NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION ECWA Seminary Igbaja

A Handout Prepared by Stephen O. Y. Baba The Political Background of the New Testament
A ssyria/ (722-612 BC). Between 725-626 BC the Assyria (modern day Northern Iraq) was the world super power, ruling most of Asia Minor (Turkey), Mesopotamia (Southern Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and Egypt In 722/721 BC the Assyrians defeated the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and it capital, Samaria (2 Kings 17:1-6). The tribes were taken into captivity and assimilated into the Assyrian society. They are now lost. A New people were later brought into Northern Israel, called the Samaritans. Babylonian Empire (612-539 BC). At about 612 BC the Babylonians (Todays Southern Iraq), under Nebuchadnezzar II, become the world super power. The Babylonians conquered Assyria and controlled all its kingdoms. Between 605-586BC the Babylonians also plundered Israels southern kingdom of Judah. Three deportations were carried out from Israel during this short time. The first was in 605 when Nebuchadnezzar plundered the temple treasury in Jerusalem and took prominent citizen including Daniel and his three friends to Babylon (2 Kings 24:1-7; 2 Chr. 36:5-8; Dan 1:1-4). The second deportation came in with Israel king Jehoiachins revolt (597 BC). Ezekiel was one of the 10,000 exiles taken to Babylon at this time. They included skilled and craft men (Ezek 1:1-2; 40:1). The final deportation came with Zedekiahs revolt. After a 21/2 year siege in 586BC, Jerusalem was utterly destroyed. The city was burnt including the temple and the ark and its city wall pulled down (2 Kings 25:1-12; Jer 44:2-6). In Oct of 539BC the Babylonian Empire under Belshazzar fell to the Medo-Persians (Todays Iran) at a banquet night, on the day a non-human hand wrote on the wall in the Banquet hall (Dan 5) The Babylonian empire had a policy of transplanting conquered people from their Syria, Palestine

homes to a different region. They also enforce the Babylonian religion and culture on the captives. The Jews remained in these foreign lands as Jewish Diaspora. With pain and persecution they held to the Torah (the Mosaic Law), the Sabbath and circumcision. This gave their self-definition. They maintained their identity from other groups of people (Christians, when you are shaken off and transposed from your comfortable place into a strange situation in live, do you maintain your self-definition in Christ or are lost by mingling with the world?). The Medo-Persian Empire (539-334 BC). With the overthrow of the Babylonians by the Medo-Persians, Cyrus the Great (539) ordered the return of all the captive peoples of the Babylonians, including the Jews, to their home lands. Zerubbabel led the first Jewish communitys return to Judah (537-515BC). They set up a new alter in Jerusalem and began rebuilding the temple (Ezra 1-4). During the reign of Darius 1 (522-486BC) who ruled from India to Ethiopia, the reconstruction of the temple was completed. The second temple was dedicated around 516BC (Ezra 6:1-22). At this time prophet Haggai encouraged Israel. More returns occurred including the one under Nehemiah until around 444BC (Ezra 7; 1 Chr 6:3-15; Neh. 2:1-8). Nehemiahs return started the rebuilding of Jerusalems city wall. The Persian Empire ascendancy bridged the gap of the 400 silent years. The empire fell during the reign of Darius III to the Greeks in 331BC. The Persian Empire used Aramaic as its official language, which brings unity in the empire. The language was similar to Hebrew and Western Aramaic was still in use at the time of the birth of Christ. Many Jews did not return to their land. But those who did formed the second Jewish commonwealth (Second Temple Jews). They rebuilt the temple and the walls of Jerusalem, providing security for the temple-state Judea. The temple became the locus of power. The Torah was the constitution and it was esteemed and studied. Soon the local governor was replaced by the council of elders, mostly from the leading priestly families. The high priests became the highest political and religious leader and were accountable to the Persian Satrap (the regional governor). Ultimately, the Persian Empire fell to the Greeks when the Persian king, Darius III, was defeated in three great battles by the Greeks. The Grecian Empire (334-323 BC). King Philip of Macedonia and Greece unified the Grecian "city-states" under Macedonia. This was done by an army of great mobility and endurance. In 336 BC, King Phillip was murdered. He was the farther of Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great became the first world conqueror. He was educated by Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of that time. In 334 BC, Alexander crossed the Hellespont with 35,000

men and started his world conquest. His first victory was in the battle of the Granicus River (334BC). This liberated the Greek cities from the Persians and opened up Asia Minor to the Greeks. His second victory was in the battle of Issus in Northern Tigris River (333BC) which opened up Syria and Palestine to the Greeks. In 332 BC, Alexander passed through Palestine on the way to conquer Egypt. The Jews accepted Alexander the Great (Josephus, the Jewish historian, [Ant. 11. 8:5-7] said that Alexander visited Jerusalem and offered sacrifices to the Jewish after he was shown the copy of Daniels prophecy about him). Alexanders third great battle victory was in Gaugamela, near the upper Tigris River, which became the gateway to his entering the Persian realm in 331BC. With this third battle Babylon fell so also was Susa and the whole of the Persian kingdom (Daniel 8:5-7 already predicted this). In 323 BC, Alexander, not yet thirty-three years old, died of marsh fever in Babylon, which he had chosen to become the capital of his new empire. He had conquered most part of the known ancient world From Greece to India (20,000miles) in about eleven years. Alexanders conquests were important for his influence in making Koine Greek the lingua franca of the world he conquered. Alexanders method of conquest and consolidation was also helpful. It was marked by construction rather than destruction. He was himself a man of culture, a statesman and conciliatory. He introduced Greek culture wherever he went. The Greek language became almost universal as well as did Greek art and polity. He promoted literacy. He paved the way for Hellenization of the then world. The Greek way of life, culture (theatre, art, sports), intellectual ideas (philosophy, literature, science, medicine), language, religion trade, world economy (with the introduction of one currency-silver coin), government all unified the world. Alexander was very influential in paving the way for the birth of Christianity and the rapid spread of the NT truth in the first century churchs mission moves. The Divided Kingdom of the Alexander the Great came with the death of Alexander the Great. His kingdom was divided among his four army Generals (cf. Daniel 7:6; 8:8). (1) Ptolemy was given Egypt and south Syria. (2) Seleucus Nicator had the Northern Syria and Eastern Asia Minor including Babylon, Alexander's capital. (3) Lysmacus had Thrace and W. Asia Minor, and (4) Cassander had Macedonia and Greece. But there were fighting and intrigue among these leaders and their successors and between 323-301 BC Palestine changed hands about six times. Palestine under the Ptolemaic rule (301-198BC) allowed the Jews to control their affairs. The High Priest was the leader of the people with the priests and leading men (the elders) who made up the Sanhedrin. A peaceful process of hellenization of the Jews occurred at this time. Many Jews moved to Alexander Egypt which had become a center for the Jewish

Diaspora. These Greek cultures were allowed by the Jewish leaders as long as it did not encroach into the Jewish religion. Since most people no longer read Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible was translated to Greek (called the Septuagint, [LXX]). This was around 250BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. He collected a great library at Alexander, Egypt. However, by 198 BC, the Seleucid from Syria defeated the Ptolemy of Egypt and Palestine came under the Seleucids rule. By 175 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanies (the illustrious one), began to rule over Syria and Palestine. The Maccabean Revolt In 168 BC, Antiochus had plundered Jerusalem and desecrated the Temple as he attempted to enforce hellenization upon Palestine. In 167BC he openly enforced this in Jerusalem when by a royal decree he abolished the temple constitution, banned the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifices and destroyed copies of the Torah. He enforced the worship of the Syrian god Zeus Baal Shamayin, built a citadel in the temple area with a garrison. Eating of pork became the litmus test of loyalty. Those who refused were persecuted and killed. He places a smaller altar on the altar in the temple in Jerusalem caused swine to be sacrificed on it. This was the highest insult to Judaism. Many suffer death for their faith and many fled to the mountains of Judea. To force the Jews to serve Baal was a mistake for Antiochus for faithful men (the Hasidim) gather together to form armed resistance guerilla bands. In 167 BC, in Modin, W. Judea, 20 miles from Jerusalem, Mattathias of the Hasmonean family, an old priest, killed a Jew who offered pagan sacrifices in obedience to the edict of Antiochus Epiphanies and the royal officer who demanded this to be done. The Hasidim supported Mattathias and his five sons: Judas (nicknamed Macabaeus-a hammer like one), Jonathan, Simon, John, and Eleazar. They started a holy war to destroy the pagan altars, punish the apostate Jews and exhorted the faithful to join their crusade. (1). Judas the Maccabean (166-160) who headed the rebel group after his fathers death was initially successful as he took a large scale attacks on the Syrians (at this time Antiochus was fighting the Parthians in the East). He recaptured Jerusalem except the garrison. He reestablished Judaism worship system with new altars and daily burnt offerings. Judas established a treaty with the Romans who were then growing in power over the region in 161BC. (2). Jonathan (160-143BC) became the leader of the group from after Judas was killed in a war with the Syrians. He became the military, civil and religious leader for the Jews.

(3). Simon (143-134), Jonathans brother and the last surviving son of Mattathias, led Israel after Jonathan. He made treaty with the Seleucid. He was permitted to expel the Syrian force from Jerusalem citadel and he minted his own Jewish coin. In 140 BC he was confirmed by the grate assembly of the priests as the military commander, governor and high priest until a faithful prophet should arise (1 Macc. 14:8-15). Some strict Hasidim, who most probably were opposed to a ruler who was not from the high priest or Davidic family combining high priest position with kingly office, went into exiles at this time. They were the Essenes of the Qumran cave. (4). John Hyrcanus ( 134-104), Simeons son became the leader of the Maccabean ruling group after his father died.. He subdued the Samaritans and destroyed their temple on mount Gerazim. He invaded the Idumeans (the ancient Edomites, modern day Jordan). He expanded Jewish state and made the inhabitants of Palestine subject to the Jews. (5). Aristobulus 1 (104-103BC), ruled for one year. He had military success. (6). Alexander Janneus (103-76) ruled after him and continued his brothers imperialism. He ruled over Israel which had then expanded to cover all the regions ruled by King Solomon around 950BC. He fought against the Pharisees who revolted against him, publicly executing about 800 of them. He killed more than 50, 000 people within few years of his reign. (7). Alexander Salome (76-67BC) was the only queen during the inter-testamental period. She was the widow of Aristobulus and the wife of Alexander Janneus. She appointed her eldest son (Hyrcanus II). She reconciled the political dynasty with the Pharisees. She made become part of the Sanhedrin. (8). Hyrcanus II. After her mothers death, Hyrcanus II who was to be the king was forced out of office by his younger brother Aristobulus II. Hyrcanus II fled to the Nabatean Arabs in Petra (ancient Moab). Later with the help of the Arabs and Antipater the Idumean king who was the father of Herod the Great, Hyrcanus II besieged Jerusalem Both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II appealed to Pompey, the Roman army general, who approaching Palestine in 63 BC. However, Aristobulus decided to defend Jerusalem. But he was conquered, taken to Rome as a slave and Hyrcanus II was restored and made the High priest in Jerusalem to rule under Antipater who was made governor of the Idumea, Judea, Samaria Pera and Galilee. Hyrcanus ruled as high priest until 40BC. The Roman Rule in Israel took official effect with the defeat of the Seleucid rulers in Syria. Pompey had besieged Jerusalem for three months and defeated Aristobulus II. Jews lost all the

territory it had ruled under Alexander Janneus to Rome. Heavy tax was also imposed on Judea, Galilee, Perea, and Idumea that Antipater governed. In 63 BC, when Rome took over Palestine, Gaius Julius Caesar was emperor in Rome. Pompey and his army, rival of Julius Caesar had been defeated. Pompey died in Egypt in 48BC. After the assassination in 44BC brought his nephew Octavian Augustus Caesar ruled in Rome forming a monarchical government until 14AD. Romans had a provincial system of government. The provinces were the domains of the various conquerors and were of two types: (1). Senatorial provinces were generally the peaceful and loyal provinces, not requiring standing military posts. They were administered by the Roman senate through proconsul (cf. Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:7 and Galio in Acts 18:12). Proconsuls held office by annual appointment and were responsible to the Roman Senate. (2) Imperial province were the troublesome provinces that required troops. They were directly under authority of the Roman Emperor. These provinces were governed by legates who would be in charge of at least 6 cohorts (a cohort =600-1000 soldiers), found in Syria, or prefects (procurator) who had auxiliary troops for preserving order and assist in the collection of taxes, e.g., found in Judea. In addition, conquered territories were allowed to be ruled by their native rulers. These rulers were given titles like king, ethnarch or tetrach. Some Roman towns were given citizenship. The Herodian Dynasty Antipatar, the Idumean governor over Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Perea and Galilee appointed Herod his son to rule after him. But with the help of the Parthians Antigonus the surviving son of defeated Aristobulus had made himself to be the ruler of Palestine. He minted a coin that showed himself as the priest-king. Herod fled to Rome for help and the senate appointed him king of the Jews (Judea) in 40 BC, but Antigonus sat on the throne in Judea and Herod could not establish his reign until Antigonus defeat (through the support of Mark Anthony who defeated Jerusalem in 37 BC. Herod the Great ruled from 37BC to 4BC after Augustus reinstated him king of Judea, and added the Palestinian coast, Samaria, and Galilee to his realm. He faithfully ruled as Augustuss vassal until his death in 4 BC. His reign can be divided into three periods. a) Period of struggle for supreme (37-25BC), during which he committed series of barbarous acts. Herod purged the opponents of his regime, especially those of the Hasmonean

aristocracy, and any other person under suspicion. Murder and cruelty reigned during the period.). Though he eagerly supported the institutions of Jewish religion and was a Jew by religion, the Jews never forgot that he was an Idumean (an Edomites) by racial descent and that his kingdom relied on the support of the Romans whose rule remained a hated domination by foreigners b. Period of progress, (25--14 BC). He engaged in extensive building projects. Samaria was rebuilt and renamed in honor of Augustus. He also built a new city and named it Caesarea also in honor of Augustus. He modernized Jericho and he strengthened the fortresses along the eastern border (the Masada) to prevent attacks from the East. He spent lots of money on his royal palace, on theatre and amphitheatres. Most importantly, he rebuilt by enlarging the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. This began in 20 BC. The Temple sanctuary itself, a 15 story building, was completed in 18 months. This was done only by priests trained as builders and masons. But the greatly enlarged Temple precincts were not totally finished and consecrated until AD 63. It was, however, totally destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans in the Jewish revolt. The famous Wailing Wall today in Jerusalem was part of an outer wall of the enlarged Herodian Temple. Herod also raised the level of education and cultural in Palestine. b) Period of Instability (14-4BC). Herod married ten wives in all and had seven sons. Such domestic complexity led to much suspicion, intrigue, and violence and treachery. His suspicions of the Hasmoneans became so strong that he even murdered his wife Mariamne (29 BC) and later had her two sons put to death (7 BC) when he thought they might become a rallying point for Jewish patriotism. This tragedy haunted Herod for the remainder of his life. Suspicion of rivals often governed his cruel actions. There were growing resistance, among all the people, to his cruel, arbitrary rule and the heavy burden of taxation. His enemies grew bolder in their defiance of his rule. For example, Jewish students tore down the offensive Roman golden eagle of the sun god over the Temple door. Herod retaliated by having those involved burned alive. Herod himself was in poor physical and mental health. In his last days he was virtually insane. His body was wracked by pain (colon cancer?), his mind tortured by his life of violence, disappointment, and bitterness. The massacre of the Bethlehem infants (cf. Matt. 2:16) would be consistent with the character of his final years. Five days before Herod died in April, 4 BC at about 70 years of age he had altered his will six 6 times. His last will appointed three of his sons as rulers over various parts of his kingdom. (1) Archelaus received Judea, Samaria and Idumea as his ethnarch. (2) Herod Antipas received Galilee and Perea as tetrarch. (3) Herod Philip received north and east of the

Sea of Galilee. Augustus endorsed Herods will since he had been his intimate friend and faithful vassal ruler Herod Archelaus (4 BC - AD 6) was the "king" whom Joseph feared when he came back from Egypt with Mary and Jesus (cf Matt. 2:22). His gross misrule, later outraged the Jews and they provoked Augustus to remove him in AD 6. He was banished to Gaul (France) where he died in AD 18. With this Judea, Samaria, and Idumea became a Roman province in governed by a prefect from 6AD until AD 41 when Herod Agrippa I took control of it. Coponius was the first prefect of Judea (AD 6--9). He appointed Annas I as the high priest from AD 6--15. Joseph Caiaphas, Annas son-in-law, held the office of high priest from AD 18-36, under the Roman prefects Valerius Gratus (AD 15-26) and Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36). Pontius Pilate (AD 26--36) was the best known Roman governors in Judea but he was the fifth prefect (Josephus, Ant 18.3.1-2). He complied with Jewish wish at Jesus' trial. Herod Phillip (4BC - AD 34) was a son of Herods Jewess wife). He was the tetrarch of Galilee, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Iturea, Batanea and Auranitis. He region weremostly inhabited by Gentile and he ruled justly. He built two cities: Caesarea Philippi (his residence) and Bethsaida Julias. He was mentioned in Lk. 3:1.At his death in AD 34, since he had no child, his territory came under the Roman governor of Syria. But in AD 37 Emperor Caligula (Gaius) gave the province to Herod Agrippa I. Herod Antipas (4 BC-AD 39). He was the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. He was cunning and cruel like his father, Herod the Great. He built Tiberias (around AD 20) on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee as his capital. He had John the Baptist imprisoned and murdered (Matt. 14:3-12; Mark 6:17-29; Luke 3:19-20) at the instigation of his second wife, Herodias (cf. Josephus Ant 18.5.2). He had divorced the daughter of the Nabatean king in order to marry his niece Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (not Herod Philip). John the Baptist's condemnation of this marriage led to his execution. The Gospel records regarding his contact with Jesus Christ (1) Mk 6:14-16 that stated he heard reports of Jesus ministry. (2) He threatened to kill Jesus who called him "that fox" (Lk. 13:31-33), and (3) Jesus appeared before him at His trial probably in AD 33 (Lk. 23:6-12). In AD 39 Herod Antipas went to Rome (AD 39) to officially acquire the title, "king," but accusations against him by his brother-in-law Herod Agrippa I caused the Roman emperor Caligula (Gaius) to banish Antipas and his wife to France and his territories given to Herod Agrippa I in AD 39. Herod Agrippa I (AD 37-44). He was the grandson of Herod the Great and brother of

Herodias, wife of Herod Antipas). He was sent to Rome for his education and there he became friend with the future emperor, Gaius Caligula. In AD 37 Agrippa was given the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Lk. 3:1) and the title "king." The Senate also gave him the honorary rank of praetor (magistrate) and consul. In AD 39 he acquired the territory of Herod Antipas, and in AD 41 he was given Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. He was also given the right of appointing the Jewish high priest. From AD 41 till his death in AD 44 he ruled over all of Palestine (the territory of his grandfather, Herod the Great). Herod Agrippa I enjoyed the goodwill of the Jewish people. He was respected by the Pharisees and for he observed Jewish customs. He minted coins without an image on them. Herod Agrippa I persecuted the early church to maintain the favor with the Jews. He beheaded the James, the son of Zebedee, imprisoned Peter, intending to bring him to public trial, but God intervened and delivered Peter (cf. Acts 12:1-9). The account of his death (being stricken by an angel of God) was recorded in Acts 12:20-23. After his death in AD 44, his territories were temporarily given to the Roman governors since his heir, Herod Agrippa II, was only 17 years old. Herod Agrippa 11 (AD 50-94). He was the son of Herod Agrippa I. In AD 50 he acquired Chalcis (a territory above Damascus) at the death of his uncle Herod, who was king. In AD 56 he acquired parts of Galilee and Perea. His time was the era of the great missionary move by the early church and the expansion of Christianity (ca. AD 45--65) under the ministry Paul and others (cf. Acts 13-28). Agrippa II was viewed as an expert in Jewish affairs by the Romans, although he had never ruled over Jewish territory. In AD 60, he was consulted by the procurator, Festus, during the Apostle Paul's trial in Caesarea (cf Acts 25:13--26:32). At that meeting he was accompanied by Bernice, his sister and widow of his uncle Herod, king of Chalcis. Agrippas relationship with her was the subject of Widespread scandal (Jos. Ant. 20.7.3) and later Bernice became the mistress of the Roman general, Titus. When Herod Agrippa II died in AD 94, his territory was incorporated into the province of Syria. This marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.

The Impact of the Roman Rule on Christianity 1) Universal peace (Pax Romana) uniting vast territories under one government. This spawned the hope of a religion for all humanity. 2) Urbanization which brought a mingling of races, languages and ideas with a new openness to search out the best elements in the thought of others.

3) The preservation and protection of Greek culture, intellectual life and language which prevailed among the general population of the empire even though Latin was the official language of the Roman conquerors. 4) Safe and easier travel on land and sea which enhanced communication and the spread of new information. 5) A large measure of religious toleration and freedom granted to all nations which initially favored Christianity as long as it was viewed under the umbrella of Judaism -a "licensed" religion (religio licita). 6) Roman law which served a leveling, civilizing influence that taught people to obey and respect authority. Society and Cultural Background of the NT Language Palestine was a multilingual country and different languages were current. (1). Latin was the official, legal language of the Roman Empire, but was used mainly in the West, and by governors and soldiers. Few Palestinian Jews knew Latin. At Jesus' trial before Pilate, Pilate probably used an interpreter. (2). Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire in the East. It was widely understood in Palestine. (3). Aramaic was a Semitic language that related to Hebrew. It was the mother tongue of the great majority of lst century (A.D.) Jews which started in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. Two dialectal forms of Aramaic were current in Palestine-the northern dialect used in Galilee, which was recognizable from its difference in pronunciation from the southern dialect used in Judea (cf Matt. 26:73). (4). Hebrew was spoken and read by the rabbis and learned scribes, the custodians of the OT Scriptures, in the synagogues. But it was also paraphrased in the Aramaic targum. Jesus was probably trilingual. He taught the common people in Aramaic. In the synagogue, he read the OT in Hebrew, and he spoke with non-Jewish people in Greek. Social Class. The Roman Aristocrats were the ruling class. There were made up of the Senatorial Order and the Equestrian Order. (1). The Senatorial families were about 600 during the time of Caesar Augustus. Pedigree, prestige, wealth and education characterized these Roman senators. The Roman

senator children provided the chief civilian and military administrators for the empire. After completing their former education at age 20, a young man of a senatorial family is given minor administrative post in Rome, a military staff officer, a quaestor (financial officer) usually in a province, a senate seat in Rome, the office of praetor involving judicial work, a provincial governor, legionary commander or judge depending on interests and abilities. (2). Equestrian Order (the Knights).The Senatorial order descendants soon became the Equestrians. These knights became administrators, treasury officials, military leaders and wealthy businessmen of the Roman world. The Emperor recruited provincial officers from them. The descendants of these order owned lands. Their education also became the principal sources of wealth and social standing. But besides being born into this order, one could also enter it through acquiring wealth or promotion in the military. In Palestine, the equivalent of this will be the wealthy landowners, and the priestly aristocracy who co-operated with the Roman overlords like the tax collectors and publicans. (3). The Plebeians. These were the freeborn common people. They were the middle class merchants, craftsmen, lawyers, educators, Orators, etc. In Palestine they were the farmers, artisans, small business people. They made up about 90% of the society. They were the ones Jesus referred to as sheep without a shepherd (Matt 9:36. (4). Slaves. Although salves were the lowest rung of social stratification they were the economic backbone of the Roman Empire. The condition of slavery resulted from taking prisoners in war or piracy, the sale of oneself or a child to pay debts, a capital conviction in the law courts, or birth to a slave mother. Slaves could be acquired by purchase from slave dealers, by inheritance, or as a child born to a slave mother. Because of the decline in the birthrate and result of numerous wars, slaves outnumbered free people in the Roman Empire. About one half of many of the 1st century AD cities were slaves. They worked in the civil, religious, agricultural, domestic, educational, medical, industrial, and commercial services of the empire. Most trade and industry was carried out by slaves. Many slaves-such as doctors, teachers, and accountants-were more educated and skilled than their masters. They were totally subject to their masters and were legally considered "living property" of their masters until the time of their emancipation. Within the context of their owners household, they had rights of worship, marriage and working for wages. Slavery is mentioned frequently in the NT and put in a new perspective. Paul did not condemn it nor encourage Christians to overthrow it. Christianity gave instructions for life under existing social structures (Col. 3:22--4:l; Philem. 5-9; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 1 Peter 2:18-25) but also directed attention to higher

concerns (1 Cor. 7:21-24). Among Jews, slaves were to be set free every seventh year; but few Jews apart from the wealthy had slaves. Public Amenities Most major cities in the Roman Empire had paved roads, underground sewage disposal systems, public baths, libraries, school systems and other social services. Entertainment included gladiatorial shows in the arena or amphitheater, chariot races in the circus (hippodrome) for which betting was common, sporting events (e.g., the Olympic games), recreational activities in the gymnasium and baths, theatre plays, music concerts, orations, and literature recitals. Family The family was made up of the husband, wife, children, other relatives, and slaves. Monogamy was the prevailing practice in the Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. Roman families had a low birth rate (one-child per family was most common) but large families were common in Palestine. Child rearing were done by slaves in many of the Roman families, which had a detrimental effect. The trusted slave in the house (a paidagogos, child leader, cf. Gal 3:24) escorted the familys baby boy to school and gymnasium everyday to protect him from harm. In the Jewish society, marriage was a contract between two families. They were in two stages: the betrothal (acquisition of the bride) and the wedding itself (taking the bride into the husbands home). The betrothal had the legal force of marriage and could be broken only by divorce (cf. Matt. 1:18-19). Palestinian families had no surnames, so people with the same name were distinguished by (a) attaching the name of their father, e.g., Simon the son of Zebedee; (b) their religious or political convictions, e.g., Simon the Zealot; (c) their place of residence or origin, e.g., Simon of Cyrene; or (d) their occupation, e.g., Simon the tanner. Palestinian homes were usually made of sun-baked bricks of mud and straw. They were low and flat-roofed, sometimes with a guest room on the roof (cf. Mk 2:1-5). The Romans ate four meals a day from such staples as bread, cheese, vegetables, lentil soup, porridge, fruit, olives, bacon, sausage, fish, goat's milk, and diluted wine (2-4 parts water to I part wine). The Jews ate only two formal meals-one at noon and the other in the evening. Their diet consisted mainly of fi-uits (e.g., dates, grapes, figs), vegetables, and fish. Other kosher meat, roasted or boiled, was usually reserved for religious days. Jewish men wore a tunic (shirt-like garment extending to the knees), a belt ("girdle") around the waist, sandals, and a hat or scarf on the head. In cold weather they put on a heavy Medical help including surgery (with limited use of anesthetics!) and dentistry was advanced.

outer cloak. Their clothing was usually white in color. They grew beards but wore their hair shorter than is usually pictured by modern artists. Jewish women wore a short tunic as an undergarment and often a brightly colored outer tunic which extended to their feet. They wore veils covering their head though not their face. Morality. There was low sexual morality in the Roman society. Prostitution by both men and women was a recognized practice. Temple prostitutes were an integral part of pagan religious worship. Low morality sprang from idolatry according to Jewish apologists (Wisdom of Solomon 13-15). Fertility cults employed about 1000 "sacred prostitutes" at the Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth (Strabo 8.6.20). Homosexuality was accepted and commonly practiced in Greco-Roman society. Jews nearly always treated it as a Gentile practice. Extramarital sexual relations were also fairly common in Greek and Roman circles. Slavery gave occasion for cruelty and sexual license and the punishment of criminals showed brutality. Catalogues of vices in the NT have various terms for licentiousness (e.g., Rom. 1:18-32; I Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5). In the Roman society moral instruction came from philosophers and teachers and some of the philosophers attained high levels in their moral/ethical teaching. Popular philosophy taught ethical duty on one's responsibilities to the deity, the law, rulers, elders, parents, foreigners, friends, women, children, and slaves ( cf. Rom. 2:12-16). This invites comparison with the "household codes" of the N'T: Eph. 5:21--6:9; Col. 3:18--4:1; Titus 2:210; 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:16--3:7. Education Schools were instituted in the Hellenistic period with no much change during the Roman period. Eventually they became the responsibility of the cities, and became known as gymnasium-the building with facilities for gymnastics-both physical and mental. Greek paideia (training, discipline) served as the basis for Latin humanitas (humanities-the formation of the human person). Three levels of education that developed first in Greek cities were. The Primary schools starts at age 7. They learned reading, writing, simple arithmetic, music, and athletics. Discipline was strict. A child was accompanied to and from school by a paidagogos ("custodian," not a "teacher" by vocation), usually an older slave responsible for looking after the child's behavior and general welfare (cf. Gal. 3:23-25). The Middle school begins from ages 12-13. Students read classical poets such as Homer and Euripedes. They received a wellrounded education in the liberal arts. The Advanced education began from age 18 when young men attended the gymnasium for 1-2 years for training in athletics or in the military. They also

learned a profession like philosophy, medicine, law or a trade through an apprenticeship. Education for girls, though obtainable, was much less common than for boys. Most girls learned household tasks at home. There were no universities or professionals schools, except medical schools and schools of rhetoric and philosophy in major cities. A five year education in rhetoric led to careers in politics, law, and public administration. Basically schools provided rhetorical theory leading to apprenticeships in a specific career. A Rhetorical education in Rome was usually bilingual-Greek and Latin. The literacy rate of Hellenistic and early Roman times was relatively high. Books were produced and public libraries were established in many Roman cities like Alexandria, Pergamum and Rome. They collected works of classical poets. Theaters were established where poetry was read and acted out for the public, and Stoa (covered colonnades in the marketplace) was for public lectures and discussions. Stoic philosophy and ideas predominated. Graphic arts including painting and sculpturing were also done in public. In Palestine and among the Diaspora, the synagogue was the place for Jewish education and worship for Jewish communities. Nevertheless, the home remained the center for early religious education and instruction in reading and writing. Students studied the OT Scripture and the oral traditions of the sages (wise men) and scribes. There was great emphasis on memorizing Scripture. The Secondary school education was at age 13. Students attended beth midrash (house of instruction) or beth talmud (house of learning [oral law]). The study of the oral law might take the form of commentary on Scripture (midrash) or of a topical arrangement of legal requirements (mishnah). For an advanced study a student associated himself with a great scholar (cf. Acts 22:3) or, after A. D. 70, went to one of the rabbinic academies, e.g., Jamnia. At this level he learned advanced scriptural interpretation and rabbinic legal opinions (talmud). Every Jewish boy also learn a trade (cf. Paul in Acts 18:3). Hellenistic Religious and Philosophical Thoughts Greco-Roman Deities Most of the cities of the then known world had patron deity or deities being worshipped. GREEK / ROMAN NAME Aphrodite/ Venus Apollo/ Ares/Mars IDENTITY God of ideal manly beauty; associated with Athens poetry, God of war, also linked with agriculture (Acts 19:21-40). Goddess of love, beauty, fertility Mother of Eros, sexual love

music, prophecy, medicine, law, hunting, and flocks and herds (Acts 17:22).

Artemis/Diana (Acts 19:21-40). Asclepius/ AthenaMinerva Cronus/Saturn Dike/ Demeter/Ceres Dionysus/Bacchus revelry Hades/Pluto (Dis) of Zeus Hephaestus/Vulcan Hera/Juno Hermes/ Mercury (Acts 14:12). Hestia/Vesta Poseidon/ Neptune Prometheus/ Tyche/Fortuna Zeus/Jupiter /Cybele Goddess of fire Goddess of medicine

Goddess of fertility and the twin sister of Apollo

Goddess of wisdom, fertility, and fine arts, Guardian of Athens God of agriculture;Father of Zeus God of justice ( Acts 28:4). Goddess of grain, corn; Guardian of marriage God of wine, associated with nature, wine and God of death and the underworld powers brother God of fire; patron of craftsmen Goddess of women; wife of Zeus God of heralds and herdsman. It embodied Greek respect for cleverness

God of sea, water, earthquakes, brother of Zeus God of fire; created man from clay God of destiny Father of gods and men; sky-god, controller of weather; ruler over all gods and men (Acts 14:12, 13) Mother-earth goddess

/The Emperor Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were defied posthumously; Caligula, Nero, and Domitian demanded worship in their lifetime. Greco-Roman Cults Pagan cults grew from humans thought that nature (the sun, sea, earth) is infused with divinity that control human health, prosperity, adversity and protection from adversaries. Each divinity has its cultic myths, shrines, priesthood, rites, sacrifices, festivals, etc., that had strong influence on adherents. Atoning sacrifices, including human sacrifices, were also practiced to placate evil powers and to overcome social crises. But apart from the organized civil gods like Zeus, Baal, etc., in the Hellenistic world personal religion also prospered with people consulting oracles to determine the will of the gods, they practiced divination to foresee the future; they sought physical healing through purification rites, sacrifices, diet and exercise.

Demonology and superstition was prevalent. Beliefs in demon possession and exorcism to expel them from the humans were practiced by the pagans; the Jews long before Christ came. Mystery Religions A mystery religion cult was a secret cult. It is termed mystery either because of the religion is closed, its secret can not be spoken to outsiders or because in its initiation one closes ones eye which brought darkness subsequent opening of the eye brought enlightenment, a reborn in seeing the light. During it initiation the participants claimed to have a mystical encounter with the divine during which they are reborn. They become one with the divine as they partake in the cults sacramental meals during which they consume the god itself whose power was incarnate in the slained animal. After initiation, the participants considered themselves to be changed people; people who have attain salvation and the immortality of the soul. They also have purification rights like fasting, lustral cleansing, abstinence from certain foods, meats or wine, sexual intercourse, etc. The religion emphasized inward and private worship within a closed group and a united people in quest of immortality of the soul. The individuals were brought into a special relationship to a god and assured of certain benefits like a direct revelation of truth to its adherents, a new tie of fellowship and relationship with a deity, deliverance from mans finite limitation through personal immortality. Mystery religion in the Hellenistic world became an alternative to state gods. A. Greek Cult. The oldest and the most influential one was the Eleusinian mystery Demeter. It was a grain goddess cult that originated in Eleusis, a small town near Athens. This agrarian fertility cult pictured the seasonal crop dying in the Fall and rising in the Spring seasons hence it symbolized entrance into life after death. It was meant to ensure earths reproduction. It is linked with the god that dies and rises from death with plants and vegetation and the world of fertility. This became the foundation of life for them for they can now live with joy and die with a better hope (as depicted in plants and vegetation). B. The Anatolian (Asia Minor) cults. Cybele, the Great Mother, also called Ma, and the Greeks identified her with Rhea (mother of the Olympian gods), Demeter ("Mother Earth") and with Artemis (goddess of fertility). It was the oldest and most widespread of cults. It was also called Ma, The cult numerous eunuches and sacred prostitutes--ministers of the fertility cult. -This was the first oriental cult officially recognized by Rome (ca. 200 BC). Another important cult was the Pyrigian deity Sabazious, identified by the Greeks with Zeus, Dionysus (god of the vine and wild animal life). The most striking feature of the initiation

rite of this cult was the drawing of a snake across the chest of the candidate who thereby took into himself the powers of the god and was brought into mystical union with him. The name of the god is probably taken from sabaia ("beer") suggesting that beer was used to promote religious ecstasy by intoxication (sacred madness) with the goal of participation in the nature of the god and consequent immortality. C. Egyptian cults. The god Serapis (originally called Osiris), a dual god and goddess and an amalgamated deity of the Egyptian goddess Isis and the Greek god. Serapis was the universal god, the lord of the underworld and the heavens, healer of diseases, giver of corn and wine. He was able to offer worshippers a blessed life after death. Isis was hailed as the mistress of every land, the queen of heaven, the star of the sea, the diadem of life who embodied health, righteousness, fortune, and immortality. Serapis cult and especially the Isis cult had great popular appeal. In the 2nd century B.C. they had won adherents eastward even to India and westward to Rome and beyond. Isis priests held gaudy public ceremonies to attract devotees and offered impressive secret rites to bind adherents to the goddess. She rewarded the devotee with the affection of a mother and with divine protection from adversities. This cult was especially attractive to women because it honored the satisfaction, sacrifice, and sorrows of motherhood. D. Syrian and Persian cults. Babylon was the intermediary place for passing on the astral religions to the West. And the Persian sun-god Mithras was the patron god of the royal house of the kingdom of Pontus. Their kings had the title Mithradates in the gods honor. He was also worshipped by the sea pirates of the Cilician coast (these were the most deadly sea raiders of the ancient world). Later this god became the favorite god of the Roman soldiers and they constructed altars for him in their garrison posts all over the Empire. By the end of the 3rd century A.D., Mthras became the official god of the Roman state. This cult was marked by a wildness and a frenzy of religious intoxication (sacred madness) but with the same goal of participation in the nature of the god and consequent immortality. E. Emperor Cult. It was a deification of a beneficent leader. Divine honors were given to these exceptional leaders Soon the veneration of personified powers and virtues became attached to the rulers who were viewed concurrently as supernatural beings capable of bestowing benefits on human being. Jews were not required to participate in the emperor cult. As a substitute, a daily sacrifice for the emperor was offered in the Jerusalem temple.

Initially Christianity was assumed to be a Jewish sect but it forfeited the rights of the synagogue when it became separate from Judaism. But since Christians did not wish to participate as required, it resulted in outbreaks of persecution and martyrdom from the first to the fourth centuries A.D. until the time of Emperor Constantine. F. Astrology/Horoscope/Magic. Many in the Hellenistic world believed that the heavenly bodies have links gods that transfer the planetary bodies and that human success or failure were determined by those personal cosmic forces. Astrology specifically believed that movements in the heavenly bodies in absolute regularity controlled the earthly events in its minute details and that one can foretell the future by discerning the movements of the stars. With this cult, the supreme goddess Tyche (fortune), a capricious goddes that lifts man to his highest fortune one day and dashes his hope in another day control the universe. But others in the cult think it is the goddess fate, necessity, or destiny. In either case this goddess leaves man with the sense of helplessness and frustration and he is subject to forces he can not control. The Horoscope are the astrological symbols and writings. Those who learn the horoscope laws can calculate the power of the lower regions that gets man to the glorious celestial realm. With the introduction of the Julian calendar (the solar year of 365 days beginning on Jan 1, with the inclusion of an additional day every four years that ended the complexity of conflicting national calendars) the horoscope readers made their divination and prediction looked scientific. Magic masters the energies of the cosmos and by invocation of a higher power through secret wisdom, forces the gods or demons to do something for the supplicant. The prevalence of magic in the Greco-Roman world was reflected in Acts 19:19 at Ephesus where books of magic valued at 50,000 pieces of silver were burned. Till today formulas used in magic were known as Ephesia grammata (Ephesian letters). Elements of astral theology that have become a permanent cultural deposit are seen in the tThe names of the planets which are English forms of the Latin equivalents for the Greek gods, and the 7 days of the week which were named for the 7 planets which were supposed to preside over each respective day as established in the Roman world. Philosophical Thought. The philosophical thoughts in the Greco-Roman world reinterpreted traditions and religion and offered its own moral and religious direction. The Hellenistic world philosophy provided ethical principle for living right and enjoying good life. Also, in addition to Judaism, the Greco-Roman world already has developed a broad spectrum of religious and

philosophical though before Christianity emerged. Platonism (Plato, 427-348BC). Plato was a student of Socrates who taught a dialectical method of testing and questioning common assumptions (truth claims) through logical argumentation and an inductive method. He valued ethical goodness as primacy in life. Plato founded the Academy near Athens where he taught that true reality is not found in tangible objects but in mental ideas behind them. Ideas are eternal and rises above the material word into the realm of the divine. In contrast, material objects are time bound and tainted with evil. Man must escape the material world and be assimilated into the world of the divine in order to fulfill his destiny. Aristotelianism (Aristotle, 384-322BC). He was a student of Plato, but taught that reality lies in tangible material objects not in subjective ideas and speculations. Each tangible object is a union of matter and a form of its kind and correspond to reality. The only exception to this is God, the unmovable Mover and the unchanging first cause of all things. He developed the science of using logic and proving deduction with syllogism that moves from the general to the particular. It states a major premise, moves to a minor premise and then to a conclusion. This deductive logic became the standard for sound reasoning and measuring truth. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Cynicism (400-285BC). It was founded by Antisthenes, a student of Socrates and contemporary of Plato, and by Diogenes Laertius of Sinope (412-323 BC). He lived inside a huge pot. Both teachers emphasized simple life style of back to nature, and individualism. The school taught that hardship and suffering has merit and that frugality brings happiness. It despises wealth, reputation, pleasure but embraced poverty, ill fame and hardship. It believes mans salvation lay in his ability to escape from the artificial conventions of the world, disregarding all but wisdom and virtue. Cynics were aggressive preachers, presenting their view fearlessly in market places. They used every means to compel people to listen. They used diatribe (question and answer styles) to convey moral exhortations to their audience. Epicureanism (Epicurus, 341-270). He rejected Platos metaphysical dualism. He taught that pleasure, found through the knowledge of the true nature of things according to the sense perception, is the beginning and end of good live. Man must withdraw from public activities into quiet obscurity. Happiness is found in hedonism but in sober reasoning and weighing decisions carefully. He taught also that gods are not to be feared or revered for they have nothing to do with human existence. The world existed through self-mechanical causation. Death is not to be feared either for it brings extinction to the human body and soul (no life after death, for contrast cf. 1 Cor 15:).

Other philosophical thoughts of the Greco-Roman world included Stoicism that taught individualism, self-sufficency and self discipline. It rejected personal deity. The divine is a material substance that permeates all things and mans soul is a divine spark that is imprisoned in the body. Neo-Pythagoreanism was a mystical thought that emphasized the divine element within oneself. It is the father of todays new age movement. Skepticism was also a philosophical thought that adopted skeptical attitude to life in the light of confusing philosophical teaching and a growing awareness of the problem of the salvation of the soul and its necessity to be freed from its material and bodily imprisonment to ascend to the realm off the divine being. Gnosticism ( gnwsi~ -knowledge). It contained several philosophy, theology and mystical ideas. It teaches that the true God is a pure Spirit, transcendent (hidden) and unknowable. He is totally apart from the creation and was not responsible for it. The creation was the work of a Demiurge- an inferior and subordinate god who emanation from the pure God. The heavenly world (the pleroma) is filled with gradations of supernatural beings (archon). And as a result of the fall in that spirit world which resulted in the existence of evil that came as a matter, the Demirge (the God of the Old Testament) created the material world. The intermediate beings (archon) now rule the world by predetermined plan and power. It teaches that each persons true self is a divine spark, an element of divine immortality in man. Mans ignorance of this condition blinds man and makes him wonder aimlessly and he is lost. Gnostic salvation is the salvation from this ignorance. The true God sent a cosmic redeemer to the earth to save man by imparting Gnostic knowledge to man. This knowledge, known through Gnostic initiation rights and teachings, allows ones divine spark to escape from the material body in which it is imprisoned to realize its heeavenly citizenship. One realizes the divine "call" that can arouse one from this material stupor, giving him/her "knowledge"

the revealed insight (gnosis) of the true God, true self. At the end of life the saved soul returns to ones home in the transcendent realm with the pure God. Liberated gnostics gave proof of their salvation either by repudiating the physical body through asceticism or by indulging the body in licentious behavior (libertinism) thereby showing contempt for matter as evil and their superiority over it. Sinning was one way of declaring ones salvation. Gnosticism teaches cosmological dualism, a radical dualism between the spirit world above and the material word below), metaphysical dualism (between spirit [soul] and matter [body]) and ethical dualism (between light [good] and darkness [evil]); knowledge and ignorance; truth and falsehood. John battled with the incipient form of this philosophical-theological thought in the early church as he argued against those who hold that Jesus did not come in the flesh (matter, which is evil= Docetism). The full fledge of this teaching appeared in the church of the second century AD. It became so wide spread by the beginning of the third century that many churches throughout the Roman empire were highly affected by it, as seen in the writings of the Church Fathers. However, in recent years it has been greatly advanced by the discovery of a library of Gnostic writings near Nag Hammadi, a town near the Nile River in upper Egypt in 1945-46. The manuscripts are in Coptic and date from the late 4th century A.D., but some writings were produced in Greek in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (52 tractates). Thus, religion in the Hellenistic world of the early Roman empire was pluralistic (polytheistic), with no exclusive devotion to one deity. It was syncretistic (eclectic), blending together all deities of different peoples. It promoted demonism. Demons were viewed as intermediary beings between the gods and humans people and people were highly conscious of supernatural forces. It acceptance determinism of fate (destiny), magic and astrology, and gave new significance to personal choice in matters of religious belief and practice. New associations were made with other gods in addition to those based on nationality, the family, or the state. The Hellenistic world did not associate personal morality with religion. Rules of ritual purity were largely ceremonial, not moral or ethical. Codes of conduct reflected one's national customs, or the ethical views of one or more of the philosophical schools. Jewish Religious Sects of the First Century A.D. At the time of Christ the Phariseee were about 6,000 adult males in Judea. The origin of this sect seems not clear, probably they went back to the Hasidim of the Maccabean era (cf. I Macc. 2:42). There was a reference to them

during John Hyrcanus reign (134-104 B.C., Jos. Ant. 13. 5. 9). Their name comes from the Hebrew verb parush (to be separated). They separate themselves from the people of the land to follow the regulations of the Torah. They exercised strong influence among the common people through their interpretation of the Torah. They showed piety, simple life style, hospitable, and observe the Law strictly. They had limited political power, and tolerated the Roman authority as long as it does not violate their religious practice. They believe in (a) The sovereignty of God - predestination was compatible with human free will (divine sovereignty and, human freedom.). (b) hierarchy of good and evil spirits (angels and demons). (c) immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body (life after death). A future for the dead. (d) the presence of two impulses in man--one evil, the other good. (e) coming of a final judgment with appropriate rewards and punishments. (f) supreme authority of the written Hebrew Scripture. Thus they hold to a personal God who has revealed Himself through the Torah, the Prophets and the sages of the nation. In Pharisaism, God's grace comes only through doing the Law and the Torah (primarily the Pentateuch) and Tradition of the elders were the twin pillars of their belief system. The tradition of the elders were as authoritative as the Pentateuch itself. They hold that the whole nation was a priestly people so they applied the rules of ritual purity for the Levites to themselves. They practice ceremonial cleansings and purifications, proper preparation of foods, careful observance of the Sabbath and agricultural laws, and meticulous tithing and fasting. Although the Pharisses believed in the Jewish messianic hope, it was with a nationalistic and political overtone. Thus, they were jealous of Jesus' influence with the common people. They demanded evidence for the source of His authority and the authenticity of His message (MI. 8:11-13). They disliked His criticism of their hypocritical practices and stubborn unbelief. They were offended by His claim to be God (cf John 5:18) and plotted to kill Him (Mk. 3:6). Jesus teachings showed a marked difference from the Pharisses. (1) Jesus' association with "sinners" illustrates that the Pharisees idea of separation from the world (Mk 2:15-17; Matt. 9:9-3; Lk. 5:27-32) is different from what God intended that Godly separation should be. Although to this religious leaders, piousness means keep oneself apart (separate) from "sinners" especially with regard to meals (table fellowship with those who neglect the Law, ceremonial cleanness, payment of tithes, etc.), Jesus contact with sinners. He ate with the publicans and sinners, in order to reach them, but he did not partake in their sins. This is the ideal separation. Also, in Mk7:1-23; Matt 15:1-20, Jesus rejected the Pharisees idea of purity by teaching that what defiles a man is internal not external. This also rejected the Pharisees' basis of authority-the oral law, which actually contravened the written law in some notable

instances. Jesus' rejection of the Pharisaic interpretation of Sabbath-keeping, again, illustrates a different set of priorities with respect to human needs and Christs messianic mission (Mk. 2:23--3:6; Matt. 12:1-13; Luke 6:1-11). Although the Pharisees prohibited certain activities which were considered work on the Sabbath (picking and rubbing grain) Jesus' teaching showed that the OT allowed exceptions in cases of human needs, human values take precedent over ritual regulations, and Jesus messianic authority determines the application of the law in new situations. (4) Pharisees differed among themselves concerning what should constitute divorce as stated in Deut. 24:1. While Rabbi Hillel and his followers allowed divorce for any cause, Rabbi Shammai and his followers limited divorce only to sexual immorality (Mishnah, Gattin 9.10). Jesus teaching on divorce showed (Matt 19:3-12; Mk 10:2-9), emphatically, the divine intention with regard to marriage from the very beginning of creation. His interpretation sets aside the Mosaic legislation as the ultimate authority. In its stead, Jesus appealed to God's purpose expressed in creation order. The group ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Sadducees were a relatively smaller party than the Pharisees. Their origin was uncertain. They probably came from the established priestly/aristocratic families of the Maccabean era. Their name comes from Zadok written Saddouk in Greek. They claimed to come from Zadok, a priest under David and high priest under Solomon (2 Sam 15:27; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:35). They were the Jewish upper class, aristocrats and wealthy landowners, and many of them were also priests. They exerted considerable influence on the political level They were willingly to collaborate with the Romans, since Rome allowed religious freedom and they were in control of local politics through the Sanhedrin. They were more tolerant of Hellenism. As political realists they pursued a middle course between puppetry and revolution. In the religious life related to the liturgy of the Jerusalem temple. Doctrinally, the Sadducees were anti-supernaturalistic. Apart from their belief in God, which is a common religious belief, they (a) rejected divine sovereignty and denied that history is divinely controlled. On the contrary they affirmed the human free as determining historical destiny. Man's course of life and destiny rests with each man's will. (b) they reject oral tradition as authoritative. they accepted only the written Law of Moses. They viewed the Pentateuch as primary and authoritative. They considered the Prophets and Writings as a secondary Scripture. Thus they had a "canon within the canon". (c) they rejected the existence

of angels, demons and the spirit world (cf. Acts 23:8). (d) they denied the resurrection of the body (cf. Mark 12:18-27). There is nothing beyond death; the soul perishes with the body at death (cf. Acts 23:8). Jesus cited a Pentateuch passage, Exodus 3:6, to support belief in the resurrection rather than a passage in Isaiah (26:19) or Daniel (12:2). (e) they denied the coming of a final judgment with rewards and punishments, and (f) the expectation of a coming Messianic age. They joined with the Pharisees in opposing Jesus. They disliked His criticism of their beliefs (cf. Mark 12:18-27) and their stubborn unbelief. Jesus' cleansing of the Temple no doubt upset them. They took responsibility to arrest Him and put Him on trial. Their position of power and their role as guardians of Temple sanctity They disappeared from Jewish history after A.D. 70 with the destruction of the Temple. The Essenes. Their origin seems uncertain. They including the Pharisees probably were among the Hasidim of the of the Maccabean era. They were Jewish isolationists, the ultra-separatist "wing" of the Pharisees. They considered themselves the righteous remnant. As spiritual people, they withdrew themselves away from the morally corrupt society and lived in colonies scattered around Judea. Their largest settlement was the Khirbet Qumran, near the Dead Sea (cf. Jos. The Jewish War 2.8.4.). Their, they established a disciplined, priestly, selfsupporting, communal society. they worked at various occupations during the morning then prayed, shared a communal meal, and meditated on Scripture in the afternoon and evening. There was a communal ownership of property. Each member took a night watch (V3 of the night) every night to read and study the Law. They based their life on love toward God and man and did many virtuous deeds in hope of eternal reward. They had a strong sense of mutual responsibility. They worshipped in strict obedience to the Law, observed strict purification rituals, and practiced strict discipline. They took solemn oaths of piety and obedience preparing themselves for the imminent Day of the Lord. Although not mentioned in NT, many scholars believe that John the Baptist may have had contact with them but there is no certain evidence of this. They strongly opposed secularism and foreign domination. Their theological believe was akin to the Pharisees but with rigidity and apocalyptic ideas. They were ascetics and many practiced strict celibacy. They apparently ceased to exist after A.D. 70. The Qumran community braced for the Roman onslaught and hid their scrolls in nearby caves. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 - 1956. The Zealots. They were militant nationalists who advocated open war with the Romans. They mobilized the

righteous indignation of the devout to "liberate" Jerusalem from the Romans and restore the sanctity of the Temple. The root of their movement probably stemmed from the Jewish rebellion against the Romans in A.D. 6 (cf. Acts 5:37), or even against Herod the Great in 6 B.C., although some historians argue that they were not organized until about A.D. 44. They later directed the Jewish insurrection against the Romans in A.D. 66-70. Their religious believe were akin to the Pharisees except that they mixed politics with religion and were highly militant. They believed that armed resistance against Rome would force God to intervene on their behalf. They ceased to exist after A.D. 73 with the fall of the fortress at Masada. The Sicarii. They were the most dangerous group, for they were the 1st century Jewish terrorist group (Acts 21:38). The Say concealed daggers in their garment, track down a Roman or a Roman sympathizer in a crowd, stab him, and melt back into the crowd escaping They also disappeared by A.D. 73 with the fall of Masada. The Herodians. They were not a religious party. They were a minority group that supported the Herodian dynasty (37 B.C. -- A.D. 70) and the hellenization of Judea. They were also the wealth and the political influencial Jews who supported the vassal rule. In Mark 3:6 -- they joined with the Pharisees in plotting to kill Jesus; also Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13.of the Herods. The Scribes (Rabbis). They were not a party or sect within Judaism, but were specialists in the interpretation of the Law. They were the ones who can write. Because scribes knew the Law, copied it, gave authoritative interpretations and applications of it. They were also called the wise men (sages), teachers of the Law (rabbis) and masters. They rendered both theological and legal decisions and enjoyed the adulation and high esteem of the people. A man entered the circle of the scribes not by ancestry or noble birth but by education. They acquired their knowledge during long and thorough course of study under the tutelage of a famous rabbi who, in turn, ordained his pupil as a teacher (rabbi). During Jesus' time, Rabbi Hillel and Shammai were the leaders of two prominent schools among the scribes. The school of Hillel produced Rabbi Gamaliel who was the teacher of the Apostle Paul (Acts 22:3) and whose counsel had high esteem in the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34-39).

The am ha ares. However, the fast majority of the Jews (over 90 percent) were unaffiliated with the parties mentioned above. They were the people of the land the `am ha ares. Pharisees tended to despise these people as "sinners" (cf. John 7:49) and treated them as religiously inferior and ritually unclean. See Matthew 9:9-11 and Jesus'response in 9:12-13. the common people were open to messianic movements and apocalyptic hopes. 6:34). Proselytes were the Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism because of its monotheism, high moral standards, ancient Scriptures, synagogue worship, and Jews sense of community. These Gentiles were initiation into the Jewish community by (1) circumcision of all males, (2) self-administered baptism by immersion of both males and females, and by (3) giving an offering at the Temple. "God-fearers" (cf Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26) or of worshipers of God" (cf. Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7). But many men accepted the moral teachings and religious practices Of Judaism without circumcision and thus fit the special category. God-fearers attended the synagogue and practiced Jewish piety even though they did not have full identification with the Jewish community. Non-Biblical Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus Christ Josephus (37/38-107 AD). He was Jewish Historian, not a Christian. He fought during the Jewish revolt of 66AD. He was captured in that war. While in captivity he predicted that Vespasian the Roman General who has captured him will be the next Roman emperor. The prophecy came true (69-79AD and Josephus became the friend of Emperor Vespasian. While in Rome Josephus wrote the 7 vol Jewish War, which traced Jewish events from Antiochus IV(175BC) to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD); Jewish Antiquities, this gives the account of the Jewish people from creation to 66AD; Life, this was his autobiography; and Against Apion, a Jewish apoplogy against Apion, an erudite Gentile critic of the Jews. Four passages in Josephus writing related to the historicity of some NT accounts. (1) in his Antiquities (18.5.2) Josephus alluded to John the Baptist and his imprisonment (cf. Matt 14:312; Mk 6:17-29). (2) in Antiquities (20.9.1) he allued to the death of James at the hands of the Jews in 62 AD. Here he called James the brother of Jesus, the so called Christ. This is the Jesus ministered primarily among this group. He viewed them as "sheep without a shepherd" (Mk.

earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus Christ. (3) in Antiquities (18.3.3). Some have contested Jesephus statement here since only a Christian could have said it but Josephus, a Jew, was not a Christian. It has thus been argued to be a later Christian interpolation by Christian scribes. The earliest three Greek texts containing this passage were later than 11AD. (4) in Antiquities (19.8.1-3) Josephus alluded to the death of Herod Agrippa 1 in 44 AD (cf. Acts 12:18-23). Pliny the Younger (62-113 AD). He was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In 112 AD he wrote a letter to the Roman Empror Trajan seeking advice on what to do to the Christians who were increasing in numbers throughout his province. He wrote that those Christians assemble together regularly on a certain day and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as if to a god (Epistles 10.96-97). He was the earliest secular Latin writer to refer to Jesus Christ. His corrrespondence also included the Emperors reply. Suetonius (69-160 AD). He was the secretary to Emperor Hadrian. In AD 120 Suetonio wrote the Lives of the the Twelve Caesars (the biography of the Roman Emperors from Julius Caeser (44BC) to Domitian (96 AD). He alluded to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 AD because they continually stirred up trouble under the influence of one Chrestus (Life of Claudius, 25.4). This can be compared with Acts 18:2. On his volum of the Life of Nero (16.2), he alluded to Neros persecution of the Christians after the fire in Rome (64 AD). He wrote punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of people addicted to a new and wicked supperstition. Canonicity A canon in a reed or straight rod used in architecture, in the Greco-Roman world for measurement. It implied a standard by which something is measured. By 4 AD, the term canon was passively used for the 27 NT books, together with the accepted OT writings, that the church recognized as the divinely inspired Scriptures, authoritative for the beliefs and practice of the church. The canon identified the inspired books. It is the deposit of divine revelation which is final, closed and authoritative for the church. It is the special collection of authoritative books rather than an authoritative collection of specail books. Jesus words were authoritative at the time they were spoken by Him. They therefore have canonical status. The Apostles were chosen by Jesus and were given authority to bear witness to Him (Mk 3:14; 6:7). He also promised to sent to them the Holy Spirit to teach them all things, to remind them everything He has spoken to them, and to guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 15:27; 2 Cor 3:17b). Thus their words were the living canon and their words

were also authoritative (1 Thess 5:27; Col 4:16; 2 Pet 3;16). The words of Jesus (logija, logia), stories about his person, life, and his passion narratives, found in the Gospels, probabaly circulated first as oral traditions. They would be part of the apostolic preachings. However, to preserve these teachings beyond the lifetime of the apostles, and to teach new converts, the materials were later written down. The apostles also wrote various epistles for different churches instructions. These NT materials were copied and preserved as authentic church documents, disseminated and read in the churches, in addition with the OT scriptures that were interpreted Christologically. The churches in the different regions collected, for regular public reading, exchanged and preserved these authentic documents. They selected the authentic from the non-authentic materials verified by the apostolic eye witnessess and apostolic envoys who became the living canon. Rise in heretical writings (NT apocrypha, the Gnostic writings)and persecutions of the church played importannt role in the collection of the NT authentic books. The early church, having selected the authentic from the non-authentic church documents, read the verified authentic apostolic documents copied and circulated them for publicl reading in the church, putting them on the same level with the OT. By the end of the 1st century, all the 27 NT books were recognized as canonical by Christians at least somewhere in the Meditaranian world. The ones not accepted were because they were unknown in a given region. We now have more that 5500 Greek Mss of the NT, in whole or fragments. The earliest is the P52, dated between 125-150 AD. It contained John 18:31-33, 37-38. The earliest Greek Mss that contained the whole of the NT is the 4 AD Egyptian codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus (it lacks Hebr 9:14- the book of Rev). Canon witnesses form the early Church Fathers. By Clement of Alexdanria (Egypt, 155215AD) knew and had used nearly all of the NT books. He distinguished the cannical books from various apocrypha books. Tertullian (North Africa, 160-220AD) wrote that a book must be veried as been writtten by an apostle or composed under an apostolic authority to be acceptable. He had 22 books in his canon. His canon excluded Hebrews, James, 2 Peter and 2 &3 John. Origen (from Egypt, also lived in Palestine, 185-254AD) puts the NT books into three categories. (1) He had 21 homolegoumena, undisputed=4 Gospels, Acts. 13 Pualine epistles, 1 Pet, 1 John, Rev. (2) Antilegoumena disputed book= Hebrews (although already accepted in the Western church as authentic for it was believed Paul wrote it, an issue which the Eastern realm was denying), James, 2 Peter, 2 &3 John, Jude, Barnabas, Shepherd, Didache and Gospel of Hebrews. (3) Spurious false books=apocrypha and heretical books. Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340AD) divided the NT books into four categories. He had 22

Homologoumena (4 Gospels, Acts, all of Pauline letters including Hebrews, 1 Pet, 1 John, Rev); 5 Antilegouumena (James, 2 Peter, 2 &3 John, Jude); 5 Notha (condidered spurious they included the Shepherd, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.); Heretical (e.g., Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Andrew and John, etc.). Athanasius (295-373AD). He was the first to use the word canon in 367AD., to reference the NT books, and his list was the first that contained our current 27 NT books. He decalreed that nothing can be added or taken away from it. Canon witness by the Church Councils. The early church councils formally ratied the NT canon. The first was the (1). Council of Laodicea (modern day Turkey) in 363AD. The NT books were subject to special studies and our current NT books were endored by this church council except the book of Rev. (2). The Council pf Hippo (North Africa, 393AD). This council formally ratified all of our current 27 NT book.s. The council linked the book of Hebrews with Paul. (3). The Council of Carthage (North Africa, 397AD). This council attended by Augustine of Hippo sanctioned the earlier council of Hippos affirmations regarding our current 27 NT books being the church canonical book. (4). The 6th Council of Carthage (419). It once again confirmed earlier councils endorsements of the 27 NT books. Criterial for Canonicity. The basic criterion used for canonicity were: (1) Apostolicity. A book must have had the authority of Jesus or an apostle either directly or indirectly. The acceptance of Mark was based on this for he was association with Peter. Luke, Acts, and Hebrews were associated with Paul. And James and Jude were associated with Jesus. (2). Catholicity. It must have a widespread acceptance and continous use in the early church. A book must show evidence of being used as public reading in church worship . Public readings were confined only to the apostolic books in the early church for such books had been attested by an apostolic signature or envoy (Cor 1:1; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; Rev 1:3). This placed such book on the same authoritative level with the OT Scriptures. (3). Orthodoxy. This is a self authenticating criteria. A book must inherently consist of teachings in line with the OT and other NT teachings. (4). Antiquity. A book must have been written in the first centuary AD. This criterion assumed that autheticity preceeded forgery. The NT books preceeded the pseudigrapha. NT Criticism The NT books, including the OT, were not subject to humanistic critical inquiry until in the enlightenment period of 17th AD. The scientist, Copernicus had made a scientific discovery of

the heliocentiric nature of the universe. By 17th AD., this theory was mathimatically proven to be correct by Johannes Kepler. This brought science to an automous discipline, independent of the Christian Scriptures, as a means of verifying knowledge in Europe. In addition, new historical sources were coming up that were revealing the limitations of the Scriptures as the source of world historical chronology and geographical information. La Peyrere argued that there were gaps and contradictions in the biblical accounts. He questioned traditional historical beliefs based on the Scriptures. Also, at this time, the philosopher, Rene Descartes (1637AD), raised doubt on universally valid principles. He doubted every tradition except whatever is evident to ones thought. Spinoza (1670AD) made reason a better guide for mans mind. He equated miracles to the Jewish custom of attributing everything to God. These advances made man the center of all philosophical, historical and scientific inquiries. It subjected the Scriptures to human reason, made Scriptural stories to be considered as fictitious and introduced a principle of doubt to the scripture truths. This caused biblical authority to be diminished. Moreover, Church theologians began to apply this critical scientific into scriptures. Theories of myth were introduced to explain away supernatural events in the Scriptures. Rules for recognizing myths in the Scriptures were set. This was done to lay bare the truth the Scriptures contained and to save its eternal truth from the historical dubious materials found in the Scriptures. Jean Astruc identified four sources in the Pentateuch, J. D. Michaelis (1717-1791) interpreted the NT without traditional theological presuppositions. He emphasized history over theology. His work introduced a new study into biblical education-NT introduction. His work allowed contradictions in the NT books. J. J. Griesback refused to harmonize the gospel accounts. He separated the book of John from the other Gospels that he called synoptics. The application of the humanisitc scientific procedure on understanding of the scriptures resulted in using form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, history of religion thought, etc., on the Scriptures. Authorship of NT Books (Excerpts from Guthrie, NT Introduction) Matthew. Internal Evidence. Both Mark 2:14 and Lk 5:27 reference Matthew as one of the apostles. They called him Levi. External Evidence. The name Matthew found as the title of this gospel was widely known and acknowledged before the 2nd century. It showed Matthew as the author of this gospel. Papias wrote that Matthew composed the logia. Papias also composed an interpretations of the logia

(commentaries on Matt and other gospels) in which he maintained that Mark composed a dominical oracle which Peter could not do. Thus if the oracle here referred to the gospel of Mark then the logia would imply the gospel of Matt. However the biggest obstacle in Papias testimony is that he also commented that Matt wrote his logia in Hebrew dialect (tongue) but all scholars reading the Greek text of Matt believed that the gospel could not have been composed in Hebrew. In addition, Irenaeus, in his testimony wrote that Matt published a book of the gospel. Irenaeus was acquainted with Papias and his testimony here would be in agreement with the tradition seen in Papis work. Father Pantaenus was qouted by Eusibius (the church historian) that the Gospel of Matt preceded him to India and that it was preserved in Hebrew language. Also Origen wrote that Matt was composed in Hebrews. There seemed to be a good tradition that the book was composed in Aramaic, especially from Irenaeus and Origen who were very fluent both in Greek and Hebrew languages. However, although Matthew Black has argued for some Aramaic sources in the text, none of its extant Greek text showed any Jewish- Greek translated work. As a result Papias statement has been viewed as an error or his logia statement taken as Q (Quelle) a sayings of Christ which both the later author of Matt and Mark used as source. Some hold it was a Christian testimonial book (OT quotes); others believe it was an unknown work now hopelessly lost; few scholars (e.g., Kilpatrick) hold the title Matt itself is pseudonymous; Stendhal added that the author came from the Matthean school; W. C. Allen holds that the apostle Matt wrote some of gospel sources and that a later editor from the church compiled them and affix Matts name as its title. However, although Papias logia statement is still been debated, since there seems to be no textual document known in the early church validating the existence of logia, and those who hold Q to be an oral saying still debate its content, it is difficult to dismiss Matt as the author of this book. There is also no textual evidence that Matt wrote his work in part. To affirm the title is pseudonymous has not early church support. In addition, many scholars who hold to the Markian priority objected to Matthean authorship of this book for they believe an eye witness did not write it since the book is less vivid than Mark, and it is claimed to have ecclesiastical and legalistic tendencies common in later edited works. However, it seems difficult to compare a particulars authors style and theology with another and use those peculiarity for dating related works. The Matthean authors view however have to clarify Papias statement and the tradition of the Hebrew composition of the book. Kurzinger believes that Papis Hebrew dialectos statement should be taken in a literary sense, to mean that Matt arranged his materials in a Jewish-Christian literary form. However, the Greek word

dialectos always mean a human language not a literary character or order of arrangement of a literature work. Guthrie believed that Papias was wrong to have claimed Matt wrote his logia in the Hebrew tongue. He must have confused the Matt gospel with other books circulating around hit time like the gospel according to the Hebrews. However, Guthrie did not supply any evidence for his statement. The reliability of Papias for Mathean authorship has been questioned. The book has been dated between 80-100 AD by scholars who hold to the Markan priority and believed Christ could not have foreseen and predicted the emergent of the church. With this system, Mark wrote after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then Matt wrote, using the Markan materials. Mark Internal Evidence. Mark has high traditional attestation as the books author. The NT reference to John Mark in Acts 12;12,25; 15:37; Col. 4:10; 1 Pet 5:13. He was with Paul in his first missionary journey. External Evidence. Papias wrote that Mark was Peters interpreter and that he was later martyred in Rome. In the same way Irenaeus, Muritorian canon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, etc., connected Mark with Peter. However, the major problem regarding Marks authorship is seen in the books date that showed the early churchs confusion. Irenaeus wrote that Mark wrote subsequent to the death of Peter (after Peters exodus~), while Clement of Alexandria wrote that it was during Peters time. The problem is deciding the meaning of Irenaeus exodus. If it can be interpreted not to mean Peters death but his departing from where Mark was composing the gospel, then it would be in agreement with Clement that Mark wrote during Peters life time. Other issues regarding date and Markan authorship comes with Marks reference to the abomination of desolation. Some believed that this reference the siege of Jerusalem by 70AD and that Mark wrote this gospel when the political situation of Palestine was tensed, and the editor of the book was able to foresee the fall of Jerusalem. It is believed that statement on suffering and persecution in Mark pointed 60-70AD when Jerusalem was surrounded. Others believe it reference Emperors Caligulars attempt to place his statue on the Temple in 40AD, yet some hold that Jesus could not have talked of the gospel being preached to all nations. However, these views only came from rejecting Christs ability to prophesy. Others have argued that the story of the death of John the Baptist corresponded to General Titus beheading one cynic philosopher for denouncing his immoral relationship with Bernice in 75AD. But this

is only conjectoral. Some have argued that the author of this gospel could not have been acquainted with Palestine on some historical discrepancies. It is believed that Dalmanutha in Mk 8:10 is unknown, Gerascene extending to the sea and Bethsaida being a village have no historical proofs. However, as Guthrie puts it a non-full description may not mean nonacquaintance. Luke The gospel is more comprehensive and universal than other gospels. Its purpose was to make an orderly account of events which led to the passion week of Christ. Luke and Acts were sent to one Theophelus, a high-ranking man. Authorship. Internal evidence=Preface shows the author was not an eyewitness. He had access to earlier narratives which others had compiled. But he made a thorough investigation of his materials before composition. Common authorship is assumed for Luke and Acts because they were dedicated to one man, Theophilus Also, acts refers to the 1st treatise = LK. In addition both books have similarities of language and interest. Externnal evidences . The book is widely known before the end of the 1st century. It was reflected in the Didache, in the works of the Gnostics Basilides & Valentinus. Marcion used Lks mutilated form while he rejected all other gospels. Justin Mytars used it in the mind 2nd century. The Muritarion canon, Anti-Marcionite prologue to LK, Iranaeus, Clement of Alex, Origen, Tertullian were aware of the book. The author of Luke/Acts was a companion of Paul because he used 1st person plural (instead of 3rd person) in in Lk 1:1-4, Acts, 1:1; 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18. He was an eyewitness and traveling companion of Paul. He joined Paul in Philippians (2nd missionary journey). He reappears at Pauls return to Phillipi (3rd missionary journey) and accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem. After Pauls two year imprisonment at Ceasarea Luke accompanied Paul to Rome, and experienced the shipwreck with him. Objection to Lukes authorship. Some have argued against Lucan authorship of Lk. For these reasons: (1). Historical discrepancies: Acts conflict with Pauline epistles. E.g., Ananias playing any role in Pauls biography of conversion in Acts conflict with Pauls statement that no human hands in his salvation (Gal 3). Also accounts of Pauls Jerusalem visit in Gal 1 conflicts with Acts record. Pauls attitude against the Law in the epistles differs from his subjugation to his Jewish law of vow. It is claim that no companion of Paul could have made such historical blunder. However, these seeming historical conflicts could be resolved from contextual interpretation. (2). Different interpretations of we section. It has been claimed that Lukes we phrase

could reference a literary conversation style, or relic of an earlier written source (diary or itinerary). But why did the author not add his name to add weight, like Pseudepigrapha do. or why did he retain the 1st person pronoun if he is incorporating sources? (3). Theological difficulties between Acts & Pauline epistles. Pauls solution of the problem of the Law (circumcision supported for Timothy in Acts but denied for Titus in Galatians) is seen to be in conflict in both books. But the two accounts may not be contradictory. Author of Luke/Acts may not be presenting Pauls theology in his historical setting while the epistles would be stressing Pauls theological concept. It has also been claimed that the author of Lk/Acts adapted Pauls speeches at the Areopagus in Athen is different from Pauls speeches in the epistles. But the speech could be a faithful representation of Pauls thought, and issue of speeches can not conclude authorship problem for it can be subjective. Date. Prior to 70 AD, = about 60-61 AD. & Acts 63 AD. Lk was in Ceasarea for 2 yrs, could have collected his materials then. However some believed Luke was written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. But if present why not include more detail of the siege. Also others (e.g., J. Knox ) argued for a second century dating of LK because it is assumed other gospeliers and Luke used an earlier gospel sources which were composed much more later than the assumed dating for Lukes composition. Luke needed more time. But if Marcions mutilated gospel used Lk, then Luke must be prior to Marion of the early 2nd century. Some, again, have argued that Luke consulted Josephus Antiquity written about 94 AD. They believed Lk 3:1-2 statement that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene was seen in Josephus. But this might not be the same person with Josephuss record. Ramsay cited an inscription from ancient Abliene that refers to one Lysanias who must have been tetrarch between 14-27 AD, which would be different from Josephus story Synoptic Problems Nature: 1. Three gospels (Matt, Mk, Lk) have similarity of arrangement; begin with baptisms, temptation, public ministry, Peters confession, journey to Jerusalem, trial, and death & resurrection. 2. Similarity of style & wording (phenomenon of language and wordings). Contents & vocabulary of the Greek texts of the gospel accounts are so similarly that they call for a literary dependence, one on the other. E.g., Peters confession (Mk 1:21-3:19; Lk 4:31-6:19); transfiguration (Matt 16:13-20:34; Mk 8: 27-10:52; Lk 9:18-18-43); healing of the demon

possessed (Matt 12:46-13:58; Mk 3:31-6:6; Lk 8:19-56). The story of the healing of the leper uniquely even have an abrupt break in Jesuss words at the same place in Matt 9:6; Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24). Others included questions on Christs authority, eschatological discourse, etc. 3. Similarities in 2 gospels only. Matt & Lk contain materials common to both but omitted by Marks account; e.g., the preaching of John the Baptist, lament over Jerusalem, etc. 4. Yet there are divergences in each of the synoptic gospel accounts. There are different arrangements of materials and historical settings of records. Each gospel has certain materials peculiar to it; e.g. the birth narrative of Matt is different from Lks. Matt uniquely recorded Peter walking on water, coin in the fishs mouth. Matt sermon on Mount differs from Lks sermon on the plain, etc. Historical solutions: 1. Tatians Diatessaron-Tatian resolved these problems by harmonizing the gospel accounts from its start. 2. Original Gospel Hypothesis (by Lessing) postulated gospels are different translations from old Aramaic gospel of the Nazarenes still current among the Nazarenes in the 4th century, as Jerome claimed. Eichohorn proposed 9 gospels came from it. 3. Fragment theory (Shcleiermacher)- Postulated that the apostles wrote down records of the words of Jesus. These were later required for use beyond Palestinian & various collections were made including miracle stories, sayings, passion narritives, etc. But no such records are known, and this theory fails to explain gospel literary similarities. 4. Oral theory- Similarities & divergences came in the course of oral transmissions, which might include the apostolic preachings that formed the oral Gospel. This was presented in Aramaic & translated to Greek for the Gentile missions need. These two translations become the source for the 3 gospels and was used differently according to each authors approach. However Wescott proposed a systematic learning by heart of the oral traditions rather than its written form. He believed that Jews would not commit the mass of oral tradition to writing, for oral transmission is the Jewishs main educative medium. This allows time for transmission. Problem with the oral theory, however, is that although careful memory work is widely known among the Jews and constant repetition could have imprinted most of the materials in peoples memory at the time, scholars find it hard to believe that oral theory could be so accurate to help in the preservation of order of events & precise words as they appear in the Gospel. Also, Matt & Lk always return to Marks order of event. This showed they must have worked from written rather than oral tradition. Again, some materials in Matt & Lk are missing in Mk. Thus,. 5. Mutual dependence theory. Literary dependence, one upon the other. (a) Augustine (4AD)

proposed Matt-Mk-Lk were written in canonical order. b) However, Griesbach (1745-1812) argued for Matt-Lk-Mark order of composition. Mk was the epitomizer of Matt & Lk, Mk depended on Matt and Lk for its composition, Mk 1:32 conflated accounts of the other gospels. Support for this is that this view explained the extensive agreement between Matt ad Lk, and gives weight to the early churchs testimony. However, critical scholars reject this since (a) it implied mark would have omitted more than 50% of materials he was copying. (b) It has also been argued that Mark presented a common ground for both Matt and Lk which are always in agreement only when they follow Mks order of materials. (c) Mk presented shortest accounts when shared accounts of the three books are compared. This showed, to many scholars, that Mk must have been written earlier and other gospelers refined and added materials to Mks accounts. are of all between shared materials and its language is more primitive so. 6. Documentary hypothesis. Similarities & divergences can be accounted for by postulating (a) two written sources (Lachmann, 1835). He believed Mk was written first. Matt and Luke independently based their work on Mk and a second written (hypothetical) source he called Q (Quelle, German name for the source). They also added distinctive materials of their own from other oral traditions. (b) B. H. Streeter developed this idea into a four source. Mk wrote first. Matt and Lk independently used Mk, Q, and unique materials to themselves (M= 300+ verses uniques to Matt; and L=580+ verses unique to Lk which Lk used). (c) Vincent Taylor accepted the four source theory but believed that Luke first wrote the Proto Luke material ( a rough draft of L+Q). He then reworked his material using Mk. This accounted for the reason Lk omitted Mk 6:45-8:26. Thus, most scholars today hold to Markan priority, and the MK-Q theory has becomes the basic element in the modern source criticism of the synoptic Gospels. Reasons for Markian priority (1). Almost the whole of Mk (90%) parallel in Matt; and 50% in Lk. (2). Markan order maintained by Mt & Lk with minor deviations. If Matt were first its order would have been maintained. (3). Literal character shows Matt and Lk used more than 50% of Mks words even to its very details and awkward Greek grammatical constructions. It is believed that both Matt and Lk smooth out and clarify Mks grammatical constructions, and Mk contained more Aramaic words. (4). It is believed, again, that Mk preserved more primitive account and details, e.g., the gospel talked of sun set, three hundred pence, green grass, etc. (5). Theologically, Mk used human candor in in his record of Christs emotions. He recorded Christs limitations, compassion, anger, serenity, sorrow, tenderness, and love. But Mt & Lk omit them. E. g. Mk, in Christ cannot do any mighty work in Nazareth, but Matt recorded Jesus could not do many

might works. Also, in Jesus cursing of the fig tree (Mk (11) reported Christ was disappointed for not finding fruit on the tree. This is lacking in Matthew. Christs rebuke on the disciple for not understanding the parable (Mk) was missing in Mt & Lk. In the account of the stilling of the storm Mk records Christs question how is it that you have no faith, but Lk records where is your faith? Mt states you of little faith. Here it is believed that Mark is modified by Matt & Luke rather than vice-versa. The most vivid Gospel is the most prior, and this showed Mk must have been an earlier record. Problem of Source Criticism and Markan priority. As Guthrie noted, many of the variations in the synoptic gospels are difficult to account for. This led Form criticism to multiplication of sources. It in turn weakened the source criticism hypothesis. (b) Omissions of large portion of Mk (6:5-8:26) in Lk, though present in Matt, is a problem if Lk used Mk. (c) Agreement of Mt & Lk against Mk in triple traditions. He concluded that inferences drawn from Markian priority can never be conclusive nor be used to proved by transmission in early Christianity. Also, that Q may not more be a 20th century creation of modern imagination and L and M may be oral tradition rather than written sources. Form-Critical Theory. This method attempt to go behind the Gospel sources to investigate the manners by which the different sources had been codified from their materials oral forms. It not only attempted to classify materials into forms of tradition but discover the historical situation (Sitz im Leben) in which the forms grew. Some of the advocates included K. L. Scmidt (1891-1956) who pustulated that informations about Jesus first existed as an short independent narrative, without any historical or geographical settings attached to them (except the passion narrative) and the short sayings were unconnected one to another. However, later the gospeliers linked each pericope together given chronological and geographical settings to them. This were done for worship. However. M. Dibelius (1883-1947) postulated that traditions in the early church were conditioned by missionary needs. Traditions existed first in sermons, imposed by Kerigma. It was added to later by more developed forms like paradigm, tales, exhortations, legends and myths. Bultiman (1884-1976) argued for the Christian imagination theory. Gospel storeis were embellishment created by the early church. He believed that He maintained that the most important element of Christian faith was an essential encounter with Christ. All historical proof for Christ is not important. Vincent Taylor (1887-1968) offered a more conservative view. He wrote that much of form criticism is open to question, especially those theories that do not take into account the influence of the eyewitness during the formative yeas of the gospel. He reiterated that Form criticism can not solve the problem of the miracles.

Redlich believes that the formless stories (miracle stories, stings, parables & passion stories) bear their witness to the reality of the cross and of the personality of Jesus. Reason for its rise: 1. Weakness of source criticism. Source criticism could only speculate Mark & Q for the gospel (with multiplication of Q to include L,M, etc.). Form criticism proposed the study of origin of both Mark & Q, and suggest methods by which original tradition was fixed. It classifies the gospel into various literary forms using a good deal of imagination & enlarges measure of conjecture. 2. Wredes theory that the framework of Mk was his own creation from his Messianic interest. He had maintained that Jesus did not reveal His Messiahship until after resurrection thus that Peters confession account of Mk was false. This placed the whole of Gospel narrations in suspect. It also made context of stories and sayings of little effect. Wellhausens theory added to this suspect when he claimed that the primitive tradition was overlaid with editorial additions influenced by contemporary Christian theology. This attempt gave strength to form criticism. The new theory attributes much of the shaping of Gospel materials to Christian community. Schmidt postulated Mark is chronologically a geographically unreliable. No biographical reconstruction of Christ was then possible. 3. There were attempts to restate the gospels in concepts acceptable to 20th century modern mind. Strip up all forms (miracle stones from the gospels). This is because they maintained that materials in canonical gospels were coughed in, 1st century conception and are now outdated. This led to Bultmanns demythologization, a quest to restate the essence of the gospel apart from the forms. 4. Attempt to place literary materials of the gospels in their historical or life situations (Sitz im Leben). The study assumed (without adequate prove) that the materials presented in the gospels owed it shape to practical needs of the church. It founded the Sitz im Leben of the Gospel in the post-Easter events and experiences of the church community. Types of Theory used in Form Critical Study. 1. Paradigms. These were short narratives which ended with an authoritative sayings by Jesus. It was designed to give an important teaching or resolve conflict. (Mk 12:13-17, give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods; 2:1-12). 2. Tales (Novellen, or miracle stories). These were narratives which was aimed to show Jesus as a wonder-working man. They have no sayings attached to them (e.g., exorcisms, nature miracles, etc. Cf. Mk 4:35-41; 5:1-20; 6:35-44). They were created by story tellers.

3. Paranesis (exhortations or sayings of Jesus). Theyy were collection of sayings for cathecetical purposes, it is unattached to any narrative. 4. Legends- narratives relating to extra- ordinary things about holy people e.g. infancy stories of Christ. 5. Myths- encounters with interaction with mythological persons (God or Satan is seen dealing directly with a person), e.g. the descent of the Spirit at the baptism and the voice from heaven, temptation off Jesus, transfiguration. Debelius assumed 3 types of Christian workers involved in in these creations- preachers, teachers, and narrators. New Quest Theory of form criticism (Kasemann). This school denies any possibility of a chronological or psychological reconstruction of the life of Christ. Rather, the distinctive element in the earthly Jesus must be seen in His preaching, dealing with people and His attitude and social concern of Jesus toward the wayward and the outcasts. This established the connection between church proclamation and the historical Jesus. Limitations of Form Criticism. (1). It led to historical skepticism. (2). It ignores the eyewitness account of the early church which led to the fallacy that the early church created the gospel stories. Gospel of John Authorship. Internal evidence: (1). The we of 1:14 shows the author of this gospel was an eye witness. This is supported by 1 John 1:1-4. The we can not refer to Christians in general for such well loose many points in the book. Several details suggested an eyewitness account. E.g., Six water pots at Canaan; distance rowed by the disciples across the sea of Galilee- 25/30 stadia; the number of fish caught after the resurrection appearance; the number of barley loaves; the reaction of soldiers at the arrest of Christ, etc. 2. The expression the disciple whom Jesus loved 21:24 seems to intend this disciple was the author of John. He is the disciple that leaned on Jesus breast at the Last Supper, & in close association with Peter. Mary Magdalene tells him & Peter about the disappearance of Christs body at the tomb. Jesus commends of his mother this disciple, who is John (19:26). 3. The author has a Palestinian background. He talked of the Jewish customs and life before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (talked of the Jewish purification rights, several feasts, etc.). He had the knowledge of Jewish historythe time it takes to build the temple prior to Jesus; Jewish political attitudes and enmity with the Samaritans. He also had the knowledge of Palestinian geography, and that of Jerusalem before the its fall. He knew the Hebrew name for the pool near the sheep gate, pool of Siloam, topographical details of the region around Jerusalem, etc.

External evidence- Iranaeus maintained John the Lords disciple was the author of the gospel, that he wrote this gospel in Ephesus and that he stayed there until the reign of Trajan. Eusebius reported that Polycarp was Iranaeus authority. Tertullian, Clement of Alex, Origen, Muratorian Canon, Anti-Marcionite prologue, etc., witnessed to Johns authorship. Other suggested authors. However, other non Johannine authors have been proposed for this gospels authors. They include: 1. John of Jerusalem. This was suggested by H. Delft. He belied one John of Jerusalem, who had access to the high priests house and later became influential among the Asiatic churches was the author. But there has been no evidence for this. (2).John the Elder. Papias statement has moved some to claim that there must have been on John the Elder who had association with Ephesus & had some connection with the production of the fourth gospel. Papias, quoted by Eusibus, seems to state the existence of an elder John outside of the apostle John. This elder John would not be in the same category as the Lords apostles, but in the categories of the Lords disciples, in which one Ariston was a member. But Eusibius interpretation of Papias may be partial because he identified the author of the Apocalypse to a different John. Eusebius also cited a Dionysius hearsay about an existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name John Even if it was true that there were two tombs of Johns Papias gave no hint about that John the elders literary works. (3). Psodonymity, This believes that the eyewitnesses evidence in this gospel were a skillful device to create apostolic authorship. But if these were true, the author of John would have been mentioned to give it an apostolic authenticity, which was the custom for pseudo epigraphic work. Again, such would be difficult to have received a wide recognition in the early church. The gospel was known to Iranaeus (2nd century), Ignatius, Justin (150 AD), his pupil, Tatian, used it in his diatessaron with other synoptics. The Gnostic Heracleou procured the first commentary on it and the Ryland Papyrus about 150 AD., has its copy. This also could help to date the book between 90110 AD, or earlier. Pauline Epistles Gal, 1 &2 Cor, and Rom are four non-contest letters of Paul. The only problem with Galatians relates to its dating and its recipient (the North or South Galatians Theory). The Roman debate deals with the problem of the numerous people the apostle greeted in Rom 16 and its final benediction that has variant readings. Ephesians Authenticity. Opening address has Paul, who claimed authority to apostleship by the will of

God. The name Paul also reoccurs in the body of the epistle (3:1, with first person pronoun). Pauline epistolary structure of opening greetings, thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, ethical exhortation, concluding salutations, and benediction, support Paul External attestation, it wide circulation by middle of 2AD. It was known in the Marcion cannon (140 AD) who named it the Laodiceans. The Muritanon cannon (180 AD), the gnostics, Ophites, Valentinian and Basilideans of 2AD., knew this epistle. It is also seen in the early Latin and Syriac versions. The books reminiscence words were known in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermes, and the Didache. . Language. The epistle has words that are common to other Pauline epistles, but which are not found in other non Pauline literature of the New Testament. Has e.j. in its adaption of the OT language and free? Theological affinity with Pauline theologyconcept of God as glorious, powerful, merciful, mystical wonders of believers in Christ, reconciliation of the cross, ministry of the H/S, predestination, etc. Historical data. Silence on the fall of Jerusalem, absence of reference to persecution of the readers. Absence of developed ecclesiastical structure of the church all make the epistle early than the apostolic period of Paul. Against Pauline Authorship Linguistic and stylistic arguments. Some words not in the NT books are found in the epistle, and other common NT words missing; e.j. Pauls use of diasolos for the devil is un-Pauline. Others like in the heavenlys does not occur in any other Pauline work. Occurences of Ev and Kata with unusual frequency all are non Pauline. Redundant expressions, artificial eloquence, - long sentences, piles of synonyms and genitures , not greetings, only one person Tychicus is named- etc., all showed the books linguistic data points to a latter apostolic periods work of Luke-Acts, I Peter, Hebrews, etc. Literary arguments. Over one quarter of Colossian words are borrowed by Ephesians, and more than one third of Colosian words reappear in Ephesians. Different parallel words and

terminologies are used in different contexts and with different meanings in Ephesians; e.j. Christ being head of the Church is said to be borrowed from Colossians in which the same phrase was used to apply to the cosmic powers. Also mystery was used in Col. to apply to Christ, but in Ephesians it was used of the unification of the Jews and Gentiles. It has been argued also that Ephesians was literately dependent on other Pauline epistles, it was thus written after the collection of other Pauline letters, and it betrays a hand of an imitator. Some also believed Ephesians borrowed from 1 Peter. There are also parallels between Acts and Ephesians; the author of Ephesians thinks of Paul in condition in which Acts left him- a prisoner for the Greek mission Its been claimed that the letter has no concrete situation in which Paul is addressing himself, and references to Paul in the epistle are believed to be forced and awkward; e.j. Pauls statement that he is the least of all the saints (3:8), if you have heard of Gods stewardship granted to me, Paul commendation of himself to the mystery of Christ granted to him, etc. Historical arguments Psuedoepigraphic works were common and accepted without any hesitation by the early church. (e.j. 2 Peter, Jude, James, Apocalypse, 1 Peter, Pastorals) that the early attestation to this epistle could be set aside. Also in other Pauline epistles the Jew-Gentile conflict was on, but it seems settled in Ephesians. Many scholars believed his could not have been settled in Pauls lifetime. Doctrinal argument In other epistles of Paul, the church is seen as local, but here it is universal. In Eph. 2:20 the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church, but in 1 Cor. 3:11, Christ is the foundation of the church. 3:5 reference to holy apostle and prophets in the Spirit are attributed to later dates than Paul, when apostles were being venerated. Reconciliation was the WMC of God in Eph but in Col. it was the work of Christ. Descent into hades was said to be un-Pauline. Emphasis on Christs exaltation than His death, and the primary aim of Christs work was said to be of the unification of Jews/Gentiles. Ephesians has much more exalted view of marriage than I Cor. 7. In Eph, it illustrated the

relationship of Christ and the Church. Case for Pauline Authorship LinguisticTo deduce a non- Pauline authorship based on the feats that Eph. contained larger amounts of non-Pauline work may not be a strong argument- Paul can use new words when dealing with new subject matter, he could use change of expressions, or introduce different grammatical construction. Comparing Pauline vocabulary with the so-called first-century books, only I Clement could be dated the closing of 1st century with certainty and in that style could prove Pauls versatility. He could choose any style or method to compose his work. Literary argument One mind could have produced the two works (Eph/Col). Although both possess a remarkable similarity in them and phraseology yet differ in many other respects, especially if the two epistles were produced within short times to each other, Paul could have directed his amanuensis to apply the general theme of one to the other, divorced from their specific situations. Christs headship in Eph. & Col. may not have differences in there usage. The mystery can be used anyway the author want. No concrete evidences to confirm the priority of I Peter over Ephesians and to confirm its literary dependence on I Peter. No reflection of Pauline epistles in the synoptic is no evidence for dating Eph late, for the gospels were narrations of the life & teachings of Jesus, not Paul, and hence no reason to include Pauline epstolcy ??? in them. The absence of a specific situation which Paul was addressing in Eph. may not be a reason to reject its Pauline authorship. Generally occasions determines the forms of the epistles. Historical argument On the Jews/Gentiles controversy, the position of Paul in Eph. is similar to his position in Romansthe reconciliatory work of Christ. No NT writer showed any interest in the historic event of the fall of Jerusalem of 70 AD, and it seems no NT writer would have used the figure of a barrier to describe the ideal unification of Jews/Gentile church. No treatment of this theme in such a way could not have made the epistle

non-Pauline. The fact that in 2:3 the author identified himself with the Gentile sinners and therefore could not have been Paul may be a false assumption. In Rom 2-3 Paul identifies both Jew/Gentiles as sinners in need of savior. Doctrinal argument The writer of this epistle may not be more ecclesiastical than Paul. Such an author would have been more elaborate on the Christian ministry like the one found in I Clement. It seems that in 1 Cor. 3:11 Christ is the foundation that the apostles laid, everyone else builds upon this foundation (through His work). In Eph. 2:20 the Gentiles who were formerly strangers are now being built on the foundation (which the apostles laid) of the apostles. The issue here depends on how the geniture of the apostle is understood. Although it could mean that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church, it could also mean the foundation which they have laid. And in both Eph. and I Cor. Passages that Christ is the most significant in the imagery. He is both the foundation and the cornerstone of the church. Thus both passages may not be contradictory. Attribution of holy to the apostles and prophets may not have the veneration of the later church, but more of the general NT use of setting apart for a sacred purpose. Paul also used the epitaph as synonyms for believers. Also the writer does not appear to know the readers personally (1:15-3:2; 4:21), the readers have only heard about Paul. But such could not have been, for Paul was in Ephesus for about 3 years. Some have thus affirmed that the epistle was sent to Laodicea. This follows Marcions cannon. But no MS evidence for this. Circular letter. Written at the same time with Col & Philemon, sent through Tychicus to Asia Minor with blank left in the original copy for Tychicus to fill with each churches name. But no MS evidence for another letter same with Ephesians but bearing same content. Also no greeting of a general land like Col. if the letter had been sent to the Lycus valley. That the epistle was a spiritual statementPauls reflective parting statement to the church as a whole, the church universal. But the epistle does no seem to have been directed to a universal church. Introduction to Pauline corpuses considered as a summary of teachings of the Pauline corpuses composed by a Paulinst for the audience unfamiliar with the Pauline epistles. The title to the Ephesus was because the corpuses were first made known to the Ephesian church. But no

evidence from anywhere (church fathers, etc.) that Ephesians epistle ever stood at the head of Pauline corpuses. Tychicus passage in Eph 4:21-22, which is parallel to Col. 4:7-8, is a real problem for this theory. in this context, Tychicus will tell the church everything. Such will be incompatible with the introductory note this epistle would serve for the readers. Why would a Paulinst bring that section into his composition? Philosophy of Religion for the whole Christian church- the epistle was produced by a personal acquaintance of Paul in his attempt to formulate a religious philosophy of history for Pauls teachings. But no satisfactory reason for the insertion of Tychicus passage, no traditional support for the view. Safeguard against the spread of Colossian error. It as sent ahead to offer churches to preserve the advancing Colossium heresy. Date- 1st Roman imprisonment.

Philippians Philipians is co-addressed to elders and bishops which confirmed Acts 14:23, that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church they established on their missionary journeys. It showed Paul had something to do with the organization of the Philippian church. Occasion- Epaphroditus return home. He has been sent by his church to help Paul in Rome, but during his stay he became very ill and after he was healed, he decided to return home. Other reasons may have been to int the church of Timothys visit; Pauls own intention to visit, and need for unity in the church (he urged two women to agree in the Lord). Authencity- No argument about its Pauline authorship. Place of dispatchSome have claimed the imprisonment was in Caesarea. This imprisonment appeared to have been recent and short in duration. But this epistle does not supply such information. The polemic against Jewish teachers in Chpt. 3 shows the epistle belonged to the period of the early Jew/Gentile controversy.

Praetorium mentioned in 1:13 could be the one in Ceasarea (Herods place). The occupants would be so limited and easy to fit Pauls statement that all of them learned the reason for his arrest. But Pauls wage here is more of the personnel, not the housing or the palace housing them. Also that the imprisonment had caused many to preach would assure an existing church, which was not in Ceasarea. Rome Both the phrase praetorium and Caesers househols (1:13, 4:22) respectively would reference the praetorium guards headquarters in Rome (the imperial guard) and Caesars household would suggest the slaves and freedom attached to the emperors residence. Apostles trial was awaiting imminent pronouncement of life or death judgement for which there seems no appeal. This would be in Rome, not the Cesarean imprisonment which Paul appealed to Caeser. The courage of many to preach the gospel suits Rome where there was already a church. The personal circumstances of Paul in this imprisonment suits Rome. He was allowed to receive his companions and correspond to his churches. These agreed with Roman imprisonment as stated in Acts 16:30-31. Paul had a strong hope of being released and visiting Philippi, but with the Caesarean imprisonment, his heart was turned to Rome. Early traditions support Roman imprisonment; e.j. Marciouite prologue. Ephesus Although Acts is silent about Pauls Ephesus imprisonment, some argues for it and the Philippians epistle to have been written here. Duncan believed the interval between the Phillipian church offering after their initial ones (as Paul stated in 4:10) should not be about 10 yearThe time of Paul in Rome. Ephesian imprisonment would be a shorter and better fit time for the interval, but 4:10 did not say 10 years. The proposed visit in Philippians 2:19 will correspond to his proposed visit in Acts 20:1. And Timothys visit in 19:22. But Acts is not aware of Pauls imprisonment in Ephesus at this time , sent Timothy and Erastis away (19:22). Literary AssociationLiterary style of Philippians compared better with Pauls early epistles of Gal, Rom, Cor, rather than Col and Ephesians, the later ones. But literary affirmity can not determine the time of

composition. Jewish controversy was not over as Phil. 3 showed. This will fit the early imprisonment op Ephesus than later Roman imprisonment/ but isolated issues could still have existed. Praetorium and Caesars household had inscriptions bearing testimony to their detachment station in Ephesus. Imperial slaves and freemen were also sent throughout the empire to look out for the emperors interest. Reference to Pauls imprisonment in Phil. (1:7, 12, 2:17) letter does not fit the accusations against him in Acts 21:28. Absence of reference to Luke in Phil epistle reference Acts 20:1 account before the we section.

Colossians This church has never been visited by Paul (Col. 1:4) including the Laodiceans. It seemed Epaphras was the one who had acquainted Paul of the churchs love in the spirit. It seems the church originated as a result of his (Ephaphras) ministry, who was also responsible for their instructions (1:7). He was a Colossian who probably got converted through Pauls ministry. Occasion Epaphras had traveled to Rome to Paul while being imprisoned to acquaint him with the progress of the Church in the Lycus Valley. Also to solicit advice about a dangerous heresy threatening the security of the Colossian church. Purpose- to demonstrate the immeasurable superiority of Christ in contrast to His inadequacy being propagated by false prophets propagating the Jewish- gnosticism. This heresy minimizing Christs pre-eminence, has some Hellenistic and Jewish elements which include the worship of the argils and meditations. Authenticity Some who have argued against Pauls authorship of this book assume the 2nd century Gnosticism of the Colosseum heresy. Style of the epistle has been argued against, unusual genitive Construction, prepositions with

EV, many new vocabularies. But stylistic differences are generally attributed to Paul by many scholars, even critics validated its authenticity. Both epistles has Timothy in co-greetings, and from Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, Nema, who, with Paul, at that time (Col 4:10-14; Phm 23:24); Archippus was called fellow soldier and in Col 4:17 he was directed to fulfill his ministry, Onesimus, concerning whom Philemon was written, was also mentioned in Col. 4:9 as being sent with Tychicus.

Place of Dispatch Marcionite prologue claimed that the book was written from Ephesus, but ts correspondent prologue to Philemon stated Philemon was written from Rome. Roman imprisonment would be most probable for Philemons connection with Colosssians. Onesimus would not have found access to Paul in Caesarean imprisonment. Also, Pauls request that Philemon prepare a room for him where he would stay after his release would not have been said in Caesarea.

Thessalonians Epistles Thessalonia was the capital of Macedonia, it stood on the Roman highway to the East, it passed its own system of government. Its magistrates are called politachs. It also has few Jewish settlements. Letter was written from Corinth in his 2nd missionary journey. Somewhere around 5 AF. An inscription at Delphi maintained that Gallio was proconsul during Claudius 12th year of his tribuniced power and after his 26th year proclamation as emperor. This must have been before Aug. 52 when the 27th proclamation had been made. Procoucols normally take office midsummer. It is generally conceeded that mid summer 52 would be Gallios commencement into office. Authenticity

External evidenceincluded in the Marcions collection (180 AD), quoted by Iranaeus, Clement of Alex, and Tertullian acknowledged them to be genuinely Pauline. Contained in the Old Latin & Syriac versions. Internal evidence from the Churchs from the churchs organization is earlytheir church leaders are referred to as those over you (1:12). Language and style is Pauline. Immenency of the Parousia; the apostles thought he would be alive at itNo one would have thought of representing the apostle as expecting to be alive at the parousia after he was known to be dead. Against authenticity Historical discrepancies between Acts & the Thess. epistles- in Acts 17:2 Paul stayed only 3 Sabbaths in Thessalonican, but the way Paul described his stay there, (1 Thess. 2:7-11) would suggest a longer stay as he worked with his own hands to support himself. Also, Paul mentioned in Philippians that Philippian church sent gifts to support him. but Ramsey believed that the three Sabbaths reference only Pauls ministry with the Jewish synagogue, but that he stayed much longer after that; maybe up to six months with the Gentile focus. But one could assume only three weeks in which Paul worked to support himself. Historical discrepancies in the composition of the church. Acts converts do not include those won from idolatry, as Paul seems to include those groups as forming the larger part of the church. But Gentiles would all have been idol worshippers before conversion. Movement of Timothy & Silas- Acts. 18:5, stated they rejoined Paul in Corinth. But 1 Thess 3:1 showed Timothy was with Paul in Athens. But this trip ma be a different one from Acts record. Authenticity Its Pauline authorship has been argued against bu the Turbigen school. but it has strong external evidence; included in the Marsion Canon Muritonan list. It was mentioned by Iranaeus, Ignatius Justin & Polycarp. Against Authorship Change of approach in eschatology as compared with 1 Thess. Here in 2 Thess. Parousia is

less imminent for certain events must take place. But Paul could have written this, for there had been some oral information which he referred the back to, and 1 Thess. 5:1-11 presupposes of some knowledge of escaltholoical signs. Change of tone- 2 Thess. is said to be more formal and frigid than 1 Thess, but different situations affect moods. He probably was more perplexed with the issue in 2 Thess. 1 Thess. which was composed as a result of great encouragement he got concerning the church. Readers assumed to be Jewish rather than Gentiles of the 1st letter, for the second had greater OT flavor. But even OT formed the basis of gospel preaching even to these Gentiles, thus they were familiar with them. Similarity. The two epistles are so similar and close together on the same subject and language that Paul would not have repeated himself in such manner. But changed situations can demand a similar yet a different approach. Thus some suggest the epistle was a pseudonym, a forgery. But the writer portrays such intimacy with the churchs situations. Co-authored- Timothy & Silas wrote the 2nd epistle, and Paul added his autograph. But Paul would not have accented what he did not write. Hannack suggested 1 Thess was sent to the Gentile church & 2 Thess to the Jewish. But no evidence for such a divided church. The OT used could early be understood by the Gentile Christians. Order of the Thess Some have argued for a change of order of the epistles. Traditional order has been because of length; longer letters first, then shorter ones. But this was the order even in the Marcionite canon that does not seem to follow length. Nothing that could be misunderstood in 1 Thess that should give rise to the second. But problem in 2 Thess was oral pass on from Paul. Eschatology of 2 Thess more crude & judouetic than the first. But Paul would not have changed his eschatology within such a short period. In 1 Thess, the trials are said to be over, while in 2 Thess they are still ahead. But 1 Thes is for

encouragement and trials could still lie ahead. Internal difficulties in 2 Thess are spoken of as if they were new developments the writer has not heard of, but in 1 Thess everything looks familiar. The phrase you have no need that I write to you concerning time and season in 1 Thess 5:1 will be more natural if it follows 2 Thess 2. But they had prior oral information, and thus could be relevant. The phrase now concerning in 1 Thess 4:9,13 & 5:1 which introduces the subsequent subject matter would be analogous of 1 Cor, indicating matter raised in precious letter. But could equal apply to matters orally raised from Timothy & Silas visit. Pauls personal note in 2 Thess where he draws attention to the mark he affixed to all his letters would be significant for 1 Thess. But Paul heard of letters purposed to be written by him after his first letter, thus remarks will be normal.

The Pastorals Authenticity Internal greetings from each of the 3 epistles are Pauline. External evidence Known and used by Polycarp, Justin, Heracleon, and Irancese regarded them as Pauline and Theophihis alluded to them as inspired. Clements epistle to the Corinthians has strong language resemblance to the Pastorals. But it was missing in Marcion canon which seems to be an evidence against the above external witness (Maecion canon contained only ten of the Pauline epistles). Some said he did not know them so he did not include them. It would be observed, however, that Marcion rejected any book that does not support his contention to reject the OT. He also rejected Matt, Mark, and John, and mutilated Lukes gospel in his cannon. He would have rejected the pastorals (1 Tim 1:8) that says the laws good and also 1 Tim 6:20, that opposed anything falsely called science which was the term he used for his teachings. The church as a whole rejected Marcion. But others who opposed to those explanations believed that he would have mutilated them if he had known them and accepted them into his canon.

Also, the codex of Pauline epistles (Chester Beatty Papyri, p. 46) of mid-third century do not have them. Many scholars argued the remaining pages to complete the codex, if completed, would not have contained them (being their judgment on the calculation of how much space the remaining book would have taken). But the content of p. 46 is precarious. If the above argument is correct, all of the NT books not included in p. 46 would be suspected. Patristic evidences earlier than p. 46 showed a wide spread use of the pastorals. Case against Pauline authorship 1. Historical- it seems impossible to fit the historical events in the pastorals into Acts; e.j. in 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus to take charge of the church their while Paul moved to Macedonia. The same was the issue in Titus, he had been left in Crete. This suggested that Paul had worked in Crete. In 2 Tim. Paul was already a prisoner in Rome, he requested Timothy to bring him his cloak which he had left behind in Troas, and Onesiphorus seeking him out in Rome. All these seem difficult to fit into Acts accounts and framework. Therefore some have concluded it was a 2nd Roman imprisonment, which would be outside of Acts record; Pseudonymous fiction writer who wished to impress Pauline origin upon the church with its verisimilitude historical account of Pauls (Turbingen, Baur, Holtzmann, Dibelius), school; or genuine Pauline notes incorporated byPauline admirers. 2. Ecclesiastical problem Certain ecclesiastical arrangement of the pastorals exists which were too advanced for Pauls time for: Paul had no interest in organizing the church; thus the church officials of the Pastorals belong to the later period when each church had its carefully controlled officials. The elders in the pastorals were charged with passing on traditions. Paul could not have sanctioned this before the tradition itself was fixed. The functions of these officials are too advanced for the time of Paul.

The instruction to Timothy 3:6 not to appoint new converts would take time to develop. It suggests an established church of later age than Paul. The Gnostic heresy of the Pastoral would be the more advanced one of the 2nd century, much later than Paul. Such include rigid asceticism and licentiousness, denial of the resurrection, speculative approach to the OT, their insistence of their dualistic philosophy of a mediator between man and God. 3. Doctrinal problem Absence of Pauline doctrines of Fatherhood of God, mystical union of believers with Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, which are less prominent in the Pastorals than the earlier epistles. But certain themes like the faith, the deposit, sound teachings, etc. reoccurred in such a way to suggest that the tradition of the church is now fixed. This fits better the state of the later church at the end of the 1st century. Linguistic306 words unused anywhere in Paul, and 175 of them are hapax. Large numbers of words that are unique and showed only in the Pastorals, and not in any other NT books, make scholars reject Pauline authorship of the book. Harrison compiled about 112 participles, pronouns, prepositions, etc., to indicate the different style of the author of the Pastorals outside of Paul. He believed the pastorals do not belong to the same linguistic scene with other Pauline epistles, and that they are 2nd century language similar to the church fathers. Case for Pauline Authority Historical problem. Acts did not recall all the all the different activities of Pauls ministry. Thus, many accounts of his life may be difficult to fit into Acts records; e.j. the sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11 can not be accounted for in Acts. Therefore, there could have been a second Roman imprisonment. Agrippa would have released Paul of he had appealed to Caesar. The proconsul Festus report to the emperor would not have been unfavorable to Paul. Under Roman justice charges brought against Paul would have warranted a release. In Philippians,

Paul anticipated an early release. If the external evidence that Paul suffered martyrdom under Nero is correct, then one may conclude he was probably re-arrested after his first release and that he most probably visited Troas (2 Timothy 4:3; Miletus, 2 Timothy 4:20). He left Timothy to take care of the church there. He also went to Crete, where he told Titus to take of the church. Ecclesiastical problem. The instruction for elders, bishops, deacons, widows, and their qualifications and appointments could have been given by Paul. He himself appointed elders in Acts 4:23 at the very commencement of his ministry. His meeting with the elders at Ephesus while passing through Miletus (Acts 20:17) are all evidence that Paul was interested in orderly church government. He addressed the Ephesian letter also to the pastors and teachers. Thus he had interest in church organization at the inception of his work and would not have shown disinterest later as he was about to hand over the ministry to the young men. Also, although it may be true that the work of the elders in the later stages of the church was to transmit the church traditional Paul could have seen this need that church teachings should be entrusted to capable people who are able to teach. There was also a body of tradition to pass on, which Paul himself received from the early apostolic tradition, this was fixed in Pauls preaching. It probably was not a material for a later fixation. Instruction for the qualification of elders might not have meant a long established church after Paul. The instruction not to appoint a novice was limited to Timothy in Ephesus, where Paul had worked for about three years. This was not given to Titus in Crete, which must have been a young church. Paul

was also probably not able to practice this with his election of elders in Galatia and Ephesus in his early ministry. The post of Timothy and Titus may not represent Ignatian-type bishophood of the later church age. They were not merely apostolic delegates. The heresies alluded to in the Pastorals include Jewish disputing about the law, myths, endless genealogy, godless chatter, antithesis, asceticism, celibacy, abstaining from food, and licentiousness. The doctrinal error was the denial of resurrection concerning ??? Hymenaeus and Alexander have made shipwreck of their faith. All these may be different from the Colossian error, and since Timothy & Titus were verse in the word of God, Paul probably left them to refute the error. But he urged both not to waste their time on the errors. Doctronial problem. Lack of themes like Fatherhood of God and mystical union in Christ may not be real. Paul of ascribed majesty to God. He is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Sovereign, Invisible, Immortal. He is the Savior, who desires all men to be saved. The phrase life in Christ is used about 9 times in the Pastorals. Paul made reference to the H/S in the Pastorals. He treated faith here as he did in Col 2:7; Philippians 1:27, Eph 4:5, not in any so-called formalized body of received teaching of the later ages, as it has been thought of by those who reject Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. As the said received teaching was linked with other terms like the sound teaching the deposit- a post-apostolic issue when Christianity was thought of as acceptance of an official body of doctrines.

Linguistic problem. That the Pastorals have 175 Hapaxlegomens should not be a reason to reject their Pauline authorship, since differences of subject matter, circumstances, and differences of addressees may be responsible for these new words. It may not be true also to state that the said hapaxes were the current vocabulary of the 2 nd century, for more than half of them are in LXX, which Paul would be aware of, and nearly all of them are found in the known (middle) 1st century Greek literatures.

Philemon Only extreme negative critic doubts the Pauline authorship of the book. Probably composed in connection with Colossians. Tychicus accompanied by Onesimus, took them both to Colossae during Pauls 1st Roman imprisonment. Hebrews Authorship External evidence. The book has parallels with Clements epistle to the Corinthians, he quoted from it freely as he did with other NT epistles. It was excluded from the Marcion canon, but since he rejected continuity of Israel with the church, the book would not have been valued by him anyway.

Ommited from the Muritarian canon which may be due to the corrupt state of the Muritarian text. Pantanenus regarded the book (in the Eastern Church) as Pauline. The same is Clement of Alexandria; origin believed the thoughts were Pauline. He commented that only God knows who wrote the epistle. After origin, the Eastern Church continues to accept the epistle as canonical. It is found in p. 46 appearing among Pauline epistles placed after Romans. (mid- third century AD) In the West, Tertullian attributed it to Barnabas, and Muritarian canon (in the west) omits it. Eusebius, who followed the Eastern tradition, observes that the Western church were disputing (in his time) Pauline authorship of the book and that some were rejecting the book. Thus it was absent in the African canon, Cyprian never mentioned it. Hilary Jerome & Augustine also were influenced by the Eastern ideas. And although they were not convinced that Paul wrote it, yet they freely cited from the epistle. This willingness to cite from the epistles secured its unchallenged position in the canon mus the time of the Reformation. The book has an Alexandrine coloring. Several authors are proposed- Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Apollo, etc, but no conclusion. Audience, inferred evidence supports a Jewish audience. The author made a widespread appeal to the OT, which his readers must have been acquainted with. The superiority of Christ over the angels,

Moses, the Levitical priesthood, and the necessity of Christs suffering for the descendants of Abraham, all made the epistle seem to have a Jewish audience. Also, the citation of the LXX instead of MT would make this epistle focus on the Greek-speaking Jewish audience familiar with LXX. But some have argued for a Gentile audience. Gentiles would be acquainted with the OT when they believed; the LXX was the authoritative also for the Gentile believers; the argument of the epistle may not be more difficult than the Romans Epistle; no mention of Jew-Gentile controversy showed the issue had ceased. Mixed audience has been proposed by some, these were Christians in general, who had become discouraged and needed a challenge to renew their efforts. Purpose. To warn Jewish Christians against apostasy to Judaism. The epistle tried to show the superiority of Christ over the old order. A.Mairne believed that a house community of Jewish Christian intellectuals were being addressed. They were Hellenistic Jews who had received Alexandrine education from birth, they find it hard to give up Judaism. Some believed its a small community o converted Jerusalem priests (Acts 6:7) through Stephens message. This group was strongly tempted to return to their former dignity with temple infidels- But all conjectural. Some said the group was connected with former Gumran sect. The author of Hebrews gives

them a Christian interpretation of the OT to rectify their false method of OT exegesis, and to hope their hope still lies in the future. W. Mansion believed the purpose was to challenge restricted Jewish Christians to embrace the world mission. This churchs danger was not apostasy from Christianity to Judaism, but their failure to embrace the world mission purpose of God. To announce the absolute character of Christianity to merely Gentile culture. As these Gentile Christians were surrounded with many other faiths, the book assured them of the superiority of Christianity over all other religions (E.F. Scott, Moffat, etc). The writer of Hebrews appeals to the OT only to prove the glory of Christianity as it taught a perfect way of worshipBut no indication of any pagan rites, mysteries, tables & cups of demons, etc. To counter an early type of heresyJews Gnoticism or Colosseum heresy. Their apostasy here was understood as forsaking Christianity in preference for incipient Jewish character of the Colosseum- type Gnosticism. This system maintained the mediation of angels & depreciated Christs meditative work, and fended towards asceticism and immorality. Destination. Palestine (by some) Wescott believed the temple was standing when this epistle was written and its author substituted the word tabernacle for temple. And the readers lived within the temples vicinity.

Also some early Patristic word have used Hebrews as a synonym for Jerusalem. An approaching crisis (1:2; 3:13; 10:25; 12:27) was understood as the approaching siege of Jerusalem. Absence of the Jew-Gentile controversy which would not have affected an all-Jewish church. But no author would probably address the Jerusalem church with the 2:3 (phrase) who were directly witnessed to by the Lord Himself. There is the discrepancy between the powerful of the Jerusalem church and their expressed generosity here. The use of LXX instead of the Hebrew text is a problem. The title of their leaders as Rome The epistle was first known in Rome, authoritative before Clement of Rome cites it in 95 AD in his epistle to the Corinthians. The concluding salutation the one from Italy references the Italians away from Rome sending greetings home rather than the ones in Italy sending greetings to others. Timothy was well known in Rome. Description of leaders similar to Clements. Spoliation of goods could reference Claudius edict (49 AD) or Neros persecutions, booth of would be inappropriate.

which affected Roman Christians. Alexandria Its Alexandrine coloring made some suggest the books destination is Alexandria. But early Alexandrian fathers assured the book was sent to the Hebrews of Palestine by Paul. Alexandria ideas were do diffused widely that any Hellenistic world would be suitable on this score. Other places suggested include Colossea, Ephesus, Asiaticeuter, etc. Philo & Hebrews Both have tendency towards allegory, refer the LXX, appeal to Melchizedek as a type, attaching meaning to individuals name, contrast between the earthly and the heavenly, the created & the uncreated, transistory and abiding. Thus many scholars believed that the author of Hebrews had been educated under Philonic influence. But there are marked differences between Philo & author of Hebrews method. Philos was full of allegories when it comes to his approach to OT history and exegesis. All are based on his philosophic presuppositioned ideas. But the author of Hebrew treated the OT text fairly literally. He maintained that Christ has fulfilled the OT levitical cults , a thought alien to Philo.

James First of the Catholic epistles which are generally characterized as lacking indications of a specific address. The misjudgment of the book has allowed it o be overshadowed by more illustrious apostles in the NT, and caused it to be defined as an epistle of straw by Luther.

Authorship Origin cited it as scriptures on numerous occasions. The epistle is however, not in the Muritorian canon (which also did not mention Hebrews nor the Petrine epistles), omitted also in the African canon. In the Syrian canon, Eusebius classed it among the Antilegomena, but cites it as genuine. Traces of the book were found before 200 AD in Clement f Rome, Psuedo-Clement, Didache, Barnabas, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermes, etc. although the similarity may be due to the common Milieu, James and three other texts were indebted. Internal evidence The writer introduced himself simply as James. He must be a well-known James. Two James were popular who would commend such authority. James, the son of Zebedee, but he was murdered by 44 AD by Herod. Second was the Lords brother who became the leader of the Jerusalem church. But others believed this James is Pseudonymous. The author has Jewish background. It has many OT direct quotes and indirect allusions; has many Hebrew idioms behind his Greek and method of expression; the addressees are Diaspora Jews; Lord of Sabaoth would have deeper meaning to the Jews than to the Greeks; mentioned Jewish law on oaths, the unity of God, etc. There are parallels between James and Acts speech of James e.j; ahdskahjkasd Used both in James 1:1 & Acts 15:23; honorably name by which you are called is in Acts 15:17; brethren are in both. These all occur within a short passage attributed to James in James & Acts. Although some

have argued against these phrases, for Luke used his own words. But its ipsissma verba may remain. There are parallels between the teachings of Christ & James. e.j.; against oaths, joy in the midst of trial (Matt 5:10-12), asking for good gifts, against anger, prophet examples, against judging others, etc. James was probably producing reminiscences of Christs teaching which he had heard . NT account of James the Lords brother showed his early unbelief, but were changed by Christs Resurrection appearance to him (1 Cor 15:7). Paul referred to him as one of the esteemed apostles and among the three pillars of the church in Jerusalem (Gal 1:19). He held a commanders position in that church, taking precedence over Peter. He presided over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, and instructed Paul to accept Jews vow in Jerusalem after the end of his third missionary journey. The community appears to belong to the period before the fall of Jerusalem. The oppressors are wealthy land owners who virtually ceased to exist in Judea after the siege of Jerusalem. And it is generally thought that it was the Judean area that the epistle was sent. The facts about the wealth extort of the poor, and living luxuriously on the proceeds were well attested to in the period leading to the siege. No social condition seen in the epistle existed after James period- internal quarreling, wars and fighting were prevailed at this explosive time before the siege. There is no reference to master-slave issue & idolatry, both which would have been inappropriate to a devoted Jewish community.

Against authorship The Greek is too good for a Galilean peasant. But Galilee was known to be bilingual; there were many Greek towns in the district. The Jews were known to be the most literate of the Mediterranean world. LXX translation would be an example of their Greek literacy. James, as leader of the church, would be exposed to majority of the travelers Greek-speaking Jews; debate as a leader & public speaker would have improved his skill. He could also have used amanuensis. Author does not claim to be the Lords brother. he probably refrained from clarifying any advantage due to family ties with Christ. His reference to himself as a servant was far more becoming. Author makes no reference to the Lords death & resurrection which is supposed to have made a big impression on his mind as he wrote. But such reference was not in his Acts letter either. Also the purpose of his letter was ethical. Different conception of the Law. James conception of the Law here was moral, but from Acts, it was both ritual & moral. He was also silent about circumcision. But this epistle was dated before Acts surface of Jews- Gentile controversies; and Acts 21:18, James suggesting vow to Paul was a matter of expediencyto avoid offence to the Jews. Relations to other NT epistles (literary use of other epistles). Some found parallels between some NT epistles & James, and maintained that James must be later than the epistles he cites; e.j. some of the Pauline corpus (Cal, 1 Cor, Rom, etc). one of the issues was

faith/works in James, which would depend on whether Paul corrected James or vice-versa. Was James safeguarding against the perversion of Pauls teaching, or Paul against the perversion of James? Paul was probably acquainted with the perversion of James kind of teaching. Alternative authors Pseudonymous- adaptation to James was a literary devised by the original writer-a teacher of the subapostolic age. But the simplicity of the writer lacks an adequate motive for Psuedoepigraphic work. Anonymous production later attributed to James. but all are guess works, churches would not have accepted epistle merely because it bore an apostolic name. The epistle was by some other James-some later James wrote it. Such a James would have given more specific description. It was originally of Jewish decent later Christianizedbut the epistle is not marked by Jewish distinctive teachings if not a Christian spirit. The meaning of Diaspora It could be Jews, but 1 Pet also used the phrase dispersion, thus it could be metaphorical of Christians as new Israel. Although in Acts 26:7 & Matt 19:28 the twelve tribes phrases would refer to Israelthe Jewish people. Also, this group met in synagogues. This would suggest Christian Jews. Date If written by James, the Lords brother, it must be written before 62 AD, the most likely date for his

martyrdom. Thus a date before or around 50 AD. There was absence to the reference of the fall of Jerusalem; after the siege the landowning Palestinian Jews faded. Absence to Jewish-Gentile controversy author seems unaware of it or intentionally ignores it both seem inconceivable if it were a burning issue. The primitive church character favors an early date, within James lifetime. Relation of the Apostolic fathers to Jamesthe former seems to cite the latter. I Peter Authorship Internal evidence. The book has parallels in Clements Romans epistle. Its traces in Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarpm Iraneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex, Theophilus of Antioch. But the Muritarian omits both epistles of Peter, therefore some have maintained the Roman church by the end of 2nd century does not know the epistle. But the text is corrupted in its state. Objection to Peters authorship. Linguistics & style. The wuthor is well at home with Greek. His vocabulary is extensive & he commands syntax in a even smoother than Pauline epistles. Thus it could not be the Jewish Peter, a Galilean fisherman whose native tongue was Aramaic & low education. His description as asdffafs in Acts 4:13 added weight to this objection.

Historical. The author is writing to a persecuted church, who has suffered reproach for Christ. It is believed that this would be the true Christianity was a crime, when there was an official organized opposition against it at the true or Domitican or Trajan I Post Nero persection during which Peter was martieed. Also Peter would not have writen to th Asiatic churches which naturally comes under Paul. Doctinal. Affirmity between I Peter & Pauline. The epistle is borrowed from Romans & Ephesians. The authors thology akin with Pauls, and must be regarded as a minister of the school of Paulnot Peter, who never has a close connection with Paul, and raged himself against Paul. The epistle lacked originality and nothing un-Pauline in it. Objection to Petrine authorship Linguistic. No one knew his skills even at the time he came up into the scene in the NT as a fisherman. But he could have acquired a great deal more of Greek skill more than 30 years between his first call and the writing of the epistle (He was also bilingual, lived in a bilingual area) in his conversation with the Hellenistic Jews. He could also have use amanuensis. Historical objection. The identification of the persecution the epistle talked about is the issue here. Objectors have based it on general provincial persecution against Christians during the Domitican reign. But the phrase reproach for

Christ may not have be more than the several Christian sufferings from the commencement of the church. In 1 Pet 5:9, it is a type of suffering that was to befall Christians anywhere. They were also not martyrdoms, but reproaches. They were to suffer, nut not for wrongdoing as murderers, thieves, etc. Also Paul could have been dead at the time of this epistle, hence it would be normal for the surviving apostle to send a message of encouragement. Peters reference to himself as a fellow elder would not imply inferior title for as late as Papias elders were used as description for apostles. Doctrinal. Assumption that Peters epistle was an echo of Pauls. But the epistle is definitely different from Pauls justification, law, new Adam, the flesh, etc. Peters can not be systematized into a theological school of thought. Echoes of Christs resurrection in Peters mind can be seen in his Chuests descent to Hades phrase; his frequent citation of OT and moral codes; his church consciousness, etc. Alternatives The Turbingen school regards the epistle as Pseudonymous by Silvernus (von Soden) an unknown Roman teacher (Julicher). An anonymous letter attributed to Peter (Hanack, Streeter) but none of them could produce any textual evidence for such.

Purpose Hortatiruc for ethical injunction. Addresses To the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asian, and Bithynia. Place of unity- Babylon, but many make it symbolic of Rome as John did. Date- Time before Neros reign 62-62AD.

II Peter. Authorship Origen quoted it but Udeo that it was disputed (Per Rutius dEustibius) although seemed widely caninucal at the time. Before Origen Eusebis also claimed that Clement of Alexandria commented on all of the Catholic Epistles (there are similarity of language in Clementss extent works and 2 Peter). The same may be said of Theophilus of Antioch in Cyrian Anstides, Polocarp and Justin Martyr, Iranaemp (who wrote that the day of the Lord is as a thousand years), Ignatius, Hermes, Clement of Rome. But the Muritarion Canon omits it, but its text is incomplete; Eusibius placed it among the antilegomens including James and Jude but he did not class it with his spurious category in which he classified the Apocalypse of Peter. Jerome also recorded doubt about its authenticity although he accepted sit with other Catholic epistles. . Thus the epistle has spare extent evidence for its authenticity, but no evidence showed that it was regarded as a false epistle. Internal Evidence. The author writes his name as Simon Peter, and that the Lord has shown him the approach of this death. He claimed to have been an eye witness of the transfiguration. He referred to Paul as or beloved brother. These examples showed it was Peter.

Against Authorship Personal allusions The above stated that allusions in 1:1 was said to be literary devices of a pseudonyuious writer. Examples were found in Psuedoepigraphies that flourished in the early church period. The addition of the Jewish name Simon to Peter to resemble the Gospels and Acts demonstrated this. Symeon. Reference to the Lords prediction conary Peter is alluded to in John 21:18, which rules out Peters authorship, for this would be a literary dependence on John which was later than Peters II Peter 1:15 looks forward for a publication which would be Marks gospel Reference to transfiguration are said to be forced in 1:16; an attempt to make this author Peter of the transfiguration scene. Reference to the holy mountain belongs to later dates when sacred places were revered. It was also attempted to be made archaic with the reading

Historical problems The references to Pauls letter, and its being placed on the same level as scriptures would represent a time after the apostolic age when the complete corpus is known. Peters admission of his inability to understand Paul is difficult 2 Peters reference to the second letter in 3:1 1 Peter is included to claim definite connection a process common in psuedepigraphic work the phrase in 3:4 since the fathers fell asleep would suggest a second or third generation writer, outside of the apostolic age. Literary The book is said to have borrowed from Jude which would make its date much later then Peters life time. There is also a problem regarding this epistle and the Paul epistle to the same area. Why would Peter write this letter to Pauls providence? Also, could the author of 1 Peter have written this epistle? The first is

full with

citations and allusions while the second ad none of these.

This has been therefore attributed to different minds. Doctoral problem This epistle stresses paron certainty of Christ. The authors use of words like moral excellence for God, and eyewitness, used in Greek mystery religion shows the impact of Hellenism on the author which would not be the Galilean Peter. Such Hellenistic phrases were not frequent in 1 Peter. Case for Petrine authorship. Personal allusions. Psuedepigraphic personal allusions has no parallel with 2 Peter. They normally use first person singular consistently and are later developments. Symon is the achic Hebrew form of this name which occurred only in Acts 15:14. Such a pseudo writer would not have used the primitive Hebrew form, but the more current on Simeon. (if the primitive reading is the correct reading) Reference to Peters death in 2 Peter 1:14 may not have any literary dependence on John 21:18. But Peter could be repeating what he heard. Or could it be current revelation to Peter (older than Johns passage) prior to the turn of the composition to Peter The things that Peter would want his readers to remember would probably be the things he wrote in 2 Peter, not a reference to a composition of Marks gospel Peters way of describing and timing? the transfiguration experience with the prophetic statement makes the context unique. It is not used as personal esothenic. Heroic experience or new revelation of a psuedepgraphic writer Also the transfiguration expression has had no parallel to the gospel account. It rather suggest a independent tradition which would favor Petrine authorship. It has no establishment of psuedeigraphy The reference to the holy mountain may not be late because it is not a reference of holy places but he probably called it holy in a sense of the aphany rather than the cross, resurrection, and

Historical Reference to Pauls letter may not need to imply an existence of authorized Pauline corpus. He must have been aware of some of Pauls letters and must have had a wide circulation for the false teachers to be twisting them Also, Pauls letter might have been placed on the same level with the OT early on. Paul feels he was writing under inspiration and that his letters were authorized to the churches. By 140 AD Marion exalted his apostolic on to the complete detriment of the Old Testament. Psuedepigraphic writer would not have lowered his own reputation by stating he does not understand Pauls letters. Peter candor here would favor the authentic position. there is nothing unnatural about the reference to 1 Peter by 2 Peter 3:1 The false teachers in 2 Peter may not be a reference to Gnostic teachers of te 2nd century. The data of 2 Peter cannot be equal to these false teachers to the 2nd century Gnostic developments Literary Problem one must ascertain the date of Jude before claiming 2 Peters dependence on it. if Jude is earlier than Peter, then Peter could have been influenced by the epistle since he would be writing on the same subject that persisted. But this must not have been the case. 2 Peter could have been written much earlier. borrowing of Jude by 2 Peter. The author of 2 Peter also made allusions and direct quotes on the Old Testament like 1 Peter: from Psalms, Proverbs to Isaiah. This may be a subconscious approach to on mind. Peters hig regard for the prophetic scriptures in 1 Peter 1:10-12 would agree with this assertion of prophetic inspirations in writing the scripture 2 Peter 1:20-21. Stylistic Problem Diversity of subjects matter would affect the style (vocabulary and grammar) of each book. The mood of the author, different amannersies, etc. can all change the style of a writer. No church father mentioned such

Doctrinal Different themes are treated differently and no one author of two books needs to treat the theme the same way in the different books because their purposes may be different. 2 Peter deals with the paranoia differently than 1 Peter. 2 Peter emphasized transfiguration rather than resurrection acensions because he wishes to authenticate his personal knowledge of Christs glory. He is more illuminated in his transfiguration appearance ten the resurrection. But this would not mean a denerated Christology. He is euanbed Savior, Lord, and Master. The epistle does not have the 2nd century Chiliastic interpretations common in the psuedepigraphic work Phrases like religion. Readers They are less specific then 1 Peters, but since 2 Peter 3:1 references to a second letter, that may be the first Peter. Thus it is addressed to the same audience and the first one. the author of 2nd Peter also talked about himself and others having made known the power and the coming of Christ, known to the readers. He had a missionary work with them. Date. Towards the end of Peters life. Before 68 AD. False Teachers Their teachings are imaginative and speculative, etc. could be part of a bilingual language and may not necessarily be attributed to any special philosophical thought of the Helleuetic

1 John Authorship External Evidence Allows one to the epistles are found I Polycarp, Papias, Justi Barnabas, Hermas of Clement of Rome Iraneus John, the Lords disciple, wrote so also Clement of Alexandrian, Tertullian,

Muritorian canor cites it as authoritative?. Internal Evidence

Origen refers to it asa by John. Dinnysius,

distinguished its style and different from the Apocalyspes which he attributed to another author. The writer indicated that he was an eyewitness (1st person plural we of Christ The general impression of the epistle is full of authority. His children (the readers) are not only to hear but also to obey him (5:6). He denounced error and being in a considerable spiritual status expects all other Christians to conform to this same status. The writer is an elderly man who addressed his readers as children. This agrees with John during his late years in Asia. Relationship of joh thoughtful of thought and expression with the fourth gospel. The epistles show much relationship and s

And the same extent endurene that identified the gospel as Johns also identified the epistles as his. The two works are similar thought, style, expression, ideas, and imagry. Example: to have sin, to do the truth, to abide, life, love, eternal life, Christ as Logos. Both have the tendency of repetition, simplicity, Hebric poetical devices of parallelism (antithetical), light & darkness, truth & error, and love & hate. Alternatives John the Elder This is because 2nd and 3rd Johns author addressed himself as the elder. This has been supported by Papias reference to John the elder. But it that John the elder was the author why does he not introduce himself more clearly, for the word elder in those epistles are nameless. But if apostle John, he implied that the readers would easily have recognized him, his authority, and his apostolic claim. A disciple of the evangelist ( C.H. Dodd, Dibelius) and unknown evangelist or a presbyter. Occupation to combat false teaching docetism. The idea of an incarnate deity was rejected. It instead made a distinction between the human of Jesus and the heavenly Christ. The heavenly Christ appears to take the human form. His incarnation was therefore not a reality. Christ did not share in the inherently evil matter. He made no contact with the flesh. Compared wit the 2nd century developed gnostican as formed in the Mag hammadi Library, this espistle would belong to a stage before it. but the Corinthius form might

be in view in this epistle as Polycarp told the story of Johns encounter with him at the baths in Ephesus. These false prophets had belonged to the Christian community but now went out into the world. Purpose is to impact the true knowledge so that the readers for fellowship and possessions of eternal life. Date. 96 AD. The gospels are generally taken to be around 90-95 AD and the epistles have been followed a little later.

2nd John Polycarp had some allusions t it. iranaes knew it and assumed it was Johns Muratorian canon gave endurance to 2 Johnane epistles. This has been ambiguity understood, but generally taken to be 1st & 2nd Johns. Clement of Alexandria knew the one Johnanna epistle. Origen knew of their exsistence. The same is true of Dionysius who mentioned the 2nd and 3rd John as circulatory and attributed their author to John. Eusibuis placed them (2nd and 3rd) as disputed. In Jeromes time, 2nd and 3rd Johns author were attributed to elder John, who was a different author. The Syriac Church celebrated? them by 6th century AD. Internal evidence the epistles own claim is elder. This indicates age and authority of the author which could be that the author is John the apostle. Although it could be true that there existed an elder John tat was confused with apostle John, there is no other solid proof for his existence other than from Papiass ambiguous statement and Dionyrius indication of two tombs of John in Ephesus, but he did not state that John the elder was the writer of 2nd John. Also Iranaeus, who knew Ephesus well and knew Papias works did not say anything about John the Elder. If John the elder existed and wrote the epistles he must have imitated Apostle Johns style to give an impression of Johnanine authorship. But to consider the title Elder as the aged apostle John seems more intelligible. Relationship of 2nd John to other Johnanine epistles show many identical phrases or reminiscent of them. This could either be by one authoer or an imitator.

3rd John Authorship Any external evidence for the 3rd John is not strong until the 3 AD. It is not sure it the Muritarion Canon which mentioned 2 Johanine letters meant 1st & 2nd John or 2nd & 3rd John. The epistle is also similar to 2nd John in some cases. Both stressed truth, and talk of erroneous teachers and hospitality, and authors intentions to visit his recipients But there are also differences.

Jude Authorship External Evidence Traces of Jude are found in the letter of Clement of Rome, Sheperd of Hermes, Polycarp, Barnabas and perhaps in Didache. Polycarps are the most certain. Muritarion Canon mentioned it. Tertullian knew it, Clement of Alexandria; Origen did not question his authority but made mention of some who did. Eusebius of Caesareas list is always disputed? It was not received into the Syriac Canon until a late date. Author introduced himself as Jude the brother of James. This obviously would be James of Jerusalem who was well known. He wished to command himself on the strength of is brothers reputation. Against Authorship Too late for Jude; this epistle must have been written during the second century because Eusibius recorded that Judes grandson appeared before Douitian at 81 AD. But at this time Jude would have been in his seventies, then he could have been the author. Description of heretics and tier connection with quosticion?, the reference to apostles as of an earlier generation, and the fact that faith is now established. Some claimed that the apostles of Verce one is an interpretation and that it should be Jude son of James. But no text. Some would claim this Jude to be the son of James of Luke 6:16, but this will be difficult in the light of the texts phrase brother of James. evidence for such. Noanant reading for in

Arotius treated brother of James as an Episcopal title of the Jerusalem church in the 2nd century. Thus the Jude would be a second century Jude. But no support for such. ones self to the reasonable agle limit of

Date: if Jude, the brother of the Lord, and conf rejected such early ???

70 years or so for Jude, the epistle could not have been later than around 70 AD. But some

v.3 presupposed a period when Christianity has been so firmly established that it has had an orthodox body of doctrine. This would not have been in the first but of later 2nd century. But the phrase common salvation may not belong to any later date than the first. The exhortation to contned for the faith once for all delivered to the saints is also indefinite. Romans 6:17 Apostle Paul wrote concerning the standard of teaching the Roman Church was already commited in The reference to the predictions of the apostles of out Lord Jesus Christ in v.17 implied an apostolic age is past. But since the context was the prediction of false prophets coming into the Church in the future, that prediction was being fulfilled and it motivated Judes work. This does not however need to be 2nd century The false teachers who have crept into the church unawares here may not be 2nd century agnostic, but the in Gnostican of the 1st century. The descriptions of the false teachers have seemed closed to the ones I the pastorals and since ther are good reasons to date the pastorals early the same may be applicable here.

The False teachers They denied Jesus Christ the Master They disregared the restraints of Gods grace They have prefrernces for their dreams rather than Gods revalation through the defiling of the flesh They are devoted to the H/S Irrational like wild animals licentions in unnatural lust

They are arrogant in using their errors for finicial gain? They were probably members of the church, affecting it from within. Whether they were Jewish or Gentile heretic is clear to say. Some have also attributed the group to the 2nd century Gnostics (Carpocatians- a Judes reference as prophetic os this group). But the sect could fit any heresy that promoted immorality.

Destination, because of the quote from the Jewish apocrypha book of Enouch, many scholars maintained that destination could be placed in a Jewish setting.

Revelation Authorship Internal Evidence Several parallels in the Shepherd of Hermes with Revelation. It represented the church as a woman, but the enemy as a beast, fiery locust proceeding from the mouth of the beast, the faithful described in white garments with crowns on their heads etc. Its parallels with Igustius is not much. But its known also by Justin Martyus who attributed the book to John. Melito, the Bishop of Sardis (one of the seven churches), wrote a treatise on the book. It was respected in the Syrian Church for Theophilus of Antioch cites it. iranaeus cited that Apocalypse as by John, a disciple of the Lord, and he mentioned the ancient copies of the book. The Muntorian Canon knows it (which means it circulated in Rome by the end of 2nd century). Tertullian cited it many times and regarded it as Johns. so did Origen. But Marcion rejected it ( he only has preference for Pauline books). Alogi who rejected Johns Logos doctrine also rejected it. Jorome also doubted the book. In the East, Dionysius attacked its Johannine authorship as he compared it with the Gospels of John. His influence had a great deal of impact on the Eastern Chuch. He is Alexandria with a critical mind. He rejected the Apocalpse first on the grounds that the author mentioned is name whereas the author of the Gospels of John did not. It is on this circumstance that he brought in travelers takes of two tombs o John in Ephesus (which could be due to the problem of multiplication of relics in subsequent history, it the tale is true). He also suggested John Maric. On stylistic ground, he held that Revelation dropped key woncs? like life, light, truth, grace and love that compared with the gospel. And finally that its Greek is inaccurate when

compared with the Gospels Greek there was doubt about if at the council of Laodicea (360 AD), and in the Easter Church the Beshutta verson (5 AD) did not include it although its later 6 AD version, the Philoxemen has. Evidence from the book John would clearly be known to the seven Asiatic Churches that he wrote to. The concensus of his name suggest the apostolic John, a man of considerable authority among those Churches. The book also derives from the Jewish apocalyptic literature for it does not ascribe honor to any of the ancient name but to Christ who is also claimed to be the authority Comparison with Johns description in te synoptic John is described as the son of thunder in the Gospels and in the Apocalyse there are various stormy descriptions that would fit this fiery temperament in the way he described he hostile Jews (Rev 2:9; 3:9) the Beast and all four represent : Rome and the image of the harlot, plagues and the judgement which will express the righteousness wrath of God. Revelation with other Johanine books The books use the word Logos for Christ. This occurs only in the Johanine books. The books describe Christ as the Lamb figures involves waters and springs are used; figutively shepherd used for Christ. Both Rev and John contain the fact that the temple would no longer needed to worship God; allusion to mana? There is antithesis contrast between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, power of God and power of the world; and phrases like the revelation.

Against Authorship Linguistic The grammatical usage of the book is different from the Gospel. The author seems unacquainted with Greek grammatical laws. He places nomnatives in appositions. To other cases, use participles irregularly, and constructed broken sentences. He mixed up genders, added unnecessary pronouns, etc. Because of this Westcott maintained an early date for the Apocalypse and a later date for the Gospel during which John improved his Greek of the Apocalypse is not just an inaccurate form such as a learner writes before mastering the law of the language, but rather, its a mixture of correct and incorrect forms which appears to be due to deliberate choices; not accidents, or

ignorance, or carelessness from the author. Zahn proposed that it was a was of his ecstatic experience influenced by OT models. Prophesly in an estatic state so that the writer had less time to polish the final state. Others

proposed an amannent work probably for the Gospel and the Apocalypes is Johns/ Internal indication of non-apostolic authorship The book has no apostolic claims and authority. It believed that such would not have happened if an apostle had written it. but although such happened in Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, it does not need to be for John, whose apostlesip was never questioned. Doctrinal difference n the Apocalypse and Johanne works. Doctrine of God is concerned only with the creationship in the Apocalypse as opposed to His love in the Gospel and epistle. But the two are not naturally exclusive. His power over creation seen in his wrath on the principle of wickedness is also seen in His love to rescue the godly. Christology is presented in the Apocalypse in the form of Christ being the allconquering Messiah who rules the nations with a rod of iron, whereas in the Gospels He is the revealer and the renewer. But no contradiction here. Apocolypse is theme of judgement. His paraclete in the Gospel. But 7 spirits in the Apocalypse, and no regenerating work. Again different emphasis. But here in the Apocalypse. Historical Difficulties Two conflicting traditions for Johns death. The strongest one maintains he lived to a ripe age in Ephesus, while a challenging one affirms he was martyred at the same time with James. But support for the early death is not reliable.