Reflections on the unity of the New Testament

Abstract

The remarkable progress of biblical scholarship in the last fifty years has been achieved mainly along analytical lines. Analysis has been directed chiefly at the formal aspects of the writings of the New Testament. We need only mention, as an example, the enormous importance of form criticism for our understanding of the Gospels, We have been taught to distinguish between oral tradition, written tradition and redaction in the process from which our Gospels emerged in their present shape. Now we know that single elements, sayings of Jesus or tales about his acts, were the starting point of traditions, in the course of which these elements were moulded, combined and stylized. We can see the difference in language, style and composition between the three Synoptic Gospels, and we have a clearer conception of their significance. We have greater awareness than ever before of the peculiar character of the Fourth Gospel, its mode of expression and its composition. But in all areas of New Testament research questions are still being answered in different ways, and controversial results achieved. This applies to the Gospels as well as to other canonical New Testament writings, in which quite different literary forms prevail. Analytical work has, however, been directed towards the content as well as the form of these writings. We now know that the Gospel of Matthew differs from those of Mark and Luke in its christology, its ecclesiology and its attitude towards the religious and cultural setting in which it originated. We are aware of the special type of christology and cosmology which is found in the Gospel of John. In the Pauline Epistles it is now possible to trace several lines of development in the Apostle’s thinking. Colossians and Ephesians have proved to contain so many peculiarities in terminology and patterns of thought that the question of authorship has become problematic. The Pastoral Epistles have turned out to differ widely from the bulk of Paul’s genuine epistles. Now it is difficult to understand how Hebrews could ever have been considered Pauline. We can, then, see the differences and fine distinctions more clearly. But an important shift of emphasis has taken place. Earlier generations of scholars were concerned to relate the different writings of the New Testament to one another, to make a synthesis out of them or to discover traces