POSTED 07 FEBRUARY, 2008

The Hebrew New Testament Misunderstanding

by J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net

In our post-modern society, the veracity and authority of the Holy Scriptures have come under substantial attack and criticism from those supposedly inside the realm of Biblical faith. Many of those who claim a belief in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and believe in His Son, Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), question whether or not these writings are a Divinely inspired work, or are instead only a collection of texts compiled over the centuries prone to human error. The result of those who question the Creator God, and do not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is that they view the Bible as being only a human work, and subject to extreme human error. The view of higher criticism is that the Bible is a product of man, has been edited by man, and has not been preserved accurately at all.

Some in the Messianic community, whether they realize it or not, have adopted similar views. Whereas the Messianic movement is supposed to be the logical extension of conservative Christian Biblical doctrine and practice, whereby the entire Scriptures—both the Tanach and Apostolic Writings (Old and New Testaments)—are viewed as being Divinely inspired, with the foundation of the Bible being the Torah or Law of Moses and the other writings building on that foundation; instead the veracity of the Scriptures is being challenged. The veracity of the Scriptures is challenged by Messianic Believers claiming that the New Testament is perhaps only “mere commentary” on the Torah, and thus may not be considered as authoritative on spiritual matters as the Tanach is. This is because many in the Messianic movement, including rabbis, pastors, teachers, and laymen, believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew. These people believe that the extant Greek New Testament is but a translation, and sometimes a bad or faulty translation at that. They tell us that we cannot understand the “true meaning” of the Apostolic Scriptures because they are in Greek.

The claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew is something that must be substantiated by those who believe it with historical references, textual support, and most of all extant manuscripts in Hebrew. These references must be credible, the textual claims must be supported within a framework of conservative theology, and the manuscripts must be verified as authentic by organizations such as United Bible Societies or the American Bible Society. Thus far, no one in the Messianic community has been able to prove a written Hebrew origin for the entirety of the New Testament on the basis of these factors. If those who advocate a written Hebrew New Testament that predates and is superior to the Greek New Testament, have done anything, it is that they have discredited the Messianic movement to Christian theologians, pastors, and informed laymen who are sincerely interested in their Hebraic Roots, but are not interested in challenging the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, those who are opposed to the Messianic movement, the Hebraic Roots of the faith, and the message of Torah validity, use this as a legitimate claim against us—because it cannot be supported.

One Christian writer comments, “One of the subtle attacks on the Christian Faith comes from the notion that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in ‘Hebrew.’ This may seem benign at first, but it is not. It is an attack on the reliability of the text of your Bible. If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted by Greeks, as is charged by some, there is no longer a standard of truth. The Protestant cry of ‘Sola Scriptura’ is meaningless unless we have a historically stable and reliable text. Once the New Testament itself is discredited, the rope typing your boat to the dock has been severed, and you are bound to be ‘carried about by every wind of doctrine.’”[1]

This quotation well-summarizes the beliefs of many Christians who encounter Messianics who advocate that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew, and the problem that we have today. Christians see this as a direct assault on their faith, and a direct attack against the inspiration and authority of the Bible. They see this as an attack on the gospel message of salvation, because as of today there are no extant texts of the New Testament written in Hebrew. The concern is that if these Hebrew New Testament manuscripts do not exist, as is believed by some Messianics, then these people will be responsible for leading others away from the Messiah Yeshua—because they advocate that the God of the Universe will only inspire His Divine message in the Hebrew language.

This is a very serious concern that exists for us in the Messianic movement, especially those of us who wish this movement to be one that is theologically credible. Part of being theologically credible is being able to make a viable case concerning what you believe using conservative, scholastic sources, and emphasizing the final authority of Scripture. As a Messianic apologetics ministry, we have defended many areas of our doctrine and lifestyle practice, and we have been able to do so quite adequately and well from the Greek New Testament, coupled with an understanding of ancient history, background data, and employing proper hermeneutics. We have certainly received a substantial amount of inquiry from Christian pastors and laymen who have had to think about what we have said and defended. We also have been taken seriously by such people as well, who have influence over large numbers. Those who advocate an original Hebrew New Testament that cannot be proven to have existed do not hold any influence over these sorts of people.

We have discovered through careful research, examination of Hebrew and Greek linguistic tools, and an objective view of Biblical history, that there is no substantial evidence in favor of the Apostolic Scriptures originally being written in Hebrew. We have discovered that at most, this is an opinion advocated by those who have ideological problems with the Lord inspiring His Word in other languages, and this opinion is then repeated by Messianic lay people whose ability to adequately interpret or understand the Scriptures is often lacking. These people are often uninformed regarding the transmission of the Scriptures, Greek or Hebrew, and are likewise often uninformed regarding the historical setting of the Scriptures, which leads to misinterpretation, if not some gross misinterpretation, on their behalf.

In this report, we will be examining the Hebrew New Testament misunderstanding. We will be addressing the fact that as students of the Bible, who believe in the final authority of Scripture, we have to be well-informed regarding the Hebrew language, the Tanach, the Greek language, the Apostolic Scriptures, ancient Biblical history, textual criticism, and above all consider the theology and spiritual fruit of many of those who claim that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures are uninspired. We must consider the theological credibility of the Messianic movement, and how we can impact those who are in positions of authority in Christendom who are opening up to the restoration message that God is proclaiming in this hour. Most of all, we must understand that God is bigger than all of us, and He is not limited to one language or culture that we may force upon Him. Rather, His Word is the progressive revelation that He has given to His chosen people, and how they are to function in the world testifying to all nations of who He is.

A Lack of Objectivity in the Messianic Movement

As it pertains to the subject of the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures, and whether or not they were written in Hebrew, there is a strong lack of objectivity among many proponents who claim that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek New Testament at best is a translation. In approaching any subject such as the inspiration of, and thus the authority of, the writings of the Apostles, we have to be objective and cannot subjugate the facts into our opinions. We have to look at the available evidence that has been delivered down to us through history, textual criticism of the Bible, and theology, drawing logical and reasonable conclusions. Sadly, very few people, if any, have examined this debate from the pro-Hebrew side without some strong subjective bias. It has even gotten so bad that some advocating a Hebrew New Testament that supersedes our Greek text have accused Christian pastors and laymen as being anti-Semitic and propagators of replacement theology.

One proponent of a Hebrew New Testament says, “As a young Christian man I was taught that Yahshua haMashiach (‘Jesus the Messiah’) came to do away with the Torah of Moshe (Moses), and that He did away with the Jews and Israel as YHWH’s chosen people. I was told that YHWH’s people are now the Greek-speaking gentiles, and that one of the most telling indications of this was that the ‘New Testament’ was originally inspired in Greek, and not in Hebrew. Yet today we know that this is not true.”[2]

What this individual is basically saying is that he believes that the Apostolic Scriptures can only be inspired in Hebrew, because his past experience of believing that they were originally inspired in Greek was rooted in replacement theology. But is this claim justified? Perhaps there are some Christians who advocate that the New Testament was written in Greek because of replacement theology. But not all Christians believe in replacement theology. Many Christians do indeed believe that God’s promises to Israel are still in force, and that He will be faithful to them.

In response to these statements, a Christian theologian and translator of the NET Bible, remarks, “Notice that this fellow’s conclusions are reached without evidence (there are no Hebrew manuscripts of New Testament books, only Greek manuscripts). He uses phrases like, ‘I started thinking about it…something didn’t add up’ and ‘I began to wonder…’ and so on, indicating that all of his theories originated in his own mind…I did not see him quote any respected scholarship.”[3]

This Christian theologian rejects the belief of an originally written Hebrew New Testament not on any basis of replacement theology or anti-Semitism, but on the basis that the individual claiming that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew has no legitimate proof to substantiate his opinion. Our ministry has stated candidly for quite some time that the issue of the inspiration of the Greek New Testament is one of theological credibility for the Messianic movement.[4] Surmising why the individual quoted may be advocating an original Hebrew New Testament, the Christian theologian responds with, “The New Testament gives us many warnings about the Judaisers—those who wish to bring us back under the law, rather than under grace.”[5] This Christian theologian would clearly dismiss the idea that the Torah is still to be followed, especially if this idea is to be found in a theoretical Hebrew New Testament that cannot be proven to exist—even more so if this Hebrew New Testament exists only in a person’s fantasies!

As a Messianic apologetics ministry, we do believe that the Torah is to be followed. But we believe that it is to be followed on the basis of (1) the final authority of Yeshua’s words which tell us that the Torah will not pass away (Matthew 5:17-19), (2) the fact that the Torah tells us that God’s people are to be set-apart and holy by observing His commandments (Deuteronomy 28:9), and (3) that most English translations of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament are translated from some theological presupposition that the Law was done away with. I document in my book The New Testament Validates Torah quite thoroughly that the Greek source text is not the problem—the problem is often with the translation of the Greek into English. Most Messianic teachers who advocate an original Hebrew New Testament have not been trained in the Greek language to be able to prove these things.

But beyond these opinions that some Messianics have thrown before our Christian brethren, who in turn say that these opinions cannot be substantiated with evidence, is the fact that our Christian brothers and sisters can be treated with malice—if not outright hatred—when it comes to the inspiration of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. For some in the Messianic community, the fact that the Greek New Testament exists is viewed as a damning affront to Hebrew or anything Hebraic or Jewish. Some have even insinuated that only Jews would, or could, be used by God to preserve the Scriptures, and only in Hebrew, and that the Almighty would never transmit Scripture using non-Jews.

No born again Believer, even in mainstream Christianity, is going to say that the Jewish people have preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanach or Old Testament, without meticulous detail. No one is going to say that they have not done a good job in preserving these Scriptures. Famed textual critic Caspar René Gregory writes that “If…any one should be inclined…to find fault with the Jews, we must remember that they not only were in the work of ‘canonising’ and of guarding their sacred books in those early times far superior to all other known peoples, but that they at a later date and up to the present have proved themselves to be unsurpassed, unequalled preservers of tradition written and unwritten. The Christian Church owes them in this respect a great debt.”[6] These words, by a Christian theologian, are not anti-Semitic comments in the least.

But as a support for a Hebrew New Testament, to assert that only Jews are those whom God thinks are acceptable in the preservation of the Scriptures, and the Christian Church is incapable of this, is a statement of pride. The Word of God has been given to the whole House of Israel, including those scattered into the nations. The Word of God was written by Jews to be given to those Jews scattered into the nations, who did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic, as well as to the Jews in the Holy Land. The Word of God has been given to those who are truly of the nations, who want to be a part of the Kingdom of God. The Word of God is a gift that our Heavenly Father has given to all of humanity.

Do attitudes like these represent an objective viewpoint when it comes to the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures? Are they representative of a viewpoint that is not tainted by some kind of an agenda? Even more importantly, can these attitudes truly be justified by reputable, scholarly sources that carry any weight in the academic world? These are pertinent questions which loom over this entire debate, that often go unanswered by proponents of a Hebrew New Testament.

But do evangelical Christians hate all things “Hebrew,” as is insinuated by many Hebrew New Testament proponents? Because these Christians believe that the God of Israel inspired the written good news of His Son in the Greek language, is this belief birthed out of a hatred for Judaism and the Jewish people? Some in the Messianic community would actually say yes. One proponent of a Hebrew New Testament comments that his evidence “shows us that ‘Aramaic’ and ‘Greek’ theories were not isolated mistakes or misconceptions, but part of a worldwide, centuries old dejudaization campaign by anti-semites within the Church to make it judenrein, despite the fact that we worship a Jewish God of Israel and the promised Messiah of Israel.”[7]

These thoughts, sadly, summarize a good portion of the Messianic community among those who believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew. Their case is not rooted in an objective, historical quest to search for the “original Scriptures,” but rather in prejudice toward Christianity—a reverse sin in response to Christian anti-Semitism. These types of attitudes, aside from being unacceptable in the Body of Messiah among born again Believers who should be operating in God’s love and compassion, do not prove anything.

Evangelical Christians who are born again, even though they may not be Messianic and see things the way that we see them regarding Torah observance, are not anti-Semitic Hebraicphobes, as may be falsely believed by some. They fully believe that the Hebrew Tanach is the inspired Word of God and that the Jewish people have done an admirable job preserving it. But, they also believe that when Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) came to Earth to die for the sins of all humanity, that when the gospel message was finally written down, it was written down in the language in which the most people could hear it, which in the First Century happened to be Greek. Consider the following quotation from author David L. Thompson in his book Bible Study That Works, relating to the transmission of the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, and then Greek:

“The inspired change from Hebrew to Aramaic and then to Greek in the Bible is similar. The earlier Old Testament books were penned in Hebrew. But as Aramaic became the common language of diplomacy and commerce and finally of daily speech in the Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamian lands (in the period of the exile), biblical books began to appear in Hebrew heavily influenced by Aramaic, with portions actually in Aramaic, the official language of the Persian empire. The books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles especially reflect this adaptation of God to the changing language of the people.

“Finally, by the New Testament era, Greek had become the most widely used tongue of the Biblical world. Given God’s demonstrated commitment to communicate his Word in written form intelligible to the next generation at hand, the result was predictable. No matter that God had inspired ‘holy men of old’ to write in Hebrew and Aramaic—the Word of God would appear in Greek. And not only in Greek, but in koine—the ‘common’ Greek of the marketplace, of legal documents, of personal and business correspondence, and even of the world’s graffiti. Why? So people could read God’s Word in the language of their own day and understand it as readily as any other contemporary documents” (emphasis mine).[8]

The fact, as Thompson notes, that the gospel message when finally written down was written in Greek is not rooted in anti-Semitism, but in the fact that God has always had a plan to spread His Word out to as many people as possible. When Messiah Yeshua came and was crucified and resurrected, the time had arrived for the message of salvation to be spread to the whole world, and in being spread to the whole world this message of spiritual restoration and deliverance needed to be communicated in languages other than Hebrew. It just so happens that historically Greek was the dominant language. Daniel B. Wallace notes, “By the first century CE, Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean region and beyond…the majority of Greek speakers learned it as a second language.”[9] The Apostolic Scriptures being written in Greek reflect this fact, and reflect the ability of God to communicate to the most amount of people as possible as the Apostles went on their missionary journeys throughout the Mediterranean basin. Thankfully, Greek was a standardized language in the Diaspora so the Apostles did not have to learn the many local languages in their missionary journeys. To say that the God of Israel cannot communicate His message in languages other than Hebrew is tantamount to saying that He is not interested in the salvation of the nations. But this is not what the Tanach says.

Isaiah 2:2 attests to the fact that “it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it.” This, and other Scriptures, were used by the Pharisees to justify going outside of the Land of Israel and planting synagogues. The Pharisees, holding to an apocalyptic hope of resurrection and the restoration of Israel, knew that the regathering of all Israel, Judah and the scattered exiles of the Northern Kingdom, and those of all the nations, was required for the Kingdom of God to be established on Earth. These synagogues would be planted in foreign lands to present pagans with the message of the God of Israel. The Pharisees had great success in Greek-speaking areas. The planting of synagogues in these areas and the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek helped pave the way for the spread of the gospel.[10]

Simply because the good news of Yeshua and the accounts of His early followers are in Greek, does not mean that Christians over the centuries have not valued the study of the Hebrew language and Scriptures. On the contrary, many Believers over the centuries have highly valued and encouraged Hebrew language studies. Author Marvin Wilson describes in his book Our Father Abraham that many of the early settlers of colonial America valued Hebraic studies:

“Early American educators are [an] influential segment that placed a strong emphasis upon Old Testament and Hebrew studies. These people were strongly connected to the ‘olive root’ and insisted—in keeping with their Puritan heritage—that Hebrew be center stage in the realm of higher education. A study of the beginnings and curricula of many of the Ivy League colleges in the East is a case in point. Hebrew inscriptions, for example, are found on the insignias or seals of such schools as Columbia and Dartmouth.”[11]

The claim that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew is rooted in rhetoric that cannot be objectively supported. Contrary to belief in parts of today’s Messianic movement, the transcription of the gospel message in Greek has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or disrespect of the Jewish people. It has everything to do with God’s Divine will that as many people as possible in the First Century could hear the good news of His Son and thus come to salvation. There have been statements made against our Christian brethren by some in the Messianic movement that are unacceptable, and shameful for those who are supposed to be mature followers of the Lord. A balanced perspective reveals that there are many Christians who respect and encourage Hebraic studies, and it is most certainly from that perspective that we must objectively analyze the facts as to whether or not the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

What is the “B’rit Chadashah”?

Before we delve into some of the analysis of the Scriptures, and the languages that they were compiled in, it is important for us to address the concept of what the “B’rit Chadashah” actually is. Anyone who has been in the Messianic movement for any period of time will notice that many terms of Hebraic origin are used by Messianic Believers. Most notably, this is apparent with the widescale usage of Yeshua instead of Jesus for the name of the Messiah, and the preference of using the term Torah instead of Law. This may also extend to some character and place names in the Bible that are of Hebrew origin such as using Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), Shlomo (Solomon), Miriam (Mary), and names of New Testament characters such as Mattityahu (Matthew) or Yochanan (John).[12]

One term that is not a proper name, that is quite commonplace to hear in the Messianic movement, is B’rit Chadashah.[13] It is used innocently by most people in the Messianic community, congregational leaders and lay people alike, who simply want to sound “Hebrew” in the terms that they use. Indeed, the glossary of the book Torah Rediscovered for its entry under “Brit Hadasha” simply states, “Literally, ‘New Covenant.’ For use in this book, it refers to the New Testament.”[14]

In the early days of the Messianic movement, its Jewish pioneers wanted to use many terms that would be inoffensive to Jewish people who would be turned off to traditional Christian evangelism. Using terms like Jesus Christ, the Law of Moses, and even the New Testament would not be received well by a Jewish community that had a long-standing history of hostility with the Christian community. Thankfully, in the past several decades, we have seen increasing amounts of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and many hundreds of years of hostility have been put to rest among many Jews and Christians. The term “B’rit Chadashah,” which is so commonplace in today’s Messianic movement, was birthed along with many other terms which are used today as well. However, as it pertains to the subject of the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures, in hindsight the early Messianics made a serious faux paux, which we now have the job of correcting. What do we mean by a faux paux?

One of the first things anyone who enters into the Messianic movement quickly learns is that there is no difference between the Old and New Testaments. Technically speaking, what is commonly called the “Old Testament” is the Tanach ($nt), a composite Hebrew term for Torah (the Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Messianic Believers prefer the term Tanach (or Tanakh) rather than using the term “Old Testament,” because the term “Old Testament” often brings with it thoughts of these Scriptures being old and outdated. If anything, when the term “Old Testament” is used in writing or speaking, it is only done so for the familiarity of others who are unfamiliar with the term Tanach.

In a similar way, there are many people in the Messianic movement who do not prefer to use the term “New Testament,” because it again implies that the “Old Testament” may be old and outdated. But rather than using a neutral term like Tanach to refer to these writings, many Messianics use the term “B’rit Chadashah,” which in Hebrew simply means “New Covenant” or “New Testament,” and the English term “New Testament” is used for those who are unfamiliar with any other term. In actuality, however, the term “B’rit Chadashah” does not really solve our problem of getting beyond the belief of many Christians that these Scriptures replace, or are vastly superior to, the Tanach. In fact, it creates an even new problem that many Messianics are probably not even aware of.

Biblically speaking, it is a misnomer to refer to the Gospels, General Epsitles, Pauline Epistles, and other writings as the “B’rit Chadashah,” because the prophesied b’rit chadashah is not supposed to be any portion of new Scripture, but rather is the promise that the Lord will write His Torah onto the hearts of His people:

“‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people’” (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

The Biblical promise of the b’rit chadashah (hvdx tyrB) is that our Heavenly Father is going to make a covenant with the whole House of Israel, and as a result of that covenant write His Torah onto the hearts of His people via His Spirit so that they might be able to keep it. The author of Hebrews speaks of this covenant or diathēkēn kainēn (diaqhkhn kainhn):

“For finding fault with them, He says, ‘Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Hebrews 8:8-10).

The true b’rit chadashah is the promise that God will write His Torah or Law onto the hearts of His people. When we talk about the b’rit chadashah, this is what we should be referring to, because this is what it is in its correct theological sense.

What we often consider the “New Testament” comprises the Spirit-inspired writings of the First Century Apostles, given by them to testify of the life of Yeshua the Messiah, His teachings and miracles, the acts of the First Century assembly of faith, and specific instructions and admonitions given to the early congregations that were formed in the First Century. These things do not make up a “new covenant” or b’rit chadashah, so to speak. Author Tim Hegg repeats these same thoughts, stating,

“It does no better to call the Apostolic Scriptures the ‘Renewed Covenant’ or ‘B’rit Chadashah’ (hXdx tyrb), as is so common in Messianic circles. The Apostolic Scriptures do not constitute a covenant in any sense. They are the divinely inspired words of Yeshua and His apostles, giving us the ongoing progressive revelation of God to His people. They are the application of Torah to the people of God in the last days as inaugurated by the coming of Messiah, and they constitute the divine halachah for the congregation of Jew and Gentile as envisioned in the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant. They in no way constitute a ‘new’ or ‘different’ or even ‘renewed’ covenant. They are simply the progressive revelation of the covenants which were given to the Fathers.”[15]

Hegg’s comments in this regard, and his writings which are respected in the conservative Messianic community, have influenced many, including myself, to use appropriate neutral terms such as Apostolic Scriptures, Apostolic Writings, Messianic Scriptures, or Messianic Writings, to refer to what most call the “New Testament.”

How does this relate to the subject matter at hand, and what language in which these writings were originally composed?

Many people on the side of believing that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew will ask the question: “Was the B’rit Chadashah originally written in Hebrew?” This is a manipulative question for unsuspecting audiences. It is a manipulative question because (1) the true b’rit chadashah is the promise of a New Covenant given by God to His people, that He will write the Torah onto their hearts, and (2) to call the Apostolic Scriptures the “B’rit Chadashah” to an uninformed audience is to presuppose that there is a Hebrew original, thus proving that one is not completely objective. Be cautious of anyone who asks this question, because he is relying on his audience’s ignorance of Biblical history and of transmission of the Scriptures to get you to think that the Apostolic Writings were originally written in Hebrew, which as you will see in our analysis, cannot be proven at all.

I do not believe that it was with any malicious intent that the early Messianic movement wanted to use the term “B’rit Chadashah” for the Apostolic Scriptures. They simply wanted a viable, alternative Hebrew term to use instead of “New Testament,” and often did not want to bring the inspiration of the Greek Scriptures into dispute. However, in many circles this is exactly what has happened, and that is why in this analysis, or in any of our ministry materials, you will not see us use the term “B’rit Chadashah” to refer to the Messianic Scriptures.

Can God inspire His Word in other languages?

One of the severe claims that is often made against the inspiration of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures is that our Heavenly Father is simply incapable of inspiring His message in any language but Hebrew. Proponents of a Hebrew New Testament often say that the God of Israel would only inspire the good news of His Son in Hebrew, and thus any Greek text at best is a translation, and at worst is a product of those who hate the Jewish people. But this is not the message of the Bible. Israel was chosen by the Lord to be His special nation who would proclaim who He was as the Creator God to the entire world. Israel would keep God’s Torah or His Law and be blessed by Him, and the nations were to see their being blessed so that they might inquire after Israel’s God. The Psalmist declares, “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the Lord's and He rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:27-28). The God of Israel has always had a worldwide agenda of saving mankind—not one that is exclusively limited to Israel. By necessity, going out into the world and testifying of who He is requires that one speak languages other than Hebrew.

If we look at the world from God’s perspective, it is absolutely true that the Lord chose Israel to be His set-apart people. The people of Ancient Israel spoke Hebrew as their native tongue, and God communicated His message to them in Hebrew. Two-thirds of the entire Bible, the Tanach, was written in Hebrew (with parts in Aramaic) because these Scriptures were compiled for Ancient Israel as a nation. Hebrew is a wonderful, beautiful, intimate language that brought Ancient Israel close to God through prayers, hymns, and songs. However, the God of the Universe is not constrained to any preference or demand of human men who would say that He can only communicate to His people, of all nations, in Hebrew. In Genesis 11:7, it is God Himself who confounds the languages of men:

“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech.”

Genesis 11:6 explains why God confused the languages of humanity: “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.” God was concerned about the united front against Him because everyone spoke the same language. He confused everyone and scattered everyone so that mankind could not make a concentrated effort against Him.

Even though Hebrew is the written language of almost two-thirds of our Bible, and God certainly inspired the message of the Tanach in Hebrew, our Heavenly Father as Sovereign Creator is the One who confused the languages, and is thus the Originator of them as well. God created the language of the Apostolic Scriptures, Greek, every bit as much as He created Hebrew. God created the English language and other modern languages of today, every bit as much as He created Hebrew. Does God have a linguistic preference? Or is God more concerned about the salvation of human beings of all nations? Have men—in their personal biases and prejudices—taught that God can only inspire His message in Hebrew?

To say that the God of Creation can only inspire His message in Hebrew is to say that God is monolingual and cannot communicate to us in other languages. What it does more than anything else is that it reflects on the fallen nature of man and our trying to make God into what we want Him to be, as opposed to letting God be God and recognizing that He is all-powerful and His might supersedes human language and even culture. Can God in His infinite power inspire the good news of salvation in a language other than Hebrew? That is the ideological question that has to be answered by many in the Messianic community today. Too many, unfortunately, will answer it incorrectly.

The idea that Hebrew has a place in the economy of God that is superior to all other languages is often based on Zephaniah 3:9: “For then I will give to the peoples purified lips, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him shoulder to shoulder.” This text appears in an apocalyptic narrative describing God’s judgment over Cush and the fact that He will give the nations “a pure language” (ATS) or safah beruah (hrWrb hpf) with which to praise Him. A typical Orthodox Jewish interpretation of this passage is that what is being spoken of here is the Hebrew language. The ArtScroll Tanach commentary reflects this, noting, “They will no longer speak of idols (Radak). Alternatively, they will speak Hebrew, the pure and holy tongue (Ibn Ezra).”[16] This viewpoint is partially rooted in the Talmud:

“It was stated: If they are written in Targum or in any [other] language,—R. Huna said: They must not be saved from a fire; while R. Hisda ruled: They may be saved from a fire. On the view that it is permissible to read them, all agree that they must be saved. They differ only according to the view that they may not be read. R. Huna says: We may not save [them], since they may not be read. R. Hisda says: We must save [them], because of the disgrace to Holy Writings. We learnt: ALL SACRED WRITINGS MAY BE SAVED FROM THE FIRE, WHETHER WE READ THEM OR NOT, and even if they are written in any language. Surely WHETHER WE READ THEM refers to the Prophets, whilst OR NOT refers to the Writings, AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, though they may not be read [publicly], yet he [the Tanna] teaches that they MAY BE SAVED, which refutes R. Huna?—R. Huna can answer you: Is that logical? Consider the second clause: THEY MUST BE HIDDEN: seeing that they must be saved, need hiding be mentioned? But R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view, while R. Hisda explains it according to his. R. Huna explains it in accordance with his view. WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.] the Prophets; OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings. That is only if they are written in the Holy Tongue [Hebrew], but if they are written in any [other] language, we may not save them, yet even so they must be hidden. R. Hisda explains it according to his view: WHETHER WE READ THEM, [i.e.,] the Prophets, OR NOT, [i.e.,] the Writings; EVEN IF THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ANY LANGUAGE, we must still save them. And this is what he states: And [even] their worm-eaten [material] MUST BE HIDDEN” (b.Shabbat 115a).[17]

This excerpt from the canon of extra-Biblical Jewish law explains what texts were to be saved from a fire. You see the differing points of view of how some Rabbis believed that any holy texts, in whatever language, were to be spared, whereas other Rabbis believed that only texts in Hebrew should be given priority to being spared. The Jewish belief that Hebrew is the holy tongue is largely tied up in an identity of various (Orthodox) Jews of believing themselves to be God’s chosen people, and thus everything about them, including their language, has been made sacred by God. Certainly, the Jewish people as the remnant of Israel are chosen of God, but they do not make up all of the Commonwealth of Israel, which is to include all nations. Likewise, could some of Rabbis of Judaism be wrong in referring to Hebrew as the “holy tongue”? In their quest to be the leaders of the “chosen people,” could referring to Hebrew as the “holy tongue” be a sense of false pride? These are not statements that are trying to demean the Hebrew language or Hebraic studies, but has Hebrew been given a place by some Rabbis that it was never intended to have?

Biblically speaking, while Hebrew is the written language of the Tanach or Old Testament, it is not given the title of the “holy language” by God Himself. Many go to the extent of not only saying that God would only communicate to mankind in Hebrew, but that He and the angels only speak Hebrew, and in some cases that the Almighty will only answer prayers that are spoken to Him in Hebrew. This is not the example that we see in Scripture. The Apostle Paul describes his being taken up into Paradise in a vision, writing the Corinthians that he “heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (2 Corinthians 12:4). He very clearly “heard unutterable sayings” (YLT), but does he identify them being spoken in the Hebrew language, which he clearly understood and had the Messiah speak to him in (Acts 26:14)? No. The language of Heaven is far beyond human comprehension.

Of course, the problem with strongly asserting that Hebrew is the “pure language” is that all other languages are impure or “dirty.” By stating that the Creator God can only inspire His message in the Hebrew language, this means that anything written in a different language cannot be inspired by Him. For those who believe that Hebrew is the “pure language,” it means that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures cannot possibly be inspired of God. C.J. Koster, author of Come Out of Her, My People, summarizes these thoughts quite well, by stating,

“[W]e firmly believe and accept the entire message contained in the Greek text of the Messianic Scriptures (‘New Testament’), since it is the only complete reliable record we presently have of the time Messiah walked this earth and period immediately following it, the time of the apostles. We firmly believe that the Messianic Scriptures were inspired in Hebrew, at least most of them, but these documents no longer exist. The Greek text can only be a translation of these original Hebrew Messianic Scriptures.”[18]

This opinion stated is not supported by any historical evidence as to where the original “Hebrew Messianic Scriptures” went. In fact, this same author is forced to say “the original Hebrew Messianic Scriptures...were possibly destroyed in those early days by anti-Jewish gentiles, or else set aside or decayed, for they were probably written on papyrus which is a perishable substance.”[19] If this is the extent of his historical evidence, then at least half of his case has no viable basis, because not only would such texts need to be scholastically proven to have existed, the question of why God in His infinite wisdom would allow them to be destroyed likewise must be answered. Basically saying, “We are unfortunately stuck with the Greek,” is not a sufficient answer. Either God can inspire His message in the Greek language or He cannot. It is as simple as that.

Some are of the opinion that the Greek language is a pagan language, and thus our Creator is incapable of inspiring the good news of His Son in Greek, basing it on Exodus 23:13:

“Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.”

Koster argues, “The Set-apart Spirit, inspiring all Scripture, would most certainly not have transgressed the Law of Yahuweh by ‘inspiring’ the Messianic Scriptures in a language riddled with the names of Greek deities and freely using the names of these deities in the text, no way!”[20]

This value judgment is based on an interpretation of Exodus 23:13 which has several faults. The first is assuming that Exodus 23:13 is a prohibition against simply speaking the names of gods other than the Holy One of Israel. This would mean that in the Torah when God speaks the name Molech (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2, 3, 4, 5), that God Himself has broken His own Law. Following this reasoning through to its logical end, because God Himself has violated the Torah, then the Torah cannot be treated as inspired Scripture because there are names of foreign deities in the Hebrew text. Obviously, this is flawed reasoning and we are not prepared to cast aside the Torah.

Second, what are we to do about the title Elohim (~yhla), used frequently to refer to Him in the Hebrew Scriptures? El (la), the singular form of Elohim, “is a very ancient Semitic term. It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language, except Ethiopic” (TWOT).[21] Elohim as a Semitic term is used to refer to YHWH, but was also used to refer to pagan gods in pagan societies outside that of Israel. Because of this, do we suddenly throw out the Tanach because He is referred to by a title that the pagans also referred to their deities as? Not at all.

We will certainly not deny the fact that the Greek language has words in it that can also refer to Greek gods. However, when saying that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures cannot be inspired because of this, and not holding the Tanach to the same standard—looking for names of pagan gods in it as well that were used among the cultures of the Ancient Near East contemporary to Israel—reveals a definite bias and a severe lack of faith on the part of our Creator to inspire His Word in other languages. A proper interpretation of Exodus 23:13 relates to how we are not to “invoke the names of other gods” (NIV), meaning praise, worship, or pray to them. If it means that we cannot say the names of other deities, in a factual sense, then God Himself has broken His own Word because even He has said the names of pagan deities.

It is our firm position that the God of Israel, being all-powerful and omniscient, can inspire His message for mankind in whatever language He wants. Israel, being His chosen nation, does have a unique identity among the nations, but in order to be a light to the whole world, it is necessary and required to speak in other tongues. Sadly, Messianics today who advocate a Hebrew New Testament often fall into the trap of believing that only Hebrew is the accepted language of communing with God. But their god is often one who is mono-lingual, only able to speak in one language, and sadly not interested in the salvation of the world which speaks many other tongues. Their god is an impotent being and is not the God of the Scriptures.

The Transmission of the Hebrew Tanach (Old Testament)

It is imperative that before we begin our specific analysis of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures that we have some background knowledge in the beliefs and opinions regarding the transmission of the Hebrew Tanach. The reason that it is important that we do this is because it is widely believed in the Messianic movement that the Hebrew Scriptures have remained perfectly preserved for us, especially with the Torah as Moses was given it at Mount Sinai. It is widely believed that since that time to the present, the Hebrew Tanach has remained perfectly preserved and intact, while in contrast, perhaps, the Greek Scriptures are nothing more than an amalgamation of manuscripts and manuscript fragments that have not been perfectly preserved or agree with one another. Suffice it to say, to believe that the Hebrew Tanach has remained perfectly preserved and intact, while the Greek Scriptures are nothing more than a proverbial mess, is not examining this with a fair scale.

If you have been exposed to textual criticism of the Bible, which involves not only dating manuscripts, but also dating when documents were composed, who their original author or authors were, where the documents were composed, and various literary factors, then you should know that the further we go back in time, the less and less we know about the composition of a Biblical text. While it is not uncommon for those espousing a so-called “Hebrew New Testament” to criticize the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, if the truth be known we cannot conclude—at least with accuracy—some things about the composition of the Hebrew Tanach itself. We do not entirely know, for example, who compiled the prophecies of Isaiah or Ezekiel. While we accept these writings as canonical, the Prophets certainly did not sit down and write out their prophecies in the form of a narrative. We do not know who wrote Judges, although we can probably assume that Israel’s historians wrote it—but who were they? When it comes to the Torah itself, the author of Genesis never identifies himself. While the authorship is attributed to Moses via tradition, Moses does not say that He wrote it.

While this article is not intended to discuss the subject of textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, it is nevertheless important that you know a few things about the composition of the Tanach. First of all, even though the Hebrew Scriptures have been eloquently observed by the Jewish scribes or soferim—it is exactly that—they have been preserved in a relatively homogenous and closed environment, whereas the Greek Scriptures have not. Secondly, to assume that the Hebrew Scriptures are without error or variance is simply not true. Emanuel Tov, textual critic at Hebrew University and author of the book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, writes that “all editions of the Hebrew Bible, which actually are editions of M, go back to different medieval manuscripts of that tradition, or combinations of such manuscripts…there does not exist any one edition which agrees in all of its details with another, except for photographically reproduced editions based on the same electronic (computer encoded) text.”[22] If we cannot understand the fact that the current Hebrew text used in the Jewish community today originates from the Middle Ages, then we are bound to make some major mistakes.

This is not to say that this is a major problem. Tov is keen to note, “It should be remembered that the number of differences between the various editions is very small. Moreover, all of them concern minimal, often minute details of the text, and most affect the meaning of the text in only a very limited way.”[23] In spite of there being some differences in the Hebrew texts of the Scriptures, most of them are minute and do not affect one’s theology in any major ways. The same is actually true of the Greek texts of Scripture as well, as most of the textual variants deal with spelling or grammar, and a scribe wanting to add words like Christos or Kurios to a text, where only Iēsous (Jesus/Yeshua) is used.[24] Where variants do crop up in the Hebrew text, it is necessary for us to consult ancient translations like the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the canonical Scriptures of Hellenistic Jewry, or the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). While most Jewish Bible versions today only employ the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) for its English translation, Christian Bibles, on the other hand, do consider the witnesses of the LXX, DSS, Latin Vulgate, and other ancient versions in their English translations.

Many in the Messianic community are unaware of the fact that the Hebrew text used for the Tanach today is largely Medieval in origin. In fact, even fewer are aware of the fact that prior to the Babylonian exile of the Southern Kingdom, the Hebrew alphabet used was nothing like the block script that was used after the exile, and consequently also today. Tov indicates, “Originally, the biblical books were written in the ‘early’ Hebrew script which developed from proto-Canaanite script in the tenth or ninth centuries B.C.E….At some stage during the Second Temple period, a gradual transition occurred from the Hebrew to the Aramaic script, from which a script developed which is exclusive to the Jews and which could thus be called the ‘Jewish script’ (thus many scholars) or the ‘square script’ (according to the form of the letters). However, in many ancient texts (e.g., b. Sanh. 21b) it is called the ‘Assyrian script’ due to the fact that its ancestor, the Aramaic script, was in use in the Assyrian Empire. According to Talmudic tradition this script was introduced by Ezra.”[25]

The Talmud attests that during the time of Ezra the Jewish people began using the present Hebrew alphabet that is generally the same that we see used in Biblical documents today:

“Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashshurith script and Aramaic language. [Finally], they selected for Israel the Ashshurith script and Hebrew language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the hedyototh” (b.Sanhedrin 21b).[26]

Sometime during the time of Ezra, the more “final” Hebrew text that was used during the time of Yeshua was compiled. Prior to the Babylonian exile, Hebrew texts were composed in a different script that is commonly referred to as “paleo-Hebrew” or the “Phoenician script” or the “Canaanite script.” After this time, the Assyrian script, also commonly called the “Babylonian script” or “block script,” was used. Ezra and his cohort of priests and scribes got the final “edit,” if you will, on the authorized Hebrew Scriptures after the exile.

This begs many questions that often go unaddressed in the Messianic community, but frequent discussions among conservative Jewish and Christian theologians with liberal Jewish and Christian theologians. These questions often regard the authorship of the Torah or Pentateuch, and whether or not a single author put it together, or it was composed by multiple authors over many different centuries. To give you an idea about the wide variance of beliefs among theologians, on the extreme Right there are fundamentalist ultra-Orthodox and Chassidic Jews who believe that Moses wrote every single letter, if not every “jot and tittle” of the Torah. On the extreme Left there are liberal Jews and Christians who believe that Moses would have been uneducated and incapable of writing any of the Torah—that is, if Moses even existed. In the middle are conservative theologians who believe that the bulk of the Torah is Mosaic in origin, but that there have been some authoritative additions made since Mount Sinai. This is the position that our ministry holds to. Let us briefly review the two major positions that are adhered to surrounding the Torah’s composition.

There are two points of view which are often espoused relating to the written origins of the Torah. Among fundamentalist Jews and Christians, it is believed that the written Torah that exists, Genesis-Deuteronomy, was entirely written by Moses himself, and has been preserved perfectly since the Ancient Israelites were in the wilderness. The exact opposite of this is that the Torah was compiled after the Babylonian exile, by the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources that had their own version of Israel’s religion. This theory, commonly called JEDP, advocates that Moses did not write the Torah, but rather these writings are attributed to Moses and that the Torah as it exists today is entirely a product of the post-Babylonian exile and compiling these sources together. The majority in the Messianic movement believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah, whereas most in liberal Judaism and Christianity believe that Moses did not write it.

For the most part, we believe that Moses wrote or compiled the first five books of Scripture, the Chumash or Pentateuch, himself. There are parenthetical phrases that were likely written at another date. Genesis 14:14 is a glaring example of this, however, appearing very early in the text, where Abraham pursues Lot’s kidnappers “as far as Dan.” This appears long before the Israelites enter into the Promised Land and ascribed geographical place names to where they settled. Some would say that since Moses was a prophet, he prophesied this into being. But that is doubtful given the fact that this is a place name, not an event, and is in no way given as a prophecy. This was obviously a textual addition added at a later date to clarify for readers where Abraham actually pursued. It does not subtract from the value of the text, nor the event that takes place.

Another example is Numbers 12:3, which says, “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.” In the NASB and NIV translations, the text actually appears in parenthesis ( ). Truly, if Moses did live as the most humble man on the face of the Earth, at least at the time of writing this, then Moses’ being so humble would have prevented himself from ever having written this. This likewise appears to be a textual addition to the Torah at a later date. In a similar vein, the final chapter of Deuteronomy details the death of Moses and how the Lord buried him. This is something that Moses could not have written about in such detail, but it does not immediately mean that it was written centuries later as liberal critics of the Bible often claim. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics notes,

“Such scholars as R.D. Wilson, Merill Unger, Douglas Young, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and R.K. Harrison easily accept that the final chapter of Deuteronomy was likely appended by Joshua or someone else in Moses’ inner circle. This, in fact, supports the view of the continuity of the writing prophets, a theory that each successor prophet writes the last chapter of his predecessor’s book. The addition of a chapter on Moses’ funeral by another prophet is in accordance with the custom of the day in no sense takes away from the belief that Moses was the author of everything up to that final chapter.”[27]

There have been parenthetical additions to the Hebrew text of the Torah since the time of Moses. This does not subtract from the value of the text, the events that took place, and certainly not the message of the text. It also does not mean that Moses did not write or oversee the composition of the vast majority of the Torah, but it is to say that the Torah is not exclusively Mosaic in origin. This is the standard conservative theological view regarding the Torah’s authorship, as attested by ISBE:

“Very few, if any, modern conservative scholars see the Pentateuch as a composition whose every word, oral and written, came from Moses. Such a position is hardly viable based upon the inner-biblical witnesses (e.g., Genesis, post-Mosaica) or upon ancient Near Eastern concepts of authorship…The pentateuchal issues to a great extent do center upon Moses, but his ‘authorship’ activity must be correctly defined…According to what we know about ancient Near Eastern literary composition, Moses could have written much of the material himself, but just as likely could have dictated much of it to scribes or he could have supervised the compositional process as numerous hands utilized various materials.”[28]

We do not believe that Moses wrote that he was the humblest man on Earth, or about his own death. These were statements added by either someone in his inner circle, perhaps one of the seventy elders, or Joshua who succeeded him.

With all of this understood, we believe that God in His sovereignty directed the Jewish scribes or soferim to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures to the best of their ability. But to say that they have preserved it 100% accurately would be to say that human beings cannot make any mistakes. Furthermore, it is notable that one of the significant reasons why we do not see substantial variances among Hebrew texts of the Tanach, versus Greek texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, is because the scrolls of Scripture were considered to be as “living beings” to members of the Jewish community. When Biblical documents and parchments decayed, they were often given a funeral, like any person, and buried. Because of this, older Torah scrolls and Biblical texts in Hebrew are no longer extant. This is sizably different than what would happen in Christian circles, where decaying Biblical texts would simply be deposited in a library or archive and kept for posterity.

One of the significant reasons why we do not see great variance among the Jewish sources of the Tanach is because older texts were buried and placed out of circulation. That is why the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 was so significant. And, while there is much continuity between the DSS and MT, there are major differences in them as well. In our examination of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures, we urge that you not to fall into the trap of believing that the Hebrew Tanach has been perfectly preserved. There are differences among Hebrew texts, and there have been changes to the Torah since the time of Moses. However, it is sad to report that while many Messianics are eager to tear apart the Greek Scriptures, most of the same are unwilling to lift a finger in at least questioning the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, when it comes to the composition of the Hebrew Tanach, there are too many questions that today’s Messianic community, at least at present, is unable or unprepared to answer.

The Importance of the Septuagint

One factor that is extremely important in our examination of the Tanach, that is often not given consideration in today’s Messianic theology, is the usage of the Greek Septuagint. What we call the Septuagint (LXX) today was the canonical Scripture of the Jewish synagogues in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. According to tradition, its seventy-two Jewish translators translated the Torah into Greek in seventy-two days. The number was later rounded off to seventy, and is often identified in theological works by the Roman numerals LXX for seventy. Shortly thereafter, other books of the Hebrew canon were translated and complete forms of the text were likely circulating before the time of the Maccabees (Second Century B.C.E.). The Septuagint quickly became the primary Scriptures of Hellenistic Judaism, and was widely responsible for presenting Greeks and Romans the message of the God of Israel. It was used immensely for creating proselytes, and formed the backbone of a Jewish style of Greek that was influenced heavily by Hebrew diction. While the written language of the LXX was Greek, the understandings of the various words and concepts were undeniably Hebraic. The Septuagint is widely acclaimed as being the first true Bible translation, and it clarifies many of the unclear or imprecise words and terms in the Hebrew Bible. The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period notes, “In the mid-first century C.E., Philo stressed its divine inspiration.”[29] Of course, whether or not it is truly “inspired” remains debated, but it nevertheless cannot be overlooked as “unimportant” as it reflects theological viewpoints and opinions present among the Judaisms of the First Century.

The importance of the Septuagint for Messianic Biblical Studies today has been clouded by much of the anti-Greek rhetoric present in the Messianic movement. Some are keen to say things along the lines of, “It is better for a Jew to eat pig than speak Greek.” While this statement may reflect some Jewish opinions of ancient times, it is sectarian and only reflective of a small part of the First Century Judaisms. In spite of what some people in the Messianic movement today would like to believe, the majority of the First Century Jewish community was not living in Israel and speaking Hebrew as their first language. Many lived in Greek-speaking lands and still maintained a high degree of Torah observance and Jewishness.

F.F. Bruce writes in his book New Testament History that there were major Jewish communities established “from the territories of the ‘Parthians and Medes and Elamites’ in the east to Rome in the west, with Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Crete, Arabia, Egypt and Cyrene receiving special mention between these limits.”[30] While some of these Jewish communities, notably in the East, had been remnants from the Babylonian Diaspora, many others were birthed out of Jewish merchants moving to these areas for economic opportunities, as well as the incessant Pharisaical drive to establish synagogues that could make proselytes out of the nations. The bulk of Diaspora Jewry that we get a glimpse of in the Apostolic Scriptures is Hellenistic Jewry, primarily constrained to the Eastern Mediterranean basin with centers in Northern Egypt, Asia Minor, Corinth, and Rome. In fact, the Roman Jewish community was quite large, as Bruce indicates,

“[T]he Jews had established diplomatic relations [with Rome] in the days of Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish colony there was greatly augmented after Pompey’s conquest of Judaea in 63 B.C., and by 59 B.C., according to Cicero, it formed an influential element in Roman society. It is estimated that by the beginning of the Christian era the Jews of Rome numbered between 40,000 and 60,000.”[31]

The Jewish position on the Greek language of this period was substantially different than the position of various Messianics today, as it was the principal language of commerce and trade, as most Jews in these lands were merchants. The Mishnah indicates that the sacred Scriptures were authorized to be written in Greek by the Rabbinical authorities:

“There is no difference between sacred scrolls and phylacteries and mezuzot except that sacred scrolls may be written in any alphabet [‘language’], while phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in square [‘Assyrian’] letters. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, ‘Also: in the case of sacred scrolls: they have been permitted to be written only in Greek’” (m.Megillah 1:8).[32]

The gemara on this in the Talmud reflects this same position:

“But is it not written, and they shall be? I must say therefore, ‘Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in Greek’. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna forbade it! What I must say therefore is, ‘Our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek’. And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’. This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master. God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him” (b.Megillah 9b).[33]

This records how the Torah was originally translated into Greek, and how the Jewish Rabbis of the Third-Second Centuries B.C.E. authorized it. Later in the same period, other texts of the Hebrew Bible were translated into Greek. The Jewish philosopher Philo attests that there was a celebration to commemorate the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and that the translation was done with honorable intentions:

“And there is a very evident proof of this; for if Chaldaens were to learn the Greek language, and if Greeks were to learn Chaldaen, and if each were to meet with those scriptures in both languages, namely, the Chaldaic and the translated version, they would admire and reverence them both as sisters, or rather as one and the same both in their facts and in their language; considering these translators not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted it their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses.

“On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh” (On the Life of Moses 2.41).[34]

When it was originally produced, the Septuagint was hailed as being a great work, blessed by God Himself. There was a day of great rejoicing and assembly held for its production, as many of the nations would now be able to hear about the God of Israel. Biblical history bears out the fact that the Septuagint was used in the Jewish synagogues of the Diaspora, and it is quoted many, many times by the Apostolic writers and certainly carried some major authority for them. This is something that is often not considered by some Messianic expositors, a few of whom have concluded that the Apostles sometimes misquote the Hebrew Scriptures. This is largely because they fail to consider the fact that the Apostles often quote from the Greek Septuagint, which is not a literal word-for-word translation of the Hebrew Bible, and includes many distinct interpretations of messianic texts, and other texts or issues, sprinkled throughout.

Some Jewish animosity toward Greek is reflected in the Talmud, but comes later in succeeding generations after the destruction of the Second Temple. The following quote reflects back on the events of the Maccabees, and how the Jewish people in Israel later began to use Greek to communicate with their neighbors around them. The following is an historical attestation regarding how Greek philosophy and language were studied by those of the Rabbinical school of Gamaliel, the same school that the Apostle Paul would have attended:

“Our Rabbis taught: When the kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another, Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within. Each day they used to let down denarii in a basket, and haul up for them [animals for] the continual offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek, saying: ‘As long as they carry on the Temple-service, they will never surrender to you’…For Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek! And R. Joseph said: Why use the Syrian language in Babylon? Either use the holy tongue or Persian!—The Greek language and Greek wisdom are distinct. But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, What means that which is written: Mine eye affecteth my soul, because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand pupils in my father's house; five hundred studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained only I here and the son of my father's brother in Assia!—It was different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they had close associations with the Government; for it has been taught: To trim the hair in front is of the ways of the Amorites; but they permitted Abtilus b. Reuben to trim his hair in front because he had close associations with the Government. Similarly they permitted the household of Rabban Gamaliel to study Greek wisdom because they had close associations with the Government” (b.Sotah 9b).[35]

Here, we see an historical attestation that the Rabbinical school of Gamaliel not only trained Rabbis in the Scriptures and proper hermeneutics, but also trained them in Greek language and philosophy. The reason for this was very clearly that these Rabbis often had close dealings with the Roman government and authorities, and it is not improbable to conclude that these Rabbis were also sent out on teaching missions beyond the Land of Israel. This is the school that Paul attended as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and is a strong indicator that Paul would have learned Greek as a foreign language in school, not just picking it up through interaction on the street. The Jewish position on Greek in the First Century was much different than the position of many Messianics today. The Jews used Greek as a language of business, commerce, and diplomacy.

Even the viewpoints of many Orthodox Jews today regarding the Greek language is much more progressive than that of their counterparts in the Messianic community. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, in his book America’s Real War, records a short story about how eager his father was to use the Greek that he learned as a student when traveling to Athens:

“I recall how, when as a young lad I first traveled to Greece with my father, he signed his name on the official entry permit at Athens Airport. The official became irate. It turned out that my dad was so excited to finally put to some practical use the schoolboy Greek he had studied decades earlier that he had signed his name and completed the questionnaire in the language of Homer in The Illiad and The Odyseey. This meant absolutely nothing to the mid-twentieth-century Athenian we encountered at the airport.”[36]

Both Rabbi Lapin and his father were raised in England, and were subjected as young boys to both a traditional Orthodox as well as a classical British education. Receiving a classical education, they would have been exposed to the Greek language (and likely Latin as well) and ancient literary works. For Lapin’s father, learning Greek and using it is no different than anyone today who has studied a foreign language such as Spanish, French, or German, and is eager to use a few phrases on a native speaker. The Lapins may be an exception, though, as Twenty-First Century America largely does not train its students in any of the classical works, be they Greek or Jewish, as those interested must often study them at the collegiate level. Many of the Messianics who largely criticize the Greek language and the Septuagint, have not been exposed to it, and thus cannot reflect an objective point of view when encountering it in theology.

Some teachers in today’s Messianic community are responsible for perpetuating the myth that the Greek language was not part of the Jewish culture of First Century. It was. It was just as much a part of First Century Jewish culture as Yiddish was of Central European Jewry in the Middle Ages and up until today. It is absolutely true that the Diaspora Jews did have some distinct differences from Jews living in the Land of Israel, but the same can be said today as Israeli Jews and American Jews and Jews in other countries all have major differences. Jews in English-speaking countries are more apt to use a Tanach in English as their primary Scriptures, just as Jews living in the Mediterranean Diaspora were more likely to use the Septuagint. We have to treat the First Century in a similar way to how we understand Twenty-First Century Jewry.

The Transmission of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures

Of all of the documents of antiquity, there is none is so great as the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. Over 5,000 manuscripts, codices, and manuscript fragments exist of the Greek New Testament (compared to about 600 for the works of Homer). These give an overwhelming testimony to the gospel message and the life of our Messiah Yeshua, and the fact that it was eagerly copied by men and women being spiritually transformed, and that the message was spread out. The oldest of these texts date from the mid-Second Century. Advocates of an original “Hebrew New Testament” are often not even aware of the overwhelming manuscript evidence in favor of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Greek. And when it comes to their position of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Hebrew, not a single manuscript or manuscript fragment exists from the early centuries of the faith in Hebrew. Some in the Messianic movement have claimed that God showed them visions that the “Hebrew New Testament” documents will be “discovered” in a cave in Jerusalem, but this is not proof. At the very least it is a mental manifestation of what one wants to believe, and at the most is self-delusion.

Advocates of the Apostolic Scriptures being written in Hebrew will often claim that while there are many texts of the Greek Scriptures, they do not all agree, and there are many scribal errors in them when compared to the Hebrew texts of the Tanach. It is frequently argued that these can only be but translations, accounting for the many variations that exist. This point of view demonstrates a severe lack of information when it comes to the transmission of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. While Torah scrolls are often copied by one Jewish scribe or sofer copying from another text, the Greek Apostolic Scriptures were copied much differently. First of all, the Apostolic Scriptures were not copied in a closed, relatively homogeneous Jewish community like the Tanach. Some New Testament documents were clearly copied hurriedly, either because the Roman authorities were out to prosecute those who held them, or the members of the faith community wanted to get the message out quickly to others. Secondly, when we do see mass production of the Apostolic Scriptures, we often see the same techniques used that were employed to copy other ancient books, literature, important letters, and news reports. One person would read from a master text, and then several scribes—or perhaps even a room of thirty or more scribes—would write down what he heard. This inevitably led to there being variance in some documents. D.A. Carson describes how most variances in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures came into being:

“Unintentional errors are those in which the scribe had no intention of changing anything. He simply made a mistake. If he was copying a manuscript as a professional scribe, writing down what the reader read out to him and to those working with him, he might hear something incorrectly and therefore make a mistake….After the professional scribes had finished transcribing all the readers had read out, a trained corrector read over what the scribe had written and made corrections. Often, therefore, the reading of the first corrector of a manuscript (often in a different color of ink) is correct. But the corrector might miss some mistakes; and he might even introduce some new ones….Other kinds of unintentional errors are common if the scribe is copying a manuscript by himself; that is, if, instead of listening to a reader, he is using his own eyes to read the parent manuscript. Certain Greek letters in uncial form are readily confused. A very common error is caused by homoeoteleuton, a similar ending of lines or words: a scribe copies what he sees, but when his eyes return to the parent manuscript he accidentally leaves out a bit because his eyes skip down to a place where the same or a similar ending occurs. Alternatively, for an analogous error, he might unthinkingly copy out the same expression or line twice, because his eyes have skipped back up the page. Another common error involves the transposition of words or expressions. Probably this error arises when the scribe retains a whole clause or verse in his memory as he writes it down; and his memory betrays him. It may further betray him by prompting him to substitute a favored synonym for some particular word.”[37]

This, of course, is just a brief description of how many of the variants that exist in the Greek Apostolic Scriptures came into being. You have to put yourself back into ancient times and how the emerging Christian Church wanted the gospel message to go forth. The documents copied were copied meticulously, but human error inevitably crept in. Most of the variants we see among these ancient texts are in the form of spelling, words added, or clauses unnecessarily repeated, and errors that would take place by anyone copying himself, or in a room with others. The ancients did not have computers where they could easily remove letters or words or sentences with the stroke of a few keys. Papyrus or paper was at a premium, and the copyists had to make do with the means at their disposal.

The difference between the preservation of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures and the Hebrew Tanach is that the Christian Church today is readily honest about the fact that there are some manuscript differences that exist, whereas many (but certainly not all) in the (Orthodox) Synagogue believe that the Hebrew Scriptures have been “preserved perfectly” (and this errant idea has subsequently passed into much of the [fundamentalist] Messianic community). Monasteries, depositories, and libraries all throughout the Christian world have ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments from the early centuries of the faith, that are employed in determining what the original reading of a text was. The modern-day study of textual criticism came about largely because of renewed contact with the lands of the Bible and antiquity via European imperialism. The same techniques that take manuscripts and manuscript fragments of Homer, Plato, or Aristotle—of which we have considerably fewer, and much greater variance—are used in examining Biblical documents and their counterparts, in scientifically determining what the original reading of a text was.

Critical editions of the Greek New Testament have been in production ever since the King James Bible was translated in 1611.[38] The British scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort helped pioneer textual criticism in the Greek Scriptures in the late Nineteenth Century. Most of our modern English Bible versions (RSV, NASB, NEB, NIV, REB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, etc.) are translated from a critical Greek text that goes back to a Westcott and Hort edition published in the late 1800s. (I have had the privilege myself of handling an edition from 1892.) Today, the two major editions that exist are the Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (1998), and the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (1979). The text of these editions is identical, but they differ in their explanatory notes, which go into the differences among variants of the Greek Scriptures and other ancient versions. A required companion with either of these two publications is Bruce M. Metzger’s work A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, which explains some of the potential theological reasons why variants among texts exist.

Suffice it to say, almost all of those who advocate an original “Hebrew New Testament” are unaquantined with how and why variants in the Greek Scriptures exist, and the modern discipline of textual criticism. They may fail to even understand the fact that textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures likewise exists, and there are critical editions of the Tanach such as the Biblia Hebraica (1939) and the updated Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1979), which are used for most modern English Bible versions, including Jewish ones like the NJPS. Jewish scholars sit on the same committees that critique the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the explanatory notes for these editions indicate where variants exist among Hebrew texts, ancient translations like the Septuagint or Vulgate, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew Scriptures have not been “preserved perfectly.” There is variance.

Suffice it to say, the study of textual criticism is very complicated and beyond the scope of most Christian pastors, and certainly beyond the scope of most (if not all) Messianic rabbis and teachers, myself included. It is, nevertheless, an important area of Biblical study. What is ironic, of course, is that some teachers, by a sensationalistic personality—or making statements that have absolutely no factual basis to them—can easily discount the composition of the Apostolic Scriptures in Greek. While it is very true that more differences exist among the Greek Apostolic Scriptures than the Hebrew Tanach, we also have a wider array of texts from which to survey. Hebrew texts of the Bible that were old or decaying were often buried. Certainly, if we had some of these texts today, we might see a greater variance among Hebrew texts of the Bible. We do, in fact, have a wider variance when we consider the witnesses of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. But perhaps God does not want it that way with the Hebrew Scriptures, because He is testing the hearts and minds of people today in the Messianic community. He wants to see what they will do with the message of His Son being composed in Greek.[39]

The Ramifications of the New Testament Being Written in Hebrew

There are some serious historical factors working against advocates of a so-called “Hebrew New Testament” that many either do not take into consideration, choose to ignore, or choose not to report to those hearing their teachings. One of the major misunderstandings circulating, as already discussed, is thinking that all Jews in the First Century lived in the Land of Israel and spoke Hebrew. This is absolutely not true. While it is true that many Jews did indeed live in Israel, and spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic as their primary language, the latter being a Semitic relative of Hebrew, we cannot separate the province of Judea from the Roman Empire it was part of. Likewise, we cannot forget the fact that many more Jews were living in the Diaspora and were Greek speaking. These Jews are often identified in the Apostolic Scriptures as being “Hellenists” (Grk. sing. Hellēnistēs, Ellhnisthß). F.F. Bruce describes them in greater detail, and how many of them became followers of Yeshua:

“This division between Hebrews and Hellenists was primarily linguistic and cultural, but probably it had theological implications too. The Hebrews were evidently Jews who habitually spoke Aramaic, whose homeland was Palestine (or any other area where Aramaic-speaking Jews lived). The Hellenists, on the other hand, were Jews who spoke Greek…Many of them would belong to the Greek-speaking Diaspora, even if they resided in Palestine for longer or shorter periods; but Palestine had its native Greek-speaking Jews. If we ask when and how so many of these Hellenists were enrolled as disciples of Jesus, we may find the answer in Luke’s narrative of the day of Pentecost, according to which Jews of the Diaspora formed a large, if not the main, part of Peter’s audience.”[40]

No honest theologian is going to argue the fact that Yeshua the Messiah spoke Hebrew and Aramaic in His daily affairs. No honest theologian is going to argue the fact that He primarily spoke these languages when He gave His teachings recorded in the Gospels. However, we cannot automatically make broad assumptions such as Yeshua only speaking Hebrew when addressing individuals, or even groups of people. It simply does not align with history and what we know about First Century Judea. There are instances in the Gospels, such as when He encounters the Roman centurion or the Syro-Phoenician woman, where He would have spoken Greek. Caspar René Gregory comments to this end,

“It is perfectly true that Jesus and His disciples without doubt commonly spoke Aramaic, an Aramaic that had come down from the North, though I consider it as possibly that He and they also understood and spoke more or less Greek, seeing that the tiny province in which the Jews prevailed was so closely surrounded by and permeated by Greeks. The words of Jesus, therefore, which the Gospels have preserved for us are, aside from a few cases, words that have been translated from the Aramaic into Greek.”[41]

These comments, as should be expected, lead many in the Messianic community to conclude that the Greek of the Gospels does not accurately reflect the “true sayings” of Yeshua. But before making hasty judgments, there are several factors that are not often considered. First of all, the Gospels were not composed during the Earthly life of Yeshua. The events were not “written down” as they occurred. Secondly, the target audiences of the Gospels were in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. And third, we have to remember that a thoroughly Jewish style of Greek existed with the production of the Septuagint. The same kind of grammar and sentence construction that we see in the Gospels mirrors much of that of the LXX. (These topics are elaborated in much greater detail later.) Furthermore, to assume that Yeshua exclusively spoke Hebrew or Aramaic in His recorded interactions simply is not true. Yeshua certainly did not speak to Pontius Pilate in Hebrew.

One of the major claims that Hebrew New Testament advocates make is that the Apostolic Scriptures, particularly the Gospels, are full of First Century Hebrew idioms. It is claimed that these idioms cannot be accurately translated, and thus they reflect that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. Many Christian scholars agree that there are colloquial expressions or Hebraisms unique to the First Century present in the Gospels. These include terms like “good eye” or “bad eye” and what they meant to their Jewish audience. However, many Hebrew New Testament advocates will say that these terms and expressions are unknown to the world of Christian scholasticism, and that God has perhaps only revealed these things—the so-called “Truth”—to “them.” This is likewise false. One almost universally recognized Hebraism among theologians appears in Matthew 16:19, where Yeshua speaks about “binding” and “loosing”:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

This expression actually has its own entry under “Binding and Loosing” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD). Raymond F. Collins states the following, reflecting a strong grasp on the unique Jewish character of this phrase:

“Matthew introduces ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in his gospel without further explanation, thereby suggesting that the practice to which these expression refer was known to his community. Since Josephus writes of the Pharisees’ power to loose and bind (luein kai desmein; JW 1 § 111), it is likely that the primary interpretive analogue is to be sought within contemporary rabbinic practice. Within Matthew’s community the Scriptures were midrashically interpreted (e.g., Matt 1:22) and appropriate halakah was established (e.g., Matt 5:21-48). Thus it is probable that the practice to which the Matthean ‘binding and loosing’ refers is the interpretation of the Scriptures and the determination of an appropriate Christian way of life.”[42]

Of course, in order to properly understand what is written in Matthew’s Gospel as “bind” (Grk. deō, dew) and “loose” (Grk. luō, luw), one must be familiar with First Century Jewish history. Josephus, specifically referenced here, writes about the reign of Alexandra, a queen who ruled over the Jewish people several generations before Yeshua, and her involvement with the Pharisees:

“Now, Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor little by little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs; they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure” (Wars of the Jews V.1.111).[43]

Interestingly enough, William Whiston, translator of this edition of Jospehus’ works, indicates in a footnote that “Here we have the oldest and most authentic Jewish exposition of binding and loosing, for punishing or absolving men; not for declaring actions lawful or unlawful, as some more modern Jews and Christians vainly pretend,”[44] referencing Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not here is unimportant. What is important is that he identifies it as an Hebraism that is used in later works, namely the Gospel of Matthew.

In the Greek text of Matthew, this phrase was obviously written literally as “binding and loosing,” and would have been understood by Matthew’s target audience as relating to determining the halachah or religious orthopraxy of a community. The only way that this phrase can be possibly understood—that is if one is unfamiliar with the terminology “binding and loosing”—is knowing the history behind it. Translation into any language will simply not help.

There are many more widely recognized Hebraisms in the Gospels by Christian scholars today, and are discussed in many technical commentaries of Biblical books. However, simply because there are Hebraisms in the Gospels or the Apostolic Scriptures does not prove that they were written in Hebrew. It proves that they have an Hebraic background, and that one must be familiar with the history of Biblical times in examining the text. Likewise, some things that appear to be Hebraisms may not be. R. Timothy McLay explains, “what might be explained as a Semitism in the NT, whether an Aramaism or a Hebraism, might just as easily be due to the prior influence of the Greek Jewish Scriptures on the style and language of the writer (Septuagintism).”[45] He further states, “An appreciation for the ways in which the LXX translators rendered the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language is also necessary for our exegesis of the NT because of the NT writers’ use of the Scriptures.”[46] This only further exemplifies the need for Messianic Bible teachers and students to be familiar with the Septuagint.

David Allan Black adds to this, “it is possible that the New Testament writers incorporated oral or written sources that were translations of Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek that contained Semitisms in proportion to the literalness of the translation. Thus, it would be surprising if speakers whose linguistic background was Semitic did not betray some Semitic influence in their use of Greek.”[47] Of course, the principal Hebrew and Aramaic resources employed by the Apostolic writers were the Tanach Scriptures.[48]

In determining whether or not something is truly an Hebraism in the Gospels, we must consider a broad base of information, including similar expressions used in the Hebrew Bible, First Century Rabbinic literature, as well as credible scholastic support. In the vast majority of cases, advocates of a Hebrew New Testament do not consider these things. And, in many cases, we could legitimately accuse some Hebrew New Testament advocates of manufacturing idioms that have no substantial basis either in the text, history, respected academic opinion, and possibly even fact. Such is the case we discovered with the text of Luke 22:60-62, and Yeshua’s words to Peter about a “rooster crowing”:

“But Peter said, ‘Man, I do not know what you are talking about.’ Immediately, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will deny Me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.”

The claim that this is an Hebraism is presented on the following basis. One Hebrew New Testament advocate states, “The ‘rooster’ or ‘cock’ that Peter and Yeshua heard was not a bird at all, but a man. That man was a priest at the Temple. He was the one who had the responsibility of unlocking the Temple doors each and every morning before dawn….The priest in question was known as the Temple Crier, and he was called the Gever in Hebrew, which means ‘cock’ or ‘rooster.’”[49] The problem is not suggesting the possibility that this could be an Hebraism, and the Gospel writers are relying on their audience to know that a “rooster” or “cock” could be the Temple Crier; the problem is with the assumption that this is “is [a] mistranslation of the original text,” being an example of “A common problem that exists in our English bibles,”[50] thus this one expression requires the Gospels to have been written in Hebrew. Furthermore, consider the poor external evidence that is provided for this being an Hebraism:

“[C]hickens were not allowed in Jerusalem during Temple times. The reason for this prohibition was because chickens are very dirty birds and they have the obnoxious habit of finding their way into places where they do not belong. Therefore, to assure that chickens could not gain access to the Temple and desecrate the Holy Place or, worse yet, the Holy of Holies, the Priests simply forbid [sic] everyone in Jerusalem from having chickens.”[51]

The problem with making the assumption that “a rooster crowing” is really a priest in the Temple—and not “a rooster crowing”—thus the Greek Scriptures are in gross error, should be obvious. First, if the “rooster” or “cock” is a valid reference to the Temple crier, we cannot assume that a Jewish person reading alektōr (alektwr) instead of gever (rbG) would not have known this. Secondly, to assume that this is a priest, and not a chicken—as chickens were supposedly not allowed in Jerusalem—is to assume that chickens outside the city of Jerusalem cannot be heard audibly when they crow. And third, and perhaps most important, no academic opinions surrounding the validity of this being an “Hebraism” are offered. We are led to believe—based on only scant evidence—that the Greek Apostolic Scriptures are saturated with errors such as these.

In my opinion, these are all the classic cases of a manufactured Hebraism—one that is no Hebraism at all and has been totally made up. If this be the case about one seemingly insignificant reference about a “rooster” or “chicken” in the Gospels, then what will some of these Hebrew New Testament advocates do to other, more important Scriptures? Can we suddenly not trust the Gospels for the basic facts contained therein? Will we suddenly start hearing that when Yeshua is eating a meal in a person’s house it really means something else? What about Yeshua healing someone or delivering a person from demons? This may sound extreme, but this is how far it could go when we dismantle the validity of the Greek source text behind the Apostolic Scriptures. What other basic facts are on the chopping block? The Messianic movement cannot afford to be accused of “radically reinterpreting” the Bible.

What about the Aramaic Peshitta?

One growing trend in some sectors of the Messianic community is not proposing that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, but instead Aramaic. Aramaic is a Semitic relative to Hebrew and was a local language of the Land of Israel during the time of Yeshua. It is historically accurate that an Aramaic version of the Apostolic Scriptures was in existence in the early centuries of the emerging Christian Church. But arguing for an original Aramaic version of the Apostolic Scriptures is not the same as arguing for an original Hebrew version. While the Aramaic language is related to Hebrew, it is nevertheless not Hebrew. Arguing for an original “Aramaic New Testament”—as far as we are concerned—is totally different than arguing for an original “Hebrew New Testament.” Nevertheless, similar rhetoric is advocated by Aramaic New Testament advocates as it is from Hebrew New Testament advocates. One advocate of an original Aramaic New Testament, revealing a severe lack of objectivity, states,

“I…could not understand how Elohim could reveal half of His Word in the holy tongue of Hebrew and the other half in the language of Greek paganism and the Romans, who burned Jerusalem to the ground.”[52]

What is ironic about this statement is the fact that while Greek is assumed to be the pagan language of those who destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple, Aramaic was used by the pagan Assyrians who carried away the Northern Kingdom, and the pagan Babylonians who destroyed Jerusalem and the First Temple. Aramaic was “an international language of diplomacy in the latter days of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and the dispersal of Aramaic-speaking peoples from Egypt to Lower Mesopotamia as a result of the Assyrian policies of deportation” (ABD).[53] To somehow assume that the Greek language is “totally pagan” and that Aramaic is “just as pure as Hebrew” is totally confounded. Aramaic was used by pagans every bit as much as Greek. Again, the question always comes down to ideology and whether or not the God of Israel is capable of inspiring His Word in other languages. I believe God is capable of inspiring His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Parts of the Tanach were written in Aramaic, including sections of Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1&2 Chronicles. As ABD notes, “Late biblical Hebrew and rabbinic Hebrew were heavenly influenced by Aramaic in both grammar and vocabulary.”[54] Aramaic or a hybrid Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in much of First Century Galilee, and as one neared Jerusalem the propensity to speak a more consistent Hebrew would rise. Many people in the province of Syria also spoke Aramaic or Syriac as their primary language, and were evangelized and received the gospel in great numbers. The History of the World Christian Movement indicates that “Syriac became the language of choice among Christians in eastern Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and eventually India, Mongolia, and China. Late in the first or early in the second century, a Syriac version of Old Testament texts began to appear in the form of a rough translation or paraphrase known as the Peshitta.”[55] Later, the complete version of the Aramaic Bible, including (most of) the Apostolic Scriptures, began being known by this name.

While many people who spoke Aramaic or Syriac as their primary language did come to faith in Yeshua, too much is made by Aramaic New Testament advocates by thinking that the Syrian Christians were somehow “Jewish,” and especially “Torah observant.” We need to understand that “Culturally the Christians appear to have shared much with their Jewish neighbors, but theologically they sought to distinguish themselves.”[56] There were many ethnic similarities between the Syrian Christians and the Jews, but that is where it ends. The Syrian Orthodox Church is identical in many ways to the Greek Orthodox Church, including the veneration of icons and the Virgin Mary. In November 2004 I had the opportunity to visit what was believed to be the home of John Mark in Jerusalem. This “home” was little more than a concrete basement, but built on top of it was a Syrian Orthodox Church. The nun guiding us through the tour talked about “Aramaic the language of Jesus…and the great virgin who heals cancer” all in the same sentence. In this church was an icon of the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus that is believed—by that Church—to have been painted by Luke the Evangelist. Do not make the mistake of believing that this is a “Jewish style of church.” Simply because they use an Aramaic New Testament does not make them Torah observant. This place seemed more “Catholic” to me than a Roman Catholic Church!

On the contrary to what many advocates of an original Aramaic New Testament may advocate, or what new believers in their theories may believe, the Aramaic Peshitta is well-known to textual critics of the Bible. Preceding the Peshitta New Testament was the production of a work called the Diatessaron, produced by Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr. This work was a harmony of the four Gospels produced in Aramaic. As it is described in History of the World Christian Movement,

“Tatian’s most lasting contribution to the Christian movement came not through his school…but in the form of this harmony of the gospels in Syriac….Known as the Diatessaron (Greek for ‘From Four’), it was for at least two hundred years the preferred edition for many Syrian churches and theologians. Tatian’s project sought to present the message of Jesus in Syriac, not Greek, to its readers.”[57]

If the Diatessaron had to be produced to present Aramaic speakers with the gospel message, it indicates that there was no previous New Testament Scripture in Aramaic, discounting a written Aramaic origin for the Apostolic Writings. In fact, there is ample evidence that indicates the Diatessaron was originally a Greek work, later translated into Syriac. Bruce M. Metzger notes in his book The Early Versions of the New Testament, “In support of a Greek origin is (a) its Greek title, by which it was known even in Syriac; (b) the silence of Eusebius, who, though mentioning the Diatessaron, says nothing of its composition in Syriac; and (c) the circumstance of the very considerable influence that it exerted on the text of the Gospels of the West.”[58]

The Peshitta New Testament was produced rather late when compared to other early versions of the Apostolic Scriptures, and actually dates from the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E. All major textual scholars today recognize the Peshitta as a translation from the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. While the Peshitta is an important translation, there are too many time-sensitive additions to the text that are not borne out in older versions of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. Metzger indicates, “toward the close of the fourth or at the beginning of the fifth century, a version of twenty-two books of the New Testament was available in a translation which came to be called at a later date the Peshitta Syriac version.”[59] He goes on to record that “In its official form it includes twenty-two books of the New Testament, the four minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse being absent.”[60] Any acceptance of the Peshitta New Testament as being primary to the Greek Apostolic Scriptures discounts these texts as being inspired Scripture. Are we prepared to rip out 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, and Revelation from our Bibles? We should be if the Peshitta New Testament is primary to the Greek Apostolic Scriptures.

Much is often made by Aramaic New Testament advocates of the fact that the books of the Apostolic Scriptures are ordered differently than they are in other Bibles. The major difference among the Peshitta texts is that the General Epistles, in the Peshitta canon only being the letters of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, are placed before the Pauline Epistles. Messianics who believe in Aramaic primacy often cry foul play about “scrambling the Scriptures.” But what is important to note is that the placement of all of the General Epistles (James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2,&3 John, and Jude) before the Pauline Epistles appears in almost all ancient Greek codices. The order that is employed in most Bibles today follows that of the Fourth Century Latin Vulgate, which does place the Pauline Epistles before the General Epistles. However, in the words of textual critic Caspar René Gregory, it is important that we return to the original order of the New Testament books:

“The order in which we place the books of the New Testament is not a matter of indifference. Every Christian should be familiar with these books, and should know precisely where to find each book. Every New Testament should have the books in precisely the same order, the order of the Greek Church, which in this case is of right the guardian of this ancient literature. The proper order is, I think: First, the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Second, the Book of Acts. Third, the Catholic [meaning “general”] Epistles: James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and Jude. Fourth, the Epistles of Paul: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians, Hebrews, First and Second Timothy, Titus and Philemon. And fifth, the book of Revelation.”[61]

In this quotation, Gregory attests that “the order of the Greek Church” is the order that we should probably be using for the books of the Apostolic Scriptures. Westcott and Hort’s original critical edition Greek New Testament used this order, actually placing the Epistle of James right after the Book of Acts, and so forth. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is exclusively the order of the Aramaic Peshitta, as some may want you to believe.

The Aramaic New Testament advocates have arguments that are widely discounted among those of the academic community, and that do not historically align like the Hebrew New Testament arguments. Many will make arguments on the basis of various Aramaisms, but like Hebraisms these must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and have strong parallel support in contemporary literature and scholastic opinion. Of course, it is very important to understand that the Peshitta is consulted by many scholars of the Bible, as it is one of the earliest New Testament translations. If anyone consults a critical commentary on the Scriptures, the Peshitta is most certainly referred to, and it is employed frequently in textual criticism. But it is not the only text employed in textual criticism, nor it is treated as being superior to the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. As Metzger finally notes for us, the Peshitta New Testament text resembles that of the Greek Textus Receptus, the same text used for the KJV:

“It has been frequently stated that the type of text represented by the Peshitta is what Hort designated the Syrian text and Ropes the Antiochian—a form of text which also appears in the writings of John Chrysostom and which eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus Receptus.”[62]

The Textus Receptus is actually one of the youngest editions of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures that we have. In fact, there are statements that appear in the Textus Receptus that do not appear in the older versions extant. A notable one for us to consider as Messianics is Acts 15:24:

“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.”

The statement “Be circumcised and keep the Law” (LITV) does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Apostolic Scriptures that our at our disposal. Newer translations of the Apostolic Scriptures, based on older Greek manuscripts, will read “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls” (NASU).

The phrase humōn legontes peritemnesthai kai tērein ton nomon (umwn legonteß peritemnesqai kai threin ton nomon) is omitted from the oldest extant Greek texts. United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition indicates that this phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175,[63] which dates from the Tenth Century C.E.[64] The phrase tērein ton nomon (threin ton nomon) or “keep the Law” first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius.[65] In its list of the Greek Church Fathers, Amphilochius is listed as having died “after 394,” and the Apostolic Constitutions are dated “about 380.”[66] Metzger remarks in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament that “The expansion, which, though absent…is probably part of the original Western text, appears to be an addition derived from verses 1 and 5 and inserted here in order to specify in what particulars the Judaizers had sought to trouble the Antiochan Christians. The interpolation passed into the Textus Receptus.”[67]

The phrase “keep the Law” was added to the text of Acts 15:24 by the Fourth Century C.E., at the same time that Roman Catholicism was getting its start. The last thing that this new religious establishment wanted was for its members to be following the Torah or Law of Moses. By the Tenth Century, “be circumcised” had been added to the text as well. Thankfully, due to textual criticism, that is the science of examining and comparing ancient Biblical texts and translations of texts to determine the original reading of them, we have discovered that “be circumcised and keep the Law” was not in the original reading of Acts 15:24.

This phrase, “You must be circumcised and keep the Law” (Lamsa), or “you must be circumcised and observe the Torah” (HRV), does appear in the Aramaic Peshitta version of Acts 15:24. In our opinion, this is internal theological evidence that the Aramaic Peshitta is a translation of the Greek New Testament, and is not primary to the Greek New Testament like a few in the Messianic movement believe. There are many other phrases like this that consistently prove that the Aramaic Peshitta is a translation of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures. The Peshitta is recognized by many scholars as a tool to use in textual criticism, but nevertheless it is secondary to our extant Greek texts.

The Required Book-by-Book Analysis

In examining the origin of the Apostolic Scriptures, there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration that are often never discussed by proponents of an original “Hebrew New Testament.” Can we prove on a book-by-book basis that the whole of the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew? While there may be a substantial amount of rhetoric that brazenly assumes “The B’rit Chadahsah was written in Hebrew!” floating around the Messianic community, is it borne out in the historical record? One advocate of an original “Hebrew New Testament” confidently states,

“Many Biblical scholars now agree that many of the New Testament books were originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek. This means that our English copies of the New Testament are really translations of translations…”[68]

Of course, to a critical person such as myself, I would have to ask “What books?” and “Which scholars?” to the person who made the assertion This advocate of a “Hebrew New Testament” provides no such evidence, and has likely not done any book-by-book analysis of the Apostolic Scriptures to see if such an assessment is truly valid. On the contrary to what anyone advocating a Hebrew New Testament might believe, the majority of the scholastic community—especially those involved in Jewish New Testament studies—does not believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew. At the very most, what is advocated is that the Apostolic writers incorporated Hebrew and Aramaic sources into their Greek compositions. The foremost of these sources was the Hebrew Tanach. Another possible source was Q, an abbreviation for the German word Quelle or “source.” This is a theoretical Hebrew or Aramaic document that was believed to have existed and had a basic compilation of some of the original sayings of Yeshua the Messiah.

As a conservative Messianic ministry, we have had to field the question “Do you believe the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew?” many, many times. Each time we have been asked this question we have answered a resounding “no.” The principal reason we believe this has not necessarily been because we believe that God can inspire His Word in languages other than Hebrew—even though that is an important reason—but because it is not historically valid. We primarily believe this because we have examined the composition data of each book of the Apostolic Scriptures to determine whether or not an individual text could have been written in Hebrew. Every time we have examined a text, a written Greek origin seems inevitable. This is not to say that Hebrew sources or Hebraic understandings are not employed in a text, but the written language of a text cannot be Hebrew.

There are four critical factors that must be considered when examining the origin of the Apostolic Scriptures, to determine in what language a text was written:

Date: When was the text written?
Author: Who was the author of the text?
Author’s location: Where was the author when composing the text?
Audience and audience’s location: Who was the target or recipient audience of a text? Where were they geographically located?

We have never been able to find anyone in the Messianic movement advocating a “Hebrew New Testament” examine texts of the Apostolic Scriptures on these ever-critical, historical factors. The reason we have likely never seen this is that these factors will prove time and time again that the written language of the Apostolic Scriptures was Greek.

As we proceed in this analysis, we offer our thoughts on the composition of each text in the Apostolic Scriptures. We have placed them in the standard order that appears in most English Bibles—not the ancient order—should you decide to follow along with a trusted study Bible to confirm our conclusions. Note that a Bibliography of all references employed for an individual text is listed at the end of each entry. The data has primarily been summarized from well-respected sources such as Donald Guthrie’s work New Testament Introduction, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (IDB), the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), the Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), and to a lesser extent various volumes of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EXP) and Word Biblical Commentary (WBC). You will notice that each entry also includes a brief theological summation of the text, and how Messianics should approach it.

Matthew
Approximate date: early-mid 70s C.E.
Author: Matthew the disciple
Location of author: Phoenicia, Transjordan, Alexandria (all debated)
Target audience and their location: the Jewish Diaspora

The Gospel of Matthew demonstrates the most Jewish character of all the Gospels. This is fully realized by its numerous appeals, direct or indirect, to the prophecies of the Tanach that demonstrate the Messiahship of Yeshua. The primary readership of Matthew’s Gospel without a doubt was Jewish Believers. This is evidenced by the fact that Yeshua’s ancestry from the Patriarchs of Israel is documented (1:1-17); the author does not explain Jewish customs or traditions in the text (which differs substantially from Mark and Luke); he makes references to God as “Heaven” or “the Kingdom of Heaven” consistent with First Century Jewish practice that avoided usage of the Divine Name YHWH; and the author emphasizes Yeshua as the “Son of Man” or the “Son of David.” The author wants his readers to know in no uncertain terms that Yeshua is the Messiah and the King of Israel. This does not mean that First Century Jews were Matthew’s only audience, but doubtlessly were his primary audience.

Scholars are not in uniform agreement as to when the Gospel of Matthew was composed, as dates suggested range from the early 60s C.E. all the way to the mid to late 80s C.E. This is contingent on the fact of whether or not Yeshua’s statement in Matthew 24:2 regarding the destruction of Jerusalem was written down before it occurred or not. Those who accept predicative prophecy may accept a post-70 C.E. composition date of Matthew (given the text’s likely reliance on Mark), and this includes many conservative Christians and Messianics.

Some theologians question this text’s authorship, as the author does not identify himself in the Gospel. What we do know about this Gospel comes from Christian tradition, which ascribes Matthean authorship. The Second Century Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, is recorded as having written, by the Fourth Century historian Eusebius, “Matthew composed his history [logia] in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16). This one statement by Papias, which appears to have been repeated by some of the other Church Fathers, has been interpreted in various ways, some misleading.

The Gospel of Matthew, because of its sheer size, was one of the most frequently used texts in early Christianity. Matthean authorship of this Gospel has been easy to accept because of the fact that Matthew, or Levi, was a tax-collector (9:9), and could seemingly have written a valid record of Yeshua’s life. Greek copies of this Gospel started appearing with the words kata Matthaion (KATA MATQAION) around 125 C.E. (Guthrie, 43). Conservative theologians have no problem accepting genuine Matthean authorship of this Gospel. The controversy over Matthew’s Gospel, however, relates to what Papias means by saying that Matthew wrote “logia” (logia), a Greek term for “sayings” or “oracles,” “in the Hebrew dialect.” Many, especially in the Messianic movement, interpret this as meaning that Matthew was the originator of a complete text in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that the Greek Matthew we possess today is a translation. (Some Messianics even say that the Greek is invalid.) This presents a problem because “Matthew’s Greek reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation. Furthermore, Matthew’s OT quotations are derived from the LXX [Septuagint] rather than the Hebrew text” (ISBE, 3:281).

The ambiguity of the word logia has led to several theories, since no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic Matthew, or fragment of such a text, has surfaced that pre-dates our present Greek Matthew. A significant belief proposed is that Matthew composed a list of sayings of Yeshua in Hebrew or Aramaic, which were then used for the composition of a later Greek gospel. This would make this “Hebrew Matthew” be the “Q” or “Source” document (“Q” is an abbreviation for Quelle, the German word for “source”) that some theologians believe lies behind our canonical Gospels. If Q is what composed the logia that Papias talks about, “then it is possible that Matthew expanded these into a Greek Gospel” (NIDB, 631). The problem with this is simply where Q is today, as it would likely have been carefully preserved by the early Believers.

A second possibility is that this text referred to by Papias was a later Hebrew translation of Matthew from the Greek that post-dates the Greek Matthew we have today. This would require that any Hebraisms used by Matthew in his Gospel be oral, as “The gospel traditions undoubtedly once circulated in oral Aramaic; but the written gospels are Greek books, and the basic source for Matthew and Luke was unquestionably a Greek work, the Gospel According to Mark” (IDB, 3:304). This view advocates that Matthew borrowed from Mark’s Gospel, coming from the Apostle Peter’s viewpoint, and repeats Mark’s material, adding to it where necessary, to confirm its Apostolic authority.

Many weighing the evidence (including the author) believe that Matthew’s Gospel was composed using both Mark’s Gospel and the Hebrew or Aramaic logia, notes that had been previously compiled by Matthew. There is no hard evidence that Matthew as a complete Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, pending the discovery of a legitimate text that pre-dates our present Greek Matthew; at best the logia that Papias describes would be what some believe is Q.

A third possibility is simply that “in the Hebrew dialect” is synonymous to “in a Jewish style.” In other words, Matthew’s Gospel was originally a Greek document that incorporated Hebraic sources, and then everyone who read it interpreted it as best as possible. This seems to be the default position of many commentators on this text.

The language question is highly contingent on the fact of establishing where Matthew’s Gospel originates. The earliest quotation of this text appears in the Second Century Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (1:1), written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (Gundry, 163). Antioch was a Greek-speaking city. “Other specific suggestions are that the gospel originated in Phoenicia or in a Transjordan situation or in Alexandria” (Guthrie, 39). Caesarea has also been suggested as a place of origin (Ibid.). All of these places adjacent to the Land of Israel, with the exception of Transjordan, spoke Greek as their primary language. If Matthew’s Gospel was indeed composed in one of these cities, then it points to a Jewish audience in the Diaspora, which on the whole did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic as its primary language.

Theologically speaking, the Gospel of Matthew is the broadest sweeping of all the Gospels, covering the most amount of material. Its content is focused around five specific narratives: the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7), Missionary Discourse (ch. 10), Parable Discourse (ch. 13), Kingdom Discourse (ch. 18), and Eschatological Discourse (ch. 24). More than a few theologians have tried to explain these five separate “parts” of Matthew as the author setting up a parallel to the Pentateuch or the Torah. In actuality, such claims appear to be overstated as they often ignore the remainder of Matthew’s content. It is notable, however, that much of Matthew’s usage of Tanach quotations is done so in a very midrashic style, requiring one to be very familiar with First Century Jewish hermeneutics. Matthew does not go to great lengths explaining First Century Jewish customs or traditions, nor explaining the historical context of the events as Luke does. When reading Matthew, one must have a knowledge of First Century Judaism, and a strong foundation in the Tanach.

Bibliography:
Barbieri, Louis A. “Matthew,” in BKCNT, pp 13-94.
Grant, F.C. “Matthew, Gospel of,” in IDB, 3:302-313.
Gundry, Robert. “Matthew: Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 159-204.
Guthrie, Donald. “Matthew’s Gospel,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 28-60.
Hagner, D.A. “Matthew, Gospel According to,” in ISBE, 3:280-288.
Keener, Craig. IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Matthew, pp 16-43.
Wessel, Walter W. “Matthew, Gospel of,” in NIDB, pp 630-632.

Mark
Approximate date: late 50s or early 60s C.E.
Author: John Mark, secretary of the Apostle Peter
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: predominantly Roman, later Alexandrian

The majority of conservative scholars are in agreement that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the four Gospels to have been written, with the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowing extensively from it. If we accept that Yeshua the Messiah can predict the future as He predicted the fall of Jerusalem in Mark 13:2, then the composition of Mark can be placed before 70 C.E. If Mark pre-dates the composition of Matthew, Luke, and Acts, then its composition should likely be dated in the late-50s or early 60s C.E. In the past, the Gospel of Mark has gone largely neglected when compared to the larger Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which borrow extensively from it. At least 90% of the material of Mark is repeated in Matthew. But in recent years, because of new studies designed to address the origin of our Gospels, the past neglecting of Mark has been replaced by a renewed interest in Markan studies. Some specialty translations of the New Testament, with a trend started by classics scholar Richmond Lattimore, now place Mark as the first Gospel before Matthew and Luke.

The authorship of the Gospel of Mark is generally believed by conservatives to be John Mark (Acts 12:25; 15:37). He was the son of Mary, whose house provided a meeting place for the Believers in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and was a companion with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:5). Mark deserted Paul and his party at Perga in Pamphylia, and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). He is described as being Paul and Barnabas’ “helper,” and there was a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about taking him on their second journey (Acts 15:36-39), which resulted in them splitting up. Paul seems to have become extremely displeased about Mark, but later extends greetings to him (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24), indicating that he had regained his trust. He also sends for him prior to his death (2 Timothy 4:11).

While not stated in this Gospel internally, it was unanimously agreed by the Church of the Second Century that John Mark authored this Gospel. Papias’ fragments, an Exposition on Oracles of the Lord, attests that “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ” (6.13). Irenaeus writes in his book Against Heresies, “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter” (3.1.1). According to these, and other traditions, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter and traveled with him to Rome until the time of Peter’s death. In composing his Gospel, Mark is actually writing down Peter’s oral account to him. Thus the Gospel of Mark could be described as the life of Yeshua the Messiah as told to Mark by the Apostle Peter. These traditions place Mark being written while Mark was with Peter in Rome prior to his martyrdom. According to the Fourth Century Church historian Eusebius, “Mark, they also say, being the first sent to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written and first established churches at the city of Alexandria” (Ecclesiastical History 2.16.1). This tradition indicates that after composing his Gospel, Mark was sent to Alexandria and used his written Gospel to proclaim the good news and establish congregations in Egypt.

The historical background for the composition of the Gospel of Mark is generally agreed to have been directed at a Roman audience during the time just prior to the persecution of Believers in the Roman Empire. Compared to the Gospel of Matthew, there are far less quotations from the Tanach (Old Testament) in Mark. This would suggest that his primary audience when writing would have been Roman, and they would not have required extensive quotations from the Tanach to prove the Messiahship of Yeshua, unlike a Jewish audience. Mark goes to some length to explain various Jewish customs of the First Century, and provides internal translations of Aramaic words used to explain to his Roman audience who would be the immediate recipients of his writing. Mark also uses a number of Latin-specific terms as well.

There are some in the Messianic community who believe that the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, failing to account for where Mark was written and its initial target audience. Those who believe this often do not account for the fact that the name of the Gospel is actually Markos (Markoß) or Markus, a name of Latin origin, in fact retained in modern Hebrew translations such as UBSHNT, which uses Marqos (sAqrm). “Some Aramaic expressions, which are retained in the text, are interpreted into Greek and this seems to be evidence that Mark’s readers would not otherwise have understood them. This seems to rule out any possibility of Aramaic-speaking readers” (Guthrie, pp 71-72). There is some indication of Semitic influence on the text, as “We have good reason to speak of an Aramaic background to the Greek of the Gospel.” However, “the existence of Aramaic sources” are probably “oral; and we can speak of the Evangelist’s use of a tradition which ultimately is Aramaic; but to say more is speculation” (ISBE, 3:249). Any Semitic sources used in composing the Gospel of Mark are oral at best, indicated by the author’s usage of the term “translated” in Mark 5:41; 15:22; and 15:34. Mark’s Gospel also employs a fair amount of Latinisms, accounting for a likely Roman audience. Mark’s immediate Roman audience would have been familiar with Koiné Greek, as would have the larger audience that would have used it in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Mark’s Gospel is a very active text, recording less of the sayings of Yeshua than the other Gospels, but more of His miracles, actions, and other mighty works. This Gospel’s primary message is to convey what Yeshua did, and was likely written in a time that would initially encourage the new Believers in Rome. Some expositors place its composition at 64 C.E., and assert that possibly Mark was written just prior to the fire in Rome when Nero set fire to the city and blamed it on the “Christians,” the Believers in the Messiah Yeshua. The Believers in Rome had needed their faith in the Messiah assured, and with this background it is likely that Mark wanted to prepare his readers for the inevitable suffering they would endure for believing in “the Jewish Messiah.” By recording and featuring the miracles and works of Yeshua, Mark reveals that this Savior is indeed all powerful and worth believing in to those who are skeptical. The material in Mark was widely drawn upon by Matthew and Luke, for the composition of their Gospels. Its place has been assured in the Apostolic canon because of the traditions which attest to Mark having been the traveling companion of Peter, one of the original Twelve Disciples.

Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. “Mark, Gospel of,” in ABD, 4:541-557.
Cranfield, C.E.B. “Mark, Gospel of,” in IDB, 3:267-277.
Earle, Ralph. “Mark, Gospel of,” in NIDB, pp 622-623.
Gundry, Robert H. “Mark: An Apology for the Crucifixion of Jesus,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 125-258.
Guthrie, Donald. “Mark’s Gospel,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 61-101.
Martin, R.P. “Mark, Gospel of,” in ISBE, 3:249-259.

Luke
Approximate date: late 50s to early 60s; or late 70s to early 80s
Author: Luke the doctor
Location of author: Rome or Achaia
Target audience and their location: Theophilus, and broad groups of Jews and non-Jews

The Gospel of Luke is the longest of the Gospel narratives. It is extremely thorough in its scope and appeal, as the author is very knowledgeable of First Century Judaism and the larger Greco-Roman world that Israel was a part of at the time. His appeal is to a broad audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, which has led some theologians to believe that he is trying to validate the growing Messianic sect to its Jewish and Roman critics.

There is a mass of evidence that Luke the physician was the author of this Gospel and the Book of Acts. An entire array of ancient Christian leaders acknowledged Lukan authorship, including: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. The Muratorian Canon and the anti-Mariconite Prologue to Luke also identify Luke as the author (Guthrie, 114). Irenaeus attests in Against Heresies, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him” (3.1.1).

Colossians 4:14 has Paul identifying Luke as “the beloved physician.” While various theories are espoused as to Luke’s place of birth, it is largely agreed that Luke was certainly raised a Greek and later may have become a proselyte to Judaism. The text of Luke’s Gospel “reveal[s] more important characteristics of its author: his stylistic ability, which enables him to use various Greek dictions; his Hellenistic education, shown by his facile use of rhetorical conventions…his wide reading in Torah, manifested in his dense textual allusions and in the structure of his story; his storytelling ability, demonstrated by his striking vignettes and parables” (ABD, 4:404-405). Luke was without any doubt, a learned man of culture, and he demonstrates an affinity for Philippi, which boasted a medical school in ancient times where he may have been trained (Acts 16:12). Luke likely had some firsthand contact with Mary, as he spends an inornate amount of time writing about the particulars of Yeshua’s birth.

Conservative scholars are not agreed as to the exact dating of Luke’s Gospel, favoring either an early date of 59-63 C.E., or a later date sometime in the late 70s to early 80s. As Luke ends the Book of Acts abruptly, it is assumed by some that he did not survive long after the martyrdom of Paul in Rome, or may have been arrested prior to completing it. The dating of Luke depends on one’s interpretation of his phrase, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near” (Luke 21:20). Many interpret this as a reference to Jerusalem’s destruction at the hands of Titus. Luke is certainly adapting Matthew’s phraseology of “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15) to a non-Jewish audience, but v. 21, “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains” is not realized as the Jewish Believers in 70 C.E. fled to Pella which is not mountainous (Gundry, 209). The reference in Luke 21:20 must be futuristic in nature, which allows for a post-70 composition date.

Luke’s Gospel is written to the “most excellent Theophilus” (1:3), to whom he also directs Acts (1:1). There is not uniform agreement as to who or what “Theophilus” was, as the name Theophilos (Qeofiloß) in Greek means “one who loves God.” Some believe that it is directed to all lovers of God or Believers at the time, but it is employed as a proper name. It is safe to assume that Theophilus was an actual man, possibly a recent convert when Luke was writing, or possibly even Luke’s patron. Some have even speculated that the terminology “most excellent” indicates that Theophilus was a Roman official, and there is historical evidence that in the 80s families of Roman nobility began receiving Yeshua (IDB, 3:181). Certainly, Luke’s Gospel was not exclusively written to Theophilus, but a broad audience, especially including God-fearers in the Synagogue (Gundry, 206). Luke’s writing is certainly of a more Jewish character than Mark’s Gospel, but less than Matthew’s Gospel. Without a doubt, “his readers were Greek-speaking, and sufficiently acquainted with scriptural traditions to grasp at least the gist of his allusions” (ABD, 4:405).

Some in the Messianic community, believing the Gospel of Luke to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, believe that he wrote to a Theophilus who was high priest in Jerusalem, based on a vague reference to such a man in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 18.123. However, in order for this to be the case, it would require a dating for this Gospel’s composition in the late 30s, which would have been prior to the conversion of Luke. It certainly does not account for the fact that a so-called “Hebrew speaking” high priest actually has a Greek name. Furthermore, Luke’s own name of Loukas (Loukaß) is of Greek origin, and modern Hebrew New Testament translations employ the form of Louqas (sqWl) for this Gospel’s title.

The Gospel of Luke, more than any other of the Apostolic Writings, demonstrates the highest competence in Greek, yet there are most certainly Semitic influences via the Septuagint: “Luke’s Greek is remarkable for its adaptability. The preface is modeled on classical patterns, which gives some insight into his cultural background. But after writing 1:1-4, he drops the literary style for a type of Greek strongly flavoured with Semitisms, which he uses for the infancy narratives. Subsequent to this he generally uses what may be described as good literary Koiné Greek…The strongly Hebraistic character of Luke’s Greek in this section is admirably adapted to link the incarnation of Jesus with the Old Testament history and that may well be the effect that Luke wished to create. By his obvious familiarity with the Septuagint, which he often cites throughout his gospel, Luke’s Greek has become strongly coloured with Hebraisms” (Guthrie, pp 131-132).

The place of Luke’s composition is not agreed upon, although there are various suggestions that are made. Rome is the first possible place of Luke’s composition, as Luke was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. It is suggested that Luke traveled with Paul to Rome, and while in Rome read Mark’s Gospel, which he used for the basis of his own Gospel. Another likely possibility is Achaia, as indicated in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke. Other suggested cities include Ephesus or Caesarea, but it is all dependent on where Theophilus was from (Guthrie, 110).

When compared to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Luke noticeably arranges the events in a slightly different order, likely because the priority he places on the events for his intended audience is different. This would have been especially true if Luke was indeed written to validate the growing Messianic sect as being legitimate in the eyes of the Pharisees and Rome (EXP, 8:800). Luke’s Gospel was written to a broad audience of Jews and non-Jews. His emphasis is summed up clearly in 19:20: “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke describes the universal nature of the good news. He relies on eyewitness testimony; he describes the historicity of the narrative; and Luke makes aims to adequately address Yeshua’s Messianic claims.

Theologically, Luke’s Gospel is largely focused around three groups of narrative: events in Galilee (4:14-9:50), events in Judea and Perea (9:51-19:27), and Yeshua’s final week in Jerusalem (19:28-24:53). Unlike Matthew’s Gospel, which largely focuses on the Kingdom of God, Luke focuses on individuals, making strides by addressing the situation of women, children, and outsiders to the Jewish community like Samaritans.

Bibliography
Blaiklock, Edward M. “Luke,” in NIDB, 604.
__________________. “Luke, Gospel of,” in NIDB, pp 604-606.
Blair, E.P. “Luke, Evangelist,” in IDB, 3:179-180.
Ellis, E.E. “Luke, Gospel According to, “in ISBE, 3:180-186.
Gundry, Robert. “Luke: A Promotion of Christianity in the Greco-Roman World at Large,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 205-251.
Guthrie, Donald. “Luke’s Gospel,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 102-135.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Luke-Acts, Book of,” in ABD, 4:403-420.
Liefield, Walter L. “Luke,” in EXP, 8:797-1059.
Taylor, V. “Luke, Gospel of,” in IDB, 3:180-188.

John
Approximate date: mid to late 80s C.E.
Author: the Apostle John
Location of author: Ephesus
Target audience and their location: non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor

The Gospel of John is one of the most significant in all of the writings of the Apostolic Scriptures. “The oldest extant portion of NT writings is a papyrus fragment (P⁵²) containing bits of John 18 and dating from the first half of the 2nd century. John is well represented in other papyri, including such witnesses as P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵” (ABD, 3:913). The oldest fragments of the Apostolic Scriptures come from the Gospel of John, and attest to how widely it was used in the formative centuries of early Christianity.

It is agreed among most conservative theologians that the author of this Gospel was John the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, and one of the original Twelve Disciples. It can be inferred that his mother Salome was possibly the sister of Mary, mother of Yeshua (Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40), making John and Yeshua first cousins. The Apostle John was the most preeminent of the Disciples of the inner circle, being present at Yeshua’s Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), and His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to His trial (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33). John is mentioned only twice in the Book of Acts, being present with Peter in Acts 4:1-22 and being sent to Samaria in Acts 8:14-15. According to early Church tradition, John escaped the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans and spent his remaining years in Ephesus, save a brief period in exile on the island of Patmos.

John’s name does not appear in his Gospel, but it may be assumed as he is referred to as “the disciple whom Yeshua loved” (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), and there are numerous inferences made in the text indicating a first-hand Johannine account. John’s authorship is confirmed by all the Church Fathers, most notably Ireneaus and Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus indicated in the late Second Century, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3.1). These comments are mirrored by Clement of Alexandria: “John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to the body in the gospel of our Savior, was sufficiently detailed, and being encouraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the spirit, he wrote a spiritual gospel” (Ecclesiastical History 5.14.7). It is largely agreed that John’s Gospel was written to supplement the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke). The Gospel of John was key in Second Century Christianity for formulating doctrine, particularly in refuting the theology of the Gnostics infecting the emerging Church.

Most conservative scholars are agreed that the Gospel of John was composed in the mid to late 80s, and was probably written around the vicinity of Ephesus. John’s predominant audience was non-Jewish, and this is realized by the numerous references made in the text concerning “the Jews,” and the explanations given of First Century Jewish customs. A few over the centuries have thought that John’s reference to “the Jews” is anti-Semitic, in response to the Benediction added against heretics (the early Messianic Believers) in the Synagogue. The Jewish character of Yeshua is not diminished in John’s Gospel in the least (Gundry, pp 258-259). There are, in fact, more Jewish references in John’s Gospel than any other (ISBE, 2:1100).

In his Gospel, John demonstrates that he is quite familiar with First Century Judaism. This includes his familiarity with the conflict between Jews and Samaritans (4:9); he knew of the precedence of circumcision over not working on the Sabbath (7:22); he knew of Messianic speculations from the Tanach (1:21; 7:40-42). John uses the term “law” only to refer to the Torah: “In John the word nomoß, ‘law’ is used only in the same sense as the Hebrew Torah, in contrast to Paul, who occasionally gives it a Greek meaning, alien to that of the Hebrew Torah. This is in itself noteworthy. Moreover, in the allusions to the law in John there are many indications of the author’s acquaintance with rabbinic usage” (IDB, 2:943).

A few parallels exist in John’s comments about “light and darkness” in ch. 1 with the writings of the Qumran community. While a few theologians have tried to make connections between John’s theology and Essene theology, other than using terminology that was employed by the Judaisms of his day, there is little, if any, theological similarity between John’s Gospel and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Theologians such as C.F. Burney and C.C. Torrey have tried to advocate that the Gospel of John was originally written in Aramaic, but their sentiments have never been received well in the scholastic world at large: “It would seem a fair conclusion that the author was not unacquainted with Semitic idioms, although he does not allow glaring Semitisms to intrude into his Greek. If the author were the apostle John some Semitic influence would naturally be expected” (Guthrie, 337). Bruce adds, “Naturally, if Jesus and his disciples habitually spoke in Aramaic, we might expect to find Aramaisms in the Greek form of their sayings...and this indeed we find in all four Gospels. But unless a piece of objective evidence is forthcoming (such as part of an Aramaic text of the Gospel which bears no sign of being a translation from the Greek), there is no reason to doubt that the Gospel of John as such was a Greek composition from the beginning” (p 2). When the Gospel of John was composed, its immediate audience was likely in the vicinity of Ephesus and Asia Minor, possibly even to the seven congregations written to in the Book of Revelation. They would have been a Greek-speaking audience.

The Gospel of John is a firsthand, eyewitness account of Yeshua’s life. It is rich, spiritual, and very deep in its theology. John describes the Messiah as the Word of God personified more than any of the other Gospels, and details the fact that His mission was to fulfill the Father’s work (14:9). John’s Gospel has more “I am” statements than any other Gospel, making a connection between Yeshua’s power and the Father’s power revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; cf. Exodus 3:14). John refers to Yeshua as the “Son of God” more than any other Gospel as well, and in no uncertain terms also refers to Him as “God.” The often-quoted John 3:16 summarizes the message of John’s Gospel quite thoroughly: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

It has been proposed by many theologians that the purpose for John writing his Gospel (and his epistles as well) may have been to counter the late First Century heresies of Cerenthianism, and/or Gnosticism. Cerenthus, a contemporary of John in Ephesus, taught that Yeshua was not God Incarnate, but at His immersion by John the Baptist He received the “Christ spirit,” and had it taken away from Him at His crucifixion. Ireneaus refers to Cerenthus in his work Against Heresies, refuting his teachings using John’s Gospel:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that ‘knowledge’ falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.’ ‘All things,’ he says, ‘were made by Him;’ therefore in ‘all things’ this creation of ours is [included], for we cannot concede to these men that [the words] ‘all things’ are spoken in reference to those within their Pleroma. For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book; but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be ‘all things:’ therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma]” (3.11.1).

As refuting Gnosticism may have been one of the reasons for John composing his Gospel, there have been some theologians who have made parallels between John’s Gospel and Paul’s letter to the Colossians, which likewise refutes Gnostic tendencies in the early Messianic community.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “John, the Apostle,” in NIDB, pp 532-533.
_____________. “John, Gospel of,” in NIDB, pp 533-536.
Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John, pp 1-27.
Gundry, Robert. “John: Believing in Jesus for Eternal Life,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 252-293.
Guthrie, Donald. “John’s Gospel,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 248-350.
Kysar, Robert. “John, the Gospel of,” in ABD, 3:912-931.
Morris, L. “John, Gospel According to,” in ISBE, 2:1098-1107.
Sanders, J.N. “John, Gospel of,” in IDB, 2:932-946.
Tenney, Merrill C. “The Gospel of John,” in EXP, 9:3-203.

Acts
Approximate date: after Gospel of Luke, late 60s to early 70s C.E.
Author: Luke the doctor
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Theophilus, and broad groups of Jews and non-Jews

The Acts of the Apostles, the Greek title of which is Praxeis (PRAXEIS) or “Actions,” is the second book in a set written to Theophilus (1:1). Traditional authorship is given to Luke the evangelist, also author of the Gospel of Luke. Conservative theologians generally hold to Acts being written several years after the Gospel of Luke, and as Luke’s Gospel takes us from Yeshua’s birth to His crucifixion in Jerusalem and subsequent resurrection, Acts takes us from Jerusalem to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to Paul’s trial in Rome. The events in the Book of Acts span almost thirty years from Yeshua’s ascension into Heaven to Paul’s trial, from approximately 30-60 C.E. (ISBE, 1:43). Consequently, any dating for Acts must begin at least at 60, ranging perhaps to the early 80s.

The early Christian Church recognized Lukan authorship of Acts. Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History in the Fourth Century, “That Paul preached to the Gentiles and established churches from Jerusalem and as far as Illycrium is evident both from his own expressions and from the testimony of Luke in the Book of Acts” (3.4.1). We know that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, thus any reference to “we” in the text referring to Paul’s company would by necessity include Luke (16:10-17; 20:5-21:19; 27:1-28:16). Like his Gospel, Luke was immediately directing his account to Theophilus, likely a Roman official or his patron. As Acts ends with Paul in Rome, it may be safely assumed that Luke wrote Acts from Rome, and from Rome it was disseminated throughout the congregations of Believers in the Eastern Mediterranean.

There are two distinct schools of thought concerning when Acts was composed. Those who advocate that Acts was written prior to 70 C.E. appeal to the fact that Paul’s trial is not mentioned and that the text ends abruptly. Speculating on this, it is believed that Acts was composed just prior to Paul’s trial, and possibly that Luke was executed or died shortly thereafter. The fact that the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 C.E. is not mentioned is likewise used as evidence in support of a pre-70 C.E. composition. A post-70 C.E. composition of Acts is not impossible considering the fact that the author may have been hurried to get the history of the early Messianic community written down. Due to all the turmoil, he would not have known how the early “Messianic movement” would last, and would want to get something written down. While Acts is described by some as an “incomplete story,” what it addresses is historically accurate, thorough, and demonstrates that it was written for a wide audience of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers (Guthrie, 371-372).

Some believe that in addition to Acts having been written to simply attest to the history of the early community of faith, that it was actually written as a defense for the gospel message. Guthrie explains, “The author appears to go out of his way to show the close connection between Christianity and its antecedents in Judaism. The Christians, and particularly Paul himself, still observe Jewish ceremonial requirements: Timothy is circumcised and Paul takes a vow, while James, both at the Council of Jerusalem and on the occasion of his later meeting with Paul, draws attention to the relationship between Jewish practices and Christian procedure. The appeal to the Old Testament as predicting events which were happening in the Christian church would influence Jewish readers in the direction of a favorable view of the church. But it is in its approach to official relationships with the Roman Empire that Acts becomes most clearly apologetic” (Guthrie, 367). This viewpoint attests that Luke knew his historical account was going to be read by a broad group of people, and it had to be accurate regarding Jewish theological expectations, and be factual for Romans regarding the placement of the events in their historical and geographical locations.

Considering that Luke was likely in Rome when he composed Acts, and the target audience of this book of history, it is impossible that it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. A few Messianics espouse Hebrew or Aramaic origin of this text, but it is an opinion not based on fact. Like his Gospel, the Book of Acts demonstrates a vocabulary of a very high level of Greek, but certainly includes Semitic influences via the Septuagint and “perhaps Aramaic or Hebrew documents relating the early events of Christianity in and around Jerusalem” (Gundry, 296). These documents would likely have been second-hand notes regarding historical events. Bruce explains, “It is noteworthy that the clearest evidence of an Aramaic substratum beneath Luke’s Greek appears in the first five chapters of Acts” (ISBE, 1:39). Of course, the events of Acts 1-5 are contained to Jerusalem and the immediate vicinity, easily explaining oral Semitic influences on the written Greek. As the events of Acts spread beyond the Land of Israel, less and less Semitic influence is seen in the text. Beyond a doubt the Greek text has a grammar consistent with the LXX (EXP, 9:222-223). IDB comments on this in more detail:

“On the one side it has been argued that the whole first part of Acts is based upon a lost but coextensive Aramaic composition, which shows through the present Greek text by both overliteral translation and mistranslation. On the other hand, it is supposed that both the book of Acts and any written sources which it used were composed exclusively in Greek. If Semitisms appear, they then are to be attributed to the oral stage of transmission, and are echoes of the original speakers and narrators in Palestine…It is, however, not to be forgotten that the final author of both volumes could vary his style and was not incapable of importing, under the influence of the Greek OT which he knew, ‘Septuagintisms’ while composing himself in Greek” (IDB, 1:35).

Acts was composed to create a history of the early Messianic community, bridging the narratives of Yeshua’s life to the spread of the good news throughout the First Century world. It gives us a defense of the early Messianic faith, depicting Believers’ endurance through persecution. The Book of Acts is historically accurate in its detail, and the author uses speeches from the early Apostles to communicate his main points.

The storyline of Acts begins with the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven, and the events that followed shortly thereafter with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Shavuot or Pentecost. From there we see how the Believers in Jerusalem grew in number, and how indeed many Jews came to faith in the Messiah of Israel and were Spirit filled. A rabbi from Tarsus, Saul, has an encounter with Yeshua on his way to Damascus to persecute Believers. Following his conversion to faith, he is commissioned by the Messiah to spread the good news to the nations. Non-Jews of the nations begin to come to faith in massive numbers and debate arises as to how they are to be incorporated into the fold. One of the book’s most important events is the Jerusalem Council, which laid the groundwork for the inclusion of non-Jewish Believers into the assembly, and what they were expected to do.

Acts contains much internal Biblical background information behind Paul’s epistles to the new congregations of Asia Minor, Greece, and the Aegean basin, and the missionary journeys which he undertook. In the second half of Acts, we see Luke’s account from him accompanying Paul on these journeys. Acts ends with Paul being tried in a religious court in Jerusalem, him testifying to his Jewish brethren about the Messiah, and then with Paul traveling to Rome with the intention of going before Caesar and testifying of Yeshua before him as well.

Christian theologians have often considered Acts to represent the “beginnings of the Church,” whereas Messianic Believers should consider it to be the starting point for the good news to go out to the nations, a critical part of the ultimate restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.

Bibliography
Bruce, F.F. “Acts of the Apostles,” in ISBE, 1:33-47.
Cadbury, H.J. “Acts of the Apostles,” in IDB, 1:29-42.
Gundry, Robert. “Acts: A Promotion of Christianity in the Greco-Roman World at Large,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 295-338.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Acts of the Apostles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 351-402.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Luke-Acts, Book of,” in ABD, 4:403-420.
Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles,” in EXP, 9:207-573.
Reid, Barbara E. “Acts,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 1953-2006.
Russell, Emmett. “Acts of the Apostles,” in NIDB, pp 12-14.

Romans
Approximate date: 56-57 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul, written down by Tertius
Location of author: Corinth/Achaia or Cenchrea
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Rome

All ancient authorities are agreed that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. There are no disputes in early Christian history made about the authorship of this letter. Second and Third Century Christianity used Romans, along with 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, to establish much of its early theology. Romans stands as the longest of all the individual Pauline letters, and is often viewed as being the most significant. Without a doubt, Romans lays out how Paul preached the gospel to a broad audience of Jews and non-Jews. Romans 1:16 says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Paul makes the salvation message one that is readily available to all members of the human race, regardless of ethnicity.

Romans demonstrates all the classic characteristics of being a letter, or an epistle. Paul’s friends were with him when he wrote this letter (16:21-23). The letter was specifically written down by Tertius, a scribe who issued his own greeting in 16:22. Romans is more formal than any of Paul’s other letters, because he was only familiar with a few of the Believers in Rome (Gundry, 379). Most conservative theologians place the dating of Paul’s letter being somewhere in 56-57 C.E., during Paul’s Third Missionary Journey. Romans was written by Paul prior to his going back to Jerusalem with offerings (15:25-28), and it follows his composition of 1 & 2 Corinthians. A most likely place for its composition is either in Corinth (adjacent to Achaia) or Cenchrea (16:1).

While there is not total agreement, Paul’s audience was likely a mixed group of both Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Yeshua, probably focused around some kind of synagogue. The assembly in Rome was not founded by Paul (1:10-15; 15:20-22), but likely by Jews from Rome who had seen the Holy Spirit poured out at Shavuot/Pentecost (NBCR, 1012). Paul’s letter to the Roman Believers was written prior to Peter’s visit to Rome, as it is not mentioned. Paul would have known about the Roman community of faith from Jewish Believers such as Priscilla and Acquila (Acts 18:2), who had been among the Jews expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius. One of the distinct reasons for Paul writing his letter was likely because there were leadership issues at the congregation in Rome after Claudius’ death. Jewish Believers were returning to Rome and the non-Jewish leaders in the congregation, who did not have to leave Rome, had difficulty sharing the leadership with them. Paul warns these non-Jewish Believers not to have an attitude of superiority to their fellow Jewish brethren (11:17-32).

While there have been those in the Messianic community who would like to think that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the history surrounding the letter’s composition reveals otherwise when we consider his audience. IDB notes, “When Paul wrote his letter, this church was well established and already known and esteemed throughout the Christian world (1:8; 15:23-29). It was composed mainly of Gentiles, with a certain number of Jewish members, and was certainly a Greek-speaking community, which means that its membership was drawn chiefly from the Levantine population of the city. This Greek character continued until the later years of the second century, for it is not until then that we find the earliest Latin documents of the Roman church” (4:114).

Simply because Paul’s audience was largely Greek speaking does not by any means diminish the fact that Paul’s letter is very Hebraic in character. There are sixty direct quotations from the Tanach in Romans. “Paul feels perfectly free to quote the law and other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures even when writing to Gentile churches…Many Gentile converts to the gospel had previously attended the synagogue as God-fearers and there had heard the OT read and expounded” (EXP, 10:9).

The purpose for Paul’s writing this letter was to prepare the Roman Believers for a personal visit from him. Paul’s work in the East had largely been accomplished, and now he was planning to expand it to the West. Many believe that just as Antioch had been a staging area for Paul and his associates to use for evangelizing the East, Paul was planning to use Rome as a hub for evangelizing the West, as he indicates a desire to travel to Spain (1:10-15).

Paul’s letter to the Romans begins by him expressing comments on the general plight of mankind, man’s rejection of the One True God, and the sin that He has let them practice out of their own fallen nature. Paul writes about the need for all human beings to receive God’s salvation, and how this is an important act of faith. Later on, Paul goes into extreme detail describing the relationship of Jews and non-Jews as a part of the community of faith and the olive tree of Israel (chs. 9-11). Disputes had arisen in the Roman assembly regarding Torah-related and extra-Biblical practices (ch. 14). Paul assures the Roman Believers that salvation is the same for all of God’s people, and goes to lengths describing the example of Abraham, and mentions the fact while “all Israel” will be saved, it is but only a remnant (11:26). A major theme of Romans is justification by faith in Yeshua the Messiah.

Romans has been used by many of the influential Christian theologians of our time, and has most certainly been a debated text: “Augustine acquired his idea of original sin from Romans 5, Luther gained his understanding of justification by faith alone from Romans 3-4, John Calvin obtained his doctrine of double predestination from Romans 9-11, John Wesley got his distinctive teaching on sanctification from Romans 6 and 8, and Karl Barth learned of the importance of the righteousness of God from Romans 1 and 2” (ABD, 5:817).

Paul’s epistle to the Romans is also frequently discussed among many Messianic Believers today, who believe that the traditional Christian view of Paul saying that the Torah is no longer to be followed is invalid. Those who believe that the Law of Moses is valid instruction often wrestle with Paul’s words to the Romans, which, like all of his teachings about the Torah, relate to its proper place in the assembly, and largely how it is to be handled by the new, still-maturing non-Jewish Believers. Sadly, many Christian theologians who have taught Romans present it via a “law versus grace” model, as opposed to a “law and grace” model. The doctrine of justification by faith is not something new that was invented by Paul, as it is clearly spoken of by Yeshua in His parables of the prodigal son, the laborers in the vineyard, and the great supper. It is something deeply rooted in the words of the Prophet Habakkuk: “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4). Paul simply developed the doctrine of justification by faith and adapted it for a distinctively Jewish and non-Jewish audience (Gundry, 376).

When reading Romans, it is important to note that there are sections of the text specifically directed to the Jewish Believers in Rome, and the non-Jewish Believers in Rome. In Romans 11:13, for example, he says “I am speaking to you who are Gentiles,” and the text following specifically applies to the non-Jewish Believers in Rome. In writing his epistle, Paul recognized the reality that more non-Jews would be coming to faith in the Messiah of Israel.

According to most Christian theologians, there are three major reasons why Romans was written: “the relation of (1) the OT Scriptures, (2) contemporaneous pharisaic Judaism, and (3) the gospel implemented by the earthly work of Christ” (NIDB, 870). Most Messianics are agreed with them on points #1 and #3. Paul’s letter to the Romans employs a vast amount of knowledge, wisdom, and insight from the Hebrew Tanach, and Paul by no means diminishes the “Old Testament.” Paul’s epistle also uplifts the atoning work of Messiah Yeshua, and how He is the only way to salvation. As far as Pharisaic Judaism is concerned, recent studies in First Century Judaism, coupled with Jewish-Christian dialogue, have led many Christian theologians to reconsider Paul’s view of the Law, to at least a more moderate position of him not demeaning it to the point of saying that it has been “abolished.”

Those Christian theologians taking a “new perspective” to Paul, have advocated that Paul believes that the Torah is still to be followed by all Jews, and that non-Jewish Believers are to respect it and follow it in all matters except those which relate to specific Jewish identity (i.e., circumcision, the Sabbath, the kosher laws). This is certainly a step forward for many Christian theologians, and their extant research has certainly helped a Messianic community which believes that Paul advocated Torah observance for all of God’s people, but one that comes as part of an individual’s growth in the faith. Of all the texts of the Apostolic Scriptures, this has been one which has created many Messianic Bible studies, and several distinct commentaries.

Bibliography
Beare, F.W. “Romans, Letter to the,” in IDB, 4:112-122.
Buswell, Jr., James Oliver. “Romans, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 869-871.
Davidson, F., and Ralph P. Martin. “Romans,” in NBCR, pp 1012-1048.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “Epistle to the Romans,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 403-431.
Harrison, Everett F. “Romans,” in EXP, 10:3-171.
Miller, D.G. “Romans, Epistle to,” in ISBE, 4:222-228.
Myers, Jr., Charles D. “Romans, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 5:816-830.

1 Corinthians
Approximate date: 56 or 57 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Ephesus
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Corinth

There is no controversy among conservative theologians that the Apostle Paul is the author of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Paul is plainly identified as being the author in the text (1:1-2; 16:21). There was no controversy in ancient times surrounding Pauline authorship, attested to by Clement of Rome in 96 C.E. Writing the Corinthians, Clement attests, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?” (1 Clement 47:1). 1 Corinthians, in fact, is Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 5:9 indicates, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,” indeed attesting to the fact that there was a first letter written by Paul that is no longer extant. 1 Corinthians is his second out of (at least) three letters, indicating that the Corinthian congregation had many problems.

The composition of 1 Corinthians is often dated in either 56 or 57 C.E., toward the end of Paul’s three-year residency in Ephesus (16:5-9; cf. Acts 20:31). This was during Paul’s Third Missionary Journey. Having received several envoys from the assembly of Believers in Corinth, Paul finds it necessary to address their questions and issues—and he does this very directly. 1 Corinthians has been called “the most business-like of all Paul’s epistles” (Guthrie, 440).

It would be impossible to understand the scope of 1 Corinthians without understanding a bit about Ancient Corinth. In the mid-First Century Corinth was the chief city in Greece, the capital of Achaia. It had become a major metropolis on the isthmus connecting the Greek mainland with the Peloponnesus. Corinth was a newer city when compared to Athens or Sparta, having a mixed population of both Romans and Greeks (IDB, 1:685). Corinth was a major center of Greek philosophy, but probably not as significant as Athens. Of the twelve temples in Corinth, the major one was dedicated to Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love.

When Paul was writing his epistle, Corinth had a very broad ethnic community. “Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, and Orientals of other races had settled among the earlier Italian and Greek colonists and had brought with them their diverse cultural heritage, their distinctive religious customs, and their differing religious beliefs and practices” (Ibid). Some archaeological finds in Corinth have revealed the ruins of temples to Egyptian, Phrygian, and Syrian deities (Ibid). Corinth had a sizeable enough Jewish community to have at least one synagogue, where the community of Messianic Believers first met.

More than anything else, Corinth was known as a place for gross sexual immorality. The verb Korinthiazomai (Korinqiazomai) or “to live as a Corinthian” in Greek had become synonymous with “to practice sexual immorality.” Not surprisingly, admonitions against fornication are a common theme throughout Paul’s epistle. “Even at a time when public morality everywhere in the Empire was at a low ebb, Corinth in Paul’s day was notorious for lax morals” (Ibid).

Considering Paul’s Greek-speaking Corinthian audience, no scholastic claim has ever been made trying to suggest a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for his epistle. There are very few quotations made from the Tanach in this letter, so even the amount of possible Septuagintisms is low. That does not mean that there are not Hebraic undertones to his writing, but other than a few Messianics wishing the letter were written in Hebrew, there is no scholastic or historical proof able to substantiate it. Paul’s audience included “Jews with their love of the OT, and pagans who were so dissatisfied with their paganism that they had gone as far as to attend the Jewish house of worship” (ISBE, 1:776). On the contrary, the fact that Paul wrote this letter in Greek is understood overwhelmingly by the fact that all of the people in the Corinthian assembly, especially the Jewish members of his audience, all had proper names of Greek and Latin origin: i.e., Gaius, Fortunatus, Crispus, Justus, Achaius, Sosthenes, Aquila, Priscilla (EXP, 10:177).

Paul himself had actually helped found the assembly in Corinth, via the association that he had with Priscilla and Aquila, two Roman Jews who were forced to leave Rome at the decree of Emperor Claudius (Acts 18:2). Acts 18:11 indicates that Paul probably stayed in Corinth for a year-and-a-half. Originally, this group of Believers met in the local synagogue. When the group was forced out of the synagogue, they met in a home next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:8). Many of the early converts also included non-Jewish pagans, whose adoption of faith in Yeshua would prove to have many challenges. The Alexandrian Jew Apollos made his way to Corinth, where he was tutored by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24).

The text of 1 Corinthians indicates that the Corinthian assembly was spiritually very immature (3:1-4). Paul wrote his letter to correct them on their sinful behaviors, addressing specific questions that had been brought to him via courier. Paul is forced to rebuke the Corinthians about the factions that have arisen among them (1:11). 1 Corinthians 5 is spent by Paul warning the Corinthians about the dangers of incest, indeed indicating that they were ignoring the foundational principles of the Torah. Paul is shocked that the Corinthians are taking their fellow Believers to the pagan Corinthian courts to determine their disputes (ch. 6). He is also forced to comment about the proper place of marriage between a man and a woman, and urges some of the unmarried to stay unmarried in light of their circumstances. A person who is married to an unbeliever is urged to stay married and lead that person to faith through good conduct (ch. 7). 1 Corinthians 10 is a treatise on meat sacrificed to idols, and how Believers must be consciously aware that what they are doing is observed by others.

Paul also must address the issue of women’s clothing in the assembly (11:2-16), likely in direct response to the reversed gender roles between men and women that were common in parts of Ancient Greece. He also issues instruction regarding the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34). Chs. 12-14 are spent analyzing the proper usage of the spiritual gifts, with love being the greatest of them all (ch. 13). Writing to a predominantly Hellenistic audience, Paul spends ch. 15 laying out the Biblical doctrine of resurrection. Throughout Paul’s letter, he must spend a significant amount of time defending his spiritual authority (ISBE, 1:776-777).

Unlike some of Paul’s other letters, 1 Corinthians offers no major exegetical challenges regarding Torah observance. Paul spends so much time addressing the sinful behavior of the Corinthians, that one is forced to turn to the Torah to know why Paul does not explain “why” their actions are sinful. The Apostle assumes that his readers know enough of the Law of Moses so that he does not have to go into great detail about their sin. Paul simply addresses their sin, the problems that they have caused, and tells them to stop.

1 Corinthians is an excellent piece of Scripture to examine and heed when it comes to how sin can destroy both a person and the community of faith. For Messianic Believers, 1 Corinthians is a superb case study for understanding a broad-sweeping letter in historical context and why the early Believers in Yeshua were indeed admonished to follow the Torah.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “Corinthians, 1 and 2,” in NIDB, pp 235-236.
Betz, Hans Dieter, and Margaret M. Mitchell. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” in ABD, 1:1139-1148.
Gilmour, S.M. “Corinthians, First Letter to the,” in IDB, 1:684-692.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Corinthian Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 432-464.
Mare, W. Harold. “1 Corinthians,” in EXP, 10:175-297.
Morris, L. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 1:774-779.

2 Corinthians
Approximate date: Winter 56 or 57 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Macedonia or Ephesus
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Corinth

The text that is often called 2 Corinthians is unanimously agreed to have been written by the Apostle Paul (1:1; 10:1). Unlike any of his other letters, 2 Corinthians contains more autobiographical material, and we learn much about Paul the person in this epistle (NIDB, 236). Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians has not been challenged, but it was not as well known to the Second and Third Century Church as some of Paul’s other letters. Only those who challenge Pauline authorship of all of his letters do not believe that Paul wrote this text (ISBE, 1:779).

There is some debate among theologians regarding whether 2 Corinthians is a single letter, or actually a composition of several letters. Conservatives generally argue for the unity of this epistle, whereas liberals tend to believe that it is a compilation of several letters (ABD, 1:1148).

According to some scenarios, 2 Corinthians may be the fourth letter that Paul wrote the assembly in Corinth. Harris validly points out, “There is probably no part of Paul’s life more difficult to reconstruct accurately than the period of thirty or so months he spent in and around Ephesus (perhaps from the fall of A.D. 53 to the spring of A.D. 56)” (EXP, 10:302). For certain, the bulk of Paul’s writing the Corinthians was to rebuke them for problems that they were facing. 2 Corinthians 2:4 states, “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.” This does indicate that a previous piece of writing preceded his writing in 2 Corinthians, but what that piece of writing is has been debated.

Some believe that the piece of writing referred to is 1 Corinthians. Others believe it is a lost letter of stern rebuke. Gundry notes, “After writing 1 Corinthians from Ephesus, Paul found it necessary to make a ‘painful visit’ to Corinth and back—painful because of the strained relation between him and the Corinthians at the time. Luke does not record this visit in Acts. It is to be inferred, however, from 2 Corinthians 12:14; 13:1-2, where Paul describes his coming visit as the ‘third’” (Gundry, 369). The existence of 2 Corinthians as a “fourth letter” creates some problems for exegetes trying to recreate the circumstances under which 2 Corinthians was composed (Guthrie, pp 451-452). Of course, more than anything else, if 2 Corinthians were indeed the fourth letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, it indicates once again how spiritually immature they were and that they had some major problems.

Another proposal that some have suggested is that 2 Corinthians chs. 10-13 are the sorrowful letter that Paul refers to earlier in the text. While most conservatives are agreed that chs. 10-13 are part of the original text, or yet another piece of text written later, this is a distinct possibility and deserves some consideration when examining the whole of 2 Corinthians. In the most extreme case, this would mean that Paul wrote a total of five letters to the Corinthians (the non-extant first letter, 1 Corinthians, a non-extant third letter, 2 Corinthians chs. 1-9, 2 Corinthians chs. 10-13).

If we can assume that 1 Corinthians 16:5-8 points to a Spring 56 or 57 C.E. dating, then it is likely that 2 Corinthians was written sometime in the following Winter. A likely place of composition is Macedonia (2:13; 7:5), although some also favor Ephesus.

Like 1 Corinthians, no original composition in Hebrew or Aramaic has ever been proposed by anyone in the scholastic community. It is only limited to those in the Messianic community who want it to be so. It is a complete historical impossibility.

When coupled with 1 Corinthians, and compared with Acts 18 and the late First Century composition of 1 Clement, 2 Corinthians gives us a very good idea about the internal dealings in the First Century community of faith. It specifically gives us the framework for many of the interpersonal and societal issues that faced the ekklēsia at large.

Why Paul composed this letter to the Corinthians is a slight challenge, but not that difficult to determine. It is often proposed that the purpose for Paul writing 2 Corinthians was that his admonitions laid out in 1 Corinthians, and likely other previous communication, were not met. Paul is believed to have made a brief visit to Corinth to try to remedy the situation, which did not help, because false teachers and false apostles had entered into the assembly and were challenging his authority (11:4; 12:11). After Paul’s visit, which is viewed as a disaster, he writes them a severe letter (2:4). This letter may be non-extant, or as some have proposed, may be composed in chs. 10-13. Later, we see that Paul meets Titus in Macedonia, who brings a good report from Corinth, and this improved situation necessitates the writing of 2 Corinthians.

Chs. 10-13 present the biggest challenge for the exegete because it is a severe rebuke that seems to be disjointed from the larger, more positive context of the letter. Those who see 2 Corinthians as a whole work, rather than two letters put together, believe that Titus did bring some negative news with him to Paul, and chs. 10-13 address this. Some evangelical scholars, though, believe this is another letter written to the Corinthians, at a later date by Paul, and then was added to the document that became known as 2 Corinthians (EXP, 10:305).

The nature of 2 Corinthians does not present a great amount of debate for Torah observant Messianic Believers, as it is a large continuation of the “sin” motif of 1 Corinthians. It continues to address the disarray that can take place when a community of Believers is out of order. It is notable that some theologians believe that the “teachers” influencing the Corinthians in this epistle were Judaizers (2 Corinthians 11:22-23), forcing circumcision and Torah observance on the Corinthians, for salvation, similar to the events surrounding Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Of course, this requires the able student to place the events in their historical, First Century Jewish context, and what happens when the young, naïve, or immature adopt things that they are spiritually not ready for. As with all of his epistles, the bulk of the Torah-related issues are addressed in the context of the spiritually still-maturing, and what is most applicable for new Believers in Messiah Yeshua.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “Corinthians, 1 and 2,” in NIDB, pp 235-236.
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Corinthians, Second Epistle to the,” in ABD, 1:1148-1154.
Gilmour, S.M. “Corinthians, Second Letter to the,” in IDB, 1:692-698.
Gundry, Robert. “The Major Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 359-389.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Corinthian Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 432-464.
Harris, Murray J. “2 Corinthians,” in EXP, 10:301-508.
Morris, L. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 1:779-782.

Galatians
Approximate date: 48-49 C.E. or 50-52 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Macedonia, Ephesus, or Antioch
Target audience and their location: mostly non-Jewish Believers in the province/region of Galatia

Genuine Pauline authorship of Galatians has never been challenged by the majority of conservative and liberal Christian theologians. The message of Galatians, the exact audience of the Galatians, and some of the historical background surrounding Galatians, however, has been vigorously debated by theologians in the past century. This is being compounded by what has been termed the New Perspective of Paul, where Christian theologians are seeing Paul’s view of the Law as being far more moderate than is traditionally believed. Without question, the major theme of the letter to the Galatians is a warning about the perversion of good news. Christian theologians have often likened Galatians as the “Magna Carta of Christian freedom,” further comparing Romans to being the “Constitution.” Consequently, any proper Messianic handling of Paul’s letter to the Galatians has to keep all of these issues in mind.

Up until the last century, it was generally agreed that the target audience of Paul’s letter was a group of people known as the Galatians. These Galatians migrated from Gaul (modern-day France) into what is today Northern Turkey. These were ethnic Celts, who later integrated into the local population. Called today the Northern Galatian Theory, Paul’s audience primary consisted of ethnic Galatians. Sir William Ramsay is often credited with challenging this theory in the mid-Nineteenth Century, advocating instead that Paul’s target audience was not ethnic Galatians, but rather Southern Galatians. Known as the Southern Galatian Theory, any reference to Galatia by Paul is to the Roman province in what is today South-Central Turkey. In our opinion, the Southern Galatian Theory is more likely, as Paul is recorded as having visited cities in the province of Galatia in Acts chs. 13-14. “[I]t is more likely that ‘Galatia’ referred to the province than to the territory, for it is not certain that Paul preached the gospel in the latter upon two different occasions” (ISBE, 2:379). This would account for Paul’s intimate relationship with the congregations of Galatia, as indicated throughout his letter (Ibid.).

It is notable that of all his letters, Galatians is the only letter written to a group of assemblies, as opposed to a specific congregation or individual. Concurrent with Paul’s travel through Galatia, a composition date of 50-52 C.E. is often estimated. Some theologians believe that Galatians was the first letter that Paul wrote. Where Paul wrote Galatians from has been debated, just as the exact audience has been debated. Some favor a composition locus of Macedonia or Ephesus, while others favor Antioch. One thing we can be certain of is that his audience was Greek speaking. While there are Messianics who like to claim that Paul wrote them in Hebrew or Aramaic, as an Eastern Roman province Greek would have been the predominant language in Galatia.

One of the recurring issues in Paul’s letter to the Galatians is that of the group commonly called the “Judaizers.” These are men who made circumcision and Torah observance required prerequisites for salvation (cf. Acts 15:1). They perverted the simplicity of the gospel by adding requirements to it. Translated as “to Judaize” (YLT), the verb Ioudaizō (Ioudaizw) means “live as bound by Moasic ordinances or traditions, live in Judean or Jewish fashion” (BDAG, 478). The challenge with interpreting this properly is that today, largely because of Jewish-Christian dialogue, a renewed interest in Hebraic studies, and examination of the First Century Judaisms that existed in Paul’s day, is what “Judaize” meant to Paul. When we consider available data today that earlier Christian theologians did not have, our perceptions of the Judaizers have been changing. In Mark Nanos’ commentary The Irony of Galatians (Minneapolis: Augsberg-Fortress, 2002), he actually refers to the Judaizers as the “Influencers,” and some commentators just call them “agitators” or even “teachers.”

Paul addresses his audience as being former pagans with an innate knowledge of Judaism (ISBE, 2:378). They were largely a group of non-Jewish people who were still maturing in their Messianic faith, having received the good news with great enthusiasm. There is a growing minority opinion, largely relating to the discussion of what Paul meant by employing the term “elemental spirits” (4:3, 9), that the Judaizers or Influencers were not just Pharisees, but actually practitioners of early Jewish mysticism (Gundry, 344; NBCR, 1100). “Schmithals…took the opponents to be Jewish-Christian Gnostics who for magical reasons were interested in Jewish rituals but not in the Torah as a whole” (ABD, 2:874). The Judaizers, then, would be those who held to mystical ideas surrounding the Torah, thus Paul could rightfully accuse them, “For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves” (6:13).

It is not agreed among scholars whether or not Paul composed his letter prior to, or immediately after the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, with many placing its composition before the Council. Some view Paul’s references to Jerusalem in Galatians 1:17-18 as being a reference to the events of Acts 11, as opposed to Acts 15. Whether or not Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council is really not important, as the decree of the Jerusalem Council would be spread into the Mediterranean basin, and all the early congregations would have to abide by it. The Council ruled that non-Jews were to go to the Synagogue where Moses was preached (Acts 15:21). Paul’s statements concerning the Torah in Galatians, even if probably written before the Council, must be interpreted in this light as he readily submitted to its authority.

Over the centuries, Galatians has been used as a major support for the doctrine of justification by faith. It was used extensively by Martin Luther. Freedom or liberty for Believers is also a major theme of Galatians, but Christians often separate this from its original Tanach basis of keeping the Torah (Psalm 119:45). For Messianics today, Galatians often proves to be a problem text, as a surface reading of Galatians may appear to be quite negative toward a lifestyle of Torah obedience. As is summarized by most Christians, “Certain Jewish teachers, who professed to be Christians and acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, were obscuring the simplicity of the gospel of free grace with their propaganda. They insisted that to faith in Christ must be added circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law” (NIDB, 367). Similarly, much of the Messianic movement has been accused of doing the same thing.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians cannot be divorced from its immediate First Century Jewish context. It also cannot be read separate from the words of Yeshua that support the eternality of God’s Law (Matthew 5:17-19), and the Jerusalem Council’s ruling that enforced the Torah’s authority. It must be read from the perspective that new Believers, who were still maturing in their faith, were being led astray by those who were usurping the Torah to promote their own ends, annulling the simplicity of the gospel message. This perspective, which greatly moderates Paul’s perceived words on the Torah, is growing in our day through the advent of Jewish and Hebraic studies. From this viewpoint, Paul’s words in Galatians are not a treatise against the Torah, but rather contain a warning against the Torah’s improper usage for new Believers.

Bibliography
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Galatians, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 2:872-875.
Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians,” in EXP, 10:409-508.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Early Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 341-358.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Galatians,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 465-487.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Galatians, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 366-367.
Knox, J. “Galatians, Letter to the,” in IDB, 2:338-343.
Matera, Frank J. “Galatians,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2079-2088.
Mikolaski, Samuel J. “Galatians,” in NBCR, pp 1089-1104.
Nanos, Mark D. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context.
Ridderbos, H.N. “Galatians, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:379-385.

Ephesians
Approximate date: 60-61 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Ephesus and the immediate vicinity of Asia Minor

The authorship of this letter is not challenged by many conservative theologians, in spite of the fact that there is a lack of personal greeting in it. The author plainly identifies himself as Paul (1:1; 3:1), and is of a series that has often been called the “Prison Epistles,” written by Paul from prison (3:1; 4:1; 6:20). While a sound case can be made for genuine Pauline authorship (Guthrie, pp 496-499, 509-528), there are many liberal theologians who deny that Paul wrote this letter, or that the audience of this letter was a group other than the Ephesians. But as it should be noted, “The structure of Ephesians is in line with the rest of Paul’s correspondence. We can trace the same sequence of salutation, thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, moral appeal, final courtesies, and benediction…The language of Ephesians, while suited to its theme and drawing on resources of vocabulary not represented in other Epistles, is nevertheless sufficiently similar to that of the other Epistles to substantiate the traditional view of its authorship” (EXP, 11:4).

Historically, the city of Ephesus became the third most important city for the early Messianic community, after Jerusalem and Antioch. Ephesus was a major emporium and urban center in the Eastern Roman Empire, standing on the most direct sea and land route to the eastern provinces. It was a major center of Artemis (Diana) worship, boasting a huge temple. The early Messianic community established a major presence in Ephesus, so significant that it is one of the assemblies that Yeshua directs a word to in the Book of Revelation. Conservative theologians believe that a sound case can be made for genuine Ephesian readership (Guthrie, 503), but do not deny the possibility that Paul’s letter was written to the surrounding areas as well. “It is widely held that Ephesians, designated as a circular, was written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon and was probably taken to various churches in the province of Asia by Tychicus” (Ibid., 530).

Liberals who deny that the Ephesians were the primary target audience of Paul’s letter believe so on the basis of the fact that “in Ephesus” (1:1) does not appear in all the oldest manuscripts of the letter. The RSV follows this point of view, rendering the verse as “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus.” This leads some to believe that Laodicea was actually the intended audience, as Paul mentions in Colossians 4:16 that he wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans. It is notable that both Laodicea and Ephesus are located in the same general area, and if this theory has any merit, it does not subtract from the theology of the letter at all. It would mean that the Ephesians were only one in a group of cities that Paul wrote to (Gundry, 398). This letter was one in a series carried by Tychicus along with Colossians and Philemon (Colossians 4:7-8; Philemon 9, 13, 17; cf. NIDB, 314). Some theologians actually believe that the omission of “in Ephesus” from some manuscripts is because there were multiple copies of the letter written by Paul to the assemblies of the region, and then Tychicus had the authority to write in the name of the city. Later on as Ephesus gained prominence among those cities, the Ephesian copies became preeminent. Conservative theologians agree that while the Ephesians were the primary audience, the letter is general enough to include an intended audience of the surrounding cities.

The traditional place of Ephesians’ composition is regarded as being Rome, likely between 60-61 C.E. A few believe that a fair case can be made for Paul actually being imprisoned in Ephesus itself (Guthrie, pp 498-490), but this would require an earlier dating. There are some similarities between the content of Ephesians and Colossians that indicate they were likely written at about the same time (Gundry, 397), even though Ephesians was likely written after Colossians. “Colossians has in it the intensity, rush, and roar of the battlefield, while Ephesians has a calm atmosphere suggestive of a survey of the field after the victory” (NIDB, 315).

No case for a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of this letter has ever been made by either conservative or liberal theologians. It is only a sentiment voiced by a few fundamentalists in the Messianic movement. Given the likely Roman origin of the letter, and a Greek-speaking audience encompassing the Ephesians and others in Asia Minor, a Greek composition of the letter is definite. However, simply because the letter was written in Greek does not mean that it should be separated from its Jewish-Pauline context.

Gundry describes Ephesians as having a “meditative quality” (p 397); Ephesians emphasizes the wholeness of the Messiah and His authority over the community of Believers. The letter has no specific heresy or false teaching in mind to address. Ephesians focuses on important themes such as the fulfilled life that Believers have in Yeshua (1:1), the mystery of God’s people fully understood in Yeshua (3:1-6), and the different spiritual gifts that God has given to each one of us (4:1-16). Paul also discusses the proper balance of our personal lives and our relationships with others, specifically in the context of marriage (4:17-6:9). The overarching theme of Ephesians is our Savior Yeshua being the head of the assembly.

For Messianic Believers, Paul expresses the unity that Jewish and non-Jewish people have in Messiah Yeshua as part of the Commonwealth of Israel. Anything that separated these two distinct groups of human beings has been rendered inoperative in the Messiah. There is some usage from Ephesians by Christian theologians who wrongly believe that the Torah has been abolished, so this requires any Messianic person who reads it to place the letter in historical context, and consult the source text for what appears to be any inconsistency, as with any Scripture. Ephesians uplifts Yeshua as the one and only Redeemer, and should be a very encouraging letter for any one of us to learn from.

Bibliography
Blaicklock, Edward M. “Ephesus,” in NIDB, pp 315-316.
Danker, F.W. “Ephesians, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:109-114.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “Ephesians, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 2:535-542.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 390-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 496-540.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 314-315.
Johnston, G. “Ephesians, Letter to the,” in IDB, 2:108-114.
Martin, Ralph P. “Ephesians,” in NBCR, pp 1105-1124.
Wood, A. Skevington. “Ephesians,” in EXP, 11:3-92.

Philippians
Approximate date: 61 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Rome (majority view), Ephesus (minority view)
Target audience and their location: non-Jewish Believers in Philippi

Pauline authorship has not been challenged in regard to the Epistle to the Philippians, as there are many personal references made in this letter. Paul writes this letter from prison (1:13-14), even though it is debated where Paul wrote this letter from. Largely, Philippians is a letter of personal thanks as the Philippian congregation of Believers helped support Paul financially (4:15-20; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:7-9).

The city of Philippi was named after King Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. It was the place of a decisive battle in 42 B.C.E. between the Second Triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus against the Roman Republicans. The victory of Octavian resulted in the city being made a Roman military colony. The people of Philippi were chiefly Roman, and many retired military men resided there. “Phillipi had been thoroughly colonized by the Romans after 30 B.C., but the city was still more Greek in culture than Roman” (NIDB, 782). Philippi did not have a large enough Jewish presence to warrant a synagogue. “Acts tells us nothing of a Jewish synagogue at Philippi, or of the reactions of Philippian Jews to Paul’s preaching” (IDB, 3:788). “[E]vidently, because of the strong Roman consciousness of the citizens, the Jews were not allowed to have a synagogue within the city walls, so they had only a place of prayer outside the west gate at a river (Acts 16:13)” (ISBE, 3:837), which would have been the first place Paul would have met when evangelizing. Philippi was the first European congregation established by Paul (Acts 16:11-40; cf. NIDB, 781).

The traditional view of Philippians is that this letter was written from Rome in about 61. C.E., when Paul was under house arrest. This view went largely unchallenged until the 1900s when some theologians began to suggest that the letter may have been written from Ephesus at a slightly earlier date. The principal reason in support of this view is that Ephesus and Philippi were geographically closer than Ephesus and Rome (Gundry, 403). Philippi, as a Roman colony, would be administered not that much differently than Rome itself. “The terms in 1:13; 4:22; Praetorium and Caesar’s Household have no necessary reference to Rome. Members of Caesar’s administrative staff (domus Caesaris) were, as we know from inscriptions, to be found at Ephesus, as elsewhere throughout the Empire” (IDB, 3:790). Whether or not Rome or Ephesus was the composition locus of the letter does not affect its overall theology (NBCR, 1126).

What cannot be explained, of course, is why there would be some in the Messianic community today trying to advocate that Paul wrote his letter in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Jewish community in Phillippi at the time seems to be miniscule at best. The largely Roman audience that Paul writes in Philippians would have had no difficulty understanding Greek, the international language of the Eastern Mediterranean.

On the whole, the theology of Philippians is not very complicated, as there is seldom a negative rebuke in his letter. Paul thanks the Philippians for sending him a financial gift (1:5; 4:10-19). He encourages them to rejoice in the face of their circumstances (1:27-30; 4:4). He wants the Philippians to be unified (2:1-11; 4:2-5). Paul writes that he is sending Timothy and Epaphroditus to them to instruct them (2:9-10). Perhaps the only major theme that Messianics need to be aware of is that ch. 3 is spent warning the Philippians against the Judaizers and the antinomians: those who would force the non-Jewish Philippians to convert to Judaism to be saved, and those who have no regard for God’s moral law.

Paul, while writing to an almost entirely non-Jewish audience, strongly affirms his own Jewishness in this epistle. He writes that he was “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee” (3:5). But he also writes of the superiority of Yeshua over his pedigree: “But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Messiah” (3:7). While Paul does not discount his Jewish upbringing, it is inferior to him knowing Yeshua as Lord. Did Paul write this because there were many Roman military men in Philippi who might think that their military careers were superior to knowing the Jewish Messiah? Thankfully, Paul sent Timothy and Epaphraditus to Philippi to instruct the Philippian Believers in what they needed to know. The Jewish character of Paul is certainly present in Philippians, but he writes very carefully to a distinctly non-Jewish audience.

Bibliography
Duncan, G.S. “Philippians, Letter to the,” in IDB, 3:787-791.
Fitzgerald, John T. “Philippians, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 5:318-326.
Foulkes, F. “Philippians,” in NBCR, pp 1125-1138.
Gundry, Robert. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Philippians,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 541-563.
Petersen, Lorman M. “Philippians, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 781-782.
Kent, Homer A. “Philippians,” in EXP, 11:99-159.
Reicke, B. “Philippians, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 3:836-841.

Colossians
Approximate date: 60-62 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Colossae

The Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Colossians has not been significantly disputed by many evangelicals, except those who deny Pauline authorship of all of his letters, even though it is doubted by most liberals. The letter to the Colossians is unique, because the Biblical record does not attest the Apostle Paul as ever having any personal encounter with the Colossians, and there is a great amount of personal involvement in his letter. Paul is not personally acquainted with the Colossians, and he never visited them (Guthrie, 564). Paul does, however, learn a great deal about the Colossian assembly through Epaphrus, attested as being a dedicated servant who took the time to visit Paul during his imprisonment to inform him of the situation that the Colossians were facing (Ibid., 165).

The city of Colossae was located in Asia Minor on the trading road between Ephesus and the Euphrates River. Apparently, the gospel message had been carried to Colossae by Epaphrus, who was a native of the city (4:12), during Paul’s three-year ministry in Ephesus (1:7-8; cf. Acts 19:10). Colossae was originally a Phrygian city, but later Hellenized. It was a major trading center for many centuries prior to Roman expansion, but in the First Century had become secondary to cities like Laodicea (ABD, 1:1089).

Most conservative theologians consider Colossians to have been written in the same general time frame of Ephesians and Philippians, likely between 60-62 C.E. from Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. The actual composition of Colossians is uniquely tied to that of Philemon: “both letters mention Timothy, Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphrus, Luke, Demas, Archippus, and Onesimus (Col. 1:1 and Philem. 1; Col. 4:10-14 and Philem. 23-24; Col. 4:17 and Philem. 2; Col. 4:9 and Philem. 10ff.) The duplication of so many names must indicate that Paul writes and sends both letters at the same time and from the same place” (Gundry, pp 392-393).

Paul’s audience in the Colossian assembly was predominately non-Jewish. The people in Colossae were mostly of Phrygian origin. The Phrygians were a subjugated people mentioned all the way back in works such as Homer’s Illiad (ABD, 3:806). In the Fifth Century C.E. when Colossae was as its peak, the people would have largely spoken Phrygian (IDB, 1:658), but Hellenization brought Greek as the dominant language of business: “During the Hellenistic and Roman periods the use of the Greek language naturally spread in this region” (Ibid., 3:806). There were apparently a large number of Jews in Phrygia, possibly as many as 50,000, including 7,500 freemen (ABD, 1:1089). “The Jews of this region were known for their laxity in observing their law” (IDB, 3:807). The claim by some Messianics that Paul would have written to the Colossians in Hebrew or Aramaic is without historical merit, especially when the Jews of Colossae, largely lax in their observance of the Torah, would not have been using it. A written Greek origin for Colossians is well-assured.

The Colossian congregation became a hub of doctrinal problems, all of which necessitated a personal visit from Epaphras to Rome to meet with Paul. The religious background of the Colossians would have been consistent with the standard Greco-Roman pantheon of deities, but there is some evidence of worship to Egyptian deities as well (ABD, 1:1089). This likely came from Colossae having been a center of trade. A dominant issue that theologians have debated about is what the major crisis that the Colossians faced was. Conservative theologians are in general agreement that the issue is Gnosticism, but probably not the more developed Gnosticism that we see the Second and Third Century Church Fathers combat in their writings. “This was probably an incipient form of what later became known as Gnosticism, a very complex system that reached its zenith in the second century. This incipient Gnosticism—some use the expression proto-Gnosticism—was essentially a religio-philosophical attitude, not a well defined system” (EXP, 11:166).

We see a variety of issues at hand that Paul must address in his letter, all of them critical to place in their historical context: (1) asceticism (2:18); (2) angel worship (2:18); (3) depreciation of Yeshua’s Divinity (1:15-20; 2:2-3, 9); (4) secret knowledge (2:18); (5) a reliance on worldly wisdom (2:4, 8). Paul urges the Colossians to be compliant with God’s Word, telling the Colossians not to let outsiders judge them for keeping the Sabbath, appointed times, or dietary laws (2:16-17), and be led astray by their worldly philosophies. There might be some doctrinal parallels between Galatians and Colossians, if indeed the Judaizers influencing the Galatians were Jewish mystics, and those influencing the Colossians had an even greater mix of Jewish mysticism, Gnosticism, and pagan philosophy. The evil influences we can see present in Colossians are “syncretistic influences including ideas from neo-pythagoreanism, Iranian and Egyptian influences, and also…Jewish mysticism” (Guthrie, 571).

Many of the heresies and false practices that we see addressed by Paul in Colossians are addressed in greater detail in 1 John, penned near the end of the First Century and addressing a more developed Gnosticism. One element that Paul refutes, that of angel worship, apparently continued well into the Fourth Century in Colossae, with worship of the Archangel Michael. Paul refutes the Colossian heresy by emphasizing the supremeness of Yeshua as the image of God (1:15), the Creator (1:16), the preexistent One (1:17), the head of the assembly (1:18), and a fully Divine member of the Godhead (1:19; 2:9). This is in contrast to the meaningless humanistic philosophy of the Colossians, which was leading them astray and away from believing that Yeshua was Divine (2:8). The most direct statement regarding Yeshua’s Divinity appears in Colossians 2:9: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”

Some Christian theologians have claimed that “Basically the heresy was Jewish” (ISBE, 1:733). However, with the growing research in the field of First Century Judaisms, and other ancient religions, theologians are beginning to see that the problems the Colossians faced were largely pagan or humanistic in nature, not Jewish or Hebraic. From a distinct Messianic viewpoint, the Colossians were being led astray by pagan beliefs and philosophies, clouded in Gnostic and mystical thought, away from the Torah foundation in which the Jerusalem Council wanted the non-Jewish Believers to be instructed. This is Paul’s whole perspective in Colossians 2, often a problem chapter for Messianic Believers lacking an historical framework for the text.

Bibliography
Arnold, Clinton E. “Colossae,” in ABD, 1:1089-1090.
Banks, E.J. “Colossae,” in ISBE, 1:732-733.
Barabas, Steven. “Colossians, the Letter to,” in NIDB, 227.
Bruce, F.F. “Colossians, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 1:733-735.
Filson, F.V. “Phrygia,” in IDB, 3:806-808.
Furnish, Victor Paul. “Colossians, Epistle to the,” in ABD, 1:1090-1096.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle to the Colossians,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 564-584.
McCullough, W.S. “Colossians, Letter to the,” in IDB, 1:658-662.
Mellink, M.J. “Colossae,” in IDB, 1:658.
Vaughn, Curtis. “Colossians,” in EXP, 11:163-226.

1 Thessalonians
Approximate date: 52 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Corinth
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Thessalonica

The authorship of 1 Thessalonians is most certainly Pauline, indicated by the personal characteristics we see interspersed throughout the letter, and comparison with other texts of Scripture (3:1-2, 8-11; cf. Acts 15:36; 2 Corinthians 11:28). The historical data that appears in 1 Thessalonians compares well with Acts 17:5-14. Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians is not severely challenged, even by some liberal theologians. 1 Thessalonians is believed to be one of Paul’s earliest letters, if not the first letter, and quite possibly even the first piece of text composed by the early Messianic community (ABD, 6:517), depending on how one dates the composition of Galatians. The Thessalonian congregation was founded by Paul on his Second Missionary Journey.

It is generally agreed that Paul composed his letter from Corinth, based on internal evidence (1:1; 2:18), and external evidence regarding the proconsul Gallio’s ascension to power, as Paul had to go before him to answer charges (Acts 18:12-17). The dating of 1 Thessalonians is often tied to the ascension to Gallio (Guthrie, pp 587-588). “An inscription discovered in Delphi in 1909 contains a letter from Claudius to Gallio, before whom Paul was arraigned in Corinth; it dates the proconsulship of Gallio to the twelfth year of Claudius’s tribunicial power and before the latter’s twenty-seventh acclamation in August, A.D. 52…Just when Paul appeared before him is not stated, but Acts 18:12-18 implies that Gallio’s succession took place near the end of Paul’s eighteen-month stay in Corinth” (ISBE, 4:833).

Thessalonica was the capital of Macedonia while under Roman administration. In the First Century, the city was probably only about a third smaller than today’s Saloniki, which has a population of around 300,000 (EXP, 11:229). Thessalonia was a seaport city located at the head of the Thermaic Gulf (now the Gulf of Salonika), the chief seaport in Macedonia (NIDB, 1010). The city was an important trade center on the road leading north to the Danube, and many goods coming and going to Rome went through Thessalonica.

Paul began his early ministry in Thessalonica at the synagogue (Acts 17:1-9). This indicates that there was a Jewish presence in the city, but later the assemblage of Messianic Believers became predominantly non-Jewish (Acts 17:4), indicated by Paul’s words, “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Many of the Thessalonian Believers came out of Greco-Roman paganism, quite recently as indicated by Paul’s salutation. A large sector of his audience also included a number of “devout Greeks” (IDB, 4:622), as the first major group to receive the new faith in Yeshua appear to have been Greek proselytes to Judaism (ISBE, 4:832).

Contrary to what some in the Messianic community today might want to believe, no Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 1 Thessalonians has ever been suggested by any reputable scholar. All are in agreement that Paul wrote this letter in Greek, especially given the orientation of even the Jewish audience.

Acts 17:5-10 tells us that Paul was forced to leave Thessalonica abruptly, due to hostility from the local Jewish community over his preaching the gospel. Paul wrote the Thessalonians, mostly new Believers coming out of paganism, about the persecution that they were facing (3:3-5). Paul’s letter deals with some practical instructions for proper living (4:1-12), and he wanted to clarify for them some misconceptions regarding the Messiah’s return (4:13-18).

“Far and away the largest theological contribution of the Epistles [1&2 Thessalonians] lies in what they say about eschatology” (EXP, 11:223). Teachings regarding the Last Days appear in every chapter of this letter (1:9-10; 2:19-20; 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:23-24), and are dominate throughout ch. 4. 1&2 Thessalonians, along with Yeshua’s Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) and the Book of Revelation, form the backbone of end-time teachings within the Apostolic Scriptures. Secondary issues in 1 Thessalonians regard proper sexuality and being aware of the times in which one is living.

The persecution that the Thessalonians were facing is often attributed to the hostility that the Jewish leadership at the synagogue had toward Paul (Acts 17:5-9). This hostility may have been because the Greek proselytes in their midst were eager upon hearing the good news of Yeshua. The synagogue leaders may have cherished this group of converts and was upset that they left their tutelage (Guthrie, 586). In spite of this, however, the persecution of the Thessalonian Believers appears to be of Thessalonian, and not Jewish origin (IDB, 6:623), but possibly came as a result of Jewish influence over local leaders. The initial charge against Paul that the Jews brought was that he was inciting rebellion against Caesar.

1 Thessalonians does not prove to have many Messianic-specific subject issues to wade through. “There is no reference to the Torah and, consequently, no language of justification…That does not mean [Paul’s] thought is impoverished; it is simply different, fitted to the church he addresses” (ABD, 6:517). We would be remiss not to keep in mind the fact that when Paul first visited Thessalonica, he reasoned with the Jews there from the Torah and the Prophets (NBCR, 1154). However, eschatology dominates his writing to them, so any Torah-relates issues are secondary, if not tertiary, at best. It is safe to place 1 Thessalonians after the Jerusalem Council. 1 Thessalonians also addresses some critical theologies regarding the plurality of the Godhead, the Divinity of the Messiah, the First Century responsibility of the Apostles, and pastoral responsibility.

If there are any challenges that exist in 1 Thessalonians, they do not relate to the validity of the Torah and its commandments for us today, but relate to the infamous pre- versus post-tribulation rapture debate. While much of evangelical Christianity today leans heavily toward the pre-trib viewpoint, and there is often not an even balance between pre- and post-trib Christians, there is a more even balance between pre- and post-tribulationists in the Messianic community. Those of us who are post-tribulational would do well to properly address 1 Thessalonians, and how it may relate to the over-enthusiasm of some who examine prophecy.

Bibliography
Beare, F.W. “Thessalonians, First Letter to the,” in IDB, 4:621-625.
Blaiklock, Edward M. “Thessalonica,” in NIDB, 1010.
Bruce, F.F. “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in NBCR, pp 1154-1165.
Finegan, J. “Thessalonica,” in IDB, 4:629.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Early Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 341-358.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Thessalonian Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 585-606.
Krentz, Edgar M. “Thessalonians, First and Second Epistles to the,” in ABD, 6:515-523.
Tenney, Merill C. “Thessalonians, Letters to the,” in NIDB, pp 1008-1010.
_______________. “Thessalonians, First Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 4:832-834.
Thomas, Robert L. “1 Thessalonians,” in EXP, 11:229-298.

2 Thessalonians
Approximate date: 52-53 C.E. (maximum of six months after 1 Thessalonians)
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Corinth
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Thessalonica

Genuine Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is questioned by many liberal theologians, even though the text of this letter was well-known to many of the Church Fathers (Guthrie, 593). Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is often challenged on the basis of its structure, and the fact that it is more formal and rigid in its language than 1 Thessalonians. Some liberal theologians believe that 2 Thessalonians was an “application letter” written by a student of Paul to apply his instruction in 1 Thessalonians to a new situation. The majority of conservative scholars, in contrast, hold to genuine Pauline authorship, and the conviction that 2 Thessalonians clarifies many of the statements made in 1 Thessalonians. Tenney notes that none of the arguments against Pauline authorship are valid, “for the two letters deal with two different aspects of the same general subject, and bear so many resemblances to each other that they are clearly related” (NIDB, 1009).

2 Thessalonians was composed not long after the letter of 1 Thessalonians. It was likely written by Paul a maximum of six months later, although some speculate a composition of a few weeks after 1 Thessalonians (ISBE, 4:835). 2 Thessalonians was probably written from Corinth, and was written to clarify misunderstandings from the first letter. It adds additional dimensions to the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians, specifying that certain events must precede the return of Yeshua (2:1-3), and it introduces “the man of sin” (2:3-9). The letter was probably written to answer the claims of an unauthorized letter that said the return of Yeshua was at hand (2:2). The text takes on a distinctly more Jewish character than 1 Thessalonians, including references to “the day of the Lord” (2:2), which the largely non-Jewish readership would not have been as familiar with as the Jewish readership.

Like 1 Thessalonians, no one in the scholastic community has ever proposed a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for the text of 2 Thessalonians. A Greek composition of 2 Thessalonians is definite given its audience.

The theology of 2 Thessalonians is largely focused around eschatology. Paul specifies many of the general end-time claims of 1 Thessalonians. He encourages the Believers in Thessalonica (1:4-10), corrects misunderstandings relating to the Second Coming (2:1-12), and is forced to exhort many of the Thessalonians to work (2:13-3:15). There was a strong belief that the return of Yeshua and the end of the world were at hand, and men were not working, providing sustenance for their families. As Gundry remarks, “The fanaticism arose out of a belief in the immediacy of Jesus’ return…Paul therefore writes this second epistle to the Thessalonians to quiet the fanaticism by correcting the eschatology that gave rise to it” (Gundry, 356).

2 Thessalonians offers no huge theological challenges for the Messianic community today. It is interesting, though, that Paul does write, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2:7), indicating that in the mid-First Century the community of faith was already distancing itself from the Torah. However, the bulk of Paul’s writing relates to the return of Yeshua, and responds to the arguments of so-called end-time immanency. If anything, there is more in 2 Thessalonians that regards the infamous pre- versus post-tribulation rapture debate. It also addresses the need for us not to be too overanxious about the end-times.

Bibliography
Beare, F.W. “Thessalonians, First Letter to the,” in IDB, 4:625-629.
Bruce, F.F. “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in NBCR, pp 1154-1165.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Early Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 341-358.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Thessalonian Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 585-606.
Krentz, Edgar M. “Thessalonians, First and Second Epistles to the,” in ABD, 6:515-523.
Tenney, Merill C. “Thessalonians, Letters to the,” in NIDB, pp 1008-1010.
_______________. “Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 4:834-836.
Thomas, Robert L. “2 Thessalonians,” in EXP, 11:301-337.

1 Timothy
Approximate date: 63-64 C.E. or 65-67 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: traveling to Macedonia
Target audience and location: Timothy in Ephesus

The author of 1 Timothy is identified in the text as being the Apostle Paul (1:1), and while many conservatives accept genuine Pauline authorship, liberals do not. Liberals often favor the belief that the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) were written by third generation Christians (IDB, 4:651), casting doubts on their historicity. It is doubted on the basis that Paul could not have written 2 Timothy from his imprisonment in Rome described in Acts 28 (even though this was more of a house arrest), and consequently 1 Timothy is attached to this premise. However, it is reasonable to infer that Paul was released from his imprisonment described at the end of Acts, and traveled to Spain (cf. 1 Clement 5), only later to be arrested when he returned to Rome.

Paul writes his letter to Timothy, who was a native of Lystra in Asia Minor (Acts 20:4). Timothy’s father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jewess. Timothy was taught from the Tanach as a young man by his Jewish grandmother Lois, and later his mother (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15), but he was never circumcised, nor converted to Judaism. It is assumed that Timothy’s mother was not originally religious, causing her to marry a Greek man, who would not allow his son to be circumcised (ISBE, 4:857). When Timothy came to faith in the Messiah Yeshua, Paul made sure that he underwent circumcision. “Paul regarded Timothy’s circumcision not as a means of salvation but as a legal act to remove a serious obstacle to the gospel” (Ibid.). Timothy assisted Paul in his work in Macedonia and Achaia (Acts 17:14-15; 18:5), and was with him during most of his work in Ephesus (Acts 19:22). Timothy was Paul’s traveling companion, going with him from Ephesus to Macedonia, to Corinth (Acts 20:3), through Asia Minor (Acts 20:1-6), and even to Jerusalem.

The Apostle Paul mentions Timothy as a “co-sender” of six of his letters (2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon). When he found himself imprisoned in Rome again, Paul asked Timothy to join him (2 Timothy 4:9, 21). While we do not know if Timothy made it to Rome, we can safely assume that he made every effort to do so. Timothy is mentioned more times than any of Paul’s other companions, indicating a fond affection for him (NIDB, 1018). In spite of his young age, natural reserve, and timidity (1 Corinthians 16:10; 2 Timothy 1:7), as well as his frequent ailments (1 Timothy 5:23), he was a faithful servant to the community of faith, following the tasks assigned to him by Paul and the other Apostles with absolute dedication.

1 Timothy was written by Paul to Timothy while he was in Ephesus (1:3). Paul leaves the Ephesian assemblies in Timothy’s capable care, and writes the letter while traveling to Macedonia. The letter is often estimated as having been written in 63-64 C.E., although some prefer a slightly later date of 65-67 C.E. Paul indicates in this letter that he might not return for some time, so he writes to encourage him (1:3, 18). Paul instructs Timothy to refute false teachings (1:3-7; 4:1-8; 6:3-5, 20-21), and to adequately supervise the assembly (ch 2; 3:1-13; 5:17-25).

Contrary to the opinion of some in the Messianic community, no Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 1 Timothy has ever been proposed by anyone in the scholastic community. It is impossible considering that Timothy was raised as a Greek in Lystra, and would have spoken Greek as his native language. In fact his very Greek name Timotheos (Timoqeoß) is preserved in modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament as Timotius (sWYtAmyj).

The problem that had infected the Ephesian congregations Timothy was overseeing likely involved Gnosticism, or at least a primitive form of it, combined with people thinking that they should be Torah teachers who should not be (1:3-7). Combined with this was a form of asceticism. While expositors have often assumed that many of the problems Timothy had to address were Jewish in nature, “the nature of the heresy has nothing in common with legalistic Judaism. The second danger is the identification of the opposition with a well-known Gnostic movement of the second century” (IDB, 3:672). Timothy also had the job of making sure that proper order and organization were in place among the leaders of the Ephesian assemblies.

The Messianic community today faces some of the same issues described by Paul in 1 Timothy. We have Judaizers or “Influencers” who think themselves to be teachers of the Torah, and have no business being such, and are led by Gnostic-type ideas. As Paul says, “These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith…They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Timothy 1:4b, 7, NIV). We would do well to heed Paul’s words to Timothy, and understand them for what they meant to the Torah community in Ephesus, and what they mean for the emerging Messianic movement today.

Bibliography
Beker, J.C. “Pastoral letters,” in IDB, 3:668-675.
Earle, Ralph. “1&2 Timothy,” in EXP, 11:341-418.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Pastoral Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 409-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “Pastoral Epistles,” in ISBE, 3:679-687.
______________. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 607-657.
Hawthorne, G.F. “Timothy,” in ISBE, 4:857-858.
Hendriksen, William. “Pastoral Letters,” in NIDB, pp 753-755.
_________________. “Timothy,” in NIDB, pp 1018-1019.
Kee, H.C. “Timothy,” in IDB, 4:651.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Timothy and Titus, Epistles to,” in ABD, 6:560-571.
Stibbs, A.M. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in NBCR, pp 1166-1186.

2 Timothy
Approximate date: 66-67 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul, possibly written down by a scribe
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Timothy in Ephesus

The issues surrounding genuine Pauline authorship for 2 Timothy are the same as those for 1 Timothy. Generally, Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is accepted by many conservatives, but doubted by liberals because of an advanced grammatical structure that is unique to the other Pauline letters. Some conservatives do believe, however, that 2 Timothy and Titus may have been composed by members of Paul’s entourage, under his authority, during his imprisonment (ABD, 6:568). This would certainly account for its advanced wording.

The letter of 2 Timothy is generally agreed to have been written during Paul’s second imprisonment under Nero in 66-67 C.E., from Rome, prior to the winter (4:21), and probably after Paul’s letter to Titus. While Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome was in a rented house (Acts 28:30), his second imprisonment came from a dungeon (4:13), where Paul was chained like a criminal (1:16; 2:9). Paul writes his letter, reflecting on the fact that the work God had for him had been completed, and that his life was ending (4:6-8).

Paul wrote Timothy because of an extreme loneliness he was feeling, as only Luke, of Paul’s inner circle, was still with him (4:11). Titus and Tychicus were away in Crete (4:10-12), and the rest deserted him (1:15; 4:10), possibly for fear of persecution or to pursue Earthly pleasures. Paul desired Timothy to visit him (1:4), and for him to come soon (4:9, 21). Paul writes Timothy because he was greatly concerned for the persecutions that were coming, presumably at the hands of Nero. Timothy is admonished by Paul to keep and persevere in the gospel (1:14; 3:14), and if necessary suffer for it (1:8; 2:3). Timothy was overseeing the Ephesian assemblies at the time, and by extension Paul is issuing some important instruction for them.

Just like 1 Timothy, no scholar or academic has ever proposed a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for the composition of 2 Timothy. It is impossible given Paul’s circumstances as a chained criminal in a Roman dungeon, and the strong possibility that members of the Roman faith community composed it for him on his authority. It guarantees that the letter was composed in Greek, being sent to Timothy, a native Greek speaker, and by extension to the Ephesian assemblies.

2 Timothy is largely a personal letter from the Apostle Paul to Timothy. Paul urges Timothy not to give up in his faith, and not to be intimidated by any false teachings or apostasy around him—likely the same issues as in 1 Timothy. Paul stresses to Timothy that “all Scripture” is inspired by God (3:16), and at the time that would certainly have included the canon of the Tanach, but was likely beginning to include some of the Apostolic texts. Paul makes an interesting reference in his letter to Jannes and Jambres (3:8), who are not described in the Torah itself, but rather in Targum Jonathan on Exodus 7:11. When Paul instructs Timothy to bring him the parchments or scrolls, it likely included copies of the Tanach, records on Yeshua’s life and teachings, other religious documents, and Paul’s legal papers, including his certificate of Roman citizenship (Gundry, 417).

The clear emphasis in 2 Timothy is for him to maintain “sound doctrine” (4:3) in the assembly of faith. Timothy is admonished to maintain order among those whom he oversees. The emerging Messianic community today would do well to take Paul’s words to Timothy seriously, because there are Messianic groups that lack the order that Paul desired Timothy to enforce.

Bibliography
Beker, J.C. “Pastoral letters,” in IDB, 3:668-675.
Earle, Ralph. “1&2 Timothy,” in EXP, 11:341-418.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Pastoral Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 409-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “Pastoral Epistles,” in ISBE, 3:679-687.
______________. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 607-657.
Hendriksen, William. “Pastoral Letters,” in NIDB, pp 753-755.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Timothy and Titus, Epistles to,” in ABD, 6:560-571.
Stibbs, A.M. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in NBCR, pp 1166-1186.

Titus
Approximate date: 63-64 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Nicopolis
Target audience and their location: Titus in Crete

The author of the letter to Titus is very clearly identified as being the Apostle Paul in the text (1:1). Genuine Pauline authorship is not doubted by conservatives, neither was it doubted by the Second Century Church. Pauline authorship is doubted by liberals, who often believe that Titus was composed by second or third generation Christians.

This letter, in the series of Pastoral Epistles, is addressed to Titus, one of Paul’s original converts (1:4). Titus was very important to Paul, as Paul took him to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-3). When Paul took Titus to Jerusalem, Titus was not circumcised (Galatians 2:3-5). In the growing world of Jewish New Testament studies, there is debate as to what this would mean, whether he was not physically circumcised, or if being “circumcised” is an expression meaning conversion to Judaism. Regardless of which is correct, we may safely assume that when Titus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem he was a rather young Believer, and Paul wanted to show him the holy city.

Titus probably worked with Paul during his time in Ephesus. It is notable that “We hear nothing further of Titus till the time of Paul’s ministry at Ephesus on the third missionary journey” (EXP, 11:422). He likely grew leaps and bounds in his Messianic faith during this time. Titus was given the responsibility by Paul to deliver the letter of 2 Corinthians to Corinth (2 Corinthians 8:3). Later, we see that Paul and Titus worked together on the island of Crete (1:5), and Titus remained there to continue the work as Paul’s representative (1:5; 2:15; 3:12-13). The last we see about Titus in the Biblical text is that he went on a mission to Dalmatia (1 Timothy 4:10).

The letter to Titus was almost assuredly written before 2 Timothy, in approximately 63-64 C.E. Some believe that Titus was written during Paul’s second imprisonment in Rome, but the text of Titus indicates that Paul asks him to meet him in Nicopolis (3:12-14), a town on the west coast of Greece. Titus was in Crete when the letter was addressed to him, and by extension Paul’s instruction was not only to Titus, but to the Cretan assemblies. Crete, being an island in the Southern Aegean Sea, was at a deplorable moral level in the First Century. Paul actually quotes the Cretan poet Epimenides, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (1:12), in pointing out that Titus had his work cut out for him. Titus was given apostolic authority to see that the congregations of Crete were well-cared for, and to prepare the way for Apollos and Zenas (3:13).

As with the other Pastoral Epistles, no one in the scholastic world has ever proposed a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for Titus. Contrary to what a few in the Messianic movement might want to believe, a Greek composition for Titus is absolutely certain. Titus “was a Greek” (Galatians 2:3), and would have spoken Greek as his native language. Titus was operating in Crete when Paul wrote him from Nicopolis, all areas where Greek was spoken as the primary language.

The letter to Titus includes a strong emphasis by Paul on loving and doing good (1:8, 16; 2:3, 7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14), as true sanctification was needed in Crete (NIDB, 754). One explanation is that the letter was written by Paul because “Titus was directed to appoint morally and doctrinally qualified elders in the various” assemblies (EXP, 11:423). There may have also been some limited Gnostic influence circulating around Crete as well (IDB, 3:673). Yet another explanation is that “certain Jewish-Christian teachers [had] perverted the consciences of their fellow believers; the new Pauline presbyter-bishops must stop them” (ABD, 6:560). What is interesting about this explanation is that it places the context of Titus’ work as being within “the Jewish-Christian congregation” (Ibid., 6:561). This would mean that Titus was overseeing various Messianic congregations, preparing the way for Apollos, who was strong in the Tanach (Acts 18:24), and Zenas “the Torah expert” (3:13, CJB). The letter by Paul to Titus presents no major challenges for the Messianic community today when placed in its historical context.

Bibliography
Beker, J.C. “Pastoral letters,” in IDB, 3:668-675.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Pastoral Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 409-420.
Guthrie, Donald. “Pastoral Epistles,” in ISBE, 3:679-687.
______________. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 607-657.
Hendriksen, William. “Pastoral Letters,” in NIDB, pp 753-755.
_________________. “Titus,” in NIDB, 1021.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Titus,” in EXP, 11:421-449.
Quinn, Jerome D. “Timothy and Titus, Epistles to,” in ABD, 6:560-571.
Stibbs, A.M. “The Pastoral Epistles,” in NBCR, pp 1166-1186.

Philemon
Approximate date: 60-62 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Paul
Location of author: Rome (majority), Ephesus or Laodicea (minority)
Target audience and location: Philemon, from Colossae or Lycus Valley

The author of the letter to Philemon is identified in the text as the Apostle Paul (vs. 1, 9, 19), and conservative theologians often regard Pauline authorship as genuine. This letter appears in a series that is generally referred to as the “Prison Epistles,” along with Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Pauline authorship of Philemon is challenged by liberals, many of whom merely believe that it “was written in the second century to instruct the church in handling the slavery question” (EXP, 11:453).

The composition of Philemon is closely connected to Colossians, as the same company of people are listed as extending greetings to Philemon, as in Colossians (Colossians 1:1; cf. Philemon 1). This would place Philemon’s composition in approximately 60-62 C.E., and most probably from Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment. Some theologians differ, advocating that Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus, or even possibly that this was the letter “written from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:16; cf. IDB, 3:783), but the majority conservative position favors a Roman origin for the epistle.

Paul writes this letter to Philemon, who was a Greek Believer in Colossae, but who may have lived in the Lycus Valley adjacent to Colossae. Philemon was a slave owner (Colossians 4:1), but had a congregation of Believers meeting in his home. According to the traditional view of composition, his slave Onesimus had been stolen from him, but later fled his captors and ran to Rome (v. 18; Gundry, 392). Later, Onesimus himself became a Believer in Yeshua, and somehow encountered Paul while in Rome. Paul writes to Philemon, appealing for him to accept Onesimus as a fellow brother (v. 16), encouraging that Onesimus needs to be “profitable” as his name means (Ibid.). Paul asks that Philemon treat Onesimus as a “son,” perhaps in reference to Rabbinical opinions of the time which held that if one trains a neighbor’s son in the Torah, that person is as a son to him (NIDB, 780). Paul asks Philemon to cancel the debt that is incurred by Onesimus (vs. 18-20).

No scholar or theologian has ever dreamed of proposing a Hebrew or Aramaic origin for the letter to Philemon. This is impossible for any number of important reasons. Both Philemon and Onesimus, the runaway slave, would have been Greek speakers. While Paul’s ability to communicate as an able Jewish rabbi is present in the text, so is his ability to write letters in Greek style. “Only recently…have scholars shown the strong influence of Greek rhetorical conventions on Paul’s masterful argumentation in Plmn, in particular the genre of deliberative rhetoric…By use of skillful appeals to the reason, the emotions, and the character of their hearers, rhetoriticians sought to establish two motives for action: maintaining honor and gaining advantage” (ABD, 5:306). What is intriguing about the composition of Philemon is that Paul, as a Jew from the Diaspora and a Pharisee, is able to communicate very eloquently to a wealthy Asiatic Greek, who came to faith in the Messiah.

The letter to Philemon reveals some very important historical data about the early Messianic community, including the fact that they largely met in homes. This was patterned after the Jewish synagogues, which in many Diaspora cities met in homes, with the exception of where there was a large Jewish community. In fact, no actual “church buildings” are believed to have existed until the Third Century (NIDB, 780).

The Epistle of Philemon has presented many challenges for Christians over the centuries, and even more challenges for those living in the modern age. Roman law in the First Century required strict punishment for any runaway slave (IDB, 3:783). Many questions have arisen when interpreting what Paul means by his letter. Is Paul urging moderation on the part of Philemon toward Onesimus? Does Paul support slavery? Does Paul write this letter so Onesimus can be freed by Philemon? Is Paul indifferent to slavery? Edward M. Blaicklock offers the perspective, “Slavery is never directly attacked as such, but principles that must prove fatal to the institution are steadily inculcated” (NIDB, 780).

Some Reformed theologians of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries actually used Philemon as a support for the institution of slavery, as Paul does not directly address the issue in his letter. Likewise, many other theologians of the same period used Philemon as a support for abolitionism. Perhaps the question of slavery is not easily answered from Philemon as we have no extant information on how Onesimus became a slave. Did he become a slave because of an indebtedness he was trying to pay off, or was he a slave because of some military campaign against an oppressed people? Likewise, we have no extant data on who Philemon was, other than him being a wealthy man, how he accumulated this wealth, or what his occupation was.

Because of the lack of information we have on Philemon’s and Onesimus’ backgrounds, many take a moderate stance, which is that Paul’s opinion relating to Onesimus’ state as a new Believer required Philemon to free him (IDB, 3:782). In other words, the First Century Messianic community should have freed slaves who came to faith, but not those who did not come to faith. Of course, our exegesis of Philemon must be tempered by the fact that Onesimus was not a slave like the Ancient Israelites were in Egypt. Rather than helping to run the Egyptian Empire, Onesimus was probably a household servant or field laborer, and his master saw that all of his needs were met.

Bibliography
Bartchy, S. Scott. “Philemon, Epistle to,” in ABD, 5:305-310.
Blaicklock, Edward M. “Philemon, Letter to,” in NIDB, pp 780-781.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Prison Epistles of Paul,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 390-408.
Guthrie, Donald. “Philemon,” in NBCR, pp 1187-1190.
______________. “The Epistle to Philemon,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 660-667.
Hemer, C.J. “Philemon, Epistle to,” in ISBE, 3:831-832.
Lyman, M.E. “Philemon, Letter to,” in IDB, 3:782-784.
Rupprecht, Arthur A. “Philemon,” in EXP, 11:453-464.

Hebrews
Approximate date: 64-70 C.E.
Author: unknown, but often favored to be Barnabas or Apollos
Location of author: the Jewish Diaspora, probably Corinth or Italy
Target audience and their location: the Jewish Diaspora, probably Rome, Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean

The overwhelming theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the superiority of Yeshua’s sacrifice and blood atonement over the animal sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood. Yeshua’s atoning work for mankind is permanent, compared to animal sacrifices that at best could only provide a temporary covering for sin. The author of Hebrews writes, “He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (8:6). The New Covenant initiated by Yeshua’s blood is better than the Old Covenant, which demanded death for those who violated the Torah, because Yeshua’s blood covers our sin.

The letter to the Hebrews was known in early Christianity and is quoted as early as 95 C.E., demonstrating that it was written well before the end of the First Century. There are various parallels between Hebrews and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

“By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Hebrews 11:7).

“Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark: (1 Clement 9:4).

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).

“This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven” (1 Clement 36:1).

There is some debate over the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the author of the epistle does not identify himself. There are various extant traditions from Church history suggesting different authors.

The Eastern Church has held to the tradition that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews, based on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria from the late Second Century. The Fourth Century historian Eusebius records, “The epistle to the Hebrews he asserted was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but it was carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks since one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the epistle as in Acts” (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.2). However, Origin of Alexandria in the Third Century was forced to say, “who it was that really wrote this epistle, God only knows” (6.25.14). The salutation in Hebrews 13:25, “Grace be with you all,” a common salutation in Pauline writing, is sometimes used as a support for Pauline authorship. While Paul was an early candidate for Hebrews’ authorship, as much of the theology is Pauline in nature, no complete certainty is attached to him. The writing style is more direct and does not digress like Paul. The Church of the Middle Ages generally accepted Pauline authorship, until it was challenged by Luther and Calvin in the Reformation. Most evangelical Christians today totally discount Pauline authorship.

Tertullian of Carthage suggested Barnabas for the authorship of Hebrews, and his is the oldest extant tradition. He wrote in the late Second Century, “For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence” (On Modesty 20). In support of Barnabas being the author of Hebrews, he is attested to be a Levite (Acts 4:26-37), and he had direct contact with those who heard and saw Yeshua firsthand (Hebrews 2:3). He would have been familiar with the intricacies of the sacrificial system, and would have been able to testify of Yeshua in a very Pauline manner, yet distinct from Paul.

A third candidate proposed for the authorship of Hebrews is Apollos, first suggested by Luther and believed by many conservative theologians today. Apollos was an acquaintance of Paul (1 Corinthians 16:22), and was tutored by Priscilla and Acquila (Acts 18:26). Apollos was from Alexandria, and the manner of vocabulary in Hebrews shows some significant Alexandrian influence (NIDB, 427). More than any other book of the Apostolic Scriptures, the Epistle to the Hebrews has thirty-two direct quotations from the Tanach, of which only four are not quoted explicitly from the Septuagint (IDB, 2:572). Apollos was attested to “be mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24), and Hebrews demonstrates a style of oratorical rhetoric. Its author knew Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and had influence over various First Century congregations (Guthrie, 679). The challenge to believing that Apollos was author of Hebrews is that there is no extant tradition to substantiate it, only speculation based on internal Biblical evidence.

Other candidates for Hebrews’ authorship that are often proposed are Luke, Silas, and even Priscilla. However, no complete certainty, and even less evidence, is extant favoring these.

We can deduce some things based on the style and linguistics of the Epistle to the Hebrews. While many Messianics believe that of all the books of the Apostolic Scriptures, Hebrews would have been written in Hebrew, the fact that there is no extant copy of a “Hebrew Hebrews” speaks for itself. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews “writes Greek with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of Luke alone in the NT can be compared” (ISBE, 2:666). This indicates that the “author was probably a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the OT Scriptures and with the religious ideas of the Jews” (Ibid., 2:665). In the text of Hebrews “There is a constant rhythm between theology and moral appeal, which reminds one somewhat of passages in IV Maccabees and Philo” (IDB, 2:571). “The writer’s method of argument generally proceeds in accordance with the rules of Greek rhetoric. He does not digress the way Paul does in most of his letters” (ISBE, 2:664). While the theological character of Hebrews is Pauline, its writing style and authorship are not; this indicates an author who knew Paul, but who could get straight to the point of his message.

The author of Hebrews is believed by some to have been writing from Italy, indicated by his salutation “those from Italy greet you” (Hebrews 13:24). However, this may be a reference to people from Italy in his circle of associates. Many theologians believe that the target audience of Hebrews was the Jewish Believers in Rome, but possibly also Corinth, Alexandria, and across the Diaspora. Assuming that a composition of 64-70 C.E. is accurate, as the author of Hebrews speaks in the present tense of the sacrificial system still functioning, the likely audience are Jewish Believers outside of the Land of Israel. By this time, the bulk of Jewish Believers were living in the Diaspora, and things in Judea were becoming increasingly violent per the actions of the Zealot movement. The author, seeing that the destruction of the Temple was imminent, writes to reassure those whose faith was centered around the Temple that the sacrifice of Yeshua is superior to the animal sacrifices. He writes “there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness” (7:18), presumably until the restoration of the Temple in the Millennium, per the prophecies of Ezekiel chs. 40-44. The Levitical priesthood could only minister to the people of Israel in the Tabernacle and Temple. With the Temple soon to be gone, the Believers needed to see themselves as being served by Yeshua’s priesthood in Heaven, first prefigured by Melchizedek.

Yeshua is, without a doubt, the major theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The text opens up in ch. 1 with a lauded praise of the Messiah, emphasizing that all things have been given to Him and that all things are to worship Him. The author of Hebrews affirms the Divinity of Yeshua, and the fact that Yeshua is the Son of God, whereas Moses was only a servant. The author certainly does not demean Moses, indeed attesting that Moses was “faithful” (3:5); but Moses as a human man could never do what the Messiah has done as the Son of God. Faith is a theme of Hebrews, as the author describes the Hebrew Patriarchs and Prophets as those “of whom the world was not worthy” (11:38). One of the overwhelming themes of the text is the New Covenant, with the author offering extensive quotes from Jeremiah 31. While most Christian theologians have interpreted these New Covenant passages as annulling the Torah, the author of Hebrews himself plainly states “for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (8:10; cf. 10:16).

Some in the Messianic community today, who tend to de-emphasize the final atonement of Yeshua, have difficulty understanding the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is absolutely true that Hebrews must be understood in the context of the Tanach, and the continual allusions made to it. The author of Hebrews had a strong command of the Tanach, and was quite familiar with the operating Temple system in Jerusalem. He also saw that the fall of that system, which occurred in 70 C.E., was going to take place. Jewish Believers needed assurance that their salvation was not in jeopardy, and they could continue on in their faith without the Temple. While the author of Hebrews lauds the Levitical service and Moses, he does emphasize the superiority of Yeshua the Son of God and His work over it.

Bibliography
Bruce, F.F. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDBSup, pp 394-395.
Dinkler, E. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in IDB, 2:571-575.
Gundry, Robert. “Hebrews: Jesus as Priest,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 421-430.
Guthrie, Donald. “Hebrews, Epistle to the,” in ISBE, 2:663-670.
______________. “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 668-721.
Mickleson, A. Berkley. “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in NIDB, pp 427-429.
Morris, Leon. “Hebrews,” in EXP, 12:3-158.
Stibbs, A.M. “Hebrews,” in NBCR, pp 1191-1221.

James
Approximate date: 45-50 C.E.
Author: James the Just, brother of Yeshua
Location of author: Jerusalem or Judea
Target audience and their location: Jewish Believers in the immediate Diaspora: Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch

The Epistle of James is widely considered by theologians to have the most “Jewish character” of all of the other writings of the Apostolic Scriptures, perhaps save the Gospel of Matthew. This is largely due to its emphasis on works and the moral conduct of the individual, deeply rooted in the Torah or Law of Moses. Some have even suggested that aside from the few references to Yeshua the Messiah, that James would more appropriately fit in the canon of the Tanach (Old Testament) rather than the Apostolic Writings (New Testament). James’ writing style is most authoritative, and there are many parallels in his writing to the teaching style of the Messiah during His Sermon on the Mount and the Wisdom literature of both the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha. Some of James’ writing even parallels that of Greek and Roman moralists of his time, attesting to a rather broad audience who received his letter.

The authorship of the Epistle of James is agreed upon by most conservative scholars to be James, the half-brother of Yeshua, also known as James the Just. (This is not the Apostle James, the brother of the Apostle John and one of the two sons of Zebedee, who was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2.) As early as Acts 12:17 where Peter commanded, “Report these things to James and the brethren,” James the brother of the Lord was an instrumental player in the assembly of Jerusalem. Scholars are not sure as to when James wrote his letter, but are generally agreed that it was written between 45-50 C.E., concurrent with James’ position at the head of the Jerusalem assembly. It is also possible it was written in the early 40s, as no direct reference to the events or controversies surrounding the Jerusalem Council are mentioned. The Apostle Paul attests in Galatians 1:18-19 that on his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion he sought no one out but Peter and James, and then in Galatians 2:9 is given the right hand of fellowship by James. He describes that “James and Cephas and John…were acknowledged pillars” (NRSV), as these three men, beginning with the half-brother of the Lord, were the leaders of the First Century ekklēsia.

There are some important things written about James in the writings of the early Church. Following the ascension of Yeshua into Heaven, the Fourth Century historian Eusebius writes that James was chosen to be one of the deacons for the public service of the Jerusalem assembly: “Then also James, called the brother of our Lord, because he is also called the son of Joseph…This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastical History 2.2.2). Eusebius also writes that “Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus: ‘Peter, and James, and John after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem’” (Ecclesiastical History 2.2.3). These historical attestations tell us the position that James held in the Jerusalem assembly, and the regard that others had for him as the brother of Yeshua. We have to interpret this as meaning that James’ writings themselves must likewise be held in high regard.

James directs his epistle “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1, RSV). Most have interpreted this as meaning that he wrote only to his Jewish brethren, but with an understanding of various prophecies, this is obviously a reference to all Israel. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council meeting, James is the one who delivers the final ruling concerning the non-Jews coming to faith in the Messiah and what is to be done. He quotes from Amos 9:11-12 (cf. Acts 15:16-18) and equates the non-Jews coming to faith with the salvation of all of Israel. In Acts 15:21 he ruled that the non-Jews were to go to the Synagogue to be instructed in the Torah or Law of Moses. James was the appropriate figure to deliver this ruling, as the brother of the Lord Himself.

Eusebius tells us “James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the church with the apostles. This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God” (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-5). This is the kind of devotion that James had regarding his faith and Torah observance.

The First Century historian Josephus records that Ananus, the high priest, had James stoned to death: “Ananus was of this disposition [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Antiquities of the Jews 20.2). What is interesting, of course, is that even though James was brought forward on the charge of breaking the Torah, the historical record attests that James was quite faithful to it, and was very much permitted to enter into the Temple complex.

Perhaps the most quintessential statement in James’ epistle is “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (2:17). James highly emphasizes the lifestyle character of a Believer, and it is because of this emphasis on works that many Christian theologians have had difficulty understanding James over the centuries. Many have viewed James’ writings and his emphasis on works as being contradictory to the writings of Paul, which are viewed to favor grace. However, James’ clear position as the half-brother of the Lord has assured his letter a place in the canon.

James’ primary audience was likely composed of Jewish Believers who had fled the Land of Israel following the martyrdom of Stephen. This is due to his numerous references made about persecution and how we are to endure through it. Because Stephen was a Hellenistic, Greek-speaking Jew (Acts 6:5-9), it is logical to assume that James’ audience was likely Hellenistic Jews living in the Diaspora, with a substantial part of them living in “Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch” (Acts 11:19). Some have tried to suggest that as a Jew writing to fellow Jews James would have composed his letter in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this is improbable if his audience was a sizeable number of Greek-speaking Jews, and new non-Jewish converts to the faith.

R.B. Ward remarks in IDBSup that “There is no doubt that James was written in Greek, especially in view of the fact that the author employs frequent wordplays (2:22; 4:13), catch-word connections (1:4, 5, 12, 13), alliteration (1:2), and other linguistic devices which can only be explained if Greek were the original language. But James is also characterized by many instances of Semitisms, including direct, spontaneous Semitisms to the LXX…With reference to sentence syntax James displays more Semitisms—in distinction from septuagintisms—per page of the text than any other NT letter except I-III John. The author knew ordinary Koine Greek as it was written by people of some education, but he also had recourse to a Semitic style” (p 469).

Even though the letter of James was written in a very high quality of Greek, it includes many Hebraisms. For a person of James’ caliber, it is not improbable at all for him to have learned Greek as a secondary language, especially with many of the early Jewish Believers coming from Greek-speaking lands. This would account for James’ usage of Hebraisms in the Greek text, while still retaining a high Greek linguistic style.

As Messianic Believers today, we know the place that works should play in our lives. We follow the Torah and keep its commandments because the Messiah Yeshua did. We desire to be a part of that holy and set-apart people that our Heavenly Father wants us to be. We cannot just have “faith in our faith”; our faith in the God of the Universe must be evidenced by our good conduct in the world, and the standard that the Lord has set forth in the Torah. James, the half-brother of Yeshua, continued to live by this standard, and instructed others to live by it as well. He emphasizes the ethics and morality that we should have. This is not contradictory to the words of Paul that emphasize grace and faith. Faith, grace, and works are not contradictory to one another, as they all play a role in the life of a Believer, but faith and grace by no means invalidate the need for us to be living properly in obedience to God.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “James, Letter of,” in NIDB, pp 494-495.
Barnett, A.E. “James, Letter of,” in IDB, 2:794-799.
Burdick, Donald W. “James,” in EXP, 12:161-205.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle of James,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 722-759.
Martin, Ralph P. Word Biblical Commentary: James, Vol 48.
Moo, Douglas J. Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letter of James.
Perkins, Pheme. “James,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2171-2179.
Ward, R.B. “James, Letter of,” in IDBSup, pp 471-472.
Wessel, W.W. “James, Epistle of,” in ISBE, 2:959-966.

1 Peter
Approximate date: 63 or 64 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Peter, assisted by Silvanus
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia (Northern Asia Minor)

The author of the Epistle of 1 Peter identifies himself as the Apostle Peter (1:1). The contents of the letter are Petrine, from the personal character that we see of Peter in the Gospels and Acts. Peter was widely considered to be the most prominent of the original Twelve Disciples, whose influence on the assembly was second only to James the Just. Peter is the first to verbalize to Yeshua that He is the Messiah, and Yeshua in turn tells Peter that He will give His Disciples the authority to bind and loose, prohibit and permit (Matthew 16:17-19). In the lists of the Twelve Disciples in the Apostolic Scriptures, his name always appears first (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). It is Peter who preaches to the masses gathered at Shavuot or Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit is poured out, and it is he who goes to the centurion Cornelius, the first non-Jewish person recorded to be saved. Peter was a dominant figure at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which recognized that he had a special calling from God to “the circumcised” (Galatians 2:7) or the Jewish people.

Genuine Petrine authorship is accepted by conservative theologians, as it was recognized in the emerging Christianities of the Second and Third Centuries. 2 Peter 3:1 is the first attestation to it, referring to an earlier letter, and there are some parallels with the late First Century letter of 1 Clement. Peter’s first letter is quoted extensively in Christian writings of the Second and Third Centuries, attributing its contents and its authorship squarely to the Apostle. The Fourth Century historian Eusebius notes in his Ecclesiastical History that “As to the writings of Peter, one of his epistles called the first is acknowledged as genuine. This was anciently used by the ancient fathers in their writings as an undoubted work of the apostle” (3.3.1).

The intended audience of this letter is identified early in its composition: “To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen” (1:1). The intended audience is generally believed by conservative theologians to be a mixed group of Jewish and non-Jewish Believers. The Jewish Believers would have had an easier time grasping Peter’s message for them, but a non-Jewish audience is by no means excluded. These Believers composed congregations in Northern Asia Minor. “The letter was directed to members of the Dispersion located in northern Roman provinces in Asia Minor, which Paul did not visit and which may have been evangelized by Peter between the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 48) and the Neronian persecution at Rome” (NIDB, 774). There is debate among some theologians why Peter would use the term “Dispersion” (RSV) in his letter, as this would presuppose a largely Jewish audience. Does he use it in reference to non-Jewish Believers as well? The text of the letter seems so, as there were many “former pagans [who had] given up their previous way of life and turned to the ‘living God’” (IDB, 3:761). The Jewish Believers who had known the God of Israel did not come out of idolatry (Gundry, 440).

As it concerns the restoration of all Israel, Peter quotes numerous Scriptures from the Hebrew Tanach which connect his readership with what the calling of Israel is all about: a people for God’s own possession who testify to the world of His greatness. He quotes directly from Hosea 2:23 in 1 Peter 2:10. This is an indication that Peter’s audience included members of scattered Israel, and was not exclusively Jewish. Messianic Believers today can be encouraged that the Apostle Peter, who first acknowledged Yeshua as the Messiah, saw the restoration of all Israel, but it must be tempered with the reality that most of his epistle deals with the daily trials and the persecutions that all Believers must face, and that we all must understand our individual roles that we play in the Body of Messiah.

There is a substantial amount of debate as to where Peter was when he wrote this epistle. 1 Peter 5:13 identifies Peter’s location as being “Babylon.” Was this Babylon in Mesopotamia, or was it a veiled reference to Rome? The traditional composition of 1 Peter, concurrent with the extant traditions that adhere to Peter traveling to Rome with John Mark, is that Peter composed this letter from Rome. In 5:3 he writes concerning “my son Mark,” his traveling associate, and according to tradition he was martyred in Rome at the hands of Nero in about 67 or 68 C.E. Rome is the likely place of composition, as there are no traditions from the Eastern Church which substantiate that he ever traveled to Mesopotamian Babylon. Conservative scholars are in general agreement that the letter had to have been written in the early 60s C.E., likely in either 63 or 64 C.E., at the time Nero was in power in Rome and actively began hunting down and persecuting Believers.

Liberal theologians doubt Petrine authorship because of the high Greek composition style that this letter demonstrates to have, and advocate that 1 Peter was composed sometime after Peter’s death. It is generally argued that Peter, as a simple fisherman, would have been unable to learn or communicate in Greek. However, “it must be remembered that in Peter’s day Galilee was probably bi-lingual: the Greek language would have been familiar to Peter from boyhood (his own brother’s name [Andrew] is a Greek one), and being a fisherman and living on one of the great trade routes would have made it necessary for him to speak it regularly” (NBCR, 1236). When we couple this with almost thirty years of ministry work by the Apostle Peter, regularly working with a large number of non-Jews, Peter would have had to learn Greek in the Lord’s service by His Divine empowerment.

Some would countermand this by saying that Acts 4:13 identifies Peter as being “uneducated and untrained,” and that Peter may have had to use an interpreter. Even if this means that Peter was not an expert Greek speaker, was Peter imprisoned when this letter was composed? Note that “Semitisms or ‘mistranslations’ are absent. It is incredible, some argue, that a Galilean fisherman who used an interpreter and was known as ‘uneducated’ (Acts 4:13) had such a command of the Greek language that he could produce a document like this” (IDB, 3:763). This is the classic liberal argument against genuine Petrine authorship. However, the letter itself indicates “Through Silvanus…I have written to you briefly” (5:12). If Peter were in prison when this letter was composed, possibly even in chains like Paul when 2 Timothy was composed, Silvanus was probably Peter’s scribe or secretary who helped him write his letter. As a native Greek speaker, Silvanus would have had the ability to correct any grammatical errors that Peter could have made (Gundry, 438; Guthrie, pp 763-764). Sadly, Messianics who advocate that 1 Peter would have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic fall into the same liberal arguments against Peter writing it. A Hebrew or Aramaic origin simply does not align with the history, extant traditions, and intended audience of the epistle.

Different readers of 1 Peter have found different themes throughout the text. These themes include an emphasis on our duty as Believers, endurance through suffering and persecution, the Earthly sojourn we are on, the grace of God, and general spiritual exhortation. Peter’s epistle has some very important admonitions for the Body of Messiah, both in the First Century, and for Believers today. Peter emphasizes the call of all followers of Yeshua to live like Him, having holy lives, to expect to be persecuted like Him and perhaps even die. He talks about the proper place of husbands and wives in marriage, and the proper place that servants in the Body are to have functioning in their spiritual callings. Suffering like the Messiah is an underlying theme, as when he wrote his letter the assembly was beginning to establish itself as a threat to the Roman authorities. The Apostle Peter is sure to write concerning the love and grace of God, and the sovereignty of the Lord in all matters of life.

Bibliography
Blum, Edwin A. “1 Peter,” in EXP, 12:209-254.
Elliot, John H. “Peter, First Epistle of,” in ABD, 5:269-278.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The First Epistle of Peter,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 760-803.
Martin, R.P. “Peter, First Epistle of,” in ISBE, 3:807-815.
Tenney, Merill C. “Peter, First Letter of,” in NIDB, pp 773-774.
van Unnik, W.C. “Peter, First Letter of,” in IDB, 3:758-766.
Wheaton, David H. “1 Peter,” in NBCR, pp 1236-1249.

2 Peter
Approximate date: 65 to 68 C.E.
Author: the Apostle Peter (possibly with a scribe’s assistance)
Location of author: Rome
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers confronting Gnosticism in Asia Minor and Egypt

The author of 2 Peter identifies himself in the text as the Apostle Peter (1:1). He makes strong personal claims and references in the opening chapter (1:12-15), and claims to be an eyewitness of the Transfiguration of Yeshua (1:16-18). He also writes that this is his second letter (3:1), and indicates that he has a strong acquaintanceship with Paul (3:15).

Many conservative theologians accept genuine Petrine authorship of this epistle (NBCR, 1249), whereas all liberal theologians deny it. Moderates somewhere in the middle of the liberal-conservative paradigm often postulate that it was written in the name of Peter, in his authority (EXP, 12:262). Liberals often argue against Petrine authorship because there is no clear tradition regarding its composition. There do exist some possible allusions to 2 Peter in the late First Century letter of 1 Clement, but the text is not quoted specifically by name until Origin uses it in the mid-Third Century (ISBE, 3:815-816; ABD, 5:283). It is notable, however, that classical liberals who deny Petrine authorship do not discount the text as being authoritative: “It records the effort of Christianity in a transitional post-apostolic period to communicate effectively in a pluralistic cultural environment while at the same time remaining faithful to its apostolic heritage and underlying worldview” (ABD, 5:283).

The emerging Christian Church of the Third Century did finally accept 2 Peter as canonical. Gundry remarks, “The early church exhibited some hesitancy in accepting it into the canon. This hesitancy can be explained by the comparative brevity of the epistle, however; and such brevity may have curtailed its distribution and limited people’s acquaintance with it” (p 443). A strong possibility surrounding why 2 Peter was viewed with extreme skepticism by the emerging Church had to do with much of its subject matter, which pertained to Gnosticism, and the use of Peter’s name in many pseudopigraphal works by Gnostics. Guthrie explains,

“If Gnostic groups had used Peter’s name to drive home their own particular tenets, this fact would cause the orthodox church to take particular care not to use any spurious Petrine epistles. Some of the more nervous probably regarded 2 Peter suspiciously for this reason, but the fact that it ultimately gained acceptance in spite of the pseudo-Petrine literature is an evidence more favourable to its authenticity than against it” (p 809).

It is attested in 1 Peter 5:12 that Silvanus probably helped Peter compose his first epistle. The use of an amanuensis or “second author” is common in some New Testament works (EXP, 12:258). “Just as today a high government official uses a speech writer, though the final product is the official’s responsibility, so 2 Peter may have been drafted by an amanuensis” (Ibid., 12:259). Psuedonymity for 2 Peter is not accepted by most conservative theologians, meaning that the author is completely unknown without any speculation (NBCR, 1250). If Peter had been in prison chains when 2 Peter was composed, Peter employing someone to compose this letter is likely. Petrine authorship assumes that the letter was written between 65 to 68 C.E., prior to Peter’s death (Guthrie, 844). The traditional conservative view is that 2 Peter was composed from Rome.

No one in the conservative academic community has ever suggested that 2 Peter was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, 2 Peter is not included in the Aramaic Peshitta and is not considered canonical by the Syrian Orthodox Church. 2 Peter does employ some Greek-specific philosophical terms (ISBE, 3:817), and the text demonstrates a familiarity on the author’s part with a broad Jewish and Greek audience: “With a diction that was exceptionally Hellenistic in its makeup, the letter formulates a message that was remarkably ‘primitive’ and Jewish in its moral and apocalyptic orientation” (ABD, 5:284; cf. NBCR, 1250). The likely audience of 2 Peter is favored to be a group of Believers countering proto-Gnosticism in either Asia Minor or Egypt.

The theology of 2 Peter may be easily divided between its three chapters. The three-fold purpose of Peter’s letter is to encourage Believers in their growth (ch. 1), combat heresies (ch. 2), and encourage people to be on guard in relation to Yeshua’s return (ch. 3). The text most certainly reflects on Peter’s impending death.

Peter directly confronts proto-Gnosticism in ch. 2, and specifically refutes Simonian Gnosticism, which by tradition was founded by Simon Magus who tried to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter and John (ISBE, 3:318). There are extreme parallels between the text of 2 Peter and the message of Jude. Those who give a late First Century date to Jude give an even later date to 2 Peter, but those who give an early date for Jude often give a mid-First Century date to 2 Peter. Just as with Jude, 2 Peter is concerned with false teachers creeping into the assembly, and urges his readers not to fall into ungodly behavior. He argues with skillful rhetoric, and speaks with the authority of one of the Hebrew Prophets.

2 Peter does not present any challenges for the Torah observant Messianic community today, but it does include many warnings that we must heed. The background of 2 Peter largely confronts Gnosticism, or proto-Gnosticism, and Peter condemns false teachers as deserving of nothing less than eternal punishment. 2 Peter includes a strong warning for those living in the Last Days, and it reflects the reality that people will fall away from the faith. As we steadily approach the return of Yeshua, Messianic exegesis of 2 Peter must keep this in mind as we try to police ourselves of any false theologies that may enter into the camp.

Bibliography
Beker, J.C. “Peter, Second Letter of,” in IDB, 3:767-771.
Blum, Edwin A. “2 Peter,” in EXP, 12:257-289.
Elliot, John H. “Peter, Second Epistle of,” in ABD, 5:282-287.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Second Epistle of Peter,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 805-857.
Michaels, J.R. “Peter, Second Epistle of,” in ISBE, 3:815-819.
Wheaton, David H. “2 Peter,” in NBCR, pp 1249-1258.

1 John
Approximate date: 85-90 C.E.
Author: the Apostle John
Location of author: Ephesus
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor

Conservative theologians are in general agreement that the Apostle John wrote the letter of 1 John, as the author identifies himself as an eyewitness of Yeshua (1:1-4). The author writes in an authoritative manner consistent with the Fourth Gospel, and there is an indication that he was extremely close to the Lord (cf. John 13:23). The author well fits the description of the John we see in the Gospels as being a “son of thunder” (Mark 3:17). “When the Gospel and the letter are compared, the conclusion is well-nigh irresistible that the two books are by the same person” (NIDB, 536).

Many liberals doubt genuine Johannine authorship of this epistle. They argue that the author does not identify himself as John in the text, and often propose that instead the author was someone by the name of “John the Elder.” But as Morris points out, “It cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt that a John the elder, distinct from John the apostle, ever existed” (NBCR, 1259). Yet, even in spite of some liberal claims charging extra-Johannine authorship, they are still forced to conclude, “the Johannine letters, especially I John, stand closer in language, style, and conceptually to the Fourth Gospel than to any other extant document or body of literature” (IDBSup, 487).

The Church Fathers all attest to Johannine authorship of 1 John. These include attestations from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. “This evidence is sufficient to show that from very early times the epistle was not only treated as Scripture but was assumed to be Johannine, in spite of the fact that no specific claim to this effect is made by the writer himself” (Guthrie, 859). Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of John’s, was the first to probably quote from it in the early Second Century: “‘For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;’ and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan” (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 7; cf. 1 John 4:2).

Some have claimed that John, as a Galilean fisherman, would not have had the ability to write a letter like 1 John. However, the testimony we see in the Gospels is that he was a man strongly empowered by the Spirit to deliver a powerful word to the faith community. Eusebius attests that “He has also left an epistle consisting of very few lines; suppose, also that a second and third is from him” (Ecclesiastical History 11.25.10). According to Church tradition, John the Apostle spent time in Ephesus following his banishment by the Emperor Dometian to the island of Patmos. Irenaeus writes, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). The date of his writing this epistle would likely fall anywhere from 85-90 C.E., even though some prefer a later date of 96-110 C.E. (Guthrie, 880). It is debated over whether or not 1 John was written before or after the Gospel of John, although most are in agreement that it was probably written after (NIDB, 536; Kysar, 2195). One thing can be certain; the author is of advanced age as he addresses his audience as “children” (2:1, 28; 3:7).

Assuming that John wrote this letter from Ephesus, this would have meant that his initial audience included Believers living in the Roman province of Asia (Gundry, 448). The epistle does exhibit a rather simplistic style of Greek, and is notably less stylistic as a letter than 2 or 3 John. 1 John should not be regarded as a literary “epistle,” employing the basic functions of an ancient letter (ISBE, 2:1092; ABD, 3:900). No Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 1 John has ever been proposed by scholars. An intended audience in Asia Minor would have been Greek speaking (Bruce, 13), even though one finds both Hellenistic and Jewish ways of communicating in the letter (Guthrie, pp 875-876).

1 John was a text written to answer claims against John’s authority, and was composed in a very pastoral manner. Trying to reconstruct the events behind the text, most theologians are in agreement that there was a group of sectarians that had seceded from the mainstream of the Johannine assembly (ISBE, 2:1092). This letter was written to denounce these heretics, who promoted strange beliefs ranging from Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, and antinomianism. IDB notes, “We are not to conclude from this that they were Jews or Judaizers who denied [Jesus’] Messiahship, but that they were Christians who denied his Incarnation” (2:947).

Gnosticism advocated a radical separation between body and spirit, and whose underlying current was the errant belief that what one did in the flesh did not affect a person spiritually and vice versa. Believers who had no doubt adhered to this form of dualism were not obeying God’s commandments as they should have been, thus leading to immoral and inappropriate behavior not becoming a true follower of the Messiah. Some have actually claimed that in refutation of Gnosticism, John is actually influenced by their ideas of light and darkness, life and death, truth and lies, and love and hate, as these themes are common in Gnostic literature, and throughout the Nag Hammadi writings (IDB, 2:947). However, as more studies are conducted in Rabbinical literature and examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that these were common terms also used throughout the Jewish world as well (IDB, 2:948; EXP, 12:300). The material in 1 John addresses a more developed Gnosticism that is not present in Paul’s refutation of it in his letter to the Colossians.

Cerinthianism was taught by John’s major rival in Ephesus (Against Heresies 3.3.4). The Cerinthians did not believe in the full Divinity of the Messiah, but rather that when Yeshua was immersed by John the Divine Messiahship fell on Him, and left Him at His death (cf. Against Heresies 1.26.1). John refutes these teachings by saying that one must confess that Yeshua the Messiah is come in the flesh from God (4:2), and the fact that if one is to spiritually overcome the adversary, he must believe that He is the Son of God (5:5). As Yeshua is the “Son of God” coming in the flesh from God, He must be Divine. 1 John is a masterful defense of both Yeshua’s Divinity and His humanity (EXP, 12:293).

The third errant influence that is directly refuted by John is that of antinomianism. Antinomianism is the denial of the place of any Divine law in the life of a person. This was, without any doubt, one of the results of the adoption of Gnostic views by the early Believers, as what the person did physically did not matter spiritually. John refutes this idea by telling his readers, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1:8). John plainly identifies what sin is by writing that “sin is lawlessness” (3:4), and he writes that “the one who practices sin is of the devil” (3:8). Much of his letter is spent addressing the reality that Believers who are truly abiding in the Lord are not to sin, and their nature must be in the process of being conformed to His nature.

The Messianic community today, sadly, has some of those who promote similar ideas to those refuted by the Apostle John in 1 John. This was “An aberrant Christianity, which teaches salvation by esoteric knowledge, excites an enthusiasm devoid of moral concern, and nourishes a spirituality contemptuous of all things material” (IDB, 2:947). There is a situation today where we have some Messianic teachers who promote mystical views and largely dispense with the morality and ethics of the Torah. They do not concern themselves with the good deeds required from the Torah relating to physical work, helping others, and especially not supporting those who minister to them. In some respects, when we examine 1 John today as Messianic Believers, could it be interpreted in the context regarding those who have “gone too far” and are not in proper order (Kysar, 2195)?

As Messianic Believers, 1 John, perhaps every bit as much as the Epistle of James, is extremely important to keep in mind as it has many proof texts which support a life of Torah obedience for followers of Yeshua. When John writes about the commandments of God, those being the commandments of the Messiah, he is writing about the commandments of God contained in the Torah. When he writes that “sin is lawlessness,” he is talking about the disobedience to the Law of Moses, or the Torah. When John writes about light and darkness, and truth and lies, he is making a reference to worldly teachings that lead to lawlessness, and the high standard of the Creator God laid forth in His commandments. His epistle is highly geared to those who need to be put on the appropriate path, conducting themselves properly according to what God considers acceptable and unacceptable—not errant human teachings. John writes his letter as a concerned father for his children, and as an eye witness of Messiah Yeshua, as he sees errors in the assembly that have led them astray.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “John, Letters of,” in NIDB, pp 536-537.
Barker, Glenn W. “1 John,” in EXP, 12:293-358.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistles of John, pp 13-24.
Caird, G.B. “John, Letters of,” in IDB, 2:946-952.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Johannine Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 858-900.
Kysar, Robert. “John, Epistles of,” in ABD, 3:900-912.
___________. “1 John,” in New Interpreter’s Study Bible, pp 2195-2202.
Marshall, I.H. “John, Epistles of,” in ISBE, 2:1091-1098.
Morris, Leon. “1 John,” in NBCR, pp1259-1270.
Smith, D.M. “John, Letters of” in IDBSup, pp 486-487.

2 John
Approximate date: 85-90 C.E.
Author: the Apostle John
Location of author: Ephesus (conservative), Syria (liberal)
Target audience and their location: a congregation of Believers (a “lady”)

Most conservative theologians accept genuine Johannine authorship of the letter of 2 John, whereas most liberals do not. Some conservatives do believe that John the Elder, rather than the Apostle John, was the author of this epistle, but still assign the Gospel of John and 1 John to the Apostle. Generally, all are agreed that 2 & 3 John have the same author (NIDB, 537), given the familiar language and vocabulary of each text. The challenge with believing that John the Elder wrote 2 John is the fact that we have no extant tradition describing who this John the Elder was (Guthrie, 884). The most we see is that the Fourth Century Christian historian Eusebius, writing about Papias, saying that Papias distinguished John the Apostle and another John, called the presbyter or the elder. He writes, “It is also proper to observe that the name of John was twice mentioned, the former of which he mentioned with Peter, James, Matthew, and the other apostles, evidently meaning the evangelist. But in a separate point in his discourse, he ranked the other John with the rest not included in the number of apostles, placing Aristion before him. He distinguished him plainly by the name of presbyter” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.5).

“Both II and III John claim to be written by the presbyter [elder], a man so important and well known that he needs no further indication” (IDB, 2:951). It is interesting that while largely doubting that the Apostle wrote this letter, liberals are forced to point out, “The presbyter writes to warn the church against a vigorous missionary campaign launched by heretics who have denied the reality of the Incarnation, and presumably they are representatives of the same heresy as denounced in the first letter” (Ibid., 2:949). Genuine Johannine authorship is, in fact, the default position. Comparison with the Gospel of John and 1 John easily indicates that 2 John is a letter addressing the same theology, yet personalized for a particular person and/or group.

There is little attestation in the Church Fathers of the Second Century that 2 John was a well-circulated letter, which made it contested among some groups. Gundry speculates that this is the case because of the “brevity” of the letter and how short it is (p 451). However, the letter’s clear directives regarding heretics who deny the Divinity of the Messiah, as an extension of 1 John, gave rise to its being accepted in the majority of Third and Fourth Century Christian communities (NBCR, 1271).

Theologians are in dispute as to whether or not John is writing from the home of a personal family to another personal family, or if this is a cryptic way for him to write from one congregation of Believers to another congregation of Believers to avoid detection by Roman authorities. Was his letter written to a congregation, or to a “lady” named Kyria? Conservatives are in broad agreement that “lady” was a cryptic term used to keep the exact location of this assembly secret (ISBE, 2:1095). Concurrent with extant Johannine traditions, conservatives hold to 2 John being written from Ephesus, but liberal opinions (that do not hold to Johannine authorship) lean toward 2 John being composed in Syria (ABD, 3:909).

No Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 2 John has ever been proposed by scholars, conservative or liberal. The text was written on a single parchment, as is consistent with most Greek letters of the First Century B.C.E.-Second Century C.E. (ISBE 2:1091; Guthrie, 880). In fact, 2 John was excluded from the canon of the Syriac Peshitta, the Fourth Century Aramaic New Testament of the Syrian church.

The writer of 2 John is quite clear regarding his admonitions. He admonishes his readers to love one another (v. 5), to obey God’s commandments (v. 6), but also avoid those who teach against the existence of Messiah Yeshua (v. 7). This is a strong indication that John was having to speak against Gnosticism, and that this text is a personal extension of his more detailed letter, 1 John. “2 John seems to reflect something of the same false teaching that lies behind 1 John. The letter then will be written to put its readers on their guard against it” (NBCR, 1271).

2 John is a piece of personal correspondence from which Messianic Believers today can gain much insight. The personal directives that John issues to the “lady” largely relate to traveling teachers, and John urged the First Century Believers to use discernment regarding their support, as many of them were bringing in gross error. We have some of the same traveling teachers in the Messianic community today, who go from congregation to congregation not to encourage them, but to bring in their “new teachings” that are nothing less than total error. We should learn from the text of 2 John regarding how to deal with traveling teachers who bring in questionable concepts.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “John, Letters of,” in NIDB, pp 536-537.
Barker, Glenn W. “2 John,” in EXP, 12:361-367.
Caird, G.B. “John, Letters of,” in IDB, 2:946-952.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Johannine Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 858-900.
Kysar, Robert. “John, Epistles of,” in ABD, 3:900-912.
Marshall, I.H. “John, Epistles of,” in ISBE, 2:1091-1098.
Morris, Leon. “2 and 3 John,” in NBCR, pp 1270-1273.

3 John
Approximate date: 85-90 C.E.
Author: the Apostle John
Location of author: Ephesus (conservative), Syria (liberal)
Target audience and location: Gaius, a Believer in Asia Minor

Conservative theologians generally believe in genuine Johannine authorship of 3 John, just like 2 John, unlike liberals who deny that the Apostle John wrote it. “In both letters John identifies himself as ‘the elder,’ not in the sense of an officer in a local church, but in the sense of an elder statesman of the church at large, that is, an apostle” (Gundry, 451). While a few conservatives believe that a separate “John the Elder” composed 3 John, pending any specific identification or tradition surrounding this person, both conservatives and liberals believe that the author of 3 John was the same as the author of 2 John.

Due to the rather “personal” nature of its contents, the letter of 3 John was not widely circulated in Second Century Christianity (Guthrie, 891). However, in spite of this, the major advantage that 3 John has over 2 John is that a specific recipient, Gaius, is named in the text (Ibid., 892). 3 John was a private letter written to a specific individual, that largely addresses “ecclesiastical problems” (ISBE, 2:1095). Gaius is described as being a “dear friend” of John. There is a Gaius mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14 and Romans 16:23 from Corinth, whom some believe is the recipient of this letter, even though this cannot be concluded with absolute certainty.

It is generally agreed that 3 John was written immediately after 2 John, placing an estimated composition date of 85-90 C.E. It is very possible that 3 John is the last of the canonized New Testament writings to be composed (Guthrie, 896). 3 John was most likely written around the vicinity of Ephesus (Gundry, 452), per extant Johannine traditions, although some liberals who deny that the Apostle John wrote this letter place it being written in Syria (ABD, 3:908). No Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 3 John has ever been proposed by academics, and 3 John is excluded from the canon of the Fourth Century Syriac Peshitta. A Hebrew or Aramaic origin for 3 John is very unlikely, as “it may be supposed that Gaius’ church was one of the circuit of Asiatic churches under the general supervision of the apostle John” (Guthrie, 892). As 3 John would have been written to Gaius in Asia Minor, a Greek composition seems definite. However, there are distinctly Jewish touches to 3 John, notably how God is referred to as “the name” (Heb. HaShem, ~vh) in v. 7.

The letter of 3 John was written to address congregational problems. At this stage in the late First Century, there were many traveling teachers going throughout the assemblies of Asia Minor, some, as 2 John indicates, bringing in error, and others, who were genuinely commissioned by the Apostles. Diotrephes was a congregational leader who rejected the legitimate teachers sent by John, whereas Gaius supported the teachers sent by John. One of these teachers was presumably Demetrius, mentioned in the letter (ISBE, 2:1095). Diotrephes threatened excommunication for those who rejected his course, and refuses to acknowledge John’s authority as an apostle. There is no uniform agreement among theologians whether or not Gaius and Diotrephes were a part of the same congregation or faith community, or were leaders of different assemblies in a larger area that had some relationship with one another (ABD, 3:906).

Gaius is commended by John for the testimony of those evangelists coming forth from his assembly, even those whom he does not know well personally (v. 5). John encourages Gaius that they should support these men financially, as they have taken nothing for their journey (vs. 7-8). He warns Gaius of Diotrephes, who only works to serve his own interest and disparages others in the Body. John intends to have some words with him in person if he comes (vs. 9-10). Diotrephes is mentioned in contrast to Demetrius, who has a positive testimony and is well spoken of (v. 12).

Many commentators are agreed that the focus of 3 John is to be aware of traveling teachers and those who do not submit to the spiritual authority of a local congregation or local spiritual leaders. All teachers and congregational leaders are to be serving the Body of Messiah and helping others grow spiritually. Loyalty among fellow brethren in the Messiah is to be honored and those who work together are to demonstrate their loyalty to each other.

3 John is important to understand historically regarding the place of Diotrepehes and how the Second Century Church would organize itself. Diotrephes is sometimes observed as being a type of the “Ignatian bishop” (IDB, 2:950). I.H. Marshall observes, “The apostles died, leaving no defined system of succession, and local churches tended to develop more powerful leadership of their own” (ISBE, 2:1095). The emerging Messianic community today needs to understand 3 John in the context of us all working together as congregations and individuals, and heed the warnings of acting like Diotrephes, who issued summary excommunications simply because he could.

Bibliography
Barabas, Steven. “John, Letters of,” in NIDB, pp 536-537.
Barker, Glenn W. “2 John,” in EXP, 12:371-377.
Caird, G.B. “John, Letters of,” in IDB, 2:946-952.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Johannine Epistles,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 858-900.
Kysar, Robert. “John, Epistles of,” in ABD, 3:900-912.
Marshall, I.H. “John, Epistles of,” in ISBE, 2:1091-1098.
Morris, Leon. “2 and 3 John,” in NBCR, pp 1270-1273.

Jude
Approximate date: 50s or 60s C.E.; or 80s C.E.
Author: Jude, the brother of James and half-brother of Yeshua
Location of author: Judea (early composition); Asia Minor (later composition)
Target audience and their location: Jewish and non-Jewish Believers in the Diaspora

The Epistle of Jude is one of the most controversial texts in the Apostolic Scriptures. The author identifies himself in v. 1 as “a bond-servant of Yeshua the Messiah, and brother of James.” He does not claim to be an apostle, but rather a brother of James, connecting his writing to the authority of James. If indeed true, this would make the author a younger brother of Yeshua’s (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; cf. NBCR, 1274), being listed as “Judas.” The name Judah (Heb. Yehudah, hdWhy; Grk. Ioudas, Ioudaß) appears in a variety of derivative forms in our English Bibles, including Judas and Jude. Many conservatives accept genuine authorship of this letter from Jude, but liberals largely consider it a pseudononymous work.

There are many allusions to Jude in the writings of the Church Fathers, including references as early as the late First Century. “There are traces of Jude in the letter of Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, Barnabas, and perhaps the Didache” (Guthrie, 901). In spite of this, the Fourth Century historian Eusebius notes that it was among the disputed books (cf. Ecclesiastical History 3.25.3). Jude was not a widely circulated letter, and there are few traditions regarding who Jude actually was (IDB, 2:1009). There is one tradition concerning two of his grandsons who survived the destruction of Jerusalem, who were taken before the Emperor Dometian, only to be released later as commoners (cf. Ecclesiastical History 3.20; ISBE, 2:1154). The majority of scholars date Jude being composed in the late First Century (ABD, 3:1001), and even though Jude’s grandsons living into the late First Century may presuppose that Jude was deceased prior to this time, it is entirely possible that Jude lived to be very old and was not yet deceased (NBCR, 1274). More than anything else, Jude was a debated text due to its largely negative theological motif. The Epistle of Jude is actually included in the earliest known lists of New Testament works, but was not specifically quoted until the late Second Century, when it appears in the works of Clement of Alexandria (NIDB, 554).

There are extreme parallels between Jude and 2 Peter, begging the question of which letter preceded the other. It is very likely that Jude’s audience heard the Apostles themselves “speak” (vs. 17-18). Certainly, if Jude preceded 2 Peter, then 2 Peter is the earliest extant witness to Jude. If 2 Peter borrows from Jude, than an early date for Jude is likely, but if Jude borrows from 2 Peter, a latter date is likely. Conservatives who accept that Jude genuinely wrote this text are not in agreement. Gundry, for example, argues “the epistle of Jude polemicizes against false teachers who have penetrated the church—in greater numbers, it would appear, than at the time 2 Peter was written” (p 446). Those who would argue in favor of Jude preceding 2 Peter may argue that “Jude is harsher than 2 Peter, which suggests that the latter recognized the need to tone down the model” (Guthrie, 918). Yet those advocating a post-dating for Jude would countermand this with “What 2 Peter foresaw, Jude has now experienced” (Ibid., 921). Depending on which is correct, dating for Jude is either in the 50s-60s C.E. or in the 80s (ISBE, 2:1154). The dating should not, however, subtract from the stern messages of either 2 Peter or Jude.

A wide target audience for Jude is assumed, as its warnings against false teachers and heretics are universal for all Believers, even though the letter possesses some major Jewish characteristics. “In line with the later Jewish view that everything that happens to Israel has been anticipated long before by God…the writer affirms that the judgment of these wicked deceivers has been duly prophesied” (Ibid., 2:1153). Jude contains a “midrash” section (ABD, 3:1098). The timing of the letter more than anything else would determine where this letter was written, as an earlier dating would suggest a composition location in or near Judea, whereas a later dating would suggest somewhere in the Diaspora, especially if Jude’s grandsons made it to Rome. Some places proposed by theologians include “Asia Minor, Syrian Antioch, or Palestine,” but “the destination remains speculative” (EXP, 12:384; cf. Guthrie, 914). Baukham suggests a target audience that included a large non-Jewish group, in places such as Corinth or the assemblies addressed in the Book of Revelation, where antinomianism had been allowed to creep in (ABD, 3:1102).

No Hebrew or Aramaic origin for Jude has ever been proposed by scholars, and Jude is actually excluded from the Syriac Peshitta canon of the Fourth Century. In spite of what some Messianics would like to believe, there is strong evidence for a Greek composition of this letter. While liberals, who deny that Jude wrote this, argue that the language is “decidedly Hellenistic” (IDB, 2:1010), they are forced to admit, “the author employs much OT imagery, apocryphal tradition, and Septuagintal terminology” (Ibid.). What we see in Jude’s writing is generally good Greek, but certainly influenced by Hebraic composition: “He uses some standard items of Jewish Greek vocabulary and idiom, which are found in the LXX, but none of his many allusions to specific verses of the OT echoes the language of the LXX. Moreover, some of his allusions depend on a meaning of the Hebrew text which is not rendered in the LXX…It seems, therefore, that it was the Hebrew Bible that Jude was really familiar” (ABD, 3:1099). Obviously, this would mean that while writing in a Septuagintal style of Greek, consistent with Jews who used Greek as a second language, Jude makes all of his allusions to the Tanach from the Hebrew Bible itself, and not the LXX. In spite of this, “his command of literary Greek is quite impressive…if [Jude’s] missionary career took him among Greek-speaking Jews, there seems no reason why he should not have later acquired the degree of competence displayed in this letter” (Ibid., 3:1102).

There is debate over Jude because the author quotes from extra-Biblical works like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, the latter of which today is only extant in fragments. The question that is asked from this is to what extent the community of faith should consider these works in their theology, if at all. It is not uncommon to see in other Apostolic texts references to extra-Biblical writings. Paul refers to a Rabbinical midrash in 1 Corinthians 10:4, he quotes from pagan works in his sermon at Athens (Acts 17:28), and he borrows information from the Aramaic Targums in 2 Timothy 3:8 (Gundry, pp 447-448; cf. NBCR, 1274). Gundry makes the poignant observation, “Quotations from such material do not imply belief in its divine inspiration” (p 448).

The theological thrust of the Epistle of Jude is to address heretical teachers that had entered into the assembly, perverting the grace of God (v. 4). Jude urges his readers to “to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3, RSV). Jude uses extreme apocalyptic language reminiscent of God’s judging sinners in the Hebrew Tanach, notably the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7). The heretical teachers that had crept into the assemblies likely shared proto-Gnostic or full-blown Gnostic beliefs. These problems were common in the believing community in the mid-to-late First Century, and the ultimate problem of Gnostic errors seeping into the assembly was denying God’s revelation through Yeshua (EXP, 12:385). When examining Jude today as the emerging Messianic community, Jude needs to be seen as a warning against false teachers in our own midst, and that can include teachers in mainstream Christianity teaching against the Torah, or certain Messianic teachers who pervert the grace of God and may teach an oxymoronic form of Torah-lawlessness.

Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. “Jude, Epistle of,” in ABD, 3:1098-1103.
Beker, J.C. “Jude, Letter of,” in IDB, 2:1009-1011.
Blum, Edwin A. “Jude,” in EXP, 12:381-396.
Danker, F.W. “Jude, Epistle of,” in ISBE, 2:1153-1155.
Douglas, J.D. “Jude, Letter of,” in NIDB, pp 554-555.
Gundry, Robert H. “The Catholic, or General, Epistles,” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 431-453.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Epistle of Jude,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 901-928.
Wheaton, David H. “Jude,” in NBCR, pp 1274-1278.

Revelation
Approximate date: 54-68 C.E. (liberal), 90 C.E. (conservative)
Author: the Apostle John
Location of author: the island of Patmos
Target audience and their location: the congregations of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea (all in Asia Minor)

The Book of Revelation, perhaps more than any other text in the Apostolic Scriptures, is one of the most confusing, as well as controversial, for Believers to digest. There are a wide variety of opinions concerning how Revelation should be interpreted, and what its message is for Believers today.

The author of Revelation identifies himself in the text as being John (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). All of the early Church Fathers from the Second Century believed that the author was John the Apostle (Guthrie, pp 930-931). Liberal theologians today lean toward believing that the author of Revelation was John the Elder, or a psudonynymous person (ABD, 5:702). While the bulk of conservatives today believe in genuine Johannine authorship, some doubt it because of the extensive usage of Jewish literary forms unique to apocalyptic literature of the period (EXP, 12:405). A lack of strong tradition regarding who John the Elder was, in Guthrie’s estimation, points to John the Apostle as the author (Guthrie, 933).

It is very easy to realize the fact that Revelation is the only text in the Apostolic Scriptures that is “exclusively prophetic in character” (NIDB, 859). The Book of Revelation was received as authentic Scripture in the early Second Century (Ibid.; Gundry, 458; IDB, 2:60; ABD, 5:695). Revelation was debated in the early centuries of the emerging Christian Church, however, and some of the Reformers even questioned its authenticity. “Erasmus, Luther, and Zwingli questioned the Johannine authorship because it teaches a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ” (NBCR, 925).

There are two views for the dating of Revelation’s composition. Some date Revelation being written from 54-68 C.E., during the reign of Nero Caesar. Others date Revelation being written in the reign of Dometian Caesar, from 81-96 C.E. The dating of Revelation is influenced by one’s eschatological position of either preterism or futurism, meaning whether the events of Revelation occurred in the late First and early Second Centuries, or still largely remain to be fulfilled in the distant future. Liberal theologians, who largely adhere to preterism, often lean toward the early date (ISBE, 4:172; NBCR, 1279). Preterists largely ask the question, “Was Nero the antichrist of Revelation?” Futurists are keen to point out that if Revelation was indeed written in the 50s-60s C.E., that would mean that would it pre-date many of the Pauline Epistles (EXP, 12:405). The Church Fathers of the Second Century largely believed in a late First Century composition of Revelation (NIDB, 860), and such a sentiment is likewise believed among conservatives today, who favor a general date of 90 C.E. Traditions from Victorinius of Pettau and Jerome assign genuine Johannine authorship to Revelation, including John being exiled to the island of Patmos by Dometian (ABD, 5:700).

The actual language and grammar of Revelation is very intriguing to scholars. It is widely recognized by theologians that there are many untranslatable Hebraisms in the text (NIDB, 860). Black points out, “the grammar of Revelation…reflects the work of a Semitic-speaking person who is just learning Greek” (It’s Still Greek to Me, 150). Why this is the case has been a matter of great academic discussion. Ladd, for example, indicates, “Undoubtedly the book reflects Semitic influences, but some of its solecisms appear to be deliberate, and possibly the writer’s emotional state accounts for others” (ISBE, 2:172). Perhaps the best explanation is offered by Gundry, who believes in genuine Johannine authorship for Revelation, and is a futurist:

“It is true that from a grammatical and literary standpoint the Greek style of Revelation is inferior to that of the gospel and epistles. But in part the ‘bad grammar’ may be deliberate, for purposes of emphasis and allusion to Old Testament passages in Hebraic style, rather than due to ignorance or blundering. In part the ‘bad grammar’ may also stem from an ecstatic state of mind, due to John’s having received prophecies in the form of visions. Or writing as a prisoner on the island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea, he did not have the advantage of an amanuensis to smooth out his rough style, as he probably did have for his gospel and epistles” (p 458).

The author of Revelation identifies his location as being the island of Patmos: “John… was on the island called Patmos” (1:9). Patmos was an island approximately 15 miles west of Ephesus (ISBE, 4:171). Some traditions espouse that John was forced to work in a mine on Patmos during his exile. His initial audience is clearly identified in the first three chapters of Revelation. The Revelation is composed for seven congregations in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These were all Greek-speaking congregations.

While some Messianics would like to believe that Revelation was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, no extant, authenticated text has surfaced to substantiate such wishes. Theologian C.C. Torrey advocated in the early Twentieth Century that Revelation was originally written in Aramaic (NBCR, 1279), but many of his claims have been dismissed by both liberals and conservatives per no available text to substantiate his theory. (Torrey himself also repudiated much of the veracity and the reliability of the Tanach.) In fact, “The book of Revelation was definitively rejected by the Eastern Syrian Church. It was not included in the early Syriac translation of the NT, the Peshitta” (ABD, 5:695; cf. Guthrie, 932). The conservative position concerning Revelation’s language seems to be the best. The Book of Revelation was a Greek composition with a high Hebraic style to clue in the reader to texts and concepts seen in the Hebrew Tanach. The “bad grammar” could have been overlooked by the Johannine communities, and not corrected by them, because of the strong apocalyptic nature of the work.

Chs. 1-3 of Revelation include letters from the Messiah Yeshua to specific assemblies that existed in ancient times. This part of Revelation is primarily directed to a late First Century-early Second Century audience. This thrust of the book is an unveiling by Yeshua to encourage these Believers through their persecution, and that they will be vindicated by His return. The overarching theme of Revelation, no matter what interpretation one takes, is “the mind and purpose of God as seen in redemptive history” (IDB, 4:58). The Book of Revelation is to ultimately have a message of hope for those in distress, as the Lord will right the wrongs of this fallen Earth.

The language of Revelation is apocalyptic, and much of its terminology is symbolic. Regardless of what school of thought you hold to regarding its interpretation, most do recognize this. Generally speaking, there are four distinct groups of interpretation relating to the Book of Revelation:

1. Preterists hold to the belief that Revelation was written in the mid-First Century, during the reign of Nero Caesar, and that most of the events prophesied in Revelation, as well as in Scriptures like Matthew 24, were prophetically fulfilled by the early Second Century. Preterists generally believe that Nero was the antichrist of the Book of Revelation, and largely make up a liberal segment of Christian eschatology.

2. Historicists hold to the belief that Revelation speaks to the many centuries of Christianity, and should be interpreted in light of the history of the Church. Historical events in Christian history are represented by the imagery of Revelation. Many of the early Reformers were historicists, as are some Roman Catholic theologians today.

3. Futurists hold to the belief that Revelation was written in the late First Century, and although it had a message for the early Believers (chs. 1-3), is primarily speaking of events to occur in the distant future (chs. 4-18), and believe in a literal thousand-year reign of Yeshua on Planet Earth. The majority of the early Church Fathers were futurists, as are many evangelical Christians today, and most people in the Messianic movement. Futurists may all be described as being pre-millennialists, believing that Yeshua returns before His thousand-year reign. There are distinct viewpoints within the pre-millennial camp, however, notably the “rapture debate” between pre- and post-tribulationists.

4. Idealists are those who widely do not take sides in the actual debate over what Revelation means, but simply believe that it speaks of the Messiah’s final battle over Satan, sin, and evil in the world. Some Roman Catholic theologians are idealists.

It is notable that there are futurists who adhere to some of the elements of the other three groups, as some concede that a wider portion of Revelation may have been more applicable for the late First-early Second Century Believers than others (EXP, 12:412). There are some problems with futurists who only focus on the first three chapters of Revelation in teaching, but largely ignore the rest. Johnson notes, “The chief problem with it is that it seems to make all but the first three chapters of Revelation irrelevant to the contemporary church. This objection is pressed more strongly when adherents to the futurist view affirm, as many do today, that the church will be removed from the earth before the events described in 6:1ff. occur” (Ibid., 12:409). In stark contrast to this, “Liberal scholars largely endorse the ‘preterist’ view and repudiate the predictive elements of the book” (NBCR, 1279).

Most in the emerging Messianic movement today are futurists, even though specific interpretations of the Book of Revelation widely vary. Many Messianic interpretations of Revelation are carbon-copies of dispensational, pre-tribulational dogma concerning “the rapture of the Church.” Many other interpretations of Revelation are post-tribulational in nature.

As we examine the Book of Revelation, it is absolutely imperative for us to know other prophetic Scriptures that give us clues as to its background. In particular, it is important that we have a grasp on prophetic texts like Daniel and Ezekiel (EXP, 13:399), as well as Zechariah (Guthrie, 965). These will give some of us the background data we need to be able to have a better handle on why the author of Revelation uses the verbiage and terms that he does.

Contemporary Messianic discussions regarding Revelation include debates over what the “churches” represent; whether or not “Babylon” exclusively represents Rome and Roman Catholicism, and the proper attitude we should have regarding it; and debate over what “666” really means. More than anything else, because Revelation is such a confusing book for many, it is sadly overlooked by many in the Messianic community. Many hold to the sentiment that being Torah observant and believing in Yeshua is controversial enough, and that they will deal with the Book of Revelation when the end-times are upon us. Sadly, a root for these attitudes may be present in the fact that our Torah studies are not always complemented by studies of the Prophets. Likewise, it may also be rooted in a negative view of prophecy that focuses more on the beast and destruction to befall Earth, as opposed to the end result of it: the restoration of God's Kingdom.

Bibliography
Black, David Alan. “The Greek of the New Testament,” in It’s Still Greek to Me, pp 147-153.
Bowman, J.W. “Revelation, Book of,” in IDB, 4:58-71.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Revelation, Book of,” in ABD, 5:694-708.
Gundry, Robert H. “Revelation: Jesus is Coming!” in A Survey of the New Testament, pp 457-476.
Guthrie, Donald. “The Book of Revelation,” in New Testament Introduction, pp 929-985.
Johnson, Alan. “Revelation,” in EXP, 12:399-603.
Ladd, G.E. “Revelation, Book of,” in ISBE, 4:171-177.
Murray-Beasely, G.R. “The Revelation,” in NBCR, pp 1279-1310.
Tenney, Merill C. “Revelation, Book of the,” in NIDB, pp 859-861.
Walvoord, John F. “Revelation,” in BKCNT, PP 925-991.

A Credibility Issue

When we objectively examine the composition data of each text of the Apostolic Scriptures, there is no overwhelming evidence of a written Hebrew origin for it in its entirety. In fact, certain texts that are suggested to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic have scant evidence at best. Furthermore, while many in the Messianic movement advocating a “Hebrew New Testament” believe that our theology has been affected by “bad translations,” in actuality our theology is more affected by our lack of having the right background information at our disposal. (Christian scholars are only now widely considering the Jewish background of the New Testament, because of failure in the past to have access to Jewish resources—largely coming as a result the interreligious dialogue of the past century.) This is every bit as true for Messianic teachers who fail to consider the background of the Gospels or Pauline Epistles, and Christian pastors who seldom, if ever, consult the critical commentaries and other tools in their libraries.[69]

The hermeneutic that has been created in significant sectors of the Messianic community is very dangerous. When difficulty arises in interpreting a passage of the Apostolic Scriptures, some are content to say that “the original Hebrew would not have said that,” often when criticizing an English translation from the Greek. First of all, there is no proof that an original “Hebrew New Testament” ever existed. Secondly, before discounting the Greek we have to actually examine what the Greek says. And third, in many cases our answer for interpreting a Biblical text is not in the text, but in the historical background of the events. Sadly, these things are often not taken into consideration by Hebrew New Testament advocates.

What is even worse is that almost all of these people have no working knowledge of the Greek language to even have the ability to determine—with accuracy—what the Greek behind our English New Testament translations actually says. As a student in college, I was blessed with the ability to take Hebrew and Greek as electives. I remember being praised by my Messianic peers for studying Hebrew, which I enjoyed immensely, but when I learned Greek, that was another story. I cannot forget all of the negative comments, criticisms, and even some harassment I received for learning Greek. This largely came about because of all the negative “press” the Greek language has unfairly received in the Messianic movement. Whether we like it or not, the Greek language was an important part of First Century life. Learning the Greek language does not make a person anti-Semitic, as I was accused of being. (Likewise, learning the German language does not make a person anti-Semitic—I have also studied some German.) Suffice it to say, I am one of the few Messianic teachers who can say he has formally studied both of the Biblical languages. I say this not to elevate myself over others, but to reflect on the fact that people failing to study Greek—every bit as much as Hebrew—is a serious problem for today’s Messianic movement. This problem will have to be remedied if we ever hope to become more mainstream and be considered theologically credible in the larger world of ideas.

This is compounded by the fact that most “evidence” in favor of an original “Hebrew New Testament” is not evidence. It is often nothing more than opinion. And, when it comes to whether or not something is a viable and trustworthy opinion, even that can often not be seen. In researching this issue, we asked the Institute for Scripture Research, publishers of The Scriptures Bible translation, and a strong advocate in favor of a Hebrew New Testament, the following question. We asked them, “On what historical basis do you believe that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew?” Their simple answer to us was, “We believe they were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.” Responding to this, I asked them a further question: “We assume that your organization can be able to document this on a book-by-book basis, taking into account the author of a book, his location, his audience, and the approximate date when a book was written.” This is the data that we have just examined. Notice the ISR’s response: “We prefer not to add too many such comments, as there is no absolute proof of the date when each and every book was written.”

Here is an organization that has taken to publishing a version of the Bible from the premise that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew, and they have made (unfortunately) significant inroads into sectors of the Messianic community. Touting a name like “the Institute for Scripture Research” should require the organization to at least have some opinions about when a Biblical text was written, by whom it was written, and where it was written. But here, you see that they are unwilling to comment on it in any capacity. Why? Is it because they are incapable of doing so, and that the name “Institute for Scripture Research” is merely a façade—and there are no Ph.D.’s and Th.D.’s sitting on its board of directors?[70] We may never know.

If this seemingly “scholastic” and “academic” organization—that produces a Bible translation—cannot answer basic questions about the composition of the Scriptures (the Apostolic Writings and the Tanach), what is to be said about the many other Messianics and rogue individuals out there who promote an original “Hebrew New Testament”? How solid is their evidence? “We [just] believe they were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic” is not a viable or legitimate answer. It is an opinion—and if unsubstantiated—is a poor opinion at that.

Of course, the biggest question is: If the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew—where are these texts today? If they ever existed, why do we not have them? Many will argue that they were destroyed in the early centuries of the Christian Church by anti-Semites, but this is not an argument. If they did exist—and we do not believe that they did—then why did God in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty have them destroyed? This is a question that draws a blank stare from almost all Hebrew New Testament advocates. This is clearly a credibility issue, and demonstrates that the Messianic movement has a substantial amount of maturing to do—both spiritually and theologically. Believing in a fanciful “Hebrew New Testament” will not help the Messianic movement, and its message of the Hebraic background of Yeshua’s life and the Apostle’s teachings, coupled with the Torah observant lifestyle that God is restoring to His people, grow into the mainstream.

Theological Problems Caused by Hebrew New Testament Advocates

There are some severe theological, and indeed some spiritual problems that have been caused by many Hebrew New Testament advocates that go beyond promoting a text of the Bible that never existed. Because many Hebrew New Testament proponents promulgate the “existence” of a text that is superior to, and thus “theologically purer” than our extant Greek Apostolic Scriptures, advocates are literally able to make the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation say whatever they want—and get then away with it among the naïve. While this is especially true when it comes to so-called Hebraisms that we previously examined, many of which are manufactured Hebraisms among proponents, it is even more true as Hebrew New Testament proponents often endorse Kabbalah and concepts from Jewish mysticism. In the words of one advocate,

“There are many fascinating aspects to this teaching…It is my opinion that there is so much to learn and understand from those things that ARE revealed, that time spent swimming in a sea of mystical emanations is fruitless….The root of this word is qabal, which means ‘to receive’, and is taken from the scriptures in Mishlei [Proverbs] 19:20.”

This one proponent does warn about some of the dangers of Kabbalah (but not all), even though he very much dabbles with it emphasizing “the transition from the infinite cause of causes (eyn sof) to the finite, tangible universe.” In fact, the vast majority of his Hebrew exegesis is not focused around the Hebrew language, grammar, and parts of speech at all, but around so-called letter pictures and numerical values of Hebrew letters. His lack of understanding the Hebrew language—while actually claiming to be an “expert” in it—is revealed in these further comments:

“[I]t might be a wise thing to discern the sometimes subtle difference between the instructions and wisdom of YHVH and the lofty interpretations of man. This would include yours truly as well, for this same word appears in the Brit Chadashah in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5: And my speech and my preaching were not with ENTICING (qabal) words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”[71]

Here, it is just assumed as fact that the verb qaval (lbq), which generally means “receive, take” (BDB),[72] was used by Paul when he wrote the Greek-speaking Corinthians—which included the Jews in Corinth (discussed previously). We cannot conclude with accuracy that when Paul wrote the words “my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:4) what concepts were in his mind. What we know is that the Greek he wrote uses the adjective peithos (peiqoß), meaning “persuasive” (BDAG),[73] also rendered as “plausible” (NRSV). However, what we must note is that modern Hebrew New Testament translations do not render peithos with the verb qaval. The Salkinson-Ginsburg translation reads with l’fattokem b’imrei (yrmaB ~ktTpl),[74] and the UBSHNT has lo luv b’fittuei (yyWTpB WWl al).[75] There are approximately eighty years of difference between these two editions, and the former was rendered in a more Biblical style of Hebrew than the latter, which employs modern Hebrew. Regardless of which is consulted, both versions use the verb patah (htP), which in its Biblical context generally means “be persuaded, persuade” (BDB),[76] borrowed from Aramaic. It is used in Jeremiah 20:10 in reference to deception:

“For I have heard the whispering of many, ‘Terror on every side! Denounce him; yes, let us denounce him!’ All my trusted friends, watching for my fall, say: ‘Perhaps he will be deceived [patah], so that we may prevail against him and take our revenge on him.’”

What is ironic, of course, is that this Hebrew New Testament proponent claims that the verb qaval would have been used in 1 Corinthians 2:4—when it does not even appear in modern Hebrew translations of the Apostolic Scriptures. Of course, we fully believe that Paul wrote in Greek to the Corinthians, but it proves that many Hebrew New Testament advocates—in addition to not having any ability to understand or use Biblical Greek—often do not have a high acumen in Biblical Hebrew! There are many more examples we could give of where this kind of manipulation takes place, but the example we have provided is one of the more strident indications of the substandard theology that has been created as a result of the fanciful teaching that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew.

Of course, there is a bigger spiritual issue at play that must be taken into serious consideration when it comes to advocating that the Apostolic Scriptures were written in Hebrew. Many proponents of a Hebrew New Testament, when they get tired of waiting for the “discovery” of “Hebrew New Testament manuscripts,” later deny faith in Messiah Yeshua. This includes many Jewish people who were formerly Believers, who because of Christian prejudice that they failed to deal with and repent of in their “conversion”—and whether or not they were truly “saved” only God knows—later decide to reject His salvation and return or revert toward Rabbinical Judaism. Some are less stringent than denying complete faith in Yeshua, but may be constrained to denying Yeshua’s Divinity and treating the Apostolic Scriptures as only being “commentary,” and not as authoritative as the Hebrew Tanach. But, that may only be a step toward ultimate apostasy at a later date. The following is a quotation from one former proponent of a “Hebrew New Testament” who later fell away from belief in Yeshua:

“As we learned when we researched the origins and the canonization of the ‘New Testament,’ most, if not all, of the writings…were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek!….Yes, we have some versions of Matthew in Hebrew, but we have absolutely no way of knowing how much its current condition was influenced by the Greek and Roman Church! We don’t have the original, and we don’t have a documented line of possession we can look at. And what about the other books of the ‘New Testament?’ Sure, we now have English translations of Aramaic versions of the New Testament books, but do we have any way of knowing how original they are? After all, they have been in the possession of the Syrian Church of the East for almost 2,000 years!….The search for truth led us to believe that we cannot take the New Testament as infallible.”[77]

Here, this proponent of a Hebrew New Testament claims that even though for a time he accepted the Aramaic Peshitta as being “okay,” he still cannot handle the message of the gospel and the transforming power of Yeshua. For some reason or another, he cries foul play concerning any version of the Apostolic Scriptures, probably claiming that it includes myths borrowed from Greco-Roman paganism. Of course, we could easily make the same argument concerning the Hebrew Tanach, and as liberals do, claim that the Hebrew Scriptures copy off of myths from Sumer and Babylon, and we really cannot trust what the Tanach says as fact, either.[78] The standard that this man holds the Church to can also be held to the Synagogue, and the result would be that the entire Bible as we know it is not trustworthy. But we do not believe this, and fully treat the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures as inspired and factual. Ultimately, however, most who deny the inspiration of the Greek Apostolic Scriptures later deny faith in Yeshua. This is a documented fact. Once you deny the message, it is not that much further from when you deny the Messenger.

Much of the fruit of the Hebrew New Testament advocates—who often deliberately undermine the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures and the integrity of the gospel message—is people denying Messiah Yeshua. Yeshua’s words to Judas Iscariot probably speak best of these kinds of people: “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24; cf. Mark 14:21).

The Implications for Today’s Messianic Movement

The belief that the Apostolic Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew is without historical or textual basis, and has created things that will not prove well for the immediate development of the Messianic movement in the near future. The ideological claim that God would only inspire the message of His Son in Hebrew—and that He cannot do it in Greek—says that God is monolingual and thus not all powerful. This all reflects on the reality that the Messianic movement has much theological and spiritual maturation ahead of it, if it is indeed to become more mainstream and grow in substantial numbers. Whether you like it or not, the message of God’s Son was composed in the Greek language and not in Hebrew. We must eliminate the misunderstanding that it was written in Hebrew, and indeed some of the other related urban myths floating around that damage the credibility of understanding the legitimate Hebraic background of our Messiah Yeshua and the Torah obedient lifestyle that God is restoring to His people.

We need leaders and teachers in the Messianic community who have a strong handle on both Hebrew and Greek, and who likewise have a strong grasp on Biblical hermeneutics and the historical background behind the Scriptures—and we especially need to be engaging ourselves in detailed Bible studies on specific texts. We need to be producing the commentaries on Biblical books that address the pertinent issues in detail, and go beyond some of the faulty rhetoric that too many are subjected to. We need to demonstrate both spiritual and intellectual maturity, and recognize that when we have difficulties with a Biblical text, it not the text that is the problem, but it is us in our examination of the text that needs to be adjusted. Most important of all, the Messianic community needs to adopt a broader approach in its examination of God’s Word. We need to understand that the Bible is a great gift that God has given to the world, and that it is for every man, woman, and child—of all languages, colors, and creeds. This is every bit as true for the First Century, as it is today. We need to recognize that our God is interested in the salvation and spiritual transformation of all human beings—not just those who speak Hebrew.

J.K. McKee (B.A., University of Oklahoma; M.A., Asbury Theological Seminary) is the editor of TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net) and is a Messianic apologist. He is author of several books, including: The New Testament Validates Torah, Torah In the Balance, Volume I, and When Will the Messiah Return?. He has also written many articles on the Two Houses of Israel and Biblical theology, and is presently focusing on Messianic commentaries on various books of the Bible.

NOTES