Authorship of the New Testament

Here, we will try to identify the authors of the New Testament, seeing as the traditional authorship and scholarly suggestions often clash. We will see what evidence supports either side. This page also includes details concerning the dating of the New Testament books. Also keep in mind that this information will continue to be updated with new discoveries.

Matthew
Tradition tells us that Matthew the Tax Collector - one of the 12 - wrote Matthew.

External Evidence
Papias (110 AD) writes on the authorship of Matthew:


 * “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”

Irenaeus (180 AD) writes in Against Heresies:


 * "Matthew produced a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the church there."

Pantaenus (around 180 AD) also affirms Matthew authorship:


 * “It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.”

It is curious how all three of these men mention Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew. It would make sense that Matthew would write his gospel in Hebrew, instead of the simple Koine Greek (which was essentially the street language of the world at the time, similar to how English is used globally today). Matthew was a Tax-Collector and would have been a reasonably well educated and literate man.

Finally, Origen (220 AD) states:


 * “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism.”

Internal Evidence
Matthew is filled to the brim with Old Testament prophecies, indicating that the author's mission was to convince the readers that Jesus was the messiah. This tells us that someone who was well versed in the scriptures, most likely a Jew, wrote Matthew for other Jews. It also focuses on Jesus' ministry with the Jews more than the other gospels.

In Matthew 9:9 Jesus comes to Mathew and calls him to join the Twelve. In Luke's parallel of this scene, Matthew is referred to as his other name, Levi. It would make sense if Matthew would change his name to the one he preferred and it would make sense if Luke left the other name in if he and Matthew were using the same source for their information (which would be the Q gospel).

Matthew also includes financial details only mentioned in this gospel (e.g. Matthew 17:24-25) something that lines up well with the idea of Matthew the Tax Collector being the author. In Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer in chapter 6 verse 12, Matthew says "And forgive us our debts." Whilst Luke states "And forgive us of our sins." The Greek word for "debt" in this passage is opheilēmata, which is used in Romans 4:4 when Paul talks about working and giving what is due, whilst Luke uses the word harmatias for "sins." This is a clear distinction between the two and would indicate that the author of Matthew had some kind of leaning towards financial matters.

Mark
Traditional authorship of Mark comes from one 'Mark the Evangelist,' who followed Peter and wrote down his preaching. Mark was not an eyewitness, but heard what Peter preached and so wrote down the story.

External Evidence
Papias writes on Mark authorship:


 * "And the presbyter said this: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he relaed the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”

Irenaeus, immediately after affirming Matthew's authorship, states:


 * “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

Clement of Alexandria (190 AD) states:


 * " Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged."

Internal Evidence
The author of Mark clearly wrote for a Roman audience due to the many Latin terms used throughout the text, such as Centurion, Denarius, Praetorium, and Census.

Also the text disproportionately focuses on Peter, suggesting that the author directly or indirectly knew the man.

Luke
Tradition says that Luke the Physician, one of Paul's friends who accompanied him on many of his missions, wrote Luke as a non-eyewitness using information he gathered for himself.

External Evidence
Justin Martyr (150 AD), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that:


 * “The apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”

Irenaeus, after discussing Mark's authorship, says:


 * "Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel Paul preached."

The Muratorian Fragment, a canon list from around 180 AD, affirm's Luke the Physician as the author:


 * "Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John."

Internal Evidence
The author of Luke wrote his account for Theopilius, a High Priest, mentioned in the beginning of both Luke and Acts. The author says that he has "carefully investigated everything from the very first," indicating he is not claiming to be an eyewitness, but has eyewitness detail. This is consistent with what we know about Luke: a man who accompanied Paul and heard him preach, but was not an eyewitness himself.

Luke uses highly advanced Greek language, indicating the author is a highly educated individual. He uses the term puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon in Acts 28:8-9, meaning "suffering from fever and dysentery."

The author describes medical matters in Luke much more than the other Gospels (see Luke 4:38, 14:2 and Acts 28:8-9).

Luke also focuses more on Jesus' ministry to the Gentiles more than the other gospels, suggesting that the author was writing this gospel for them because he was one of them. It is incredibly unlikely that the author of Luke was a Jew.

John
Tradition says that John the Evangelist wrote John. There are many Johns in the New Testament and scholars have been confused over which John it is. However, the evidence most likely points to John the Apostle.

External Evidence
Ignatius of Antioch writes in 115 AD, just 25 years after John was written:


 * " Wherefore, with great alacrity and joy, through his desire to suffer, he came down from Antioch to Seleucia, from which place he set sail. And after a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Being then brought to him, and having communicated to him some spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated of him to labour along with him for the fulfilment of his desire; earnestly indeed asking this of the whole Church (for the cities and Churches of Asia had welcomed the holy man through their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, all hastening to meet him, if by any means they might receive from him some spiritual gift), but above all, the holy Polycarp, that, by means of the wild beasts, he soon disappearing from this world, might be manifested before the face of Christ."

Irenaeus, once again, says:


 * "Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, also published a gospel while he was living at Ephesus."

He also says:


 * " Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things."

Theophilus of Antioch (185 AD) says:


 * "John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,"

Finally, Clement of Alexandria states:


 * "But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."

The Muratorian Fragment also affirms John's authorship:


 * "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it."

Internal Evidence
The author of John claims to be an eyewitness and appears to be a Jewish individual.

The phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appears 5 times in John. This disciple holds a prominent role even to the point that Peter asks about the beloved disciple’s ministry in John 21. John, son of Zebedee, meets this criterion as well as James, the brother of John. However, we know that James died in Acts, beheaded on the orders of Herod, so I cannot have been him. The beloved disciple appears with Peter in 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; and in chapter 21. John is also found with Peter in Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3-4; 8:14-25; and Galatians 2:9. So, only John meets the criteria needed for the fourth gospel’s authorship.

Romans
Romans is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. Tertius, one of Paul's associates, also had a hand in composing the epistle.


 * "The denial of Paul's authorship of Romans by such critics ... is now rightly relegated to a place among the curiosities of NT scholarship. Today no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin. The evidence of its use in the Apostolic Fathers is clear, and before the end of the second century it is listed and cited as Paul's. Every extant early list of NT books includes it among his letters. The external evidence of authenticity could indeed hardly be stronger; and it is altogether borne out by the internal evidence, linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical and theological."

- C. E. B. Cranfield

Pauline authorship of Romans is supported by the Muratorian Fragment.

1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians is also part of the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. It was also co-authored by Sosthenes, one of Paul's followers.


 * "The genuineness of I Cor is not disputed"

- Werner Georg Kummel

Clement of Rome affirms Pauline authorship in 1 Clement in 95 AD.

The Muratorian Fragment supports Paul as the author of 1 Corinthians.

2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians is also part of the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. Timothy was also the co-author. Many have claimed that part of 2 Corinthians is a conjoined 3rd letter. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Pauline authorship.


 * "From the beginning through chapter 9 it is pervaded by a sense of harmony, reconciliation, and comfort...With the beginning of chapter 10 we are once more in the midst of personal misunderstanding and bitterness, and these continue to dominate the letter to the end . . . This undeniable incongruity between the two parts of II Corinthians naturally suggests that we have in it two letters instead of one - one conciliatory and gratified, the other injured and incensed. And as the early part of II Corinthians clearly looks back upon a painful, regretted letter, the possibility suggests itself that we actually have that letter in chapters 10-13."

- Edgar J. Goodspeed

The Muratorian Fragment also supports Paul as being the writer of 2 Corinthians.

Galatians
Galatians is the last of the Hauptbriefe, which are universally seen as authentic. It likely the earliest piece of extant Christian literature, alongside 1 Thessalonians.


 * "In every line it betrays its origin as a genuine letter of Paul."

- Carl R. Holladay

Pauline authorship of Galatians is supported by the Muratorian Fragment.

Ephesians
Ephesians is a disputed epistle. Scholars seem half and half in terms of whether it is genuine or not.


 * "Although Ephesians differs from other Pauline literature, the differences do not sufficiently argue for the rejection of Pauline authorship of the letter. Variations can be accounted for due to differences in content and differences in character and needs of the recipients of the letter. Furthermore, it must be accepted that a genius like Paul is not sterile in his expressions; allowances must be made for the development of his thinking."

- Harold W. Hoehner

Ignatius of Antioch affirms that idea that Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians in his own letter to them in 115 AD.

Once again, Paulline authorship is supported by the Muratorian Fragment.

Philippians
The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Philippians is authentic. Many also claim that Philippians consists of three separate letters put into one. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant and does not effect the legitimacy of the epistle.


 * "The first two (of the three letters) seem to have been written from Ephesus around the time of Paul's imprisonment there (ca. 54-55 C.E.), or five to eight years after Paul first established the congregation in Philippi."

- Burton Mack

Polycarp affirms Pauline authorship in his Letter to the Philippians 120 AD.

Irenaeus affirms Pauline authorship in Against Heresies in 180 AD.

The Muratorian Fragment lists Paul as the author of Philippians.

Colossians
A good amount of scholars dispute the authenticity of Colossians.

"''The assumed relationship of the writer to the readers corresponds in several points to Phlm: in both letters there are greetings from Epaphras, Aristarchus, Mark, Luke, Demas (Col 4:10 ff; Phlm 23 f); both letters mention the sending of Onesimus (Col 4:9; Phlm 12) and have special words for Archippus (Col 4:17; Phlm 2). These agreements do not occur in the same relationships and formulations, however, so that the thesis is unconvincing that the indubitably Pauline Phlm has been imitated by a non-Pauline writer only in these personal remarks. The household admonitions in Col 3:18-4:1 show a remarkably small christianizing, especially in compraison with Eph 5:22-6:9, which is much less easily understood for a non-Pauline writer than for Paul himself. In contrast to Eph, the use of the formulas  and εν κυριο in Col correspond completely to Paul's usage. J. Knox has pointed out that the letter, which was intended for Laodicea (4:16a) was probably addressed to the smaller city Colossae because Onesimus was from Colossae and Paul sought contact with the community in which Onesimus' master lived, since it was he to whom Phlm brought so grave a request. Besides, the unusually comprehensive rule for slaves is best understood (3:22-25) if the business with the slave Onesimus were to be settled at the same time. Even though all these arguments may not be of equal weight, together they strengthen the supposition that Col originated with Paul."''

- Werner Georg Kummel

Irenaeus quotes Colossians 3:5 as by "the apostle in the letter to the Colossians."

Once again, Paul is given as the author in the Muratorian Fragment.

1 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians is regarded as one of the earliest extant Christian writing in existence. It is universally seen as authentically from Paul.


 * "There is general scholarly agreement that seven of the thirteen letters bearing Paul's name are authentic, but his authorship of the other six cannot be taken for granted... Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon are certainly Paul's own."

- James D. G. Dunn

Melito of Sardis affirms Pauline authorship in his work Oration on the Lord's Passion (165 AD).

Clement of Alexandria affirms Paul's authorship in his work The Instructor (190 AD).

The Muratorian Fragment supports 1 Thessalonians as a Pauline work.

2 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians is contested as being from Paul by a minority of scholars.


 * "The evidence for Pauline authorship (in 2 Thessalonians) is very strong, both internally and externally. The language and style are so much Pauline that some who attack it's authenticity say it is dependant on 1 Thessalonians. From the time of Marcion's collections of Pauline letters in the second century, 2 Thessalonians has been uncontestedly regarded as canonical and Pauline."

- Robert E. Picirilli

Most scholars agree that Paul did have a hand in writing some of it, however others have claimed that Silvanus and Timothy also had a hand in writing parts of it. There is strong evidence to suggest joint authorship. Whether this is true or not does not effect the legitimacy of the letter and, if anything, strengthens it.


 * "... the evidence from the text itself, corroborated by the historical facts of Acts 15-18, points to multiple authorship."

- Philip W. Comfort

Clement of Alexandria affirms Pauline authorship in his work Stromata (190 AD).

The Muratorian Fragment lists 2 Thessalonians amongst the writings that were composed by Paul.

1 Timothy
1 Timothy is the first of three works in the New Testament called the Pastoral Epistles. They are attributed to Paul but supposedly not written by him. I submit the theory that Paul's words are found in these three letters, however, he used an amanuensis - an assistant who wrote down his words (probably Luke) - to compose them.


 * "Another solution to the problem of the differences in vocabulary and style between the PE and the other Paulines is that a secretary or amanuensis wrote the letters under Paul's authority, but did so in such a way as to have an impact upon the language and style of the letters."  

- George W. Knight

Some claim that 1 Timothy was not written until 140 AD, however, Polycarp quotes 1 Timothy 6:10 in 110 AD in his Letter to the Philippians.

Irenaeus affirms 1 Timothy as being Paul's words in Against Heresies in 180 AD.

1 Timothy is included in the Muratorian Fragment as being from Paul.

2 Timothy
2 Timothy is the second of the Pastoral Epistles. Like 1 Timothy, I believe the evidence points towards an amanuensis as the method authorship and submit that 2 Timothy was most likely written by Luke who conveyed Paul's words to the pen.

- Luke Timothy Johnson
 * "This is the old theory that Luke was Paul's amanuensis, which takes the cryptic comment, "Luke is alone with me" (2 Tim 4:11) as an important clue to the composition of the letters."

Some scholars claim that 2 Timothy was not written until about 140 AD, however, Polycarp quotes it in his Letter to the Philippians in 120 AD and Ignatius quotes it in his Letter to the Magnesians in 115 AD.

Clement of Alexandria affirms the words of 2 Timothy as being from Paul in his work Stromata (190 AD).

The Muratorian Fragment also names Paul as the origin of 2 Timothy.

Titus
Titus is the third of the Pastoral Epistles. Like the epistles to Timothy, I see no reason to doubt an amanuensis as the method of Titus' authorship - a conjunction of both Paul and Luke.


 * "There are differences between the PE and the rest of the Pauline writings, just as there are differences between among other Pauline writings. The questions are, how different are they and what is the significance of those differences? The Amanuensis Hypothesis best explains the internal and external evidence. It accounts for the differences between the PE and the other Pauline letters and does not introduce it's own set of problems."

- William D. Mounce

Certain scholars claim that Titus was written around 140 AD and could not have been written before 100 AD, however, Clement of Rome quotes half of Titus 3:1 in 1 Clement in 95 AD.

Titus is affirmed as being Paul's words in the Muratorian Fragment.

Philemon
Philemon is generally accepted to be an authentic letter from Paul.


 * "The grounds for acceptance are simple; the letter is short, mundane, and presents no difficulties for Pauline authorship in style or thought."

- Peter Kirby

The Muratorian Fragment, once again, affirms Pauline authorship.

James
The author of James simply refers to himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." James was a very popular name around the time of the Apostolic Era, and so there is a wide variety on possibilities who James was. There were at least 4 James' in the New Testament. James the Brother of Jesus was detailed as the author by Christians the 3rd century, however, this is too late for my liking and no writers prior to 200 AD affirm this James as the author.


 * "The James of the epistle need not, of course, be identified with a James mentioned in the New Testament. But the use of the name by itself in a letter written with such authority implies that the author was a well known figure and it is improbable that such an individual would have gone unmentioned in the New Testament."

- Douglas J. Moo

Because which specific James is not mentioned in the letter, it's authorship remains up for debate and does not effect the letter authenticity of the letter itself.

1 Peter
1 Peter traditionally is attributed to Peter the Apostle. The vast majority of scholars reject the letter being written by Peter's own hand due to the kind of Greek used in the letter being too advanced for a Galilean fisherman. Many who reject direct Petrine authorship have suggested an amanuensis or a conjoined authorship between Peter and Silvanus.


 * "Moreover, the fact that Peter calls Silvanus a "faithful brother as I regard him," argues strongly for Silvanus as the bearer (note Paul's similar commendation of the bearers of his lettersin 1 Cor. 16:10-11; Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-9; Tit. 3:12-13). And though Tertius mentions himself in Rom. 16:22, no New Testament author ever explicitly mentions or commends an amanuensis elsewhere."

- Wayne Grudem

Scholars who reject Petrine authorship, however, admit that certain aspects of 1 Peter are in line with that of one claiming to be an eyewitness of Jesus.


 * "In defence of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited that are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfilment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness."

- Paul J. Achtemeier

After studying the linguistics of the letter and comparing it to the works of Josephus, Karen J. Hobes states this on whether the author of 1 Peter was a native Greek speaker:


 * "The inference of Greek as a second language caused by the Semitic syntax could be expected to be similar for all Semitic speakers whose second language was Greek and who had attained equivalent proficiency in the language. It does demonstrate the unlikelihood that the author of 1 Peter was not a native speaker of Greek."

Silvanus was a gentile convert (read Acts 17-18), so it was probably not him who wrote down the entirety of 1 Peter. This lends credibility to the idea that a non-Greek like Peter wrote 1 Peter. However, Peter himself states that Silvanus had a hand in helping him write his letter (5:12). The argument with 1 Peter is pretty clear to understand. The authors - both Peter and Silvanus - are stated in the text.

Two ancient sources, The Didache (written 70-80 AD) and 1 Clement (95 AD) quote or allude to 1 Peter, showing that it was written before the turn of the century.

2 Peter
Of all the epistles in the NT, 2 Peter is the most difficult to understand who wrote it. The main thing to understand is that the writing style of 1 and 2 Peter are very different.


 * "As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship."

- Werner Gerog Kummel

Richard Bauckham has argued that certain parts of 1 and 2 Clement bare striking resemblance to verses in 2 Peter 2 & 3. If Clement (and the pseudonymous author of 2 Clement) knew about these parts in 2 Peter, then it would confirm that 2 Peter was written in the first century.

It is also noted that Jude and 2 Peter are very similar in what they discuss. The parallels indicate that either the authors knew each other or were inspired by each other to write their respective letters. It may have been possible that Jude and Peter worked together as co-authors in both their works. It would make sense that they were both written around the same time: the mid-late first century. Seeing as Peter was martyred around 64 AD, this would make sense.

The style of 2 Peter is more rough and unrefined than the style of 1 Peter. The Greek is less sophisticated. It is likely that 1 Peter was a case of joint authorship by Silvanus and Peter, whilst Peter may have written 2 Peter by himself in his later life. This would explain the change in style as well as the later composition date. It would also make sense that Peter, the leader of the Apostles, would know Jude, the brother of Jesus and wrote their letters around the same time with the same influences.

1 John
1 John is traditionally attributed to the same person who wrote the Gospel of John. If we conclude that John the Evangelist is really John the Apostle (which, based on the evidence provided earlier, seems likely), then 1 John was likely written by John the Apostle too. Most scholars argue that the man who wrote John and the Epistles of John are the same author too.


 * "There are similarities of language and thought, yet there are small subtle differences. We simply do not know; the most we can say is that probably at least two authors are involved in the gospels and letters of John, and perhaps three. What is important is that the similarities of style, tone, and thought point to the existence of a Johannine "school." Whether the final form of these texts is the work of one author, or two, or three, their ideas, theology, contents, tone, and style have taken shape not in the mind of one man, but in a group, probably formed of one strong leader and a few intimate followers."

- Norman Perrin

Seeing as the Gospel of John was written in 90 AD, scholars agree on dating the Epistles of John to shortly afterwards.


 * "Most scholars think the Johannine Epistles were written after the Gospel. More precisely, I would place I and II John in the decade after the body of the Gospel was written by the evangelist (ca. 90) but before the redaction of the Gospel (which may have been contemporaneous with III John, just after 100)."

- Raymond Brown

The Muratorian Fragment identifiies John the Apostle as the author of 1 John (although the Fragment only mentions 2 epistles and never explicitly calls it "1 John")

2 John
The Epistles of John and his Gospel are debated over their authorship. If we can conclude that John and 1 John are written by the Apostle John, then 2 John could potentially be the same.


 * "While the three epistles might have been written by separate authors, a strong case can be made for reading them in relation to the same crisis in the Johannine circle of churches, and this provides a basis for understanding them as the work of a common author. The internal evidence points to some close relationship between the three Johannine Epistles. The differences between them do not preclude common authorship."

- John Painter

It is likely that either 2 John or 3 John was included in the Muratorian canon, although which epistle is was is unknown.

3 John
Scholars almost unanimously agree that the author of 2 John and 3 John are the same person. If we conclude that 2 John was written by John the Apostle, then 3 John is as well.


 * "No other NT letter, not even Phlm has so completely the form of a Hellenistic private letter as II and III John. Both are real letters... II and III John were written by the same author. They use the same language, they agree in their length and in their epistolary form (address, introduction, conclusion). In the heading they carry the same distinctive self-designation: ο πρεσβυτερος."

- Werner George Kummel

It is likely that either 2 John or 3 John was included in the Muratorian canon, although which epistle is was is unknown.

Jude
Jude is attributed to Judas, one of the brothers of Jesus.


 * "...objections against Jude's authorship of the epistle are trifling. The fairly good quality of the Greek should surprise only those who are unaware of the extent of Hellenisation in first-century Palestine, particularly Galilee... In any case, it is not improbable that the substance of Jude and 2 Peter 2 comes from a common source, a catechetical tract false teaching... There is, then, a good deal to support and little to militate against the traditional view that Jude wrote this letter."

- Michael Green

Irenaeus affirms Judas' authorship in one of the fragments of his lost work dating to around 185 AD.

The Muratorian Fragment confirms Jude as being accepted into the early canon, however Judas is not explicitly named as it's author.

Acts
Luke and Acts were composed by the same person. If we come to the conclusion that Luke the Physician wrote the Gospel of Luke, then Luke also composed Acts. William Mitchell Ramsay, after studying the archaeological reliability of Acts, goes into detail concerning it's authorship, studying whether "Luke" would be an apt name for someone during the first century.
 * "There cannot be the slightest doubt that Loukas Tillias Kriton was a Roman citizen, whose name in Latin must have been Lucius Tillius Crito... This single case would be sufficient enough and conclusive:... Loukas was a Greek Kosenamen of Loukios."

Later, Ramsay states this:


 * "The evidence is convincing and beyond doubt that the Evangelist was named Loukios or Loukas."

The Muratorian Fragment supports Luke's authorship of Acts

Hebrews
Tradition cites Paul as the author of Hebrews. However, Hebrews does not mention who wrote it. It is an anonymous writing.
 * "Erasmus regarded the style of the epistle as excluding Pauline authorship, although he conceded that it was inspired by the mind of Paul. Calvin thought of Luke or Clement of Rome as the author, not merely the translator or editor; while Luther was apparently the first to make the brilliant guess that the author was Apollos - a guess which has commended itself to many since his day."

- F. F. Bruce


 * "To whom was Hebrews originally addressed? The writer is a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, and his arguments presuppose that he is writing to others who think as he does, i.e., to a Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. Since Clement of Rome knows and quotes the text within what could only have been a few years of its writing, that community may well have been in Rome. This view is supported by the greetings from 'those who have come from Italy' in Heb 13:24."

- Norman Perrin

Irenaeus claims Paul wrote Hebrews in 180 AD.

Augustine of Hippo cites Paul as the author in his earlier writings, however he apparently changed his mind in his later years and referred to the letter as anonymous.

Whether Paul authored Hebrews is still up for debate and does not effect the reliability of the New Testament.

Revelation
Tradition associates Revelation with one 'John of Patmos.' There is a large scholarly body that affirms that the author of Revelation could be the same John as the one who authored the Gospel and the Epistles of John.
 * "...the internal and external evidence points towards the end of the first century, that is, to the later years of Domitian's rule."

This dating puts it in line with the time that John the Apostle would have written his epistles and his gospel.

Richard Bauckham notes that:


 * "...all we know about John, the author of Revelation, is that he was a Jewish Christian prophet."

and unlike most Jewish apocalypses:


 * "Revelation is not pseudepigraphal... John writes his own name. He is certainly very conscious of writing within the tradition of Old Testament prophets, but he is himself a prophet within that tradition."

Irenaeus names John as the author of Revelation in Against Heresies.

The Muratorian Fragment identifies John the Apostle as Revelation's author.

Academic Sources


Ancient Sources
