Like it or not, the New Testament is one of the most important documents in the history of mankind. It shaped civilization for many centuries and was responsible for establishing Roman Catholicism and Christianity, which together account for the most prominent religion in the world [1]. The text is such a part of the human story that universities across the world even provide doctorates exclusively in New Testament studies. Many of the expressions and idioms familiar to the English language come from the New Testament, and an understanding of literature will not be complete without an understanding of biblical allusions. But in the wake of all this, many questions are often left unanswered. What is the history to the New Testament text itself?

III. Who Wrote the Gospels?

The first four books of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - are known as the four gospels (meaning 'good news'). Modern scholarship has estimated Mark to be the earliest of the four gospels, followed by Matthew, Luke, and John. Although authorship is attributed to these gospels, it is due to tradition and content, rather than any substantial evidence.

Mark: The text of Mark is anonymous, giving no indication of authorship and only receiving its name in the 2nd century AD, from early Church fathers like Irenaeus and Origen. Mark is dated to roughly 70 AD on the basis of what some scholars believe is a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple (14:55-58). However, it is worth pointing out that, as of yet, no fragment or manuscript of any gospel has been found that predates 125 AD [2].

Matthew: The book of Matthew is also anonymous, with traditional authorship introduced once again in the 2nd century AD by early Church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus. The early Church fathers were far from clear and distinct in their identification of authors of the gospel texts, but their discussions on the gospel attributed to Matthew associate it with a 'Gospel to the Hebrews', meaning it was written in the Hebrew language. This is problematic because the current gospel in our canon originated in Greek, and no evidence has turned up that it is a translation from Hebrew [3]. Scholars date the canonical Matthew to 70-100 AD.

Luke: The narrative of Luke is anonymous, but the work is attributed to him on the basis of early Church consensus, as well as noticeable similarities to the book of Acts, and possible indications that the author was a friend to Paul of Tarsus. Unfortunately, most of the evidence for Lukan authorship is from the text of the bible itself, for which reliability cannot be assumed. Reportedly, scholars are divided on this issue [4]. The Gospel of Luke is dated at 80-100 AD.

John: The Gospel of John is so named for its numerous verses that speak of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, 20:2, 21:20), typically identified as John. However, modern scholars have cast serious doubt on the authenticity of John's gospel [5], and it is interesting to note that other gospels which designate a favored disciple of Jesus, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, were excluded from canonization. John contains so much in theological and linguistic content that differs from the other three gospels that scholars began referring to Mark, Matthew and Luke as the synoptic (meaning 'together') gospels, emphasizing that John should be viewed as a distinctly separate work. The gospel is judged to be the latest of the four, placed at 90-100 AD.

The fact of the matter is that even if traditional ideas of authorship for the gospels were not under such heavy doubt, we still know next to nothing of the characters themselves, aside from their own writings, which should be examined skeptically, for obvious reasons. We don't know how reliable, accurate, or trustworthy any of these men were, and we don't really even know what motivations they could have had to write the gospels. Did they intend them to be allegory, metaphor, philosophy, history, or theology? If we look for signs of the authors' historical accuracy or textual consistency, some of us may be disappointed to find conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke [6], differing time periods of Jesus' birth (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:1-5), and in every gospel, different reports on who first arrived at Christ's tomb, who they met there, and what followed afterwards.

In short, what little we can actually know of the gospel authors tells us that they can't keep their own stories straight and should not be relied upon for historical accuracy.

IV. Who Wrote the Epistles?

After the four gospels, the next of the important books in the Christian bible are the writings of Paul. Traditionally, it has been believed that Paul authored nearly half the New Testament, including Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Now scholars suspect that Paul only wrote seven of the original thirteen, those being Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians. The reason for this is mostly due to uniformity of style, language, and content shared between the seven books, as well as how they fit into the chronology of Paul's life described in Acts. Scholars have dated the 'seven undisputed epistles' to have been composed between 50-58 AD, making them older than the four gospels.

So just as with the gospel authors, we know little to nothing about Paul of Tarsus, aside from his own writings and the writings of his close friend Luke. But once again, if we go looking for details in the text, an ugly picture will emerge. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul directly blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. Paul states that men are in charge over women in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and orders women to be silent in church and only ask questions when they are at home with their husbands (14:34-35). For a fuller understanding of the character of Paul, I suggest reading the article on Christianity's Contemptible Founder.

Of course, Paul's intolerance doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about Christ's resurrection. It could be, as some have implied, that the bigoted verses were contributed by additional authors and editors. However, without good evidence this is nothing but rationalizing away dissonance in the text to avoid problems of faith, and if so much is already in question about the authorship of these epistles and the personality/reliability of Paul, it hardly seems to resolve anything truly substantial. An individual named Paul may indeed have written the seven epistles attributed to him today, but to trust his fantastic claims is an entirely different matter.

V. Evidence of More Change

The Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest complete canon of the New Testament discovered thus far [7]. It has been dated to the mid-4th century AD and contains the Greek Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Epistle of Barnabas, as well as portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. The codex is similar in many ways to other 4th century Alexandrian codices like the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus. Of particular interest are the passages that are missing from these collections which are present in modern bibles.

Jesus' encounter with the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11 (also known as the Pericope Adulterae) is omitted from these early bibles. Mark 15:28 is absent too, which connects Jesus to Old Testament prophecy. In fact, the entire ending of Mark, from 16:9 and on, is not in any manuscript or codex prior to the mid-5th century [8]. Likewise, the Pericope Adulterae does not appear until the late 4th century [9]. Many modern bibles like the NIV even feature a note on these issues in the text. Some of the phrases calling Jesus the "Son of God" are not in the early codices either, such as Mark 1:1 and Acts 8:37.

Several references have already been made to non-canonical books being included among early manuscripts, but there are also books and writings spoken of in the bible that have not been found anywhere.

Here, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul mentions a previous epistle that has not survived. A third epistle (nicknamed the 'Severe Letter') is also referenced in 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 7:8-9. Ephesians 3:3-4 alludes to an earlier epistle to the Ephesians too, and Colossians 4:16 speaks of a letter to the Laodiceans. Although one could argue that these missing books were never intended to be part of 'the word of God', it still makes you wonder why they weren't deemed fit for canonization. If Paul was writing under divine inspiration, why didn't God preserve all his divinely inspired works? Perhaps Paul never wrote with the aim of including any of his material in a holy book, and perhaps it simply got lost over time, as can happen to any human author.

Another interesting observation can be made on the theological development of the Jesus story through the earliest to the latest accounts. As stated before, scholars regard the Pauline epistles as the first written texts of the New Testament, followed by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. In Paul's writings, we see comments that point to a belief in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, as opposed to the physical resurrection offered in later accounts. 1 Corinthians 15:45 talks of how Christ became "a life-giving spirit" and 1 Timothy 3:16 tells us that he "appeared in the flesh, was vindicated in the spirit". 1 Peter 3:18 also teaches that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit". Later in the gospels, Jesus' resurrection transitions from spiritual to physical, as Luke 24:39-43 depicts him having "flesh and bone" and eating fish in the presence of his disciples. John 20:27 finally has Christ encouraging his followers to put their fingers into the wound in his side.

VI. Insecurity and Wishful Thinking

In the world in general, many Christians have come to accept the non-divine view of the bible, as simply another religious text among several, written by men who made mistakes, as men will do. But in spite of the evidence and the troublesome questions, there are still plenty of believers (especially in America) who take their bibles to be the literal, inerrant, and unchanging word of God himself. What exactly is the use in this? How does such rigid dogma benefit them? I am no expert, but perhaps they, like many of us, prefer the comfort and assurance of having some absolutes and certainties to lean on in life. Maybe being able to rely on a book for all the answers is a way for them to cope with the cold, unpredictable, and occasionally chaotic nature of our lives. However, it is not so evident that something needs to be perfect and unchanging in order for us to comfortably depend on it or find the strength we need in it.

A desire for certitude and superiority of one's religious belief may also indicate a feeling of insecurity within their faith. Some Christians, Jews, and even a few Muslims seem to get along just fine without pretending their holy books are inerrant works of God. Is it the message that matters most or is it the accuracy and impeccable form with which the message has come to you that matters most? Of course, such details might matter to fanatics who plan on killing or dying for their faith, but that kind of blind surrender to an archaic text can never be good anyway. If you are so insecure in your faith that you must force out all doubt and skepticism so that you can be comfortable - your mental state is in quite unhealthy condition.

So why specifically do Christians think the bible is error-free and unchanged? Because the book says so? Well, both the Jewish and Muslim scriptures claim to be perfect and unchanging too, but you probably believe they have been corrupted anyway. There is no more reason to assume the bible is flawless and unaltered than there is to assume that the Tanakh and the Qur'an are. I think it's long past time for us to stop trusting what ancient books may tell us about their own reliability and start looking at real evidence and appreciating the historical and cultural contexts of the writings more than the literal truth or 'divine inspiration' of their contents.

1. (2007) Major Religions Ranked by Size. Adherents.com. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.
2. ReligionFacts. New Testament Manuscripts. "The Earliest Extant Manuscripts". Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.
3. Ehrman, B. (1999) Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. p.43. Oxford University Press.
4. Brown, R. (1997) Introduction to the New Testament. p.267-268. New York: Anchor Bible.
5. Harris, S. (1985) Understanding the Bible. p.355. Palo Alto: Mayfield.
6. Morgan, J. (2007) The Conflicting Genealogies of Jesus. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.
7. Anonymous. Codex Sinaiticus. Wikipedia.org. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.
8. Anonymous. Gospel of Mark. "Ending". Wikipedia.org. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.
9. Anonymous. Pericope Adulterae. "Textual History". Wikipedia.org. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2009.