See New Covenant for the concept translated as "New Testament" in the KJV.

The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, and, in recent times, also New Covenant, is the name given to the part of the Christian Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus. Messianic Judaism commonly refers to the New Testament as the B'rit Chadashah, Hebrew for New Covenant, or the Apostolic Writings.

The New Testament includes four ancient biographies of Jesus (called Gospels), a history of the early Christians (the book of Acts), early letters (epistles) written by Christian leaders, and an Apocalyptic writing (the Apocalypse, also called the book of Revelation).

Books of the New Testament

The 27 books of the New Testament were written by various authors at various times and places. All of it is about Jesus and/or his followers. Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament was written in a relatively narrow span of time, probably over less than a century (critical estimates place the writing between c. AD 150 and c. AD 225, while more traditional estimates believe the writing happened between c. AD 32 and c. AD 90). The following is a list of the New Testament books, followed by the author traditionally associated with that book.

The Gospels

The Gospels focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus:

• The Gospel of Matthew — Matthew, a tax-collector and apostle.
• The Gospel of Mark — Mark, a follower of Peter and also of Paul.
• The Gospel of Luke — Luke, possibly a follower of Paul.
• The Gospel of John (or sometimes known as the Fourth Gospel) — John, a fisherman and apostle.

Authorship of the Gospels

According to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, our earliest Greeks manuscripts of the Gospels regularly include the name of the respective author within the title. Such attribution of authorship is evidenced as early as Papyrus 66 (AD 200) and Papyrus 75 (3rd Century), which attribute the Gospel of John (a.k.a. Fourth Gospel) to John. All early manuscript titles for each of the Four Gospels agree in ascribing authorship to one person/evangelist (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, respectively). Consequently, the origin of this unanimous tradition for authorship must be even earlier. None of the Gospels identifies its author by name within the body of the narrative. However Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles (or the Book of Acts) are both addressed to Theophilus, and the Book of Acts has sections which indicate the author was a companion of the apostle Paul. Similarly, John's Gospel claims to be based on the testimony of a witness to Jesus' life and death. Traditions about authorship are also based on early Christian writings that identify the authors. The earliest references to the Gospels do not name an author — such as Justin Martyr who refers to "memoirs of the apostles" also "called Gospels", but gives no names; or Aristides who refers to the (singular) "Gospel, as it is called", but also gives no name(s).

History

The history of the early Christian church after the death of Christ is related here.

• The — Luke

Epistles

The epistles contain various letters written sometimes to individuals but mainly to early Christian congregations. These epistles expound important theological points and give insight into the developing Christian church. The NT epistles are of varying quality and it is not at all certain if they were actually written by the person whose name they bear. Modern scholars argue that many of the epistles are pseudepigraphical.

Pauline Epistles

The Pauline Epistles (or Corpus Paulinum) constitute those epistles traditionally attributed to Paul (for modern views, see below under Authorship). Their names are based on the Christian groups or individuals to whom they are addressed. Some of the Pauline epistles (such as the Pastoral Epistles) are considered by some to not be written by Paul.

• — Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul
• — Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
• — Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
• — Paul (Pastoral Epistles)
• — Paul

General Epistles

See main article: General Epistles

The General or Catholic Epistles are those written to the church at large. They are named after their traditional author, but many contemporary scholars believe they are all pseudepigraphical. In medieval times, they were often collected not with the Pauline epistles but with Acts to form the Praxapostolos.

• - Anonymous. Historically attributed to Paul, though few scholars would identify him as the author today.
• - James, the brother of Jesus
• - Peter the Apostle
• - Peter the Apostle (normally considered to be written by another author by modern scholars)
• - John the Apostle (the Johannine letters are usually attributed to members of the community of his disciples, though 1 John closely resembles the Gospel of John in style and vocabulary)
• - John the Apostle
• - John the Apostle
• - , brother of James

Prophecy

• (or the Apocalypse)- St.John "the Divine." Traditionally identified with John the Apostle. There is still some debate as to whether this is John the Apostle or another prophet by the same name.
• Bible prophecy

New Testament Apocrypha

For other books not generally considered part of the New Testament, but at times included by some, see New Testament apocrypha.

Language

The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in first-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. (However, some of the church fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or more likely Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary facets of Matthew and Hebrews suggests that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.)

It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospel of Mark and the book of Revelation, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic Greek or Classical Greek one finds composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. Relative exceptions to this include the gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter probably written or redacted by the same person who wrote or redacted Luke.

A very small minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation (see Aramaic primacy).

The History of Translation and Usage of the Phrase New Testament

The English phrase New Testament ultimately comes from the Hebrew language. New Testament is taken from the Latin Novum Testamentum. This in turn is a translation of the earlier Greek Καινή Διαθήκη (pronounced in post-classic Greek as Keni Dhiathiki). This Greek phrase is found in the original Greek language of the New Testament, and found even earlier in the Greek translation of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint. At Jeremiah 31:31, the Septuagint translated this phrase into Greek from the original Hebrew ברית חדשה (brit chadashah). The Hebrew phrase is usually translated into English as new covenant.

As indicated above, the phrase was first used by early Christians to refer to the new covenant that was the basis for their relationship with God. About two centuries later, at the time of Tertullian and Lactantius, the phrase was being used to designate a particular collection of books that embodied this covenant.

Tertullian, in the 2nd century, was the first to use the terms novum testamentum/new testament and vetus testamentum/old testament, for example, in Against Marcion book 3 , chapter 14, he wrote:

This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel

and in book 4 , chapter 6, he wrote:

For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as



belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets.

Lactantius, in the 3rd century, in his Divine Institutes, book 4, chapter 20 , wrote:

But all Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ - that is, the law and the prophets - is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant, for the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ, who, having suffered death for us, made us heirs of His everlasting kingdom, the people of the Jews being deprived and disinherited. As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord." .. For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.

The Vulgate translation, in the 5th century, used testamentum in 2nd Corinthians 3 :

(6)Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter but in the spirit. For the letter killeth: but the spirit quickeneth. (Douay-Rheims)

(14)But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). (Douay-Rheims)

However, the more modern NRSV translates these verses from the Koine Greek as such:

(6)who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

(14)But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside.

Thus, it is common to translate using either of two English terms, testament and covenant, even though they are not synonymous.

Gospel sources

Main article: Synoptic Problem

The sources of the Gospels, and their relationship, is a matter of some debate, though nearly all scholars and theologians see John as being the last and Luke as having based his account on other sources (since Luke admits to doing so). Some of the Church Fathers said that the Gospel of Matthew was the first written, and this view held sway for many centuries. Modern scholars now believe in Markan priority, and the two-source hypothesis, that is to say that the Gospel of Mark and the Q document are the main primary sources of the Gospels. However, as noted below, Q is currently a hypothetical document, though it may have some resemblance, possibly a strong one, to the concretely existing Gospel of Thomas.

Authorship

Main articles: Authorship of the Pauline epistles and Authorship of the Johannine works

The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional view is that all the books were written by apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). For example, Papius wrote about 140 AD, "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the thing which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." . Irenaeus wrote about 180 AD, "Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." .

The majority of modern scholars now largely discount this evidence for apostolic authorship, aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began. However, it should be noted that scholars such as A. N. Sherwin-White, F.F. Bruce, John Wenham, Gary Habermas and others argue for a high degree of historical reliability of the key New Testament events or the New Testament as a whole (see: Resurrection of Jesus for details). Prominent liberal scholar John A.T. Robinson argued for early dates of the entire New Testament and ascribed many of the key New Testament texts to their traditional authors.

Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these "undisputed" letters include Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Scholars are divided over the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians (listed in decreasing order of support). It is mainly evangelical scholars who hold Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Almost no current mainstream scholar, however, holds that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, controversy about the authorship of Hebrews, the only anonymous epistle, goes back to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul .

The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon. The issue is somewhat different for the gospels, because they are all technically anonymous, if we assume the titles reflect no reliable tradition; so the question is whether the traditional attributions (to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are correct. The Johannine writings, particularly the Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted by many as coming from circles around John the Evangelist; the question there is whether Revelation is ascribed to the circles.

Of key concern is the role of presuppositions in Biblical scholarship, especially gospel and Historical Jesus studies. It is now widely recognized that every individual comes to historical study with their own experiences, religious beliefs, and philosophical assumptions, and that these factors can play a defining role in the final product that any particular scholar produces. In the case of the gospels, modern research has been approached from a number of perspectives: Jewish, feminist, Protestant, Roman Catholic, agnostic, materialist, historical, and social-scientific, to name just a few. A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often contradictory, "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare, for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar, B. Mack, John Dominic Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright). This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus in the images of the particular authors, as opposed to narrating who Jesus really was, what he did, and what he taught. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated debate has produced viable results.

The problems with correctly assigning authorship to ancient works like those in the New Testament can be demonstrated by looking at its four gospels.

Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels ("seeing-together"). The Gospel of John, in contrast, contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be different in its emphasis from the other three gospels. The question of how the similarities between the synoptic gospels arose is known as the synoptic problem. How material from each gospel was introduced to other gospels brings up significant problems in assigning authorship. Was each written by one individual, the four simply relaying in their own words the events of Jesus' life they themselves witnessed? Was there a first author and gospel whose work substantially contributed to the later gospels? Was each gospel written over a relatively short or long period of time? Was each gospel written by only one person?

The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source", from Quelle, the German word for "source". The nature and even existence of Q is speculative. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. No information about its author, if it existed, can be obtained from the resources currently available, and, indeed, little or any direct biographical information about their authors is assumed to be traceable.

Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for non-canonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350-400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered

Date of composition

According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating.

Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest.

However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals.

In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 (notably Papyrus 52) has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95, quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, if we assume they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are many minor discrepancies between manuscripts (largely spelling or grammatical differences).

The canonization of the New Testament

Main article: Biblical canon

The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development.

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.

One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was he and his theology, Marcionism. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians. Due to the fact that some of the recognized Books of the Holy Scripture were having their canonicity questioned in the 16th century by Protestants, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional canon of the Scripture as a dogma of the Catholic Church.

New Testament Text Types

There are several distinctive types of New Testament texts.

The Alexandrian text-type is usually considered the best and most faithful at preserving the original, it is usually brief and austere. The main examples are the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Bodmer Papyri.

The Western text-type has a fondness for paraphrase and is generally the longest. Most significant is the Western version of Acts which is 10% longer. The main examples are the Codex Bezae, Codex Claromontanus, Codex Washingtonianus, Old Latin versions (prior to the Vulgate), and quotes by Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian.

The Caesarean text-type is a mixture of Western and Alexandrian types and is found in the Chester Beatty Papyrus and is quoted by Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Armenians.

The Byzantine text-type is called a conflated text and is found in the Gospels of Codex Alexandrinus, later uncial texts and most minuscule texts and is the basis of Erasmus's printed Greek New Testament of 1516, which became the basis of the 1611 King James Version of the English New Testament.

Most modern English versions of the New Testament are based on critical reconstructions of the Greek text, such as the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament or Nestle-Alands' Novum Testamentum Graece.

Views on New Testament authority

All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authoritativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of inspiration, which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and/or authoritativeness of the Bible. One possible source of confusion is that these terms are difficult to define, because many people use them interchangeably or with very different meanings. This article will use the terms in the following manner:

• Infallibility relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in matters of doctrine.
• Inerrancy relates to the absolute correctness of the Bible in factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
• Authoritativeness relates to the correctness of the Bible in questions of practice and morality.

Christian scholars such as Professor Peter Stoner see the Bible having compelling and detailed fulfilled Bible prophecy and argue for the Bible's inspiration. This is argued to show that the Bible is authoritative since it is argued that only God knows the future. A common objection in the West regarding this matter is that the miraculous does not occur and therefore other explanations are warranted. C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Christians who engage in Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible. . On the other hand, in the West those who do not believe in miracles often use the arguments of David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza or argue that Deism is valid. .

All of these concepts depend for their meaning on the supposition that the text of Bible has been properly interpreted, with consideration for the intention of the text, whether literal history, allegory or poetry, etc. Especially the doctrine of inerrancy is variously understood according to the weight given by the interpreter to scientific investigations of the world. A brief outline of these views in different Christian denominations follows.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there are two strands of revelation, the Bible, and the (rest of the) Apostolic Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the Church. In Catholic terminology, the Teaching Office is called the Magisterium; in Orthodox terminology, the authentic interpretation of scripture and tradition is limited, in the final analysis, to the canon law of the Ecumenical councils. Both sources of revelation are considered necessary for proper understanding of the tenets of the faith. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

§ 83: As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

§ 107: The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

Protestantism

Following the doctrine of sola scriptura, Protestants believe that their traditions of faith, practice and interpretations carry forward what the scriptures teach, and so tradition is not a source of authority in itself. Their traditions supposedly derive authority from the Bible, and are therefore always open to re-evaluation. This openness to doctrinal revision has extended in some Protestant traditions even to the re-evaluation of the doctrine of Scripture upon which the Reformation was founded, and members of these traditions may even question whether the Bible is infallible in doctrine, inerrant in historical and other factual statements, and whether it has uniquely divine authority. However, the adjustments made by modern Protestants to their doctrine of Scripture vary widely.

Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism

Among certain conservatives, fundamentalists and evangelicals believe that the Scriptures are both human and divine in origin: human in their manner of composition, but divine in that their source is God, the Holy Spirit, who governed the writers of Scripture in such a way that they recorded nothing at all contrary to the truth. Fundamentalists accept the enduring authoritativeness and impugnability of a pre-scientific interpretation of the Bible, especially on such issues as the ordination of women, abortion, and homosexuality. However, although they are overwhelmingly opposed to such things, evangelicals are increasingly willing to consider that the views of the Biblical authors may have been intentionally "culturally conditioned", and evangelicals may even argue that there is room for change along with cultural norms and scientific advancements. Fundamentalists may be therefore described as "conservatives", whereas evangelicals might be better characterized as more flexibly "traditional" on these and other issues.

Both fundamentalists and evangelicals profess belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but the stronger emphasis on literal interpretation by fundamentalists has led to the rejection of many scientific concepts, particularly that of evolution. Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to avoid interpretations of the Bible that would directly contradict generally accepted scientific assertions of fact. They do not impute error to Biblical authors, but rather entertain various theories of literary intent, which might give credibility to human progress in knowledge of the world while still accepting the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. While separation from the world and its influences may be the primary message of the New Testament for some fundamentalists, evangelicals try to remain part of wider society as a witness to personal salvation through Christ.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is an influential statement, articulating evangelical views on this issue. Paragraph 4 of its summary states: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

Critics of such a position point out that there are many statements that Jesus makes in the Gospels or that Paul makes in his epistles, even to the point of making them commands, which are not taken as commands by most advocates of Biblical Inerrancy. Examples of this are Jesus' command to the disciples to sell all they have and give the money to the poor so as to gain treasure in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:21), or Paul's calls to imitate him in celibacy (1 Cor 7:8). Other sections of the Bible, such as the second half of John chapter 6, where Jesus commands that the disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood, are interpreted by most adherents of Biblical Inerrancy as symbolic language rather than literally, as might be expected from the statements of the doctrine. Supporters of Biblical Inerrancy generally argue that these passages are intended to be symbolic, and that their symbolic nature can be seen directly in the text, thus preserving the doctrine.

Mainline and liberal Protestantism

Mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The Episcopal Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, do not teach the doctrine of inerrancy as set forth in the Chicago Statement. All of these churches have doctrinal statements asserting the authority of scripture, but officially interpret these statements in such a way as to allow for a very broad range of teaching, from evangelicalism to skepticism. It is not an impediment to ordination in these denominations to teach that the Scriptures contain errors, or that the authors follow a more or less unenlightened ethics that, however appropriate it may have seemed in the authors' time, moderns would be very wrong to follow blindly. For example, ordination of women is universally accepted in the mainline churches, abortion is condemned as a grievous social tragedy but not always a personal sin or a crime against an unborn person, and homosexuality is increasingly regarded as a genetic propensity or morally neutral preference that should be neither encouraged nor condemned. The most contentious of these issues among these churches at the present time is how far the ordination of gay men and lesbians should be accepted.

Officials of the Presbyterian Church USA report that: We acknowledge the role of scriptural authority in the Presbyterian Church, but Presbyterians generally do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Presbyterians do not insist that every detail of chronology or sequence or pre-scientific description in scripture be true in literal form. Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.

Those who are more liberal view the Bible as a human witness to the glory of God, the work of fallible humans who wrote from a limited experience unusual only for the insight they have gained through their inspired struggle to know God in the midst of a troubled world. Therefore, they tend not to accept such doctrines as inerrancy. These churches also tend to retain the social activism of their Evangelical forebears of the 19th century, placing particular emphasis on those teachings of Scripture that teach compassion for the poor and concern for justice. The message of personal salvation is, generally speaking, of the good that comes to oneself and the world through following the New Testament's Golden Rule and admonition to love others without hypocrisy or prejudice. Toward these ends, the "spirit" of the New Testament, more than the letter, is infallible and authoritative. As such, belief in the errancy of the words of Scripture is in practice as important to Protestant liberalism as inerrancy is to its evangelical and fundamentalist counterparts.

There are some movements that believe the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus but who reject the churches that were formed following its publication. These people believe all individuals can communicate directly with God and therefore do not need guidance or doctrines from a church. These people are known as Christian anarchists.

Messianic Judaism

Messianic Judaism generally holds the same view of New Testament authority as evangelical Protestants.

See also

• Bible translations
• the Canon of Scripture
• Books of the Bible
• Gospel of Thomas
• New Testament apocrypha
• Old Testament
• Textus Receptus
• Christian anarchism
• Gnosticism and the New Testament
• Two-source hypothesis
• Authorship of the Johannine works
• Authorship of the Pauline epistles
• Category:New Testament books

External links — Source Text

Greek:

• This is a Greek text of the New Testament, specifically the Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants.

Other Languages:

External links — References

• , sponsored by Duke University
• — Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions
• — Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith
• A Lutheran discussion of the dates of writing, compiling, and setting of the canon can be found at .
• A comprehensive discussion of the development and authorship of the New Testament can be found at these pages:
• For more information on the Evangelical view on the time of writing, see:
  • More Than a Carpenter, chapter 4, by Joshua McDowell
  • Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson, who dates every book of the N.T. to before 70.
• For further reading:
  • Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack, Harper, 1996
  • Who Wrote the Gospels? by Randel McCraw Helms.
• — article by V. Antonov
• Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament is considered by many scholars to be one of the finest general introductions to the NT.
  • New Testament Alterations

عهد جديد Novi zavjet Nový zákon Nou Testament Det nye testamente Neues Testament Καινή Διαθήκη Uus Testament Nuevo Testamento Nova Testamento Itun Berri Nouveau Testament Nove Testamento Perjanjian Baru Nuovo Testamento הברית החדשה Novi zavjet Nouvo Testaman Novum Testamentum Naujasis Testamentas Kawenata Houmy:ဓမ္မသစ္‌က္ယမ္‌း Nieuwe Testamentnb:Det nye testamente Det nye testamentet 新約聖書 Nieg Testament Nowy Testament Novo Testamento Новый Завет Нови завет Nya Testamentet Uusi testamentti คำพยากรณ์ในคัมภีร์ไบเบิลใหม่ Tân Ước 新約聖經