A Brief Account of the Authenticity and Antiquity of the New Testament Writings

By Anthony Rogers

The authenticity and antiquity of the twenty-seven New Testament writings are richly supported by the internal and external evidence.

While it is often alleged that the Gospels, because they are formally anonymous, i.e. contain no explicit mention of authorship in the body of their writings,[1] circulated anonymously, the fact is we have no evidence that this was ever the case. To the contrary, as pointed out by scholars such as Martin Hengel[2] and Simon Gathercole,[3] all our ancient manuscripts contain superscriptions and/or subscriptions that identify their authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and numerous other ancient witnesses—such as Papias,[4] Tertullian,[5] Irenaeus,[6] Origen,[7] Julius Africanus,[8]Clement of Alexandria,[9] Claudius Apollinaris,[10] Hippolytus,[11] Theophilus,[12] Lactantius,[13] and the Muratorian Canon[14]—agree that these were the authors of the four Gospels.[15] In fact, no other name is ever associated with these writings in the early centuries of the Church, not even by heretics or enemies of the faith.[16] It is also evident that the Gospels were written quite early, even before AD 70. For one, the Gospels make no reference to the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in AD 70, which is an altogether unexpected omission since they all claim that Jesus fulfilled everything that the temple stood for, thereby rendering it obsolete.[17] Moreover, the Gospel of John, which is commonly recognized as the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written, speaks in the present tense as if Jerusalem was still intact at the time John wrote (John 5:2), a fact cogently argued by Greek scholar Daniel Wallace.[18] Since John’s Gospel was written before AD 70,[19] if John’s Gospel was the last canonical Gospel to be written, then the Synoptic Gospels were also written before AD 70.

Among the authors of the four Gospels, Luke and John also wrote other works that are ascribed to them in the New Testament. The book of Acts was Luke’s continuation of the Gospel he authored (Acts 1:1-8), and it consists of the early history of the apostolic spread of the Gospel from the time of Christ’s ascension and especially focuses on the ministry of the Apostle Paul (Acts 9-28). That Luke was the author of the book of Acts is likewise attested by numerous early external witnesses such as Irenaeus,[20] Tertullian,[21] Clement of Alexandria,[22] Origen,[23] the Muratorian canon,[24] and the Anti-Marcionite prologue.[25] Indeed, like the Gospels, Luke’s authorship of the book of Acts is undisputed in the early centuries of the Church, whether by friend or foe.[26] Since Acts ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in AD 62 (Acts 28), it gives further support to the fact that the Gospels, as well as the book of Acts, were written before AD 70. As for the other writings ascribed to John, namely the Epistles of First, Second, and Third John and the book of Revelation, the three epistles are all written in the same style as John’s Gospel and each other,[27] and the book of Revelation explicitly says it was written by John (Revelation 1:4, 9). This is also the testimony of many early witnesses. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, quoted from these epistles as Scripture,[28] and many others referred to one or another of these epistles and ascribed them to John, such as Irenaeus,[29] Clement of Alexandria,[30] Tertullian,[31]Origen,[32] and the Muratorian Canon.[33] The book of Revelation also enjoys early and widespread attestation as coming from John, including attestation from men like Justin Martyr,[34] Irenaeus,[35] Origen,[36] Tertullian,[37]Clement of Alexandria,[38] Hippolytus,[39] and the Muratorian Canon.[40] As for the date of composition, although it is popular to hear that Revelation was written in AD 96, the book itself presupposes that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing at the time of writing (q.v. Revelation 11), and even says that it was written during the reign of the sixth king (Revelation 17:10) of the city of seven hills (Revelation 17:9), which is just to say during the time of Nero of Rome, the sixth emperor after Julius Caesar. On the strength of such evidence, this is also the view held by an exceedingly large number of contemporary scholars.[41]

In addition to these, there are fourteen writings in the New Testament that constitute the Pauline Corpus. Thirteen of these writings explicitly identify Paul as their author (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1, 16:21; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 10:1; Galatians 1:1, 5:2; Ephesians 1:1, 3:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1, 1:23, 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1:1, 1:9, 1:19), and the fourteenth, the book of Hebrews, though it doesn’t formally identify Paul as its author, is usually included with Paul’s writings in ancient sources and is widely held to lack a reference to Paul’s name as the author or sponsor[42] because it is a sermon or exhortation (Hebrews 13:22) rather than an epistle where a name would usually be included. The external evidence for the authoritative nature[43] and Pauline authorship for these books is quite abundant, being attested to by Tertullian,[44]Origen,[45] and some of Paul’s writings are not only well attested but are among the best attested books of antiquity, so much so that even non-conservative and skeptical scholars find it necessary to affirm that many of the most significant Pauline epistles came from Paul, including Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon, the two epistles to the Thessalonians, and the two epistles to the Corinthians.[46] Not only are Paul’s writings, and the fact that Paul wrote them, abundantly attested in ancient sources, but since they came from Paul it also means that these books must have been written before AD 70 since Paul died during the Neronian persecution.[47]

This leaves four other writings that are included in the New Testament: an epistle each from Jude and James, the Lord’s half-brothers, and two epistles that are ascribed to the apostle Peter. All these books name these men as their authors (Jude 1:1; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; and 2 Peter 1:1), and as far as the subject matter of these epistles, they contain nothing that is inconsistent with such ascriptions. When it comes to the external attestation: Jude is mentioned as authentic by such early authorities as Tertullian,[48] Origen,[49] Clement of Alexandria,[50] and the Muratorian Canon;[51] James is assumed to be authoritative by Clement[52] and Hermas[53] and is also witnessed to by Origen;[54] 1 Peter was accepted as authoritative by Clement of Rome,[55] Ignatius,[56] and Polycarp,[57] and it is explicitly ascribed to Peter by Irenaeus,[58] Origen,[59] Tertullian,[60] Clement of Alexandria[61] and others; and finally, 2 Peter, as cogently argued by Robert Picirilli,[62] is alluded to in 1 Clement, Pseudo Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and it is explicitly identified as authentically Petrine in the writings of Origen.[63] In the face of the evidence, some contemporary skeptical scholars have argued against the authenticity of second Peter on the grounds that it differs in style from 1 Peter. However, the stylistic differences are accounted for by the fact that Peter employed an amanuensis in writing his first epistle (1 Peter 5:12), and by the fact that the two epistles are addressing different issues. The evidence, then, points to Jude, James, and Peter as the authors of these epistles. Since the evidence points to these men as their authors, it also follows that these books were written early, especially the writings of James and Peter since James was martyred in Jerusalem in AD 62[64] and Peter was martyred in AD 64 under Nero.[65]

In conclusion, since the New Testament books were all written by the apostles of Christ, or under the auspices of Christ’s apostles, and since they were all written early, as a copious amount of internal and external evidence attests,[66] their authenticity and antiquity is well established.

[1] To say there is no explicit or formal mention of authorship in the body of the Gospels is not the same as denying that there are certain facts internal to the Gospels that comport with traditional ascriptions of authorship, nor is it even to deny that there are inferential grounds and internal reasons for concluding that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the authors of the Gospels that bear their names. [2] Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel (Harrison, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 48-53; see also Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1985), pp. 64-84. [3] Simon Gathercole, “The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts,” accessible here: www.academia.edu/7968624/The_Titles_of_the_Gospels_in_the_Earliest_New_Testament_Manuscripts [4] For a collection of Papias’ fragments and an analysis of his testimony to the NT writings, see Monte A. Shanks, Papias and the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), esp. pp. 261-276. [5] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2, 4.5, 4.34, 4.35, 4.40; On the Flesh of Christ, 3, 20, 22; Against Praxeas, 1, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25, 26; On the Prescription of Heretics, 22. [6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8.5, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.9.3, 1.26.2, 1.27.2, 2.2.5, 2.22.5, 3.1.1, 3.8.3, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.10.1, 3.10.4, 3.10.5, 3.11.1, 3.11.2, 3.11.7, 3.11.8, 3.11.8, 3.11.9, 3.12.12, 3.14.3, 3.14.4, 3.15.1, 3.16.2, 3.16.3, 3.16.5, 3.21.9, 3.22.2, 3.22.3, 3.22.4, 4.2.3, 4.6.1, 4.10.1, 5.18.2, 5.21.2. See also Eusebius’s quote from Irenaeus in Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.2; The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 43, 94. [7] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Homilies on the Psalms, Ps67 (Hom. 2), Ps73 (Hom. 1), Ps77 (Hom. 1); Homilies on Luke 1:1, 1.6, 4.4, 11.5, 16.3, 19.3, 21.1, 21.2, 27.2, 29.4, 29.6, 35.1, 35.2, 35.11, 39.5, ; Commentary on John, 1.22, 1.79, 1.81, 1.145, 1.149, 1.150, 6.72, 6.121, 6.123, 6.128, 6.129, 6.131, 6.132, 6.133, 6.134, 6.135, 6.136, 6.137, 6.139, 6.146, 6.149, 6.159, 6.160, 6.161, 6.162, 6.165, 6.169, 6.170, 6.179, 6.260, 6.261, 6.262, 6.263, 6.303, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.8, 10.13, 10.35, 10.50, 10.51, 10.52, 10.54, 10.55, 10.61, 10.113, 10.120, 10.121, 10.122, 10.124, 10.126, 10.127, 10.131, 10.153, 10.155, 10.156, 10.159, 10.162, 10.168, 10.190, 10.191, 10.192, 10.193, 10.195, 10.197, 10.207, 10.251, 10.252;Commentary on Romans, 1.3.5, 1.5.5, 1.6.5, 3.9.4; On First Principles, 1.1.1, 1.1.8, 1.2.3, 1.7.1, 2.5.4, 2.6.7, 2.7.1, 2.9.4, 3.5.4, 4.1.12; Contra Celsus, Preface-1, 1.34, 1.38, 1.40, 1.51, 1.60, 1.62, 1.63, 2.2, 2.16, 2.62, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.73, 5.12, 5.56, 6.5, 6.11, 6.59; Philocalia, 1.12, 15.7, 15.19, 18.9. [8] Julius Africanus, The Epistle to Aristsides, 3. [9] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.6, 1.9, 2.1; Stromata, 1.21, 5.12; Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, 5. [10] Claudius Apollinaris, Concerning the Passover, here: www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apollinaris.html [11] Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 5, 12, 14, 15. [12] Theophilus, To Autolycus, 2.22. [13] Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4.8. [14] For the Muratorian canon, see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html [15] Many other early authorities quote the Gospels as authoritative without mentioning the names of the authors. For example, Polycarp quoted from the Gospel of Matthew in The Letter to the Philippians 2:3; 7:2, 12:3, Mark in The Letter to the Philippians 5:2, and Luke in The Letter to the Philippians 2:3; Ignatius quoted Matthew in his Letter to the Ephesians 14.2, To the Smyrnaeans 6:1, and To Polycarp 2:2. He also quoted Luke in To the Smyrnaeans 3:1-2; Justin Martyr quoted Matthew in his Dialogue with Trypho 106.4, Mark in Dial. 106.4, Luke in Dial. 103.8, and John in First Apology 61.4. [16] The observation is often made that if the Gospels ever really circulated anonymously, then Christians would have put forward different guesses and theories of authorship, and heretics and enemies of the faith would have certainly seized upon this fact to call their authenticity and reliability into question, but no one did so. See, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), pp. 135-149. An example of this is seen in the case of the heretic Marcion. Though Marcion only accepted Luke’s Gospel as authoritative, he nevertheless did not deny that Matthew, Mark, and John were the authors of the other Gospels. Marcion simply maintained that they went astray. Another example is Julian the Apostate. In spite of his apostasy, Julian did not deny the traditional ascriptions of authorship for the Gospels. See, e.g., Julian’s Letter 36: Rescript on Christian Teachers and Against the Galileans, bk. 1. [17] This point, in addition to others, is argued to great affect by John A. T. Robinson in his book, Redating the New Testament (Wipf & Stock, 2000), and the relevance of this observation is not restricted by Robinson to the four Gospels. See also John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1992), esp. pp. 223-244. [18] Daniel Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica, Vol. 71, No. 2 (1990), pp. 177-205. See also Wallace, “John 5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel…Again,” accessible here: bible.org/article/john-52-and-date-fourth-gospel-again, and “John 5.2 One More Time: A Response to Andreas Köstenberger,” available here: https://bible.org/article/john-52-one-more-time-response-andreas-köstenberger. [19] A sizeable number of scholars hold to and provide evidence for a date of composition for John’s Gospel prior to AD 70. Robinson, Redating, gives the following examples of men who either forthrightly held to a date of writing prior to AD 70 or questioned whether John’s Gospel needed to be dated as late as many commonly propose, pp. 307-308: “Goguel, Int II, 330, quotes six quite forgotten names who put it before the fall of Jerusalem: Gebhardt, Delff, Draeseke, Kuppers, Wilms and Wuttig….From recent times, cf. V. Burch, The Structure and Message of John’s Gospel, 1928, 228 (original contents near in date to the crucifixion; final editing before 70); C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, 1937, x (no necessity for a date after 50); P. Gardner-Smith, St John and the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge 1938, 93-6 (perhaps contemporary with Mark); A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History, New York 1942, 159, 255 (shortly after the crucifixion); E. R. Goodenough, ‘John a Primitive Gospel’, JBL 64, 1945, 145-82 (from one of the Hellenistic synagogues of Jerusalem or by a Palestinian Jew in exile); C. C. Tarelli, ‘Clement of Rome and the Fourth Gospel’, JTS48, 1947, 208f. (pre-70?); H. E. Edwards, The Disciple who Wrote these Things, 1953, 129f. (for Jewish-Christian refugees at Pella, c. 66); S. Mendner, ‘Die Tempelreinigung’, ZNW 47, 1956, 111 (75-80?) To this list, Wallace, in his journal entry on John 5:2 in Biblica, see note 9 above, adds the following names on p. 179, fn.10: “To this list [of Robinson’s—AR] we might add the names of Bengel,….Lampe, Lardner, Ryle, Wegschneider and Wettstein to his ‘forgotten names’ list. More recently, we can add F. Blass, ‘the Origin and Character of our Gospels. III: St. John’, ExpTim 18 (1906-07) 458….; Marsh, The Gospel of St John, 25-30; F. L. Cribbs, ‘A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John”, JBL 89 (1970) 55….; and J. Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles (Boulder 1981) 44-46. Perhaps even E. E. Ellis, ‘Dating the New Testament’, NTS 26 (1979-80) 488-492, 500-502, belongs here.” Besides the names provided by Robinson and Wallace, the following scholars may also be adduced: Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: 1995), pp. 18-22. [20] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.23.1, 3.13.3, 3.14.1, 3.14.2, 3.15.1, 3.17.2, 4.15.1. [21] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.1. [22] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.12. [23] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; [24] See note 7 (above). [25] See here: http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html [26] For a recent defense of the Lukan authorship of Acts, see Craig S. Keener, Acts—An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), pp. 402-415. [27] John R. Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introductory Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eeardmans, 1969), p. 17; Marianne Thompson, 1-3 John (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992), p. 20. [28] q.v. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 7.1 (quotes 1 John), 10.1 (quotes III John). Allusions to the Johannine Epistles can also be found in the Didache, 10, Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, 49-50, and The Epistle to Diognetus, 2.1, 8.11, 11.4. [29] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.16.3, 3.16.5, 3.16.8. [30] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.11, 3.12; Stromata, 2.15, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.16; Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, 37. [31] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3.8, 3.14, 5.16; On Baptism, 16; On Idolatry, 2; On the Soul, 15, 17; On the Resurrection of Flesh, 23; Against Praxeas, 28; On the Soldier’s Garland, 10; On Running Away from Persecution, 1.9, 1.12; On Monogamy, 3; On Fasting, Against the Materialists, 11; On Modesty, 2, 19. [32] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 3.7.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.5, 7.2.2, 8.10.12, 9.5.8; Homilies on Joshua, 7.1, 7.3, 9.9; Commentary on Romans, 1.7.8; On First Principles, 1.1.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.7, 1.2.11, 2.7.4, 3.6.1; Contra Celsus, 1.48, 7.34. [33] See note 7 (above). [34] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4. [35] Irenaeus, Against Hereies, 1.26.3, 4.14.2, 4.17.6, 4.18.6, 4.20.11, 4.21.3, 4.30.4, 5.26.1, 5.28.2, 5.30.1, 5.34.2, 5.35.2, 5.36.3. [36] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 4.10.5; Homilies on Luke, 13.5, 23.7; Commentary on John, 1.1, 1.2, 1.32, 2.42, 2.45, 5.3, 5.6, 10.295; Commentary on Romans, 1.4.1, 1.4.3; On First Principles, 1.2.10, 4.1.10; Contra Celsus, 6.6, 6.23, 8.17; Philocalia, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 5.5, 5.6. [37] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3.13, 3.25, 4.5; On Running Away from Persecution, 1.9; and On Modesty, 19, 20; Against the Jews, 9; On the Prescription of Heretics, 33; On the Soul, 8, 55; On the Resurrection of Flesh, 25. 27, 38, 58; Against Praxeas, 17; Scorpiace, 12; On the Soldier’s Garland, 13; On Monogamy, 7; An Answer to the Jews, 9. [38] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6.13. [39] Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ, 36, 47, 48, 50, 60, 65; The Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24; Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 6. [40] See note 7 (above). [41] For a comprehensive list of over well over 100 scholars who advocate that Revelation was written before AD 70, see Kenneth L Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1998), pp. xviii-xix and 30-38. [42] Tertullian, On Modesty, 20; Origen, Homilies on Hebrews, 6.25.11-14. [43] Polycarp does not name the author of Hebrews, but he cites it in the Letter to the Philippians, 6:3, 12:2. [44] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.2-21. [45] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1. [46] The heretic Marcion is something of a precursor to these skeptical scholars, but even Marcion accepted 10 of Paul’s epistles as genuine, q.v. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.1-21. [47] When writing 2 Timothy, Paul knew his death was on the horizon (4:6-8). His martyrdom is attested to by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1; Polycarp in his Letter to the Philippians, 9.1-2; Irenaeus in Against Heresies, 3.1.1., and Tertullian in Scorpiace, 15.5-6). Eusebius also recounts this from Dionysius of Corinth in his Ecclesiastical History, 2.25.4. [48] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.3. [49] See Origen, Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Commentary on Matthew, 10.17; On First Principles, 3.2.1. [50] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.8; Stromata, 3.2. [51] See note 7 (above). [52] On the evidence for this, see Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), pp. 9-10, and especially James B. Mayor, The Epistle of James (Kregel Publications, 1990), lxix-lxxxiv. [53] See above footnote. [54] See Origen’s, Homilies on Leviticus, 2.4.5, 13.2.5; Homilies on Joshua, 7.1, 10.2; Commentary on John, 19.61. [55] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 49 (cf. 1 Peter 4:8). [56] Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 9. [57] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 1:3, 2:1, 2:2, 5:3, 7:2, 8:1, 10:2. [58] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.9.2, 4.16.5, 5.7.2, 5.24.1, [59] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 3.3.5, 9.1.3, 9.8.3; Homilies on Joshua, 1.5, 7.1, 8.3, 8.4; Commentary on John, 5.3, 6.175, 10.266; On First Principles, 2.5.3, 3.3.5; Contra Celsus, 8.19. [60] Tertullian, Scorpiace, 12; On Prayer, 20. [61] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.6, 3.11, 3.12; Stromata, 3.11, 3.18, 4.20. [62] Robert Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988), pp. 57-83. [63] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Homilies on Leviticus, 4.4; On First Principles, 2.5.3. [64] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1; Hegesippus, Memoirs, bk. 5, as recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.8-18; and Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, bk. 7, as recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.1.4b-5. [65] 1 Clement 5.1-4; Apocalypse of Peter 14:4-6; the Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3. [66] For a recent case for the early dating of all the New Testament books, see Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).