In the ancient world, pseudonymous writing was not unknown. Letters written in the name of an apostle, originating in a circle of early Christians, perhaps by someone influenced by an apostle's ministry, evoked the apostle's authority on behalf of the letter. This practice did not necessarily imply an attempt to deceive but was a sign of reverence for the attributed author's authority and conveyed a message in the spirit of the attributed author's teaching.

Drawing on Mark

From a historical perspective, the vast majority of biblical scholars believe Mark's Gospel to be the earliest written narrative about Jesus, written in or about 70 CE. Based largely on internal evidence, scholars give this date because of the references to the Temple's destruction and the persecution of Christians in chapter 13. These events seem to correlate to known historical events: the second Temple was destroyed in the year 70 CE by the Roman general Titus during a Jewish revolt, and Christians in Rome were killed in mid 60 CE by the Roman emperor, Nero.

Scholars date Matthew, Luke, and John after 70 CE for a number of reasons, but primarily because it seems likely that all three, or at least Matthew and Luke, used Mark as a written source, presupposing its existence and wide circulation. Scholars draw this inference because both Matthew and Luke correspond to Mark in terms of order and wording to an unusually high degree, while actual literary dependence on Mark is shown by instances of explicit borrowing (Mark 13:14//Matthew 24:15) or of explicit acknowledgment of earlier written sources (Luke1:1-4). (That Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark, rather than Luke using Matthew or vice versa, seems implied by the fact that Matthew and Luke agree in following Mark's order, but do not agree in following the order of other material found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. This material consists largely of sayings attributed to Jesus, and is often referred to as a hypothetical gospel called "Q" for the German word "quelle," meaning "source".)

Scholars date Matthew between 80 and 90 CE. If Matthew used material drawn from Mark, then some time would have elapsed while Mark was being circulated. In addition, Matthew highlights the Pharisees as Jesus' chief opponents although this group did not become dominant until after the fall of the Temple. Possible evidence from 110 CE, a letter from a bishop in Antioch which appears to cite Matthew, suggests the Gospel text was known and circulated well before that time.

Although the author of Luke intends to write as a historian (see Luke 1:1-4) whom one might expect to give a date for his own work, Luke's Gospel is still difficult to date. Since Luke places his writing after both the first generation of eyewitnesses and another generation of written witnesses, and since his Gospel was known and used by about 140 CE, according to other early Christian texts, a date sometime between the later decades of the first century and the first decades of the second, seems most likely.

John's Gospel is even more complicated to date because scholars are divided on whether John draws on Mark's Gospel, which would give a date after 70 CE. Even without a clear answer to this question, most scholars give a late first century date because of its references to Christian expulsion from the synagogue (hinted at in chapters 5 and 9) and its more elaborate theology—both developments that would seem to require some passage of time. The identity of the authors of the Gospels remains unknown: the earliest manuscripts lack any authorial identifications and the names that are associated with the respective texts seem to be ascribed by later Christians who connected the Gospels with either disciples of Jesus (Matthew; John) or followers of the apostles (Mark; Luke) in order to increase the authority of the texts.

Reading between the Letters

In the case of the Pauline epistles, several problems arise: assigning a relative chronological order for the letters themselves; establishing an absolute chronology of both Paul's life and the letters based on historical information; and deciding which sources, in fact, give the most reliable historical information. Complicating all of this is the issue of determining which, if any, of the 13 letters (14 counting Hebrews) are authentically Paul's. General scholarly consensus posits that seven of the letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians are in fact Paul's. Ephesians and Colossians draw roughly equal numbers of claims for, and denials of, authenticity. Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians are seen as pseudonymous texts from later in early Christian history (early 2nd century roughly) by a majority of scholars. These texts take different views of grace, faith, and tradition, while lacking some of Paul's more characteristic views about the cross, redemption, eschatology, and social ethics.

Scholars typically date the seven undisputed letters from roughly 50 CE to 65 CE, depending on a number of factors, including how one views the relationship between Paul's letters and the Book of Acts. Scholars are divided about which letter was written first: Galatians or 1 Thessalonians (those who believe Galatians was written first usually argue that 1 Thessalonians is last in sequence).

Issues of Reliability and Inspiration

Biblical scholarship is a fundamentally historical endeavor that is nevertheless attuned to the theological issues raised by historical inquiry. Scholars themselves represent points on a continuum with respect to the issue of the historical reliability of early Christian texts. Most combine a reasoned amount of both skepticism and credulity, doubting the veracity of some claims, while giving credence to others. Debates about the historical reliability of biblical texts have been at the heart of the discipline for centuries and will likely always be.

Matters of inspiration, however, take on a different, more theological tone than most scholars deal with, although they hold a wide range of views. The issue of inspiration goes far beyond what history can actually tell us and it involves commitments of faith. At the very least, however, historical scholarship does ask that one think hard about what theological claims to divine inspiration might mean, without denying them: does inspiration mean only that God gave human authors the exact words or the exact information? Can it incorporate human intellect, human biases and limitations? Does inspiration become unbelievable if historical scholarship, which is by no means wholly objective or unchanging, raises serious doubts about certain events or certain claims? Might inspiration involve readers as well as authors? These are all issues that biblical scholars wrestle with as they continue to study and explore the Word of God.