The Writing of the New Testament
Table of Contents
The Writing of the New Testament: Part 1
We may well approach such a subject with unshod feet. May the Lord give us grace to have due reverence for all His Word.
The writing of the Old Testament covers a period of 1500 years; the New was finished before 100 A. D. It is impossible to estimate the truth that was revealed during the few short years when the New Testament was written. The completeness and perfection of it shows the manifest hand of God. The apostles, who were expecting the Lord's return at any moment, did not attempt to write a symmetrical and complete volume for the guidance of the Church in future ages, nevertheless the Lord's hand was over the writing of the Gospels, and lie used the special occasions on which epistles were written, to form a complete whole, and to present the whole truth under many different aspects.
Someone has said that James carries us on to Peter; Peter commends us to Paul, and finally the work is crowned by the Gospel and Epistles of John.
As to the exact dates of the different books of the New Testament it would be impossible to give them with certainty. Some have thought that the Epistle to the Galatians, others that to the Thessalonians was the first New Testament book to be written. Practically all students of Scripture are agreed that the Gospel and first Epistle of John (which was probably issued with it) were the last to he written. But there is ample proof that all were finished, though, not of course collected into one volume, before the close of the first century.
In considering the writing of the New Testament let us begin with the Gospels, against which the swelling tide of higher criticism has been beating for the last 100 years. And in passing let me advise all who are afflicted with doubts, not to be afraid to look thoroughly into the matter. It is better to seriously read and weigh the actual writings of Christians of the first and second centuries than to blindly accept the self-made reasonings of the higher critics. There are positively no reliable facts of history on the side of the higher critics. In fact all the oldest sources of Church history, all the allusions to the Church in secular writers bear out the New Testament. The explanations of the higher critics are based on hypotheses, deductions and probabilities which cannot possibly be proved.
But though it may be possible to refute the higher critics on their own ground, such a refutation can never be the ground of faith. There must be a leap in the dark, a certain risk taken, before we realize the perfect certainty and peace of Christ's presence. Like Peter, we encounter the dark night, the waves boisterous, then comes the cry for help, and then the answer-Christ's own hand holding us up. "No man can pluck them out of My hand.”
After the resurrection of the Lord, the disciples saw Him as it were intermittently. He appeared in the midst of them suddenly and mysteriously, the doors being shut. He vanished out of their sight in the act of breaking the bread. He was seen by none but by believers; but even after the end of the forty days, when He had ascended into the heavens and a cloud received Him out of their sight, they never felt their intimacy with Him was at an end. May we not say that in their after lives of witness and service they came to know Him far better than they had ever done before? The Holy Spirit was dwelling in them and taking of the things of Christ and revealing them unto them. The sense of His presence was very real. "They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following." Mark 16:20.
On occasions He was even seen by them. Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of 'God.
Saul of Tarsus, overwhelmed and heartbroken, saw and heard the One he had resisted so long. But even to a humble disciple like Ananias of Damascus the Lord said, in a vision, "Ananias!" And he said, "Behold, I am here, Lord"-the simple response of one who was not' surprised to hear His Lord's voice directing him to service.
With such a sense of the reality, the imminent presence of the Lord, the first Gospel sermons had little of doctrine or dogma. They were plain statements of facts. The main facts of the Lord's life and death, and above all, His resurrection were put before the people, and in view of the tremendous import of these facts they were urged to repent, to submit themselves to Him "who had gone about doing good," who "by wicked hands was crucified and slain," and Who now "was exalted to be a Prince and a Savior.”
Thus, no doubt the main facts of the Lord's life, His miracles, His parables, His teachings about the Kingdom, came to be known by the constantly increasing body of believers. When the angel of the Lord released the disciples from prison, He bade them go and speak in the temple all the words of this Life.
“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem," said Peter to Cornelius.
An inexhaustible store of precious memories the apostles must have had of those three years and a half in company with the Lord. And yet in the first three Gospels comparatively few of His works and words are preserved. But of these we often have two or perhaps three accounts according to each Gospel. The selection of these passages in the life of our Lord was of the Holy Ghost. "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." We may conclude that they were passages most often preached to the multitude, most often remembered and repeated to each other by the disciples.
The belief in the Lord's return for His own was very intense. In fact it is evident that this belief governed all their actions. They made no provision for the future, in the way of organization or creed. Even in material things, the money which the rich believers contributed to the common purse in the beginning of Acts was freely spent, and later on, "Collections are made for the poor saints at Jerusalem.”
They expected the Lord so soon that the things of this life became infinitely unimportant to them. The apostles were given to prayer and the ministry of the Word. There is no hint in the book of Acts of any written Gospel being used by the churches; therefore we may conclude that for the first years of the Church nothing was written down. As some one has said, "The Holy Ghost distributed tongues, not pens, at Pentecost.”
None the less, during this time, perhaps twenty years, perhaps more, the Gospels were being worked out, their sacred and spiritual meaning being apprehended more and more, as by the Holy Spirit the apostles meditated upon Him who is the Word of Life. That which they had not understood at the time, now became clear to them. (See Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 2:22.)
Thus for some years before any of the 'Gospels were written down, the great body of the Gospel teaching was in existence, treasured up in the hearts and memories of believers. This may explain why the same narratives often appear in each of the Gospels. The first three evangelists, in writing their Gospels, drew from the common body of teaching, which had been known for many years. And, yet we can see that writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit each Gospel has its own peculiar character, and presents the Lord's life and work under a different aspect.
(To be continued)
The Writing of the New Testament: Part 3
In passing on to the writing of the Epistles, little need be said, for their authorship is undisputed and the occasions of their being written is usually quite clear from their contents.
The Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul from Corinth about the year 60 when he spent three months in Greece just before, setting out on his last journey to Jerusalem. (Acts 20:2, 3.) It was carried by Phoebe, the servant of the Church at Cenchrea, which is the port of Corinth, and it contained greetings from Gaius, who lived in Corinth. (1 Cor. 1:14.)
1 Corinthians was written a short time before Romans, about the year 59, probably from the house of Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus. Acts 18:26. We see that Priscilla and Aquila were living in Ephesus when Apollos passed through that city shortly before Paul's visit. Paul had in mind (Acts' 19:21) to visit Achaia (where Corinth was situated), but delayed his visit and instead wrote a letter to the Corinthians, whose conduct had caused him so much grief.
2 Corinthians was written a short time later from Philippi, after he had received from Titus the cheering news of the repentance of the Corinthians. "And after the uproar was ceased (Acts 20:1) Paul called unto him the disciples and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia." 2 Cor. 1:8 speaks of the ordeal which he had just passed through in Ephesus. 2 Cor. 2:12, 13 tells how he reached Troas, the first port of Macedonia, but was in too much grief of spirit over the conduct of the Corinthians to preach there. However, on his return journey, on his way to Jerusalem after visiting Corinth, he stayed seven days at Troas, and on the first day of the week preached till long after midnight (Acts 20:7). 2 Cor. 8:1 speaks of the liberality of the Macedonian churches which Paul was visiting at the time. 2 Cor. 13:1. Paul tells the Corinthians that he expects to visit them in a short time, as in fact he did.
The Epistle to the Galatians was written from 14 to 20 years after the call of the apostle, perhaps during his sojourn in Ephesus; in any case not long after the founding of the churches of Galatia.
Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were written during his two years' captivity in Rome about the year 64.
The Epistle to Philemon, who probably lived at or near Colosse, was written during the same period at the end of Paul's captivity, when he expected soon to be set free.
1 and 2 Thessalonians were both written from Athens apparently after Silas and Timotheus had joined Paul there. (Acts 17:15, 16.) The Thessalonians had only been converted a very short time and were going through a season of trial and persecution. Paul wrote to encourage them.
The 1 Epistle to Timothy was written as the apostle was leaving Ephesus for Macedonia. The date is uncertain, but many have thought that it was after his first imprisonment, when, for a short time, about the year 65, he was free again.
The Epistle to Titus was written about the same time, after a visit to Crete, of which we have no other account.
2 Timothy, Paul's last Epistle, was written from prison in Rome shortly before his martyrdom in the year 66.
Although Hebrews contains no salutation or mark of authorship, it is generally believed to have been written by Paul. I cannot do better than quote. Mr. Darby's remarks on Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles contained in the Introduction to the French Bible. He says: "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written at a comparatively late period in view of the judgments which were about to fall on Jerusalem. It calls the Christian Jews to separate themselves from that which God was on the point of judging.”
The Epistle of James relates to a time when this separation had not taken place in any way. Jewish Christians are looked at as still making part of an Israel which is not yet definitely rejected. They recognize Jesus only as the. Lord of glory. Like the other Catholic Epistles, that of James was written in the last days of the apostolic history when Christianity had been widely accepted among the tribes of Israel, and judgment was going to close their history.
Those of John were written later still.
The First Epistle of Peter shows us that the gospel had already been widely spread among the Jews; it is addressed to the Christian Jew of the dispersion.
The Second Epistle of course is later, and belongs to the end of the apostle's life when he was about to "lay aside this tabernacle" and leave his brethren. He did not want to leave them without the warnings which his apostolic care could soon give them no longer; for this reason, as in the Epistle of Jude, this Second Epistle of Peter speaks of those who had denied the faith, and of those who were denying the promise of the coming of the Lord.
In the First Epistle of John, according to the witness of this apostle himself we are in the "last hour." The apostates are already manifested, the apostates of the truth of Christianity, denying the Father and the Son, and joining in Jewish unbelief to deny that Jesus was the Christ.
The Epistle of Jude comes morally before that of John. It shows us the false brethren who had slipped in unawares in the midst of the saints and brings us to the final rebellion and judgment. It differs from that of Peter in that it does not look at evil as a simple iniquity but as a leaving of the first estate.
Revelation completes the picture by showing us Christ in the midst of the churches represented by golden candlesticks. The first church, having abandoned her first love, is warned that unless she repents and returns to her first estate, the candlestick will be removed. The final judgment of the church is found in Thyatira and Laodicea. This book then shows the judgment of the world, and the return of the Lord, the Kingdom, and heavenly city, and finally the eternal state.
The Writing of the New Testament: Part 2
The Gospel of John on the other hand has scarcely any incidents in common with the others. It was written long after the others. We may auk, Was it written to supply needs which arose after the first three. Gospels were written? The first generation of witnesses had passed away, and John, the last of the apostles, emphasizes the reality of the things which he had heard and seen. (John 19:35.) "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples." John 20:30. "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:24. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which. we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life;..... That which. we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us." 1 John 1:1, 3.
False teachers had arisen denying the divinity of the Lord and these John abundantly answers.
But the Gospel of John is much more than this. It is the last and fullest testimony, the revelation of the Father and the Son.
But to return to the writing of the Gospels, we can see that at length the need for a written Gospel would be felt. Christians were found in all parts of the world; of the original Church at Jerusalem, many were scattered, many were dead. Then Luke tells us that "many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." Luke tells us that the book of Acts was written after the Gospel. Many have thought that the Gospel of Luke was written during the two years when Paul was in prison at Caesarea. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem in the year 60, and sailed with him from Caesarea in the year 62. During the interval which he spent in Palestine he would have opportunity for converse with many who had known the Lord, even possibly with Mary, the Lord's mother.
No other clue is given us in the New Testament as to how the Gospels were written, but a tradition, which reaches back to apostolic times, gives us a few particulars.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who knew Poly-carp who had known the apostle John, writes as follows about 100 A. D.:
“Matthew indeed produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul. Afterward John, the disciple of our Lord, the same who lay upon His bosom, also published his Gospel whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia.'
The next witness, also about 100 A. D. is Papias who knew the elders who knew the apostles. He gives the following on the authority of the Presbyter John: "Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but not however in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter who gave him such instruction as was necessary; but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in anything by writing some things as he has recorded them, for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts." Of Matthew he says, "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect and everyone translated it as he was able.”
Eusebius who was born towards the end of the third century, passed through the last great persecution under Diocletian. When it was Over, and Constantine had granted. liberty of worship to Christians, Eusebius tried to gather up all the remaining records and traditions of the first three centuries of the Church, and thus wrote the first Church history. It is a most wonderful and interesting book, and will well repay careful study. Although not infallible, much of it is certainly correct, and it is the basis of all the histories of the Church for the first three centuries ever since.
Eusebius, whose opinion, therefore is worth regarding, sets down his conclusions as to the writing of the gospels as follows: "Of all the disciples, (apostles) Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says undertook it from necessity. Matthew having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written having been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of His deeds and at the commencement of the Gospel. And. this was the truth. For it is evident that the other three evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist and intimated this in the very beginning of their history." John has passed by in silence the genealogy of our Lord; he commenced with the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, a part reserved for him by the divine Spirit.
It is evident that this account of the writing of John's Gospel is quite inadequate. That it was written-last is evident from the little explanatory notes on the institutions and feasts of the Jews which show that it was addressed to people to whom they were unfamiliar. It would appear also that it was written after Peter's martyrdom on account of the reference in John 21:19 to the death he was to die, i.e., by crucifixion.
(To be continued.)