What do mainstream historians say about the authorship and dating of the New Testament books?

1. Authorship: anonymous, apostolic, or pseudonymous?

The prevailing trend in critical scholarship is reluctance to accept traditional attributions at face value: many New Testament books were likely written by Christians who either remain anonymous or wrote in the name of apostles, so that “most scholars agree that [the Gospels] are the work of unknown Christians” is a common summary of mainstream opinion ^[1]; yet conservative and confessional scholars continue to defend traditional authorship for many books, producing an ongoing contest of interpretations ^{[4] [5]}.

2. The Pauline letters: the strongest cases for early authorship

There is broad scholarly agreement that a core set of Pauline epistles were composed in the 50s CE and reflect at least some first‑generation Pauline circle authorship; these “undisputed” letters form the anchor of any early‑dating framework ^{[2] [3]}. Debates persist about the so‑called pastoral letters and several deutero‑Pauline letters—critics point to vocabulary, style, and ecclesial developments to argue later dates while defenders emphasize early external citation and internal coherence with Paul’s career ^{[3] [6]}.

3. The Gospels: synoptics, John, and dating ranges

Scholars typically date Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the Synoptics) to the period c. 65–110 CE and place John somewhat later (often c. 90–120 CE), with the degree of eyewitness dependence and authorial identification treated cautiously; Bart Ehrman and other critical voices stress anonymous communal authorship whereas some scholars (and a minority of conservative historians) defend traditional attributions for Mark and Luke ^{[1] [3]}. The literary relationships among the Synoptics, the presence or absence of references to the Temple’s destruction (70 CE), and patristic citations drive much of this dating work ^{[7] [1]}.

4. Acts, Hebrews, Revelation and the contested middle books

Several New Testament books are especially disputed: Hebrews is widely seen by contemporary scholars as non‑Pauline on stylistic and theological grounds ^[3]; Revelation’s author is debated between “John the Apostle” and a separate “John of Patmos,” with dating commonly placed around the late first century but sometimes later ^[3]. Second Peter and parts of the Catholic epistles attract skepticism about direct apostolic authorship, and scholars divide into “lower,” “middle,” and “higher” chronology camps that place many books before 70 CE, between 70–100 CE, or into the second century respectively ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Methods and the evidentiary basis: internal clues, patristic citation, and manuscript tradition

Dating and attribution rely on multiple strands: internal textual features and references to known events (for example, whether a text presumes or mentions the 70 CE Temple destruction), quotations and allusions in the Apostolic Fathers and second‑century writers, stylistic and vocabulary analysis, and the manuscript record and codex usage; scholars emphasize that conclusions rest on arguments and probabilistic reasoning rather than simple proof ^{[7] [1] [6] [8]}.

6. Consensus, contestation, and implicit agendas

There is consensus that some NT books are early (several Pauline letters) and that by the late second century most of the current canon was circulating and being cited by church fathers ^{[7] [3]}, but substantial disagreement remains about many texts’ precise dates and authorial identities; these disputes often align with broader hermeneutical or confessional commitments—scholars advancing “higher” chronologies may be perceived as protecting traditional apostolic authorship while critics arguing for later dates sometimes face charges of theological or methodological bias ^{[2] [9]}.