Admittance to the Lords Table

I am writing this brief blog post to either educate or re-educate my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ about the requirements for admittance to the Supper of the Lord, the Most Holy and Divine Sacred Mystery, that Sacrament of Sacraments we call the Eucharist or Holy Communion. 

I have spoken with several Catholics who do not know the five prerequisites for admittance to the Supper of the Lord.  You MUST meet all five, or you should not come forward to receieve.  There are many times I attend Mass where I will remain kneeling because I do not meet one of the requirements (usually either the fast or being conscious of grave sin which I have not been absolved of yet).  I know it's wrong to judge my brothers and sisters, but I get an awful, sinking feeling in my gut when there are 200 people in the Cathedral for Mass, and 99% of them go up to receive.  I can't help but feel that at least some of these, my brothers and sisters, are eating and drinking condemnation unto themselves, not blessing.  So, let's go over what the Catholic Church teaches, through the use of the Code of Canon Law and Holy Scripture, about admittance to the Lords Supper.

#1) You MUST be in a state of grace.  "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is a non-negotiable requirement. If you take the Eucharist while being conscious of mortal sin, you are not eating and drinking forgiveness of sins, blessing and eternal life to yourself.  No, on the contrary, you are eating and drinking cursing and eternal death, and committing the sin of sacrilege.  God forbid my brothers and sisters!  Please!  Check yourself!

Please, do NOT think people around you will judge you if you do not go forward.  I guarantee, people will respect a penitent more than somebody taking the Body of Blood of Christ in a wanton manner.  An early Christian teaching document, the Didache, which was written between 50 and 100 A.D., states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10).

The second part of #1, is you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin.  The Catholic Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916).

And again from the Didache: "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14).

This requirement (#1 A/B) can be dispensed of for several reasons, including:  (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

#2) You must believe in the established Dogmas of the Church, most especially (and obviously) the Eucharistic dogmas:  Transubstantiation, Real Presence.  "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29).  If you do not believe in the Real Presence, if you do not believe the Lords Words "my flesh is real food, my blood real drink", if you only believe in "symbolic presence" - do NOT approach!  You must ascent to the Catholic dogma or risk not discerning the Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our dearly beloved Lord Jesus Christ.

#3) You must have observed the minimum Eucharistic Fast:  "One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Elderly folks, people who are very ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 §3). Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them (cf. CIC 89). 

#4) You must not be under any sort of ban, censure, or excommunication.  "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).

#5) The final requirement, and the most obvious one:  You must be a validly baptized Catholic.  If you do not have a valid Catholic baptism, do NOT approach for Communion in a Catholic Church.
(CIC 912) Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

So, a quick recap.  In order to approach the Lords Body and Blood, you must be a baptized Catholic, in a state of grace and made recent confession since your past mortal sin, have a correct belief / faith in the dogmas of the Church, especially the Real Presence / Transubstantiation, in good standing with the Church - not under any sort of ban, censure, or excomunication, and finally, have observed the minimum one hour eucharistic fast.

Dear brothers and sisters, keeping the Most Holy Sacrament Holy is of the utmost importance.  Please make an inventory of yourself before Communion.

God bless us all,
Yours in Christ,
Jason Michael Prewara
IC XC NIKA

Final message to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Biblical Association

When reading my previous few blog posts, please keep in mind the words of St. Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.  I may have jumped the gun on some of my rash judgments.  I apologize to all Bishops, Priests, Deacons, scholars and seperated brethren who may have read my words and felt hurt by what I said.  I have prepared a final short paper, and this will be my final writing on this subject for a while, as I feel I can be writing about more important spiritual principles to the benefit of anyone who may read this.  Pray for me, dear brothers and sisters, to the Lord our God.

May God bless us all abundantly, bring us to His Kingdom, and forgive us our sins, through Christ our Lord, Amen.

After I had published my previous few topics, I was praying about the subject and I had a thought.  I thought that I may just be being presumptuous and jumping to conclusions and condemning things I don’t fully understand.  As previously stated, I am a young babe in Christ, and a young man, of only 26 years of age.  After prayer, thought, and researching the topic more thoroughly, as well as giving the introductions and notes of the NAB a thorough reading through, I’ve come to the conclusion that I used too strong of words and condemned all of the notes when they are not all bad.

After reading some works of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, I realized I needed to read the notes and intros with more thought and prayer than I previously was.  My conclusion is thus: the introductions are solid, but they are lacking in presenting a balanced view of tradition and historical critical theories.  Some of the introductions though, such as the intros to the Psalms, the books of Maccabees, Sirach, and many of the Minor Prophets, however, are entirely spot on, and in need of no revision.  So I now say, instead of needing a complete overhaul, the introductions simply need to be reviewed and revised.  Which, from what I’ve gleaned, is exactly what’s going to happen over the next decade while the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and scholars of the USCCB and CBA are finishing their most commendable and venerable work of translation the Sacred Scriptures.

The footnotes as well, it seems I have jumped the gun in outright condemning them, when they do not deserve outright condemnation.  The footnotes, I have found, are actually in a ratio of about 15 to 1.  What I mean is, for every 16 notes you read, 15 are good, either as they stand, or only in need of slight revision.  And 1 footnote is somewhat of a stinker, either worded in a way that needs to be read 5 times in a row to understand, or just scandalous in content.  So, the footnotes are still the most serious dent in the perfection of the NAB Bible.  The footnotes do need to be rolled back in certain situations, a few do need to be deleted outright, and many need revision.  However, the vast majority are good as they stand.

So my final conclusion is this –

The New American Bible, Revised Edition is a solid Bible, all around.  The USCCB and CBA should maybe take a look at the People of God and their suggestions, and also the New African Bible, and use that input to tamper and revise the introductions and footnotes, in order to change them from decent to great, to go from good to perfection.  The translation needs to be tweaked and revised, and brought into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticum and the current Lectionary.  I believe the revisers are already doing everything I have just concluded, so I think the best thing we can do as a unified voice of the American People of God is pray for our leadership and our scholars.  Pray for them to be guided by the Spirit of God.  Pray for St. Jerome, Fr. Martin, Bishop Challoner, Msgr. Knox, and other Holy men of God to pray for our scholars.  And after we pray for them, pray again.  Then pray some more.

Forgive me for my ignorance, forgive me for my presumptuousness, and forgive me for all my wrongdoings.  Forgive me for what I have said, what I have done, what I have thought, which has been sinful, wrong or scandalous.  Forgive me for what I have failed to say, failed to do, or failed to think, which has led to sinfulness, error or scandal.

And most importantly, dear brothers and sisters, pray for me to the Lord our God.

+Sincerely yours,

With Love and Peace in Christ Jesus,

Jason Michael Prewara

IC XC NIKA+

My view on Historical-Criticism

I'm reading St. Pope Pius X Papal encyclical entitled Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  It's great reading.  The 34th article of this encyclical share my exact sentiments on modern historical critical method which fiercely permeates our modern Catholic American English Bible, the NABRE.  I doubt very highly that St. Pope Pius X would approve of the introductions and footnotes thereof.

Lord have mercy on Your Church, and guard her from all heresy and scandal.
St. Pope Pius X, ora pro nobis!

The 34th article from Pascendi -
"
34. The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves .
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come the internal and textual critics. And since it is characteristic of the primary cause to communicate its virtue to causes which are secondary, it is quite clear that the criticism with which We are concerned is not any kind of criticism, but that which is rightly called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anyone who adopts it and employs it makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic teaching. This being so, it is much a matter for surprise that it should have found acceptance to such an extent among certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves independent of all differences of nationality or religion; second, their boundless effrontery by which, if one then makes any utterance, the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward, while if an outsider should desire to inspect the new discovery for himself, they form a coalition against him. He who denies it is decried as one who is ignorant, while he who embraces and defends it has all their praise. In this way they entrap not a few, who, did they but realize what they are doing, would shrink back with horror. The domineering overbearance of those who teach the errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries infection with it. But let Us pass to the apologist."

Part Two of my letter to the USCCB and CBA

Here is the second part of my letter addressed to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Biblical Association, in regards to the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) and ways to improve upon it for the upcoming revision.  The first post I made dealt mainly with ways to improve the translation text itself.  While there are issues with the translation itself, they are minor in comparison to the more serious and pressing issue.  The more serious and pressing issue is to be found in the commentary which the USCCB has deemed must be included in all versions of the NAB.  The American Bishops should take a look at what the African Bishops produced in the New African Bible, for it is a perfectly example of what needs to be done to the notes and intros of the NAB.

Without further a due, I present to you the work which I just finished composing.  Enjoy, and please pray for me to the Lord our God.  Please offer comments and input as well, any of it will be much appreciated.  God bless.

Part two of suggestions to the USCCB on ways to improve the American Catholic English Translation of the Sacred Scriptures, the New American Bible – Revised Edition (NABRE)

My first blog about this topic dealt with ways the CBA and USCCB could improve the translation text of the NABRE itself.  The fifth and presumably final edition of the NAB is currently in the works.  The goal of the project is to make a single translation to be used in the Liturgy, for personal study, and for catechesis all in one volume.  This is a massive undertaking, but they have a solid base to work with.  The NAB, as modified for use in the US Lectionary, is a wonderful translation.  It simply needs to be updated and tweaked in some spots, the gender neutral language needs to be slightly toned down to keep the text poetic and rhythmic, and some innovations in the text need to be rolled back to previous renditions.  So, the translation text itself, in my opinion, is 95% there as it stands.  It’s solid.  It’s faithful to the underlying texts.  It uses solid manuscripts as its base.  It uses a lofty English cadence, while simultaneously being easily understood by all with a 6^th grade reading level.  All in all, it’s a decent translation, in need of slight modification to become great.

That being said, the same pros and acceptance cannot be stated about the introductions and footnotes.  The American Bishops need to take a look at the New African Bible, which uses the NABRE but completely rewritten intros and notes to bring them into conformity with the Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Magisterium, instead of conforming to the whimsical hypotheses of modern “higher/historical criticism”.  The introductions are usually pretty good, until you get to the last paragraph or two, then they start talking about the who and where’s of authorship.  They rush willy nilly into accepting modern theories such as the documentary hypothesis (J, E, D, P, and R for redactor, supposedly different ‘schools’ called the Jahvist School, Elohist School, etc.) and two-source Gospel hypothesis (Marcan priority, Q source, M source etc.).  These theories are not blatantly heretical in and of themselves, but they are simply one of many modern theories.  The problem lies in the fact that they sometimes seem to be presented in a way that the novice reader could possibly conceive of them being Gospel Truth.  They are not Gospel Truth; they are not even accepted by all scholars in the field.  And there are other theories which, in my opinion, make more sense and also align much better with Tradition and ancient Church testimony. 

If you google “NAB catholic bible problems” or “NAB notes heresy?” you will find many forum posts, social network posts, blogs, etc., all basically saying the same thing – the translation is decent or even good, in need of slight updates and tweaking, but the notes and intros are horrendous.  And I agree fully with that sentiment.  These are not just complaints by confused or uneducated laity either.  These are complaints raised by all levels of the Church, from laity, to scholars, to religious, Priests, Bishops and even some Cardinals.  Even the Holy Father, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, has told scholars they need to tone down the use historical critical method and tamper it with Traditional theories and exegesis.

I will now give several of the problematic writings in the introductions to the Books, and footnotes, and suggestions for ways to fix these problems, in the hopes that maybe a few people who will have a hand in the revision of the New American Bible over the next decade or so may see and take to heart the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of American Catholics.

I will skip the Old Testament portion for now, because the footnotes of the Old Testament are not as legion as they are in the New.  There are several scattered throughout that need to be removed or revised, and also some of the introductions need to be updated to give not only the Critical interpretation (such as three authors of Isaiah and late dating of Daniel, as opposed to traditional belief of a single author of Isaiah, and possibly a later disciple compiling his prophecies by 600 B.C., and the possibility that Daniel has a core that dates back to the Prophet himself, but was later compiled by Scribes into its current form.  See my previous blog posts dealing with the dates and names of authors of the Scriptures for the Traditional understanding of this topic).

The New Testament of 1986 has some serious deficiencies in the notes especially, and somewhat also in the introductions.  I will introduce some now. 

The introduction to the Gospel of Matthew is pretty good, until you get to the last 5 paragraphs.  When you hit these last 5 paragraphs, all hell breaks loose.  They completely abandon tradition in favor of modern historical critical theories, and they don’t give any credit whatsoever to Tradition.  It’s as if they are reaching back through time and slapping St. Jerome in the face, and farther back and buffeting Jesus and saying “Prophesy for us, Christ!”  These modern theories make a mockery of the Church, and its stomach turning to see them presented as Gospel Truth in a Catholic Bible.

The fifth paragraph of the Introduction to Matthew states “The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of the gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability  The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.”

I already have to disagree with this statement.  The ancient Traditions can certainly claim a greater degree of probability.  The reason for this is because these ancient traditions date back to the beginnings of the Church, and have been unanimously held by all Orthodox Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints.  Not ONE Doctor of the Church has EVER held to the JEDP theory.  Not ONE has ever doubted Matthew the Apostle wrote his gospel.  Not ONE.  It wasn’t until the 19^th century, when liberal German Protestant scholars formulated these theories that anybody even knew of them.  So this statement is proven wrong instantly.  The Tradition of the Church, the teachings of the Magisterium and the decrees of the Councils, the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, most CERTAINLY give a greater degree of probability to ancient theories than do the modern theories which arose out of liberal Protestant groups.

Moving to the next paragraph we find written “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the Gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark”. 

Here we go again.  This is simply modern conjecture.  The councils have made it abundantly clear, the Gospels have their origin in Apostolic preaching, and they really tell what Jesus did and said while on Earth.  This sentence alone should raise serious concerns as to the Orthodoxy of the notes and intros written in this Bible. 

The next paragraph begins “The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience…”  Do I really have to explain or go on as to why this is absolutely wrong, in complete contradiction to the Catholic Faith, and also 100% incorrect?

The next two paragraphs go on about Matthew using Mark as a source (Marcan priority), a so called, oft spoken of, but never found or proven of spoken of before the 18^th century, “Q Document” or Quelle meaning source in German.  In my previous blog I explained why this is wrong.  There are two perfectly good theories that align perfectly with Tradition, the Independence Theory and the Augustinian Hypothesis.  These should be explained and given as alternatives.  I’m not saying the modern theories of historical criticism cannot be expounded upon, but they should give traditional theories and the stance of the Magisterium instead of simply presenting Historical critical theories as Gospel Truth.  It’s dishonest at best, bordering on heterodox at worst, to do so.

This introduction is the only one I’m going to speak of for now, for the sake of brevity, seeing as how I’m writing a blog post and not a book.  If anybody wants me to write on other introductions, simply ask me to and I’d be more than happy to research it and put together a piece for anything you’d like.  Moving right along to the footnotes.

In the second to last paragraph of the intro to Matthew, they state “The post-A.D. 70 date [of composition] is confirmed within the text by 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Here’s another problem with the NAB.  This is simply untrue.  Mt 22:7 reads “The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city”.  This verse is taken from the middle of the Parable of the Wedding Feast.  Even if this sentence, which came from Jesus Holy Mouth, implicitly suggests the destruction of Jerusalem, the parable most certainly does NOT “confirm” a post-A.D. 70 date.  This is wishful thinking.  This is reading into the text liberal modern bias which is not there.  This is scandalous.  I’m as certain as I can possibly be that the Gospel of Matthew was written before 70 A.D., probably between 35 A.D. at the earliest, no later than 65 A.D. at the latest.

Another problem with the NAB notes is the use of phrases such as “Matthews’s community, Luke’s community, Lucan Jesus, Matthean Jesus etc.”  There is no community of Matthew or Luke; there is only the Catholic Church.  There is no Lucan or Marcan or Johannine Jesus, there is only Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God.  Get rid of these notes of higher academia which are dangerous to the faith of anybody who is not familiar with University level modern critical theories on ancient texts.  Maybe make two editions of the NAB – a “University edition” with these notes and intros based on higher criticism, and a “Laity” or “Spiritual edition” with notes drawn from the Traditions of the Church and the Catechism.  I’m just brainstorming here, but these are all possible solutions to a very serious problem.

The final note I will explain real quick is found in Matthew 16:21-23.  This is the “first Prediction of the Passion”.  This is a well-known note that casts doubt on Jesus Divinity.  The note reads “Neither this nor the two later passion predictions can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself” This is incorrect.  The only conclusion you could draw from such a statement is that the Gospels do NOT, in fact, “truly record what Jesus said and did”.  You can’t have it both ways.  Truth can’t contradict Truth.  A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand (supposedly Jesus said this, but then again, who knows?)

I think I’ve covered enough to give whoever reads this the gist of what the problem is.  I beg of any Scholars, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious, or laity who read this – please pray to the Lord our God for our Church.  Please pray that they will fix these notes and intros in the final NAB.  Please pray they will give us a solid Translation to be used for the next century, at least.  The final NAB has the potential to be a tremendous blessing.  If the Bishops and scholars will only pay attention to the people of God, they can produce a tremendous work that will stand the test of time.  All that needs to be done is to touch up the translation and fix the notes and intros.  It’s not hard.  If the Bishops would entrust the work to a group of 10 lay theologians, I could imagine the work would be done within a year.  The Bishops have an ample amount of time to fix the issues and to give the People of God a solid Bible.  Please, Your Excellency’s, Your Eminences, Fathers, please.  Hear the pleas of the people of God.  Fix our American Bible and give us a blessing, not a burden.

To all my faithful brethren, may God bless you abundantly.  Please forgive me for anything I have done or said that was wrong or done in malice and not charity.  Forgive me, and pray for me, dear brothers and sisters.

+Yours with much Love in Christ,

Jason Michael Prewara

IC XC NIKA+

Part Two of Catholic Biblical Authorship

Here is part two, just over two thousand short words.

Please give me input, dear brothers and sisters.

Yours in Christ,
Jason Michael Prewara,
IC XC NIKA

Part Two of my blog series on Traditional Catholic Biblical authorship

This second part will deal with the authorship of the Christian New Testament, those twenty-seven books held as Sacred and Canonical by all three major branches of Christianity – Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike.  Some of my dates are approximate, and some of the books scholars have pinpointed to an exact year and even possibly the season/month, but I will not include such things, because our best chronologies are always being revised and revisited due to new findings and new knowledge.  Thank you all for caring, God bless you for reading, and remember me in your prayers.

The New Testament is broken into three main divisions, the Gospels and Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse.  After much thought, prayer, study and meditation on the subject, the following is what I’ve come to believe to be the authentic dates of composition and identities of the authors of the 27 canonical Books.

1)    The Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew – it is my belief, after much study of the internal and external evidence, much prayer, and in consideration of the uniform testimony of the Church, the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel.  Matthew the Apostle, Evangelist and Saint, the former tax collecting sinner-publican Levi, was well equipped for the task.  I believe he recorded certain sayings and sermons and acts of Jesus at the time they were performed, so parts of this Gospel actually date back to the time of Jesus, ca. 27 – 33 A.D., approximately.  I believe St. Matthew wrote the first Gospel between 35 and 40 A.D., possibly in Aramaic.  As far as the synoptic “problem” I am split between two theories.  The first theory is the supernatural Independence Theory.  This theory states all 4 Gospels were written completely independently of each other, and the similarities you see are due to God being the author.  This theory seems plausible and would explain quite a bit of the “problems”.  The next theory, which I find just as, maybe slightly more plausible, is the so called Augustinian Hypothesis.  This theory was put forth first by St. Augustine in the 4^th century A.D.  It says that Matthew is the first Gospel written, and that St. Mark compiled his Gospel from a series of recorded sermons of St. Peter together with the Gospel of Matthew as a base, and then St. Luke and St. John composed their Gospels.  Either one solves the synoptic “problem” just fine, however, I refuse to believe the theory that states Mark came first and Mark and Matthew used a “Q” source, etc.  This theory, in my opinion, is complete and utter trash, and completely ignores the uniform testimony of the Church Fathers, and to me, is the epitome of human pride.  How dare we think we know more than the Saints and Doctors who lived only three centuries after the events and testified.  The pride and arrogance is mind boggling.  So, in summary, St. Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew and finished by 45 A.D.

2)    The Holy Gospel according to St. Mark – the second Gospel was composed by St. Mark, the interpreter and disciple of St. Pope Peter the Apostle.  It was written between 45 and 65 A.D. and used Peter’s oral tradition together with Matthew’s written tradition as its main sources.  There is conjecture there may have been a Latin original, but this is highly doubtful, though possible.

3)    The Holy Gospel according to St. Luke – the third Gospel, and probably the most eloquent.  Written in the style of contemporary Greek histories, St. Luke was not only a devout disciple, but also a physician and historian, and possibly an artist.  One of the earliest polymaths, Luke used the preaching of St. Peter and St. Paul, plus written sources such as Matthew and possibly Mark and others which are no longer extant.  The third Gospel was composed between 50 and 68 A.D.

4)    The Holy Gospel according to St. John – the fourth and final Gospel.  The only Gospel where modern scholarship is not at odds with the ancient Tradition of the Church.  Written no earlier than 60 A.D., and no later than 95 A.D., by St. John, the beloved Apostle.  Possibly finished by Disciples of his by the turn of the 1^st century.

5)    The Acts of the Apostles – the second part of Dr. Luke the Saint’s work on the history of Christ and His Church.  Written by St. Luke, along with or shortly after his Gospel, between 50 and 69 A.D.

This finishes the first of the three divisions of the New Testament.  Next up we have the Pauline Epistles.

6)    The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans – written by St. Paul who dictated it to his Scribe St. Tertius between 52 and 60 A.D.

7)    The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians – written by St. Paul and St. Sosthenes between 55 and 60 A.D.

8)    The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians – written by St. Paul and St. Timothy between 56 and 62 A.D.

9)    The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians – authored by St. Paul and various unnamed Disciples with him, possibly St. Timothy, St. Barnabas and St. Silvanus, to the Galatian Church approximately 48 to 52 A.D.

10)                      The Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians – written by St. Paul between 60 and 65 A.D.

11)                      The Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians – written by Sts. Paul and Timothy between 52 and 60 A.D.  This Epistle, together with Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, are aka the "captivity epistles" because in them Paul states he's writing from Prison.  St. Timothy may have been imprisoned with him, or may have finished editing the work later.

12)                      The Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians – written by Sts. Paul and Timothy between 55 and 60 A.D.

13)                      The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians – written by St. Paul, St. Timothy and St. Silvanus approximately 48 – 54 A.D.

14)                      The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians – written by St. Paul, St. Timothy and St. Silvanus approximately 48 to 55 A.D.

15)                      The First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy – written by St. Paul between 60 and 64 A.D.

16)                      The Second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy – written by St. Paul between 64 and 66 A.D.

17)                      The Epistle of St. Paul to Titus – written by St. Paul between 60 and 66 A.D.

18)                      The Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon – written by St. Paul and St. Timothy between 60 and 65 A.D.

19)                      The Epistle to the Hebrews – written in a Pauline style, possibly by St. Paul and finished by disciples of his, possibly St. Barnabas or St Apollos, between 60 and 68 A.D.  The only one of the Pauline epistles which we are not absolutely certain St. Paul the Apostle wrote, however even if he didn’t pen the entire Epistle, it was penned in the spirit of St. Paul, with great love for his Hebrew brethren.  Also remarkable for being one of the only Epistles outside of the Catholic Epistles which were hotly contested in the early Church.  Martin Luther also thought lowly of this book along with the Book of St. James.

The Epistle to the Hebrews ends the Pauline corpus.  The final 8 books are what are called the Catholic Epistles, and a few of them – 2^nd Peter, 3^rd John, Jude and Revelation, were not accepted universally until the 5^th century, although they were accepted by a majority of Fathers and Saints since they were penned in the second half of the first century.

20)                      The Epistle of St. James – this epistle was written possibly by St. James the Apostle, if by him by 45 A.D. due to his martyrdom, if not him it was written by St. James the brother of the Lord, between 45 and 69 A.D.

21)                      The First Epistle of St. Peter – the first writing of the New Testament penned by the Prince of the Apostles, the Proto-Pope, the Great Saint Peter.  Written by the Holy Apostle between 60 A.D. and his glorious martyrdom in Rome in 67 A.D.

22)                      The Second Epistle of St. Peter – the sequel to the Holy Fathers first Epistle, the authorship has been debated for twenty centuries.  It is my personal opinion it was penned by the Prince of the Apostles himself, possibly tweaked or finished under influence of his spirit by his disciples, between 62 and 80 A.D.

23)                      The First Epistle of St. John – the first Epistle of the Beloved Disciple, St. John, with its striking resemblance to the Gospel of John, the Johannine authorship is undoubted, not by all, but by most who have faith in the Testimony of the Church.  Penned between 70 and 92 A.D.

24)                      The Second Epistle of St. John – the second Epistle of St. John, written by him between 70 and 94 A.D.

25)                      The Third Epistle of St. John – written by St. John between 70 and 95 A.D.

26)                      The Epistle of St. Jude – an epistle written by St. Jude the Apostle, it’s still debated whether Jude wrote first and Peter borrowed from him, or Peter wrote first and Jude borrowed from him.  It is my opinion neither borrowed from either, and the similarities are due to the same Holy Spirit being the author of the Epistle.  However, I’m also the guy who believes the Gospels were written independently of each other, and Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.  I’m sure I’d be laughed to scorn in a university classroom.  But God made wise the simple of the earth to shame the so-called wise, so blessed be His Name.  This Epistle was penned between 60 and 80 A.D.

27)                      The Revelation or Apocalypse of St. John – the twenty seventh book of the New Testament, the seventy sixth book of Scripture, the final written Word of God given to humanity, penned by St. John between 95 and 99 A.D., most likely in 96 A.D. while in exile on the Isle of Patmos.  It is debated whether this John is the same St. John the Apostle and the same as the Evangelist and writer of the Epistles.  It is my opinion, due to internal evidence, external testimony of the Church, similarity between style, vocabulary and spirit, that the Gospel, this work, and all three epistles were penned by St. John the Apostle.  It is possible disciples of his compiled his works into there final and current form, however.

Here we will end this work.  I did not take the time to write about the occasions or contents of the New Testament books, as it was not what I set out to do when I began writing this short work.  I simply wanted to clarify and give testimony as to who wrote these books and when they were written, as believed by our Holy Mother, the Church Catholic, and by many Saints, Doctors, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks, Nuns, Prophets, and laity of the Church down through the ages.

In summation, the New Testament was penned by approximately 20 original inspired authors, all of whom were Apostles and Saints of Jesus Christ, over a 70 year period, beginning between 30 and 35 A.D. and ending by the turn of the 1^st century, 99-100 A.D.  These works are all extant and were all originally penned in Koine Greek, however the Gospels and some of the Epistles have a heavy Semitic influence, due to the fact the sayings were originally spoken in Aramaic, or possibly because Aramaic was the authors mother tongue, or a combination of both of these.  Certain books (especially Mark and Romans) have a densely Latinate vocabulary, most likely owing to their proximity to Rome at the time of authorship, but possibly due to no longer extant Latin originals which were translated into Greek during the first century. 

This ends the Second Part of my work on the Composition of the Holy Bible, that miraculous work which was written by approximately one hundred and ten original inspired authors, 90 of which wrote the Old, 20 of which wrote the New.  These men came from all walks of life, and were variously Priests, Prophets, Judges, Kings, Queens, Saints, Scribes, Sages, Apostles, Disciples, these were Holy men and women who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God.  They wrote over a period of 2,000 years, beginning with the first written traditions of approximately 1,800 B.C., coming down through the ages, ending by the turn of the first century, 100 A.D.  These holy men and women, these saints of God wrote over three continents, in three original languages (four if you count the Latin influence and possibility of a couple Latin originals), Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  These men and women sacrificed all they had, even their lives, for the Gospel of God.  These seventy three inspired, holy, canonical Sacred Books are made in the image of God, they are both fully Divine, being written by the Holy Spirit of God, and fully human, being products of the times they were authored and showing the quirks and uniqueness of the human authors behind them.  They have One Sacred Writer who is ultimately responsible for them, as He is for all things which exist, seeing as how He Is Existence, and One Subject:  The Word of God, the Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, His Father and His Holy Spirit, Which is blessed forever.  Halleluiah, Amen!