Transcript An Introduction to the New Testament

New Testament
Letters
Greco-Roman Background
Typical Greco-Roman Letter
• Address
• Greeting
• Body
• Conclusion
Greco-Roman Background
Typical Greco-Roman Letter
• Not all NT letters have addressees and
greetings
 NT letters typically also include a
doxology or benediction
• NT letters resemble their Greco-Roman
counter parts only in a general manner
The Use of Amanuenses
Amanuenses were trained scribes that help
dictate ancient letters
•Rom 16:22 specifically states that Paul used
an amanuensis
 The final greetings in 2 Thessalonians
and Galatians indicates amanuenses for
these letters as well
•Amanuenses would have been given a
certain amount of freedom in writing based
on their skill and relationship to the stated
author
Collection of Paul’s Letters
Sudden collection
• Perhaps Marcion was the first to collect
Paul’s letters
• Collected near the end of the first century
after the publication of Acts (Goodspeed)
 Evidence suggests this is not the case—
see Col 4:16 and 2 Peter 3:16
Collection of Paul’s Letters
Gradual growth
• Collection completed by the end of the first
century (Zahn)
• Assumes a simple process of collecting
and copying
 Leaves little room for extensive
rearrangement of Pauline material
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Definitions:
• Pseudonymity: author is falsely named
• Pseudepigraphy: work is falsely ascribed to
a particular author
• Neither of these are anything like the
anonymity we find with the Gospels
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
NT Letters charged with being
pseudonymous:
• Ephesians
• Pastoral Epistles
• Colossians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1–2 Peter
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
All literary forgeries are pseudonymous,
but not all pseudepigrapha are literary
forgeries
• Some works simply come to be attributed
to certain authors without their knowledge
or consent (e.g. Pelagius’ commentaries
that were attributed to Jerome)
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
The motives of Pseudepigraphers
• A desire to get published and widely read
• Genre incentive: students taught to
compose speeches based on models left by
ancient orators
• Ascribing to a philosophical-religiousmythical figure (like an Oracle)
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Jewish examples of pseudepigraphy
• Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3
Enoch, 4 Ezra, Treatise of Shem, Apocalypse
of Zephaniah, Apocalypse of Abraham,
Apocalypse of Adam, etc.
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Testament of Job, Testament of Moses, etc.
• Wisdom of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles,
Prayer of Manasseh, Odes of Solomon, Letter
of Aristeas, Epistle of Jeremy
• Very rare for letters to be pseudepigraphical
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Christian examples of pseudepigraphy
• Apocalypse of Peter, Apocalypse of Paul,
Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Paul, etc.
• Letters: 3 Corinthians, Epistles to the
Alexandrians, Epistle to the Laodiceans,
correspondence between Paul and Seneca
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Stance of the Church Fathers on
Pseudepigraphy
•There are few examples* in which a document was
known to be pseudepigrapha and was still accepted
as religiously or philosophically binding (*possibly
2 Peter, Pastorals)
•Tertullian tells of an Asian elder that was deposed
from ministry after admitting to writing the Acts of
Paul, even though it was “out of great love” for
Paul and largely orthodox
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Evidence internal to the New Testament
•There are no indications that the NT church
accepted pseudepigraphical works as authoritative
•Most of the internal evidence marshaled for
pseudepigraphy can be used to argue against it
 E.g. hapax legemena* in Ephesians: several
examples, but no more than in other Pauline
books (*said once)
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Evidence internal to the New Testament
• 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2, 3:17 indicate that
there was already an awareness of the
threat of forgeries
• It is clear that Paul and perhaps others used
amanuenses
• Early Christians did not seem to have a
great urge to attach apostolic names to
highly valued writings
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Contemporary Theories
• Unambiguously forgeries – some argue this
for 2 Peter
• If the Ephesians is pseudepigraphic, then
references to Paul’s ministry, chains,
references to his friends, and exhortations
to pray for him and to put off falsehood
would make the letter morally
reprehensible
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
Contemporary Theories
• Holy Spirit inspired it, so what does it
matter?
• Something happened like the posthumous
publication and editing of a work by
another person
• “School” theory – the apostle had a group
of followers that felt free to write in the
apostles name
Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy
All theories that assert pseudepigraphy without
any notion of deception fail due to the attitude*
of the early church and the internal evidence of
the letters. The letters are either authentic or
morally reprehensible deceptions.**
*except 2 Peter, Jude, and especially the
Pastorals, which reflect a 2nd century attitude
**A problem with this type of thinking is that it
doesn’t consider the early church’s doubts.
Paul: Apostle and
Theologian
Paul’s Background
“Born in Tarsus of Cilicia”
• Tarsus is a major city in Cilicia
 Cilicia is in the extreme southeast of
Asia Minor
• Roman citizen by birth
• A tent maker by trade
Paul’s Background
“Brought up in this city”
•Paul likely spent a great deal of his
childhood in Jerusalem
 Paul and his family were likely
linguistically and culturally Jewish and
Palestinian
•One should not make too strong a
distinction between Jewish and Hellenistic
when trying to understand Paul
Paul’s Background
“Thoroughly trained in the law of our
ancestors…”
• Paul was trained as a Pharisee
 Received rabbinical training under
Gamaliel I
• Persecuted the early Christian movement
out of his “zeal” for the Law
Paul’s Background
“As I came near Damascus”
• Encounter with Christ on the road to
Damascus was no mere psychological
experience
 There was no hint up to this point that
Paul was at all dissatisfied with Judaism
• It is appropriate to call this experience
Paul’s conversion
Paul’s Missionary Career
The Problem of Sources
• Differences between letters of Paul and
Acts
 The apostolic council
 The number of visits to Jerusalem
• There is, by and large, a great deal of
correspondence between Acts and the
Pauline letters
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: conversion to First Missionary
Journey
• First visited Jerusalem three years after
conversion (Gal 1:18) to get acquainted
with Peter
• Visited again after fourteen years to set
before the Jerusalem apostles the gospel he
was preaching to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1)
 Probably refers to Acts 11:27–30
• Three years and fourteen years both likely
refer to time since his conversion
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: conversion to First Missionary
Journey
• After his conversion, Paul retreated into
Arabia
 Refers to the kingdom of the
Nabataeans, not the Arabian Peninsula
• Not simply a retreat, but likely engaged in
active ministry during this time
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: conversion to First Missionary
Journey
• Spent 15 days getting to know Peter and
other apostles
 Had to leave Jerusalem because
Hellenistic Jews sought to kill him
• Fled to Tarsus
• Was invited to leave Tarsus and join the
work at Antioch by Barnabas
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: First Missionary Journey to
Paul’s death
• We are mostly dependent on Acts for this
information, but chronology is ambiguous
• With Barnabas, Paul travelled to Cyprus,
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and
Derbe
• Took between 1 and 5 years
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: First Missionary Journey to
Paul’s death
• Spent a long time in Antioch before
travelling to Jerusalem for the apostolic
council
• With Barnabas, Paul travelled through
southern Galatia, Asia Minor, Philippi,
Thessalonica, Berea, Acaia (including
Athens and Corinth)
 Spent eighteen months in Corinth, so
total time on journey was likely 2 years
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: First Missionary Journey to
Paul’s death
• Returned to Jerusalem again, and then
went back to Antioch
• Travelled from place to place throughout
Galatia and Phrygia, then went to Ephesus
(3 years), Macedonia, then back through
Caesarea to Jerusalem
 Probably took 4 to 5 years
Paul’s Missionary Career
Outline: First Missionary Journey to
Paul’s death
•Arrested in Jerusalem, sent to Caesarea, and
eventually to Rome
•There are good reasons to think he did not
die during the two years in Rome
 Church tradition has him dying during
Nero’s persecution several years later
 Pastoral epistles (?) indicate further
ministry
Paul’s Authority
Outline: First Missionary Journey to
Paul’s death
• Authority as an apostle comes directly
from Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance
on the Damascus road
• Equal in authority to Peter, James, and
John
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
Revelation vs. Tradition
• Makes clear in Galatians that his gospel
came directly from the Lord
• Makes clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that the
elements of Jesus’ life, death, and burial
were handed down to him from other
apostles
 The essence of gospel was revealed on
the Damascus road
 The specifics of the gospel (historical
details) were handed on to him by others
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
Early Christian Traditions
• Paul makes use of creedal formulations,
hymns, and traditional catechetical
material
 Phil 2:6–11
 One must be careful not to
overemphasize our ability to identify
such formulations, and we should be
wary of using speculative data as to the
origin of such formulations to draw
exegetical and theological conclusions
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
Earthly Jesus
• Paul likely made use of Jesus’ teaching
 1 Thess 4–5
 2 Thess 2
 Romans 12
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
The Old Testament
• Paul used many quotations and allusions to
the OT throughout his letters
• Reads the OT through the lens of Jesus’
fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
The Greek World
• References Greek philosophy and religion
• The Greek world sometimes acts as the
clothing, but rarely the substance of Paul’s
teaching
Sources of Paul’s Teaching
Judaism
• Paul’s thought world was decisively
formed by his Jewish upbringing
 Paul claims that he was “Hebrew of the
Hebrews”
 Use of OT
 Much of his teaching is in direct
conversation with his Jewish upbringing
Paul and Judaism
The “New Perspective”
• Protestants have often emphasized the
legalism of Judaism, by which one
received salvation by their own meritorious
obedience to the Law
• Against this, Paul proclaimed that
justification could only be attained by
grace through faith
 This (over-simplified) view became
embedded in nearly all NT scholarship
Paul and Judaism
The “New Perspective”
• In 1977 E. P. Sanders published Paul and
Palestinian Judaism
 Argued that the understanding of
Judaism as a legalistic religion is wrong
 Argues that Jewish sources nearly
unanimously portray a view he called
“covenantal nomism”
Paul and Judaism
The “New Perspective”
• Covenantal Nomism
 God’s gracious election of Israel placed
them in a saving relationship; their
obedience to the Torah was a way of
maintaining the relationship
 Obedience is not a way of “getting in”,
but a way of “staying in”.
Paul and Judaism
The “New Perspective”
• E. P. Sanders on Paul
 Paul objected to Judaism’s exclusivist
soteriology
 Paul had no problem with the Law per
se; it just wasn’t Christ
Paul and Judaism
New Perspective adherents that disagree
with Sanders’ treatment of Paul
• J. D. G. Dunn
 Paul was not “converted” to Christianity,
but remained a Jew
 Paul’s problem was the ethnic
exclusivism by which Jews used the
Law to keep Gentiles out
 “Works of Law” is not the same thing as
“works” in general
Paul and Judaism
Tendencies of the New Perspective
• Paul’s theology is read against the
background of the “story” of salvation
history
• Reformation contrast between faith and
works is reduced
• Paul’s teaching on justification is shifted
from a vertical focus to a horizontal one
Paul and Judaism
Response to the New Perspective
• The claim that covenantal nomism was the
only soteriological paradigm is false
 Sanders ignored apocalyptic literature
 Sanders bypasses legalistic texts by
reference to the larger structure of
covenantal nomism or simply referring
to their “homiletical” nature.
Paul and Judaism
Response to the New Perspective
• Inadequately takes the NT into account as
first century witnesses to Jewish thought
• First century Judaism placed great
emphasis on obedience to the Law, and
thus was likely to produce some adherents
that saw their obedience as meritorious
Paul and Judaism
Response to the New Perspective
• The notion of who was “in” the covenant
was hotly debated in the first century
amongst Jews
• First century Judaism was synergistic
 The quality of one’s obedience separated
Jew from Jew on the day of judgment
 Participation in the covenant community
was very much a matter of personal
decision
Paul and Judaism
Faith vs. “works of Law”
• Dunn has not sufficiently demonstrated
that Paul means “works of Law” every
time he speaks of “works”
• It is better to understand “works of Law”
(used 8 times in Paul) as a subset of his use
of “works”
Paul and Judaism
Justification
• NP understanding is well-taken, but does
not take sufficient account of Paul’s move
to universalize the human condition
• Paul certainly speaks of humans’ standing
before God in general
• Paul places Jews and Gentiles on the
outside looking in when it comes to
salvation
Romans
Contents
• The gospel as the righteousness of God by
faith (1:18–4:25)
• The gospel as the power of God for
salvation (5:1–8:39)
• The gospel and Israel (9:1–11:36)
• The gospel and the transformation of life
(12:1–15:13)
Author
The author was Paul
• Paul probably used Tertius as an
amanuensis
Provenance and Date
• Probably near the end of his third
missionary journey
 Corinth is the most likely place
• Probably written around A.D. 57
Addressees
“to all in Rome who are loved by God and
called to be saints…”
• Jews had, by this time, returned to Rome
after Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews in
A.D. 49
• Paul greets fellow Jews, addresses himself
to a Jew in chapter 2, discusses the Mosaic
Law and the relation of believers to
Abraham
Addressees
“to all in Rome who are loved by God and
called to be saints…”
• The church was likely predominantly
Gentile
• Paul includes Gentiles in his address,
directly addresses Gentiles in 11:13, and
especially exhorts Gentiles to “accept one
another” (15:7)
Nature and Genre
A letter and more
• Seems to be intended to reach a wide
audience
• Contains elements of:
 Tractate letters
 Diatribe
 Epideictic, ambassadorial, or protreptic
letter
 Memorandum
Purpose
Paul does not specify his reason for
writing, but it seems to include:
• Gaining support for his upcoming
missionary journey to Spain
• To set forth his mature views on Jews,
Gentiles, the law, and circumcision
• To write a letter that embodies what he
wants to say when he reaches Jerusalem
• To address known divisions in the church
in Rome
Theme and Contribution
Certain scholars have questioned the
centrality of the doctrine of justification
for Paul in Romans:
• Albert Schweitzer
• E. P. Sanders
Theme and Contribution
Many other proposals have been offered as
to Romans’ main theme:
• The role of Israel in salvation history
• God
• Hope
• Salvation
• Many others
Theme and Contribution
There is likely that Romans does not have
a single theme, but Paul’s emphasis on the
gospel throughout the letter is a good
starting point.
• Prominent in the introduction and
conclusion, where one would expect to
encounter an overarching topic
• Provides a summary of the gospel in a
tractate-like form
Theme and Contribution
Romans seems less tied to specific firstcentury circumstances than other letters,
but there are still important elements of
the background worth repeating
• The nature of the continuity between the
old and new covenants and the people of
the old and new covenants.
1 and 2
Corinthians
Author
Paul is identified as the author of both
letters and few question this identification
• Some question whether or not parts of 2
Corinthians are authentic—particularly 2
Cor 6:14–7:1
Destination
Corinth
• Old city well-known for sexual
promiscuity
• Destroyed by Romans in 146 B.C.
• Rebuilt by Julius Caesar in 29 B.C.
• Major trade center, Roman capital of
Achaia, very wealthy
Occasion
Paul and Corinth
• Paul first visited during his second
missionary journey
• Paul left a well-established church in the
Spring of A.D. 51
• He wrote 1 Corinthians during his stay in
Ephesus between A.D. 52 and 55
Occasion
Paul and Corinth
• Apollos and Peter ministered in Corinth
after Paul left
• Corinthians began forming factions
• The church became marred by factions,
lawsuits, immorality, abuses at the Lord’s
table, eating food sacrificed to idols, an
aberrant view of resurrection, and an
infatuation with spectacular charismatic
gifts
Occasion
Paul and Corinth
• Paul wrote to Corinth:
 Corinthians A – the “previous letter”; we
do not have a copy of this letter
 Corinthians B – 1 Corinthians
 Corinthians C – lost – written “out of
great distress and anguish of heart”
 Corinthians D – 2 Corinthians
Social Setting
Corinth
• Substantially Gentile
• Primarily a Roman city
• “Second Sophistic” movement
• Roman Patronage system
• Great admiration for gifted rhetoricians
Social Setting
Corinth
• Spiritually immature believers in the
Corinthian church
 Factionalism and immature expectations
are addressed in both letters
 The Corinthians held an over-realized
eschatology that gave them an overconfidence in the blessings they already
enjoy as believers
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• Strong shift in tone from positive to
negative between 1–9 and 10–13
• Could this be the severe and painful letter?
 This section is easier to account for if it
was written before Titus brought a good
report to Paul
 Certain arguments from 1–9 seem to
presuppose comments in 10–13
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• However…
 No Greek manuscript would suggest that
these two sections were ever separate
 Paul’s comment “the regions beyond
you” (10:16) makes sense if Paul is in
Macedonia
 There is no demand for an offender to be
punished
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• However…
 Chapters 10–13 promise an immediate
visit, while the painful letter was sent
instead of a visit
 12:18 assumes that Titus had paid at
least one previous visit to Corinth to
assist in the collection for the Jerusalem
church
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• The entire book was written at one time
 Coheres well with the textual evidence
 Perhaps Paul had a bad night’s sleep
between writing the two sections
 The difference in tone between the two
sections is exaggerated
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• However…
 The differences in tone are severe
enough that some account must be given
 The psychological explanation (Paul was
given to fits of rage) is inadequate
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• Chapters 10–13 were written sometime
after 1–9
• Paul immediately wrote 1–9 after hearing
from Titus, but then received a second
report shortly thereafter that was less than
pleasing—at which time he wrote a fifth
letter
 Has the advantage of explaining the
profound difference between the two
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• However…
 Presupposes that the conclusion to the
original letter was cut out and lost
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 10–13
• The two sections do correspond to two
different reports that Paul received in close
connection, but before completing the first
section, Paul received the bad report
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 2:14–7:14
• Paul’s digression causes some to think that
this is a later insertion
 Paul is given to digression in his letters
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1
• Passage constitutes a self-contained unit
• Contains 6 hapax legomena
• “body and spirit” in 7:1 is said to be unPauline
• Interrupts the flow between 6:13 and 7:2
• Betrays an un-Paulined exclusivism
• Apocalyptic dualism
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1
• It is not uncommon for Paul to use hapax
legomena is sudden outbursts
• The section has parallels in Romans, 1
Corinthians, and Galatians
• “body and spirit” is simply a reference to
the whole person
• 7:2 sounds like a resumption rather than
continuation of the argument of 6:13
Integrity of 1 and 2 Corinthians
Other proposed interpolations (which are
not very convincing)
• 2 Corinthians 8–9
• 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35
Character of Paul’s Opponents
Pitfalls
• One should be careful not to assume that
the situation of 2 Cor 10–13, where the
church appears to be taken over by leaders
from the outside, is true in 1 Corinthians
• No evidence of Judaizers in Corinth
• No evidence that Gnosticism was the
dominant problem
Character of Paul’s Opponents
Paul’s opponents:
• They are divided against one another and
against Paul
• They are convinced that they are spiritual
(in status); they treat baptism and the
Lord’s supper as somewhat magical rites;
they are arrogant; they do not deny the
resurrection of Jesus, but believe that they
themselves have already been raised; they
have an over-realized eschatology
Character of Paul’s Opponents
Paul’s opponents:
• By the time 2 Corinthians was completed,
the church was invaded by outsiders—
Hellenistic Jews who were concerned with
power and prestige
Date
1 Corinthians
• Around A.D. 55
2 Corinthians
• Within about a year of 1 Corinthians
Contribution of 1 and 2 Corinthians
• Absolute necessity of the bodily
resurrection of believers
• Illuminates Paul as a man, pastor, and
Christian
• Addresses any notion of integrating
generally orthodox confession with pagan
values of self-promotion
• Contributes to the doctrine of the church
Galatians
Author
Paul is identified as the author
• One of the “undisputed” letters of Paul
Destination
South Galatian theory
• We only have information of people and
places Paul visited in the south, but none in
the north
• “the region of Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts
16:6) is best understood as a single
territory
• Paul normally uses Roman imperial names
for provinces
Destination
South Galatian theory
• “Galatians” was the only word available
that embraced all of the cities of the first
missionary journey
• The “Galatians” contributed to his
collection for the believers in Jerusalem
• The Northern part of the territory was not
opened up for commerce like the southern
part
Destination
South Galatian theory
• It could be less likely that Paul’s opponents
would have made the difficult journey to
the northern part of the region
• Gal 4:14 may be an allusion to Acts 14:12
• The great lines of communication ran
through the southern cities
• Barnabas is mentioned three times in the
letter, but he only travelled with Paul to the
southern cities
Destination
North Galatian theory
• “Galatia” typically referred to the region
occupied by Gauls in the north
• Luke referred to places according to their
geographical locations (Acts 16:6)
• It would have been offensive for Phrygians
to be called “Galatians” (this is doubtful)
• It is unlikely that Paul would have referred
to the Lycaonians or Pisidians as “foolish”
Galatians
Destination
North Galatian theory
• The fickle and superstitious character of
the Galatians is more fitting the Gallic
peoples of the North (doubtful)
• The “region of Phrygia and Galatia” refers
to two distinct regions in Acts 16:6
• Paul does not refer to Galatia when he
speaks of going to Syria and Cilicia in Gal
1:21
• No hint of opposition in the southern cities
Destination
Conclusion:
• It is impossible to know for certain, but the
south Galatian theory is more substantial
that the north
Date
Significant factors in favor of early date:
• Paul recounts his visits to Jerusalem in
Acts 9:26 and 11:28–30
• Does not mention the decree of the
apostolic council
• Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship is
more likely to have happened before the
council
Date
Significant factors in favor of later date:
• The north Galatian theory demands it
• Style and thoughts show affinity with 1
and 2 Corinthians and Romans
• Galatians 2 could refer to the apostolic
council of Acts 15
• The most likely visits to Galatia are
recounted in Acts 16:6 and 18:23
Date
Significant factors in favor of later date:
• Galatians fits the sequence between 2
Corinthians and Romans
Date
Conclusion:
• It seems best to hold that Paul’s two visits
to Jerusalem are those of Acts 9 and 11
• Thus, the letter was written slightly before
the apostolic council, probably in A.D. 48
Occasion
Opponents:
• The Jews did not teach that Christians had
to embrace the Torah—only JewishChristians did
• Undermined Paul’s authority in
comparison to other apostles
• Insisted upon circumcision
 They were persuading Christians to
submit to the Torah instead of enjoying
freedom in Christ
Occasion
Opponents:
• Paul speaks against libertinism
 Some regard this as a sign of a second
group of opponents
 It is better to see this as a perversion of
Paul’s teaching; Paul is pre-emptively
arguing against a misunderstanding of
his gospel
Occasion
Opponents:
• Appeared to have criticized Paul for
teaching circumcision when it suited him
• The teaching of the opponents seriously
compromised the gospel
Galatians in Recent Study
New Perspective:
• The Jews never thought of keeping the
Law to gain salvation
 This does not take into account the
Jewish teaching about rewards of
righteousness and the seriousness of sin
Galatians in Recent Study
New Perspective:
• Paul was not concerned with justification
per se, but with Christology; Jews never
expected the Law to save them—the
problem was that they rejected Jesus
 This corrective cannot overlook that
justification by faith in Christ is by
nature opposed to any justification by
works
Galatians in Recent Study
New Perspective:
• Sanders argues that Paul works from
solution to plight; starts with Christ and
then works backward to his view of sin
 Thielman argues against this that Paul
begins in Romans and Galatians with the
plight and works toward the solution in
Christ
Contribution of Galatians
• Makes clear that the cross is the only way
to salvation
• Paul emphasizes Christian freedom, the
heritage of everyone that is in Christ
Ephesians
Author
Pauline authorship
• Letter claims to be authored by Paul in its
opening and the body of the letter
• Letter was in wide circulation early and its
authenticity never in doubt
• Many Pauline features
• Similarities with Colossians suggest it was
written by the same author
Author
Pauline authorship
• Paul is not mentioned in Revelation, which
was addressed in part to Ephesus. There
does not seem to be much of a reason why
an author would use Paul’s name
pseudonymously if writing to Ephesus
• Themes in Ephesians have closest parallels
in the undisputed Pauline letters
Author
Pauline authorship
• The letter fits the context of Paul being in
prison; it shows development from earlier
letters, which would have been natural as
he approached the end of his life
Author
Against Pauline authorship
• Theological features such as the cosmic
function of the church and realized
eschatology seem to be un-Pauline
 There is no reason to suggest these
developments could not have occurred
in the mind of Paul himself; “realized”
eschatology is overstated by scholars
Author
Against Pauline authorship
• Paul uses the term ekklesia in reference
only to individual congregations while
Ephesians speaks of a universal church
 This makes sense if the letter was
intended to be more widely circulated
Author
Against Pauline authorship
• No emphasis on parousia
 This assumes a strange view of 1:14;
4:30; 5:6; 6:8
• Portrayal of Paul as commissioned to bring
about unity between Jew and Gentile,
though he was the apostle to the Gentiles
 Paul is concerned about this in most of
his letters (Romans, Galatians, etc.)
Author
Against Pauline authorship
•Ephesians contains language not found
elsewhere in Paul’s writings
 Use of hapax legomena (words used
only once) is actually at a lower rate
than 2 Cor. or Phil.
•Writing style is more pleonastic (repeating)
 This is present, but highly exaggerated;
it is not present to the degree some
suppose, and Paul uses this type of
language elsewhere
Author
Against Pauline authorship
• Seems to be an example of “early
Catholic” writing
 There are no distinct indications that the
apostles are off the scene
Author
Against Pauline authorship
• Colossians:
 Some assert the same writer could not
have produced both due to their
similarities
 Some doubt Ephesians because it is too
different from Colossians
Provenance
Probably same as Colossians
• Likely from Rome, but there are other
possibilities
Date
Likely in the early 60’s
• Speaks of Paul in prison, probably toward
the end of his life
• If Paul isn’t the author, then it could be as
late as the early 90’s
Destination
To the Ephesians…
• “in Ephesus” is absent from 1:1 in some of
the best manuscripts
• Marcion thought it was the letter to the
Laodiceans
• Basil said that the letter circulated in his
day “to the saints who are faithful”
Destination
To the Ephesians…
• Could have originally been meant to be a
circular letter
 Perhaps the best form of this theory
holds that Paul sent the letter with
Tychichus when he sent Colossians and
the letter was copied and circulated from
Ephesus with a blank instead of the
name of the recipients, but was always
associated with Ephesus
Destination
To the Ephesians…
• We do not know for certain to whom the
letter was originally addressed, but most
evidence points us to the church at Ephesus
(though it was probably meant as a circular
letter)
Purpose
Paul seems to address
• Tension between Jew and Gentile
Christians
• Instruction of Gentile converts in the new
faith
• Unity and a distinctively Christian ethic
• Reconciliation in Christ
Contribution of Ephesians
• Stress on Christ’s saving work
• The importance of the Christian’s growth
in knowledge of God and the gospel
• Emphasis on being “rooted and established
in love”
• Ecclesiology
• Living in conformity with the salvation
that God has given believers
• The supreme place of God, who brings
salvation to undeserving sinners
Philippians
Author
Pauline authorship
• Undisputed letter of Paul
Author
Phil 2:5–11—The Christ-hymn
• Some of the vocabulary is unusual for
Paul, and it has a rhythm different than
other Pauline texts
• Written by Paul or Pauline usage of a preexisting hymn?
Author
Phil 2:5–11—Pre-existing hymn
• Language and rhythm is more fitting to
Hebrew or Aramaic poetry
• Refers to Christ as “servant” whereas
elsewhere Paul doesn’t reference Isaiah’s
servant songs
Author
Phil 2:5–11—Paul wrote it
• No reason Paul could not have written it
previously and inserted it here
• The phrase “death on a cross” (v.8) is very
Pauline
• Paul frequently interrupts his flow of
thought in other letters
Author
Phil 2:5–11
• Traditionally used as a solemn doctrinal
pronouncement and as the basis for kenotic
theories of the incarnation
• Whether Paul originally wrote it or not
makes little difference; the fact that Paul
uses it here suggests his intention to have it
interpreted in the context of the letter itself
Provenance
Rome
• Mentions the Praetorium (1:13) and “those
who belong to Caesar’s household” (4:22)
• Paul was in a position to organize his coworkers when he was in Rome
• Paul appears to be in a location where there
is a well-established church
• Marcionite prologue suggests a Roman
provenance.
• Paul is faced with death or release
Provenance
Ephesus
• Rome is nearly 1200 miles from Philippi;
the number of trips back and forth from
Paul to the Philippians suggests he was
closer
• Paul says he intended to go to Philippi
upon release, but this would mean a change
of mind about going to Spain
• Could be Caesarea, but this is not much
closer than Rome
Date
If written from Rome:
• Around 61–62
If written in Ephesus:
• Mid- to late-50’s
If written in Caesarea:
• 59–60
Occasion
Paul appears to have written for the
following reasons:
• To address the illness of Epaphroditus
• To inform the church of Paul’s situation
• To thank the Philippians for their gift
• To commend Timothy to prepare the way
for Timothy to visit
Occasion
Pastoral concerns:
• Church has faced challenges from
outsiders
• The church needed exhortation to unity
• To exhort reconciliation between Euodia
and Syntyche
• Warn against false teachers
• Exhort to wholehearted service
Adoption into the Canon
Philippians is cited by:
• 1 Clement
• Ignatius
• Polycarp
• Marcionite canon
Unity of the Letter
Suggestions of dis-unity in the letter:
• At 3:1 and 4:9 there is a distinct break in
sense
• No indication that Epaphroditus is still sick
in 4:18
• Paul’s opponents are not the same
throughout the letter
• Possible fragments at 4:1–9, 20–23
• Polycarp speaks of more than one epistle to
the Philippians from Paul
Unity of the Letter
However…
• Sudden breaks in sense are frequent in
Paul’s letters
• There is no reason that the illness of
Epaphroditus should be brought up every
time he is mentioned
• The statement of Polycarp does not suggest
that the letters of Paul were combined, only
that there was more than one
Paul’s Opponents
It is likely that Paul envisages opponents
of more than one kind
• He is battling some who did not agree with
his preaching
• He is battling some from the outside that
were causing the church to suffer
Contribution of Philippians
• A letter to a church with whom Paul is very
pleased
• The Christ-hymn is a very early example
of high Christology amongst believers
• Firmly lays down the importance of the
preaching of the gospel
• Paul’s view of “partnership in the gospel”
(1:5)
• Assurance amidst suffering
Colossians
Author
Pauline authorship
• No serious question about Pauline
authorship until 19th century
• Few questioned authenticity before
Bultmann and others between WWI and
WWII
Author
Arguments about authenticity—language
• Hapax Legomena are present, but they are
present to a great degree in all Pauline
letters
• The style may be different than the
undisputed Paulines, but Colossians also
exhibits several stylistic features only
found elsewhere in Paul
Author
Arguments about authenticity—theology
• Absence of important Pauline concepts
 Justification, Law, and salvation
 This also occurs in other epistles, and
there is no reason that Paul should write
about the same things every time he
writes
Author
Arguments about authenticity—theology
• Presence of “un-Pauline” concepts
 Christ’s headship over the church
 Church as Christ’s body
 Cosmic portrayal of Christ
 Development is real, but not in any way
divorced from Paul’s other writings
Author
Arguments about authenticity—theology
• Presence of “un-Pauline” concepts
 Eschatology – many see a realized
eschatology
 However, Colossians retains a deep
sense of inaugurated eschatology – e.g.
believers’ lives are hid with Christ in
order to be revealed on the last day
Author
Arguments about authenticity—Ephesians
• Too similar to Ephesians
 Why shouldn’t an author write similar
things to two different churches?
Author
Arguments about authenticity
• Why address the town of Colosse if writing
pseudonymously?
• There are a number of links with the letter
to Philemon, which is undoubtedly Pauline
Provenance
Ephesus
• Paul asks for a room to be prepared for
him, which doesn’t make sense if he is so
far away
 Luke and Mark are with Paul, but they
do not appear to be in the “we” sections
of Acts, when Paul visited Ephesus
• Onesimus may have found it easier to find
Paul in Ephesus rather than Rome
Provenance
Ephesus
• Onesimus may have found it easier to find
Paul in Ephesus rather than Rome
 He may have preferred to get as far
away as possible, and Ephesus may be
too close
• If Ephesians was written at the same time,
then it is improbable that he wrote a letter
to the city he was in
Provenance
Caesarea
• Unlikely that Onesimus would have fled
here
• Paul’s request for lodging is unlikely to
have come from Caesarea, since his only
hope of release was an appeal to Caesar in
Rome
Provenance
Rome
• Paul’s plan was to go west toward Spain
after Rome, not east
 He may have abandoned his plan
 The Pastorals indicate that he did deviate
from his plan to go to Spain
• Rome is the most likely, but not by much
Date
Early 60’s
• If Paul was in Rome
Late 50’s
• If not from Rome
Occasion
False teaching
• Detracted from a high Christology
• One had to go beyond Christ to attain
spiritual maturity
• Christ was a created being
• Syncretistic Hellenistic/Jewish philosophy
Colossians in Recent Study
Identity of false teachers
• Gnostics?
• Jews?
• The problem is that there are no known
teachers who combined all of the features
that Paul addresses
Contribution of Colossians
• Paul emphasizes the supremacy of Christ
over all other powers, earthly and heavenly
• Emphasizes Christ and the head of the
church and the church as his body
• Emphasizes reconciliation
• Expresses love and tenderness toward
believers he had never met
1 and 2
Thessalonians
Author
Pauline authorship
• No serious question about Pauline
authorship of 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians began to be seriously
questioned in the early 1970’s with the
work of Wolfgang Trilling
Author
Co-authorship
• Both letters claim name Paul, Silas, and
Timothy as authors
• Paul is likely the primary author, but Silas
and Timothy likely assisted
Author
Interpolations in 1 Thessalonians
• Scholars have singled out 2:1–10 and 5:1–
11
• No textual evidence that these were ever
absent from the letter
• These verses make good sense in their
context
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Only a few scholars (mostly following
Baur) ever questioned the authenticity of 2
Thessalonians
• C. Mason (1957) and Wolfgang Trilling
(1972) turned the tide of scholarship away
from Pauline authorship of the letter
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Vocabulary and style
• Focus on “tradition”, “sound-teaching”,
and “man of lawlessness” are thought to
betray a later period
 There is nothing in the eschatology of
the letter that could not have come from
the mid-first century
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Similarities to 1 Thessalonians (why would
the same author write so many similar
things to the same audience over such a
short period of time?)
 Verbal and structural parallels
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Similarities to 1 Thessalonians
 Verbal and structural parallels are mostly
found in the opening a closing of the
letter
 Otherwise, there are significant
differences between the two letters
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Differences from 1 Thessalonians
 Imminence vs. delay of the parousia
 1 Thessalonians assumes the imminence
of the parousia and commands the
people not to try to calculate “times and
dates”
 2 Thessalonians warns against thinking
the parousia is imminent and cites signs
that will come about before the parousia
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Differences from 1 Thessalonians
 Many Jewish apocalypses have similar
discussions about imminence and the
warning signs that will come before an
eschatological event
 Matt 24:33, 44b reflect the same tension
Author
2 Thessalonians
• Differences from 1 Thessalonians
 The argument that Paul could not have
taught such an eschatology only works if
one accepts a very narrow understanding
of imminent expectation of the parousia
Provenance and Date
1 Thessalonians
• From Corinth
 A.D. 50, early in Paul’s stay in Corinth
2 Thessalonians
• From Corinth
 Late in A.D. 50 or early 51
Opponents and Purpose
1 Thessalonians
• Paul addresses:
 His hasty departure from Thessalonica
 To remind Thessalonians of key ethical
implications of their new faith
 Comfort the church over the deaths of
some of their fellow Christians
Opponents and Purpose
1 and 2 Thessalonians
• Opponents
 Probably no specific opponents
 There was probably a general criticism
of Paul that was circulating that Paul
was like the immoral and unscrupulous
sophists that travelled from city to city
Opponents and Purpose
1 and 2 Thessalonians
•Misunderstandings
 Misunderstanding about what would
happen at the parousia
 The notion that the day of the Lord had
arrived (2 Thess 2:1–11)
 The tendency toward idleness (2 Thess
3:6–15)
Contribution of 1 and 2 Thessalonians
• Word of God
• Strengthen the faith of new converts
• Eschatology
 Doctrine of the rapture
 Preparation for the Lord’s coming
 Future judgment for those who persecute
the church
 Day of the Lord will come after
preliminary events
The Pastoral
Epistles
Pastorals
Typical way of referring to 1 and 2
Timothy and Titus
• Contemporary critical scholars insist these
epistles were not written by Paul
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• P. N. Harrison
 Pastorals make use of 902 words
 54 are proper names
 306 words do not occur in the other ten
Pauline letters
 Of these 306, 175 occur nowhere else in
the NT
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• This leaves 542 words shared by the
Paulines and Pastorals
 50 are characteristic Pauline words
 Many others are very common words, or
very Christian words (love, faith,
brothers, etc.)
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• Of the 306 words in the Pastorals that are
not in the Pauline epistels, 211 correspond
to second-century Christian writings
• Of the 214 Greek particles found in the
Pauline letters, 112 do not occur in the
Pastorals
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• Most of the words shared by the Pastorals
and second century authors are also found
in other writings prior to A.D. 50
 It would be absurd to think that Paul
only knew the words he used in the other
epistles
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• It is misleading to say the Pastorals have
306 words collectively that do not occur
elsewhere in Paul—vast majority are found
in one letter
 127 are in 1 Timothy
 81 in 2 Timothy
 45 in Titus
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• While many particles are not used in the
Pastorals, particles, pronouns, and
prepositions are used at a similar rate to the
other Paulines
• Harrison does not account for all of the
evidence in his analysis – there are another
93 particles, pronouns, and prepositions
Pauline Authorship
Vocabulary and Syntax
• Statisticians point out that Pastorals are too
brief and there is a lack of statistical
controls in many studies
 Even where differences are shown, it
does not tell us why they exist
Pauline Authorship
Rhetorical Style
• Relative lack of personal material
• Particular patterns of argument in the
Pastorals
• No opening thanksgiving in 1 Timothy and
Titus
 There is one in 2 Timothy, and Galatians
does not have an opening thanksgiving
Pauline Authorship
Rhetorical Style
• Can the differences not be accounted for
when it is noted that the writer is not
writing to communities, but to trusted coworkers?
• There is clearly the possibility of the use of
an amanuensis as well, or maybe he wrote
it himself while making heavy use of an
amanuensis in the other letters
Pauline Authorship
Genre
• 1 Timothy and Titus are likened to mandate
letters
• 2 Timothy is likened to a testament
Pauline Authorship
Historical issues
•Paul spent a very brief time in Crete, and we
have no record of his visiting Nicopolis
•1 Clement 5:7 reports that Paul did go to
Spain, which could have only happened after
the events of Acts 28 – would he have had
time to go back to the Eastern
Mediterranean?
Pauline Authorship
Historical issues
• Several have shown that the data in the
Pastorals could have fit into Paul’s known
ministry; there is no reason to suggest that
Acts records all of Paul’s comings and
goings
• He could have travelled to these cities in
the East again before his execution, and
patristic sources suggest that he did so
Pauline Authorship
False teachers
• There is nothing in these letters in the way
of false teaching that is not known
elsewhere in the Pauline epistles
Pauline Authorship
Ecclesiastical Organization
• Pastorals seem to reflect a strongly
organized church with an ordained
ministry
 Paul had an interest in church
organization in Acts and his letters
 2 Timothy contains nothing about
church organization
 There is nothing in 1 Timothy or Titus
that demands anything more than
“overseers and deacons” in the church
Pauline Authorship
Theology
• Scholars argue both ways from the same
texts (e.g. 1 Tim 1:8–9)
• The demand for godliness and sound
doctrine appears to be a later development
 Is this really a change from Romans, 2
Corinthians, or Galatians?
Pauline Authorship
Theology
• Paul presents himself as a saint, the
example to be followed and prototype of a
Christian convert
 Is this really a change from 1 Cor 11:1,
Phil 3:1, etc.?
1 Timothy
Provenance
• Best suggestion appears to be that he wrote from
Macedonia
Date
• Probably the early to mid-60’s after being released
from prison in Rome
• If written in Paul’s earlier ministry, then it could
have been written in the mid-50’s
Destination
• Private letter to Timothy, but intended for Timothy
to make public use of the teaching therein
1 Timothy
Adoption into the Canon
• Quoted by Polycarp, Athenagoras, and
later writers
• Widely accepted as authentically from Paul
and canonical, though it seems to have
been rejected by Tatian and Marcion
1 Timothy
Contribution
• The fellowship between Christians in the
service to the Lord
• Gives some of the fullest description of the
qualification of a minister of the gospel
• Emphasis on the character and conduct of
elders and deacons
• Emphasis on sound doctrine
2 Timothy
Provenance
• Probably written from prison in Rome at the end of
Paul’s life
• Paul seems to have expected a speedy execution
Date
• Anywhere from A.D. 64–67, but probably 64–65
Destination
• Written to Timothy and is extremely personal,
though Paul also extends greetings to those who
were with Timothy
2 Timothy
Adoption into the Canon
• Echoes in 1 Clement
• Polycarp
• Ignatius
• Irenaeus
• Clement of Alexandria
• Rejected by Tatian and Marcion
2 Timothy
Contribution
• Final testament of Paul to Timothy
• Christian martyrdom
• Christians exhorted to live out the
consequences of God’s saving act
• There are things of the essence of Christian
faith that are not open to negotiation
• Cost of discipleship
• Warning against wandering from the truth
Titus
Provenance
• In or on the way to Nicopolis
• Comes from a period of active missionary service
Date
• If during Paul’s earlier ministry, then probably in
A.D. 57
• If after his first Roman imprisonment, then
probably in the early to mid-60’s
Destination
• To Titus
Titus
Adoption into the Canon
• 1 Clement
• Tertullian
• Irenaeus
• Tatian
• Muratorian Canon
• Rejected by Marcion
Titus
Contribution
• Civilizing function of Christianity
• Gospel must be taught despite opposition
• Reliance on the grace of God
• Expectation of the parousia
Philemon
Authorship
Paul
• Undisputed Pauline
 Only radical critics of the Tübingen
school ever questioned its authenticity
Provenance and Date
This question is tied closely to Colossians
• Both include Timothy as co-sender
• Both refer to Epaphras and Archippus
• Both include Mark, Aristarchus, Demas,
and Luke as Paul’s companions
• Colossians refers to Onesimus
Provenance and Date
Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome?
• Caesarea is generally dismissed—not
much reason for Onesimus to have fled
there
• Ephesus
 Onesimus more likely to have fled to the
nearest metropolitan center
 Paul’s request that Philemon prepare a
guest room
Provenance and Date
Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome?
• Rome
 Philemon may have wanted to get as far
away as possible
 Paul could have been in Colosse in five
weeks if released from imprisonment
 Most likely provenance is Rome in the
early 60’s
Contribution
Why is it in the Canon?
• The letter gives a beautiful picture of
mutual love and respect that is to
characterize the body of Christ
• Contributes to our understanding of social
issues such as slavery
 Paul seems to argue that human slavery
and Christian fellowship are
incompatible
Hebrews
Author
Paul?
• The earliest text of Hebrews, P46, (early 3rd
century) places it within the Pauline corpus
after Romans
• Seems to reflect the attitude of the Eastern
churches
Author
Paul?
• The Greek is more polished than Paul’s
letters
• Clement of Alexandria suggested that Paul
wrote in Hebrew and Luke translated it
into Greek
• Origen thought that a disciple of Paul
compiled and wrote Paul’s thoughts down
for him
Author
Paul?
• Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, and
Hippolytus of Rome agree Paul was not the
author
• Tertullian identifies Barnabas as the author
• Jerome and Augustine shifted opinion in
the West toward Paul
• Thomas Aquinas mentions that Luke
translated the epistle into Greek
Author
Paul?
• Calvin argued for Clement of Rome or
Luke
• Luther proposed Apollos
• Council of Trent reaffirmed Hebrews as
Pauline
• Virtually no one today espouses Pauline
authorship
Author
Other options:
• Barnabas
• Apollos
• Priscilla
• Silas
• Timothy
• Epaphras
• Philip
• Mary, the mother of Jesus
Author
It is probably best to admit our ignorance
on this matter
Provenance
This is even less certain than the
authorship issue
• Only helpful clue is in 13:24, “Those from
Italy send you their greetings”
• This could mean believers in Italy or
believers simply from Italy
Date
Principal points
• Addressees and the author appear to belong to the
second generation of Christians
• 1 Clement 36:1–6 (A.D. 96) cites Hebrews, so it
would have had to have been written beforehand
• Must have been written in Timothy’s lifetime
• Possibly written before the Neronian persecution
(re: Heb 12:4)
• Appears that Temple sacrifices are still going on
• The Christology could correspond to even a prePauline period
Destination
Palestine
• References to the cultus, but…
 The Greek is polished and the lack of
references to Hebrew or Aramaic would
suggest readers that did not know
Hebrew or Aramaic
 Many Jews throughout the empire cared
deeply about the cult
Destination
Rome
• Only other suggestion that has received
much support
 Earliest attestation of Hebrews is in
Rome (Clement)
 This is still not much more than a guess
Purpose
Written for Christians, urged to maintain
their confession
• The use of the OT does not mean that the
addressees were primarily Jewish
Christians
 Author’s knowledge of Jewish ritual is
largely a literary knowledge
Purpose
Still…it is likely that the addressees were
Jewish Christians
• If the danger of turning from the living
God applied to ancient Israelites, there is
no reason it could not refer to first-century
Jewish Christians
• Nothing suggests the readers are
confronting Judaizing propaganda
• Hellenistic Jews would have readily
accepted the authority of the LXX
Purpose
Still…it is likely that the addressees were
Jewish Christians
• The argument of the superiority of Jesus to
the cult makes more sense if the readers are
tempted to return to the cult
• The Jewish religion was accepted by
Roman authorities, whereas Christianity
was not; addressees were tempted to avoid
persecution
Adoption into the Canon
Accepted in the East, but not initially in
the West
• This is likely due to the debates over
authorship, though many church fathers
used Hebrews anyway
• Never doubted in the East
• Jerome and Augustine convinced the
Western church
Contribution of Hebrews
• Heavy emphasis on Christology,
particularly Jesus’ priestly work, the
finality of his sacrifice, the nature of his
sonship, the importance of the incarnation,
and his role as ‘pioneer’
• Extensive use of the OT
• Independent slant on movement from
Israel to the church as the people of God
• Emphasis on perseverance and the dangers
of apostasy
James
Author
Who was James?
• Letter was written by an unknown James
• James, the son of Zebedee
• James, the son of Alphaeus
• James, the father of Judas
• James, the brother of Jesus
 Some assert that this James’ teaching is
at the heart of the letter, but it was
organized and written much later
Author
Pseudonymity…the letter does point to the
brother of Jesus, but it was really a later
author writing in his name
• No mention of James’ relationship to Jesus
 Physical ties were not viewed as
important in the early church
 It would have been more likely that a
pseudonymous author would have
highlighted this relationship
Author
• Language and cultural background of the
letter are too familiar with Hellenism
 The quality of the Greek in James is
polished, but should not be exaggerated
 Should not underestimate the familiarity
of Hellenistic Greek among Palestinian
Jews
 Religious and philosophical concepts
would have been available much more
generally than is often supposed
Author
• The manner in which the OT and Judaism
is treated; The letter takes a rather liberal
view of the Law, which goes against the
traditional view of James’ conservatism
 The tradition is likely exaggerated
 James is indifferent to the ritual law, but
does not prohibit it
Author
• The relationship between Paul and James
on the matter of justification; James does
not really meet Paul’s view of justification
head-on
 It is more likely that this letter was written
before Paul had a chance to visit with
James, but James was hearing reports
about Paul’s gospel from others
Provenance
• Some assert Rome
• More likely to have been written from
Jerusalem
Date
At the end of James’ life or before the
Jerusalem council?
• Those who opt for pseudonymity—end of
1st century
• At the end (A.D. 62)
 Paul’s letters must have been sufficiently
widespread
 Typical second generation problem of
worldliness that takes up so much of the
letter
Date
At the end of James’ life or before the
Jerusalem council?
• Before the Jerusalem Council (early to
mid-40’s)
 Paul was active in ministry for nearly 15
years by this time
 No hint of conflict between Jewish and
Gentile Christians
 Fits well with the use of Jesus traditions
Addressees
Jewish Christians
• 1:1 says “To the twelve tribes scattered
among the nations”
 Twelve tribes need not describe JewishChristians, nor does diaspora (see 1
Peter 1:1)
 Early date and Jewish character of the
letter indicates more literal meaning
 Fits James’ pastoral concerns well
Genre
Components
• Pastoral admonition
• Extensive and effective use of metaphor
• Use of Jesus traditions and other Jewish
works
Genre
Possibilities
• Diatribe
• Parenesis
• Wisdom
• Homily
Adoption into the Canon
• Influenced Shepherd of Hermas and 1
Clement
• Clement of Alexandria wrote a
commentary on James
• Origen cited it as scripture
• Eusebius classified it as a “disputed” book
 May have been alluding to the Syrian
church’s slowness in accepting all of the
Catholic Epistles
Adoption into the Canon
• Not found in the Muratorian Canon or
Mommsen Catalogue
• Clear citations in Hilary of Poitiers and
Ambrosiaster
• Jerome fully accepted James
• Luther accepted its canonicity, but
relegated it to a secondary status
Contribution of James
• Genuine Christian faith must be evident in
action
• Double-mindedness is the basic sin that
needs to be rooted out of his readers
• Discussion of justification that is nuanced
differently than Paul’s
• Speaks loudly against quietism amongst
Christians
1 Peter
Occasion
Suffering
• Suffering in general
• Malicious speech against believers
• “fiery ordeal”
• These all suggest some sort of persecution
outside the bounds of the trials of everyday
life
Occasion
Possibilities
• General official persecution
• Local official persecution
• Local unofficial persecution
Occasion
Possibilities
• General official persecution
 Nero (64–65)
 Domitian (90–95)
 Trajan (97–117)
• There is no compelling evidence to think it
was anything to do with these official
persecutions
Occasion
Possibilities
• Local official persecution
 Pliny the Younger’s correspondence with
Trajan about the situation in Bithynia
(A.D. 110)
 Too late for 1 Peter, and 1 Peter does not
indicate an official persecution
Occasion
Possibilities
• Local unofficial persecution
 Christians were probably being
criticized, mocked, discriminated
against, and perhaps even brought into
court on trumped-up charges
 This is as specific as we can get
Sources and Composition
Traditional Material
• OT citations
• OT allusions
• Jesus traditions
• Common tradition with Pauline epistles
Sources and Composition
Modern scholars are virtually unanimous
in maintaining the literary integrity of 1
Peter
Author
Peter
Attested by:
• 1 Clement (possibly)
• Polycarp to the Philippians
• Irenaeus
• 1 Peter is the only Catholic Epistle that
Eusebius classifies as “undisputed”
• Missing in Muratorian Canon, but the
document is mutilated
Author
Peter
Still, contemporary scholars often reject Peter as the
author
• Failure to comment on Paul’s presence in Rome
• Addressed to Gentile churches, even though Peter
is the apostle to the Jews
• Church order in 1 Peter 5:1–5 reflects a later period
• Lack of reminiscences on the life of Jesus
• Too “Pauline” in his theology
• Quotations follow the LXX closely
• Greek of the letter is too polished
Author
Peter
Reasons to reject the contemporary dismissal
of Peter as author
• Paul most likely left Rome after A.D. 62,
but was back in Rome where he and Peter
died during the Neronian persecution
around A.D. 64–65
• The division of the mission field between
Paul and Peter was never exclusive or
permanent (see 1 Corinthians 1)
Author
Peter
Reasons to reject the contemporary dismissal of
Peter as author
• Nothing in 1 Peter reflects a church order not
in place in the 60’s
• There are a number of likely allusions to
Jesus tradition in 1 Peter, and there is little
reason to suggest he would have recounted his
life with Jesus in any other way
• It is very possible that Peter used Silvanus as
an amanuensis, but there is also little reason
to suggest that Peter was not familiar enough
in Greek to write this letter
Provenance
Rome
“She who is in Babylon” (5:13)
• Historical city of Babylon in Mesopotamia
had no Jewish population in Peter’s day
and was almost deserted by A.D. 115
• Babylon is most likely a symbol for
worldly power drawn from Babylon’s role
in the OT
• Also could refer to God’s people in exile
Date
• Scholars who opt for pseudonymity offer
dates between A.D. 70 and 100
• If Peter wrote the letter, then it is likely to
have been written in A.D. 62–63
Audience and Destination
Likely mostly Gentile audiences in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
• Peter’s statement in 1:12 suggests that he
did not personally evangelize these
Christians
Contribution of 1 Peter
• Peter encourages suffering Christians by
reminding them of their present identity as
God’s people and their secure hope of
ultimate blessing—rooted in Christ
• Emphasis on hope to those suffering for
Christ
• Insistence that Christians belong to the
ancestral people of God
• Extensive Christology
2 Peter
Literary Affinities
2 Peter and Jude
•Both letters denounce false teachers in
similar language
•Similarity in order and rarity of language
used elsewhere in the Bible
Literary Affinities
2 Peter and Jude - possibilities
• Jude was Peter’s amanuensis
• Borrowing:
 Peter borrowed from Jude
 Jude borrowed from Peter
 Dependence upon a common text
• Most modern scholars think 2 Peter used
Jude, but it could just as easily been the
other way around
Occasion
Eschatological skepticism
• Believers beginning to doubt that Christ
would return
False Teachers
• Known by their immoral lifestyle
 Incipient form of Gnosticism?
 Epicureanism?
• We do not have enough evidence to come to a
positive identification of a single group of
opponents
Author
Most modern scholars do not think that
Peter could have written this letter
•
•
•
•
Vocabulary and style are very different than 1 Peter
False teaching is second-century Gnosticism
Refers to Paul’s letters as scripture
References to the death of the fathers, importance
of apostolic tradition, and delay of the parousia
• Letter is not strongly attested in the ancient church
• Modeled after pseudonymous Jewish testamentary
literature
Author
In defense of the authenticity of 2 Peter
• The Greek of 2 Peter is not nearly as distinctive as
some assert
• It is very improbable that the false teachers were
Gnostics
• The apostles considered their own words to carry
an authority tantamount to Scripture
• Is a bad example of “early Catholicism”
• The attestation of 2 Peter in the ancient church may
not be as strong as other NT books, but still far
outstrips any book left out of the canon
• 2 Peter belongs to the genre of letter
Date and Provenance
Possibilities
If pseudonymous
•Early to mid second century
If Peter wrote it
•Written just before his death during the
Neronian persecution from Rome
Destination and Audience
This is a “general” or “Catholic” epistle
Still, it appears to have been written to a
specific situation
• Perhaps written to the same churches as 1
Peter (see 2 Peter 3:15)
• Audience was probably mostly Gentile
Contribution of 2 Peter
• Emphasizes the seriousness of deviating
from the faith either in theology or in
morals
• Enhances our understanding of eschatology
(see 3:7–13)
• Emphasizes the importance of memory in
the Christian life
1, 2, 3 John
Author
External Evidence
• 1 Clement – “perfected in love”
 Didache
• Epistle of Barnabas – “the Son of God
come in the flesh”
• Polycarp – “everyone who does not
confess Jesus Christ to have come in the
flesh is antichrist”
• Papias of Hierapolis
Author
External Evidence
• By the time of Irenaeus, at least the first and
second epistle of John are identified with the
son of Zebedee
 Clement of Alexandria
• Origen is the first to mention all three epistles
• Dionysius of Alexandria insisted that the
apostle wrote the Gospel and 1 John and
knew about 2 and 3 John
• Never is anyone other than the son of
Zebedee referred to as the author of the
epistles
Author
Internal Evidence
Similarities
• Light and darkness
• Life and death
• Truth and falsehood
• Love and hate
• Similar schemes of salvation
Author
Internal Evidence
Differences that may indicate different
authors
• Key doctrines and terms are used
differently
• Words and expressions not shared between
the Gospel of John and 1 John
• “we” in 1 John 1:1–5 could refer to a
Johannine school
Author
Internal Evidence
• Many of the supposed differences that occur
between the Gospel and 1 John are present
within the Gospel itself
• The vocabularies of the Gospel and 1 John are
more similar than Luke and Acts
• The insistence upon a Johannine school is
tenuous at best
• “we” passages seem to indicate eyewitness
testimony in several places
• The writer’s tone and authority extend across
congregations
Author
Internal Evidence
• In 2 and 3 John the author refers to himself
as “the elder”
 This is not to be taken as a different
person from the Apostle
 It would be appropriate for John to make
such a designation of himself if he were
the last living Apostle
Provenance
Ephesus
• Tradition is consistent that the son of
Zebedee moved to Ephesus, ministered
there, and died there
 This is asserted by Polycrates of
Ephesus, c. 190
Date
Early 90’s
• Written after the fourth Gospel
• Gospel of John most likely written in A.D.
80–85
Destination
Probably churches in the same region as
Ephesus
• 1 John is silent on the matter
• 2 John is sent to a local congregation
referred to as “the lady chosen by God”
• 3 John is sent to an otherwise unknown
Gaius, who is confronting a problem with a
powerful and arrogant person named
Diotrephes within the church
Purpose
1 John
• To address the secession of believers from
the church and false teaching that confronts
the church
 Proto-gnosticism
 Embryonic Docetism
 Heresy of Cerinthus
Purpose
2 John
• To warn a congregation against admitting
travelling teachers who espouse similar
falsehoods as discussed in 1 John
Purpose
3 John
•Probably no particular heresy involved
•Diotrephes is a powerful and arrogant
church leader
 He will not accept correction even from
John
 He appears to be attempting yo wrest all
local authority for himself
Adoption into the Canon
• Origen mentions multiple epistles, but
seems unsure about some
• Eusebius classified 1 John as
“acknowledged”, but 2 and 3 John as
“disputed
 Eusebius himself appears to have
accepted all three
• All three are accepted by Athanasius, the
Council of Hippo, and Synod of Carthage
Contribution of Johannine Epistles
• Together, they demonstrate the importance
of testing all attempts to rearticulate the
gospel
• Emphasize the doctrine of assurance
 Distinguish between genuine and
spurious faith
Jude
Occasion
False Teaching
• “Secretly slipped in” among the believers
 Boastful
 Selfish
 Scornful of authority
 Greedy
 Sexually immoral
• Jude seems to be describing a similar type of
false teaching as 2 Peter
• Perhaps the false teachers are of the
antinomian variety
Author
Possibilities…
•Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37)
•Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16)
•Judas, called Barsabbas (Acts 15:22, 27, 32)
•The brother of Jesus
Author
Tradition says Jude, the brother of Jesus
Some reject this
• The Greek is too good
• Reference to the teaching of the apostles
and faith entrusted to the saints is seen as a
later development
• Failure to mention his familial tie to Jesus
Author
Tradition says Jude, the brother of Jesus
But…
• There is no reason he couldn’t have written
well in Greek
• There is little here that is not wellestablished in other early NT books
• Surely a later writer would have capitalized
on Jude’s identification with Jesus if they
were writing pseudonymously
Date, Provenance, Destination, Audience
It is most likely that Jude, the brother of
Jesus wrote the letter
so…
• Written in 50’s if before 2 Peter, or in the
mid-60’s if after 2 Peter
• Little is known about provenance or
destination
• It appears to have been written for a
Jewish-Christian audience in a Gentile
setting
Contribution of Jude
Emphasis on the danger of false teaching
• Likened to the enemies of Israel from the
OT
Revelation
Contents
Structure is important because many
interpretations are based on one construal of
structure over another
• Prologue (1:1–20)
• Messages to seven churches (2:1–3:22)
• A vision of Heaven (4:1–5:14)
• The seven seals (6:1–8:5)
• The seven trumpets (8:6–11:19)
• Seven significant signs (12:1–14:20)
• The seven bowls (15:1–16:21)
• The triumph of Almighty God (17:1–21:8)
• The new Jerusalem (21:9–22:9)
• Epilogue (22:10–21)
Author
Early attestation to John, the apostle
• Justin Martyr
• Melito of Sardis
• Irenaeus
• Muratorian Canon
Author
Early rejections of John, the apostle
•Marcion
•The Alogoi – anti logos, anti spiritual gifts
•Dionysius of Alexandria
 Author makes no claim to be an apostle
 Conceptions and arrangement of the
Apocalypse are completely different
from the fourth Gospel
 The Greek is drastically different
 Chilialism – millennialism
Author
Contemporary discussion—Internal
• Lack of apostolic claim
 Could just as easily not be mentioned
because he is so well-known
• Theological differences (all are weak)
 Differences in the understanding of God
 Different presentation of Christ
 Eschatological differences
• Stylistic differences
 Completely different genre; the book of
Revelation’s solecisms appear to be quite
deliberate
Author
Conclusion
• Written by John, the apostles rather than:
 John the elder
 Pseudonymity
 Anonymous member of the Johannine
school
Provenance
From Patmos
• Rocky island about 6 miles wide and 10
miles long; about 40 miles southwest of
Ephesus
Date
Early Christian Testimony
• Claudius
 Epiphanius
• Nero
 Syriac versions of Revelation
• Domitian
 Irenaeus, Victorinus, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius
• Trajan
 Dorotheus, Theophylact
Date
Contemporary discussion—Nero vs.
Domitian
• Persecution
 Little hard evidence for widespread
official persecution in Asia Minor under
Nero or Domitian
• Emperor worship
 Clear evidence that Domitian stressed
his own deity
 Made it a test of loyalty
Date
Contemporary discussion—Nero vs.
Domitian
• Conditions of the churches
 Elements in the letters to the seven
churches are more compatible to 90’s
• Existence of Nero Myth
 Beast recovering from a mortal wound
(13:3–4)
Date
Contemporary discussion—Nero vs.
Domitian
• Existence of the Jerusalem Temple
 Rev 11:1–2 could refer to the Temple that
is still standing
 This also could refer to the Temple
metaphorically
• Revelation 17:9–11
 5 of the 7 kings have fallen
• Most of the evidence favors a date during
Domitian’s reign
Destination
Written to seven churches in the Roman
province of Asia
Composition
Borrows from OT more that any other NT
book
• Most of this comes in the form of allusions
• May have been direct borrowing from
other NT texts as well
Composition
Source theories
• These fall flat and don’t ultimately help
• The book would not have needed more
than one stage of composition
Genre
Elements in Revelation
• Prophecy
• Apocalypse
• Letter
Because it combines these genres,
Revelation is fairly unique amongst other
apocalypses in Judaism
Text
Differs from most NT books
• Far few Greek manuscripts
• The value of the witnesses is weighted
toward Alexandrinus
• Not present in Vaticanus
Adoption into the Canon
Attestation
• Ignatius
• Barnabas
• Shepherd of Hermas
• Papias
• Justin
• Irenaeus
• Muratorian Canon
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
Adoption into the Canon
Rejection
• Marcion
• Alogoi
• Dionysius
• Council of Laodicea (A.D. 360)
• Earliest editions of Syriac Peshitta
Rejection occurred mostly because of the
eschatology of the book rather than
widespread doubts about apostolicity
Contribution of Revelation
Methods of Interpretation
• Preterist approach
• Historical approach
• Futurist approach
• Idealist approach
Futurist approach does the most justice,
but does not detract from the manner in
which John addresses topics of his own
day
Contribution of Revelation
Contribution
• Sovereignty of God
• Very high Christology
• Emphasis on the effect of the Cross
• Eschatology
The End, in biblical thought, shapes and
informs the past and the present
The New
Testament Canon
Canon
Semitic loanword that came to mean
“rule” or “standard”. Over time it came
to have a purely formal sense of “list”.
• Historical question—how the 27 books of
the NT came to be recognized
• Theological question—what is the relation
between canon and authority? Between
authority of the text and authority of the
church?
Jesus believed:
Divine Inspiration of Scripture
He said to them, "How is it then that David,
inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
till I put thy enemies under thy feet'?”
Matthew 22:43,44
Jesus foretold the accuracy of the New Testament:
Christ promised the apostles the Holy Spirit - who
should bring all things to their remembrance, and
render them infallible in teaching
(John 14:16, 26; John 15:26).
Jesus told them it is not you who speak but the Spirit
of my Father who speaks in you.
Whoever hears you, hears me (Luke 10:16).
This promise came true on Pentecost.
Relevance of the OT Canon
Was there already a closed OT canon
when the NT was written?
• Until recently, the critical consensus held
that the OT became canon in 3 steps: Torah
(end of the 5th century); Prophets (around
200 B.C.); Writings (end of first century
A.D. at Jamnia)
Relevance of the OT Canon
However…
• The role, or even existence, of the Council
of Jamnia is now very much in doubt
• While there is evidence for a tripartite
division of the Scriptures in the first
century, there is no indication of a tripartite
process of canonization
Relevance of the OT Canon
• Typically, the Samaritan schism is used for
dating the canonization of the Pentateuch,
but this assumes that Jewish and Samaritan
views of Scripture were identical
• Barton has argued against the notion that
there were any recognized sequences of
books since they were all in separate
scrolls
Relevance of the OT Canon
• There is ample evidence that Daniel was
viewed as a prophet, so the category of
Prophecy is not hard and fast
• Josephus is a strong witness to a closed
canon in first-century Judaism; the
production of scriptural books was thought
to have ceased
Relevance of the OT Canon
• Pre-Christian Judaism widely held that
prophecy had ceased
• The LXX we have is late, and the
Alexandrian fathers appear to have used an
OT canon very similar to our own
Relevance of the OT Canon
• NT writers cited most of OT as Scripture,
but there is no unequivocal evidence that
the NT recognized a closed canon
However…
 Quotation patterns of the NT largely line
up with predominant Jewish evidence
for the shape of the canon
 No literature outside the OT canon is
referred to as Scripture or assigned to
the Holy Spirit
Relevance of the OT Canon
However…(continued)
 There is no hint of the NT writers
jettisoning parts of the OT because it
doesn’t cohere to Christian faith
 NT passages appeal to Scripture when
correcting Jewish theology
 Matt 23:35 seems to refer to the first and
last men to be killed in the OT canon
Formation of the NT Canon
Heresy and Canon
• First canon list we have comes from
Marcion
• Montanists sought to elevate prophecy to a
supreme authority over the church
• Muratorian canon appears at the end of the
second century as a recognition of a canon
very close to our own
Early Church Leaders
• Clement of Rome (died 99 A.D.) 1st Apostolic Father
• Ignatius (~55 A.D. – 115 A.D.) - Bishop of Antioch
– Possibly a disciple of one John
• Polycarp (~70-156A.D.) - Bishop of Smyrna
– Disciple of John
• Justin Martyr (~150 A.D.) – First of the apologists
• Irenaeus (~177 A.D.) - Bishop of Lyons
– Disciple of Polycarp
• Tertullian (~196 A.D.) – powerful thinker, philosopher in
Carthage; helped formalize the Trinity
• Origen (185A.D. – 254 A.D.) - perhaps the greatest scholar of
early church
• Eusebius (260 – 340 A.D.) – wrote Church History
Formation of the NT Canon
Church Fathers
• Arguments regarding canon typically turn
on the manner in which the fathers used the
NT books
Formation of the NT Canon
Church Fathers
• There are roughly 3 groups of texts cited
by the fathers
 Quoted frequently
 Quoted less frequently
 Books that are scarcely quoted
• Thus, actual usage established the canon
Formation of the NT Canon
Church Fathers
• Christians also adopted the codex early on
• Eusebius established a tripartite
classification of Christian works:
 Acknowledged books
 Disputed books
 Heretical and rejected books
• Third council of Carthage recognized 27
books in the NT
Formation of the NT Canon
Church Fathers
• Syriac omitted 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude,
and the Apocalypse
• Most Eastern fathers accepted all 27 books
of our NT canon
Formation of the NT Canon
Criteria of canonicity
• “rule of faith” – the conformity between
the text and orthodoxy
• Apostolicity – needed to have at least some
recognizable relationship to an apostle
• Document’s widespread and continuous
use by churches everywhere
Significance of the NT Canon
We must not succumb to the impression
that the church took inordinately long to
recognize the authority of the NT
documents
• The official closing of the canon took some
time, but these books were received right
away as authoritative
• Jesus’ institution of a new covenant almost
necessitates new covenant Scriptures
Non Biblical Confirmations
•Josephus (born 37 A.D.) – Jewish historian, wrote about
the deaths of Jesus, John the Baptist, James the brother of
Jesus, and Herod Agrippa I
•Tacitus (56 A.D. – 117 A.D. ) - Roman Senator and
historian, wrote about Nero killing followers of Christus,
who was crucified by Pontius Pilate
•Pliny the Younger (c. 112 A.D.) - Governor of
Bithynia, wrote about Christian activities
•Lucian of Samosata (2nd Century) – Greek writer,
wrote about Christians refusing to worship Greek gods.
•Jewish Talmud – On the eve of Passover Yeshua was
hanged …since nothing was brought forward in his favor
he was hanged on the eve of the Passover. Sanhedrin 43a
Significance of the NT Canon
There was both extraordinary authority
and implicit closure from the very
beginning
• Ignatius – “But for my part, my records are
Jesus Christ, for me the sacred records are
his cross and death and resurrection and
the faith that comes through him”
Significance of the NT Canon
If we pursue when and how the NT books
were read as authoritative witnesses to the
gospel rather than when and how the
canon was closed…
• We find that even most of the disputed
books are widely cited by the church
fathers
Significance of the NT Canon
Other strands of important evidence
• In the earliest stages, the “tradition” was
passed on orally
• Oral tradition was not viewed as
intrinsically superior to the written word
• We do not know how the first collections
of some of the NT books were made
 By mid-second century the four gospels
circulated together; Paulines probably
earlier still
Significance of the NT Canon
Contemporary approaches to canon
• Some have argued that the idea of canon
should be abolished
 Only works if one rejects the notion of
Scripture itself
• “Canon within a canon”
 Notions of scripture forbid such
approaches
Significance of the NT Canon
Contemporary approaches to canon
• Traditional Roman Catholic theology has
sometimes spoken of the church’s role in
forming scripture
 The church does not establish what
books constitute Scripture.
 The church recognizes which books
command allegiance and obedience
Significance of the NT Canon
Contemporary approaches to canon
• The rise of canon criticism
 Sometimes exponents of this practice
espouse abstract truths from the texts but
shy away from any historical claims
Significance of the NT Canon
The fact that God is a self-disclosing,
speaking, covenant-keeping God who has
supremely revealed himself in a historical
figure, Jesus the Messiah, establishes the
necessity of the canon and, implicitly, its
closure