:2, 12:32) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book", a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai.[7] The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (c. 400 BC) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2:13–15). The suggests that the priest- Ezra brought theTorah back from to Jerusalem and the (8–9) around the same time period. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that (c. 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42– 50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed by the .[8] However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that timeclosed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon. The , also known as the Great , was, according to Jewish tradition, an assembly of 120 , sages, and prophets, in the period from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism, marking a transition from an era of prophets to an era of Rabbis. They lived in a period of about two centuries ending c. 70 AD. Among the developments in Judaism that are attributed to them are the fixing of the Jewish Biblical canon, including the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, and the ; the introduction of the triple classification of the , dividing its study into the three branches of , halakot, and aggadot; the introduction of the Feast of Purim; and the institution of the prayer known as the Shemoneh 'Esreh as well as the synagogal , rituals, and benedictions. to ( ךתנמְלמוד :In addition to the Tanakh, mainstream Rabbinic Judaism considers the Talmud (Hebrew be another central, authoritative text. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history. The Talmud has two components: the (c. 200 AD), the first written compendium of Judaism's oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 AD), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. (It is significant that there are numerous citations of Sirach within the Talmud, even though the book was not ultimately accepted into the Hebrew canon.) The Talmud is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is often quoted in other rabbinic literature. Certain groups of Jews, such as the Karaites, do not accept the oral Law as it is codified in the Talmud and only consider the Tanakh to be authoritative. [edit]

This article contains Ethiopic text.Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Ethiopic characters.

Ethiopian Jews—also known as Beta Israel (Ge'ez: ቤተ እስራኤል—Bēta 'Isrā'ēl)—possess a canon of scripture that is distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. Mäshṣ afäṣ Kedus (Holy Scriptures) is the name for the religious literature of these Jews, which is written primarily in Ge'ez. Their holiest book, the Orit, consists of the Pentateuch, as well as Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. The rest of the Ethiopian Jewish canon is considered to be of secondary importance. It consists of the remainder of the Hebrew canon—with the possible exception of the —and various deuterocanonical books. These include Sirach, Judith,Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 4 Baruch, the three books of Meqabyan, Jubilees, Enoch, the Testament of , the Testament of , and the Testament of Jacob. The latter three patriarchal testaments are distinct to this scriptural tradition. [9]

A third tier of religious writings that are important to Ethiopian Jews, but are not considered to be part of the canon, include the following: Nagara Muse (The Conversation of Moses), Mota ( of Aharon), Mota Muse (Death of Moses), Te'ezaza Sanbat (Precepts of ), Arde'et (Students), the Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Mäshṣ afäṣ Sa'atat (Book of Hours), Abba Elias (Father Elija), Mäshṣ afäṣ Mäla'əkt (Book of ), Mäshṣ afäṣ Kahan (Book of Priests), Dərsanä Abrəham Wäsara Bägabs (Homily on Abraham and in Egypt), Gadla Sosna (The Acts of Susanna), and Baqadāmi Gabra Egzi'abhērṣ (In the Beginning God Created). In addition to these, Zëna Ayhud (the Ethiopic version of ) and the sayings of various fālasfā (philosophers) are sources that are not necessarily considered holy, but nonetheless have great influence.

Samaritan canon[edit] Main article: Samaritan Torah Another version of the Torah, in the Samaritan alphabet, also exists. This text is associated with a people of whom the Jewish ,(السامريون : ;שומרונים :the (Hebrew Encyclopedia states: "Their history as a distinct community begins with the taking of by the Assyrians in 722 BC."[10] The Abisha Scroll, the oldest scroll among the Samaritans in Nablus.

The 's relationship to the Masoretic Text is still disputed. Some differences are minor, such as the ages of different people mentioned in genealogy, while others are major, such as a commandment to be monogamous, which only appears in the Samaritan version. More importantly, the Samaritan text also diverges from the Masoretic in stating that Moses received Commandments on Mount Gerizim—not —and that it is upon this mountain (Gerizim) that to God should be made—not in Jerusalem. Scholars nonetheless consult the Samaritan version when trying to determine the meaning of text of the original Pentateuch, as well as to trace the development of text-families. Some scrolls among the Dead Sea scrolls have been identified as proto-Samaritan Pentateuch text-type.[11] Comparisons have also been made between the Samaritan Torah and the Septuagint version. Samaritans consider the Torah to be inspired scripture, but do not accept any other parts of the Bible —probably a position also held by the .[12] They did not expand their canon by adding any Samaritan compositions. There is a Samaritan , however this is a popular chronicle written in Arabic and is not considered to be scripture. Other non-canonical Samaritan religious texts include the Memar Markah (Teaching of Markah) and the Defter (Prayerbook)—both from the 4th century or later.[13] The people of the remnants of the Samaritans in modern-day Israel/ retain their version of the Torah as fully and authoritatively canonical.[14] They regard themselves as the true "guardians of the Law." This assertion is only re-enforced by the claim of the Samaritan community in Nablus (an area traditionally associated with the ancient city of Shechem) to possess the oldest existing copy of the Torah—one that they believe to have been penned by Abisha, a grandson ofAaron.[15]

Christian biblical canons[edit]

Part of a series on

Christianity

 Jesus

 Christ

[show]

 Bible

 Foundations

[show] Theology [show]

 History

 Tradition

[show]

Related topics[show]

 Denominations

 Groups

[show]

Christianity portal

 V

 T

 E Main articles: Christian biblical canons, Development of the Christian biblical canon and Canonical gospels Early Church[edit] Earliest Christian communities[edit] Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), [16] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time. Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. , in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[17] Marcion's canon[edit] was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later, considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[18] (ca. AD 140). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of theGospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today.[19] After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted . This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the proto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion.[19] Apostolic Fathers[edit] A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus in the following quote: "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal 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… Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform… These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer."[20]

A folio from P46; an early 3rd-century collection of Pauline epistles.

By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena).[21] Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. [22] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[23] Eastern Church[edit] Alexandrian Fathers[edit] Origen of Alexandria (184/5-253/4), an early scholar involved in the codification of the Biblical canon, had a thorough education both in and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of in 553. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books:James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[24] He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer."[25] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself. In his Easter letter of 367, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[26] and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[27] Athanasius also included the Book of Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah, in his Old Testament canon. However, from this canon, he omitted the book of Esther. Eastern canons[edit] The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691–692, which was rejected byPope Constantine (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363), the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367). And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac,Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences.[28] The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the , whether in Byzantine or modern times. Western Church[edit] Latin Fathers[edit] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[29] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. [30] 's in 382, if the is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[26] or if not, the list is at least a 6th- century compilation.[31] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[32] In 405, sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[33] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[34] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[35]

A on display.

Luther's canon[edit] Main article: Luther's canon Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as and ),[36] but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[37] In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha. Protestant canon[edit] Main article: Protestants note that early Christians evidenced a knowledge of a canon of Scripture, based upon internal evidence, as well as by the existence of a list of Old Testament books by , compiled around 170 AD (see Melito's canon).[38] Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament—though these ideas aren't isolated to Protestant theology, but extend to or are derived from other Christian traditions:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first- generation apostles (or their close companions).

2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century) as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament).

3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.[39] It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all of the books in the accepted canon, however, and one can point to writings that Protestants consider to be unscriptural which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, most Protestants hold to the Jewish Tanakh for the Old Testament and the Roman Catholic canon for the New Testament. Canons of various Christian traditions[edit] Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[40] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the , the Westminster Confession of of 1647 for , and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons. Old Testament[edit] Main article: Development of the Old Testament canon All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative. Furthermore, all of these traditions, with the exception of the Protestants, add to this number various deuterocanonical books. However, in some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible—many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of the tradition in a section called the "Apocrypha." Some books listed here, like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs for the Armenian Apostolic Church, may have once been a vital part of a Biblical tradition, may even still hold a place of honor, but are no longer considered to be part of the Bible. Other books, like the Prayer of Manasseh for the Roman Catholic Church, may have been included in manuscripts, but never really attained a high level of importance within that particular tradition. The levels of traditional prominence for others, like Psalms 152–155 and the of the Syriac churches, remain unclear. In so far as the Orthodox Tewahedo canon is concerned, some points of clarity should be made. First, the books of Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah and 4 Baruch, are all considered canonical by the Orthodox Tewahedo Churches. However, it is not always clear as to how these writings are arranged or divided. In some lists, they may simply fall under the title "Jeremiah," while in others, they are divided various ways into separate books. Moreover, the is divided into two books—Messale (Prov. 1–24) and Tägsas (Prov. 25–31). Additionally, while the books of Jubilees and Enoch are fairly well-known among western scholars, 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often called the "Ethiopian Maccabees," but are completely different in content from the books of Maccabees that are known and/or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, the Book of Joseph ben Gurion, or Pseudo- Josephus, is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based upon the writings of Josephus. [41] The Ethiopic version (Zëna Ayhud) has eight parts and is included in the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon.[42][43]

Assyri an Easter Western tradition Eastern Orthodox tradition Oriental Orthodox tradition n traditi on

Assyri Roma Slavoni Georgi Armeni Orthodo an Greek Syriac Coptic Protesta n c an an x Churc Books Orthod Orthod Orthod nt Catho Orthod Orthod Apostol Tewahed h of [O 1] ox ic ox ox o lic ox ox [O 2] [O 3] the East

Pentateuch

Genesis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Exodus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Leviticus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Numbers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Deuteronom Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes y

History

Joshua Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Judges Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ruth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 and 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Samuel

1 and 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Kings

1 and 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Chronicles

No No – Yes (?) Yes (?) Yes (?) Yes Prayer of inc. in (part of 2 (Apocryp (part of (part of (part of Yes (?) Yes (?) Yes (?) Yes (?) Manasseh ha) some Odes) Odes) Odes) Chronicl [O 4] mss. [O 5] [O 5] [O 5] es)

Yes Yes Yes Ezra Yes Yes Yes 1 Esdras 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes (1 Ezra) 1 Ezra 1 Ezra Esdras B' Esdras

Yes Yes Nehemiah Yes 2 Esdras Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (2 Ezra) Esdras Γ'

1 Esdras No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No (?) No – Yes No (?) (3 Ezra) 1 Esdras 3 Esdras 2 2 Ezra 2 Ezra – inc. inc. in Ezra Kali – inc. (Apocryp Esdras A' Esdras [O 6] in some some in ha) (inc. mss. mss. some in some mss. mss.)

No 4 No No (?) No No No (?) No – 2 Esdras 3– Esdras 3 Yes – inc. 2 Esdras (Greek Yes (?) Yes – inc. inc. in 14 (inc. Esdras Ezra in (Apocryp ms. 3 Ezra 3 Ezra in some some (4 Ezra) in (append [O 6] Sutu'el some [O 7] ha) lost) mss. mss. some [O 8] ix) mss. mss.)

2 Esdras 1– No No No 2; 15–16 (part of 2 (part (Greek (5 and 6 Esdras of 4 No No No No No No No ms.) Ezra) apocryph Esdras [O 9] [O 7] on) )

Esther [O 10] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Additions to (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Esther ha)

No Tobit (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ha)

No Judith (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ha)

No 1 (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Maccabees ha)

No 2 (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Maccabees ha)

3 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No – No Yes Maccabees (Apocryp [O 6] inc. in ha) some [O 11] mss.

No (?) No No (?) No No No – inc. 4 (early – inc. No No (append (append Yes (Coptic No in Maccabees traditio in some ix) ix) ms.) some n) mss. mss.

Jubilees No No No No No No No No Yes No

Enoch No No No No No No No No Yes No

1 Meqabyan No No No No No No No No Yes No

2 and 3 Meqabyan [O No No No No No No No No Yes No 12]

Ethiopic Pseudo- Yes Josephus No No No No No No No No (broader No canon) (Zëna [O 13] Ayhud)

No – No – Josephus' Je inc. in inc. in No No No No No No No No wish War VI some some mss. mss. [O 14] [O 14]

Testaments No – No of the inc. in No No (Greek No No No No No No Twelve some ms.) Patriarchs mss.

No – No Joseph and inc. in (early No No No No No No No No Asenath some tradition ?) mss. [O 15] Wisdom

Book of Job Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Psalms 1– Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 150 [O 16]

No – inc. in Psalm 151 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes some mss.

No (?) – inc. Psalms No No No No No No Yes (?) No No in 152–155 some mss.

No – No – No – Psalms of inc. in inc. in inc. in No No No No No No No Solomon [O 17] some some some mss. mss. mss.

Yes Proverbs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (in 2 Yes books)

Ecclesiastes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Song of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Songs

No Book of (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wisdom ha)

No Sirach (1– (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 51)[O 18] [O 19] ha) No (?) Prayer of – inc. Solomon No in No No No No No No No No (Sirach 52) [O 20] some mss.

Major prophets

Isaiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No – Ethiopic No – mss. Ascension liturgica No No No No No No No (early No of Isaiah l (?) [O 21] tradition ?) [O 22]

Jeremiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes (part Lamentatio ofSäqoqa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ns (1–5) [O 23] wä Eremyas ) [O 24]

Yes Ethiopic (part of Lamentatio Säqoqaw No No No No No No No No No ns (7:1– ä 11,63) Eremyas ) [O 24]

No Yes Baruch (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes [O 25][O 26] Yes ha)

Letter of No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Jeremiah (Apocryp (chapt (part of ha) er 6 of Säqoqaw Baruc ä Eremyas h) ) [O 27][O 24][O 26]

Syriac No (?) Apocalypse – inc. of Baruch No No No No No No Yes (?) No No in (2 some Baruch 1– mss. 77)[O 28]

Letter of Baruch (2 No No No No No No Yes (?) No No Yes (?) Baruch 78– 87)[O 28]

Greek Apocalypse No No of Baruch No No (Greek (Slavon No No No No No No (3 Baruch)[O ms.) ic ms.) 29]

Yes (part of Säqoqaw 4 Baruch No No No No No No No No No ä Eremyas )

Ezekiel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Daniel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Additions to (Apocryp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Daniel [O 30] ha)

Minor prophets

Hosea Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Joel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Amos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Obadiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jonah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Micah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nahum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Habakkuk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Zephaniah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Haggai Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Zechariah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Malachi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table notes[edit]

1. Jump up ^ The term "Protestant" is not accepted by all Christian denominations who often fall under this title by default—especially those who view themselves as a direct extension of the New Testament church. However, the term is used loosely here to include most of the non-Roman Catholic Protestant, Charismatic/Pentecostal, and Evangelical churches. Other western churches and movements that have a divergent history from Roman Catholicism, but are not necessarily considered to be historically Protestant, may also fall under this umbrella terminology.

2. Jump up ^ The growth and development of the Armenian Biblical canon is complex. Extra-canonical Old Testament books appear in historical canon lists and recensions that are either exclusive to this tradition, or where they do exist elsewhere, never achieved the same status. These include the Deaths of the Prophets, an ancient account of the lives of the Old Testament prophets, which is not listed in this table. (It is also known as the .) Another writing not listed in this table entitled the Words of Sirach—which is distinct from Ecclesiasticus and its prologue—appears in the appendix of the 1805 Armenian Zohrab Bible alongside other, more commonly known works. 3. Jump up ^ Adding to the complexity of the Orthodox Tewahedo Biblical canon, the national epic Kebra Negast has an elevated status among many Ethiopian Christians to such an extent that some consider it to be inspired scripture.

4. Jump up ^ The English Apocrypha includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 & 2 Esdras, the Additions to Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the , Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and the . The Lutheran Apocrypha omits from this list 1 & 2 Esdras. Some Protestant Bibles include 3 Maccabees as part of the Apocrypha. However, many churches within —as it is presented here—reject the Apocrypha, do not consider it useful, and do not include it in their Bibles.

5. ^ Jump up to: a b c The Prayer of Manasseh is included as part of the , which follows the Psalms in Eastern Orthodox Bibles. The rest of the Book of Odes consists of passages found elsewhere in the Bible.

6. ^ Jump up to: a b c 2 Ezra, 3 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees are included in Bibles and have an elevated status within the Armenian scriptural tradition, but are considered "extra-canonical."

7. ^ Jump up to: a b In many eastern Bibles, the Apocalypse of Ezra is not an exact match to the longer Latin Esdras— 2 Esdras in KJV or 4 Esdras in the Vulgate—which includes a Latin prologue (5 Ezra) and epilogue (6 Ezra). However, a degree of uncertainty continues to exist here, and it is certainly possible that the full text—including the prologue and epilogue—appears in Bibles and Biblical manuscripts used by some of these eastern traditions. Also of note is the fact that many Latin versions are missing verses 7:36–7:106. (A more complete explanation of the various divisions of books associated with the scribe Ezra may be found in the Wikipedia article entitled "Esdras".)

8. Jump up ^ Evidence strongly suggests that a Greek manuscript of 4 Ezra once existed; this furthermore implies a Hebrew origin for the text.

9. Jump up ^ An early fragment of 6 Ezra is known to exist in the , implying a possible Hebrew origin for 2 Esdras 15–16.

10. Jump up ^ Esther's placement within the canon was questioned by Luther. Others, like Melito, omitted it from the canon altogether.

11. Jump up ^ 3 Maccabees is part of the Moravian Brethren tradition, as it is included in the Apocrypha of the Czech Kralicka Bible. It was also apparently included in some other early Protestant Bibles. (see Metzger's "An Early Protestant Bible Containing The Third Book Of Maccabees")

12. Jump up ^ 2 and 3 Meqabyan, though relatively unrelated in content, are often counted as a single book.

13. Jump up ^ Some sources place Zëna Ayhud within the "narrower canon."

14. ^ Jump up to: a b A Syriac version of Josephus's Jewish War VI appears in some Peshitta manuscripts as the "Fifth Book of Maccabees," which is clearly a misnomer.

15. Jump up ^ Several varying historical canon lists exist for the Orthodox Tewahedo tradition. In one particular list found in a British Museum manuscript (Add. 16188), a book ofAssenath is placed within the canon. This most likely refers to the book more commonly known as Joseph and Asenath. An unknown book of is also listed there, which may be connected to the lost Acts of Uziah referenced in 2 Chronicles 26:22.

16. Jump up ^ Some traditions use an alternative set of liturgical and/or metrical Psalms.

17. Jump up ^ In many ancient manuscripts, a distinct collection known as the is found together with the similar Psalms of Solomon.

18. Jump up ^ The book of Sirach is usually preceded by a non-canonical prologue written by the author's grandson.

19. Jump up ^ In some Latin versions, chapter 51 of Ecclesiasticus appears separately as the "Prayer of Joshua, son of Sirach." 20. Jump up ^ A shorter variant of the prayer by King Solomon in :22–52 appeared in some manuscripts and is found in some Latin Bibles at the end of or immediately following Ecclesiasticus. The two versions of the prayer in Latin may be viewed online for comparison at the following website: BibleGateway.com: Sirach 52 / 1 Kings 8:22–52; Vulgate

21. Jump up ^ The "Martyrdom of Isaiah" is prescribed reading to honor the prophet Isaiah within the Armenian Apostolic liturgy (see this list). While this likely refers to the account of Isaiah's death within the Lives of the Prophets, it may be a reference to the account of his death found within the first five chapters of the , which is widely known by this name. The two narratives have similarities and may share a common source.

22. Jump up ^ The Ascension of Isaiah has long been known to be a part of the Orthodox Tewahedo scriptural tradition. Though it is not currently considered canonical, various sources attest to the early canonicity—or at least "semi-canonicity"—of this book.

23. Jump up ^ In some Latin versions, chapter 5 of Lamentations appears separately as the "Prayer of Jeremiah."

24. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ethiopic Lamentations consists of eleven chapters, parts of which are considered to be non- canonical.

25. Jump up ^ The canonical Ethiopic version of Baruch has five chapters, but is shorter than the LXX text.

26. ^ Jump up to: a b Some Ethiopic translations of Baruch may include the traditional Letter of Jeremiah as the sixth chapter.

27. Jump up ^ The "Letter to the Captives" found within Säqoqawä Eremyas—and also known as the sixth chapter of Ethiopic Lamentations—may contain different content from the Letter of Jeremiah (to those same captives) found in other traditions.

28. ^ Jump up to: a b The Letter of Baruch is found in chapters 78–87 of 2 Baruch—the final ten chapters of the book. The letter had a wider circulation and often appeared separately from the first 77 chapters of the book, which is an apocalypse.

29. Jump up ^ Included here for the purpose of disambiguation, 3 Baruch is widely rejected as a pseudepigraphon and is not part of any Biblical tradition. Two manuscripts exist—a longer Greek manuscript with Christian interpolations and a shorter Slavonic version. There is some uncertainty about which was written first.

30. Jump up ^ Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, & The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children. New Testament[edit] Main article: Development of the New Testament canon Among the various Christian denominations, the New Testament canon is a generally agreed-upon list of 27 books. However, the way in which those books are arranged may vary from tradition to tradition. For instance, in the Lutheran, Slavonic, Orthodox Tewahedo, Syriac, and Armenian traditions, the New Testament is ordered differently from what is considered to be the standard arrangement. Protestant Bibles in Russia and usually follow the local Orthodox order for the New Testament. The Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian both adhere to the Peshitta liturgical tradition, which historically excludes five books of the New Testament Antilegomena: 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. However, those books are included in certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions. Other New Testament works that are generally considered apocryphal nonetheless appear in some Bibles and manuscripts. For instance, the Epistle to the Laodiceans [44] was included in numerous Latin , in the eighteen German Bibles prior to Luther's translation, and also a number of early English Bibles, such as Gundulf's Bible and 's English translation— even as recently as 1728, considered this epistle to be genuinely Pauline. Likewise, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians [45] was once considered to be part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible,[46] but is no longer printed in modern editions. Within the Syriac Orthodox tradition, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians also has a history of significance. Both and Ephraem of held it in high regard and treated it as if it were canonical.[47] However, it was left-out of the Peshitta and ultimately excluded from the canon altogether.

The Didache,[48] The Shepherd of Hermas,[49] and other writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers, were once considered scriptural by various early Church fathers. They are still being honored in some traditions, though they are no longer considered to be canonical. However, certain canonical books within the Orthodox Tewahedo traditions find their origin in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well as the . The Orthodox Tewahedo churches recognize these eight additional New Testament books in its broader canon. They are as follows: the four books of Sinodos, the two books of the , Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Didascalia.[50]

Roman Eastern Armenian Coptic Orthodox Syriac Protestant Books Catholic Orthodox Apostolic Orthodox Tewahedo Christiantradition tradition tradition tradition tradition [N 1] tradition traditions s

Canonical gospels [N 2]

Matthew Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 3]

Mark [N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 3]

Luke Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 3]

John [N 4][N 5] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 3]

Apostolic history

Acts [N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Acts of Paul No No No No (early No No and Thecla (early tradition) [N 6][51][52] tradition)

Pauline epistles

Romans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Corinthians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Corinthians to No − inc. No Pauland No No No in some No No 3 Corinthians (early tradition) [N 6][N 7] mss.

Galatians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ephesians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Philippians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Colossians Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No − inc. No − inc. Laodiceans in some in some No No No No No eds. [N 8] mss.

1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Thessalonians

2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Thessalonians

1 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Timothy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Titus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Philemon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes General epistles

Hebrews Yes[N 9] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

James Yes[N 9] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Peter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 10]

1 John [N 4] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 10]

3 John Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 10]

Jude Yes[N 9] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 10]

Apocalypse [N 11]

Revelation Yes[N 9] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[N 10]

Apostolic Fathers [N 12] and Church Orders [N 13]

No 1 Clement [N 14] (Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus)

No 2 Clement [N 14] (Codices Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus) Shepherd of No Hermas [N 14] (Codex Siniaticus)

Epistle of No Barnabas [N 14] (Codices Hierosolymitanus and Siniaticus)

No Didache [N 14] ()

Yes Ser`atä Seyon No No No No No (broader No (Sinodos) canon)

Yes Te'ezaz No No No No No (broader No (Sinodos) canon)

Yes Gessew No No No No No (broader No (Sinodos) canon)

Yes Abtelis No No No No No (broader No (Sinodos) canon)

Book of the Yes Covenant 1 No No No No No (broader No (Mäshafä canon) Kidan)

Book of the Yes Covenant 2 No No No No No (broader No (Mäshafä canon) Kidan)

Ethiopic Yes Clement No No No No No (broader No (Qälëmentos)[N 15] canon) Ethiopic Yes Didescalia No No No No No (broader No (Didesqelya)[N 15] canon)

Table notes[edit]

1. Jump up ^ The growth and development of the Armenian Biblical canon is complex. Extra-canonical New Testament books appear in historical canon lists and recensions that are either distinct to this tradition, or where they do exist elsewhere, never achieved the same status. Some of the books are not listed in this table. These include the Prayer of Euthalius, the Repose of St. , the , a reading from the Gospel of James, the Second Apostolic Canons, the Words of Justus, Dionysius Aeropagite, the Preaching of Peter, and a Poem by Ghazar. (Various sources also mention undefined Armenian canonical additions to the Gospels of Mark and John, however, these may refer to the general additions—:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 —discussed elsewhere in these notes.) A possible exception here to canonical exclusivity is the Second Apostolic Canons, which share a common source—the Apostolic Constitutions—with certain parts of the Orthodox Tewahedo New Testament broader canon. There is some uncertainty about whether it is actually the Doctrine of Addai, or rather a related work called the Acts of Thaddeus, that appears in Armenian canon lists. Moreover, the correspondence between King Agbar and Jesus Christ, which is found in various forms—including within both the Doctrine of Addai and the Acts of Thaddeus—sometimes appears separately (see this list). It is noteworthy that the Prayer of Euthalius and the Repose of St. John the Evangelist appear in the appendix of the 1805 Armenian Zohrab Bible. However, some of the aforementioned books, though they are found within canon lists, have nonetheless never been discovered to be part of any Armenian .

2. Jump up ^ Though widely regarded as non-canonical, the Gospel of James obtained early liturgical acceptance among some Eastern churches and remains a major source for many of 's traditions related to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d The Diatessaron, 's gospel harmony, became a standard text in some Syriac-speaking churches down to the 5th century, when it gave-way to the four separate gospels found in the Peshitta.

4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Parts of these four books are not found in the most reliable ancient sources; in some cases, are thought to be later additions; and have therefore not historically existed in every Biblical tradition. They are as follows: Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, the Comma Johanneum, and portions of the Western version of Acts. To varying degrees, arguments for the authenticity of these passages—especially for the one from the Gospel of John—have occasionally been made.

5. Jump up ^ Skeireins, a commentary on the Gospel of John in the , was included in the Wulfila Bible. It exists today only in fragments.

6. ^ Jump up to: a b The Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians are all portions of the greater Acts of Paul narrative, which is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in the , but has survived only in fragments. Some of the content within these individual sections may have developed separately, however.

7. Jump up ^ The Third Epistle to the Corinthians often appears with and is framed as a response to the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul.

8. Jump up ^ The Epistle to the Laodiceans is present in some western non-Roman Catholic translations and traditions. Especially of note is John Wycliffe's inclusion of the epistle in his English translation, and the ' use of it to the point where they produced a translation and made pleas for its canonicity ( Poole's Annotations, on Col. 4:16). The epistle is nonetheless widely rejected by the vast majority of Protestants.

9. ^ Jump up to: a b c d These four works were questioned or "spoken against" by Martin Luther, and he changed the order of his New Testament to reflect this, but he did not leave them out, nor has any Lutheran body since. Traditional German Luther Bibles are still printed with the New Testament in this changed "Lutheran" order. The vast majority of Protestants embrace these four works as fully canonical. 10. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e The Peshitta excludes 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions include later translations of those books. Still today, the official lectionary followed by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, present lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions.

11. Jump up ^ The Apocalypse of Peter, though not listed in this table, is mentioned in the Muratorian fragment and is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in the Codex Claromontanus. It was also held in high regard by .

12. Jump up ^ Other known writings of the Apostolic Fathers not listed in this table are as follows: the seven Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, theEpistle to Diognetus, the fragment of Quadratus of Athens, the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis, the Reliques of the Elders Preserved in Irenaeus, and the Apostles' .

13. Jump up ^ Though they are not listed in this table, the Apostolic Constitutions were considered canonical by some including Alexius Aristenus, John of Salisbury, and to a lesser extent,Grigor Tat`evatsi. They are even classified as part of the New Testament canon within the body of the Constitutions itself. Moreover, they are the source for a great deal of the content in the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon.

14. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e These five writings attributed to the Apostolic Fathers are not currently considered canonical in any Biblical tradition, though they are more highly regarded by some more than others. Nonetheless, their early authorship and inclusion in ancient Biblical codices, as well as their acceptance to varying degrees by various early authorities, requires them to be treated as foundational literature for Christianity as a whole.

15. ^ Jump up to: a b Ethiopic Clement and the Ethiopic Didascalia are distinct from and should not be confused with other ecclesiastical documents known in the west by similar names.

Latter Day Saint canons[edit]

A 21st-century artistic representation of the Golden Plates with .

Main article: Revelation (Latter Day Saints) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit] Main article: The standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) consists of several books that constitute its open scriptural canon, and include the following:

 The King James Version of the Bible [53]—without the Apocrypha  The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ

 The of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 The of Great Price The Pearl of Great Price contains five sections: "Selections from the Book of Moses", "The Book of Abraham", "—Matthew", "Joseph Smith—History" and "The Articles of Faith". The Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew are portions of the and the Gospel of Matthew (respectively) from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. (The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is also known as the Inspired Version of the Bible.) The manuscripts of the unfinished Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) state that "the Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture."[54] However, it is still printed in every version of the King James Bible published by the church. The Standard Works are printed and distributed by the LDS church in a single binding called a "Quadruple Combination" or a set of two books, with the Bible in one binding, and the other three books in a second binding called a "Triple Combination". Current editions of the Standard Works include a bible dictionary, photographs, maps and gazetteer, topical guide, index, footnotes, cross references, excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and other study aids. Other Latter Day Saint sects[edit] Canons of various Latter Day Saint denominations diverge from the LDS Standard Works. Some accept only portions of the Standard Works. For instance, theBickertonite sect does not consider the Pearl of Great Price or Doctrines and Covenants to be scriptural. Rather, they believe that the New Testament scriptures contain a true description of the church as established by Jesus Christ, and that both the King James Bible and Book of Mormon are the inspired word of God.[55]Some denominations accept earlier versions of the Standard Works or work to develop corrected translations. Others have purportedly received additional revelation.

The Community of Christ points to Jesus Christ as the living Word of God,[56] and it affirms the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, as well as its own regularly appended version of Doctrines and Covenants as scripture for the church. While it publishes a version of the Joseph Smith Translation —which includes material from the Book of Moses—the Community of Christ also accepts the use of other translations of the Bible, such as the standard King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Like the aforementioned Bickertonites, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) rejects the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, preferring to use only the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon as doctrinal standards. The Book of Commandments is accepted as being superior to the Doctrine and Covenants as a compendium of Joseph Smith's early revelations, but is not accorded the same status as the Bible or Book of Mormon. The Word of the Lord and The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an are two related books considered to be scriptural by certain (Fettingite) factions that separated from the Temple Lot church. Both books contain revelations allegedly given to former Church of Christ (Temple Lot) Apostle Otto Fetting by an angelic being who claimed to be John the Baptist. The latter title (120 messages) contains the entirety of the former's material (30 msgs.) with additional revelations (90 msgs.) purportedly given to William A. Draves by this same being, after Fetting's death. Neither are accepted by the larger Temple Lot body of believers.[57] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) considers the Bible (when correctly translated), the Book of Mormon, and editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published prior to Joseph Smith's death (which contained the Lectures on Faith) to be inspired scripture. They also hold the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to be inspired, but do not believe modern publications of the text are accurate. Other portions of The Pearl of Great Price, however, are not considered to be scriptural—though are not necessarily fully rejected either. The Book of Jasher was consistently used by both Joseph Smith and James Strang, but as with other Latter Day Saint denominations and sects, there is no official stance on its authenticity, and it is not considered canonical.[58] An additional work called The Book of the Law of the Lord is also accepted as inspired scripture by the Strangites. They likewise hold as scriptural several , visions, revelations, and translations printed by James Strang, and published in the Revelations of James J. Strang. Among other things, this text contains his purported "Letter of Appointment" from Joseph Smith and his translation of the Voree plates. The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) accepts the following as scripture: the Inspired Version of the Bible (including the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew), the Book of Mormon, and the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (including the Lectures on Faith). However, the revelation on tithing (section 107 in the 1844 edition; 119 in modern LDS editions) is emphatically rejected by members of this church, as it is not believed to be given by Joseph Smith. The Book of Abraham is rejected as scripture, as are the other portions of the Pearl of Great Price that do not appear in the Inspired Version of the Bible. Many Latter Day Saint denominations have also either adopted the Articles of Faith or at least view them as a statement of basic theology. (They are considered scriptural by the larger LDS church and are included in The Pearl of Great Price.) At times, the Articles have been adapted to fit the respective belief systems of various faith communities.

See also[edit]

Bible portal

Book of Mormon portal

 Book:

 Book: Christianity

 Book: Judaism

 Books of the Bible

 Biblical manuscripts

 Canon (fiction) – a concept inspired by Biblical canon

 List of Old Testament pseudepigrapha

 New Testament apocrypha

 Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible

Footnotes[edit]

1. Jump up ^ McDonald, L. M. & Sanders, J. A., eds. (2002). The Canon Debate. "The Notion and Definition of Canon." pp. 29, 34. (In the article written by Eugene Ulrich, "canon" is defined as follows: "...the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after serious deliberation." It is further defined as follows: "...the definitive, closed list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture.")

2. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, editors of The Canon Debate, 2002, The Notion and Definition of Canon by Eugene Ulrich, page 28: "The term is late and Christian ... though the idea is Jewish"; also from the Introduction on page 13: "We should be clear, however, that the current use of the term "canon" to refer to a collection of scripture books was introduced by David Ruhnken in 1768 in his Historia critica oratorum graecorum for lists of sacred scriptures. While it is tempting to think that such usage has its origins in antiquity in reference to a closed collection of scriptures, such is not the case." The technical discussion includes Athanasius's use of "kanonizomenon=canonized" and Eusebius's use of kanon and "endiathekous biblous=encovenanted books" and the Mishnaic term Sefarim Hizonim (external books).

3. Jump up ^ Athanasius Letter 39.6.3: "Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these."

4. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, page 32–33: Closed list; page 30: "But it is necessary to keep in mind Bruce Metzger's distinction between "a collection of authoritative books" and "an authoritative collection of books."

5. Jump up ^ For the number of books of the Hebrew Bible see: Darshan, G. “The Twenty-Four Books of the Hebrew Bible and Alexandrian Scribal Methods,”, in: M.R. Niehoff (ed.), Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters: Between Literary and Religious Concerns (JSRC 16), Leiden: Brill 2012, pp. 221–244.

6. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, page 4

7. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 60, chapter 4: The Formation of the Hebrew Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case by Joseph Blenkinsopp.

8. Jump up ^ Philip R. Davies in The Canon Debate, page 50: "With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty."

9. Jump up ^ Because of the lack of solid information on this subject, the exclusion of Lamentations from the Ethiopian Jewish canon is not a certainty. Furthermore, some uncertainty remains concerning the exclusion of various smaller deuterocanonical writings from this canon including the Prayer of Manasseh, the traditional additions to Esther, the traditional additions to Daniel, Psalm 151, and portions of Säqoqawä Eremyas.

10. Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Samaritans

11. Jump up ^ The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 6: Questions of Canon through the Dead Sea Scrolls by James C. VanderKam, page 94, citing private communication with Emanuel Tov on biblical manuscripts: Qumran scribe type c.25%, proto-Masoretic Text c. 40%, pre-Samaritan texts c.5%, texts close to the Hebrew model for the Septuagint c.5% and nonaligned c.25%. 12. Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Sadducees: "With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently identified (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio Hæresium," ix. 29; Epiphanius, l.c. xiv.; and other Church Fathers, who ascribe to the Sadducees the rejection of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; comp. also Sanh. 90b, where "ZẒaddukẒim" stands for "Kutim" [Samaritans]; , Num. 112; Geiger, l.c. pp. 128–129), and by the Karaites (see , commentary on Ab. i. 3; Geiger, "Gesammelte Schriften," iii. 283–321; also Anan ben David; Karaites)."

13. Jump up ^ Samaritan Documents, Relating To Their History, Religion and Life, translated and edited by John Bowman, Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series Number 2, 1977.

14. Jump up ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com – SAMARITANS

15. Jump up ^ Crown, Alan D. (October 1991). "The Abisha Scroll – 3,000 Years Old?" in Bible Review.

16. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders's 2002 The Canon Debate, page 259: "the so-called Septuagint was not in itself formally closed." — attributed to Albert Sundberg's 1964 Harvard dissertation.

17. Jump up ^ Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3.

18. Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger's The canon of the New Testament, 1997, Oxford University Press, page 98: "The question whether the Church's canon preceded or followed Marcion's canon continues to be debated. ...Harnack...John Knox..."

19. ^ Jump up to: a b von Harnack, Adolf (1914). Origin of the New Testament.

20. Jump up ^ (Adv. Haer., iii. x. 8 & 9) Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301; cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.11.8

21. Jump up ^ Both points taken from Mark A. Noll's Turning Points, (Baker Academic, 1997) pp 36–37

22. Jump up ^ H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003) p. 315

23. Jump up ^ The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 308

24. Jump up ^ Prat, Ferdinand. "Origen and Origenism" The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 31 July 2008According to Eusebius' Church History 6.25: a 22 book OT [though Eusebius doesn't name Minor Prophets, presumably just an oversight?] + 1 DeuteroCanon ["And outside these are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sar beth sabanai el."] + 4 Gospels but on the Apostle "Paul ... did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines."

25. Jump up ^ Bruce Manning Metzger, "The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance", p. 141

26. ^ Jump up to: a b Lindberg, Carter (2006). A Brief History of Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 1-4051-1078-3.

27. Jump up ^ David Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty Ninth Festal Letter," in Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) pp. 395–419

28. Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 29. Jump up ^ McDonald & Sanders' The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19: "Revelationwas added later in 419 at the subsequent synod of Carthage."

30. Jump up ^ Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 230; cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 22.8

31. Jump up ^ F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 234

32. Jump up ^ F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 225

33. Jump up ^ Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) p. 320; Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) pp. 237–238; F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 97

34. Jump up ^ F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 215

35. Jump up ^ The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 305; cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia,Canon of the New Testament

36. Jump up ^ http://www.bibelcenter.de/bibel/lu1545/; see also http://www.bible-researcher.com/links10.html

37. Jump up ^ http://www.bibelcenter.de/bibel/lu1545/[dead link] note order: ... Hebräer, Jakobus, Judas, Offenbarung; see also http://www.bible-researcher.com/links10.html

38. Jump up ^ While Melito did not include the Hebrew book of Esther in his canon, Protestants accept it as fully canonical. It appears in every modern version of the Old Testament.

39. Jump up ^ Just, Felix, S.J. Ph.D. 2006. "The New Teatament Canon." Available online athttp://catholic- resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm#Canonicity <3 February 2012>

40. Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament

41. Jump up ^ Josephus's The Jewish War and are highly regarded by Christians because they provide valuable insight into 1st century Judaism and early Christianity. Moreover, in Antiquities, Josephus made two extra-Biblical references to Jesus, which have played a crucial role in establishing him as a historical figure.

42. Jump up ^ The Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon in its fullest form—which includes the narrower canon in its entirety, as well as nine additional books—is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in Ethiopia. While the narrower canon has indeed been published as one compilation, there may be no real emic distinction between the broader canon and the narrower canon, especially in so far as divine inspiration and scriptural authority are concerned. The idea of two such classifications may be nothing more than etictaxonomic conjecture.

43. Jump up ^ Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. 2003. "The Bible." Online athttp://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html <20 January 2012>

44. Jump up ^ A translation of the Epistle to the Laodiceans can be accessed online athttp://sacred- texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob12.htm <25 January 2012>

45. Jump up ^ The Third Epistle to the Corinthians can be found as a section within the Acts of Paul, which has survived only in fragments. A translation of the entire remaining Acts of Paul can be accessed online athttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html <26 January 2012>

46. Jump up ^ Saifullah, M.S.M. 2006. "Canons & Recensions of the Armenian Bible." Online athttp://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/armenianlist.html <25 January 2012> 47. Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce M. Canon of the New Testament. pp 219, 223; cf. 7, 176, 182. Cited in McDonald & Sanders, eds. 2002. The Canon Debate. p 492.

48. Jump up ^ Various translations of the Didache can be accessed online athttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html <26 January 2012>

49. Jump up ^ A translation of the Shepherd of Hermas can be accessed online at http://sacred- texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob26.htm <25 January 2012>

50. Jump up ^ Cowley, R.W. 1974. "The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today" in Ostkirchliche Studien, Volume 23, pp. 318–323. Online athttp://www.islamic- awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html <20 January 2012>

51. Jump up ^ Burris, Catherine and Van Rompay, Lucas. 2002. "Thecla in : Preliminary Observations" in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2. Available online athttp://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No2/HV5N2BurrisVanRompay.html <7 February 2012>

52. Jump up ^ Carter, Nancy A. 2000. "The Acts of Thecla: A Pauline Tradition Linked to Women." Available online at https://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/theclabackground.stm <7 February 2012>

53. Jump up ^ The LDS Church uses the King James Version (KJV) in English-speaking countries; other versions are used in non-English speaking countries.

54. Jump up ^ LDS Church, Bible Dictionary p.776, Song of Solomon

55. Jump up ^ Lovalvo, V James (1986). Dissertation on the Faith and Doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ (PDF). Bridgewater, MI: The Church of Jesus Christ. pp. 115–16.

56. Jump up ^ Community of Christ Theology Task Force, Scripture in the Community of Christ,Saints Herald, August 2006, p. 15.

57. Jump up ^ A Synopsis of the Church of Christ Beliefs and Practices as Compared to Other Latter Day Saint Churches, by Apostle William Sheldon. Refers to the Bible and Book of Mormon as "the only safe standards".

58. Jump up ^ "Strangite Scriptures." Retrieved 3 March 2012.

References[edit]

 Anchor Bible Dictionary

 Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Press

 Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes, ISBN 978-0-8010-5676-5

 Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Oxford

 Beckwith, R.T. OT Canon of the NT Church ISBN 978-0-8028-3617-5

 Brakke, David. "Canon formation and social conflict in fourth century Egypt," in Harvard Theological Review 87:4 (1994) pp. 395–419. Athanasius' role in the formation of the N.T. canon.

 Bruce, F.F., Canon of Scripture ISBN 978-0-8308-1258-5  Davis, L.D. First Seven Ecumenical Councils ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7

 Ferguson Encyclopedia of Early Christianity

 Fox, Robin Lane. The Unauthorized Version. 1992.

 Gamble. NT Canon ISBN 1-57910-909-8

 Hennecke-Schneemelcher. NT Apocrypha

 Jurgens, W.A. Faith of the Early Fathers ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7

 Metzger, Bruce. Canon of the NT ISBN 978-0-19-826180-3

 Noll, Mark A. Turning Points. Baker Academic, 1997. ISBN 978-0-8010-6211-7

 John Salza, Scripture Catholic, Septuagint references

 Sundberg. OT of the Early Church Harvard Press 1964

Further reading[edit]

 Barnstone, Willis (ed.) The Other Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures. HarperCollins, 1984, ISBN 978-0-7394-8434-0.

 Childs, Brevard S., The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction ISBN 0-334-02212-6

 Gamble, Harry Y., The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning ISBN 0-8006-0470-9

 McDonald, Lee Martin, Forgotten Scriptures. The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings, 2009, ISBN 978-0-664-23357-0

 McDonald, Lee Martin, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon ISBN 0-687-13293-2

 McDonald, Lee Martin, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature ISBN 1-56563-266-4

 McDonald, Lee Martin, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority ISBN 978- 1-56563-925-6

 McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders (eds.) The Canon Debate ISBN 1-56563-517- 5

 Metzger, Bruce Manning, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance ISBN 0-19-826180-2

 Souter, Alexander, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, 2nd. ed., Studies in theology; no. 25. London: Duckworth (1954)  Stonehouse, Ned Bernhard, The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of the New Testament Canon, 1929

 Taussig, Hal A New New Testament: A Bible for the 21st Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts, 2013

 Wall, Robert W., The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism ISBN 1- 85075-374-1

 Westcott, Brooke Foss, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 4th. ed, London: Macmillan (1875)

External links[edit]

 The Canon of Scripture — contains multiple links and articles

 The Canons of the Old Testament and New Testament Through the Ages

 Cross Wire

 Old Testament Reading Room and New Testament Reading Room – extensive links to online resources for OT and NT theology and history (Tyndale Seminary)

 The Development of the Canon of the New Testament – includes very detailed charts and direct links to ancient witnesses

 Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the New Testament

 Scholarly articles on the Protestant Biblical Canon from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library

 Jewish Encyclopedia: Bible Canon

 What's in Your Bible? – a chart comparing Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Protestant canons (Bible Study Magazine, November–December 2008.)

 Analysis of canonical issues in Paratext, by Neil Rees, BFBS Linguistic Computing (British and Foreign Bible Society)

 Online Latter Day Saint scripture:

 The Standard Works (LDS Church)

 Lectures on Faith (1844 edition of Doctrine and Covenants)

 The Book of the Law of the Lord (Strangite)  The Revelations of James Strang (Strangite)

 The Word of the Lord (Brought to Mankind by an Angel) (Fettingite/ Message)

 Biblical Canon of the Orthodox Christian Church

Authorship of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on the

Bible Canons and books

[show]

Authorship and development

[hide]

 Authorship  Hebrew canon

 Old Testament canon

 New Testament canon

 Pauline epistles  Petrine epistles

 Johannine works

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [show]

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[show]

Bible book Bible portal

 V

 T  E

Few biblical books are regarded by scholars as the product of a single individual; all the books of the Hebrew Biblehave been edited and revised to produce the work known today.[1] The following article outlines the conclusions of the majority of contemporary scholars, along with the traditional views, both Jewish and Christian.

Contents

[hide]

 1 Divine authorship

 2 Hebrew Bible

o 2.1 Torah

. 2.1.1 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers

. 2.1.2 Deuteronomy

o 2.2 Prophets

. 2.2.1 Former prophets

. 2.2.2 Latter prophets

. 2.2.2.1 Isaiah

. 2.2.2.2 Jeremiah

. 2.2.2.3 Ezekiel

. 2.2.2.4 Minor Prophets or Book of the Twelve

o 2.3 Writings

. 2.3.1 Psalms

. 2.3.2 Job

. 2.3.3 Proverbs

. 2.3.4 Ruth

. 2.3.5 Song of Songs (Song of Solomon)

. 2.3.6 Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes . 2.3.7 Lamentations

. 2.3.8 Esther

. 2.3.9 Daniel

. 2.3.10 Ezra-Nehemiah

. 2.3.11 Chronicles

 3 Deuterocanonicals/Biblical Apocrypha

o 3.1 Additions to Daniel

o 3.2 1 & 2 Esdras

o 3.3 Book of Baruch

o 3.4 1, 2, 3 & 4 Maccabees

o 3.5 Letter of Jeremiah

o 3.6 Prayer of Manasseh

o 3.7 Wisdom of Sirach and the Book of Wisdom

o 3.8 Additions to Esther

o 3.9 Tobit

o 3.10 Judith

o 3.11 Additional Psalms

 4 New Testament

o 4.1 Gospels and Acts

. 4.1.1 Mark

. 4.1.2 Matthew

. 4.1.3 Luke and Acts

. 4.1.4 John

o 4.2 Epistles

. 4.2.1 Pauline epistles

. 4.2.2 Letter to the Hebrews . 4.2.3 General epistles

o 4.3 Revelation

 5 See also

 6 References

o 6.1 Citations

o 6.2 Sources

 7 Further reading

Divine authorship[edit]

See also: and Prophet

Jews, Samaritans, and Christians have, in different ways, regarded the Bible as being the "Word of God", or as having been authored by the Jewish/Christian God. In many Christian liturgies, the words "This is the word of the Lord" will follow a Scripture reading. As Saint stated, "The author of Holy Scripture is God".[2] Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) asserts that the Bible's authority depends "wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God".[3]

A few of the books of the Minor Prophets claim divine origin, as well as the book's transmission through a human prophet. Hosea 1:1 has (possibly as a heading), "The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of ...", while Joel, Micah and Zephaniah all commence in a similar fashion. James L. Mays suggests that it was the theological understanding of the final redactor that the book as a whole is the "word of ".[4]

There is some debate as to how the word of God may have been transmitted to the authors. The usual position held in modern Christian theology is that the word was inspired by God, while there are some[who?] who believe that God verbally dictated the word to those who recorded it (this being the position held by Orthodox Jews regarding the Torah, the holiest part of the Jewish Bible).

Many evangelicals in particular appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 as indicating the Bible's divine authorship. In the ESV translation, this reads "All Scripture is breathed out by God...", while the NIV renders it "All Scripture is God-breathed..." Robert L. Reymond argues that Paul was "asserting the divine origin of the entirety of Scripture",[5] although Paul was specifically referring to the Old Testament.

Hebrew Bible[edit]

The Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, is the collection of scriptures making up the Bible used by Judaism. The order used here follows the divisions used in Jewish Bibles. Torah[edit]

Main articles: Torah § Composition and

A Sefer Torah

The first division of the Jewish Bible is the Torah, meaning "Instruction" or "Law"; in scholarly literature it is frequently called by its Greek name, the Pentateuch ("five scrolls"). It is the group of five books made up of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy and stands first in all versions of the Christian Old Testament.

According to Rabbinic tradition the five books of the Torah were written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.[6] Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[7]

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers[edit]

From the late 19th century there was a general consensus among scholars around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the first four books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as theJahwist, the , the , and the .[8] This approach has since seen various revisions,[9] yet while the identification of distinctive Deuteronomistic and Priestly and vocabularies remains widespread, they are used to form new approaches suggesting that the books were combined gradually over time by the slow accumulation of "fragments" of text, or that a basic text was "supplemented" by later authors/editors.[10] At the same time there has been a tendency to bring the origins of the Pentateuch further forward in time, and the most recent proposals place it in 5th century under the Persian empire.[11]

Deuteronomy[edit] See also: Deuteronomist § Deuteronomistic history

Deuteronomy is treated separately from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Its place in the documentary hypothesis is anomalous, as it, unlike the other four, consists of a single "source". The process of its formation probably took several hundred years, from the 8th century to the 6th,[12] and its authors have been variously identified as prophetic circles (because the concerns of Deuteronomy mirror those of the prophets, especially Hosea), Levitical priestly circles (because it stresses the role of the ), and wisdom and scribal circles (because it esteems wisdom, and because the treaty-form in which it is written would be best known to scribes).[13] Deuteronomy was later used as the introduction to the comprehensive written in the early part of the 6th century, and later still it was detached from the history and used to round off the Pentateuch.[14]

Prophets[edit]

Main article: Nevi'im

Former prophets[edit] See also: Book of Joshua § Composition, § Composition, § Composition and § Composition

make up the first part of the second ,([נביאים ראשונים] The Former Prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim division of the Hebrew Bible, the Nevi'im, which translates as "Prophets". In Christian Bibles the , which belongs in the final section of the Hebrew Bible, is inserted between Judges and Samuel.

According to Jewish tradition dating from at least the 2nd century CE, the Book of Joshua was by Joshua, the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel were by the prophet Samuel (with some passages by the prophets Gad and Nathan), while the two Books of Kings were by Jeremiah. [15] Since 1943 most scholars have accepted 's argument that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings make up a single work, the so-called "Deuteronomistic history."[16] Noth believed that the history was the work of a single author writing in the time of the Babylonian exile (586–539 BCE). This author/editor took as his starting point an early version of the book of Deuteronomy, which had already been composed during the reign of (last quarter of the 7th century), selecting, editing and composing it to produce a coherent work.[17] Frank Moore Cross later proposed that an earlier version of the history was composed in Jerusalem in Josiah's time; this first version, Dtr1, was then revised and expanded to create Noth's second edition, or Dtr2. Still later scholars have discovered further layers and further author-editors.[18] In the 1990s some scholars began to question the existence of a Deuteronomistic history[19] and the question of the origin of these books continues to be debated.[20] Latter prophets[edit]

A fragment of the found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Isaiah[edit]

Main article: Book of Isaiah § Composition

Modern scholars divide the Book of Isaiah into three parts, each with a different origin:[21] "First Isaiah", chapters 1–39, containing the words of the historical 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah and later expansions by his disciples;[22] "Deutero-Isaiah" (chapters 40–55), by an anonymous Jewish author in Babylon near the end of the ;[21]:418 and"Trito-Isaiah" (chapters 56–66), by anonymous disciples of Deutero-Isaiah in Jerusalem immediately after the return from Babylon[21]:444 (although some scholars suggest that chapters 55–66 were written by Deutero-Isaiah after the .)[23] This orderly sequence of pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic material is somewhat misleading, as significant editing has clearly taken place in all three parts.[24]

Jeremiah[edit]

Main article: § Composition

Jeremiah lived in the late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. The Book of Jeremiah presents Baruch ben Neriah as the prophet's companion who writes his words on several occasions, and there has accordingly been much speculation that Baruch could have composed an early edition of the book. [25] In the early 20th century Sigmund Mowinckel identified three types of material in the book, –25 (Type A) being the words of Jeremiah himself, the biographic prose material (Type B) by an admirer writing c.580–480 BCE, and the remainder (Type C) from later periods.[26] There has been considerable debate over Mowinckel's ideas, notably the extent of the Jeremiah material and the role of Baruch, who may have been the author of the Type B material.[26] It is generally agreed that the book has strong connections with theDeuteronomistic layers from the Former Prophets, recapitulating in modern terms the traditional idea that Jeremiah wrote both his own book and the Books of Kings.[27] Ezekiel[edit]

Main article: § Composition

The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571 BCE.[28] The various manuscripts, however, differ markedly from each other, and it is clear that the book has been subjected to extensive editing.[29] While Ezekiel himself may have been responsible for some of this revision, there is general agreement that the book as we have it today is the product of a highly educated priestly circle that owed allegiance to the historical Ezekiel and was closely associated with the Temple.[30]

Minor Prophets or Book of the Twelve[edit]

See also: , , , , , , , , ,, and

The Minor Prophets are one book in the Hebrew Bible, and many (though not all) modern scholars agree that the Book of the Twelve underwent a process of editing which resulted in a coherent collection.[31] This process is believed to have reached its final form in the Persian period (538 BCE– 332 BCE), although there is disagreement over whether this was early or late.[32] For the individual books, scholars usually assume that there exists an original core of prophetic tradition which can be attributed to the figure after whom the book is named.[33] The noteworthy exception is the Book of Jonah, an anonymous work containing no prophetic oracles, probably composed in the (332 BCE–167 BCE).[34]

Writings[edit]

Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the land of by William Blake, 1795

See also: Ketuvim

Psalms[edit] Main article: Psalms § Authorship and ascriptions

While a number of the Psalms bear headings which seem to identify their authors, these are probably the result of the need to find a significant identification in tradition.[35] The individual psalms come from widely different periods: "some ... presuppose a reigning king and an established cult in the Temple; others clearly presuppose and mention the events of the Exile."[36]

Job[edit] Main article: § Origin and textual history

The unknown author of the Book of Job is unlikely to have written earlier than the 6th century BCE, and the cumulative evidence suggests a post-Exilic date.[37] It contains some 1,000 lines, of which about 750 form the original core.[38]

Proverbs[edit] Main article: Book of Proverbs § Authorship

The Book of Proverbs consists of several collections taken from various sources.[39] Verses 10:1– 22:16 are probably the oldest section, with chapters 1–9 being composed as a prologue – there is some question whether this happened before or after the Exile (587 BCE). The remaining collections are probably later, with the book reaching its final form around the 3rd century BCE.[40]

Ruth[edit] Main article: Book of Ruth § Authorship and date

The Talmud refers to Samuel as the author of Ruth, but this conflicts with several details inside the book.[41] It has been proposed that the anonymous author was a woman, or if a man then one who took women's issues seriously.[42] The book is largely a unity, although the genealogy of David appears to be a later addition.[43]

Song of Songs (Song of Solomon)[edit] Main article: Song of Songs § Authorship

The Song of Songs was traditionally attributed to Solomon, but modern scholars date it around the 3rd century BCE.[44] Scholars still debate whether it is a single unified work (and therefore from a single author), or more in the nature of an anthology.[45]

Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes[edit] Main article: Book of Ecclesiastes § Authorship and historical context

The Book of Ecclesiastes is usually dated to the mid-3rd century BCE. A provenance in Jerusalem is considered likely. The book's claim of Solomon as author is a literary fiction; the author also identifies himself as "Qoheleth", a word of obscure meaning which critics have understood variously as a personal name, a nom de plume, an acronym, and a function; a final self-identification is as "shepherd", a title usually implying royalty.[46]

Lamentations[edit] Main article: Book of Lamentations § Authorship Lamentations is assigned by tradition to the Prophet Jeremiah; linguistic and theological evidence point to its origin as a distinct book in the 3rd or 2nd century BCE, with the contents having their origin in special mourning observances in Exilic and post-Exilic Jewish communities.[47]

Esther[edit] Main article: Book of Esther § Authorship and date

The Book of Esther was composed in the late 4th or early 3rd century BCE among the Jews of the eastern diaspora. The genre of the book is the novella or short story, and it draws on the themes of ; its sources are still unresolved.[48]

Daniel[edit] Main article: § Dating and content

The Book of Daniel presents itself as the work of a prophet named Daniel who lived during the 6th century BCE; the overwhelming majority of modern scholars date it to the 2nd century BCE.[49] The author, writing in the time of the Maccabees to assure his fellow-Jews that their persecution by the Syrians would come to an end and see them victorious, seems to have constructed his book around the legendary Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel, a figure ranked with and Job for his wisdom and righteousness.[50]

Ezra-Nehemiah[edit] Main articles: § Structure, composition and date and Book of Nehemiah § Composition and date

The Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah were originally one work, Ezra-Nehemiah. H.G.M Williamson (1987) proposed three basic stages leading to the final work: (1) composition of the various lists and Persian documents, which he accepts as authentic and therefore the earliest parts of the book; (2) composition of the "Ezra memoir" and "Nehemiah memoir", about 400 BCE; and (3) composition of Ezra 1–6 as the final editor's introduction to the combined earlier texts, about 300 BCE.[51] Lester Grabbe (2003) puts the combination of the two texts Ezra and Nehemiah, with some final editing, somewhat later, in the Ptolemaic period, c.300–200 BCE.[52]

Chronicles[edit] Main article: Book of Chronicles § Authorship and composition

Chronicles is an anonymous work from Levitical circles in Jerusalem, probably composed in the late 4th century BCE.[53] Although the book is divided into two parts (1st and 2nd Chronicles), the majority of studies propose a single underlying text with lengthy later additions and amendments to underline certain interests such as the cult or the priesthood.[54]

Deuterocanonicals/Biblical Apocrypha[edit] Tobias, Raphael and the fish (Pieter Lastman: illustration to the Book of Tobias

See also: Development of the Old Testament canon, Deuterocanonical books and Biblical Apocrypha

Additions to Daniel[edit]

Main article: Prayer of Azariah § Texts and Origin

The Greek text of the Book of Daniel contains additions not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic version. All are anonymous. ThePrayer of Azariah (one of Daniel's companions) was probably composed around 169/8-165/4, when Antiochus IV was oppressing the Jews. The Song of the Three Holy Children (i.e., the three thrown into the furnace) may have been composed by priestly circles in Jerusalem. Susanna may have been composed around 170–130 BCE in the context of the Hellenisation struggle. Bel and the Dragon is difficult to date, but the late 6th century is possible.[55]

1 & 2 Esdras[edit]

Main articles: 1 Esdras § Author and criticism and 2 Esdras § Author and criticism

Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) contained four books of Esdras (i.e. Ezra); Jerome's 1 and 2 Esdras were eventually renamed Ezra andNehemiah; the remaining books each moved up two places in most versions, but the numbering system remains highly confused. The present 1 Esdras takes material from the Book of Chronicles and the Book of Ezra, but ignores Nehemiah entirely; it was probably composed in the period 200–100 BCE.[56] 2 Esdras has no connection with the other Esdras books beyond taking Ezra as its central character. It was probably written soon after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE.

Book of Baruch[edit]

The author of the Book of Baruch is traditionally held to be Baruch the companion of Jeremiah, but this is considered unlikely. Some scholars propose that it was written during or shortly after the period of the Maccabees.[57]

1, 2, 3 & 4 Maccabees[edit] Main articles: 1 Maccabees § Transmission.2C language and author, 2 Maccabees § Author, 3 Maccabees § Authorship and historicity and 4 Maccabees § Authorship and criticism

The anonymous author of 1 Maccabees was an educated Jew and a serious historian; a date around 100 BCE is most likely.[58] 2 Maccabees is a revised and condensed version of a work by an otherwise unknown author called Jason of Cyrene, plus passages by the anonymous editor who made the condensation (called "the Epitomist"). Jason most probably wrote in the mid to late 2nd century BCE, and the Epitomist before 63 BCE.[59] 3 Maccabees concerns itself with the Jewish community in Egypt a half-century before the revolt, suggesting that the author was an Egyptian Jew, and probably a native of Alexandria. A date of c.100–75 BCE is "very probable".[60] 4 Maccabees was probably composed in the middle half of the 1st century CE, by a Jew living in Syria or Asia Minor.[61]

Letter of Jeremiah[edit]

Main article: Letter of Jeremiah § Author

The Letter of Jeremiah is not by Jeremiah; the author apparently appropriated the name of the prophet to lend authority to his composition. Nor is it by Jeremiah's secretary Baruch, although it appears as the last chapter of Baruch in the and the KJV. Internal evidence points to a date around 317 BCE, with the author possibly a Jew in Palestine addressing Jews of the diaspora.[62]

Prayer of Manasseh[edit]

The Prayer of Manasseh presents itself as a prayer from the wicked, but now penitent, king Manasseh (or Manassas) from his exile in Babylon. The actual author is unknown, and the date of composition is probably the 2nd or 1st centuries BCE.[63]

Wisdom of Sirach and the Book of Wisdom[edit]

Main articles: Wisdom of Sirach § Author and Book of Wisdom § Date and authorship

Sirach names its author as Jesus ben Sirach. He was probably a scribe, offering instruction to the youth of Jerusalem. His grandson's preface to the Greek translation helps date the work to the first quarter of the 2nd century BCE, probably between 196 BCE and the beginning of the oppression of the Jews by Antiochus IV, who reigned 175–164 BCE.[64] The Wisdom of Solomon is unlikely to be earlier than the 2nd century BCE, and probably dates from 100–50 BCE. Its self-attribution to Solomon was questioned even in the medieval period, and it shows affinities with the Egyptian Jewish community and with Pharisee teachings.[65]

Additions to Esther[edit]

Main article: Book of Esther § Additions to Esther The Book of Esther itself was composed probably around 400 BCE by Jews living in the eastern provinces of the Persian empire and reached its final form by the 2nd century BCE; concerns over the legitimacy of certain passages in the Hebrew text led to the identification of the additions to Esther in the Greek translation of Esther of the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE.[66]

Tobit[edit]

Main article: § Date of composition

Tobit is set in the 8th century BCE and is named after its central character, a pious Jew in exile. The generally recognised date of composition is the early 2nd century BCE.[67]

Judith[edit]

The is set in Israel in the time of Nebuchadrezzar, king of . It has strong Persian elements, which suggests a 4th-century BCE date; it also has strong parallels with the Hasmonean period, which suggests a 2nd-century date. It is typically labeled Pharisaic, but an origin in Sadducee circles has also been suggested.[68]

Additional Psalms[edit]

Main article: Psalms § Other psalms

The canonical Psalms contains 150 entries. Psalm 151 is found in most Greek translations, and the Hebrew version was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. [69] Psalms 152–155 are part of the Syriac Peshitta Bible, some of which were found at Qumran.

New Testament[edit] De evangelist Matteüs en de engelby Rembrandt

See also: Development of the New Testament canon

Gospels and Acts[edit]

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[70] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.[72][73][74][75][76]

Mark[edit]

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author is , the companion of the apostle Peter.[77]The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[78] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.[79]

Matthew[edit]

Early held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[80] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness. [81] Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus.[82] Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings.[83] Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[84] and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE[85] using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.[86]

Luke and Acts[edit] Main article: Authorship of Luke-Acts There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named .[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[88]

According to tradition the author was , the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided. [89] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[90]

John[edit]

John 21:24 identifies the author of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of . [91] Today, however, most scholars agree that is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31.[92] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,[70][93] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.[94]

Epistles[edit]

Pauline epistles[edit] Main article: Authorship of the Pauline epistles

Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th-century painting. Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary, for example Romans 16:22 cites a scribe named Tertius. The , First Corinthians and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and theEpistle to Philemon are almost universally accepted as the work of Paul – the superscripts to all except Romans and Galatians identify these as coming from Paul and at least one other person, a practice which was not usual in letters of the period, and it is not clear what role these other persons had in their composition.[95] There is some support for Paul's authorship of the three "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. The threePastoral epistles – First and Second Timothy and Titus, are probably from the same author,[95] but most historical-critical scholars regard them as the work of someone other than Paul.[96][97]

Letter to the Hebrews[edit]

The Church included the Letter to the Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul until the . Pauline authorship is now generally rejected, and the real author is unknown.[98]

General epistles[edit] See also: , , , , , and

The traditional authors are: Peter the apostle (First and Second Peter); the author of the Gospel of John (First, Second and Third John), writing in advanced age; "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James" (Epistle of Jude); and James the Just, "a and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James). In fact 1 John is anonymous, and 2 and 3 John identify their author only as "the ." Though 2 Peter states its author as "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ", most scholars today regard this as pseudonymous, and many hold the same opinion of James, 1 Peter and Jude.[95]

Revelation[edit]

Main article: Book of Revelation § Authorship

The author of the Book of Revelation was traditionally believed to be the same person as both John, the apostle of Jesus and John the Evangelist, the traditional author of the Fourth Gospel – the tradition can be traced to Justin Martyr, writing in the early 2nd century.[99] Most biblical scholars now believe that these were separate individuals.[100][101] The name "John" suggests that the author was a Christian of Jewish descent, and although he never explicitly identifies himself as a prophet it is likely that he belonged to a group of Christian prophets and was known as such to members of the churches in Asia Minor. Since the 2nd century the author has been identified with one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. This is commonly linked with an assumption that the same author wrote the Gospel of John. Others, however, have argued that the author could have been John the Elder of , a view which depends on whether a tradition cited by Eusebius was referring to someone other than the apostle. The precise identity of "John" therefore remains unknown.[102]

See also[edit] Bible portal

 Authorship of the Johannine works

 Authorship of the Petrine epistles

 Biblical inspiration

 Books of the Bible

 Dating the Bible

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

1. Jump up ^ Rabin 2006, p. 113

2. Jump up ^ "Quod auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus". Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Article 10.

3. Jump up ^ Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Paragraph iv.

4. Jump up ^ Mays, James L. (1969). Hosea. p. 20.

5. Jump up ^ Reymond, Robert L. (1998). A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. p. 36.

6. Jump up ^ Jacobs 1995, p. 375

7. Jump up ^ McDermott, John J., "Reading the Pentateuch: a historical introduction" (Pauline Press, 2002)p.21. Google Books. October 2002. ISBN 978-0-8091-4082-4. Retrieved 3 October 2010.

8. Jump up ^ Gordon Wenham, "Pentateuchal Studies Today," in Themelios 22.1 (October 1996): 3–13.

9. Jump up ^ Van Seters (1997), p.16

10. Jump up ^ Van Seters (2004), pp.74–79

11. Jump up ^ Ska, Jean-Louis, "Introduction to reading the Pentateuch" (Eisenbrauns, 2006)pp.217 ff.

12. Jump up ^ Miller, Patrick D., Deuteronomy (John Knox Press, 1990) pp.2–3.

13. Jump up ^ Miller, Patrick D., "Deuteronomy" (John Knox Press, 1990) pp.5–8

14. Jump up ^ Van Seters, John (23 August 2004). The Pentateuch: A Social-science Commentary. T&T Clark. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-567-08088-2. Retrieved 3 October2010.

15. Jump up ^ Graham, M.P, and McKenzie, Steven L., "The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) p.57 16. Jump up ^ Knoppers, Gary, and McConville, J. Gordon, (eds), "Reconsidering Israel and Judah: recent studies on the Deuteronomistic history" (Eisenbrauns, 2000)

17. Jump up ^ Garry Knoppers, Is There a Future for the Deuteronomistic History? , in Romer, Thomas, "The Future of the Deuteronomistic History" (Leuven University Press, 2000), p.119

18. Jump up ^ Eynikel, Erik, "The reform of King Josiah and the composition of the Deuteronomistic history" (Brill, 1996) pp.14ff

19. Jump up ^ Eynikel, Erik, "The reform of King Josiah and the composition of the Deuteronomistic history" (Brill, 1996) p.14ff

20. Jump up ^ Romer, Thomas, "The Future of the Deuteronomistic History" (Leuven University Press, 2000) pp.120ff

21. ^ Jump up to: a b c Boadt, Lawrence (1984). Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction.ISBN 978-0-8091- 2631-6.

22. Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Book of Isaiah". United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved 29 April 2007.

23. Jump up ^ Kugel, p. 561

24. Jump up ^ Blenkinsopp, Joseph, "A history of in Israel" (Westminster John Knox, 1996) p.183

25. Jump up ^ Graham, M.P, and McKenzie, Steven L., "The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) p.83

26. ^ Jump up to: a b Mangano, Mark, (ed) "Old Testament Introduction" (College Press, 2005)p.471

27. Jump up ^ Graham, M.P, and McKenzie, Steven L., "The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) p.85

28. Jump up ^ Joseph Blenkinsopp, "A History of Prophecy in Israel" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) p.167

29. Jump up ^ Joseph Blenkinsopp, "A History of Prophecy in Israel" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) p.166

30. Jump up ^ Joseph Blenkinsopp, "A History of Prophecy in Israel" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) pp.167–168

31. Jump up ^ Redditt, Paul L., and Schart , Aaron (eds) "Thematic threads in the Book of the Twelve" (Walter de Gruyter, 2003) pp.1–3

32. Jump up ^ Redditt, Paul L., and Schart , Aaron (eds) "Thematic threads in the Book of the Twelve" (Walter de Gruyter, 2003) p.9

33. Jump up ^ Floyd, Michael H., "Minor prophets, Part 2" (Eerdmans) p.9

34. Jump up ^ Dell, Katharine M., Reinventing the Wheel: The Shaping of the Book of Jonah , in , David James Reimer, "After the exile: essays in honour of Rex Mason" (Mercer University Press) pp.86–89

35. Jump up ^ Mays, James Luther, "Psalms" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p.12 36. Jump up ^ Henry Wansbrough, "The Prayers of the " ("written for the seventh annual course for monks and nuns during the Easter Vacation at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford, at the instigation of the Union of Monastic Superiors and in particular of Sister Zoe, the Prioress of Turvey")

37. Jump up ^ Habel, Norman C., "The Book of Job: A Commentary" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1985) pp.40–43

38. Jump up ^ Whybray, Norman, "Wisdom: the collected articles of Norman Whybray" (Ashgate Publishing, 2005) p.181

39. Jump up ^ Crenshaw, James L., "Old Testament wisdom: an introduction" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010) p.66

40. Jump up ^ Snell, Daniel C., "Twice-told Proverbs and the composition of the book of Proverbs" (Eisenbrauns, 1993) p.8

41. Jump up ^ Hubbard, Robert L. "Book of Ruth" (Eerdmans, 1989) p.23

42. Jump up ^ Brenner, Athalya and Fontaine, Carole R. (1999). The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-85075-978-2. Retrieved30 December 2007.

43. Jump up ^ Korpel, Marjo, "The structure of the book of Ruth" (Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 2001) p.224

44. Jump up ^ Bloch, Ariel, and Bloch, Chana, "The Song of songs: a new translation with an introduction and commentary" pp.21–27

45. Jump up ^ J. Cheryl Exum, Song of songs: a commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) pp.33– 37.

46. Jump up ^ Crenshaw, James L., "Old Testament wisdom: an introduction" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010) pp.144–145

47. Jump up ^ Gerstenberger, Erhard, "Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations" (Eerdmans, 2001)pp.467–468

48. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) p.329-330

49. Jump up ^ James C. VanderKam, Peter Flint, "The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002) p.137

50. Jump up ^ Shemaryahu Talmon, Daniel , in , Frank Kermode, "The Literary Guide to the Bible" (Harvard University Press, 1990), p.345

51. Jump up ^ Throntveit, Mark A., "Ezra-Nehemiah" (John Knox Press, 1992) pp.9–10

52. Jump up ^ Lester Grabbe, Ezra, in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) pp.313–4

53. Jump up ^ M. Patrick Graham, The "Chronicler's History": Ezra-Nehemiah, 1–2 Chronicles inGraham, M.P, and McKenzie, Steven L., "The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) p.210

54. Jump up ^ H.P. Mathys, 1 and 2 Chonicles, in Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) p.267

55. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) pp.803–806 56. Jump up ^ Daniell Smith-Christopher, Ezra-Nehemiah in Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) p.308

57. Jump up ^ P. P. Saydon, "Baruch" by revised by T. Hanlon, in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Reginald C. Fuller, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers, 1953, 1975, §504h.

58. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003)pp.807–808

59. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) pp.831–832

60. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) p.866

61. Jump up ^ Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) p.888

62. Jump up ^ Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mercer University Press, 1991) p.438

63. Jump up ^ Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mercer University Press, 1991) p.544

64. Jump up ^ Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) p.667

65. Jump up ^ Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) pp.650–653

66. Jump up ^ Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) p.325

67. Jump up ^ Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001) p.627

68. Jump up ^ Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mercer University Press, 1991) p.482

69. Jump up ^ Soggin, J. Alberto, "Introduction to the Old Testament" (Westminster John Knox) p.424

70. ^ Jump up to: a b Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.

71. Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" p. 302-310

72. Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark".Archived from the original on 15 January 2008. Retrieved 15 January 2008.

73. Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictonary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.

74. Jump up ^ M.G. Easton, Easton's Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897), "Luke, Gospel According To"

75. Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew 2. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. 955–6. ISBN 0- 385-46993-4.

76. Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7. 77. Jump up ^ Jens Schroter, Gospel of Mark , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), p.277-8

78. Jump up ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The : a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.

79. Jump up ^ Jens Schroter, Gospel of Mark, in Aune, p.278

80. Jump up ^ Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), p. 298

81. Jump up ^ "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005

82. Jump up ^ Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 301–302

83. Jump up ^ Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), p.302

84. Jump up ^ Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 302–303.

85. Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004, p. 110 and Harris 1985 both specify a range c. 80–85; Gundry 1982, Hagner 1993, and Blomberg 1992 argue for a date before 70.

86. Jump up ^ Dennis C. Duling, Gospel of Matthew , in Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010), p.296

87. Jump up ^ Horrell, DG, An Introduction to the study of Paul, T&T Clark, 2006, 2nd Ed.,p.7; cf. W. L. Knox, The Acts of the Apostles (1948), p. 2-15 for detailed arguments that still stand.

88. Jump up ^ David E. Aune, "The New Testament in its literary environment" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1987) p.77

89. Jump up ^ Raymond E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Anchor Bible (1997), pages 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.

90. Jump up ^ Robbins, Vernon. "Perspectives on Luke- Acts",http://www.christianorigins.com/bylandbysea.html. Originally appeared in: Perspectives on Luke-Acts. C. H. Talbert, ed. Perspectives in Religious Studies, Special Studies Series, No. 5. Macon, Ga: Mercer Univ. Press and Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1978: 215–242.

91. Jump up ^ The Gospel and Epistles of John: a concise commentary Raymond Edward Brown (Liturgical Press, 1988) p.10

92. Jump up ^ Barnabas Lindars, "John" (Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) p.11

93. Jump up ^ Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? p.7

94. Jump up ^ David E. Aune "The New Testament in its literary environment" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1987) p.20

95. ^ Jump up to: a b c Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (ed. James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson, Eerdmans, 2003) p.1274

96. Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004:385 97. Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (February 2011). "3. Forgeries in the Name of Paul. The Pastoral Letters: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus" (EPUB). : Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub Edition. ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-06- 207863-6. Retrieved June 10, 2012. Before showing why most scholars consider them to be written by someone other than Paul, I should give a brief summary of each letter.

98. Jump up ^ Fonck, Leopold. "." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. Web: 30 Dec. 2009.

99. Jump up ^ Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4

100. Jump up ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 355

101. Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.

102. Jump up ^ "Eerdmans commentary on the Bible", James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson (eds) p.1535

Sources[edit]

 Jacobs, Louis (1995). The Jewish religion: a companion. Oxford University Press.

 Rabin, Elliott (2006). Understanding the Hebrew Bible: a reader's guide. KTAV Publishing House.

 Perdue, Leo G., ed. (2001). The Blackwell companion to the Hebrew Bible. Blackwell.

 Barton, John; Muddiman, John, eds. (2001). Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press.

 Dunn, James D. G.; Rogerson, John William, eds. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans.

 Ehrman, Bart D. (February 2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. (EPUB) (First Edition. EPub Edition. ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.

 Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press. 1991.

 William David Davies, Steven T. Katz, Louis Finkelstein, "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The late Roman-Rabbinic period" (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

 Brueggemann, Walter, "Reverberations of faith: a theological handbook of Old Testament themes" (Westminster John Knox, 2002)

 Graham, M.P, and McKenzie, Steven L., "The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues" (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998)

 Mays, James Luther, Petersen, David L., Richards, Kent Harold, "Old Testament Interpretation" (T&T Clark, 1995)  Van Seters, John (1997). In search of history: historiography in the ancient world and the origins of biblical history. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-57506-013-2.

 Van Seters, John (2004). The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-08088-2. Pentateuch

 Ska, Jean-Louis, "Introduction to reading the Pentateuch" (Eisenbrauns, 2006) Deuteronomistic history

 de Moor, Johannes Cornelis, and Van Rooy, H. F. (eds), "Past, present, future: the Deuteronomistic history and the prophets" (Brill, 2000)

 Albertz, Rainer (ed) "Israel in exile: the history and literature of the sixth century B.C.E." (Society of Biblical Literature, 2003)

 Romer, Thomas, "The Future of the Deuteronomistic History" (Leuven University Press, 2000)

 Marttila, Marko, "Collective reinterpretation in the Psalms" (Mohr Siebeck, 2006) Prophets and writings

 Miller, Patrick D. and Peter W. Flint, (eds) "The book of Psalms: composition and reception" (Brill, 2005)

 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, "A history of prophecy in Israel" (Westminster John Knox, 1996)

 Clemets, R.E., "Jeremiah" (John Knox Press, 1988)

 Allen, Leslie C., "Jeremiah: a commentary" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2008)

 Sweeney, Marvin, "The Twelve Prophets" vol.1 (Liturgical Press, 2000)

 Sweeney, Marvin, "The Twelve Prophets" vol.2 (Liturgical Press, 2000) New Testament

 Burkett, Delbert Royce, "An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity" (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

 Aune, David E., (ed) "The Blackwell companion to the New Testament" (Blackwell Publishing, 2010)

 Mitchell, Margaret Mary, and Young, Frances Margaret , "Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine" (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

Further reading[edit]  List of Old and New Testament Authors by Tradition and Conjecture

 Helms, Ronald McCraw (1996?). Who Wrote the Gospels? First ed. Millennium Press. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7

Old Testament

Conjectural Book Author By Tradition Author By Conjecture Editor Genesis Moses (Yahwist + Elohist) + Priest* Ezra* Exodus Moses (Yahwist + Elohist) + Priest* Ezra* Levitcus Moses Priest* Numbers Moses (Yahwist + Elohist) + Priest* Ezra* Moses (found by Deuteronomy Deuteronomist [Jeremiah & Baruch]* Ezra (slightly)* Hilkiah) Joshua Joshua Yahwist + Elohist* Jeremiah & Baruch* Jeremiah & Judges Samuel Yahwist + Elohist* Baruch* Ruth Samuel ? Samuel + Gad? + Jeremiah & 1 Samuel Yahwist + Elohist* Nathan? Baruch* Samuel + Gad? + Jeremiah & 2 Samuel Yahwist + Elohist* Nathan? Baruch* Annals of the Kings of Israel & Judah Jeremiah & 1 Kings Jeremiah? (Ch. 1&2 by Yahwist)* Baruch* Jeremiah & 2 Kings Jeremiah? Annals of the Kings of Israel & Judah* Baruch* 1 Chronicles Ezra + Nehemiah? Chronicler (Ezra?)* 2 Chronicles Ezra + Nehemiah? Chronicler (Ezra?)* Ezra Ezra Ezra + Nehemiah Nehemiah Nehemiah Ezra + Nehemiah Mordecai? (495-479 Esther ? (460-330 B.C.) B.C.) Job Moses? various authors David+ (compiled by Psalms compiled later Ezra ) Solomon+ (compiled Proverbs compiled later Ezra by Hezekiah) Solomon (compiled Ecclesiastes compiled later (250-200 B.C.) by Hezekiah) Song of Solomon (compiled compiled later (300-400 B.C.) Songs by Hezekiah) Isaiah (Ch. 1-39) + "Second Isaiah" (Ch. Isaiah -66) Jeremiah & Baruch + "Second Jeremiah" Jeremiah Jeremiah & Baruch (Ch.27b-29a,33b,39,mid49) Lamentations Jeremiah & Baruch various authors Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel Daniel Daniel (580 B.C.) ? (165 B.C.)

*Based on Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Elliot Friedman, Prof. of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, San Diego "Yahwist", "J" (848-722 B.C.)- author from Judah who wrote the majority of Genesis; refers to God as Yahweh; concentrates on stories of families, deception, sex, and ; writes of angels, talking animals and prophetic dreams; portrays God in an anthropormorphic way in Genesis; refers to Mt. Sinai as Sinai and Moses' father-in- law as ; attributes the heresy at Peor to Moabite (Num. 25:1-5)

"Elohist", "E" (747-722 B.C.)- author from Israel; refers to God as Elohim; priest of : a priesthood that didn't believe in animal , was removed from power by Solomon and Jeroboam, and whose leader Abiathar was exiled by Solomon to the Aaronid city of Anathoth; revered Moses and Samuel and concentrated on ; unadmiring towards Aaron and the Aaronid priesthood; wrote the story of the bronze Nehushtan; refers to Mt. Sinai as Horeb and Moses' father-in-law as ; writes of Moses bringing water from a rock in (Ex. 17:6-7)

"Priest", "P" (722-587 B.C.)- Aaronid priest from Jerusalem, probably from King Hezekiah's time; refers only to Aaron as a prophet; recognized only Aaronites as priests rather than all Levites; concentrated on the laws of Moses and priestly duties; did not write on sacrifices until Moses; wrote as a reaction against the combined Yahwist-Elohist scripture; considered Jerusalem to be the only legitimate place to make sacrifice; wrote of God speaking to both Moses and Aaron and of the 'staff of Aaron' rather than the ''; wrote of Moses being punished for lack of faith when he brings water from a rock in Meribah (Num. 20:11-12); attributes the heresy at Peor to the of Midianites in which God grants priesthood to Aaron's grandson Phineas for killing a Jew/Midianite couple that practiced racial impurity and dared to flaunt it by entering the Tent of Meeting(Num. 25:6-16)

"Deuteronomist", "D" (621 B.C.)- author of most of the text that is now Deuteronomy; Deuteronomy was believed by the early church fathers, including Jerome, to have been the book of law that was discovered in the temple in 621 BCE under the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22); greatly concerned with establishing the centrality of the temple to Jewish worship and with keeping the people on their guard against pagan influences; unadmiring towards Aaron, Solomon and Jeroboam; most scholars believe "D" is also responsible for editing and arranging the "Deuteronomositic History", from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings; Hebrew scholar identifies this author with Jeremiah and the Shiloh community due to focus and linguistic similarities

Isaiah (739-681 B.C.)- prophet during Hezekiah's reign; preached against idolatry and emphasized repentance of instead of sacrifice; predicts the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 2 Kings 20:16-18 Jeremiah (627-587 B.C.)- priest of Shiloh from Anathoth, the city of exile; son of Hilkiah; dictated his writings as his scribe Baruch wrote them; similar to the perception in 2 Kings, Jeremiah revered King Josiah and wrote lamentations for him after the king was killed by Necho; wrote prophecies against Josiah's son ; wrote that God never commanded sacrifice in Moses' time (Jer. 7:22-23, 8:7-8); prophecized the destruction of Judah and their exile into Babylon; saved from by Shapan's son Ahikam; protected by his other son, Gedaliah, the governor appointed by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon after the fall of Judah

"Chronicler" (627-587 B.C.)- Author who wrote Chronicles; Aaronid priest; recognized only Aaronites as priests rather than all Levites; concentrated on the laws of Moses and priestly duties; revered Solomon and King Hezekiah (2 Chr. 30:26); leaves out the sins of Solomon and how he split the kingdom as portrayed in 1 Kings 11; leaves out Isaiah's prophecy against Hezekiah from 2 Kings 20:12-19 (2 Chr. 32:31); most scholars see Chronicler as copying from and less reliable than the author of 2 books of Kings

Daniel (580 B.C.; 165 B.C.)- The book of Daniel tells of a 6th-century Jewish prophet who becomes a dream reader in the royal court of Babylon, similar to the way Joseph read the dreams of Pharaoh; historical inaccuracies in the text make many scholars believe it was written in the Maccabean era, mistakes such as: the intervention of an unknown Median Empire between the Chaldean and Persian Empires led by a 'Darius the Mede' (believed by scholars to have been confused with the Persian king Darius), the book calling King Nebuchadnezzar the father of King (who was neither related nor reigned subsequent to him), a contradiction in the year Nebuchadnezzar beseiged Jerusalem (. 1:1; 2 Kings 23:36), and a prediction that Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria would invade Egypt a second time, conquer it, and then die somewhere between and Jerusalem (Dan. 11:44-45)- none of which happenned- he died in Persia (1 Macc. 6:1-6); scholars date the composition as being written between the last correct 'prediction' (167-165 B.C.) and the tyrant's death (164 B.C.)

Ezra- (550-450 B.C.) Aaronid priest who was given authority by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes to instruct the Jews in Jerusalem on the law (Ezra 7:10-14) Promulgated a creed that included sources from all four of the sources that made up the first five books of Moses (Yahwist, Elohist, Priest, and Deuteronomist), as told in Nehemiah 8; Richard Elliott Friedman conjectures that he interwove the (already combined) Yahwist/Elohist text with the Priestly text and Deuteronomy to produce the Torah.

"Second Isaiah" (546-538 B.C.)- believed to have written Ch. 40-66; these chapters make references to the destruction of Jerusalem but whether it is in past or future tense is uncertain; prophecizes about a suffering servant and the fall of Babylon

Nehemiah (445-433 B.C.)- governor of Judea from 445 to 433 B.C.

"Second Jeremiah" (464 B.C.-70 A.D.)- The Hebrew book of Jeremiah was edited by a from the Second Temple times in order to make it look like Jeremiah accepted Levitical sacrifice as legitimate (Jer.33:17-18); he switched around some of Jeremiah's chapters as well as added his own; the original version was recorded in both the Greek Septuagint (250 B.C.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (200 B.C.-68 A.D.), but is unmarked in most Bibles

New Testament

Author By Sources By Conjectured Proven Late Book Tradition Conjecture Editor** Additions Matthew/ the Gospel of Mark + Diaspora Jew (75 Matthew slight editing disciple (38 A.D.) Q -90A.D.) Syrian (70 , based Mark Oral traditions** A.D.,after Temple's 2 endings added on Peter (64 A.D.) destruction) Luke the physician Gospel of Mark + Greek Gentile woman Luke slight editing (61 A.D.) Q (90 A.D.) adulteress saved John the disciple John Signs + John1** John2 (70-100 A.D.) from stoning (90 A.D.) story added Luke the physician Author of Luke Acts (61 A.D.) (90-100 A.D.) Romans Paul (55-56 A.D.) Paul (55-59 A.D.) 1 Corinthians Paul (54-55 A.D.) Paul (55+ A.D.) 2 Cornithians Paul (55-56 A.D.) Paul (55+ A.D.) Galatians Paul (48 A.D.) Paul (48-62 A.D.) Ephesians Paul (61 A.D.) ? (Before 95 A.D.) Paul(?) (54-62 Philippians Paul (62 A.D.) A.D.) Colossians Paul (61 A.D.) Paul? (54-90 A.D.) 1 Paul(?) (50-51 Paul (51 A.D.) Thessalonians A.D.) 2 Paul (52 A.D.) ? (75-90 A.D.) Thessalonians 1 Timothy Paul (62 A.D.) ? (100-150 A.D.) 2 Timothy Paul (64 A.D.) ? (100-150 A.D.) Titus Paul (63 A.D.) ? (100-150 A.D.) Philemon Paul (61 A.D.) Paul (59-62 A.D.) Paul?, Barnabas?, Priscilla? (60-93 Hebrews ? (65 A.D.) A.D.) James, brother of "James" (100-125 James Jesus (45 A.D.) A.D.) Peter the disciple 1 Peter ? (64-112 A.D.) (65 A.D.) Peter the disciple 2 Peter ? (125-150 A.D.) (67 A.D.) John the disciple "John the elder" Vulgate: 1 John (85 A.D.) (Before 117 A.D.) added John the disciple 2 John "John the elder" (85-90 A.D.) John the disciple 3 John ? (90 A.D.) "Jude, brother of Judas, brother of Jude James" (After 100 Jesus (67-73) A.D.) John the disciple "John of ", Revelation (95 A.D.) Aramaic Jew

**Based on Who Wrote the Gospels?, by Dr. Randel McCraw Helms, professor at Arizona State University

"Q"- Comes from the German word "Quelle" or "Source"; Sayings of Jesus that are common to both Matthew's and Luke's gospel; most scholars believe that both authors used a common "sayings" gospel, similar to the Gospel of Thomas, which is now lost; other scholars believe that Luke simply copied the sayings he liked out of the Gospel of Matthew

Matthew- one of the 12 disciples; in the book of Matthew, he is the tax collector that brings Jesus to his house for dinner (Matt. 9:9-13); the Gospels of Mark and Luke call this tax collector "Levi", leaving no connection between him and Matthew the disciple; 90% of the book of Mark can be found in this text, although Matthew's Greek is more refined and many of Mark's grammatical mistakes are corrected; like all the Gospels, Matthew quotes from the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible; some of Jesus' sayings from Luke are found in Matthew and are believed to have come from a hypothetical source, called Q; the Book of Matthew includes a geneology of Joseph and a virgin birth narrative with the escape to Egypt from the infanticidal tetrach Herod (paralleling Moses' near-escape from death when he was a baby) and the visit of the Magi bearing gifts; makes many references to the delay of Jesus' return (Matt. 25:5,14,19,48)

Mark- Greek gentile called John Mark; cousin of Barnabas; called Peter's "son" in :13; The book of Acts says that Paul once refused to take him on a missionary trip because Mark previously deserted them, a disagreement which led to Barnabas splitting up from Paul; tradition holds that it is a non-chronological account given to Mark from what Peter could remember; this is the only gospel that portrays the human side of Jesus, which Matthew and Luke either drop or attempt to soften; shows a larger degree of acceptance towards the ; has no narration on the virgin birth or resurrection appearances and is the only gospel to portray Jesus' family as believing he's crazy (:20-34); two different endings with resurrection appearances were appended to the end at a later date, which still appears unnoted in many bibles

Luke- Greek gentile; called "the beloved physician" by Paul in :14; 50% of the book of Mark can be found in his gospel; includes a different geneology of Joseph than the book of Matthew and a virgin birth narrative with visiting ; puts a large focus on women and feminine issues; unlike the book of Mark, which says that Jesus proclaimed all foods to be clean within his lifetime, Luke-Acts portrays the question as not coming up until after Jesus' death in which a vision of Peter reveals that all food has become clean; in the book of Acts, Judas is portrayed as falling to his death rather than having hung himself as portrayed in the book of Matthew; The Book of Acts also portrays Paul as coming into conflict with the Nazarenes from Jerusalem as to whether it was necessary to keep the laws of Moses (Acts 15, 21); it also reports that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas were teaching (Acts 11:25-26)

John- one of the 12 disicples, Jesus gives him and his brother James the name Boanerges, which means "Sons of Thunder" in Mark 3:17; son of Zebedee (Mark 10:35); the book of John is the only gospel to give a detailed theology as to the nature of the title "", which is identified with the Logos or "Word", a concept first put forth by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.) to describe the rational underpinning of the universe; it is also the only gospel to criticize Jews as a whole rather than Pharisees and Saducees; "The beloved disicple", unknown to the previous gospels and assumed to be John, plays a much larger role in the events, for instance following Jesus along side of Peter to the 's courtyard after Jesus' arrest (John 18:15); in comparison, the Gospel of Philip identifies Mary Magdeline as "the companion the Savior loved"; it's believed that the original story was written around a "Signs Source", a list of seven of Jesus' miraculous signs; certain linguistic anomolies and contradictions within the text (for instance on the role of Communion and the subordiance of the Son to the Father) suggest that a redactor added a reactionary narrative against the gnostic traits of the original text and added on to the original ending (John 20:30-31); instead of parables, the Gospel of John has Jesus give long speeches on the nature of the Father and the Son; instead of exorcisms, Jesus performs "miraculous signs"; instead of the , Jesus washes the disciples' feet; Jesus is executed for claiming to be the Son of God rather than the ; there is no mention of the , the passion in Gethsemene or of Simon the Cyrenian carrying the cross; the story of Jesus saving an adulterous woman from stoning by saying 'Those who are without cast the first stone' (John 7:53-8:11) was inserted into the gospel by yet another redactor at much later date

Paul- originally called Saul; although he never met Jesus before the crucifixion, the largest extent of the New Testament- nearly a third of it- is attributed to him; wrote that he was brought up as a "Pharisee among Pharisees" and originally persecuted Jesus' followers but then became the most successful evangelist at spreading the gospel around the ; regarded Jesus "as to his human nature" as "born of the sperm of David and through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:1-4); wrote of how Jesus' resurrection nullified the laws of Moses, although this belief was not shared by James (Acts 15:19-21, 21:17-26); got into an argument with Cephas (Aramaic name meaning 'rock'; traditionally believed to be same person as Peter, whose name is Greek for 'rock') regarding the observance of Jewish dietary laws (Gal. 2:11-21); many scholars consider Paul to be a Gnostic, or at least semi-gnostic; some translate the word "archons" in his 1st letter to the Corinthians 2:6, as "", rather than "rulers of this age" who kill Jesus James- the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and leader of the church after Jesus' death (Acts 13); the Catholic church considers him to be Jesus' cousin; called "James the Just" to seperate him from James the disciple (the brother of John); he twice judges cases that are brought towards him in Jerusalem when Paul comes into dispute with his fellow Nazarenes (Acts 15, 21)

Peter- originally named Simon; the Gospel of Matthew reads that Jesus dubbed him Peter (Greek for 'rock') when he called him to become to cornerstone of the church upon his death (Matt. 16:15-20); the Gospel of John reads that he dubbed him Cephas (Aramaic for 'rock') when he first met Jesus (:42); all four gospels read that he denied Jesus three times after Jesus' arrest in Gethsemene; traditionally believed to have been crucified in Rome- upside down at his own request- because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus; the Catholic church considers Peter to be the first Pope

Jude- calls himself the brother of James in his epistle; believed to be Jesus' brother Judas (Mark 6:3), although it is hard to understand why he would choose to identify himself as 'brother of James' instead of 'brother of Jesus' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. For the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document, see Biblical criticism.

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. Thediscussion page may contain suggestions. (February 2014)

Part of a series on the

Bible

Canons and books

[show]

Authorship and development

[show]

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [show]

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[hide]  Gnostic  Islamic  Qur'anic  Inerrancy  Infallibility

 Criticism of the Bible Bible book Bible portal

 V

 T

 E

The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament [1] and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Contents [hide]

 1 Bible history issues

 2 Translation issues

 3

 4 Internal consistency

 5 The Bible and science

 6 The Bible and archaeology

 7 Prophecies

o 7.1 Messianic prophecies

o 7.2 Prophecies after the event

o 7.3 The success of Joshua

o 7.4 The destruction of Tyre

o 7.5 The protection of the King of Judah

o 7.6 The death of the king of Judah

o 7.7 The death of Josiah

o 7.8 The land promised to Abraham

o 7.9 The fate of

o 7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt o 7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war

o 7.12 The strength of Judah

o 7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon

o 7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies

o 7.15 New Testament

. 7.15.1 The imminence of the

 8 Notable critics

 9 See also

 10 References

 11 Further reading

 12 External links

Bible history issues[edit]

The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible

Part of a series on

Criticism of religion

By religion

 Christianity  Protestantism  's Witnesses  Seventh-day Adventist  Catholicism  Hinduism   Twelver Islam  Wahhabism  Jainism  Judaism  Mormonism  Sikhism  Zoroastrianism

By religious figure

 Jesus  Moses   Ellen G. White

By text

 Bible  Book of Mormon   Talmud

Critics

 Mikhail Bakunin  Richard Dawkins  Daniel Dennett  Epicurus  Emma Goldman  Sam Harris  Christopher Hitchens  Thomas Hobbes  Baron d'Holbach  David Hume  Robert G. Ingersoll  George Henry Lewes  Bill Maher   J.S. Mill  Taslima Nasrin   Thomas Paine  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon  Ayn Rand  Arun Shourie  David Silverman  Victor J. Stenger  Max Stirner

Critics of Christianity

 Giordano Bruno  Denis Diderot  George Eliot   A. C. Grayling  Thomas Jefferson  H. L. Mencken   Thomas Paine  Bertrand Russell  Dayananda Saraswati   André Servier  Baruch Spinoza  Voltaire

Critics of Hinduism

 B.R. Ambedkar  Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya  Narendra Dabholkar  Joseph Edamaruku  Sanal Edamaruku  Saraswathi Gora  Abraham Kovoor  Kancha Iliah  Meera Nanda  Jyotirao Phule  Pandita Ramabai  Gora  Periyar E. V. Ramasamy  Amartya Sen  A. B. Shah

Critics of Islam

 Magdi Allam  Ayaan Hirsi Ali  Nonie Darwish  Turan Dursun  Oriana Fallaci  Tarek Fatah  Brigitte  Pamela Geller  Sam Harris  Al-Maʿ arri  Douglas Murray  Maryam Namazie  Walid Phares  Ibn al-Rawandi  Salman Rushdie  Ali Sina  Robert Spencer  Wafa Sultan  Ibn Warraq  Geert Wilders  Bat Ye'or

Religious violence

 Terrorism  War  Buddhism  Christianity  Islam  Judaism  Mormonism Related topics

 Abuse   Crisis of faith  Criticism of atheism  Criticism of  Persecution  Sexuality 

 V

 T

 E Main articles: Biblical criticism and Higher Criticism The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[2] The limits of the canon were effectively set in the early church, however the status of the scriptures has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and in an effort to interpret the biblical texts, independent of Church and dogmatic influences.[2] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in , except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in . These writings depict Israelitereligion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.) Per the Development of the New Testament canon in the middle of the second century, Marcion of Sinopeproposed rejecting the entire Jewish Bible. He considered the God portrayed therein to be a lesser deity, ademiurge and that the was contrived.[3] At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[4] has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous, [5] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head. The validity of the Gospels is challenged by writers such as who claimed that mythic stories, that have parallels in the life of Jesus, support the conclusion that the gospel writers incorporated them into the story of Jesus[6]and also ,[7] who specifically claimed that the life story of the Egyptian god Horus was copied byChristian Gnostics.[8] Parallels have also been drawn between Greek and the life of Jesus. The comparative mythology of Jesus Christ examines the parallels that have been proposed for the Biblical portrayal of Jesus in comparison to other religious or mythical domains. Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation. One of these views proposes that Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-.[9]

Christ theory proponents[10] claim that the age, authorship, and authenticity of the Gospels can not be verified, thus the Gospels can not bear witness to the historicity of Jesus.[11][12] This is in contrast with writers such as David Strauss, who regarded only the supernatural elements of the gospels as myth, but whereas these supernatural myths were a point of contention, there was no refutation of the gospels authenticity as witness to the historicity of Jesus.[13] Critics of the Gospels such as Richard Dawkins and Thomas Henry Huxley note that they were written long after the death of Jesus and that we have no real knowledge of the date of composition of the Gospels.[14][15] Annie Besant andThomas Paine note that the authors of the Gospels are not known.[16][17] Biblical minimalism is a label applied to a loosely knit group of scholars who hold that the Bible's version of history is not supported by any archaeological evidence so far unearthed, thus the Bible cannot be trusted as a history source.[18][19]Whereas critics of the authenticity of the New Testament such as and Paul N. Tobin argue thatpseudepigrapha within the New Testament invalidates it as a reliable source of information.[20][21]

Translation issues[edit] Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[22] Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the originallanguages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate רוח אמְלהים meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the in Christianity), or a "mighty ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both)רוח ,wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[23][24][25][26]Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear is alleged to mean a young, unmarried womanin Hebrew, while :23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not. In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in ?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[27] More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and , have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[28]

Ethics in the Bible[edit] Main article: Ethics in the Bible Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women,religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[29] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[30] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[31] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[32] "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)

Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead", [33] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.

Internal consistency[edit] Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[34] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the are pseudonymous. [35]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed] However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[36] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, or supposition, did the best they could".[37] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[38] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[39][40] For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[41][42][43] Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.

The Bible and science[edit] Main article: Science and the Bible The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).[44] Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the to the , Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies. Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. 1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. Matthew 4:8 Again, the taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[45] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise. Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted byradiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[46] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[47] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[48] The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents. — Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould

Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.

The Bible and archaeology[edit] Main articles: The Bible and history and According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever, "Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[49] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[50]

Dever also wrote: Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[51] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[52]

Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper: This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the : the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[53][54]

Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of . On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[55] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[55] Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said: “Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[56]

Prophecies[edit] See also: The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[57] Messianic prophecies[edit] See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[58][59][60] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah. An example of this is :14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of 's son, Hezekiah.[61][62] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[62][63] Prophecies after the event[edit] Main articles: Postdiction and An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalemand destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about . Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40- 55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[71] Whereas -39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[72] The success of Joshua[edit] The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[73] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittiteland, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him. While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[74] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns. [75] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[76][77] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[78][79][80] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal. The destruction of Tyre[edit] Tyre harbour

 Ezekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will"never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact. Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[81] [82] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth- largest city in ). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).

 Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10- 14), and Nebuchadnezzarwould be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; writes that: It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[83]

The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[84] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis: The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[85]

Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain: Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of , makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[86]

On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[87] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[88] The protection of the King of Judah[edit]

 Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6). In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[89] The death of the king of Judah[edit]

 In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that , the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (:9- 11), he was put in prison until the day of his death. Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[90] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed] The death of Josiah[edit]

 Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[91] Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[92] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[93]

Map showing the borders of the , based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river :The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the , and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

The land promised to Abraham[edit] Main article: Promised Land

 According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[94] An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes: David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[95]

Acts 7:5 and :13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of . Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to.H. Wheeler Robinson writes that Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[96]

The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16). The fate of Damascus[edit]

 According to :1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world. An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War. The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[97]

The passage is consistent with :9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir. The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit]

 According to :17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no . But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[98] According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[99] The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit]

 Isaiah and Jeremiah (:12-13, :18, :1-23, and :7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[100] Unlike the , which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, , destroyed in 612 BC. Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of , was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort. Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[101] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently, Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon. [102] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[103]The Book of Consolation (:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[104] The strength of Judah[edit]

:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened. According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day"message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[105][106] The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit]

:17, :2, :11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the , Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon. Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[107] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand, it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation. Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[108]

Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31. Jehoiakim prophecies[edit]

 The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died. Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[109]

 Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (:18-19, :30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem". Apologists proposal for a partial solution: In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, , Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18- year-old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[110]

Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[111] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2 [112] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.

 Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[91] Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother. The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[113] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah. New Testament[edit]

The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you. Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; :2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains. In reply, John Robinson writes that it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[114]

The imminence of the second coming[edit] See also: Second coming Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15). For the is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of ." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, :1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)

It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[115] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[116] Note, however, that this view (referred to as ) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse .[117][118][119] Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄ ψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[120] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming. This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.

Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative. We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[121]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[122]

In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[123] The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17: After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

[124]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this . When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese— they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate. The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this. [125] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that comes like a thief (:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).

Notable critics[edit]

 Isaac Asimov

 Richard Dawkins

 Albert Einstein [126]

 Christopher Hitchens

 Robert G. Ingersoll [127]

 Thomas Paine

 Bertrand Russell

 Mark Twain

 Voltaire

See also[edit]

 Bible conspiracy theory

 Criticism of the Book of Mormon

 Criticism of the Talmud

 Criticism of the Qur'an

 Christ myth theory

 Misquoting Jesus

 Tahrif

References[edit] 1. Jump up ^ Jackson, S H. (1824). The Jew; being a defence of Judaism against all adversaries, and the attacks of Israel's advocate [publ. by the American society for meliorating the condition of the Jews], ed. [really written] by S.H. Jackson. pp. 86, 90. Inquiry into the nature of any proposition is absolutely necessary ; particularly in matters offered for our [the Jews] conversion. And it is a very just observation of Mr. Basnage, who says, "We must prove the divine authority of the Gospel (to the Jews) before we engage in the particulars of other controversies." (History of the Jews, b. 7. c. 34.) And I add, till this is done, and the Jews admit the divine authority of the New Testament, nothing can be urged from thence for their conversion : for, in controversies, neither party can, with the least shadow of reason, make use of any authority which is not admitted or granted by the other. [...] I conclude that the writers of the New Testament could not be under the infallible guidance of God ; neither do I find that they published or gave out their writings as such. And if they did not declare themselves inspired, what authority could any one else have to declare them so? On the contrary, it very evidently appears that there was no scriptures, no writings, deemed canonical in what is called the first ages of ...... ianity [Christianity], but the Old Testament ! (Image of p. 86 & p. 90 at Google Books)

2. ^ Jump up to: a b "Bible." The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. West Chiltington: Crystal Reference, 2005. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009

3. Jump up ^ Vincent L. Milner; Hannah (1860). Religious Denominations of the World: Comprising a General View of the Origin, History, and Condition, of the Various Sects of Christians, the Jews and Mahometans, as Well as the Pagan Forms of Religion Existing in the Different Countries of the Earth; with Sketches of the Founders of Various Religious Sects. J. W. Bradley. p. 325. He [Marcion] further maintained that the law of Moses, with its threats and promises of things terrestrial, was a contrivance of the evil principle in order to bind men still more to the earth. (Image of p. 325 at Google Books)

4. Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. pp. 122–123, 185. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.

5. Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. pp. 372–3. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 621, 639, 654. ISBN 0-385-24767-2. Scholars who hold to Pauline authorship include Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 622.

6. Jump up ^ Graves, Kersey (1875). The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or, Christianity Before Christ, Containing New, Startling, and Extraordinary Revelations in Religious History, which Disclose the Oriental Origin of All the Doctrines, Principles, Precepts, and Miracles of the Christian New Testament, and Furnishing a Key for Unlocking Many of Its Sacred Mysteries, Besides Comprising the History of 16 Heathen Crucified . Freethought Press. pp. 22–23. 3. Here I desire to impress upon the minds of my clerical brethren the important fact, that the gospel histories of Christ were written by men who had formerly been Jews (see Acts xxi. 20), and probably possessing the strong proclivity to imitate and borrow which their bible shows was characteristic of that nation ; and being written many years after Christ's death, according to that standard Christian author, Dr. Lardner, it was impossible, under such circumstances, for them to separate (if they had desired to) the real facts and events of his life from the innumerable fictions and fables then afloat everywhere relative to the heathen Gods who had pre-enacted a similar history. Two reasons are thus furnished for their constructing a history of Christ almost identical with that of other Gods, as shown in chapters XXX., XXXI. and XXXII. of this work. (Image of p. 22 & p. 23 at Google Books)

7. Jump up ^ Massey, Gerald (1883). "The Kamite ". The Natural Genesis: Or, Second Part of A Book of the Beginnings, Containing an Attempt to Recover and Reconstitute the Lost Origines of the Myths and Mysteries, Types and Symbols, Religion and Language, with Egypt for the Mouthpiece and Africa as the Birthplace 1. Williams and Norgate. p. 13. The human mind has long suffered an eclipse and been darkened and dwarfed in the shadow of ideas, the real meaning of which has been lost to the moderns. Myths and allegories whose significance was once unfolded to initiates in the mysteries have been adopted in ignorance and re-issued as real truths directly and divinely vouchsafed to mankind for the first and only time: The earlier religions had their myths interpreted. We have ours mis-interpreted. And a great deal of what has been imposed on us as God's own true and sole revelation to man is a mass of inverted myth. (Image of p. 13 at Google Books)

8. Jump up ^ Massey, Gerald (1907). "Child-Horus". , the Light of the World: A Work of Reclamation and Restitution in Twelve Books 2. T. F. Unwin. p. 752.Christian ignorance notwithstanding, the Gnostic Jesus is the Egyptian Horus who was continued by the various sects of gnostics under both the names of Horus and of Jesus. In the gnostic iconography of the Roman Catacombs child-Horus reappears as the mummy- babe who wears the solar disc. The royal Horus is represented in the cloak of royalty, and the phallic emblem found there witnesses to Jesus being Horus of the resurrection. (Image of p. 752 at Google Books) 9. Jump up ^ Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter (1999) . London: Thorsons (Harper Collins)

10. Jump up ^ Barnes, Harry Elmer (1929). The Twilight of Christianity. New York: Vanguard Press. pp. 390– 391. Among the more eminent scholars and critics who have contended that Jesus was not an actual historical figure we mention , Kaithoff, Drews, Stendel, Felder, Deye, Jensen, Lublinski, Bolland, Van der Berg, Virolleaud, Couchoud, Massey, Bossi, Niemojewski, Brandes, Robertson, Mead, Whittaker, Carpenter and W. B. Smith.

11. Jump up ^ Drews, Arthur (1912). "Part 4, Section 1". The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus ... Translated by Joseph McCabe [from Die Christusmythe.]. London.There is no other source of the belief in an historical Jesus but the gospels. The credibility of the historical documents of Christianity finds no support outside themselves. ( Part 4, Section 1. at Wikisource)

12. Jump up ^ Evans, Elizabeth E. (1900). : A Study. Truth Seeker Company. p. 17. There is evidence that all the Gospels were borrowed from an earlier source, but whether that source was history or romance, and whether the author or the later compilers dressed up foreign and ancient materials in local and contemporary attire, cannot be known. The earliest "Fathers" of the Christian church do not mention nor allude to any one of the Gospels, but they do quote from some other work or works in language similar to and in substance sometimes agreeing with sometimes differing from, the canonical Gospels. (Image of p. 17at Google Books)

13. Jump up ^ "New Foe Of Religion Arises". Chicago Tribune. February 6, 1910. Retrieved30 August 2015. NEW FOE OF RELIGION ARISES--German Professor Maintains the Messiah Never Lived.--BIG DEBATES IN PUBLIC.--Women Overcome by Hysteria Interrupt Disputants.--[BY CABLE TO THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE.]--BERLIN. Feb. 5.—Berlin was this the scene of one of the most remarkable theological discussions since the days of Martin Luther. It was provoked by Prof. of Karlsruhe, who caused a public sensation by plastering the billboards of the town with posters propounding the startling question:--"Did Jesus Christ ever live?" ...Prof. Drews appeared in Berlin under the auspices of the League of Monists, whose position, as their name denotes, is akin to those who express their creed in the formula, "There is no God but God; for hear, O Israel, the Lord, thy God, is the one God."-- The professor laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verity in the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.

14. Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (16 January 2008). "The Argument from Scripture". The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 118. ISBN 0-547-34866-5. The Argument from Scripture: The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people not used to asking questions like: ‘Who wrote it, and when?’ ‘How did they know what to write?’ ‘Did they, in their time, really mean what we, in our time, understand them to be saying?’ ‘Were they unbiased observers, or did they have an agenda that coloured their writing?’ Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life. All were then copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers generations’ (see Chapter 5) by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas.

15. Jump up ^ Huxley, Thomas Henry (1892). "Agnosticism And Christianity". Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions. Macmillan. p. 364. Agnosticism And Christianity: Therefore, although it be, as I believe, demonstrable that we have no real knowledge of the authorship, or of the date of composition of the Gospels, as they have come down to us, and that nothing better than more or less probable guesses can be arrived at on that subject. (Image of p. 364 at Google Books)

16. Jump up ^ Besant, Annie Wood (1893). Christianity, Its Evidences, Its Origin, Its Morality, Its History. R. Forder. p. 261. (D.) That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of FOUR gospels among the Christians. ...As it is not pretended by any that there is any mention of four Gospels before the time of Irenaeus, excepting this "harmony," pleaded by some as dated about A.D. 170 and by others as between 170 and 180, it would be sheer waste of time and space to prove further a point admitted on all hands. This step of our argument is, then on solid and unassailable ground —That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of FOUR gospels among the Christians. (E.) That, before that date, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not selected as the four evangelists. This position necessarily follows from the preceding one [D.], since four evangelists could not be selected until four Gospels were recognised. Here, again, Dr. Giles supports the argument we are building up. He says : "Justin Martyr never once mentions by name the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This circumstance is of great importance ; for those who assert that our four canonical Gospels are contemporary records of our Saviour's ministry, ascribe them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and to no other writers." (Image of p. 261 at Google Books)

17. Jump up ^ Paine, Thomas (1898). The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. Truth Seeker Company. p. 143. But exclusive of this the presumption is that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the others, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called apostles are supposed to have done; in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been by other persons than those whose names they bear. (Image of p. 143 at Google Books)

18. Jump up ^ Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. T&T Clark. 2014. p.24.

19. Jump up ^ Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (17 May 2011). Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-8028-6260-0.

20. Jump up ^ Carrier, Richard (2009). "Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication". Errancy Wiki.If Mark did not write verses 16:9-20, but some anonymous person(s) later added those verses, pretending (or erroneously believing) that Mark wrote them (as in fact they must have), then this Gospel, and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant, or even consistently reliable.

21. Jump up ^ Tobin, Paul N. (2009). "The Bible". The Rejection of Pascal's Wager. Paul N. Tobin. Retrieved 8 September 2015. Many of the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by the apostle: Clearly, the epistles of Peter could not have been written by the apostle himself. Such epistles, which pretend to be written by prophets or apostles, are called pseudepigrapha. They were written in such a way so as to give the epistles enhanced authority. Pseudepigrapha are very common in Judeo-Christian history. The correct modern name for pseudepigrapha is not writers but impostors. Even the theologians Robert Davidson and A.R.C. Leaney referred to them (I & II Peter & Jude) as "fictitious testaments". [...] Conclusions:What can we conclude from our study of the Bible? It is filled with scientific errors, contradictions and numerous other errors; Many of its myths are not even original, but were derived from earlier middle eastern myths; The authors are largely anonymous; ...In short, the Bible is not a "good Book".

22. Jump up ^ "Bible." The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Credo Reference. 29 July 2009

23. Jump up ^ The Bible in the Syriac tradition, Sebastian P. Brock, p. 13

24. Jump up ^ God's conflict with the dragon and the sea: echoes of a Canaanite myth, John Day

25. Jump up ^ Understanding Biblical Israel: a reexamination of the origins of monotheism, Stanley Ned Rosenbaum

26. Jump up ^ The Jewish religion: a companion By Louis Jacobs, p. 251

27. Jump up ^ Exod. 20:14, 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.

28. Jump up ^ Eric Pement, Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate online.

29. Jump up ^ Genesis 19:30-36

30. Jump up ^ "How Can We Trust a Bible that Tolerated Slavery?" Discovery Series, RBC Ministries. July 27, 2009.

31. Jump up ^ [1][dead link]

32. Jump up ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience: The Duty to Obey and the Duty to Disobey. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights. pp. 28–30. ISBN 1-58023-419-4. 33. Jump up ^ Saugstad, Andreas. "Nietzsche & Christianity" July 28, 2009.

34. Jump up ^ "Contradictions from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible". Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

35. Jump up ^ Knight, George William, Howard Marshall, and W. Ward Gasque. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). William. B. Eerdmans, 1997. ISBN 0-8028-2395-5 / 9780802823953

36. Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.

37. Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.

38. Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0- 7139-9059-7.

39. Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2.

40. Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.

41. Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, pg 194 – seehttp://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix %22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnOU 2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false

42. Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256

43. Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, pg175 – seehttp://books.google.com/books? id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix %22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYnSjAefnO U2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix%22&f=false

44. Jump up ^ Driscoll, J.F. (1909). "Firmament". In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 26 May 2008 from New Advent. ("That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages...").

45. Jump up ^ The Galileo Controversy at Catholic Answers

46. Jump up ^ http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

47. Jump up ^ "Cosmic Detectives". The European Space Agency (ESA). 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04- 15.

48. Jump up ^ Barbara Bradley Hagerty (August 9, 2011). "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of And Eve". All Things Considered.

49. Jump up ^ Bible gets a check, MSNBC, Alan Boyle

50. Jump up ^ The Bible's Buried Secrets, PBS Nova, 2008 51. Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (March–April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk". Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.

52. Jump up ^ Dever, William G. (January 2003). "Contra Davies". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 2007-02-12.

53. Jump up ^ The Nature of Home: A Lexicon of Essays, Lisa Knopp, p. 126

54. Jump up ^ Deconstructing the walls of

55. ^ Jump up to: a b http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist- casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem

56. Jump up ^ Did the Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say, The New York Times, April 3, 2007

57. Jump up ^ Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur. Reasons We Believe. Crossway, 2008. ISBN 1-4335-0146- 5 / 9781433501463. Aug. 6, 2009: [2]

58. Jump up ^ Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah? by Rabbi Shraga Simmons(about.com)

59. Jump up ^ Michoel Drazin (1990). Their Hollow Inheritance. A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries. Gefen Publishing House, Ltd. ISBN 965-229-070-X.

60. Jump up ^ Troki, Isaac. "Faith Strengthened".

61. Jump up ^ Glaser, Zhava. "Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden?" Issues—A Messianic Jewish Perspective. July 30, 2009.

62. ^ Jump up to: a b "The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14". Messiahtruth.com. Retrieved2009-04-11.

63. Jump up ^ Why do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth? The Second Jewish Book Of Why p.66 by Alfred J. Kolatch 1985

64. Jump up ^ Peter, Kirby (2001–2007). "Early Christian Writings: Gospel of Mark". Retrieved2008-01-15.

65. Jump up ^ Achtemeier, Paul J. (1992). "The Gospel of Mark". The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4. New York, New York: Doubleday. p. 545. ISBN 0-385-19362-9.

66. Jump up ^ Meier, John P. (1991). A Marginal Jew. New York, New York: Doubleday. pp. v.2 955– 6. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.

67. Jump up ^ Helms, Randel (1997). Who Wrote the Gospels?. Altadena, California: Millennium Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-9655047-2-7.

68. Jump up ^ Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; The (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02- 541949-8.

69. Jump up ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-061629-6.

70. Jump up ^ Eisenman, Robert J. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56.ISBN 0-14-025773-X. 71. Jump up ^ Simon John De Vries: From old Revelation to new: a tradition-historical and redaction-critical study of temporal transitions in prophetic prediction. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995, ISBN 978-0-8028-0683- 3, p. 126

72. Jump up ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard: Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press 1990, ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7, p. 414

73. Jump up ^ Joshua 1:1-9

74. Jump up ^ Joshua 15:63

75. Jump up ^ Joshua 17:12-13

76. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 19.

77. Jump up ^ Judges 3:5-6

78. Jump up ^ Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians, Ann E. Killebrew, pp. 152-154, 2005

79. Jump up ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 1136

80. Jump up ^ The Old Testament world, By John Rogerson, Philip R. Davies, 1989, p. 358

81. Jump up ^ "The Tyre Prophecy Again". The Skeptical Review. March–April 1999. Retrieved 2007-11-08.

82. Jump up ^ "Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre". CRI/Voice Institute. 2006. Retrieved2007-11-08.

83. Jump up ^ Herodotus, (II, 177, 1)

84. Jump up ^ Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Ezekiel 29:1,19.

85. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 94.

86. Jump up ^ "Flavius Josephus, Antiquities Book X, chapter 11, first paragraph". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009- 04-11.

87. Jump up ^ John Marincola, Classical Association, Greek historians , Cambridge University Press, 2001, pages 37-39. Books.google.com. ISBN 978-0-19-922501-9. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

88. Jump up ^ Frederic Charles Cook, ed. (2006-10-04). " Bible Commentary: Proverbs-Ezekiel —footnote to Ezekiel 29:10-12". Ccel.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

89. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 62-67

90. Jump up ^ Siegfried Herrmann, A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London, 1981, SCM Press Ltd, page 284.

91. ^ Jump up to: a b "Prophecies: Imaginary and fulfilled". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

92. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 84. 93. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; page 1189— introduction to the book of Jonah.

94. Jump up ^ "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise, Farrell Till". Theskepticalreview.com. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

95. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 32.

96. Jump up ^ Greidanus, Sidney (1999). Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8028-4449-1. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

97. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 17:1

98. Jump up ^ "The Argument from the Bible (1996)". Infidels.org. Retrieved 2009-04-11.

99. Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 141.

100. Jump up ^ " of Israel". Britannica Online. Britannica.com. Retrieved2009-04-11.

101. Jump up ^ Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah , published by Zondervan, 1985, page 146

102. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 3:18

103. Jump up ^ John Arthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980, page 552

104. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Jeremiah 30

105. Jump up ^ Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39 , B&H Publishing Group, 2007, pages 360-363

106. Jump up ^ John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39 , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1986, pages 375-381

107. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Isaiah 21:1.

108. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, page 96.

109. Jump up ^ Daniel's First Verse by F.F.Bruce

110. Jump up ^ Claus Schedl, History of the Old Testament, Volume IV, Translation of 'Geschichte des Alten Testaments', Society of St.Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314, 1972, pages 349-350

111. Jump up ^ F.F. Bruce, Israel and the nations, Michigan, 1981, pages 88.

112. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 2 Chronicles 36:6 113. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to Matthew 11:1.

114. Jump up ^ John A.T., Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, 1976, page 20

115. Jump up ^ Dr. Knox Chamblin, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary: Commentary on Matthew 16:21-28—see last 4 paragraphs

116. Jump up ^ Theodor Zahn, F.F. Bruce, J. Barton Payne, etc. hold this opinion is the meaning of Matthew 10:23?

117. Jump up ^ Riemer, Michael (2000). IT Was At Hand. p. 12.

118. Jump up ^ Garland, Anthony (2007). A Testimony of Jesus Christ—Volume 1. p. 114.

119. Jump up ^ Sproul, RC (1998). The Last Days According to Jesus. p. 156.

120. Jump up ^ Online Interlinear New Testament in Greek—Matthew 26

121. Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York —London, 1970, page 137

122. Jump up ^ Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought compared with Greek, W.W.Norton & Company, New York —London, 1970, page 139

123. Jump up ^ Witherington, III, The Paul Quest , InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 140

124. Jump up ^ See also 1Cor7:29-31, 15:51-54 andRomans 13:12

125. Jump up ^ New Jerusalem Bible, Standard Edition published 1985, introductions and notes are a translation of those that appear in La Bible de Jerusalem—revised edition 1973, Bombay 2002; footnote to 1 Thessalonians 4:15: "Paul includes himself among those who will be present at the parousia: more by aspiration, however, than by conviction."

126. Jump up ^ Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

127. Jump up ^ Brandt, Eric T., and Timothy Larsen (2011). "The Old Atheism Revisited: Robert G. Ingersoll and the Bible". Journal of the Historical Society 11 (2): 211–238.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5923.2011.00330.x.

Further reading[edit]

 The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books 1995)

 The Historical Evidence for Jesus, by G.A. Wells (Prometheus Books 1988)

 The Bible unearthed, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Touchstone 2001)

 David and Solomon, by I. Finkelstein and N. Asherman (Freepress 2006)

 The Jesus Mysteries, by T. Freke and P. Gandy (Element 1999)

 The Jesus Puzzle, by (Age of Reason Publications 1999)  Not the Impossible Faith, by R. Carrier (Lulu 2009)

 BC The archaeology of the Bible lands, by Magnus Magnusson (Bodley Head 1977)

 godless, by Dan Barker (Ulysses Press 2008)

 Why I became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus (Prometheus books 2008)

 The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2007)

 The god delusion, by Richard Dawkins (Blackswan 2010)

 101 myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg (Sourcebooks 2000)

 Secret origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan (Millennium Press 2002)

 The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith (Oxford University Press 2001) Ethics in the Bible From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (August 2012) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (August 2012) This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2012) This article possibly contains original research. (August 2012) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (June 2014)

Ethics in the Bible are the ideas concerning right and wrong actions that exist in scripture in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Biblical accounts contain numerous prescriptions or laws that people use as guides to action.

Contents [hide]

 1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

 2 New Testament

 3 Theological issues

o 3.1

o 3.2 Moral relativism

o 3.3 God's benevolence

 4 Criticism

o 4.1 The Old Testament

o 4.2 The New Testament

 5 See also

 6 References

 7 External links

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit] Main article: 613 Mitzvot See also: Eye for an eye Prescriptive utterances (commandments) are found throughout the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, some related to inter-human relationships (the prohibition against murder) while others focus on issues of worship and ritual (e.g. the Day of Atonement festival). Rabbinic tradition classically schematizes these prescriptions into 613 mitzvot, beginning with "Be fruitful and multiply" (God's command to all life) and continuing on to the seven laws of Noah (addressed to all humanity) and the several hundred laws which apply specifically to the Israelites (such as the kashrut dietary laws). Rabbinic tradition also records the aforementioned distinction between commandments that and those that affect his relationship with (בין אדם מְלחבירו) relate to man's interaction with fellow man .citation needed]Many commandments are remarkable in their blending of the two roles].(בין אדם מְלמקום) God For example, observance of Shabbat is couched in terms of recognizing God's sovereignty and creation of the world, while also being presented as a social-justice measure to prevent overworking one's employees, slaves, and animals. As a result, the Bible consistently binds worship of the Divine to ethical actions and ethical actions with worship of the Divine.[citation needed] Several Biblical prescriptions may not correspond to modern notions of justice in relation to concepts such as slavery (Lev. 25:44-46), intolerance of religious pluralism (Deut. 5:7, Deut. 7:2-5, 2 Corinthians 6:14) or of freedom of religion (Deut. 13:6-12), discrimination and racism (Lev. 21:17-23, Deut. 23:1-3), treatment ofwomen, honor killing (Ex. 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Ex. 32:27- 29), genocide (Num. 31:15-18, 1 Sam. 15:3), religious wars, and capital punishment for sexual behavior like adultery and and for Sabbath breaking (Num. 15:32-36). The Book of Proverbs recommends disciplining a child: Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

— Proverbs 22:15

New Testament[edit] See also: Biblical law in Christianity, and and Judaism

The Good Samaritan

The main dispute of the , whether non-Jewish converts should be considered bound to the Old Testament laws, are addressed elsewhere in the New Testament, e.g. regarding dietary laws "Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"-:18. (See also Mark 7) or regarding divorce "I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery."-:31. (See also Mark 5)

The central teachings of Jesus are presented in the on the Mount,[1] notably the "golden rule" and the prescription to "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek". "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."-Matthew 5:43-44 Elsewhere in the New Testament (for example, the "Farewell Discourses" of John 14 through 16) Jesus elaborates on what has become known the commandment of love[according to whom?], repeated and elaborated upon in the epistles of Paul (1 Corinthians 13 etc.), see also The and The New Commandment.

Theological issues[edit] Euthyphro Dilemma[edit] Main articles: Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine command theory A central problem in religiously motivated ethics is the apparent tautology inherent in the concept that what is commanded by God is morally right. This line of reasoning is introduced most famously in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, which asks whether something is right because the gods love it, or whether the gods love it because it is right. Moral relativism[edit] Main articles: and Biblical law in Christianity See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations

The predominant Christian view[citation needed] is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers and abolished some Mosaic Laws, according to the New Testament (:15-18; Gal 3:23-25; 2 Cor 3:7-17; Eph 2:15; Heb 8:13, Rom 7:6 etc.). From a Jewish perspective however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant (Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-17, Mal 3:6-7) and will never be replaced or added to (Deut 4:2, 13:1). There are differences of opinion as to how the new covenant affects the validity of biblical law. The differences are mainly as a result ofattempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the biblical law is eternal (Exodus 31:16-17, 12:14-17) with New Testament statements that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply. Most biblical scholars admit the issue of the Law can be confusing and the topic of Paul and the Lawis still frequently debated among New Testament scholars[2] (for example, see , ); hence the various views. God's benevolence[edit] Further information: A central issue in monotheist ethics is the , the apparent contradiction between a benevolent, all-powerful God and the existence of evil and (seeProblem of Hell). Theodicy seeks to explain why we may simultaneously affirm God's goodness, and the presence of evil in the world. Descartes in his Meditationsconsiders, but rejects, the possibility that God is an evil ("dystheism"). The Bible contains numerous examples seemingly unethical acts of God.

 In the , God deliberately "hardened Pharaoh's heart", making him even more unwilling to free the Hebrew slaves (Exo 4:21, Rom 9:17-21).  Genocidal commands of God in Deuteronomy, such as the call to eradicate all the Canaanite tribes including children and infants (Deut 20:16-17). According to the Bible, this was to fulfill God's covenant to Israel, the "promised land" to his . (Deuteronomy 7:1-25)

 God ordering the Israelites to undertake punitive military raids against other tribes. This happened, for instance, to the Midianites of Moab, who had enticed some Israelites into worshipping local gods (Numbers 25:1-18). The entire tribe was exterminated, except for the young virgin girls; who were kept by the Israelites as slaves (:1-54). In 1 Samuel 15:3, God orders the Israelites to "attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." [3]

 In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to plague His loyal servant Job with devastating tragedies leaving all his children dead and himself poor. The nature of Divine justice becomes the theme of the entire book. However, after he got through his troubles his health was restored and all he had was doubled.

 Sending evil spirits to people ( 1 Samuel 18:10, Judges 9:23).

 Punishing the innocent for the sins of other people (Isa 14:21, Deut 23:2, Hosea 13:16).

Criticism[edit] Simon Blackburn states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[4] Elizabeth Anderson, a Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, states that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[5] Bertrand Russell stated that, "It seems to me that the people who have held to it [the Christian religion] have been for the most part extremely wicked....I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."[6] The Old Testament[edit] Elizabeth Anderson criticizes commands God gave to men in the Old Testament, such as: kill adulterers, homosexuals, and "people who work on the Sabbath" (Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 35:2, respectively); to commit ethnic cleansing (Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7- 9); commit genocide (Numbers 21: 2-3, Numbers 21:33–35, Deuteronomy 2:26–35, and Joshua 1–12); and other mass killings.[7] Anderson considers the Bible to permit slavery, the beating of slaves, the rape of female captives in wartime, (for men), the killing of prisoners, and child sacrifice.[7] She also provides a number of examples to illustrate what she considers "God's moral character": "Routinely punishes people for the sins of others ... punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth", punishes four generations of descendants of those who worship other Gods, kills 24,000 Israelites because some of them sinned (Numbers 25:1–9), kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of David in 2 Samuel 24:10–15, and "sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces" because they called someone names in 2 Kings 2:23–24.[8] Blackburn provides examples of Old Testament moral criticisms such as the phrase in Exodus 22:18 that has "helped to burn alive tens or hundreds of thousands of women in Europe and America": "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," and notes that the Old Testament God apparently has "no problems with a slave-owning society", considers birth control a crime punishable by death, and "is keen on child abuse".[9] Additional examples that are questioned today are: the prohibition on touching women during their "period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19–24)", the apparent approval of selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and the obligation to put to death someone working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).[10] The New Testament[edit] Anderson criticizes what she terms morally repugnant lessons of the New Testament. She claims that "Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt 10:35-37)", that "Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26)", and that Peter and Paul elevate men over their wives "who must obey their husbands as gods" (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34-5, Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2: 11-2, 1 Pet. 3:1).[11] Anderson states that the Gospel of John implies that "infants and anyone who never had the opportunity to hear about Christ are damned [to hell], through no fault of their own".[12]

Blackburn criticizes what he terms morally suspect themes[need quotation to verify] of the New Testament. [13] He notes some "moral quirks" of Jesus: that he could be "sectarian" (Matt 10:5–6),[14] racist (Matt 15:26 and Mark 7:27), and placed no value on animal life (Luke 8: 27–33).

See also[edit]

 Antinomianism#Biblical law in Christianity

and the New Testament

 Brotherly love (philosophy)

 But to bring a sword

 Criticism of the Bible

 Christianity and homosexuality

References[edit]

1. Jump up ^ The : a theological investigation by Carl G. Vaught 2001ISBN 978-0- 918954-76-3 pages xi–xiv

2. Jump up ^ Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

3. Jump up ^ The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible, Norm Phelps, p. 14

4. Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6. 5. Jump up ^ Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 336. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.

6. Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. pp. 20–21.ISBN 978-0-671-20323-8.

7. ^ Jump up to: a b Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 337. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.

8. Jump up ^ Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. pp. 336– 337. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.

9. Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 10, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.

10. Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.

11. Jump up ^ Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 338. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.

12. Jump up ^ Elizabeth Anderson, "If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" In Hitchens, Christopher (2007). The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. p. 339. ISBN 978-0-306-81608-6.

13. Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-0-19-280442-6.

14. Jump up ^ Blackburn, Simon (2003). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. OUP. p. 11-12. ISBN 9780191577925. Retrieved 2015-09-11. Then the persona of Jesus in the Gospels has his fair share of moral quirks. He can be sectarian: 'Go not into the way of the , and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt. 10:5-6). Internal consistency of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An American Christian family's Bible dating to 1859

The question of the internal consistency of the Bible concerns the coherence and textual integrity of the biblical scriptures. consider the Bible and Tanakh divinely inspired. Disputes regarding biblical consistency have a long history. The church father Origen replied to the writer Celsus, a critic of Christianity, who had complained that some Christians had remodelled the Gospel to answer objections, admitting that some had done so.[1]

Classic texts that discuss questions of inconsistency, from a critical secular perspective, include The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine,[2] the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus by Baruch Spinoza, the Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot, and the Dictionnaire philosophique of Voltaire.

Contents

[hide]

 1 Consistency as relevant to interpreting the Scriptures

 2 Approaches to biblical consistency

o 2.1 Theological approaches

. 2.1.1 Jewish

. 2.1.2 Christian

. 2.1.3 Muslim

o 2.2 Biblical criticism

 3 Types of consistency

o 3.1 Canonical texts of the Bible

o 3.2 Manuscript

o 3.3 Narrative

o 3.4 Theological

 4 Attribution of the books

o 4.1 Pentateuch and Torah

o 4.2 New Testament

 5 Old Testament and Torah

o 5.1 Internal consistency of the text

 6 New Testament

o 6.1 Internal consistency o 6.2 The Gospels

o 6.3 Examples

. 6.3.1 Gospels

. 6.3.2 Acts of the Apostles

. 6.3.3 Gospel and Acts

. 6.3.4 Epistles

. 6.3.5 Old Testament versus New Testament

 7 See also

 8 References

 9 Further reading

Consistency as relevant to interpreting the Scriptures[edit]

For many believers, the internal consistency of the Jewish and Christian scriptures is of importance because they feel that any inconsistencies or contradictions would challenge the truth of their contents and the view that they are of divine origin. Christian evangelists John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs, for instance, state that "the Bible's teachings, if perfect, must be consistent with one another" and that "the Bible is consistent with itself from beginning to end."[3] Similarly, Catholic writers have argued that "If we believe the Scriptures are divinely inspired, we must also believe them to be internally coherent".[4] Pastor Erwin Lutzer argues that the Bible is consistent in asserting that it is the word of God, and that this is a reason for accepting that it is of divine origin: "The sixty- six books speak with a consistent voice that these are the words of God".[5]

Critics of traditional Jewish and Christian belief have also argued that inconsistencies undermine the value of scripture. The Deist Minister Joseph Barker, speaking in 1854, described the Bible as "the most inconsistent, the most monstrous and blasphemous representations of God that can possibly be conceived by the human mind." and argued that "The book that contradicts science and contradicts itself is a book of no authority whatsoever."[6] A modern Islamic critic writes that if the Bible can be shown to be inconsistent, "then those who preach the Bible and read the Bible must seriously reconsider their source of information concerning their faith."[7]

One response to this kind of criticism is to argue that no inconsistencies exist. As theologian John Barton explains, some Christians read the Bible with the assumption that "Scripture is self- consistent", and that if there appear to be contradictions between two texts, they believe that "more careful reading is required to so as to show that they really cohere". Barton states that "this is not the Bible that we have in fact got." He also points out that Judaism understands that texts "may sometimes be in dialogue with each other" and "something positive may emerge from a kind of creative tension".[8] Most Christian writers, however, while agreeing that inaccuracies and inconsistencies occur, argue that these do not necessarily make the Bible false[9] and that it is no longer desirable to try to harmonize all four Gospels into "one consistent account", because "we have learned that each of the four Gospels has its own ... unique image of Jesus."[10]

On the subject of the Jewish text, B. Barry Levy writes about the Torah that "the textual integrity of every biblical book should be extremely important to those interested in either the Hebrew Bible or classical Jewish thought." Levy also writes that "Despite the popular, pious-sounding assumption that the Torah text is letter-perfect, frequent and extensive discussions by highly respected rabbinic leaders demonstrate that they, in some measure similar to modern scholars, were concerned about its true textual state; some of them even tried to clarify known textual doubts and to eliminate many troublesome inconsistencies."[11] However, the modern writer Joshua Golding states that even though it contains inconsistencies, this "does not imply that God did not reveal the Torah."[12]

Approaches to biblical consistency[edit]

See also: Biblical inerrancy and Biblical criticism

Theological approaches[edit]

Jewish[edit]

Jewish scholars divide the Hebrew Bible into the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Torah (or "first five books") is viewed as the literal word of God, dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai. As Maimonides states "The Torah that we have today is the one dictated to Moses by God". [13] The Prophets, such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Jonah are said to have heard and reported the word of God.[14] While the Writings (the category that includes books such as Psalms, Lamentations andChronicles) "were excluded from the prophetic collection because their inspiration appeared to be human rather than Divine".[15] However, "In the broadest sense, the Scriptures taken as a whole, and subsequently the totality of Jewish spiritual teaching, fall within the connotation of God’s word."[16]

Christian[edit] Ancient to Reformation

This tripartite division is not found in the mainstream Christian Old Testament. Justin Martyr, a 2nd- century Christian writer, declared the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible generally preferred in the early Church—to be "completely free of errors".[17]

Thomas Aquinas wrote that, "The author of Holy Scripture is God".[18] Also, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) asserts that the Bible's authority depends "wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God".[19] Some Christian groups, such as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches follow the Jewish practice of describing certain books as apocrypha (although these are not the books that the Hebrew Bible calls the Writings, nor do all churches regard the same list of books as apocryphal, see also biblical apocrypha).

Following the doctrine of divine inspiration, assertions that the Bible contains inconsistencies contradicts Martin Luther's statement that "God cannot lie."[20] Luther accepted that mistakes and inconsistencies existed, but concluded that they did not necessarily undermine the truth of the Gospel.[21] German Lutheran TheologianAndreas Osiander took a different view, proposing in Harmonia evangelica (1537) a number of attempted harmonisations, including the suggestion that Jesus must have been crowned with thorns twice, and that there were three separate episodes of cleansing of the Temple.[22]

Modern

Modern Christian approaches to biblical consistency are reminiscent of the split between Luther and Osiander, and can be broadly divided between inerrancy andinfallibility. The former, followed by the Southern Baptist Convention and by evangelical Christians in general, holds that the original biblical manuscripts have "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter", so that "all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy":[23] Its most erudite proponents, such as Gleason Archer, whose reconciliation of difficult texts echoes that of Osiander, allow that textual scholarship and an understanding of the historical context of individual passages is necessary to establish true, original biblical text, but that that text, once discovered, is without error.

The infallibility approach followed by some theologians and scholars, primarily of the Catholic and Anglican churches, and some mainline Protestant denominations, avoids many of the pitfalls of inerrancy by holding that the Bible is without error only in matters essential to salvation,[24] and that guidance is necessary for the correct interpretation of apparent inconsistencies; the latter part being common to all Orthodox and Catholic Christians, regardless of views of biblical inerrancy, being the primary role of the magisterium.

According to Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown, this approach found expression in Dei verbum, one of the key documents adopted at the , which stated that scripture teaches "...solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,"[25]—meaning that Scripture is inerrant only "...to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God,"[26][27] without necessarily being reliable on matters such as paleontology or political history; this view is challenged by some conservative Catholic scholars.[28][29]

Muslim[edit] Main article: Tahrif

In the , Muslim scholars such as Ibn Hazm, al-Qurtubi, al-Maqrizi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al- Qayyim,[30] based on their interpretation of Qur'anic and other traditions,[31] maintained that Jews and Christians had tampered with the scriptures, a concept known as tahrif. The theme of tahrif was first explored in the writings of Ibn Hazm (10th century), who rejected claims of Mosaic authorship and posited that Ezra was the author of the Torah. His arguments against the authenticity of the biblical text in both the Tanakh and New Testament included chronological and geographical inaccuracies and contradictions; what he considered theological impossibilities (anthropomorphic expressions, stories of extramarital sex, and the attributing of sins to prophets), as well as what he saw as a lack of reliable transmission (tawatur) of the text. He argued that the falsification of the Torah could have taken place while there existed only one copy kept by the Aaronic priesthood of the . Ibn Hazm's arguments had a major impact upon Muslim literature and scholars, and these and other polemical ideas were modified only slightly by some later authors.[32][33][34]

On the other hand, writers, such as Ibn al-Layth, Ibn Rabban, and Ibn Qutayba, found that there had been no corruption of the text but denounced as tahrif what they considered misleading interpretations of the text.[35] Also, the 14th century commentator Ibn Khaldun argued in the Muqaddimah (Introduction) that no distortion had taken place: "the statement concerning the alteration is unacceptable to thorough scholars and cannot be understood in its plain meaning".[36]

Biblical criticism[edit]

Part of a series on the

Bible

Canons and books

[show]

Authorship and development

[show]

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [hide]  Archeology  Artifacts  Dating  Historicity  Internal consistency  People  Places  Names

Novum Testamentum Graece

 Documentary hypothesis

 Wiseman hypothesis

 Synoptic problem

 NT textual categories

 Science and the Bible

Biblical criticism

 Historical  Textual  Source  Form  Redaction  Canonical

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[show]

Bible book Bible portal

 V  T

 E

The study of inconsistencies in the Bible has a long history. In the 17th century, Spinoza considered the Bible to be, "...a book rich in contradictions."[37] In the 18th century, Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason compiled many of the Bible's self-contradictions. And in 1860, William Henry Burr produced a list of 144 self-contradictions in the Bible.[38]

Biblical scholars have studied inconsistencies in and between texts and canons as a means to study the bible and the societies that created and influenced it. The field has been given rise to theories such as Wellhausen's[39] documentary hypothesis and the Deuteronomistic history (concerning the origins of the Torah and the history of Israel contained in the books from Joshua to Kings respectively),[40] and similar theories to explain why the Synoptic Gospels disagree with each other, and with the Gospel of John.

Types of consistency[edit]

Canonical texts of the Bible[edit]

The question of inconsistency covers not only the text but even the composition of scripture. Since the Bible never enumerates its own component parts, those who believe it is inerrant must appeal to extra-biblical authority to justify which books to include.[41] Over the centuries, different communities have accepted shifting collections of books. The size of these biblical canons varies enormously, from the Samaritans, who consider the five books of the Torah alone to be authoritative,[42] to the Ethiopian Bible, which contains all the books of all other churches plus such titles as theBook of Josephus and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.[citation needed] The contents of canons have varied over time, books regarded as authoritative by some Christians at some points in history being excluded from the collections of later communities—this was the fate of the many apocryphal Gospels from the first few centuries of the Church (theGospel of Thomas is a famous example); books long regarded as canonical in one branch of Christianity may be dropped by others on doctrinal grounds (the fate of the Deuterocanonical books, canonical in the Roman Catholic andEastern Orthodox Church but repudiated by the Protestants because they are not included in the Hebrew Bible [43] and supported doctrines to which the Protestant reformers objected such as the intercession of saints, , prayers for the dead etc.;[44][45] and some books that could have been included, such as the , quoted as scriptural in Jude 1:14-15, were excluded from the canons of almost all later communities (see Canonicity of the Book of Enoch).

Religion Accepted canon

Judaism Hebrew canon (24 books) Samaritanism Samaritan canon (5 books)

Roman Catholicism Catholic canon (73 books)

Protestantism Protestant canon (66 books)

Eastern Orthodox Churches Eastern Orthodox canon (78 books)

Ethiopian Orthodox Church Orthodox Tewahedo canon (81 books, variable)

Manuscript[edit]

Further information: Biblical manuscript and Textual criticism

Manuscripts also differ. Usually the differences are minor—matters of spelling and the like—but occasionally they are significant, as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John that bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221), where it is shown as a marginal note.[46] A similar example from the Old Testament is the difference between the Septuagint andMasoretic descriptions of the battle of David and Goliath: the Septuagint version is shorter and avoids the narrative inconsistencies of the familiar Masoretic story, notably the famous incident of Saul asking who David is as though he does not know his own harpist and shield-bearer.

There are also important differences between the Masoretic and Samaritan version of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. Some distinctions seem motivated by (or reflect) actual philosophical differences between Judaism and Samaritanism. Some of these are glaringly obvious, like the inclusion of a passage in the Samaritan version of the that restates the command to build of an on Mt. Gerizim, and says plainly that Mt. Gerizim is the site where all future sacrifices must be offered. Since the location of God's holy site is probably the central original difference between Judaism and Samaritanism, it makes sense that this passage is in one version and not the other.[47]

Narrative[edit]

Most questions of inconsistency relate to contradictions in the narrative. Some are minor, for example: the number of soldiers in an army (e.g. 1 Chron. 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9), the year a certain king began his reign (e.g. 2 Chron. 36:9 vs. 2 Kings 24:8), the details of Apostle Paul's itinerary (Acts 9,11,15,18:22,21 vs. Galatians 1:18,2:1). In some cases, seemingly trivial points of differences can actually have an enormous significance for the interpretation of a book or the reconstruction of the history of Ancient Israel, how the world was created, why God allows suffering, or the religious significance of Jesus' death.[48]

Theological[edit]

Christian theologians agree that the New Testament has a single and consistent theological focus on the salvific nature of Christ, but the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament consists of several different theologies. Some of these complement each other, whilst others are contradictory, even within the same book.[49] Despite the lack of a single unifying theology, common themes recur, including (although no list can be exhaustive) monotheism, the divine origins of human morality, God's election of a chosen people, the idea of the coming Messiah, and the concepts of sin, faithfulness, and . The study of these is central to both Jewish and Christian theologies, even if they differ in their approaches (see Christianity and Judaism). For example, although both religions believe in the coming Messiah, the Jewish expectation is different from the Christian view. Within Christianity, themes such as the nature of God (trinitarianism and ),[50] nature of Jesus, views of the old covenant, , , ordination of women, hell, biblical prophecies, etc. have continued to be a matter of dispute among theologians and various denominations.

Attribution of the books[edit]

Main article:

The question of internal consistency in the Bible also involves the attribution of authorship to its books. For instance, the words of the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament, have traditionally been believed to be by the hand of Moses, and the New Testament Gospels have been attributed to the Four Evangelists. Modern scholarship calls these attributions into question.

Pentateuch and Torah[edit]

Eliot Rabin writes: "For the past 400 years, readers have been openly questioning the traditional attribution of these five books to Moses."[51] For instance, he quotes Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 as writing that, when Genesis 12:6 has "and the Canaanite was then in the land", it could not have been written by Moses. Hobbes may have been the first European to question this attribution in print, arguing that the words can "only sensibly be used by someone who is writing when the Canaanites no longer are in the land ... But the Canaanites were in the land when Moses was alive."[52] Rabin also quotes the 11th century Rabi, , as saying that Moses could not have written, in Deuteronomy 34:5, "And Moses died there", but it must have been written by Joshua. However, it is also noted that the second century commentator Rabbi Meir, has it that God dictated those words to Moses, who wrote them down with a tear in his eye.[53]

New Testament[edit]

In none of the four Gospels does the text say that a particular book is written by the Evangelist who is attributed as its author. Writers such as M.N. Ralph say that in reading the Gospels one will be struck by "a great deal of evidence" that they are compilations inherited from written and oral sources "rather than eyewitness accounts". So scholars conclude that the attributions are "not to the person who compiled it."[54]

Old Testament and Torah[edit]

Modern scholars find inconsistencies in the Old Testament and Torah and ascribe many of them to the process by which they were created. For example, thedocumentary hypothesis asserts that repetitions and contradictions are the result of texts that have been woven together from diverse sources written by different authors, at different times. Joseph Jensen wrote, "no better explanation has as yet been found of the complexities of composition of the Pentateuch, and it continues to command a good consensus among scholars".[55]

On this point, Ronald Witherup gives the example of Genesis 1-2, which most scholars view as two separate stories of creation written by different authors in different time periods. "Most biblical scholars accept Genesis 1 as originating around the sixth century B.C. with a group of scribes who were concerned about the preservation of the liturgical traditions of the Jews (thus the concern for the seven-day schema of creation and the notion of the sabbath). Genesis 2, on the other hand, originates from an earlier, more primitive tradition dated to around the tenth century B.C." Fundamentalists argue that this is simply the same story told twice, the first time (Gen 1:1-2:4) being poetic and the second one (Gen 2:4-25) being more anthropomorphic.[56]

The Oxford Bible Commentary notes that:

“ as has long been recognized, there remain a number of variations or inconsistencies of detail, which suggests that two or more accounts have been combined. In particular, the creative acts are introduced in different ways. While in some cases God creates simply by speaking ("And God said..."), in others we are told that he performed certain actions: he made, separated, named, blessed, placed.

However, orthodox Rabbis, such as Mordechai Breuer deny that such inconsistencies are evidence that the words were not all created by God. He asserts that such hypotheses are false, and that the contradictory portrayals of creation are not because they were written by different authors. "Instead we refer them to the different qualities of God." [58]

There are further examples of other types of inconsistency in the Old Testament. In the account of the slaughtering of an animal before the Temple, it states that the animal: "was killed at the entrance to the , north of the altar, and cut up. The most natural interpretation of the Hebrew wording is that the slaughtering was done by the one making the offering rather than by the priest. If so, it contradicts Ezek 44:11, where it is done by the Levites, and 2 Chr 29:22, 24 where done by the priests."[59]

There are several places in the Old Testament where numerical figures can be directly compared. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 list the "people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city". Both give a total figure of 42,360 (Ezra 2:64 , Nehemiah 7:66 ). A third version of the list exists in the apocryphal book 1 Esdras. The numbers of members of each tribe given within the lists differ, none of which add up to the total of 42,360.[60]

It is also of interest that in 'The table of Nations' (Genesis ch.10: 1-32), the land of Assyria is listed as being a descendant of in verse 11, while verse 22 has it as of the line of .[61] Also, in Deuteronomy chapter 4, verses 1 and 8 state that Moses is about to teach the laws "today". Verse 8, in the Hebrew text, even says that the "entire Torah" is to be taught today. However, verse 5 suggests that the laws have already been delivered some time in the past.[62]

Internal consistency of the text[edit]

Jewish scholars are concerned that all copies of the Torah are identical, and that each copy is consistent in its statements and in its language. The aim is to preserve the work in a condition as close to its original state as possible. This extends to consistency in spelling and the use of individual words.

B. Barry Levy notes that the 16th century Rabbi Ibn Zimra recounted "how he restored the scrolls to their original state" and noted "the importance of having textual consistency in the scrolls, because criticisms of how Jews preserved and transmitted the Torah text contained accusations that they willfully changed it."[63] Levy also suggests that "Torah scrolls remain prized and frequently used ritual objects, and scribes have continually worked as carefully as possible to copy them, always holding dear the belief that they were producing as accurate and correct a text as they could. Unfortunately even this commitment and care could not guarantee a letter-perfect text".[64]

Furthermore, Shnayer Leiman writes that, "Errors have crept into the best Torah scrolls. Every so often a Torah has to be returned to the ark due to an error discovered while being read in public."[65]

Several grammatical errors are known to appear in copies of the Torah. As Shai Cherry notes, "Since one of the Rabbinic assumptions is that the Torah is perfect, at a minimum one would expect there to be no grammatical mistakes. After all, shouldn't God be an inerrant grammarian?" For examples of such mistakes, Cherry notes that, in the and story, where 'sin' is mentioned, "sin (chatat) is feminine, but the predicate is masculine." Rabbis have suggested that this is because sin starts out weak like a woman, but ends as strong as a man. Also, in verse 7 of this story, which concerns 'daughters' so that all four suffixes should be feminine, two of them are masculine. Cherry says that such problems ought to be ascribed to "sloppy editing," but that those who believe the Torah is perfect, would say that these errors were put there intentionally.[66]

New Testament[edit]

Main article: Textual criticism § New Testament

The New Testament has been preserved in three major manuscript traditions: the 4th century CE Alexandrian text-type; the Western text-type, also very early but prone to paraphrase and other corruptions; and the Byzantine text-type, which makes up above 80% of all manuscripts, the majority comparatively very late in the tradition. Scholars regard the Alexandrian text-type as generally more authoritative when treating textual variations. The majority of differences are minor—matters such as variant spellings[67][68]—although at a few points the oldest manuscripts show important inconsistencies compared with the more recent ones: these include the endings of Mark 16, describing Jesus' post- resurrection appearances, from the Gospel of Mark; the absence from John of the story of the woman taken in adultery; the ending of John, describing that Gospel's third post-resurrection appearance of Jesus; and an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John (the Comma Johanneum).[69]

All major modern Christian communions accept a uniform canon of 27 books, although a few small and isolated communities have either fewer or more. Nevertheless, the idea of a complete and clear- cut canon of the New Testament existing from Apostolic times has no foundation in history, and the canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a historical process. The very idea of a closed canon did not exist prior to the 2nd century, when it became necessary to counter movements such as Marcionism. By the end of the 4th century unanimity had been achieved in the West concerning the New Testament canon as it is today, and by the 5th century most of the East had come into harmony by accepting the Book of Revelation. Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon for Roman Catholicism was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546, as until then the authority of the Scriptures was not considered higher than that of , papal bulls, and ecumenical councils. Martin Luther revived the antilegomena dispute by suggesting the removal of Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; this was not generally accepted by his followers, but these books are still ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible. The canons of other important communions were defined in the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Presbyterianism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

Internal consistency[edit]

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger mentions several internal inconsistencies in the New Testament in earlier manuscripts that later scribes attempted to correct:[70]

In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in “ account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Placeis itemized.

In the 2nd century CE, Tatian produced a gospel text called Diatessaron by weaving together all four gospels into one. The gospel compilation eliminated all the discrepancies that exist between the four gospels.[71] For example, it omits the conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. To fit in all canonical material, Tatian created his own narrative sequence, which is different from both the synoptic sequence and John's sequence.

The Gospels[edit]

See also: Historicity of the canonical Gospels The problem of there being possible contradictions in the Gospels is of importance to Christians. As Francis Watson writes: "The problem cannot be resolved by observing that the alleged contradictions are trivial ... [They] are far from trivial [and] there are very many of them, and they often relate to issues at the heart of the Christian faith and life."[72]

In his Harmony of the Gospels, produced a 5th-century attempt to explain away all of the apparent contradictions he was aware of.[73] He wrote that because there are those who would "rob [the Evangelists] of their credit as veracious historians", "we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other."[74] Whereas more modern apologists, such as Gleason Archer, in producing a book that provides explanations for many Bible difficulties, writes: "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it."[75]

Of those who accept that there are inconsistencies, scholars such as Raymond Brown have examined contradictions in the Gospels, particularly in the infancy narratives of Christ.[76] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders claim that: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[77] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[78] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[79][80]

As a further example, the "Markan Appendix" "is universally accepted to have not been written by the author",[81] and that Mark 16:9-20 was added later so that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8.[82][83][84]

Grammatico-historical is determining the meaning of scripture by understanding the author's environment outside the Bible, as well as the scripture itself.R. T. France states this form of exegesis involves the "fullest possible use of linguistic, literary, historical, archaeological, and other data bearing on that author's environment".

France, regarding the "distinctive contribution" of each of the four gospels, commented, "In accepting that God intended his church to have four Gospels, not just one, Christians have also recognized that each has something different to say about Jesus. It is only after we have listened to each in its individuality that we can hope to gain the full richness which comes from the 'stereoscopic' vision of Jesus as seen through four different pairs of eyes!"[85]

The Two-source Hypothesis remains the most popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels: according to this, there are two sources, the Gospel of Mark and a lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q (see also, other hypotheses).[86] However, the Two-source Hypothesis is not without its problems.

Examples[edit]

A wide variety of inconsistencies have been suggested both within the New Testament and between the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures. These fall into a number of broad categories. The more prominent are identified and discussed below, with examples. Gospels[edit] See also: Historical reliability of the Gospels and Gospel harmony

Internal consistency within the synoptic gospels has been analysed by many scholars. A well-known example is the nativity narratives found in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-6 ) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:32-34 ). Each gives a , but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Apologists have suggested that the differences are the result of two different lineages, Matthew's from King David's son, Solomon, to Jacob, father of Joseph, and Luke's from King David's other son, Nathan, to , father of Mary and father-in-law of Joseph. [87] However, the scholar Geza Vermes points out that Luke makes no mention of Mary, and questions what purpose a maternal genealogy would serve in a Jewish setting.[88]

In Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out another conflict, between :30 /Luke 11:23 ("He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters") and Mark 9:40 /Luke 9:50 ("For he who is not against us [you] is for us [you]"). Bonhoeffer called these two sayings "the claim to exclusiveness and the claim to totality". He argued that both are necessary and that "The cross of Christ makes both sayings true."[89] D.A. Carson commented similarly, adding he thought there are two different contexts where Mark 9:40 /Luke 9:50 describe the attitude listeners are to have to other possible disciples: when in doubt, be inclusive, while Matthew 12:30 /Luke 11:23 describe the standard listeners should apply to themselves: be in no doubt of one's own standing.[90] Other commentaries argue that, juxtaposed, the sayings declare the impossibility of neutrality.[91]

Modern New Testament scholarship tends to view these not as separate statements, but rather one statement that has either been preserved in two different forms, or has been altered by the Gospel writers to present a point of view that expresses the needs of the Christian community at the time. [92] The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest of the Gospels, presents the 'inclusive' formulation, in association with an account of Jesus rebuking his followers for stopping someone from carrying out exorcisms in his name. The Gospel of Matthew has the other, 'exclusive' version, preceded by a story about a strong man; the Gospel of Mark also includes this story, but without the concluding observation. The Luke version presents both versions. There is still lively discussion about which version is the more authentic,[92][93] see also the Jesus Seminar.

Barton and Muddiman cite inconsistencies between the gospel writers about what happened at Christ's tomb. They note that "In Mk 16:1 there are three women at the tomb, in Mt 28:1 two, and in Lk 23:55-24:10 more than three. In Mark and Luke they come with spices to anoint Jesus, but in the Fourth Gospel this has already been done.[94]

Raymond E. Brown notes the apparent disagreements between the New Testament books in reporting the words of Jesus concerning his prediction of the destruction of the Temple. In Mark 13:2 it is reported as a direct statement: "And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." However, in Mark 14:57-58, the event becomes words from people who "bare false witness against him"; in Mark 15:29, Jesus' words are used to blaspheme him; and in Acts 6:13-14, similar words are again said to be from those baring false witness. Furthermore, Matthew 26:60-61 and 27:39-40 has people accusing Jesus and blaspheming him as someone who had said such words, while :19-21 reports Jesus saying directly that the sanctuary would be destroyed, but actually speaking "of the sanctuary of his body". Brown suggests that the various accounts show that Jesus did not have God's detailed foreknowledge of what was to happen to the Temple. In evidence for this lack of detailed prescience, he points out that there are many stones left upon other stones in the remains of Herod's temple, for instance in the Wailing Wall.[95]

According to Ehrman, a more important difference among the Gospels is with the book of John. He argues that the concept that Jesus existed before his birth, was a divine being, and became human is only claimed in the Gospel of John.[96] However, most scholars disagree, locating pre-existent and divine within the Pauline epistles and synoptic gospels.[97][98]

Acts of the Apostles[edit] Main article: Conversion of Paul

See also: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

In the "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", Archer examines two verses in Acts describing the Conversion of Paul which are sometimes perceived as a contradiction:[99]

"The men who travelled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one" Acts 9:7 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me" Acts 22:9

Archer claims that the original Greek shows "there is no real contradiction between these two statements" because "Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the object to the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative)" and "in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case". [99] Archer points to similar circumstances where "the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28 ... perceived it only as thunder".[99]

Gospel and Acts[edit] See also: Judas Iscariot

In Matthew 27:3-8 , Judas returns the bribe Christians believe he had immorally accepted for handing over Jesus, throwing the money into the temple before hanging himself. The temple priests, unwilling to return the defiled money to the treasury,[100] used it instead to buy a field known as the Potter's Field, as a plot in which to bury strangers. In Acts 1:18 , on the other hand, Judas, having not committed suicide out of guilt, used the bribe money to buy the field himself, and his death in the field is attributed thus: "falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out."

Raymond E. Brown points to the obvious contradiction: "Luke's account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27:3-10." [101] Harmonization of the two accounts has been tried since ancient times[102] and occasionally still today.[103] However, modern scholars tend to find these unconvincing,[104] pointing out, for instance, the absence of any indication of suicide in the story in Acts.[105]

Epistles[edit] Main article: Antinomianism

The Tübingen school of historians founded by F. C. Baur believes that in Early Christianity, there was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" or "Pillars of the Church".[106] Paul believed that the gentiles and Jewish Christians were no longer obligated to keep the Mosaic law (Gal 2:21). The Jewish Christians disagreed, believing that everyone, including the gentiles, must keep the Mosaic law. In :14, part of the "Incident at Antioch",[107] Paul publicly rebuked Peter for judaizing.

Paul claims several times that believers are saved by , and that believers are therefore "not under law, but under grace".[108] The Epistle of James, in contrast, claims that Christians are to obey the "whole law",[109] that "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone", and that "faith without works is dead".[110] Protestants, with their belief in salvation by faith alone, have had difficulty reconciling these contradictory views. Martin Luther, for example, asserted that the Epistle of James might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later accepted its canonicity - see Antilegomena).

Some scholars[who?] believe that Paul and James do not contradict each other but speak about different questions.[111] They assert that the perspective of Paul is different from, and complementary to, that of James - "When Paul claims that one is justified by faith alone, apart from works, he is referring to works that precede salvation. Conversely, when James insists on works as necessary to , he has in view works that follow and validate salvation."[112] Paul states in various passages that works have to follow faith (:11- 12, Ephesians 2:10, Romans 6:13, Galatians 5:13, etc.).

In I Corinthians: "Inconsistencies have been found within later chapters, for instance between an apparently softer stance on sacrificial food in 8:1-13 and 10:22-11:1, and a harder line in 10:1-22."[113] Also, the letter "seems to place a total ban on women's speech in church, which is strangely inconsistent with Paul's permission in 11:2-16 that (veiled) women could pray and prophesy."[114]

Old Testament versus New Testament[edit] Main articles: Law in Christianity, Christianity and Judaism, New Covenant, Antinomianism and Ethics in the Bible

In the 2nd century CE, the Christian theologian Marcion composed a work (now lost) entitled Antithesis. In the Antithesis, Marcion set out in detail and discussed at length the contradictions between the Old Testament and New Testament.[115] The Old and New Testaments, Marcion argued, cannot be reconciled to each other. The code of conduct advocated by Moses was "an eye for an eye", but Jesus set this precept aside. Marcion pointed to :7 "I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things. He contrasted this with Jesus' saying that "a tree was known by its fruit, a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" and then pointed to several injunctions and lessons in the Old Testament that the New Testament contradicts. For example, Elisha had children eaten by bears; Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me". Joshua had the sun stopped in order to prolong the slaughter of his enemies. Paul quoted Jesus as commanding "Let not the sun go down on your wrath"(Eph 4:26). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted and so was polygamy; in the New Testament, neither is allowed. Moses enforced theJewish Sabbath and Jewish Law; Jesus has de-institutionalised both. Even within the Old Testament, Marcion found contradictions. For example, God commanded that no work should be done on the Sabbath, yet he told the Israelites to carry the ark around Jericho seven times on the Sabbath. No graven image was to be made, yet Moses was directed to fashion a bronze . Marcion therefore rejected the entire Old Testament.[116][117][118]

One Christian view is that Jesus mediates a New Covenant relationship between God and his followers and abolished the Mosaic Laws, according to the New Testament (Hebrews 10:15-18; Gal 3:23-25; 2 Cor 3:7-17; Eph 2:15; Heb 8:13, Rom 7:6 etc.) From a Jewish perspective however, the Torah was given to the Jewish people and B'nei Noah as an eternal covenant (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-17, Mal 3:6-7) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1). There are differences of opinion as to how the new covenant affects the validity of biblical law. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements that the biblical law is eternal (Exodus 31:16-17, 12:14-17) with New Testament statements that suggest that itdoes not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply. Most biblical scholars admit the issue of the Law can be confusing and the topic of Paul and the Law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars[119] (for example, see New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity); hence the various views.

See also[edit]

 Biblical canon

 Biblical criticism

 Biblical manuscript

 Criticism of Christianity

 Criticism of the Bible

 Development of the Christian Biblical canon

 Development of the Hebrew Bible canon

 Gospel harmony  Science and the Bible

 Tahrif, an Arabic term used by with regard to irreparable alterations Islamic tradition claims Jews and Christians have made to biblical manuscripts

References[edit]

1. Jump up ^ Origen. "Contra Celsus, Book II, Chapter XXVII". Retrieved 2008-05-07.

2. Jump up ^ Paine, Thomas. Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794–1796): the Age of Reason by Paine. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

3. Jump up ^ Ankerberg, J. and Burroughs, D., Taking a Stand for the Bible: Today's Leading Experts Answer Critical Questions about God's Word, Harvest House Publishers, 2009, p. 24.

4. Jump up ^ Hahn, S., and Mitch, C., Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, Ignatius Press, 2013, Introduction.

5. Jump up ^ Lutzer, EW., Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible, Moody Publishers, 2008, pp. 16 & 34.

6. Jump up ^ Proceedings of the Hartford Bible Convention, Partridge & Brittan, 1854, p. 46.

7. Jump up ^ Rashad Abdul Mahaimin, Jesus and the Bible, Islamic Books, 2003, p.4.

8. Jump up ^ Barton, J., The Bible: The Basics, Routledge, 2010. pp. 1–15.

9. Jump up ^ Giles, T., A Doubter's Guide to the Bible, Abingdon Press, 2010, Ch. 4.

10. Jump up ^ Garvey, JD. and Garvey, SJ., Why a Church Catholic?, Rowman & Littlefield, 1988, p. 89.

11. Jump up ^ Levy, BB., Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law, Oxford University Press, 2001, Preface.

12. Jump up ^ Golding, JL., Rationality and Religious Theism, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, p.106

13. Jump up ^ Maimonides, Commentary on Mishnah, 11:1, Article 8

14. Jump up ^ Ronald H. Isaacs, RH., Messengers of God: A Jewish Prophets Who's who, Jason Aronson, 1998, pp. 36–37.

15. Jump up ^ Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 577–578.

16. Jump up ^ Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., vol. 21, p.214.

17. Jump up ^ Hengel, M., The Septuagint as a Collection of Writings Claimed by Christians: Justin and the Church Fathers before Origen, in Dunn, JDG., Jews and Christians, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992, p. 69.

18. Jump up ^ "Quod auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus". Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Article 10.

19. Jump up ^ Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Paragraph iv. 20. Jump up ^ ""Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ" Luther, Martin. ''Weimarer Ausgabe'' 10 III, 162". Mtio.com. Retrieved 2012-10-09.

21. Jump up ^ Graham Stanton, Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels(HarperCollins, 1995) p. 8.

22. Jump up ^ Graham Stanton, Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels(HarperCollins, 1995) p. 8; John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, "Is There a New ?", in Horrell, Tuckett (eds), Christology, Controversy, and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (BRILL, 2000), p. 39.

23. Jump up ^ "The Baptist Faith and Message, I. The Scriptures". Sbc.net. Retrieved2012-10-09.

24. Jump up ^ Raymond F Collins (1989). "Essay 65: "Inspiration", 65:29–50, pp. 1029f". In Raymond Brown, , Roland Murphy (Eds.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1st ed.). Pearson. pp. 1023–1033.

25. Jump up ^ Dei verbum , Chapter III, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

26. Jump up ^ Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press (1981), p. 19.

27. Jump up ^ Vincent P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and Its Message: An Introduction, (Paulist Press, 1998), p. 7–8.

28. Jump up ^ Raymond F Collins (1989). "Essay 65: "Inspiration"". In Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Roland Murphy (Eds.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1st ed.). Pearson. pp. 1023– 1033. "Clearly, Vatican II intended to recapitulate traditional teaching on inspiration....In this regard, Vatican II's statement on inspiration concurs with the views of many evangelical Christians." (65:5, p. 1024)

29. Jump up ^ Bea, Augustin Cardinal. "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture". Retrieved 5 December 2012.

.(القول في التوراة والجنجيل) Jump up ^ Izhar ul-Haqq, Ch. 1 Sect. 4 titled .30

31. Jump up ^ See, for example, Ibn Hajar's explication of Bukhari's

32. Jump up ^ The Encyclopedia of Islam, BRILL

33. Jump up ^ Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth- Century, chapter "An Andalusi-Muslim Literary Typology of Jewish Heresy and Sedition", pp. 56 and further, Tahrif: p. 58, ISBN 0-691-00187-1

34. Jump up ^ Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, p. 146, ISBN 0-691-01082-X

35. Jump up ^ Camilla Adang (1 January 1996). Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. BRILL. pp. 223–224. ISBN 978-90-04-10034-3.

36. Jump up ^ John F. A. Sawyer (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Companion to the Bible and Culture. John Wiley & Sons. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-4051-7832-7.

37. Jump up ^ Strauss, L., Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, SUNY Press, 1997, p. 206.

38. Jump up ^ Burr, WH., Self-Contradictions of the Bible, 1860, reprinted Library of Alexandria, 1987.

39. Jump up ^ Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena to the History of Israel: With a Reprint of the Article 'Israel' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1885. reprinted Cambridge University Press, 2013. 40. Jump up ^ McKenzie, SL., The trouble with Kings: the composition of the book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic history, Supplements to Vetus testamentum, Brill, 1991

41. Jump up ^ A. E. Taylor, The Faith of a Moralist (Macmillan, London, 1930) II, p. 209; quoted in Brand Blanchard, Reason and Belief (Allen and Unwin, 1974), p. 27.

42. Jump up ^ The Pentateuch, or Torah, is the first five books of the bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

43. Jump up ^ "More Than One Bible." Christian History, issue 43, 1994.

44. Jump up ^ Mercer dictionary of the Bible. Books.google.ca. 1990. ISBN 9780865543737. Retrieved 2012-10-09.

45. Jump up ^ The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Books.google.com. 1995-02- 13. ISBN 9780802837813. Retrieved 2012-10-09.

46. Jump up ^ Daniel B. Wallace,"The Comma Johanneum and ".

47. Jump up ^ "The Samaritan Pentateuch". Web.meson.org. Retrieved 2012-10-09.

48. Jump up ^ Jesus, Interrupted Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Bart Ehrman, p. 19

49. Jump up ^ Rolf P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), p. 1; Isaac Kalimi, "The Task of Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Theology - Between Judaism and Christianity" in Wonil Kim, Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2000), p. 235.

50. Jump up ^ God as Communion By Patricia A. Fox, p. 28

51. Jump up ^ Rabin, E., Understanding the Hebrew Bible: A Reader's Guide, KTAV Publishing House, 2006, p. 113.

52. Jump up ^ Martinich AP., The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 312–313.

53. Jump up ^ Rabin, E., Understanding the Hebrew Bible: A Reader's Guide, KTAV Publishing House, 2006, p. 114.

54. Jump up ^ Ralph, MN., A Walk Through the New Testament: An Introduction for Catholics, Paulist Press, 2009, p. 15.

55. Jump up ^ Joseph Jensen, God's Word to Israel, Liturgical Press (September 1982), p. 36.ISBN 0-8146- 5289-1

56. Jump up ^ Ronald D. Witherup, Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, Liturgical Press (2001), p. 26.

57. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 42.

58. Jump up ^ Breuer, M., The study of the Bible and fear of Heaven, in Carmy, S. (ed), Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, Rowman & Littlefield, 1996, pp.159-181.

59. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 96. 60. Jump up ^ Oded Lipschitz, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, (Eisenbrauns, 2003) p. 359.

61. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 47.

62. Jump up ^ Kruger, T., in Schipper, B. and Teeter DA. Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the , BRILL, 2013, p. 38.

63. Jump up ^ Levy, BB., Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 57.

64. Jump up ^ Levy, BB., Fixing God's Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible Text in Jewish Law, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 166.

65. Jump up ^ Leiman, SZ., Response to Rabbi Brewer, in Carmy, S. (ed), Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, Rowman & Littlefield, 1996, p.186.

66. Jump up ^ Cherry, S., Torah Through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary from the Rabbinic Period to Modern Times, Jewish Publication Society, 2010, p. 174.

67. Jump up ^ K. Aland and B. Aland, "The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (June 1995). ISBN 0-8028-4098-1.

68. Jump up ^ Bruce, Frederick Fyvie, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (May 2003), ISBN 0-8028-2219-3

69. Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166

70. Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, pp. 199–200

71. Jump up ^ Encountering the Manuscripts By Philip Wesley Comfort, Philip Comfort

72. Jump up ^ Watson, F., Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013, p. 14.

73. Jump up ^ Fitzgerald, A. and Cavadini, JC., Augustine through the ages: an encyclopedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999, p. 132 ISBN 0-8028-3843-X

74. Jump up ^ St. Augustine of Hippo, in The Harmony Of The Gospels (Extended Annotated Edition), Jazzybee Verlag, 2012, Chapter VII.

75. Jump up ^ Archer, Gleason L., "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", p. 4.

76. Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.

77. Jump up ^ W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984.

78. Jump up ^ Sanders, Ed Parish (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. p. 85. ISBN 0- 7139-9059-7.

79. Jump up ^ Hurtado, Larry W. (June 2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 319. ISBN 0-8028-6070-2. 80. Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.

81. Jump up ^ Nave, DN., The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts,BRILL, 2002 p. 194.

82. Jump up ^ The role and function of repentance in Luke-Acts, by Guy D. Nave, p. 194 – seehttp://books.google.com/books?id=4CGScYTomYsC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%2B %22markan+appendix %22&source=bl&ots=ex8JIDMwMD&sig=oCI_C1mXVSZYoz34sVlgRDaO__Q&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGYn SjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan%20appendix %22&f=false

83. Jump up ^ The Continuing Christian Need for Judaism, by John Shelby Spong, Christian Century September 26, 1979, p. 918. see http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256

84. Jump up ^ Feminist companion to the New Testament and early Christian writings, Volume 5, by Amy-Jill Levine, Marianne Blickenstaff, p. 175 – seehttp://books.google.com/books? id=B2lfhy5lvlkC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=%2B%22markan+appendix %22&source=bl&ots=vp5GVlmghC&sig=XN1KJCsBkTWO2Fot4SBhnpWoRkY&hl=en&ei=3pq_St6aGY nSjAefnOU2&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%2B%22markan %20appendix%22&f=false

85. Jump up ^ France, R.T., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England (1985), p. 17.

86. Jump up ^ Thomas, RL., Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels,Kregel Academic, 2002, p. 35.

87. Jump up ^ Warren, Tony. "Is there a Contradiction in the Genealogies of Luke and Matthew?" Created 2/2/95 / Last Modified 24 January 2000. Accessed 4 May 2008.

88. Jump up ^ Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, (Penguin, 2006), p. 42.

89. Jump up ^ Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "Ethics", p. 60–61, Touchstone; (September 1, 1995, reprint of his 1943 book) ISBN 0-684-81501-X

90. Jump up ^ D.A. Carson, Commentary on Matthew, Expositor's Bible Commentary CDROM,Zondervan, 1989–97

91. Jump up ^ See the commentaries by McGarvey on Mk 9:40, Johnson on Mt 12:30, andBrown on Lk 11:23.

92. ^ Jump up to: a b R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, Continuum International Publishing (2000), pp. 41–43.

93. Jump up ^ Ian H. Henderson, Jesus, Rhetoric and Law, Brill (1996), pp. 333–334; William David Davies, Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Continuum International Publishing (2004), pp. 333–334.

94. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 997.

95. Jump up ^ Brown, RE., An Introduction to New Testament Christology, Paulist Press, 1994, pp. 49–51.

96. Jump up ^ Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, Harper Collins Publishing (2009), p. 74

97. Jump up ^ Douglad McCready, He Came Down from Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ And the Christian Faith. 98. Jump up ^ Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

99. ^ Jump up to: a b c Archer, Gleason L., "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", p. 382.

100. Jump up ^ "It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained." Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5.xiv, 1883.

101. Jump up ^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.114.

102. Jump up ^ E.g. Alfred Edersheim concluded, "there is no real divergence". Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5.xiv, 1883.

103. Jump up ^ For example, Dr C Gempt suggests: "The details that seem at variance can be reconciled...after refusing the money the priests bought the field in Judas' name..and it was there that he hanged himself." His body was no longer hanging by the time it was discovered, but had fallen ... to the ground where it had split open.'Inter-Varsity Press New Bible Commentary 21st Century edition p1071

104. Jump up ^ Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Smyth & Helwys (2005) p. 15. ISBN 1-57312-277-7

105. Jump up ^ Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Baker Academic, 2008) p. 33.

106. Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: St. : "Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. ... On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9)."

107. Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: see section titled: "THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH"

108. Jump up ^ Rom 6:14

109. Jump up ^ :10-11

110. Jump up ^ James 2:14–26

111. Jump up ^ For instance, Douglas J. Moo writes that "if a sinner can get into relationship with God only by faith (Paul), the ultimate validation of that relationship takes into account the works that true faith must inevitably produce (James)."Douglas J. Moo,The Letter of James, Erdmans Publishing, 2000, p. 141 - The Letter of James

112. Jump up ^ Dr. R. Bruce Compton: James 2:21-24 and the justification of Abraham, p. 44- many scholars are referred to in the footnotes!

113. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 1108.

114. Jump up ^ Barton, J. and Muddiman, J., The Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP Oxford, 2007, p. 1130.

115. Jump up ^ The Antithesis, Dr. Carroll Bierbower

116. Jump up ^ The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance,Bruce Manning Metzger, p. 91–92

117. Jump up ^ The early church, W. H. C. Frend, p. 56

118. Jump up ^ Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, Adolf Von Harnack 119. Jump up ^ Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

Further reading[edit]

 Ardt, William. Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions. Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1987. N.B.: "Revised edition of [both the author's]Bible Difficulties and [his] Does the Bible Contradict Itself? ISBN 0-570-04470-7

 Metzger, Bruce Manning (1992). The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press.ISBN 0-19-507297-9.

 Geisler, Norman L. (1980). Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House. ISBN 0-310- 39281-0.

 Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter- Varsity. ISBN 0-310-28670-0.

 Gutierrez, M L (May 2010). The Bible Dilemma: Historical Contradictions, Misquoted Statements, Failed Prophecies and Oddities in the Bible. Dog Ear Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60844-021-4. Biblical criticism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible.

The Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible

Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings".[1] Viewing biblical texts as having human rather than supernatural origins, it asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition; and what message it was intended to convey. It will vary slightly depending on whether the focus is on theHebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the letters of New Testament or the Canonical gospels. It also plays an important role in the quest for a Historical Jesus. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, Oral Tradition studies, and historical and religious studies. Contents [hide]

 1 Background

 2 History

o 2.1 Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

o 2.2 New Testament

 3 Methods and perspectives

o 3.1 Textual criticism

o 3.2 Source criticism

o 3.3 and tradition history

o 3.4

o 3.5 Canonical criticism

o 3.6 Rhetorical criticism

o 3.7 Narrative criticism

o 3.8 Psychological criticism

o 3.9 Socio-scientific criticism

o 3.10 Postmodernist criticism

o 3.11 Feminist exegesis

 4 New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus

o 4.1 Multiple attestation

o 4.2 Tendencies of the developing tradition

o 4.3 Embarrassment

o 4.4 Coherence

o 4.5 The Crucifixion

o 4.6 Semitisms

o 4.7 Sitz im Leben  5 Notable biblical scholars

 6 See also

 7 Notes

 8 Further reading

 9 External links

Background[edit]

Andover-Harvard Theological Library,.

Biblical criticism, defined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artifacts, grew out of the of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century it was divided between the higher criticism, the study of the composition and history of biblical texts, and lower criticism, the close examination of the text to establish their original or "correct" readings. These terms are largely no longer used, and contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived. A division is still sometimes made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticism asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time. Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism, the former concerned the development of texts through time, the latter treating texts as they exist at a particular moment, frequently the so- called "final form", meaning the Bible text as we have it today.

History[edit]

Part of a series on the

Bible Canons and books

[show]

Authorship and development

[show]

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies [show]

Interpretation[show]

Perspectives[show]

Bible book Bible portal

 V

 T

 E

Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament[edit] Title page of Richard Simon's "Critical History" (1685), an early work of biblical criticism.

Modern biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians—Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others—who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially thePentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books; according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics found contradictions and inconsistencies in the text that they concluded made Mosaic authorship improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods oftextual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza. Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752– 1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) in a movement which became known as the higher criticism (to distinguish it from the far longer-established close examination and comparison of individual manuscripts, called the lower criticism); this school reached its apogee with the influential synthesis of Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) in the 1870s, at which point it seemed to many that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document. The implications of "higher criticism" were not welcomed by many religious scholars, not least the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his Providentissimus Deus;[2] but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu: "textual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books...Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed".[3] Today the modern Catechism states: "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression".[4] New Testament[edit]

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). His The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906) demonstrated that 19th century "lives of Jesus" were reflections of the authors' own historical and social contexts.

The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) - "Ecce Homo -The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry" (1769), the first Life of Jesus described as a mere historical man, published anonymously in . George Houston translated the work into English—published in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, and New York in 1827—for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David Strauss, , Johannes Weiss, and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and established the two-source hypothesis (the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and Luke drew on the gospel of Mark and a hypothetical document known as Q). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and , in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the , or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of first-century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical. Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine ( Borg).

Methods and perspectives[edit]

Source criticism: diagram of the two-source hypothesis, an explanation for the relationship of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive. Textual criticism[edit] Textual criticism (sometimes still referred to as "lower criticism") refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace its history. It takes as its basis the fact that errors inevitably crept into texts as generations of scribes reproduced each other's manuscripts. For example, Josephus employed scribes to copy his Antiquities of the Jews. As the scribes copied the Antiquities, they made mistakes. The copies of these copies also had the mistakes. The errors tend to form "families" of manuscripts: scribe A will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe B, and over time the "families" of texts descended from A and B will diverge further and further as more mistakes are introduced by later scribes, but will always be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together a good idea of what the original looked like. The more surviving copies, the more accurately can they deduce information about the original text and about "family histories".

Textual criticism is a rigorously objective[clarification needed] discipline using a number of specialized methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as Lectio difficilior potior: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred".[5] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: .12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to, "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement.[6] Source criticism[edit] Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th-century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies".[7] An example of source criticism is the study of the Synoptic problem. Critics noticed that the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew,Mark and Luke, were very similar, indeed, at times identical. The dominant theory to account for the duplication is called the two-source hypothesis. This suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and that it was probably based on a combination of early oral and written material. Matthew and Luke were written at a later time, and relied primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them. Form criticism and tradition history[edit] Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc.). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.[8] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodology in biblical studies.[9] Redaction criticism[edit] Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of sources", and is frequently used to reconstruct the community and purposes of the authors of the text.[10] It is based on the comparison of differences between manuscripts and their theological significance.[11] Canonical criticism[edit] Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it".[12] Where previous criticism asked questions about the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.[1] Rhetorical criticism[edit] Rhetorical criticism of the Bible dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Modern application of techniques of rhetorical analysis to biblical texts dates to James Muilenberg in 1968 as a corrective to form criticism, which Muilenberg saw as too generalized and insufficiently specific. For Muilenberg, rhetorical criticism emphasized the unique and unrepeatable message of the writer or speaker as addressed to his audience, including especially the techniques and devices which went into crafting the biblical narrative as it was heard (or read) by its audience. "What Muilenberg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism", they did not limit themselves to Muilenberg's definition...In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines". Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes a special interest in the relationship between the biblical text and its intended audience within the context of the communal life setting. Rhetorical criticism asks how the text functions for its audience, including especially its original audience: to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire, and it concentrates especially on identifying and elucidating unique features of the situation, including both the techniques manifest in the text itself and the relevant features of the cultural setting, through which this purpose is pursued.[13] Narrative criticism[edit] Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice—in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focuses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters, and characterization.[14] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation—i.e., an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each.[15] Psychological criticism[edit] Psychological biblical criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader. Socio-scientific criticism[edit] Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, andmillenarianism to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticism is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.[16] Postmodernist criticism[edit]

The "Tomb of Joshua" at Kifl Haris, aPalestinian village located northwest of theIsraeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Postmodernist criticism frequently locates biblical references in a modern setting.

Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics,postcolonialism, and so on". It asks questions like: What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of male and female roles in the Bible?[17] In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to theology, Israelite history, , and ethics.[18] Feminist exegesis[edit] Feminist criticism of the Bible utilizes the same means and essentially strives for the same ends as feminist literary criticism. It is therefore made up of a variety of peoples, including, but not limited to, Jews, people of color, and feminist Christians such as Elisabeth Fiorenza.

New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus[edit] Multiple attestation[edit] The criterion of multiple attestation or "independent attestation" is an important tool used by scholars. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better. The gospels are not always independent of each other. There is a possibility that Matthew and Luke copied contents from Mark's gospel.[19] There are, however, at least four early, independent sources. The criterion of multiple attestation focuses on the sayings or deeds of Jesus that are attested to in more than one independent literary source such as the Apostle Paul, Josephus, Q, and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews. The force of this criterion is increased if a given motif or theme is also found in different literary forms such as parables, dispute stories, miracle stories, prophecy, and/or aphorism.[20][21] Multiple attestation has a certain kind of objectivity. Given the independence of the sources, satisfaction of the criterion makes it harder to maintain that it was an invention of the Church.[20][21][22][23][24] [25][26][27][28] Tendencies of the developing tradition[edit] It is important that scholars research the earliest testimonies. To do this, they need to figure out the earliest gospel and the earliest parts of the gospels. Ideally, this material would come from eyewitnesses, but that is not always possible. The writings of the Church Fathers are helpful in this regard. They wrote that the Hebrew Gospel was the first written while the Gospel of John was later. Also, because certain "laws" govern the transmission of tradition during the oral period, we can, by understanding these "laws", determine which tradition is early and which is late.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Embarrassment[edit] The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testamentaccounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30] The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels. The evolution of the depiction of the of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see ) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin", the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Coherence[edit] The Criterion of coherence (also called consistency or conformity) can be used only when other material has been identified as authentic. This criterion holds that a saying and action attributed to Jesus may be accepted as authentic if it coheres with other sayings and actions already established as authentic. While this criterion cannot be used alone, it can broaden the database for what Jesus actually said and did.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The Crucifixion[edit] The criterion of the Crucifixion emphasizes that Jesus met a violent death at the hands of Jewish and Roman and that the authentic words and actions of Jesus would alienate people, especially powerful people.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Semitisms[edit] Since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, traces of Aramaic in the Gospels argue in favor of a primitive tradition that may go back to Jesus. Semitisms are structured according to general rules that allow Hebrew speakers and hearers to say and hear things according to predictable patterns. Hebrew and Aramaic are linguistically very closely related and they follow similar elementary rules. For example, the pun in Matt 23:24, "straining out the gnat (galma) and swallowing a camel (gamla)" points in the direction of the historical Jesus.[22][31] Sitz im Leben[edit] Main article: Sitz im Leben The sayings and actions of the historical Jesus must reflect the Sitz im Leben or the concrete social, political, economic, agricultural, and religious conditions of ancient Palestine, while sayings and actions of Jesus that reflect social, political, economic, agricultural, or religious conditions that existed only outside Palestine or only after the death of Jesus are to be considered inauthentic.[20][21][23] [24][25][26][27][28][32]

Notable biblical scholars[edit]

 William Albright (1891–1971): Professor at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of American biblical archaeology

 Albrecht Alt (1883–1956): prominent in early debates about the religion of the biblical patriarchs; he was also an important influence on the generation of mid-20th century German scholars like Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad

 Jean Astruc (1684–1776): early French biblical critic, who adapted source criticism to the study of Genesis

(1944–): maintains that the polytheistic practices of the First Jewish Temple survived and influenced and early Christianity

 Walter Bauer (1877–1960): redefined the parameters of orthodoxy and heresy with his multiregional hypothesis for the origins of early Christianity

 F. C. Baur (1792–1860): explored the secular history of the primitive church

 Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976): New Testament scholar who defined an almost complete split between history and faith, called demythology  D. A. Carson (1946–): Canadian New Testament scholar of the Gospel of John

 John J. Collins (1946–): Irish scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and ; he has worked extensively on Jewish messianism and apocalypticism

 Frank Moore Cross (1921–2012): American biblical scholar and Harvard professor notable for his interpretations of the Deuteronomistic History, the Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as his work in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy

 William G. Dever (1933–): American biblical archaeologist, known for his contributions to the understanding of early Israel

 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): applied source criticism to the entire Bible, decided against Mosaic authorship

 Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008): linguist who reordered the chronology of New Testament texts and a proponent of the "Jesus Myth Theory"

 Bart D. Ehrman (1955–): University of North Carolina professor, who has examined issues of textual corruption and authorship in New Testament and Early Christian texts

 Israel Finkelstein (1949–): Israeli archaeologist and Professor at Tel Aviv University, an advocate for re-dating remains previously ascribed to King Solomon to the rule of the Omrides

 Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812): pioneered the Griesbach hypothesis, which supports the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew

 Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932): father of form criticism, the study of the oral traditions behind the text of the Pentateuch

 Niels Peter Lemche (1945– ): biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen associated with biblical minimalism, which warns against uncritical acceptance of the Bible as history

 Bruce Metzger (1914–2007): biblical scholar sometimes referred to as "the " of New Testament textual criticism and wrote the definitive The Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1964)

 Martin Noth (1902–1968): developed tradition history and scholar on the origins of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History

 Robert M. Price ( 1954–): American theologian and philosopher

(1925–): German critic who advanced an influential non-documentary hypothesis for the origins of the Pentateuch

(1768–1834): German theologian and philosopher whose theoretical hermeneutics underlie much of modern biblical exegesis  Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965): German theologian who was a pioneer in the quest for the historical Jesus

(1935–): American Hebrew Bible scholar who favors a supplementary model for the creation of the Pentateuch

 Thomas Paine (1737–1809): English American philosopher. Author of The Age of Reason. Documents various discrepancies of the Bible, applying the logic that it was written by man, not by some .

 Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826): United States President. Author of the Jefferson Bible, a reconstruction of the New Testament that excludes all miraculous references.

 Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677): Dutch philosopher, who collected discrepancies, contradictions, and anachronisms from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses

 Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789): leading French/German encyclopedist, published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1769 "Ecce Homo: The History of Jesus of Nazareth, a Critical Inquiry", the first Life of Jesus describing him as a mere historical man. Translated into English by George Houston and published by him in Edinburgh, 1799, London, 1813, (for which "blasphemy" Houston was condemned to two years in prison), and New York, 1827

 David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): German critic who published influential work on the historical origins of Christian beliefs, most notably in his Das Leben Jesu

 Thomas L. Thompson (1939–): outspoken critic of Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch

 Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): German biblical critic and popularizer of a four- source documentary hypothesis

 Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849): early German contributor to higher criticism and the study of Pentateuchal origins

 Joseph Wheless (1868–1950): American lawyer who traced origins of the scriptures, examining original Hebrew and Greek meanings, and the translations into Latin and English

 R. N. Whybray (1923–1997): critiqued the assumptions of source criticism underlying the documentary hypothesis

 N. T. Wright (1948-):a retired Anglican bishop and current professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews, Wright is known for the New Perspective on Paul and his Christian Origins and the Question of God series.[33][34]

See also[edit]

 Detailed Christian timeline  Essays and Reviews

 Gospel harmony

 Christian heresy in the modern era - theologians tried for supporting biblical criticism

 Historical method

 New Testament places associated with Jesus

 Pentateuchal criticism

 Parallelomania

 Timeline of the Bible

Notes[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to: a b Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1985

2. Jump up ^ Fogarty, page 40.

3. Jump up ^ Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943.

4. Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, section 110

5. Jump up ^ Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition, he established fifteen critical rules, including a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. "Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel". Bible- researcher.com. Archived from the original on 13 February 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

6. Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "Methods in Old Testament Study", section Textual Criticism, in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 23–45.

7. Jump up ^ Antony F. Campbell, SJ, "Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts", in The Hebrew Bible in Modern Study , p.6. Campbell renames source criticism as "origin criticism".

8. Jump up ^ Bibledudes.com

9. Jump up ^ Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century , 2003

10. Jump up ^ Religious Studies Department, Santa Clara University.

11. Jump up ^ Redaction Criticism.

12. Jump up ^ Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Matrix and Canonical Shape", Theology Today , October 1985.

13. Jump up ^ M.D. Morrison, "Rhetorical Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" 14. Jump up ^ Johannes C. De Klerk, "Situating biblical narrative studies in literary theory and literary approaches", Religion & Theology 4/3 (1997).

15. Jump up ^ Christopher Heard, "Narrative Criticism and the Hebrew Scriptures: A Review and Assessment", Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 38/No.1 (1996)

16. Jump up ^ Frank S. Frick, Response: Reconstructing Israel's Ancient World , SBL[dead link]

17. Jump up ^ David L. Barr, review of A. K. M. Adam (ed.), Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, 2000

18. Jump up ^ David J. A. Clines, "The Pyramid and the Net", On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

19. Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14 Google Link

20. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14, 61-77

21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Yale University Press, 2009.

22. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: a comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. pp 54-56

23. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Butler Education, Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction

24. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f N. S. Gill, Discussion of the Historical Jesus

25. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,Oxford, 1999. pp 90–91.

26. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991. v. 1, pp 174–175, 317

27. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

28. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Gerd Thiessen & Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Westminster: John Knox Press, 2002).

29. Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 1-118

30. Jump up ^ Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies, For Dummies Pub., 2007. p 14

31. Jump up ^ James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. pp 127-128

32. Jump up ^ Maureen W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison, Volume 147, Mohr Siebeck Pub, 2002. p 55

33. Jump up ^ [1]

34. Jump up ^ [2] Further reading[edit]

 Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0".

 Barenboim Peter, Biblical Roots of Separation of Powers, Moscow : Letny Sad, 2005, ISBN 5-94381-123-0, http://lccn.loc.gov/2006400578

 Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8.

 Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X.

 Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.

 Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X.

 Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2".

 Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9".

 McKenzie, Steven L., and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4".

 Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies, 1993, Westminister/John Knox Press,ISBN 0-664-25407-1

 Rogerson, John (1984). Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. ISBN 978-0- 8006-0737-1.

 Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1".

 Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1".

 Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7".

 Shinan, Avigdor, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal- Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv External links[edit]

 David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998 , Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.

 Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.

 Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.

 Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century , 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.

 Exploring Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations on the Internet Introduction to biblical criticism

 Library of latest modern books of biblical studies and biblical criticism